"sneakysneak" wrote
> "Douglas D. Anderson" wrote
> >
> >But it goes back to the colonial days. The early colonists still identified
> >themselves as part of their "mother country", similar to how Alaska and
> >Hawaii are considered part of the United States despite being physically
> >separated. The United States was the first of the colonies, north or south,
> >to even think of becoming an independent country. After The US did it,
> >the rest of the American colonies, whether French or Spanish or English,
> >saw it as a good idea and became hell-bent in that direction. Today the
> >only colony left is Canada. They think they are independent, but under
> >their constitution the British monarch still has last say in their executive
> >office. We set the example of what "America" is all about, so there is no
> >conflict there.
>
> Was it called the United States at the time, or was it called something
> else, like the 13 colonies? The Queen's role is mostly symbolic in Canada.
It's still in the contract though, symbolic or not, which means that the Queen
could try to call in her chips.
> She has about as much power in Canada as she does in the USA. The elected
> government in Canada has the real power. She can't determine who is going
> to be Prime Minister's Office, which is the executive office in Canada.
> Read the third paragraph in this URL.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Canada
> USA decided to break away from the motherland because of disputes they
> had with the mother country over taxation.
That's overly simplistic. The "United States" was not one common entity,
but a very uncomfortable confederation of very diverse groups with very
diverse interests, somewhat like a lion and lamb partnership. To say "they"
decided anything is stretching it a bit. The war was as much fought against
wealthy resident loyalists as against England, and less than a third of the
colonists became involved voluntarily. And the issue of taxation is glossed
up High School stuff, it was a far more extensive complex of exploitation.
When young attorney Patrick Henry made his now famous address to the
court, the colonists were asking for the same rights as British citizens in
England, including immunity from unlawful search, habeas corpus, and
a hundred other serious problems above and beyond the exploitation of
the entire economy, taxation being merely the tip of the iceberg. Colonial
merchants were told who they could do business with and what they could
trade and manufacture, etc.
> If the Brits were a little
> bit wiser, they would have held on to the USA longer,
Not likely; France was kicking their ass and expanding through the world like
there was no tomorrow. With that monkey on their back they weren't likely
to be making any such decisions. The pompous negotiations with the colonists
were mainly bluster. The colonists were not stupid, and had plenty of inside
lines, spies, and other intelligence gathering going in Europe as well. There
were common farmers here as well as highly educated and sophisticated
statesmen, adventurers, businessmen, and their children. The popular image
of a bunch of armed hillbillies rising up against John Bull is pure grade school
myth. The Brits had bit off more than they could chew, and had their hands
full with France competing for control of the world economy, and the leaders
of the revolution here knew the score. Even that wonderful "Washington at
Valley Forge" story is more of a patriotic myth than anything else, the fact
is that Washington knew it could be time to regroup and refinance, but saw
that more as a delay than as imminent defeat. The "imminent defeat" angle
makes for a good suspenseful story in retrospect, the "cliff hanger", but is
hyper-exaggerated myth as much as "Paul Revere's ride". The Brit's
"decided" to let the United States go in a similar manner to how Samuel
Pepys "decided" to evacuate when London was on fire.
> but eventually,
> USA probably would have been an independent nation, it just would have
> happened at a later point in history. Canada had no such issues with
> the British, plus you have to account for the fact the US population
> has always been much greater than Canada's. It would have been much
> more difficult for Canada to break away from the powerful British than
> the Americans. The Americans also had the help of the French,
Little did the colonists know that "help" had a price, and led to the populist
infection which left Jefferson and Madison jumping around like squirrels not
knowing which way to go, when both England and France were trying to
sodomize the American commerce and shipping. Now here's where the
idea of "isolationism" truely failed. After years of foolishly thinking that if
the young United States would play nice, the world would be a happy
place, Jefferson and then Madison let defenses go to hell, and much talk
was made of "harming" France and England by trade embargos ( such
folly from the founders of the Democrats) when destiny forced everyones
hand in 1812, the best the United States could come up with was attacking
Canada , but by that time, John Bull was so crippled the best he
could come up with was to stage a riot in Washington DC and burn the
capitol. Btw- contrary to modern thinking, "Canada" at that time was little
more than a few forts scattered in the wilderness. It would have been difficult
for Canada to break away for that reason alone.
> not to
> mention the Spanish to defeat the British as well. If Canada wanted to
> break away from the Brits prior to the signing of the Constitution in
> 1982, they would likely need the assistance of at least one other
> country. Even though the Brits aren't quite the world power they once
> were, they still are very important in terms of the world stage.
> http://www.neta.com/~1stbooks/vital.htm
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/whatif/what_if_20030417.shtml
> http://www.ambafrance-us.org/franceus/history/histo3.asp
>
>
> >
> >No offense taken. You are right. The US population consists of layers
> >of immigrants who came here to build a better life, even if it was in their
> >own imaginations. And we can never be separated from the world at
> >large, as became patently evident when such idealists as Jefferson and
> >Monroe attempted to do so, and it became absurd.
>
> Isolationism, which was being debated in the USA around the time of WW2,
> really would not serve the purpose of the US, if they wanted to be
> considered a major force.
Isolationism and neutrality are not the same thing. Even when the U.S. was
publicly talking neutrality, there was some _big_ war materials trade going
on with the European Allies, as well as regular merchandise. And without
trying to be a revisionist, growing evidence suggests that open discussion
of neutrality was a ruse, that Roosevelt wanted to enter the war as a "victim",
not as an aggressor, and the U.S. was actively engaged in intimidating Japan
into attacking first. International law has always made it "okay" for an attacked
country to retaliate, but raises serious questions about a non-involved country
jumping into the fracas for whatever motives.
> All the world powers before them, played
> active roles throughout the world. Besides, trade and emigration/
> immigration benefits the USA as well as the countries they engage in
> trade with. For example, why would US companies bother looking
> abroad for talent, or foreign talent who trained in the USA, if
> there wasn't enough domestic talent available to fill the positions?
|