"...not worthwhile,.. the death of anyone.." A true Leninist might question whether they killed enough.

Fr. Cardenal has now revealed himself to be a "counter-revolutionary bourgeoise traitor"--which is Marxist for "man with a consience." They're probably already denouncing him over at Daily Kos.

Kerry, a religious man himself, must be shocked ... just shocked.

Never say always.
Never say Never.

And never say it four times in a row.

It would be nice if all violent revolutions were a mistake, but they're not. That's where judgment comes in. The problem with the Nicaraguan revolution wasn't overthrowing the Somozas, but what they replaced it with.

Which weren't?

Ours, for starters.

Ours was.

No.

OJ wishes he were a British subject for some unknown reason. Without it's experience in the American revolution, the UK would be just like Canada and oj would be a proud canuck-like Britisher but with a German accent(in all probability).

The Republic would be improved by a monarch. We also would likely have avoided the Civil War and WWI. Certainly WWII.

We have, in effect, the incorporeal monarch. The best you can hope for from actual monarchs is that they're not too embarassing.

We would have avoided the Civil War by keeping slavery.

We would have been dragged into WWI earlier and lost WWII.

As any mathematician can tell you, revolutions go 360 degrees.

Our closer ties to Britain would have meant we had to ditch slavery with them. Who would have fought Britain knowing it meant they had to fight us too? Why would Britain have cared whether France or Germany was stronger knowinng together we were invincible?

As I read your comments on this subject OJ, my English Roman Catholic greatgrandfather must be spinning in his grave. Was there a particular Monarchy that could serve as your preferred model for governance?

OJ:

Would we ever have stretched out to the Pacific and become a great nation in the first place? You don't suppose Napoleon would have sold Louisiana to a bunch of British colonies, do you?

What-If history is just making stuff up, so I don't we why I can't if you can.

The British never would have abolished slavery in the South, and I have no idea why you think the South would acquiesce to the Crown when the mere election of Lincoln, who had no intention of abolishing slavery, was enough to cause a revolution.

Of course, you are also implicitly admitting, correctly, that the Declaration is just nuts when it complains about George III trying to "enslave" the colonies. That does, though, bring up the point that you have to go back and get rid of the English Civil War to even have a chance of this working, as the ECW caused the American revolution.

You say that we would be invincible, but for that to be even nearly true, Great Britain would have had to had in place American immigration policies. That wouldn't have happened. If it had happened, the American vote would have strengthened the hand of the appeasers and isolationists so that Chamberlain would not have fallen. In any event, the whole point of War I and War II was that the enemy completely underestimated us. That wouldn't have changed.

Of course the Declaration is just petulant mewling. That's the point. Things could have been settled amicably enough by either giving Americans representation in Parliament--at an early stage--or separate status and our own Parliament under the King.

Matt:

Who'd have asked him? We'd just have taken it.

Genecis:

George III

OJ: Sovereignty lies with King in Parliment. Parliment was very jealous of its rights and wasn't about to give up any to any upstart colony. The colonists made these various suggestions about representation, and were refused. The refusal wasn't surprising, as this was the time of rotten boroughs and a restricted franchise. Parliment was of the opinion that it could represent the colonies just fine -- and any contrary position would have called into question Parliment's legitimacy as a whole.

Once again, the problem is that, during and after the Civil War, the Restoration, the Glorious Revolution, etc., the British were paying attention only to the British, and the colonies were pretty much left to fend for themselves. This is the period known as the Benign Neglect.

When the Hanoverians tried to reassert the crown's primacy, which was thought to be greater in the colonies than in England proper, the colonists saw it as a loss of the virtual sovereignty they and their fathers had enjoyed for decades. It was conceivable for the crown and then Parliment to acquiesce in this independence, but in reality it was never going to happen because of the effect it would have had in Britain, which both Parliment and George cared about much more than the colonies.

In other words, given the situation in the mid-18th century, independence (or at least an armed revolution) was inevitable -- though neither party saw that.

After that, to assume that history without the American revolution would have unfolded in anything like the same way is almost Marxist.

Yes by the second half of the century it was too late for compromise with Parliament. However something like the Albany Plan would have worked fine.

History would have been much different---likely better.

Ah, an optimist.

Precisely. Revolution is a pessimist's out.

What could be more optimistic than George Washington setting out to deliver his people into freedom? What could be more pessimistic than the French setting out to level the classes? It's all in what you do with it.

Washington's optimism was heroic, maybe even reckless in light of the odds he faced. He may have understood the stakes involved as well as the potential of independence for the colonies. We can play the 'what if' game till the cows come home but Washington beleived that independence was the only alternative to the heavy handed British stupidity used to govern the colonies and the mercantilistic, zero-sum economics of the day. One can speculate that he was not overly optimistic regarding long term european prospects. Up to this point, history has proven him and his contemporaries to be correct regarding the larger issues. He would be surprised, however, regarding the direction the country took during the 20th century just as he was alarmed as the revolution in France developed into an exercise in abstract philosophising concerning the nature of man and the state. I'll go with Washington rather than oj.

David:

Yeah, we'd tired of making bricks without straw...

It's all in where you draw the line. If you are willing to pick up your musket at "taxation without representation", you never get to making bricks, with or without straw.

Would have been more noble had they asked to fight the French and Indians on their own.

Like the British ever had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a war with the French.