Having said that, I am temporarily revoking my Villa hatred. You lot had better stuff Newcastle at the weekend. I need my fix of fat, crying, shirtless Geordies. Its a sickness.
Well dunno if anyone is still interested but I studied the history of the American West at A level (don’t ask, I know of no other school that did) And that was only interesting in the sense that all-history-is-interesting sort of way.
Learnt a lot about how you fucked over the Indians, and manifest destiny and stuff like that.
Hope that help sorts out the whole circular argument thing.
And now I think about it we did spend some time on the French Revolution which was seen as more relevant to the development of human rights and philosophy and such, the American Revolution was presented as an adjunct to that. We spent a whole module on Indian independence though I guess because India has much more cultural significance for my part of the UK* 
*Vaguely East London
Actually, I would think that it shoudl be more important to study the origins of America, rather than the rise of its current power. For one, the latter was built on the former, both in time and in kind. Second, it is far less well known.
In any case, George II’s relationship to America is highly important. Americans tended to attack him because we were loyal primarily to him, as the living symbol of England.
And this is key to understanding the fundamental cause of the seperation. We had a lot of trouble with Parliament, and even denied their authority to rule us, although they excercised a lot of control through the Cabinet. Thinking of ourselves as full Englishmen, we were not prepared to submit meekly to the rule of people who happened to live in London or York*. A solution could have been worked out (for one, a proposition was floated that American delegates could attend Parliament) even with the logistical issues.
Colonists appealed to the King, and had no problem with Royal Goverors as long they administered fairly (and some were known to have lined their pockets) and let colonial democracy handle creating law (thus creating mini-parliaments under the King). When George deferred to Lord North and co., well… we “colonials” saw it as betrayal. And of course, the tax issue arose because we felt England was billing us for services to itself; that is, we did not see France as our personal enemy, and the entire French and Indian War as an extension of European politics. Our subsequent history suggests we still don’t enjoy being involved in those.
Now, as to invading America with all England’s troops, it was probably not possible. It maybe could have worked had it been done, but it would have meant abandoning everything else, and the expense of such an invasion would have been incalculably huge. In fact, it’s not even clear England could have supported such an investment.**
*And even today, when, say, Peurto Rico has little power and some other territories effectively none, it’s almost certain that if asked with serious intent those territories would be freed, and that hisorically Americans colony areas were quickly set up as independant powers.
** Pun! “investment” in both the military and financial senses.
You may be surprised to discover that there is a flourishing independence movement in Puerto Rico, and its members are routinely detained and jailed by the FBI.
I was.
Question: To what extent had democracy taken root around the world at the time of the American revolution?
'merkin speaking up like we do…we always talk, we Americans. We talk and we talk and we say ‘let me tell ya something’ and ‘I just wanna say this.’ Um, where was I?
Oh yeah. I can totally see why The French get more press than the US. Most notably the French Revolution was an actual, you know, ‘revolution’ complete with replacement of government and deaths of nobles whereas over here it was different. Yeah, government changed and a nation began to be born but the British leadership wasn’t unseated, just evicted from the immediate vicinity. Had we gone so far as to cross the pond and lop off some royal heads with the support of the tea guzzlers on The Big Island I’m sure that would have left a much more memorable inkstain on the pages of history. What was a big deal to us was, to The Empire, a colonist uprising resulting in the loss of direct control of a remote population of religious, political and criminal offal that only warranted the half-hearted attention of Britain’s third string army to try and salvage some of the costly infrastructure. So just like modern times when we finally decide we’re done mucking with Iraq, the US-led coalition will go away and a very vocal minority will paint that departure as a victory for independence. And so it will read in Iraq’s history books 200 years hence, while it will rate a paragraph or two over here as part of a larger examination of pre-22nd century American History.
Now why does this make me think that maybe some sour grapes are in play?
I just don’t see the logic, given that the American Revolution came first, and that the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) predates the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789) by more than a decade. (And given that the latter document was inspired at least in part by The US Declaration of Independence.)
I begin to suspect that British historians just don’t want to give Americans their due.
Very well put. That’s more or less how most people see it.
Spain had a civil war in World War 2, and arguably Italy did as well. Korea separated into North and South after World War 2. China had its war after World War 2 as well, and most of these are major industrial powers. (Spain not so much, I admit.)
The French Revolution made much more of an impression on Whigs and Tories alike here (you don’t see Burke meditating on the American Revolution) and when men spoke of the hope/fear of revolution, it was the French one they looked to. It had much more of an immediate effect on European politics, too.
Ah. So the Europeans are just being provincial, then. 
War (almost continuous) with Revolutionary France affected Britain’s vital national interest. War (eventually) with revolutionary America in 1812 was never going to affect the British Isles much whatever the result - and the war (ultimately a draw) was soon forgotten here.
I’ve not backtracked all the way through the multiple responses to this, but I’m going to point out why this is poorly reasoned thinking.
The American Civil War was not a civil war of the same nature as, say, the English Civil War of the 17th Century, or the French Revolution, or even the Chinese Civil War of 1945 - 1949. It was not about one political power trying to usurp authority from another political power. It was, rather, and attempt by a portion of the country to remove itself from the country. It is better viewed as an abortive revolt, rather than a true “civil war.”
So the Constitution did produce a stable government. The federal government was never in danger of being removed. Indeed, the Confederacy never said that the United States government had to cease to exist. It simply attempted to remove the authority of that government over the states of our South.
Thus, citing the Civil War as evidence that the Constitution is/was somehow unable to guarantee stable government is to troll with a red herring.
Well, they might have made it more explicit as to whether States could reserve the right to secede or not (and tidied up their language a bit on that Second Amendment).
I’m sorry but that just sounds like madness talking. The Government wasn’t stable as a grand portion of those in the country wanted to break away and form their own country and government. Of course that wasn’t going to stop the North having its own government, but that actual government of the United States would fundamentally have been changed - the actual people it governed - by means of war.
How you can argue that that is stable is, frankly, beyond me. Let’s put it in a modern context. Let’s say Scotland suddenly, on mass, decides to be a separate country and its population takes up arms against the English and Welsh south of the border. Seeing as the Houses of Parliament governs the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of which Scotland is a major part, would you try and argue that the British Government was stable?
Of course you wouldn’t and similarly, no matter how much it hurts pride, the US Government at the time of the Civil War was not stable by definition.
I didn’t say anything about unable to guarantee anything and kindly do not call me a troll. Do me the favour of being as polite to me as I am to others in this thread.
What I said was that the US Government simply wasn’t stable as half of it was trying to go and form its own separate country and government (*).
(*) And this only came up because someone else claimed that the US Constitution created a stable government and thus was the primary force behind the US’s success.
I’m sorry, I’m not accusing you of “trolling” as in the typical internet meaning of that word. I’m accusing you of using red herring as bait as you “troll”, that is fish. I’m referencing the concept of a “red herring,” that is, an incorrect bait or scent which sends someone/thing on the wrong track. It implies no intent on your part.
As for the substance of what you said:
A government is “stable” in my mind if it manages to survive political turmoil. Unstable governments (see Italy :p) are governments that undergo structural political change under duress. Think France, in response to Algeria, resulting in the Fifth Republic. As the old joke goes, the bookstore owner, when asked for a copy of the French Constitution, indignantly replies that he doesn’t sell periodicals! In this measure, the government of England has been quite stable, ever since the Glorious Revolution. So much so that it has managed to absorb the Scottish government into it, and has also survived the loss of most of Ireland. Which, by the way, was a civil war of similar dimension (if not similar bloodiness) to ours. Should we consider England’s government unstable because Ireland chose to declare freedom, and fought a war to obtain that freedom?
Had the Confederacy succeeded in seceding, it would not have spelled the end of the United States. It’s even doubtful it would have spelled the end of the U. S. Constitution. Undoubtedly there would have been amendments; there were as it was after the Union won the war. But that is no more “unstable” than the government was during Prohibition, which spawned two amendments.
So yes, if Scotland suddenly decided to terminate its union with England, and fought a war to achieve this, and through that war Parliament continued, and the monarchy survived, and at the end, all was as it was other than whatever happened to Scotland, I would consider the government stable. Whether or not the UNION was stable is a whole different issue.
That’s really funny, and a great example of perspective. And dry British humor.
Of course you’d be consumed historically with your primary European rival that you could not stop fighting wars with throughout history.
The reason the American Revolution flies under the British radar is because it was the first war they had to fight amongst themselves. American colonists were English citizens…at first.
It approximated a civil war, between loyalists and seperatists.
But the English Civil War predates it, making that a really bizarre and factually inaccurate point.