NATION

PASSWORD

Should America have declared independence in hindsight?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

Should America have declared independence in hindsight?

Yes
140
77%
No
43
23%
 
Total votes : 183

User avatar
Grinning Dragon
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11114
Founded: May 16, 2011
Anarchy

Postby Grinning Dragon » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:16 am

Not only YES, but FUCK YES.
In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

User avatar
The Huskar Social Union
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 59294
Founded: Apr 04, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Huskar Social Union » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:25 am

Yanks rise up
Irish Nationalist from Belfast / Leftwing / Atheist / Alliance Party voter
"I never thought in terms of being a leader, i thought very simply in terms of helping people" - John Hume 1937 - 2020



I like Miniature painting, Tanks, English Gals, Video games and most importantly Cheese.


User avatar
Munkcestrian RepubIic
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1984
Founded: May 05, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Munkcestrian RepubIic » Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:26 am

Old Tyrannia wrote:
Munkcestrian RepubIic wrote:Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

Not according to a Christian worldview.
What makes your monarch legitimate?

The legitimacy of the British monarchy stems from the ancient traditions and laws of the United Kingdom and its predecessor states, stretching back to time immemorial.
Why do you actually believe this?

As a Christian I naturally accept the teachings of the Bible and the traditions of the church as authoritative in matters of ethics.

Not according to your worldview, you mean.

'Time immemorial' is a very funny way to get around the issue of the Conquest! "America was not conquered by William the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him, or any of his successors" and therefore the British monarchy has no legitimacy in America.

Jesus was a millenarian Jewish revolutionary (and that's a good thing!). The notion that the tribute incident actually happened and, like the Pilate narrative, was anything more than an invention of Hellenisers trying to make Christianity more palatable to Roman gentiles is frankly ridiculous.
MUNKCESTRIAN REPUBLIC
FORTITERDEFENDITTRIUMPHANS

formerly Munkchester — formerly Munkcestrian Republic — he/him/his
Pro-Slavery Alliance

User avatar
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13400
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Wed Feb 03, 2021 6:37 am

Yes, but then Canada should have stayed around after 1812 so that we instead just have one big Canada bordering Mexico.
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163899
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:47 am

Well on the one hand, America is a pretty bad country. But on the other, so is the UK. So I guess it doesn't matter.
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

User avatar
Echo Chamber Thought Police
Diplomat
 
Posts: 935
Founded: Jan 25, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Echo Chamber Thought Police » Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:51 am

Ifreann wrote:Well on the one hand, America is a pretty bad country. But on the other, so is the UK. So I guess it doesn't matter.

Image
Add circa 10,000 posts on to current account, founded May 14th 2018. Agarntrop is other account.
LOHG: A UK-based political RP
OCCUPY THE HEDGEFUNDS - INVEST IN GAMESTOP
Left-leaning Social Democrat
You Have No Authority Here, Jackie Weaver

User avatar
Old Tyrannia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 16673
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Old Tyrannia » Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:03 am

Munkcestrian RepubIic wrote:
Old Tyrannia wrote:
Not according to a Christian worldview.

The legitimacy of the British monarchy stems from the ancient traditions and laws of the United Kingdom and its predecessor states, stretching back to time immemorial.

As a Christian I naturally accept the teachings of the Bible and the traditions of the church as authoritative in matters of ethics.

Not according to your worldview, you mean.

My worldview is a Christian worldview, rooted in scripture and in the historic traditions of the English church going back to the time of the church fathers. There are certainly things I believe that not all Christians believe, and I do not believe that my views should form the litmus test for what is and isn't a Christian view; but the statement "rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God" has no support either in the Bible or in 2,000 years of the church's teachings, and indeed is plainly contradicted by scriptural teaching. That's not surprising given its source was a non-Christian looking to justify his support for treason. I feel confident therefore in saying that your sentiment is not in any way a Christian one.
'Time immemorial' is a very funny way to get around the issue of the Conquest!

Right of conquest was an accepted legal mechanism for the transfer of sovereignty in the context of the early middle ages. William of Normandy was no subject of the English Crown and therefore no rebel, and he was not the first foreign conqueror to take the throne of England in that way. However, the Crown as an institution has its roots in a time much earlier than William's conquest; the English monarchy was responsible for the creation of the nation itself and its laws, and therein lies its claim to sovereignty. Besides, William's son Henry I married into the line of the House of Wessex, meaning all subsequent monarchs (save the usurper King Stephen) could trace their ancestry back to the first kings of Wessex and England. At any rate the early English monarchy was formally elective, though customarily restricted to the male scions of the Wessex dynasty, so the fact that later monarchs could not claim an unbroken line of succession back to the Anglo-Saxon kings is not really a significant issue with regards to their legitimacy.
"America was not conquered by William the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him, or any of his successors" and therefore the British monarchy has no legitimacy in America.

The American colonial population were largely Englishmen by birth, and the Thirteen Colonies were initially claimed in the name of the English (later British) Crown, so to say that they weren't conquered by any of William's successors is plainly false.
Jesus was a millenarian Jewish revolutionary (and that's a good thing!). The notion that the tribute incident actually happened and, like the Pilate narrative, was anything more than an invention of Hellenisers trying to make Christianity more palatable to Roman gentiles is frankly ridiculous.

This is just conspiracy theorist nonsense. Regardless of what some people would like to believe Christ was not some kind of proto-communist revolutionary, any more than he was a gun-toting capitalist conservative. There is no evidence that the New Testament was deliberately altered to appeal to the Romans, and even if there were any kind of support for that idea amongst academic scholars of the Bible it would still be a view rejected by any orthodox Christian.
"Classicist in literature, royalist in politics, and Anglo-Catholic in religion" (T.S. Eliot). Still, unaccountably, a NationStates Moderator.
"Have I done something for the general interest? Well then, I have had my reward. Let this always be present to thy mind, and never stop doing such good." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations (Book XI, IV)
⚜ GOD SAVE THE KING

User avatar
Western Fardelshufflestein
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5048
Founded: Apr 21, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Western Fardelshufflestein » Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:14 am

Grinning Dragon wrote:Not only YES, but FUCK YES.
In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

AAAAWWWW YEEEEEEAAAAH.

Image
The Constitutional Monarchy of Western Fardelshufflestein
Always Has Been. | WF's User Be Like | NSG is Budget Twitter | Yo, Kenneth Branagh won an Oscar
Tiny, Shakespeare-obsessed island nation northeast of NZ settled by HRE emigrants who thought they'd landed in the West Indies. F7 Stuff Mostly Not Canon; RP is in real time; Ignore Stats; Still Not Kenneth Branagh. | A L A S T A I R C E P T I O N
The Western Fardelshufflestein Sentinel | 27 November 2022 bUt wHy iS tHE rUm gOnE!?

User avatar
Adamede
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7809
Founded: Jul 22, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Adamede » Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:27 am

Old Tyrannia wrote:No. Rebellion against a legitimate monarch is always a sin. The United States is a monument to man's hubristic rejection of God.

If god has a problem with it he can come down here himself instead of handing out the “divine right of kings” to anyone who happened to have the right parents.

User avatar
Bienenhalde
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6388
Founded: Mar 11, 2017
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Bienenhalde » Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:54 am

I don't think direct rule from London would have been good for the US per se, but I do think the American revolutionaries were in the wrong. Canada followed a better path with peaceful devolution of power and retention of the monarchy and parliamentary system of government.

User avatar
Adamede
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7809
Founded: Jul 22, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Adamede » Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:56 am

Bienenhalde wrote:I don't think direct rule from London would have been good for the US per se, but I do think the American revolutionaries were in the wrong. Canada followed a better path with peaceful devolution of power and retention of the monarchy and parliamentary system of government.

The main reason Canada was given home rule was because of America. Namely the threat of American conquest of Canada, along with a series of rebellions in Canada in the 1830’s and 40’s.
Last edited by Adamede on Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Western Fardelshufflestein
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5048
Founded: Apr 21, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Western Fardelshufflestein » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:00 am

Bienenhalde wrote:I don't think direct rule from London would have been good for the US per se, but I do think the American revolutionaries were in the wrong. Canada followed a better path with peaceful devolution of power and retention of the monarchy and parliamentary system of government.

Maybe, but they're still part of the Commonwealth of Britain on paper. (Literally, because of their money.) And America is just
Like
*EPIC GUITAR CHORD*
The Constitutional Monarchy of Western Fardelshufflestein
Always Has Been. | WF's User Be Like | NSG is Budget Twitter | Yo, Kenneth Branagh won an Oscar
Tiny, Shakespeare-obsessed island nation northeast of NZ settled by HRE emigrants who thought they'd landed in the West Indies. F7 Stuff Mostly Not Canon; RP is in real time; Ignore Stats; Still Not Kenneth Branagh. | A L A S T A I R C E P T I O N
The Western Fardelshufflestein Sentinel | 27 November 2022 bUt wHy iS tHE rUm gOnE!?

User avatar
A-Series-Of-Tubes
Minister
 
Posts: 2708
Founded: Dec 16, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby A-Series-Of-Tubes » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:05 am

Old Tyrannia wrote:
Munkcestrian RepubIic wrote:Not according to your worldview, you mean.

My worldview is a Christian worldview, rooted in scripture and in the historic traditions of the English church going back to the time of the church fathers. There are certainly things I believe that not all Christians believe, and I do not believe that my views should form the litmus test for what is and isn't a Christian view; but the statement "rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God" has no support either in the Bible or in 2,000 years of the church's teachings, and indeed is plainly contradicted by scriptural teaching. That's not surprising given its source was a non-Christian looking to justify his support for treason. I feel confident therefore in saying that your sentiment is not in any way a Christian one.


"Establishment" was a Church held hostage by the British Monarchy, not to mention imposed on the people. To Christians of anything but "the church" as you call it, Establishment was a sin preceding America's rebellion against said Monarch.

"There are certainly things I believe that not all Christians believe, and I do not believe that my views should form the litmus test for what is and isn't a Christian view"

Well yeah. Establishment cannot be religiously justified by "there's nothing in the Bible against it" and if you can't justify it then your "Christian" defense of the Monarchy collapses.
True Centrist: Someone who changes the subject whenever it sounds like politics.
Please don't report each other to find out if a rule was broken ... If you're not sure, do not report.

User avatar
The Two Jerseys
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20981
Founded: Jun 07, 2012
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Two Jerseys » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:17 am

Western Fardelshufflestein wrote:
Bienenhalde wrote:I don't think direct rule from London would have been good for the US per se, but I do think the American revolutionaries were in the wrong. Canada followed a better path with peaceful devolution of power and retention of the monarchy and parliamentary system of government.

Maybe, but they're still part of the Commonwealth of Britain on paper. (Literally, because of their money.) And America is just
Like
*EPIC GUITAR CHORD*

EPIC GUITAR CHORD
"The Duke of Texas" is too formal for regular use. Just call me "Your Grace".
"If I would like to watch goodness, sanity, God and logic being fucked I would watch Japanese porn." -Nightkill the Emperor
"This thread makes me wish I was a moron so that I wouldn't have to comprehend how stupid the topic is." -The Empire of Pretantia
Head of State: HM King Louis
Head of Government: The Rt. Hon. James O'Dell MP, Prime Minister
Ambassador to the World Assembly: HE Sir John Ross "J.R." Ewing II, Bt.
Join Excalibur Squadron. We're Commandos who fly Spitfires. Chicks dig Commandos who fly Spitfires.

User avatar
A-Series-Of-Tubes
Minister
 
Posts: 2708
Founded: Dec 16, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby A-Series-Of-Tubes » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:29 am

Bienenhalde wrote:I don't think direct rule from London would have been good for the US per se, but I do think the American revolutionaries were in the wrong. Canada followed a better path with peaceful devolution of power and retention of the monarchy and parliamentary system of government.


"Devolution" seems accurate. Canada did not become independent all at once. As late as 1931 the British parliament could still legislate for Canada (and for Aus as late as 1942 lest I seem to boast). Canada only became genuinely independent -- fully controlling it's own constitution -- in 1982.

Australia meanwhile is de facto Independent, but technically under the British Crown. I find it funny that technically the Queen can take control of any Australian State by assuming the role of Governor ... but only if she is personally present in the State!
True Centrist: Someone who changes the subject whenever it sounds like politics.
Please don't report each other to find out if a rule was broken ... If you're not sure, do not report.

User avatar
Old Tyrannia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 16673
Founded: Aug 11, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby Old Tyrannia » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:34 am

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:
Old Tyrannia wrote:My worldview is a Christian worldview, rooted in scripture and in the historic traditions of the English church going back to the time of the church fathers. There are certainly things I believe that not all Christians believe, and I do not believe that my views should form the litmus test for what is and isn't a Christian view; but the statement "rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God" has no support either in the Bible or in 2,000 years of the church's teachings, and indeed is plainly contradicted by scriptural teaching. That's not surprising given its source was a non-Christian looking to justify his support for treason. I feel confident therefore in saying that your sentiment is not in any way a Christian one.


"Establishment" was a Church held hostage by the British Monarchy, not to mention imposed on the people. To Christians of anything but "the church" as you call it, Establishment was a sin preceding America's rebellion against said Monarch.

"There are certainly things I believe that not all Christians believe, and I do not believe that my views should form the litmus test for what is and isn't a Christian view"

Well yeah. Establishment cannot be religiously justified by "there's nothing in the Bible against it" and if you can't justify it then your "Christian" defense of the Monarchy collapses.

On what grounds do you call establishment a "sin?" The relationship between church and state in the United Kingdom is a reflection of an ideal deeply rooted in Christian tradition, going back to the later Roman Empire where the undivided patristic church also served as the national religion of the empire until its demise in the west. The Eastern Roman Empire continued to subscribe to the concept of symphonia, in which the church and state are equal but interdependent, up until its destruction in 1453. Likewise there was no separation between church and state in the modern sense in the Roman Catholic realms of Europe until fairly recently in historical terms and the Protestant Reformers in Central and Northern Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries were hardly enthusiastic supporters of state secularism either. There may be Christians who regard the establishment of the Church of England as a sinful state of affairs but they are unlikely to be significant in numbers either amongst modern Christians or when weighed against the great majority of Christians who have ever lived, unless you count non-Anglicans objecting to the fact that it is the Protestant Anglican church rather than the Roman Catholic or some other church that is established in England.

Regardless, I've at no point brought up the established status of the Church of England in this thread. I specifically pointed out that the New Testament commands Christians to submit to the authority of the decidedly non-Christian Roman Empire of the 1st century AD, and consequently the religious status of the British monarchy in the 18th century is not really relevant to my argument that Christians are required to submit to all lawful authorities placed over them.
"Classicist in literature, royalist in politics, and Anglo-Catholic in religion" (T.S. Eliot). Still, unaccountably, a NationStates Moderator.
"Have I done something for the general interest? Well then, I have had my reward. Let this always be present to thy mind, and never stop doing such good." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations (Book XI, IV)
⚜ GOD SAVE THE KING

User avatar
Nilokeras
Senator
 
Posts: 3955
Founded: Jul 14, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Nilokeras » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:41 am

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:
Nilokeras wrote:The incorrect assumption built into the heart of the OP's wall of text and tepid fantasies is that the cozy independence of places like Canada and Australia were built off of the lessons colonial powers learned in the American war of independence and all of the other movements that spawned out of them in South America. One doesn't exist without the other.


The "cozy independence" of Australia came more than a century later.


Correct. And the independence of Australia was only possible because of the wars of independence in the previous century which proved the difficulty in holding colonies and in maintaining extractive economic or political regimes in them against the consent of the population.

User avatar
Kowani
Post Czar
 
Posts: 44957
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:13 am

Nejii wrote:
Kowani wrote:okay
these polities were all imperialistic, but they were not colonialist, not in the same way European colonialism worked
the paradigms were very different
it doesn't make them good, but it does make them different



colonialism: the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.

The Europeans did this of course.

But the Moors - excuse me - the Umayyad caliphate, one could say also did this. They swarmed through Iberia and up towards France and were stopped at the battle of Tours. Even after the caliphate fell Iberia remained under the rule of invasive foreigners which was enforced by militarism. The Europeans native to Iberia fought against this foreign presence for centuries (the Recqonquista).
This is a tragic misunderstanding of what actually happened.
So firstly, this fails your specific definition test because al-Andalus was not “economically exploited”, the Muslims turned it into one of the most economically powerful parts of Europe.
2: The native Visigoths didn’t really resist it for most of history, it’s why the invasion of the peninsula was so easy. The majority of peasants pre-Islam didn’t actually like the royal family for…various reasons.
3: The Reconquista was waged by people native to Iberia, but it’s a mistake to call it some sort of resistance effort, seeing as the majority of Christians living in al-Andalus were actually quite content with it. A war of Liberation might be a more fitting comparison, starting at the Battle of Covandonga.
4: Calling them “invasive foreigners” is a bit reductive, seeing as the Muslims had been living in al-Andalus (under various different states and rulers) for a good 700 years.


The native peoples of America were indeed subject to colonial imperialism and many of them fought the invading Europeans to the bitter end. Yes, things coursed differently in the Americas regarding the European conquest, but let’s not pretend like it was something brand new to history.
(I mean seriously, history is built on conquest and expansionism.)

Yes, European colonialism was without question immensely historically impactful and did result in the extinction of entire cultures and the sovereignty of indigenous folk. That makes it unique for the worst. But history is full of colonial imperialism. The base point I’m drilling at is that it’s annoying that people pretend like the European expansion into the Western Hemisphere is a solely unique happening throughout all of history. (In regards to invading and subjugating other cultures and peoples.)

But this tangential to the thread in question unfortunately.
You have entirely missed the point of what I was saying, then
Last edited by Kowani on Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
American History and Historiography; Political and Labour History, Urbanism, Political Parties, Congressional Procedure, Elections.

Servant of The Democracy since 1896.


Historian, of sorts.

Effortposts can be found here!

User avatar
The Huskar Social Union
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 59294
Founded: Apr 04, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The Huskar Social Union » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:24 am

Echo Chamber Thought Police wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Well on the one hand, America is a pretty bad country. But on the other, so is the UK. So I guess it doesn't matter.

Image

SONNTAG
Irish Nationalist from Belfast / Leftwing / Atheist / Alliance Party voter
"I never thought in terms of being a leader, i thought very simply in terms of helping people" - John Hume 1937 - 2020



I like Miniature painting, Tanks, English Gals, Video games and most importantly Cheese.


User avatar
Nilokeras
Senator
 
Posts: 3955
Founded: Jul 14, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Nilokeras » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:25 am

Nejii wrote:But the Moors - excuse me - the Umayyad caliphate, one could say also did this. They swarmed through Iberia and up towards France and were stopped at the battle of Tours. Even after the caliphate fell Iberia remained under the rule of invasive foreigners which was enforced by militarism. The Europeans native to Iberia fought against this foreign presence for centuries (the Recqonquista).


Again, nuance seems to be beyond your analysis. There is no indication that the force the Umayyads brought to Tours was anything other than a raiding party that had become wildly overextended. Later European imaginations turned it into a repulsion of an invasion. And of course the hallmark of the rule of those 'invasive foreigners' as an almost complete lack of resistance on the part of the Iberian population. Why? Because like with the other Arab conquests the conquest of Iberia was not done in a systematized way designed to subjugate the Iberians. Local lords and power structures were allowed to remain intact, and the actual population and garrison strength of the Arabs and Berbers remained very small. It was the replacement of one elite stratum (the Visigothic royal court) with another (the Berber and Arab garrison commanders and the governor), that was characterized by almost complete independence from the central Caliphate. It meets none of the criteria for what we'd call 'imperialism' or 'colonialism' because those are modern concepts, built to describe the modern European colonial states.
Last edited by Nilokeras on Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1561
Founded: May 20, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:29 am

Atheris wrote:
Old Tyrannia wrote:I don't see where I said the British Empire was the "epitome of Christendom." The New Testament commands Christians living in the Roman Empire at the time it was written to submit to the authority of the Roman emperors; unless you believe that ancient Rome was more "Christian" than 18th century Britain I don't see why British subjects would be any less bound to obey the legitimate authority of the Crown.

The Crown's authority isn't legitimate. It's just a woman with a fancy title and a lucky birth.

no mandate of heaven? smh my head
bad reply? a random criminal/civilian will be sent to SweatshopvilleTM. To date, 63+ have been sent. stonks for apotheosis 2024
pronouns i keep in my washed pasta sauce jars: she, they, he; hedonism is based
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth

*juggling vials of covid vaccine* come get yall's juice

User avatar
Adamede
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7809
Founded: Jul 22, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Adamede » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:29 am

Nilokeras wrote:
Nejii wrote:But the Moors - excuse me - the Umayyad caliphate, one could say also did this. They swarmed through Iberia and up towards France and were stopped at the battle of Tours. Even after the caliphate fell Iberia remained under the rule of invasive foreigners which was enforced by militarism. The Europeans native to Iberia fought against this foreign presence for centuries (the Recqonquista).


Again, nuance seems to be beyond your analysis. There is no indication that the force the Umayyads brought to Tours was anything other than a raiding party that had become wildly overextended. Later European imaginations turned it into a repulsion of an invasion. And of course the hallmark of the rule of those 'invasive foreigners' as an almost complete lack of resistance on the part of the Iberian population. Why? Because like with the other Arab conquests the conquest of Iberia was not done in a systematized way designed to subjugate the Iberians. Local lords and power structures were allowed to remain intact, and the actual population and garrison strength of the Arabs and Berbers remained very small. It was the replacement of one elite stratum (the Visigothic royal court) with another (the Berber and Arab garrison commanders and the governor), that was characterized by almost complete independence from the central Caliphate. It meets none of the criteria for what we'd call 'imperialism' or 'colonialism' because those are modern concepts, built to describe the modern European colonial states.

What exactly is the criteria for “imperialism”?

User avatar
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1561
Founded: May 20, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:39 am

warmer than room temperature take: america should never have been colonized
the fact remains that it was though, so as for the original question: independence is a pro gamer move
bad reply? a random criminal/civilian will be sent to SweatshopvilleTM. To date, 63+ have been sent. stonks for apotheosis 2024
pronouns i keep in my washed pasta sauce jars: she, they, he; hedonism is based
according to legend, i once wrote:agender mars-colony automated decadent libertarian anti-statist degrowth

*juggling vials of covid vaccine* come get yall's juice

User avatar
Nilokeras
Senator
 
Posts: 3955
Founded: Jul 14, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Nilokeras » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:44 am

Adamede wrote:
Nilokeras wrote:
Again, nuance seems to be beyond your analysis. There is no indication that the force the Umayyads brought to Tours was anything other than a raiding party that had become wildly overextended. Later European imaginations turned it into a repulsion of an invasion. And of course the hallmark of the rule of those 'invasive foreigners' as an almost complete lack of resistance on the part of the Iberian population. Why? Because like with the other Arab conquests the conquest of Iberia was not done in a systematized way designed to subjugate the Iberians. Local lords and power structures were allowed to remain intact, and the actual population and garrison strength of the Arabs and Berbers remained very small. It was the replacement of one elite stratum (the Visigothic royal court) with another (the Berber and Arab garrison commanders and the governor), that was characterized by almost complete independence from the central Caliphate. It meets none of the criteria for what we'd call 'imperialism' or 'colonialism' because those are modern concepts, built to describe the modern European colonial states.

What exactly is the criteria for “imperialism”?


The usual definition is tied to the ways in which power is exerted and economic/social/political affairs in conquered states is exercised. The imperial core or metropole is the 'home country', which exerts power and control over the periphery, which could be colonies or conquered states. These colonies are run with the explicit gain of the imperial core in mind and have a limited ability to govern themselves or arrange their affairs to their own interests. This also extends to countries that fall within the 'sphere of interest' of imperial states, where military, political and economic pressure is applied through a variety of channels to ensure that the imperial core's interests are maintained, even at the expense of the local government's ability to govern. Another useful guideline is that imperialist systems are the product of bureaucratic states, and evolved out of the centralizing impulse of European monarchies.

To compare and contrast, the conquest of Iberia was not imperialist because it was not done at the behest or to the benefit of any imperial core. It was in fact initiated independently by a provincial governor, and the central caliphal government received very little benefit from the conquests - proceeds from the invasion and the governance of al-Andalus stayed in the hands of the participants, and the participants' lack of interest in dismantling the Visigothic tax and ruling structure showed that they had no intention in reordering their territories to anyone else's benefit.

Compare to say, the British East India Company's holdings in India, where home rule was extremely limited and economic affairs were forcibly re-oriented (often to disastrous effect, a la the famine of 1770) to benefit Britain.
Last edited by Nilokeras on Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:50 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Nejii
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1548
Founded: Jun 24, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Nejii » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:12 pm

Adamede wrote:What exactly is the criteria for “imperialism”?


Boil it all the way down to the bare-bone left wing stance and it's "whiteness". Not referencing Nilokeras directly, that is ultimately the ingrained left-wing stance on imperialism. Even disregarding the campaigns of the Umayyad caliphate there are plenty of other cases in history of non-European imperialism, "but those don't count". Unfortunately the brutality and impactful effects of European colonialism automatically glosses over any acknowledgement of other cultures and peoples expansionism in history. Imperialism in truth is becoming one of those "rubber ball terms" that's ricocheted around the room like the terms "racism" and "sexism". It's getting easier and easier to brush it aside as time passes because it's used as a dog whistle.
Radical centrist tilting more and more to the right (socially)...

The Horst-Wessel-Lied is very catchy.

Growing more unapologetic by the day.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: American Legionaries, Ancientania, Big Eyed Animation, Deblar, Fartsniffage, General TN, Ifreann, Ineva, Ors Might, Repreteop, Singaporen Empire, Statesburg, The Black Forrest, Tungstan, Xoshen

Advertisement

Remove ads