Was the US Right to Declare Independence?

[jbg]

I am posing the question of whether the US should have revolted in 1774-1781, as it did, to forcibly obtain independence or obtain it via the Canadian/Australian/Newfoundland route of gradualism? Many say that the US should have done the latter, in terms of saving life and property, as well as protecting the rights of Loyalists.

I think the US did better by revolting.

Let me give you an example of what might have been had the US not declared independence. Keep in mind, for this presentation, that the 13 colonies were, by the 1770's, far wealthier than Britain and the people had a higher standard of living. There weren't many of them, however, and even were representation in Parliament logistically possible (remember it was a journey of several months over stormy oceans to London) the 13 colonies would have had maybe 20 constituencies in a Parliament which then, I'm guessing, had about 400 MP's.

Canada was formed as a dominion in 1867 under the British North America Act which largely guaranteed that Canada would always be effectively controlled by Quebec and Ontario. The number of "ridings" in Parliament was fixed at relatively high levels for the "original" four provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The next admittee, Prince Edward Island, received a guarantee of four ridings, a gross over-representation even then and certainly now.

Fast forward to 1905. Alberta is granted admission to the Confederation. Alberta's wealth of natural resources became apparent during the 1950's. Alberta is now far and away the most prosperous province. Alberta now has 28 ridings out of 308 in Parliament, ensuring that their power is not proportional to their economic contribution to Canada. In 1981 or 1982, Canadian PM Trudeau, with a majority government, was able to push through a highly confiscatory "National Energy Policy" that basically forced Alberta to subsidize the rest of the country. Many businesses were thus ruined, and homes lost, in Alberta. Should the US have taken a chance of staying in the British Empire and been at London's beck and call, the way some now argue Alberta is?

Thoughts?

[M.Dancer]

I think the US did better by revolting.

Aren't they still revolting?

[Topaz]

When Trudeau brought in the energy policy, Harper a Liberal became a PCer until Mulroney did something he didn't like and switched again again and again.........

[Wilber]

No way of knowing but you could be right. By declaring independence the US was free to pursue it's own expansionist policies. No telling what the map of North America would look like today if they hadn't. On the other hand there might now be one gynormous country from the Mexican border to the Arctic.

[sharkman]

By the act of revolting, the American colonies became different than all of the others. This in part is what made them so attractive to immigrants the world over, and coupled with an inspired Constitution, was the secret of their wild success.

[Peter F]

JBG Yesterday, 11:56 PM

The next admittee, Prince Edward Island, received a guarantee of four ridings, a gross over-representation even then and certainly now.

...

Alberta now has 28 ridings out of 308 in Parliament, ensuring that their power is not proportional to their economic contribution to Canada.

Since these are examples of what happened to the 'loyal' Canadians, I'm curious as to how the 'revolt' of the Americans avoided that.

Say the economic power and representation of a state like California as compared to Rhode Island, for example. How are these state's of disproportionate population and economics represented in the USofA government?

[M.Dancer]

Alberta now has 28 ridings out of 308 in Parliament, ensuring that their power is not proportional to their economic contribution to Canada.

Rep by ecomomic contribution is not a democratic principle. Is that how they want to do it down in the Excited States wouldit correct the fact that Michigan has 16 reps while georgias only has 11?

Afterall, there contribution is real dollars is about par. And what about poor delware? Poor delaware has the highest GDP in the USof A but only has 1 rep.

Revolting!

[Higgly]

I am posing the question of whether the US should have revolted in 1774-1781, as it did, to forcibly obtain independence or obtain it via the Canadian/Australian/Newfoundland route of gradualism? Many say that the US should have done the latter, in terms of saving life and property, as well as protecting the rights of Loyalists.

I think the US did better by revolting....

Thoughts?

So you understand the Palestinian position. This is something I can work with...

[jbg]

By the act of revolting, the American colonies became different than all of the others. This in part is what made them so attractive to immigrants the world over...

Agreed so far

....and coupled with an inspired Constitution, was the secret of their wild success.

To paraphrase Harper, the US government works in practice though not in theory. I love my country deeply. The Constitution is one complex Rube Goldberg toy, and if it weren't for the civil society the US has always had the US constitution might work less well than the Pakistani one does.

[jbg]

How are these state's of disproportionate population and economics represented in the USofA government?

Each state has equal weight in the Senate, weight by population in the House, and a blend of the two in Presidential voting. That balances the relative position of large and small states in a way that has survived the test of time.

[jbg]

Afterall, there contribution is real dollars is about par. And what about poor delware? Poor delaware has the highest GDP in the USof A but only has 1 rep.

Only because of corporate charters. In terms of real economic activity Delaware is probably not at the top.

[jbg]

So you understand the Palestinian position. This is something I can work with...

The US revolution sought to conserve, apply and preserve established rights of Englishmen. I doubt the Palestinians have any such thing in mind.

[eyeball]

I think the US did better by revolting.

I agree but judging by the way things have turned out I think they forgot what it was they revolted against in the first place.

[jbg]

I agree but judging by the way things have turned out I think they forgot what it was they revolted against in the first place.

Please read the post immediately above yours. The point is thta we were Englishmen and the non-penal colonists came over with the rights of free Englishmen. Nothing about the Atlantic crossing diminished those rights.

The Palestinians, for example, have never asserted tehy were Israelis, expressed a willingness to abide by Israeli laws and customs or undertake the burdens as well as benefits of being Israeli. That's the difference.

[Peter F]

Each state has equal weight in the Senate, weight by population in the House, and a blend of the two in Presidential voting. That balances the relative position of large and small states in a way that has survived the test of time.

Thanks. That sounds fair.

So - Yes. America was right to revolt.

Allright....everybody in a circle...

[eyeball]

Please read the post immediately above yours. The point is thta we were Englishmen and the non-penal colonists came over with the rights of free Englishmen. Nothing about the Atlantic crossing diminished those rights.

The Palestinians, for example, have never asserted tehy were Israelis, expressed a willingness to abide by Israeli laws and customs or undertake the burdens as well as benefits of being Israeli. That's the difference.

I was responding to your original post where you said that American colonists revolted to gain their independance ie they decided to no longer be English and yes they were better off for it, for awhile. It seems to me they have long since lost forgotten what it was they revolted against. Americans are again fearful of their government wheras our government is more fearful of us, as a government should be. In the end, we're the one's that are better off.

[sharkman]

(Perhaps a circle of one...)

[jbg]

It seems to me they have long since lost forgotten what it was they revolted against.

Hardly. We recognize that we are at war, and are prepared to pull together. If that means that police authorities can review what I checked out of a library, so be it.

Americans are again fearful of their government wheras our government is more fearful of us, as a government should be. In the end, we're the one's that are better off.

I'm sure Zia ul Haq (sp) was plenty afraid of the Pakistani people he ruled, and Benizir Bhutto afraid of the people she sought to rule (or it certainly turned out they should have been).

[Wilber]

As a Canadian I don't spend much time pondering the US's navel. As a Canadian I would ask, why should I care? That is a game for Americans. As a Canadian I might ponder whether we would now be better off if at some point we had engaged in an armed revolt against Britain and declared independence, rather than taking the course we did. I find it hard to see how but who knows.

Bottom line is, even though we have a different take on some things, we have both done rather well.

[M.Dancer]

As a Canadian I might ponder whether we would now be better off if at some point we had engaged in an armed revolt against Britain and declared independence, rather than taking the course we did.

As a canadian you should know we did. We lost and we won.

SUMMARY

In Upper Canada, insurrections resulted from, among other things, dissatisfaction with the Family Compact. In Lower Canada, a battle was being waged between the Assembly controlled by the Patriot Party, led by Louis-Joseph Papineau, and the British minority that controlled the Executive Council and the Legislative Council. In the autumn of 1837, trouble broke out in the two colonies. The insurrection of Upper Canada, led by William Lyon MacKenzie, was quickly overturned. In Lower Canada, the rebellions were more widespread in 1837, but the patriots there were equally defeated by John Colborne's troops. In response, Great Britain sent Lord Durham with the mandate of finding a solution. He offered to grant responsible government and unite the two colonies to assimilate the French Canadians. By 1838, the rebellions had intensified. In the two colonies, rebels launched numerous cross-border raids from the United States. In both cases, the insurrections were quelled by British troops and volunteers who had remained loyal to British authorities. It's worth mentioning that the 1838 Upper Canada insurrection was much more significant than that of 1837. Rebels launched several cross-border raids from the United States. Greatly influenced by the Americans, Mackenzie proclaimed the republic of Upper Canada on December 13, 1837, while Robert Nelson did the same for Lower Canada on February 28, 1838. The failure of these insurrections discredited the violence-advocating radicals in the eyes of the general public, who shifted their support to the moderates. The union of Upper and Lower Canada would eventually be proclaimed in 1840, but citizens would have to wait until 1848 for the British Government to grant them responsible government.

http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=341

[Wilber]

As a canadian you should know we did. We lost and we won.

http://www.histori.ca/peace/page.do?pageID=341

The rebellions of 1837/38 weren't a revolution in the American sense. They weren't even much of a fight. While the reforms they demanded had wide support, independence did not, which is why they failed miserably. As you say, it did get Westminster's attention and the actions taken made it possible for us to evolve into independence in the bloodless manner that we did.

In that respect we might thank the American revolution for lessons learned by the Brits when it came to dealing with grievances from their North American colonies.

[jbg]

As a Canadian I might ponder whether we would now be better off if at some point we had engaged in an armed revolt against Britain and declared independence, rather than taking the course we did. I find it hard to see how but who knows.

I the US hadn't revolted would Britain have been so graceful in letting go of its Dominions?

[M.Dancer]

I the US hadn't revolted would Britain have been so graceful in letting go of its Dominions?

Like Ireland?

[Oleg Bach]

Like Ireland?

The U S A may have declared independence but only got it superfically. To this day social climbers like the Bushes - still attempt to suck up to the Queen. As we saw with the Queens servant Mr. Blair - who - was in all probabilty told to dump George Bush for embarrassing the palace...some think the queen is just some silly figure head - not so - we still have a hand full of ageing QCs that report indirectly to her. She is the most powerful CEO on the planet - the Americans are delluded if they really think they are independent...In and around 1776 when the rebels to measures to distance themselves from mother England - England immediately took counter measures to maintain control..to this day - I sometimes wonder - If this whole punishing of Islam is because some "Arab" had sex with one of the Royal Brood Mares - Diana - The queen can be spiteful - no way in hell would this ancient Christian put up with some infidel Muslim boinking their genetic property!

[Wilber]

I the US hadn't revolted would Britain have been so graceful in letting go of its Dominions?

Possibly and that is my point. As a Canadian I would look at the American Revolution's impact on Canada, not whether it was a good thing for Americans.