right which is why I mentioned the ellis island era. I mean what do you think about in the big picture in why America worked. I mean slavery certainly did contribute in a positive way in my eyes. The south payed bigtime for that sin.
I don't want to argue about this, you are hyper sensitive to race topics, even more than you claim others to be. Slavery was an important part in the birth of this country, that's all i'm pointing out. not making a value judgement on it. edit: when I say I'm not making a value judgement, I'm speaking srtictly in a sense of economics
I wasn't trying to argue just ask your opinion. I am not history expert by any means but I think if you mention an era as to why America went from crap to superpower i think slavery is a negative and Ellis Island immigration (which was unfortunately modern day slavery) was the main component.
Good question. I agree with a lot of what other posters have written that we had Enlightenment ideals that we stuck too, abundant natural resources few regional conflicts, immigration and an economic system that rewarded innovation. A few other things I will add are a federal system that overall has kept a good balance between concentration of central power and regional autonomy. While I don't subscribe to the great man view of history I also think we had a few leaders who showed both great leadership and wisdom at crucial times in our history. I imagine history might be very different if Buchanan had been President during the Civil War instead of Lincoln. With everything above though I think the biggest factor has been luck. This country just happened to form at a time when various factors allowed us to hold off the greatest power at the time. If England hadn't been fighting France its very likely the US Revolution is crushed. The victory of the North might not have happened if the Civil War had been fought a decade or two earlier or even if Lee had triumphed at Gettysburg.
I agree with some of this (though I'm ignoring the last comment). However, while historically we have had military success, until 1943 or so, it has not been because we had a strong military. Washington and Jackson were brilliant commanders, but the Revolution was won with great help from France and the War of 1812 was ended because the major military powers were fighting the Napoleonic Wars in Europe. The Civil War was what it was, while the Spanish-American War was in many ways an attempt to catch up to the established military nations. WWI was a great effort, but we got there late after the big boys had exhausted themselves and then we let the military go down hill until the late 30's and early 40's. We still had cavalry units with horse soldiers when WWII started. Other than those, we beat up on Native Americans and invaded Mexico.
Can you prove a causal link between this? France doesn't have the same access to natural resources and was embroiled in wars from about the year 1066 to 1945. Yet they boast a fine standard of living, flat screen TV's, funtional democracy etc etc. I guess you can say they haven't "blossomed" but considering the incredible destruction wrought on France in the 20th century alone (especially the first world war, it literally wiped out an entire generatoin) it's doing pretty well in the hierarchy of nations. I'll try to google it later but there's some study somewhere that kind of shows empirically that american exceptionalism is really not that unusual (econmic development etc is generally in line with what one would expect given the available population, resources, etc). I believe the only nation whose progress comes off as truly exceptional is Japan. it's very difficult for me to accept that something intangible is responsible for something when there are a lot of tangible causes to attribute it to.
Slavery was a horrible idea and morally decrepit, and while it might have helped in the short term, in the long run I think those gains have been wiped out by its negative effects which continue on today. So net net, it was a loser.
I'm talking mainly about the French Revolution as opposed to the American Revolution. They went through a longer and more violent period of upheaval, took the power away from a King (beheaded him), gave it to the people (they went crazy), and then gave it back to an Emperor (who sucked). Listen, I'm not trying to discount the fact that being apart has helped us out. But Modern France is modeled on American Democracy, their resilience in the 20th century was great, but they had a big hand in bringing about World War II with the crazy punishment they brought on Germany (and all had a hand in this, but if I remember correctly France was the biggest proponent of essentially ruining Germany); and you really can't discount our help in getting them back on their feet after WWII. As of now, French Culture is on the decline, natural Francs are not reproducing, they have an onslaught of immigrants they don't get along with, it's not looking too promising for them or the rest of Europe. I'm certainly not discounting tangible things, but there is truth in the American ability to stay focused on the ideas of the founding, ideas that allow our tangible blessings to be used to their full extent. But this is the basic debate, historicist vs. idealist; Tolstoy v. Dostoevsky, Hegel/Marx v. Locke/Jefferson. I tend to think that America is not the product of luck, not just a child of the times. As much as I disagree with certain Obama policies he at the very least has expressed a recognition of these ideals. But hey maybe he taught you something different in Constitutional Law.
Well I think it's impossible to compare the two directly and say "we had a better attitude" which is why it worked. Remember the french revolution played out against the backdrop of hundreds of years of history, and constant interference from France's neighbors and allies, the Church, etc, with whom it had been warring and allying with for centuries - [as an aside while this is probably not a very PC thing to say, the Napoleonic conquests, made possible in large part due to revolutionary patriotism, were a very impressive achievement militarily, basically unparalleled in continental europe since the days of the Roman empire.] Contrast this to the US which took place in a near-vaccum with no history and tons of empty land as an outlet for its populace. One only needs to look at the US' brief, useless foray into the Napoleonic wars to see how potentially disastrous having warring neighbors could have been. A small British army and some Canadian militiamen, along with Native american proxy fighters, pretty much fought the US to a standstill from 1812-1815 and the damage obviously could have been a lot worse had the Brits not had a whole ocean to cross (and no men to spare as they were busy elsewhere)
So do you not believe there is a difference between life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness over Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? Or maybe a better question, why didn't life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness flourish on the continent while it was able to flourish (more or less) in England although in a slightly different strain of Constitutional Monarchy?
Genocide of the native population. Actually, that the area was not too densely populated and we moved or killed most of the ones around enabled us to build from a clean slate. Generally, colonies in areas with large native populations have struggled with the culture divide and those that have been able to import a more culturally homogenous population have fared better. The US, Canada, Argentina, Uraguay, and Brazil are examples of New World countries with low native populations and they all do okay. Meanwhile, Mexico, Peru, Columbia, and Venezuela have had large and strong indigenous cultures that had to be assimulated instead of expunged, and the countries do not fare as well to this day. You could argue we had our own cultural issues with immigrants from many countries and slaves from Africa. But, most of our European ancestry came from similar cultural backgrounds (compared to the divide between Europeans and Aztecs, for example). And, the Africans came under subjugation, broken from their communities and in unfamiliar territory.
Actually this is a decent point. Great Britain was able to do this in Australia, South Africa (Dutch assisted here as well), and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and created varying levels of success. Obviously those successes were totally reversed in Rhodesia when the native population took back control and are in the process of doing the same thing now in South Africa as a similar process is taking place.
We won in the sense that England left us alone. Some have compared it to the Vietnam war. Where England was like the U.S. winning a majority of the battles, and inflicting great damage, but the U.S. even though they were more ragtag held them off until it became unfeasible for England to continue. But it wasn't a military victory or anything.
I think the differences between the two ideals which can be debated in a political philosophy class were not as nearly as meaningful as the historical or contemporary context against which they both unfolded. Obviously as others noted - there was no difference if you were black or native american. I think economically England didn't start to pull away from the pack until the Industrial revolution, I think a lot of that is again due to geography, which left their mainland relatively undisturbed until the 20th C, the necessity of becoming a seafaring nation, and the absence of stifling influences like the Church, among others. As far as individual freedom flourishing in England, I don't know if life was that much different for the common man up until the Rev era, not sure though.
We'll just have to wait until we're both in the same Clutchfans Political philosophy class. I'm taking Clutch next semester. I heard you got Dr of Dunk. He's more of a Straussian which isn't really my thing, but I heard you guys are going to read Plato's Republic. In all honesty though, I'm not a historicist, you seem to be not quite one, but definitely with some of those leanings. I'm giving up the interwebs for Lent and then to the end of the semester as well so we'll just have to table this discussion until then. I think as soon as feudalism went out the door in the middle ages you saw an England that enjoyed a plethora of freedoms compared to the Continental system. Where did these freedoms come from? The idea that the crown was not all powerful and that individuals did have worth. Same precept of the French Revolution, only the French took it a step further when they added equality (literal rather than in the eyes of justice) and fraternity (in an eerie precursor to the brotherhood found in a totalitarian state comrade). I think that's ultimately why the French Revolution failed. I'm not trying to discount the factors you brought up in any way shape or form, but I think there is a difference if you put the American or British Ideal system in the same circumstances as the French or German ideal system. The continent held onto Feudalism and tyrant kings a lot harder than the British or Americans.
Don't forget those rebellious young men in the beginning who had grit- The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings…Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? ... Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us…It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775
We won in terms that we survived but we lost in regard that our initial goal of invading Canada failed. Its funny but when I was in Canada they had a series of PSA's about great moments in Canadian history and all of them dealt with holding off or humiliating the US including several from the war of 1812.
