Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why didn't the United Kingdom give the New World the vote?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 9
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 template Next
  • #16
    wrt to the US, because it would have violated the whole theory of Parliament at the time. In the 18thc rotten boroughs with a handful of voters had as much representation as booming industrial cities. In theory MPs didnt actually "represent" their constituencies, they represented "interests" thus disenfranchised English cities like Manchester and Birmingham were "virtually represented" In fact wealthy aristocrats bribed the tiny electorates of rotten boroughs, the House of Commons was controlled by a handful of Aristocrats. To admit that Boston and Philadelphia needed direct representation,not virtual, would mean admitting that Manchester and Birmingham required it too. Which would have meant revolution.

    Why they didnt do it for Canada i dont know. No real logistical reasons not to - France did so with some of their colonies. I think a general sense in the dominions that local self rule was preferable to integration in a French style centralized empire. A little England desire to keep things small and manageable.
    "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

    Comment

    • #17
      I thought he meant that any parliamentary votes would be worthless because we would always be in the minority.


      I also meant that. At the time, the Americans were much less than the Brits, and there was no telling that the population would boom. Remember, the Brits prevented any Yanks from settling beyond the Appalacian Mountains (it was Indian land).
      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

      Comment

      • #18
        wrt to the US, because it would have violated the whole theory of Parliament at the time. In the 18thc rotten boroughs with a handful of voters had as much representation as booming industrial cities.
        Yes, this was what I was referring to with the 1830s parliamentary reforms. I don't think the problem was really solved until the 1880s or later. But my memory on this subject is rather foggy. A Brit would have more precise information, I'm sure.
        I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

        Comment

        • #19
          Originally posted by DanS


          But not at the time that this stuff was decided. In 1776, the US population was only some 2.2 million souls.
          But it was rapidly growing though. It was plain to everyone there would be time America's population would overtake Britain's.
          DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

          Comment

          • #20
            Hence this comment, perhaps?

            So this was a matter of American shortsightedness rather than British shortsightedness? Interesting.
            -Arrian
            grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

            The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

            Comment

            • #21
              But then, of course, if you're talking about the entire empire being represented, the Indians would've ruled us all.

              -Arrian
              grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

              The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.

              Comment

              • #22
                But it was rapidly growing though.
                Yes, it was doubling every 20 years or less.

                It was plain to everyone there would be time America's population would overtake Britain's.
                I guess you're taking the view that Britain was taken by surprise that the colonies would successfully revolt? This has a lot of merit, but this doesn't answer to why Canada and Australia weren't given the vote.
                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                Comment

                • #23
                  But the problem, once again, is that Parliament really didn't represent all of the people. There were many areas without representation. I wouldn't think it would be out of the question to see each colony only have one MP.
                  “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                  - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                  Comment

                  • #24
                    The basic problem is simply there were oceans between Britain and its colonies.
                    DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

                    Comment

                    • #25
                      Originally posted by DanS
                      A Brit would have more precise information, I'm sure.
                      That's a rather massive assumption to make.
                      Exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. [...] Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence [and the] gift of revulsion against its implications.
                      -Richard Dawkins

                      Comment

                      • #26
                        Originally posted by DanS
                        This has a lot of merit, but this doesn't answer to why Canada and Australia weren't given the vote.
                        America was just worth fighting for, Dan.

                        Comment

                        • #27
                          Originally posted by DanS


                          Yes, this was what I was referring to with the 1830s parliamentary reforms. I don't think the problem was really solved until the 1880s or later. But my memory on this subject is rather foggy. A Brit would have more precise information, I'm sure.
                          yes there were many rotten boroughs still in the 19th century, tiny numbers of people (~100 or less) would elect an MP. in the 1830s there was nothing unusual about buckingham with its electorate of 249.

                          i think lotm was on the right track. the british government was happy to legislate in broad terms for the colonies and leave the day to day things to local assembleys.
                          "The Christian way has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found to be hard and left untried" - GK Chesterton.

                          "The most obvious predicition about the future is that it will be mostly like the past" - Alain de Botton

                          Comment

                          • #28
                            The basic problem is simply there were oceans between Britain and its colonies.
                            You would think that the Brits could have more imagination than that, in the day and age of steamships.
                            I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                            Comment

                            • #29
                              *sigh* and I thought my insight into the nature of Parliament v colony was inspired. Oh well, back to the suicide booth.
                              Exult in your existence, because that very process has blundered unwittingly on its own negation. Only a small, local negation, to be sure: only one species, and only a minority of that species; but there lies hope. [...] Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence [and the] gift of revulsion against its implications.
                              -Richard Dawkins

                              Comment

                              • #30
                                i think lotm was on the right track. the british government was happy to legislate in broad terms for the colonies and leave the day to day things to local assembleys.
                                But why didn't they share the broad decision-making powers? That's what I'm getting at. The US was happy to grant this to new states, for instance. We minted new states really fast.
                                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 template Next
                                Working...
                                X