What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

How?

By ending their mercantilist policies and allowing for greater managed self-government (instead of just sort of allowing to happen through neglect as had happened to the American colonies) though obviously the Canadians in 1837 played a role.

[crazy canuck]

How?

By ending their mercantilist policies and allowing for greater managed self-government (instead of just sort of allowing to happen through neglect as had happened to the American colonies) though obviously the Canadians in 1837 played a role.

That's American myth making in action.

American colonies weren't neglected.  The Canadian colonies weren't neglected.  You just had a rambunctious group of landowning rebel browsers who didn't want to pay tax.

[HVC]

And some other land owners that wanted to expand into Indian land.

[Valmy]

That's American myth making in action.

American colonies weren't neglected.  The Canadian colonies weren't neglected.  You just had a rambunctious group of landowning rebel browsers who didn't want to pay tax.

Yes they were. Until they weren't. Ultimately that was what made the landowning rebels rambunctious.

Also the weird contradiction of tightly controlling trade while showing little interest in how they were run.

[PJL]

How?

By ending their mercantilist policies and allowing for greater managed self-government (instead of just sort of allowing to happen through neglect as had happened to the American colonies) though obviously the Canadians in 1837 played a role.

That's American myth making in action.

American colonies weren't neglected.  The Canadian colonies weren't neglected.  You just had a rambunctious group of landowning rebel browsers who didn't want to pay tax.

Incorrect, something like this did actually happen in Britain. Had the American Revolution not occurred, likely that Canada or the other colonies would not have been given more autonomy for their internal affairs. Arguably, the American Revolution is the single biggest reason why Britain eventually gave up its Empire voluntarily.

[Valmy]

And some other land owners that wanted to expand into Indian land.

Well they were sort of promised that as a result of expelling the French and then limited to doing that in what seemed like a very arbitrary way.

[Tonitrus]

Fair...I would have done better leaving the Founders out of it and sticking to the universalist idea. 

That said, the same could be applied to most of the world until at least the early/mid 20th century.

Genuine question but was the US founding/thinking behind it universalist - or particular to those colonies becoming states? Or possibly a hemispheric concept?

But all concepts of rights are historically and socially contingent. The same could be applied today and will be true tomorrow too.

I don't think the American revolution would have happened if not for the Enlightenment...at least, not in anywhere near the egalitarian (if flawed of course) form.

Especially as the southern colonies were probably the most resistant to the idea of rebellion.  Alternately, a non-happening revolution might have shifted to being a southern-colonial initiated rebellion over slavery when it came time for the British Empire to abolish it.

[HVC]

How?

By ending their mercantilist policies and allowing for greater managed self-government (instead of just sort of allowing to happen through neglect as had happened to the American colonies) though obviously the Canadians in 1837 played a role.

That's American myth making in action.

American colonies weren't neglected.  The Canadian colonies weren't neglected.  You just had a rambunctious group of landowning rebel browsers who didn't want to pay tax.

Incorrect, something like this did actually happen in Britain. Had the American Revolution not occurred, likely that Canada or the other colonies would not have been given more autonomy for their internal affairs. Arguably, the American Revolution is the single biggest reason why Britain eventually gave up its Empire voluntarily.

They gave up their empire in the 20th century. Quite the lag hah. Carribean and India stayed because those were the cash cows. Canada got freedom because the uk didn't lose anything in doing so. 13 colonies would be a toss up once cotton got really going

[HVC]

And some other land owners that wanted to expand into Indian land.

Well they were sort of promised that as a result of expelling the French and then limited to doing that in what seemed like a very arbitrary way.

You didn't want to pay taxes for the costs of protecting you from native retribution

Free riding if you will ... I miss Yi

[crazy canuck]

And some other land owners that wanted to expand into Indian land.

Well yes, American imperialism within North America undermines their claim to universal rights. The rights were always only those that were given to certain Americans.

[crazy canuck]

That's American myth making in action.

American colonies weren't neglected.  The Canadian colonies weren't neglected.  You just had a rambunctious group of landowning rebel browsers who didn't want to pay tax.

Yes they were. Until they weren't. Ultimately that was what made the landowning rebels rambunctious.

Also the weird contradiction of tightly controlling trade while showing little interest in how they were run.

Look, I know that's the mantra of American myth but how were the American colonies neglected?

Your rebellion needed to be justified and my God has it been justified to the extent that most Americans cannot see the contradictions.

[HVC]

And some other land owners that wanted to expand into Indian land.

Well yes, American imperialism within North America undermines their claim to universal rights. The rights were always only those that were given to certain Americans.

I meant more as an unhighlighted reason for separation, but that too.

[Jacob]

The recent spate of USSC inconsistent decisions reminds me of Arendt's  observation that the objective of a totalitarian regime is not conviction but exhaustion. The goal is not to create true believers. The goal is to create a population who no longer cares what is true.

There is then no need to convince people the lie is true, because they no longer care.

This definitely matches the "everyone is corrupt, why care" sentiment you get from many East Europeans who were previously under Communist dictatorship.

I appreciate having that reframed as a deliberate result of totalitarian policy (rather than, say, as a moral flaw of some sort).

[crazy canuck]

And some other land owners that wanted to expand into Indian land.

Well yes, American imperialism within North America undermines their claim to universal rights. The rights were always only those that were given to certain Americans.

I meant more as an unhighlighted reason for separation, but that too.

Do you think they had imperialism in mind right at the start, or did that come later?

[HVC]

Personally I think from the start. The desire to take native land was a strong, but often overlooked, impetipus for self rule. If the old homeland wasn't going to allow it then separation was a necessity.

Although I guess you can quibble on the strict definition of imperialism. At that point it wasn't necessarily to expand the colonies so much as it was rich land and rich people wanted it to make themselves richer. For the glory of the new motherland came a bit later.