Was the American Revolution such a good idea?

Apparently not, according to this New Yorker writer.

WE COULD HAVE BEEN CANADA

And what if it was a mistake from the start? The Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, the creation of the United States of America—what if all this was a terrible idea, and what if the injustices and madness of American life since then have occurred not in spite of the virtues of the Founding Fathers but because of them? The Revolution, this argument might run, was a needless and brutal bit of slaveholders’ panic mixed with Enlightenment argle-bargle, producing a country that was always marked for violence and disruption and demagogy. Look north to Canada, or south to Australia, and you will see different possibilities of peaceful evolution away from Britain, toward sane and whole, more equitable and less sanguinary countries. No revolution, and slavery might have ended, as it did elsewhere in the British Empire, more peacefully and sooner. No “peculiar institution,” no hideous Civil War and appalling aftermath. Instead, an orderly development of the interior—less violent, and less inclined to celebrate the desperado over the peaceful peasant. We could have ended with a social-democratic commonwealth that stretched from north to south, a near-continent-wide Canada.

And the inspiration of this? Of course...Trump.

 

Heil Trudeau!

 

I don't think so. Kinda seems like a lame attempt to attack Trump IMO.

I think the fact that America is more an original amalgamation of so many more different countries than Canada along with the economy that "grew" (pun intended) in the South. Spain had slavery far longer than most other Euro powers when compared to England and France. From what I have also read, the "cruelty" that we see in movies (which from what I can see is definitely exaggerated on the whole) got worse and worse as more and more slaves came in. At first it seemed a bit more like indentures servitude. Not saying that is any better, but I think we have to look at the world and time period to get an understanding of what was going on.

Even though many of the founding fathers had slaves you can easily see they did not want it to be a part of the constitution. It was a bargain made to the south as they needed "unanimity" for the declaration.

I also think it is quite hypocritical for people in the UK to whine about US slavery considering their country attested for most of our slaves even after they "quit slavery".

My favorite founding father was Jefferson and I really liked reading about his ideas towards slavery. He favored a gradual transition from slavery to making it illegal, thinking that a sudden change would forever harm the Union. So far he kinda seems right, but I think that racist people will be racist no matter what and only time can heal that.

But yeah, I digress.....

And Canada talking about the treatment of "Indians" is kinda BS, they weren't a whole lot better with their

edit* - Would also like to add the West Africans were a MASSIVE part of slavery in America as well. In fact, the area of the modern world that still has the most slaves is the place where most the slaves to America came from. 4% of all the people in Mauritania (sp?) are still slaves today

Food for though...

 

Also like to add....

Slavery was present in the United States for about 240 years. There has been no slavery for the last 160 years, I hope that in the next 80 years people will stop using it as a political argument on both the right and the left.

 

Without the American revolution the Nazis would've conquered Europe and most of us would be dead now and the idea of freedom would be dead. Canada exists only as an American protectorate. American Republican capitalism was just copied in China and it instantly illuminated 40% of all the poverty on earth. America seems to be God's instrument on earth

 

Sadly, slavery is far more common around the world now than 160 years ago.

“Releasing its second annual index, Walk Free increased its estimate of the number of slaves to 35.8 million, saying this was due to better data collection and slavery being uncovered in areas where it had not been found previously.” REUTERS, Nearly 36 million people are slaves, Qatar in focus: global index, By By Katie Nguyen, 11/17/14.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/nearly-36-mln-people-slaves-qatar-focus-global-134217592.html

The "progressive" era did not end slavery. Alas.

 

Lots of people today call themselves slaves, wage slaves for example and even the official definition today is far different than slavery in the 18th and 19th century

"From children denied an education by being forced to work or marry early, to men unable to leave their work because of crushing debts they owe to recruitment agents, to women and girls exploited as unpaid, abused domestic workers, modern slavery has many faces," the report said."

Let's always remember the primary lesson: libsocialism causes poverty and poverty causes brutal insensitivity and slavery

 

There are still several things they are forgetting.

At the time of the Revolution Canada was still very much an occupied country, only recently captured from France. And the advances in "Canadian Governance" largely came about because of the Revolution. The UK saw what happened when it treated it's colonies with a heavy hand, and changed it's approach to prevent that from happening again (the Constitutional Act of 1791).

Australia is different because it was originally a penal colony, also set up after the Revolution. So once again it avoided the heavy handed tactics that caused the North American colonies to break away.

 

Yes, enslavement in the modern era does not always happen in open slave markets.
Which does not mean that the slave markets are not open for business - they never closed.

 

far more importantly libsocialism leads to extreme poverty and then to slavery. Christian Republican capitalism is the solution

 

We coulda been Canada?!

Darn it.

 

Even Lenin could not keep the USSR going without capitalism. Ditto the CP in China. But the old Marxists intellectuals knew that liberty and Big Government were incompatible.

Americans, from the the Plymouth colony on, knew the same thing instinctively. Americans have always been exceptional because almost all Americans have been born hostile to any hint of abusive central power.
Until WW I the evolution of an European style leviathan state was checked in America.

Under Obama hostility to Big Government has risen to normal American levels of near unanimity. Hence Trump.

 

1) well I don't see trump weighing in on liberty or big govt. I think he's a Republican because he's pro business.

2) unanimity? if so Republicans would have far more that 51% control.

 

The RP like the DP exists now to expand the size power and cost of government. Trump won because he is in opposition to both factions. The RP/DP hates his guts.

So long as Trump is seen proposing real reductions in the size and power of government he will retain a very large firm base of political support.

Cuts to the size and power of government are more important than cutting costs for the immediate future. Trump should be calling for the transfer of revenue flowing into the structures of the state to the productive working class.

Vested individual accounts for healthcare, school choice etc. funded out of large cuts in the size of government would be very popular across the spectrum.

 

Well had the US Colonies waited then they likely would have ended up like Canada and Australia -- with no balls and no gun rights either.

It's better the way it happened in 1776.

This way in 1789 we got the 2nd Amendment at least.

 

Exactly.

And Australia is even worse.

 

obviously wrong of course, Republican health bill is being rounded attacked because it cuts medicaid by 30 million people. Its been in all the papers for weeks now. How did you miss it?

 

Republicans have always proposed this. Trumps popularity is from his very extreme aggressive outsider style.
His popularity is shrinking thanks to huge mismanagement, disrespect for all but his family, and aggressive obnoxious style that so far has not made the Washington establishment yield one inch.

 

Are you trying to say he should be for federal tax cuts or that he should keep federal taxes high and transfer money to states.

 

if true we would already have vested accounts schools choice etc etc

 

no idea what that means?

 

Wow.

Someone needs a history - and math lesson.

 

Spare me your junk to conclusion to find something to be offended by.

The land which is the United States had slaves on it from about 1619

The Civil War ended slavery in 1865

Since you didn't like my estimations, lets do the exact since I am sitting at a computer

Brought on by the Dutch in 1619 and ended in 1865 Slavery was in the US for 246 years. An estimation error of 6 years by me.

Since it ended in 1865 and today is 2017, slavery has been gone for 152 years. An estimation error of 8 years by me

Are you really personally attacking me based on the errors? Or did you make a mistake somewhere with your history/math and should be embarrassed for calling me out?

 

Whoosh! LOL

You said "Slavery was present in the United States for about 240 years." -- and you just did it again: "Slavery was in the US for 246 years."

It's not a round up error.

It's the fact you seemed to think before 1776 there was a "United States."

Geddit now?

 

Please re read the above statement, it will clear your confusion and end the petty personal attack.

"The land which is the United States had slaves on it from about 1619"

Even worse, do you really just troll around looking for corrections to make?