Tweet
*sigh* and I thought my insight into the nature of Parliament v colony was inspired. Oh well, back to the suicide booth.
-
I was just waiting for somebody to come along and add information to your "insight", since I can't add anything.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 -
Since Britain had the largest navy in the world, then this makes no senseThe basic problem is simply there were oceans between Britain and its colonies.You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.Comment
-
I don't think I really understand your question in the first place. Are you asking why they created the Commonwealth instead of giving Australia and Canada seats in the parliament?Originally posted by DanS
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.
Technically the empire still exists, just in a different shape.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
-
Yes. Or they could have created the Commonwealth for the Indians and African colonies, but given Australia and Canada seats in parliament, if they were afraid of racial minorities.I don't think I really understand your question in the first place. Are you asking why they created the Commonwealth instead of giving Australia and Canada seats in the parliament?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, 1891Comment
-
Do you have a cite for that, JohnT? I would be interested in taking a look.Adam Smith surmised that if the UK continued to hold onto the N. American continent then the capital of the UK might have to swing over there as the population surpassed the original islands.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, 1891Comment
-
Imo, the nature of thinking about colonies changed from being they sources of income and power (18th century) to becoming drains on money and men (20th century). It might not necessarily be so (in the case of Canada and Australia, it wouldn't be today obviously), but if that's the zeitgeist then it might make more sense to let the colonies go than to involve yourselves even deeper into their affairs by bringing them into yours.
Couple that with "agitators" within the colonies who prefer to build their own networks of power and influence apart from the British Empire and it's not surprising that the Brits just gave up the leash as being a hassle.
In short, at the time integration into the UK was too much of a bother and the reward too far off and nebulous for most to want to go through the pain. Better to give up the governmental rule and keep them within the Empire by historical, cultural, financial, and other ways.Comment
-
Once a new state is created in the US it gets certain rights due to the fact that it's a state. It is more or less an independent entity joining a union, even if it had to be created by that union in the first place.Originally posted by DanS
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.
That concept still doesn't really exist in the UK. Local governments exist not independent of Parliament but at the mercy of Parliament. Counties are divided and created. Scotland got it's own parliament due to one bill and another bill could take it away again. That would be like the Congress passing legislation dissolving Ohio's state government. Can't be done in the USA because of the relationship of governing powers. Can be done quite easily in the UK.
So Canada and Australia (and the USA in the magical world where it stayed in the Empire) were not so much independent states with a right to MP's but forms of local government that could be created or destroyed on a whim by London. They weren't nations joining the UK but administrations created by the UK. Unlike US states, they didn't get certain rights just by the nature of their existence.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 DawkinsComment
-
I'm pretty sure it's in the Wealth of Nations. I have a relatively thick abridged version at home and I'll check it out when I get there.Originally posted by DanS
Do you have a cite for that, JohnT? I would be interested in taking a look.Comment
-
Do you think the Indians would have fallen for that ploy?Originally posted by DanS
Yes. Or they could have created the Commonwealth for the Indians and African colonies, but given Australia and Canada seats in parliament, if they were afraid of racial minorities.
Not trying to be insultive but perhaps you'd better get yourself a book about the history of the British Empire. The issue is a bit too complex for a succinct straightforward answer.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
-
Spelling error? What spelling error?Comment
-
I care, I care.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
-
Colon, JohnT, nice editing
It all comes down to how unwieldy such a government would be, and the racism that the British had at that time. The ministers were so deluded that the did not see that there was no way that they could keep power under the (then) present circumstances.You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.Comment
-
Why not? The basic fact is that the colonies had become estranged from the home country. For one the British were enraged their colonies extensively traded with France during the 7 years war, while the colonies didn't see why they had contribute to a war about an issue that didn't affect their daily lives. You cannot fix such disparities of interests with a navy.Originally posted by Krill
Since Britain had the largest navy in the world, then this makes no senseLast edited by Colonâ„¢; April 1, 2004, 18:56.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
-
I see no "edited by JohnT" on my post.Originally posted by Krill
Colon, JohnT, nice editing
Comment
-
What I mean is that there was no way that the UK and the colonies could be separated, except for a war.
IE, The basic problem was NOT that there were a lot of water between the colonies and Britain. What it was, I don't knowYou just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.Comment
Comment