Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liberal mindset.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Liberal mindset.

    The mind of liberals.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/7/2/8884885/...lution-mistake

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...1#.VZ2-O2Eo7qD

    What's amazing is I can find the same things in that last article that was said during the antebellum period by Northern writers.
    “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
    --Salmon P. Chase

  • #2
    Let's look at the first article. The author says there are three primary reasons America would have been better under British rule:

    But I'm reasonably confident a world in which the revolution never happened would be better than the one we live in now, for three main reasons: Slavery would've been abolished earlier, American Indians would've faced rampant persecution but not the outright ethnic cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated, and America would have a parliamentary system of government that makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic collapse.
    Slavery would go in 1843. But, I doubt that would have ended having a major population of second class citizens. Instead, I see indenturing and even the continuation of using loans and company money to essentially end up with slavery in all but name throughout the South just as happened in India and elsewhere in the British empire.
    So, I'd counter ending slavery earlier would have made little or no difference to the development of America.

    The Indians would still have gotten a raw deal. South Africa? Apartide? How many colonial wars did Britain fight where they stomped the natives and took their land? I don't see any difference here. The British Army stomping the Indians is no different from the US Army stomping the Indians. The Trail of Tears could still happen. The Crown grabs their land and off they go under the bayonets of Red Coats.

    The Parliamentary system? Until the US became a Commonwealth nation probably not before the late 1800's (at the earliest) it would have no representation but be a colony held to the Crown and Parliament in England.
    The likely result is that expansion West is more hit and miss. For example, the Louisiana Territory would have likely been taken by force from France in the Napoleonic war, while tens of thousands of US colonists would have been drafted into the British Army to fight in Europe.
    Mexico would have gotten the same treatment eventually. The British might well have taken the whole of Mexico in a war like the Mexican-American war over debts owed and not given any of it back.
    War with Spain? Same thing.
    War with Russia? Can you say Alaska is British and for free?

    The overall result might well be a fractured America where the various British colonies become independent nations and then start vying with each other for power (eg., they become a second warring "Europe.")

    On the down side the Crown and Britain would have also severely restricted the economic growth of the US just as it did with policies in India, Canada, and elsewhere. The US would have a fraction of its economic potential exploited under British rule.

    I could go on here. The article is ill-thought out and focuses only on righting bad events in US history that might be righted by British rule. The real outcome would have been a weaker America ruled by a much more ruthless and expansionist colonial, imperial European power that would have exploited the US and American colonial holdings to expand its power at home and in Europe.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      Let's look at the first article. The author says there are three primary reasons America would have been better under British rule:
      Indeed the condition of slaves and the poor in Europe is fairly comparable. One of the things that allowed America to prosper was the break down of class barrier.

      I do think however if the British had given the colonial elites a little more recognition the Revolutionary war may well never have happened. I can see almost everyone of the founding fathers jumping at a chance to serve in parliament. The most dangerous enemy you can make is a man of privilege when you deny him a privilege he thinks he deserves.

      One need look no further than the voting laws in the colonies to see that the underclass was not held in high regard. Everyone, including woman, who were not men of property were considered inferior. We now know that culture and infant development are intricately linked but at the time there was no science to speak of. It is easy to criticize those from the past without realizing the privileges that the evolution of culture bestows.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        Let's look at the first article. The author says there are three primary reasons America would have been better under British rule:

        Slavery would go in 1843. But, I doubt that would have ended having a major population of second class citizens. Instead, I see indenturing and even the continuation of using loans and company money to essentially end up with slavery in all but name throughout the South just as happened in India and elsewhere in the British empire.
        So, I'd counter ending slavery earlier would have made little or no difference to the development of America.

        The Indians would still have gotten a raw deal. South Africa? Apartide? How many colonial wars did Britain fight where they stomped the natives and took their land? I don't see any difference here. The British Army stomping the Indians is no different from the US Army stomping the Indians. The Trail of Tears could still happen. The Crown grabs their land and off they go under the bayonets of Red Coats.

        The Parliamentary system? Until the US became a Commonwealth nation probably not before the late 1800's (at the earliest) it would have no representation but be a colony held to the Crown and Parliament in England.
        The likely result is that expansion West is more hit and miss. For example, the Louisiana Territory would have likely been taken by force from France in the Napoleonic war, while tens of thousands of US colonists would have been drafted into the British Army to fight in Europe.
        Mexico would have gotten the same treatment eventually. The British might well have taken the whole of Mexico in a war like the Mexican-American war over debts owed and not given any of it back.
        War with Spain? Same thing.
        War with Russia? Can you say Alaska is British and for free?

        The overall result might well be a fractured America where the various British colonies become independent nations and then start vying with each other for power (eg., they become a second warring "Europe.")

        On the down side the Crown and Britain would have also severely restricted the economic growth of the US just as it did with policies in India, Canada, and elsewhere. The US would have a fraction of its economic potential exploited under British rule.

        I could go on here. The article is ill-thought out and focuses only on righting bad events in US history that might be righted by British rule. The real outcome would have been a weaker America ruled by a much more ruthless and expansionist colonial, imperial European power that would have exploited the US and American colonial holdings to expand its power at home and in Europe.
        To begin with, let me state that the establishment of an independent United States was, all things considered,a GOOD THING but,nevertheless, I think that a few points should be made in defence of the British Empire.

        Firstly, were the native North Americans better treated in the United States or Canada ? I don't know myself but I note that there was no equivalent of GEN Custer or his ilk wearing a red coat .This being so then there is no reason whatever to automatically assume that a British presence would have been as bad as what really eventuated.

        There is no reason whatever to suppose that "tens of thousand of US Colonists would have drafted into the British Army " for some imaginary conflict in Europe.That's pure fantasy. There was no conscription in the British Empire anywhere during the 19th.century. And there's no reason to speculate on additional conflicts breaking-out with Mexico, Spain or Russia (except the Crimean War) merely because London had oversight over North America.

        Personally, I haven't notice where the Dominions of the former British Empire had started " vying with each other for power" Quite the reverse.

        There is no reason whatever to suppose that London rule would have "restricted the economic growth " of North America. Why would it ? The whole point of the Empire was economic and material growth. Look at India. where the British went they brought infrastructure, civilisation (for what that's worth) and ,above all ,the Rule of Law.

        There is no distinction drawn made between a British regime and any other "ruthless and expansionist colonial , imperial European Power" but it might be as well to remind ourselves that whatever liberal and enlightened notions the Founding Fathers had when they launched the Great Republic they had gained, largely ,from their free-thinking British forebears.
        Last edited by BELGRAVE; 09 Jul 15, 02:22.
        "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
        Samuel Johnson.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
          To begin with, let me state that the establishment of an independent United States was, all things considered,a GOOD THING but,nevertheless, I think that a few points should be made in defence of the British Empire.

          Firstly, were the native North Americans better treated in the United States or Canada ? I don't know myself but I note that there was no equivalent of GEN Custer or his ilk wearing a red coat .This being so then there is no reason whatever to automatically assume that a British presence would have been as bad as what really eventuated.
          Neither is the best answer. Canada had far fewer natives but there were the same sort of wars, herding off to reservations, and all the rest.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...tory_of_Canada

          Custer isn't a good example of an Indian fighter as a military officer. General George Crook would be a better one. He's more the equivalent of England's Field Marshall Kitchener.
          He was equally hard, even ruthless, in his campaigns to Kitchener.

          There is no reason whatever to suppose that "tens of thousand of US Colonists would have drafted into the Britsh Army". That's pure fantasy. There was no conscription in the British Empire anywhere during the 19th.century. And there's no reason to speculate on additional conflicts breaking-out with Mexico, Spain or Russia (except the Crimean War) merely because London had oversight over North America.
          Sure there is. In the Napoleonic Wars for example I could easily see the American colonies being required to raise a certain number of regiments for use in Europe. As it was the 60th Royal American Rifles was raised from Tory Americans who left the US after the revolution.
          I could see raising of a good number of regiments in such circumstances.
          The colonies would also likely have been a source of ship building materials at a minimum. I don't know if the crown would have allowed building major warships in America.
          France invaded Mexico in 1861 for example. It is very possible that Britain might have staged military action against Mexico to stop the French.
          The Crimean war would give Britain a reason to occupy Alaska for example, a Russian Colony.
          I could also see the American colonies having to provide regiments for service in Britain's other colonial wars, as well as potentially for use in occupation of other areas. All of the various other British colonies to one degree or another had to do so.


          Personally, I haven't notice where the Dominions of the former British Empire had started " vying with each other for power" Quite the reverse.
          I meant within the Americas alone. While major war wouldn't be likely, certainly economic rivalries would have occurred with each colony becoming potentially a separate nation.
          After all, the United States would not look nearly the same as Britain and the crown would have decided the political make up of the various colonies, not local legislatures. There could be potentially far fewer colonies than present states.
          For example, the Louisiana Purchase would, as stated likely have been a conquest by war from Napoleon during that conflict. It might have been left intact as a single entity.

          There is no reason whatever to suppose that London rule would have "restricted the economic growth of North America". Why would it ? The whole point of the Empire was economic and material growth. Look at India. where the British went they brought infrastructure, civilisation (for what that's worth) and the above all the Rule of Law.
          Sure there is. It is unlikely that the crown would have allowed the American Colonies to manufacture large quantities of arms or warships. I could see a focus on raw resources for export rather than local manufacture.
          I could also see a concentration of industry and agriculture on fewer products and a focus on exports rather than on internal trade. This is true for most other British colonies, why wouldn't it be for the Americas?
          Another drag would be immigration would have been far more restricted. It is unlikely the crown would have allowed the huge influx of Germans, Italians, and other Europeans into the American colonies.
          With a smaller population base, the economy focused on exports to the home country, and limited industrial investment, the American colonies would have grown at a much lower and slower rate.
          With more wealth, and much of the tax base, leaving the country to go to England the available capital for investment would have been lower too.
          Why would there have been a push to build a transcontinental railroad at great expense when most economic output is on the coasts and moving by ship to England?

          There is no distinction drawn made between a British regime and any other "ruthless and expansionist colonial , imperial European Power" but it might be as well to remind ourselves that whatever liberal and enlightened notions the Founding Fathers had when they launched the Great Republic they gained, largely ,from their free-thinking British forebears.
          Sure, but the US as a nation didn't have the outward focus on expansion England (and other European nations) did. At its height the British empire circled the globe. They went on numerous wars of conquest and often forced their way into other countries and territories.

          I'm not trying to paint Britain or the British empire as some evil entity here. Rather, I'm pointing out that as colonies the Americas were not going to be the economic and military power house they became any more than Spanish colonies would.
          That is a major reason South America has languished for so long as economic underdogs. Spain limited their growth as colonies. (Portugal too in Brazil). It isn't the only reason, but it is a big one.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            Indeed the condition of slaves and the poor in Europe is fairly comparable. One of the things that allowed America to prosper was the break down of class barrier.

            I do think however if the British had given the colonial elites a little more recognition the Revolutionary war may well never have happened. I can see almost everyone of the founding fathers jumping at a chance to serve in parliament. The most dangerous enemy you can make is a man of privilege when you deny him a privilege he thinks he deserves.

            One need look no further than the voting laws in the colonies to see that the underclass was not held in high regard. Everyone, including woman, who were not men of property were considered inferior. We now know that culture and infant development are intricately linked but at the time there was no science to speak of. It is easy to criticize those from the past without realizing the privileges that the evolution of culture bestows.
            The British forgot the Basic Rule: "Hold your friends close, but hold your enemies closer."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
              I do think however if the British had given the colonial elites a little more recognition the Revolutionary war may well never have happened. I can see almost everyone of the founding fathers jumping at a chance to serve in parliament. The most dangerous enemy you can make is a man of privilege when you deny him a privilege he thinks he deserves.
              I'd long speculated to our late friend Allsirgarnet that inviting a colonial delegation to Westminster would have only delayed the American Revolution, not prevented it altogether. The taxes and the quartering of troops might have been positively addressed in that manner, but not the White settlement of the lands between the Appalachians and the Mississippi. Great Britain set aside those lands pretty much exclusively for Indians via the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade the purchase of Indian lands by private British subjects or colonial governments, as well as white encroachment of the aforementioned territories. This was a reward for the Native Americans who had fought for the British in the previous French & Indian War, and as a means of precluding violence for those who had sided with the French. While the Proclamation had been drafted earlier, Pontiac's War underlined its urgency. Great Britain's "exchequer" was much depleted by the Seven Years War, and the notion of maintaining large forces on the fringes of North America did not appeal to Westminster, so their way of ensuring the peace in economical fashion was to keep the whites out. As long as cheap land remained the hook to attract significant numbers of prospective colonists to the wilds of the New World, there would always be a westward pressure emanating from Britain's Atlantic seaboard colonies. While the Crown amended the Proclamation Line a couple of times, at some point either the Crown or its Indian allies would scream enough, and that could very easily precipitate an American Revolution.

              By the same rationale, the US remaining a dominion within the British Empire by no means precludes the Indians' ultimately destiny. Here again, the westward pressure was irresistible, much more so than it was in Canada, so there's no reason to believe that the Native Americans wouldn't have received the same treatment from British authorities that they got from US.

              It is conceivable, however, that had there been no American Revolution, then slavery would not have been abolished throughout Great Britain and the British Empire. Those southern planters owed a ton to City of London bankers for their slaves in 1776 (one of the motives behind the southerners' choice to declare independence, by the way) so Westminster may very well have kept slavery going, not only to feed their burgeoning textile industry, but to keep the City solvent, as well. No American revolution might very well have put off indefinitely Britain's interest in India, however, and rendered Australia merely a big island with weird animals but otherwise devoid of people, rather than the big island with weird animals and even weirder people that it is today.

              Speaking of weird people from Down Under:

              Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
              To begin with, let me state that the establishment of an independent United States was, all things considered,a GOOD THING
              Nor argument there, mate.

              Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
              but,nevertheless, I think that a few points should be made in defence of the British Empire.
              England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, and the British Empire do take it on the chin an awful lot these days, and much of the criticism is really unfair -- but that will never stop me from riding those John Bulls like thoroughbreds.

              Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
              Firstly, were the native North Americans better treated in the United States or Canada ? I don't know myself but I note that there was no equivalent of GEN Custer or his ilk wearing a red coat .This being so then there is no reason whatever to automatically assume that a British presence would have been as bad as what really eventuated.
              Read above. Like Australia or Canada, the only way that the British Empire could get their colonies to both stabilize and pay off was to settle them with Britons. We know for a fact that US railroad companies hired agents tasked with advertising the virtues of the US West and recruiting immigrants by the shipload. I have to believe that there were parties similarly employed throughout the UK, recruiting prospective migrants to far off lands, in order that they should be settled by reliable and productive Britons. The very model of the British Empire created the westward pressure. How did that demographic pressure relieve itself in places like Australia and New Zealand? Canada gets away with it somewhat 'cause the only suitable places for Caucasian settlement there all lie within 300 miles of her southern border, so all kinds of space remains, to this day, inhabited solely by "First Nations." Therefore the Canadian experience with the natives can't be applied to the US -- Oz's and NZ's maybe can.

              Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
              There is no reason whatever to suppose that "tens of thousand of US Colonists would have drafted into the British Army " for some imaginary conflict in Europe.That's pure fantasy. There was no conscription in the British Empire anywhere during the 19th.century. And there's no reason to speculate on additional conflicts breaking-out with Mexico, Spain or Russia (except the Crimean War) merely because London had oversight over North America.

              Personally, I haven't notice where the Dominions of the former British Empire had started " vying with each other for power" Quite the reverse.
              Perhaps one of our Canuck friends can better explain this, but I understand that there have been rivalries between various Canadian provinces over the years: French v English, East v West, etc. As it was, in the run-up to the French & Indian War, it was damned near impossible to get the 13 American colonies to agree on anything, such was the extreme state of their disunity. Each of the colonies had a different foundation story, and from them different traditions, and they all guarded their sovereignty quite jealously: Pennsylvania was chartered as a self-governing commonwealth to Quakers, Massachusetts to Puritans, Virginia to prospective tobacco merchants (Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are the only two states which can refer to themselves as commonwealths to this day.) Maryland was a Crown colony founded for the benefit of refugee Roman Catholics fleeing England: the Crown didn't trust them enough to govern their own commonwealth. New York was a Crown colony, because the Crown agreed to Dutch West India Co governor Peter Stuyvesant's terms when they accepted Niuw Nederland's surrender. New Jersey was a Crown colony because the semi-illiterate confidence trickster George Carteret supported the royalist cause in the English Civil War, so was rewarded with a slice of New York by those Stuart assholes upon Restoration. ( ) Such a history does not exist for Canada's provinces, and I'm guessing the same rings true for Australia's as well. If the US states proved to be such a contentious bunch, it's only because the Mother Country made us this way.

              I'd guess that Russia would not have sold Alaska to Britain, at least not at 2˘ an acre. Anything more than 2˘ an acre would have cooled the exchequer's interest colder than liquid nitrogen.

              Napoleon would never have sold Louisiana: he would have lost it, once again, to the demographic pressure of westward expansion.

              Mexico stands out as a real wild card here. The pre-Santa Anna Mexican government induced "impresarios" like Stephan Austin to come to Texas in order to attract settlement and stabilize what had been 'til then a wild frontier. How the Crown would have viewed that I can't even hazard a guess.

              Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
              There is no reason whatever to suppose that London rule would have "restricted the economic growth " of North America. Why would it ? The whole point of the Empire was economic and material growth. Look at India. where the British went they brought infrastructure, civilisation (for what that's worth) and ,above all ,the Rule of Law.
              If the Crown saw peace and quiet as more important than the continued expansion of her troublesome colonies, then it is conceivable that British rule would have served to restrict the colonies' economic growth. How did Kipling put it: I’ve an educated taste in whiskey and women and waistcoats and bill o’fares—though I’ve had few chances to exercise it lately. Because they that govern spend all their time making up new laws to keep men like you and me from getting anywhere. And whose loss is it, in the long run? Why, England’s, of course. If such as we was given our heads, it’s not seventy millions she’d be making in revenues, but seven hundred millions!

              Suffice to say, even the Crown's subjects are less than unanimous in their view of the Crown's willingness to foster economic growth.

              Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
              There is no distinction drawn made between a British regime and any other "ruthless and expansionist colonial , imperial European Power" but it might be as well to remind ourselves that whatever liberal and enlightened notions the Founding Fathers had when they launched the Great Republic they had gained, largely ,from their free-thinking British forebears.
              Let's not shortchange the Iroquois Confederacy, and the Roman Republic: our Framers drew a lot of inspiration from them, as well.
              Last edited by slick_miester; 09 Jul 15, 14:16.
              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Savez View Post
                The mind of liberals.

                http://www.vox.com/2015/7/2/8884885/...lution-mistake

                http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...1#.VZ2-O2Eo7qD

                What's amazing is I can find the same things in that last article that was said during the antebellum period by Northern writers.
                It's not particularly "amazing" when you remember that history constantly repeats itself.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
                  Firstly, were the native North Americans better treated in the United States or Canada ? I don't know myself but I note that there was no equivalent of GEN Custer or his ilk wearing a red coat .This being so then there is no reason whatever to automatically assume that a British presence would have been as bad as what really eventuated.
                  Worse. A prime example is Sitting Bull choosing to face reservation life in the USA rather than remaining in Canada any longer.

                  And there were plenty of butchers in red coats. Who invited you to North America, or anywhere else? I doubt the Indians (of India) really wanted a bunch of white guys taking over. Lets not forget that the first concentration camps in history were British-run.

                  The British Empire was a terrible, terrible thing for the natives of the lands it took, as Kipling put it, 'with bayonet, fire, and sword'.

                  The USA can wash its hands of some native blood simply because they inherited a situation that the insatiable greed of the British Empire created.
                  Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Firstly, were the native North Americans better treated in the United States or Canada ? I don't know myself but I note that there was no equivalent of GEN Custer or his ilk wearing a red coat .This being so then there is no reason whatever to automatically assume that a British presence would have been as bad as what really eventuated
                    .

                    Perhaps if the Empire had not use NA Allies against British subjects (colonies) in the ARW the Americans would have had less hostility to wards the NA. American hostility toward the NA had an old history starting with the first English settlements. It is hardly something that the Colonist developed out of thin air. After all they were for the most part British to start with. Bloody British!
                    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      On the 'thousands of Americans drafted to fight' . They weren't drafted to fight the French except in defence of their own homes in the wars against France in the 18th century so no reason to suppose they would later. In Ww1 the Australian troops were volunteers.

                      On slavery, it was already abolished in the UK itself before the end of the war of independence and freedom was offered to slaves in the American colonies during the war. If anything a British America would see a quicker end to slavery throughout the Empire. One of the reasons for the rebellion was to keep slavery. Post slavery there would be prejudice of course but no equivalent of Jim Crow laws. Universal sufferage would have been much sooner in a British America than it was in real life.

                      What would happen to the Native Americans is a bit difficult. The obvious model is Australia. The Aboriginies situation isn't that much different from the Native Americans.

                      So overall average American pretty much the same, Black Americans much better, Native Americans just as bad.
                      "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                        .

                        Perhaps if the Empire had not use NA Allies against British subjects (colonies) in the ARW the Americans would have had less hostility to wards the NA. American hostility toward the NA had an old history starting with the first English settlements. It is hardly something that the Colonist developed out of thin air. After all they were for the most part British to start with. Bloody British!
                        Let's be fair here: the British were rank amateurs when it came to inducing Indians to slaughter their White Father's enemies. The real masters were the French. They had an almost magical knack for suckering Injuns into croakin' anybody they wished. I'm sure they're still digging up bones all along the road from lake George to Queensbury to Fort Edward up to the present day.
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                          Worse. A prime example is Sitting Bull choosing to face reservation life in the USA rather than remaining in Canada any longer.
                          Sitting Bull's decision to return to the US had nothing to do with "being treated worse" in Canada. In fact, quite the opposite, as he was treated as an honoured guest by the RCMP. The decision to return to the US was predicated primarily on the lack of local resources to sustain his band in Canada.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I don't know myself but I note that there was no equivalent of GEN Custer or his ilk wearing a red coat .
                            Lord Chelmsford, for one.

                            And I doubt Napoleon would have sold Louisiana peacefully to the UK, he could have diverted the army he sent to Haiti there instead, and wouldn't that have lead to a merry little chase?

                            and what's all this about no conscription in the 1800s?
                            Impressment is already forgotten?
                            "Why is the Rum gone?"

                            -Captain Jack

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                              On the 'thousands of Americans drafted to fight' . They weren't drafted to fight the French except in defence of their own homes in the wars against France in the 18th century so no reason to suppose they would later. In Ww1 the Australian troops were volunteers.
                              Australia had "dominion" status in WW1, no? Did Australia conscript soldiers, or did the British Army accept Australian volunteers?

                              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                              On slavery, it was already abolished in the UK itself before the end of the war of independence
                              In England and Wales slavery was abolished in 1772 (Somerset v Stewart.) In Scotland slavery was abolished in 1778 (Knight v Wedderburn.) When slavery was abolished in Ireland I do not know. Parliament's 1833 Act of Abolition excluded India. By contrast, slavery was ended in New York in 1827.

                              But even as late as 1861 a fair number of New Yorkers were sympathetic to the Confederate cause: Wall Street held a ton of slaverowners' notes, probably worth at least $1 billion, perhaps more. Indeed, such was New York City's interest in slavery that mere days before the Rebels opened fire on Fort Sumter, NYC Mayor Fernando Wood introduced a measure that would have had the City of New York secede from the United States and declare herself a free city. It would have passed, too, except the assault on Fort Sumter turned New Yorkers' sentiments around 180° overnight. Turn back the calender four score and five years, and those notes on slaves weren't held by The Street: they were held by the City of London. The successful conclusion of the American Revolution effectively repudiated the slaveowners' debts -- but had there been no revolution, then there ain't no way on God's Green Earth that the City would have allowed Westminster to abolish slavery -- not no fcking way in hell. Slavery may well have been abolished in England, Wales, and Scotland, but since the City had no skin there anyway, they didn't care. But it would be inconceivable for slavery to be abolished in the New World at that time -- not without throwing the whole of the UK into a credit crisis that would have made 2008's look like a walk in the park.

                              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                              and freedom was offered to slaves in the American colonies during the war.
                              That was a cynical move on Britain's part, and it backfired, as everyone saw that the Crown only made the offer in an attempt to destabilize the colonies' economies.

                              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                              If anything a British America would see a quicker end to slavery throughout the Empire. One of the reasons for the rebellion was to keep slavery.
                              I submit that slavery would have lasted until at least the 1860s -- as it did anyway, what with the UK's fortune being bound up in it.

                              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                              Post slavery there would be prejudice of course but no equivalent of Jim Crow laws. Universal sufferage would have been much sooner in a British America than it was in real life.
                              Every state in the Union had extended the franchise to non-property owning white males by 1856. New York had done so by 1821. North Carolina was the last state to follow suit in 1856.

                              The United Kingdom maintained a property qualification for voting until 1867.

                              Various states of the US extended the franchise to women at various times: NJ did so in 1776. Nationally the franchise was extended to all adult, white, female citizens, propertied and non-propertied alike, in 1920. The UK would not follow suit until 1928.

                              The Scottish historian Hew Strachan wrote that the UK's franchise was more restrictive than Hungary's in 1914, but more details I surely do not know.

                              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                              What would happen to the Native Americans is a bit difficult. The obvious model is Australia. The Aboriginies situation isn't that much different from the Native Americans.
                              That don't sound too good.

                              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                              So overall average American pretty much the same, Black Americans much better, Native Americans just as bad.
                              Blacks in Britain may be doing better, but before the 1950s there were probably too few there on which to base a judgement. How about those places throughout the British Empire where blacks were far more common: West Indies, South Africa, Rhodesia? How did blacks fare in those places under British rule?

                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%...United_Kingdom
                              http://www1.cuny.edu/portal_ur/conte...ilestones.html
                              http://www.victorianweb.org/history/hist2.html
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting..._United_States
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...York#Abolition
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaver...ition_Act_1833
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaver..._British_Isles
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart
                              I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X