Happy Trianon Treaty Day!

[Barrister]

You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles?

But would you really consider people who don't share the principles that we are created equal with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and have a right to self determination when confronted with tyranny, to be men?

I don't see any of that which is in conflict with the Loyalists position (well no more so than the US was in conflict with it given slavery and all that).

[Valmy]

You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles?

I said it was better not perfect

And expelled is a bit...strong.

[alfred russel]

I don't see any of that which is in conflict with the Loyalists position (well no more so than the US was in conflict with it given slavery and all that).

Propoganda can be effective it seems, and I fear generations of subjugation to a foreign crown has left you brainwashed. 

[Barrister]

You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles?

I said it was better not perfect

And expelled is a bit...strong.

But it's really, really hard to build a nation around a "shared political belief".  The US did it by urging those who opposed to emigrate.  It took the French what - until at least 1870, or even arguably 1945, to come to a true concensus about their republican political ideology.  The USSR tried for 70 years and couldn't do it.

[garbon]

Yes and why Nation States are ultimately not a good idea.  I like my states based on shared political principals and not nationality or ethnicity.  Because you are never going to have a pure state without some pretty horrible shenanigans.  Also times change and populations shift.  A more flexible basis for the country can guide it peacefully through those sorts of tansitions.

You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles?

Where did they go?

Principly Canada, but to varous parts of the Empire.

Well I guess there is always something difficulty when founding a nation to incorporate those who don't want to a new nation formed.

[Barrister]

Yes and why Nation States are ultimately not a good idea.  I like my states based on shared political principals and not nationality or ethnicity.  Because you are never going to have a pure state without some pretty horrible shenanigans.  Also times change and populations shift.  A more flexible basis for the country can guide it peacefully through those sorts of tansitions.

You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles?

Where did they go?

Principly Canada, but to varous parts of the Empire.

Well I guess there is always something difficulty when founding a nation to incorporate those who don't want to a new nation formed.

But when discussing expulsions to form a unified country, how is it any different when you are expelling people based on political beliefs, or ethnic heritage?

[garbon]

But when discussing expulsions to form a unified country, how is it any different when you are expelling people based on political beliefs, or ethnic heritage?

Well the later is rather nebulous plus individuals have no real choice in the matter (besides trying to manipulate the general consensus on what constitutes a given ethnicity).

[alfred russel]

But it's really, really hard to build a nation around a "shared political belief".  The US did it by urging those who opposed to emigrate.  It took the French what - until at least 1870, or even arguably 1945, to come to a true concensus about their republican political ideology.  The USSR tried for 70 years and couldn't do it.

In seriousness, I don't disagree that those opposed were encouraged/forced to emigrate by various means, but I don't think that is how the US built the nation. In 1776 there were 2 million or so people in the 13 colonies. I don't know the numbers that left, but whatever it was ended up being swamped by new immigration in a relatively short time.

[Valmy]

But it's really, really hard to build a nation around a "shared political belief".  The US did it by urging those who opposed to emigrate.

Pretty sure that was not instrumental to forming the country at all.  That was emotional and based on the violence of the war, not because we had to expel them because they were lighting themselves on fire to protest the Articles of Confederation.  Further, I do not see anything in the Constitution most Loyalists couldn't live with.

[Barrister]

But it's really, really hard to build a nation around a "shared political belief".  The US did it by urging those who opposed to emigrate.  It took the French what - until at least 1870, or even arguably 1945, to come to a true concensus about their republican political ideology.  The USSR tried for 70 years and couldn't do it.

In seriousness, I don't disagree that those opposed were encouraged/forced to emigrate by various means, but I don't think that is how the US built the nation. In 1776 there were 2 million or so people in the 13 colonies. I don't know the numbers that left, but whatever it was ended up being swamped by new immigration in a relatively short time.

According to wiki estimates are 20% of the popuation were loyalists, saying 500,000 of 2.5 mil (well - white population at least).

As we in Canada can tell you it's a bit of a problem if 20% of your population fundamentally doesn't "buy in" to your national ideal.

I read a book on the history of Latin America recently.  One of it's main thesis points were that Latin American countries fundamentally had to "national ideal" like the US did - it's revolutions were promoted by the local elites with the primary purpose to continue the status quo.

[garbon]

But it's really, really hard to build a nation around a "shared political belief".  The US did it by urging those who opposed to emigrate.  It took the French what - until at least 1870, or even arguably 1945, to come to a true concensus about their republican political ideology.  The USSR tried for 70 years and couldn't do it.

In seriousness, I don't disagree that those opposed were encouraged/forced to emigrate by various means, but I don't think that is how the US built the nation. In 1776 there were 2 million or so people in the 13 colonies. I don't know the numbers that left, but whatever it was ended up being swamped by new immigration in a relatively short time.

According to wiki estimates are 20% of the popuation were loyalists, saying 500,000 of 2.5 mil (well - white population at least).

As we in Canada can tell you it's a bit of a problem if 20% of your population fundamentally doesn't "buy in" to your national ideal.

I read a book on the history of Latin America recently.  One of it's main thesis points were that Latin American countries fundamentally had to "national ideal" like the US did - it's revolutions were promoted by the local elites with the primary purpose to continue the status quo.

How "fundamentally" opposed did one have to be a loyalist? Didn't the latter term just mean you were in favor of sticking with Britain without really saying how committed you were to that idea? One might just have been a loyalist because they feared disruption to trade/what would happen if their small population was unable to defeat Great Britain.

[Valmy]

According to wiki estimates are 20% of the popuation were loyalists, saying 500,000 of 2.5 mil (well - white population at least).

As we in Canada can tell you it's a bit of a problem if 20% of your population fundamentally doesn't "buy in" to your national ideal.

Well I would just like to note that Canada has had far greater success dealing with Quebecois than most old world nations have had with national and ethnic minorities.

And I have heard estimates as high as 50% were Loyalists or at least not Patriots.  Since neither 20% nor 50% of the population was expelled I have to question your belief that we drove them all out.

I read a book on the history of Latin America recently.  One of it's main thesis points were that Latin American countries fundamentally had to "national ideal" like the US did - it's revolutions were promoted by the local elites with the primary purpose to continue the status quo.

I completely miss your point here.

I am also not claiming that not building states around ethnicity or nationality is the way to utopia and eternal goodness and light.   Just that it is better.

[Neil]

Further, I do not see anything in the Constitution most Loyalists couldn't live with.

The lack of subordination to the King?

[Valmy]

The lack of subordination to the King?

Well besides that!

[Barrister]

How "fundamentally" opposed did one have to be a loyalist? Didn't the latter term just mean you were in favor of sticking with Britain without really saying how committed you were to that idea? One might just have been a loyalist because they feared disruption to trade/what would happen if their small population was unable to defeat Great Britain.

I gather it had little to do with one's beliefs, but ones actions.  If you supported the Loyalist cause - either out of patriotism, loyalty, or just to preserve one's business - you were ostracized in post-revolutionary America and many felt they had no choice but to leave.