Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Nick Shaw – According to the revisionists at Vox, a USA in which the Continental Army was crushed and George Washington defeated would have been more like Canada, would have passed stronger climate laws.
3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake
Happy Fourth!
By Dylan Matthews@dylanmattdylan@vox.com Updated Jul 3, 2018, 11:57am EDTThis July 4, let’s not mince words: American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it.
Of course, evaluating the wisdom of the American Revolution means dealing with counterfactuals. As any historian would tell you, this is a messy business. We obviously can’t be entirely sure how America would have fared if it had stayed in the British Empire longer, perhaps gaining independence a century or so later, along with Canada.
…
America would have a better system of government if we’d stuck with Britain
Honestly, I think earlier abolition alone is enough to make the case against the revolution, and it combined with less-horrible treatment of American Indians is more than enough. But it’s worth taking a second to praise a less important but still significant consequence of the US sticking with Britain: we would’ve, in all likelihood, become a parliamentary democracy rather than a presidential one.
And parliamentary democracies are a lot, lot better than presidential ones. They’re significantly less likely to collapse into dictatorship because they don’t lead to irresolvable conflicts between, say, the president and the legislature. They lead to much less gridlock.
In the US, activists wanting to put a price on carbon emissions spent years trying to put together a coalition to make it happen, mobilizing sympathetic businesses and philanthropists and attempting to make bipartisan coalition — and they still failed to pass cap and trade, after millions of dollars and man hours. In the UK, the Conservative government decided it wanted a carbon tax. So there was a carbon tax. Just like that. Passing big, necessary legislation — in this case, legislation that’s literally necessary to save the planet — is a whole lot easier with parliaments than with presidential systems.
…
Read more: https://www.vox.com/2015/7/2/8884885/american-revolution-mistake
Every time I think I’ve seen the worst, most vile freedom hating sentiments which will ever be expressed by greens, they manage to shock me with some new low. Wishing that Americans had remained enslaved without political representation a little longer, just long enough to have your desire for liberty knocked out of you so you would more readily accept green tyranny, its going to be tough to beat that one.
Had we remained British colonies the evolving colonials would never have been in a position to bail the Brits out of certain Nazi defeat during the 2nd world war and the Japs would have attacked Mexico’s Northern Territory.
Hawaii wasn’t ever going to be part of Mexico. If not American, then British.
But you’re right that the US SW would still be Mexican or Spanish. Without the US Revolution, Spain might have held onto its American colonies.
North America at least would look very different from today’s boundaries. After the Napoleonic Wars, Spain probably would have gotten Louisiana back from France, so would have controlled the whole Gulf coast from Florida to Mexico.
Britain would have kept American settlers out of Trans-Appalachia, so that Indian states would have developed there, ie the “Civilized Tribes” in the SE and various confederacies in the Midwest east of the Mississippi. Spain or Mexico would have owned the SW, and Britain the NW, ie the Oregon Territory. Russia of course would still have Alaska.
So California would have remained Spanish and followed their disastrous “renewable” energy policies.
No change there.
Sad but true.
Although, given the petroleum resources of CA, the Spanish regime might have adopted different policies.
Facts don’t seem to stand in the way of a Progressive rant.
I live in the western part of South Carolina, in the foothill of the Appalachian chain, in the area that was the original Indian Territory in America.
As the colonists moved out from the SC coast, they pushed the native population hundreds of miles further west, into land the settlers didn’t think they’d ever need. There were official boundaries dividing the territories.
This was of course very disrespectful, to say the least, to the native population. The problem for Mr. Matthews article, is that at that time, this was a British colony, owned by close friends of the King, with a British Governor and legislature and a British army with forts in the territory to insure the “natives” stayed under control.
More than 100 years later the horrible Trail of Tears occurred under American rule where that native population was walked to the NEW Indian Territory (what is now Oklahoma, so even that “safe space” didn’t last).
Yes that was unforgivable, but the precedent was set by a British government, wiping out Matthews thesis.
“As the colonists moved out from the SC coast, they pushed the native population hundreds of miles further west, into land the settlers didn’t think they’d ever need. There were official boundaries dividing the territories.
This was of course very disrespectful, to say the least, to the native population. The problem for Mr. Matthews article, is that at that time, this was a British colony,”
And to keep things in perspective, we should note that before Europeans came to the Americas, native American tribes warred with, killed, enslaved and displaced other indian tribes, too. Stealing land in the Americas was not limited to Europeans.
If the strongest recommendation for parliamentary democracy is that it allows incompetent politicians to impose economy destroying taxes in the name of end-of-times religious observance with minimal impediment from those skilled in logic and practical policy, then who wants it. Fortunately there may be some more rational arguments in favour, but political systems will likely evolve just as do species based on what works best.
Had Pinochet brought in a “carbon tax” Vox would’ve had a collective aneurysm at the ideological dilemma.
Belated Happy Independence Day, from one of the greatest nations in the world to the other 🙂
Alternative histories can be as much fun as they are revolting.
But you must have a good author who is not only aware of the actual history but also of the many possible alternatives. This Dylan Matthews is absolutely, positively brain dead.
Especially when compared to a true Master like Harry Turtledove.
The Southern Victory series or Timeline-191 are fan names given to a series of eleven alternate history novels by author Harry Turtledove, beginning with How Few Remain (1997) and published over a decade. The period addressed in the series begins during the Civil War and spans nine decades, up to the mid-1940s. In the series, the Confederate States of America defeats the United States of America in 1862, thereby making good its attempt at secession and becoming an independent nation. Subsequent books are built on imagining events based on this alternate timeline.
The best thing about Harry’s Civil War althist is his vision of CSA soldiers as the kind of semiliterate, barefoot, often bare-headed, teenaged, smelly, parasite-infested, ragtag raggamuffin rebels who today tote the AKMs with which the ANV defeats the AoP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_the_South
As opposed to the well-equipped, armed and fed, if poorly led, Union soldiers, every other one of whom seems to have kept a diary.
His other Civil War althist is based, as others, upon Lee’s Lost Orders:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guns_of_the_South
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Order_191
The USA has the longest running government currently still in existence on this planet. France has had something like 6 or 7 governments since the American Revolution. Germany as well has had quite a few. There are plenty of countries that never even existed when the USA was founded.
Still going strong and only getting better.
I think we are looking at this wrong.
Put it this way. No US nation would mean no US Congress.
No Congress and there is no platform for people like Hanson to ‘testify’ in front of.
No Hanson means no hockey stick.
No hockey stick means no global warming.
So… sorry America, but all this Green Fraud is all your fault! 😛
CURSE YOU AMERICAN FOUNDING FATHERS!!!
(PS – Happy B’day America)
This is the kind of garbage you hear from a 28 year-old Democrat, Establishment, socialist, elitist, non-thinker. Does he know Western political philosophy? No. Does he know history? No. Does he know economics? No. Why bother… might as well be listening to talk radio.
Government of the People, for the People, by the People, will always be superior to a system of political theater, where the Aristocracy always forces its will, upon the People. In general top-down governance fails, and grass-roots governance is successful. If the majority of the People want something done, it will happen eventually.
The fact that we don’t want more taxes, to fix a problem that most of us think is either minuscule, or nonexistent, is a prime example of the superiority of our system.
In general gridlock is a good thing. It prevents stupid people from doing stupid things that hurt people that are busy living their lives and not paying attention to the actions of special interest deals for those with special access. Government corruption does cost us a lot, but it is low as a percentage of the income generated by free people doing what is in their own best interest.
Vox and the rest of the Soros propaganda machine is in the ridiculous position of continuing to deny reality. They fail to acknowledge that people function better in a world where economic incentives are available to the general public, instead of just the “aristocracy”. They claim they are for the down-trodden, but every policy they espouse would increase the burden on the poor, and increase the number of the poor.
I don’t know if this author is just stupid or if he is intentionally deceitful. It doesn’t matter. Vox is destined for the ash heap and the whining is always the most shrill before it stops, with a whimper.
I agree that this article is thrash, but depends on what you mean by “Government of the People, for the People, by the People.” Which people are those exactly? Humans are not a hive mind. In democracy especially there is always going to be disagreements, powerful politicians manipulating votes, and mob rule where the “people” force their will upon individuals for the “common good”. Are you saying that there is no political theater in US? That parties happily discuss their differences and try to reach the common ground? And gridlock works the other way around too. It also prevents good things from happening.
Those people are the voters. They elect representation, and if they don’t like what is done, they vote them out. We don’t have a democracy. If we did we would not need representatives, we would vote on everything, and the majority would rule. We have elected officials who represent the voters.
I did not say there was no political theater in the US.
The government that governs least governs best. And there is no doubt that if something was good, for the majority, it would pass easily. Most of what will not pass is good for a small minority, and bad for the majority. That is what won’t pass, and the small minority calls it “gridlock”.
A history of two scientists: American patriot vs. American traitor
Benjamin Franklin – “the patriot.” Conducted the famous kite experiment. Founder of University of Pennsylvania
Benjamin Thompson (a.k.a. Count Rumford) “the traitor.” Conducted the famous cannon boring experiment. Founder of the Royal Institution
What a ridiculous article. Historical revisionism at its best. Also they couldn’t resist adding that arrogant and self-righteous notion of “literally necessary to save the planet”. Even if you think climate change is a threat, you need to look very far for a scientist that believes that climate change will “literally destroy the planet”.
“America would have a better system of government if we’d stuck with Britain”
In a nutshell, the left just don’t like capitalism, free markets, conservatism, Christianity, and white males.
Though I certainly disagree with Vox, I also have to take issue with Eric Worrall. Specifically with respect to this comment:
“Wishing that Americans had remained enslaved without political representation a little longer …”
The colonists were hardly “enslaved” (well, except those who were actually enslaved, i.e., the slaves). And the British government was not all that tyrannical. In fact, we are far more enslaved today, to a far more tyrannical government, then the rebels who started this nation were.
The British government did not mandate what the colonists could or could not do on their own land. (With one notable exception that resulted in the Pine Tree Rebellion, though I believe, in that case, the land technically belonged to the British Crown,)
The British government did not mandate how many miles a horse could travel on a bushel of oats.
The British government did not limit how much oil a lamp could burn.
The British government did not limit how much waste an outhouse can hold.
The British government did not limit how much wood you could burn in your fireplace.
The British government did not force the colonists to purchase health insurance and fine them if they did not.
The British government did not in any way limit the right of the people to keep and bear arms, at least not until after the shooting started, at which point they no longer had any real power over the people.
And last but not least, the British government didn’t TAX the colonists, not at all, until the Stamp Act. Rather than giving you a complete description, I’ll let you look it up on Wikipedia. But the main point is, the Stamp Act applied only to three small groups of wealthy people: Big farmers, Lawyers, and Newspaper Owners. The common man never paid a penny in taxes! (Well, the rich men didn’t either because we declared our independence before the Stamp Act went into effect, but even if we hadn’t, the common man would never have had to pay a penny. In this respect, the American Revolutionary War was much like most wars in human history, where the rich men see a potential danger to their wealth, and conscript poor men to go fight and die to preserve their wealth. I’m not saying, as Vox did, that we’d be better off if we had remained part of Britain; I’m just saying, let’s recognize those who started the war as the greedy, self-interested tycoons they were, not valiant heroes looking out for the common man.)
[And to be honest, the Stamp Act was not at all unreasonable. The British Government had, less than a generation earlier, spent enormous resources, and shed much of their soldiers’ blood, protecting the colonists from the invading French and Native Americans friendly to the French invaders. Sure, the British government had its own greedy, selfish reasons for doing so, but without a doubt, the colonists would have all been slaughtered or driven back to Jolly Old if the British Army hadn’t gotten involved. There was enormous support back in London to collect SOME money from the colonists, to help pay off some small part of the debt accumulated in their defense. And the colonists KNEW it was not unfair for the British government to collect that tax, which is why, instead of objecting to the Stamp Act itself, they decried the fact that it was passed by a representative body that had no representation from those who would pay the tax (taxation without representation). Taxation without representation, however, was a bullspit excuse. The colonists may not have directly elected representatives to Parliament, but they had a number of people, in both houses, who had interests in the colonies, and therefore could be depended upon to look out for those interests. But with or without representation for the colonies, the Stamp Act was going to pass.]
Compare that to what we face today, in regulation and taxes. We can’t freaking break wind without permits from three different government agencies, an environmental impact statement, and thousands of dollars in fees. And they take half our damn income in the form of one tax or another. If we could have stopped it at the Stamp Act, I would gladly trade our independence from Britain for the incredibly low level of government interference our founding fathers “suffered” under British rule. But Britain has, since then, grown even more socialist than we have, so living under British rule today would be even worse than the all-intrusive government we have now. So in net terms, we’re better off for our founding fathers breaking it off with Britain. But we’re still a hell of a lot worse off, today, under the US flag, then we were 250 years ago under the British flag.
Most all off our Amendments to the Constitution are a direct consequence of the way the colonist’s were treated by the Crown. Search and Seizure, quartering troops, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, and right to redress of grievances, are all areas that colonist felt needed to be guaranteed in a binding contract. Those are the same issues that patriots were willing to die for, so we wouldn’t have to live as second class citizens.
Of course the Brits didn’t see it that way. To them most of the world was second or third class citizens, and they were determined to keep it that way.
First of all, I think you are referring to the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, not the entire list of 27 amendments, 15 of which were ratified generations after the Revolutionary War, and had more to do with the way the UNITED STATES government treated its citizens (slavery, voting rights, equal protection), and in some cases REMOVED freedoms and rights (direct taxes, prohibition) that we had previously enjoyed.
(Also, I think you are under the impression that the moment we won our independence from Britain, we immediately became the Constitutional Republic we are today. It would be 5 years after the War was over that we became a single nation, under the Constitution. For those 5 years (and the 8 years during the War), the states all considered themselves independent, sovereign nations (albeit joined together in a common purpose, similar to today’s NATO). In fact, the very word “State” MEANS an independent, sovereign government, and it is only because of the continued (inappropriate) use of the word when the definition was no longer true, that, to most Americans, it now means a political subdivision of a larger nation. Some of those sovereign states recognized these rights you and I hold dear, and some did not, and the “federal government” of that time had ZERO power to force states to do so. So it is a little ridiculous to argue that the colonists were fighting for, indeed, “willing to die for”, rights that they weren’t awarded immediately upon declaring independence from the “tyrannical” Great Britain.)
That said, even looking at just the Bill of Rights, you are mistaken. Most of them were either carry-overs from British law, or compromises to preserve some measure of sovereignty for states concerned about losing the independence they had so recently gained. The only one that was a direct result of the way colonists were treated by the British (and it was the British Army, not the government) was the quartering of troops. And like with the Stamp Act, quartering of troops only affected the very wealthy. The British Army did not seek housing for its troops in shacks, log cabins, or other small homes, but in spacious plantation houses, taverns, inns, and other places of business with room to spare. So even your example proves my point; the Revolutionary War was started by wealthy, privileged, self-interested tycoons who only cared about protecting their own wealth and property and accumulating more of it.
As British citizens, we already had protection from illegal search and seizure, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, the right to bear arms, and the right to redress of grievances. Sure, many of them were suspended when hostilities broke out, but every government (at least every government that provides such freedoms for its citizens), including ours, suspends those rights in times of civil unrest; it’s called Martial Law. As for freedom of religion, we had that too, at least as far as being permitted to worship whatever god we chose. Indeed, that’s why many of the original settlers came to this continent. The only change regarding religion in the Bill of Rights is that Congress cannot name any religion as the “official religion” of the US, as the British Government has named the Church of England the official religion of the UK. And even that applies only to the federal government; states (unless their own Constitutions forbid it) and local governments MAY declare official religions within their respective jurisdictions (and arguably, every time a city or town pays for a Christmas display, or allows one on public property, it IS declaring an official religion, because public funds and/or public property are being used to recognize one religion (Christianity) over all others).
The British went light on the indigenous peoples of America because they were too busy abusing, exploiting and starving the Irish; addicting the Chinese to opium; and harvesting the riches of India and Africa. America is a grand experiment where from its inception different people have mixed, worked together, argued and fought each other sorting out what living in liberty under the rule of law means.
The non-stop, overt and visceral hostility of the Left to this country is mind boggling. We have Christians (some really out there sects), Jews, Hindus, Muslims, B’hai’s, Buddhists, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Daoists and no doubt Animists mixed in there. I am sure I have left numerous religions out of the mix. But, I think you get my point. For the most we work together and try to live and let live. I could make the same case for races and ethnicities. With of course the historical blemishes and current caveats.
As a Hispanic City Council member told me. “You are one of whitest people I have ever seen.” LOL I have dated Filipinos, Koreans, Mexican Americans, Irish Americans, and married a lovely Slavic woman. Even had the privilege of being kicked out of a La Mecha New Years Eve party. LOL I have reported to gay Japanese Americans, African American men and women, and Mexican Americans. Saluted black and Hispanic officers and followed their orders with alacrity along with my fellow soldiers. Have led a squad of Airborne Infantry that was Black, Hispanic, Samoan and White with a token North Carolina “cracker” that wanted to join the Klan. Go figure. Even been hired as an intern to bring “diversity” to a predominantly African American division of a city.
I am politically conservative and live in a mostly anglo community with a sizable Barrio. My daily go to coffee shop is owned by a Chinese Cambodian Buddhist whose family fled Pol Pot walking over dead bodies. Her employees are Mexican and the barista is a transgender Mexican. She is treated with respect and affection by everyone who goes there. The coffee is better, the service more accommodating and pleasant and plenty of diversity without all the Starbucks blather and virtue signaling. I practice two Daoist Chinese integrative arts. One taught by an African American Buddhist.
This is the America that I know. I think it is worth defending. I think its people, all of them, are worth defending from Islamic terrorists, right wing boneheads, foolish anarchists, leftist nonsense and criminal aliens. But, what do I know? I am just an old white guy.
It would be so much easier for progressive totalitarian-types if everybody just rolled over and put up with tyranny – for the climate.
It’s no wonder the US seems to be their primary enemy.