Plus, people back then were known for Tarring and Feathering people for fun. It’s pretty unpleasant, but not particularly fatal, and was done to almost anybody who earned the ire of the community, for good reasons or bad.
Yea…there are many myths about Washington…but he really, truely was a great man. He should be revered because he DID have a large impact on how things could have went and he chose…wisely.
Only if the statement can be construed as a joke. As I said, there is nothing to indicate that Lust4Life’s was intended as such. If it was, it wasn’t much of one.
Things still quiet then ?
Calling it a revolution was a bit revisionist history but by 1792 the result really was revolutionary. Never before in history were the citizens of a country given the chance to vote on their own form of government. That was a significant step and truly revolutionary.
Any chance of reintroducing the tradition?
I also took Lust4Life’s comment at face value.
So what was the clue, the slightest suspicion, the suggestion of subtlety that there was hint at “humor”. Enlighten us.
There quite emphatically is a British Constitution - it’s just not codified. The Constitution most definitely existed back then as it was something quite clearly understood by all political players.
I should have clarified - the US Constitution sought to establish the ‘official’ British Constitution, if that makes sense. Officially, the monarch retained extensive powers, subject to Parliament’s authorisation. In reality the monarch’s powers were used by men who got their support from Parliament.
And in the course of 230 years, the two constitutions have digressed even more.
Things pretty quiet all round then it seems?
Ya think?
Yes–a patriotic Englishman in the 18th century would likely have explained that the British constitution was best because it was a “mixed” government, with each of the three classical forms of government playing their part: monarchy (the King), aristocracy (the House of Lords), and democracy (the House of Commons). In practice, the monarchy was already becoming pretty hollowed out, but it happened more-or-less gradually (with the occasional king beheaded or forced into exile), but officially the king still ruled together with (in fact, as part of) Parliament. (At that point, the House of Lords did retain real power; and the House of Commons was only a vague approximation of a “democratic” branch to the British government).
So, the late-18th-century American constitution had a republicanized version of this, with the President as a kind of elected quasi-monarch; the Senate as an indirectly chosen (by the state legislatures) quasi-aristocracy; and the House of Representatives as the democracy.
Meanwhile, over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, everyone in Britain itself (and in other countries with the Westminster system) came to understand that whatever the official letter of the law regarding “Her Majesty’s” This and “Her Majesty’s” That, in the normal course of events the monarch in fact does nothing except on the “advice” (orders) of his or her ministers; and those ministers are responsible to the elected house of parliament (with the House of Lords or any non-democratic parliamentary upper house modelled on it generally acting as a speed bump at best). Thus, the UK is now a representative democracy with an executive selected by the de facto unicameral legislature.
It plays on the British stereotype of being polite and well-mannered. It didn’t seem to be that obscure of a joke to me.
Uh, I don’t know about that. I think that the French Revolution was an inevitability, given the Enlightenment ideas (many of them written by Frenchmen!) that inspired the general revolutionary sentiment of the times. Certainly the American Revolution hastened the French Revolution, possibly by a few decades, but really, the French peasants were starving while the nobility enriched themselves. The situation just wasn’t stable. Something had to give, and I just don’t think that Louis XVI was going to liberalize the country out of the goodness of his heart.
What about the Democracy of Athens? The Framers were significantly influenced by it. Or the Republic of Rome, where the country was led by leaders elected yearly by citizens*? Or the Dutch Republic, established in 1581? Or the Venetian, Florentine, Pisan, Amalfi, or Genoan Republics, all of which had elected bodies at different times in their history?
The American Republic is a step beyond some of these, but only a step. It’s not like the Founders developed democracy out of a vacuum.
*“Citizens” being adult non-slave male landholding denizens of Rome, of course, but that’s where we get the word!
All important and the US would not be the same without them but the US went one step further by letting the citizens decide if the new constitution was to be implemented. All the previous examples of democracy had it dictated by a small cadre.
Well, not quite. The US constitution was ratified by the State legislatures, composed of a small group of (eligible, qualified) citizens chosen by a large group of (eligible, qualified) citizens. A clear majority of the citizens - you know, women, slaves, that kind of thing had no involvment at all in the process, and another large chunk - working class men, men of no property - were fairly marginalised.
It was certainly more democratic than what went on in most other countries at the time. But from our perspective it wasn’t that far removed from decision-making by “a small cadre”.
It could equally well be taken as a serious response, by attributing the relative lack of violence to the general restraint shown by British culture. It was unclear whether Lust4Life intended it as a genuine answer, or as tongue-in-cheek, which is why it doesn’t qualify as a whoosh.
I’ve seen some extremely silly propositions advanced as serious arguments here, so if you don’t intend for people to take your remarks at face value it’s best to be clear about it.
Just to return back to the OP, I’m most interested why there was a government policy in the French new regime of systematic murder (or whatever their name was for it) in the contemporaneous US revolution.
For the time being, I’d like to avoid “comparative revolutioniarism” with regard to the mass slaughters of Leninisn, Maoism, etc., which follow their own sociopathic logic.
So what have you been up to lately ?
Hows tricks ?
I think that I might go for a stroll.
Moderator Instruction
Lust4Life, if you actually want to defend what you posted, then go ahead. But there’s no need for you to keep bumping the thread with this kind of nonsense. Cut it out.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
As a poster only, you have posted FIVE irrelevant posts to the o.p.s, thread .
I made a small joke, to which even the person concerned let drop .
You however, for reasons that baffle me, have gone on and on about it .
I have tried to make you realise without making a big issue about it, that the issue concerned is (A) trivial and (B) not within your remit as a moderator.
My message has not got through, and you have continued to disrupt the thread with your off topic posts.
And now you’re (ab)using your power as a mod to wave the big stick on a subject within which you are personally involved.
Ban me if you like, but I suggest that you folow the rules and guidelines yourself .
I would also take a good long hard look at yourself, and ask yourself the question “Am I an honest broker enough to ethically fulfil my function as a moderator?”.