Did the US have unique luck when it came to initial leaders?

[naraht]

Looking at the initial leadership of the various states in Latin America, it seems like the United States, with a two term relatively apolitical president, followed by his VP followed by a peaceful transfer of power to the opposition, all finishing their expected terms of office had luck that none of these countries in Latin America did.

First of all, do people think it was luck?
Secondly, did I miss a nation in Latin America that had the same sort of peaceful transitions?

 

[naraic]

I think it's about the nature of how the respective states became independent.

The US rose up against an empire and had to be on its game to achieve independence.

Most Latin states picked up the reigns when the Spanish dropped them. Most combat in Latin Americas wars of independence was between local elites who stayed in the country after the wars rather than against the Spanish army.

The war of indepence was a uniting one for the US. For Chile or Argentina or most other Latin states it was divisive.

 

[Citycat]

I think it's about the nature of how the respective states became independent.

The US rose up against an empire and had to be on its game to achieve independence.

Most Latin states picked up the reigns when the Spanish dropped them. Most combat in Latin Americas wars of independence was between local elites who stayed in the country after the wars rather than against the Spanish army.

The war of indepence was a uniting one for the US. For Chile or Argentina or most other Latin states it was divisive.

I don't think it was about how the US acquired independence, as after independence was a critical time, where the US still could have become a monarchy of its own, or a Presidential dictatorship.

Washington retiring after his first term and allowing a peaceful transition of power was something radical at the time.

Whether this was due to his vision, luck or just a coincidence because he simply wanted to retire that the US became a democracy with a peaceful transition of powers as its tradition, is a completely open debate.

 

[Eivind]

The heritage of British political instutions and a relatively decentralized political structure helped the US compared to the countries in Latin-America. The political values were different, although personalities might have reinforced this.

 

[Borg]

I think it has a lot to do with how the 13 colonies had developed governmental institutions at the time of independence, and the new government simply co-opted them. Most colonial powers seem to have actively worked to prevent the formation of institutions and where that was unavoidable, kept the locals out of those institutions.

That being said, the early years of the US were not smooth sailing. There was the whiskey rebellion during Washington’s presidency and the war of 1812.

 

[Pokarnor]

The US could certainly be considered lucky in that a figure like Washington didn't seem that interested in acquiring power for himself as similar figures did in other countries (not only Latin America; see Napoleon in France for example). That being said I don't think it was all luck. The colonies already had a long tradition of democratic self-government, and in many ways the American Revolution was an assertion of that manner of governance against British efforts to interfere with it. In other words, America already had a political culture which guarded against such things, as opposed to Latin America (or France). But certainly there's some amount of luck there; the ancient Roman Republic had a long tradition of republicanism but still slid into despotism due to the power-seeking of a popular general.

 

[Eivind]

The US could certainly be considered lucky in that a figure like Washington didn't seem that interested in acquiring power for himself as similar figures did in other countries (not only Latin America; see Napoleon in France for example). That being said I don't think it was all luck. The colonies already had a long tradition of democratic self-government, and in many ways the American Revolution was an assertion of that manner of governance against British efforts to interfere with it. In other words, America already had a political culture which guarded against such things, as opposed to Latin America (or France). But certainly there's some amount of luck there; the ancient Roman Republic had a long tradition of republicanism but still slid into despotism due to the power-seeking of a popular general.

Just imagine if they had got someone with the personality of Donald Trump.

 

[Marc]

You could make a counter argument that having Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe certainly didn't help the possibility of a gradual, peaceful, abolition of slavery over time.
Or to use some current language, the Virginian Presidents were enablers of the sexualized violence and general horror of American slavery.

 

[Lusitania]

Another “lucky” factor was the relative position and timing of the American revolution 1770s, position of the 13 colonies and practically empty of european settlement west. I do not think the US would be who it is if it had changed places with Columbia and Peru. Also the 1770s while there were hardships was less politically risky that 1820-1830s when Latin America countries became independent. It was luck the constitution not articles if independence was approved.

 

[Well]

Looking at the initial leadership of the various states in Latin America, it seems like the United States, with a two term relatively apolitical president, followed by his VP followed by a peaceful transfer of power to the opposition, all finishing their expected terms of office had luck that none of these countries in Latin America did.

First of all, do people think it was luck?
Secondly, did I miss a nation in Latin America that had the same sort of peaceful transitions?

Robert Harvey argues in Liberators that the problem wasn't so much the initial generation of leadership, but the inheritance of the colonial period:

"While Latin America's political leadership undoubtedly played its part in the region's post-independence difficulties... the Liberators did not create the twin curses of charismatic leadership and military rule; rather, these were the natural successors of Spanish domination combined with a centuries'-old tradition of hierarchical indigenous rule. British rule in North America permitted a large measure of self-government, was only very rarely enforced by military means (which inevitably provoked rebellion), and was exercised through a governing class of common national origin and political and economic values; Spanish rule, by contrast, although more enlightened than is commonly believed, was imposed by local proconsuls and enforced by military repression. The push for independence in the United States arose from a mixture of economic self-interest and political idealism, and only when war loomed did it transform itself into military resistance. In Latin America, while both these motives were certainly in evidence, the overpowering military presence made it inevitable that the leaders of the independence movement should be military men. George Washington was an exception amongst civilians, like Samuel and John Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton... Since in Latin America military force underpinned Spanish rule, military leaders - some trained like Miranda, San Martin, Cochrane and Iturbide; some self taught like Bolivar, O'Higgins and Pedro - were inevitably required to destroy it."

 

[Lusitania]

You could make a counter argument that having Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe certainly didn't help the possibility of a gradual, peaceful, abolition of slavery over time.
Or to use some current language, the Virginian Presidents were enablers of the sexualized violence and general horror of American slavery.

Ok in today’s context that would be politically important but in terms of how people thought and behaved in the 18th century it is irrelevant. Please do not bring these topics Into the the thread thanks.

PS please do not high jack this threat to attack me or to talk about slavery and other social political points. There are threads for that not this one.

 

[Marc]

Ok in today’s context that would be politically important but in terms of how people thought and behaved in the 18th century it is irrelevant. Please do not bring these topics Into the the thread thanks.

PS please do not high jack this threat to attack me or to talk about slavery and other social political points. There are threads for that not this one.

Pardon, but slavery really was an issue back then. Those Presidents were slave owners, and conflicted despite not giving up on it. Madison in particular is a bit of a tragedy - he was going in the anti-slavery direction during the 1780's, then veered.
And, the historical question is relevant, who was President and their policies on slavery directed affected American history.
This is an appropriate thread.
By the way, how did you make the leap to an attack on you? Truly puzzled.

 

[Lusitania]

Pardon, but slavery really was an issue back then. Those Presidents were slave owners, and conflicted despite not giving up on it. Madison in particular is a bit of a tragedy - he was going in the anti-slavery direction during the 1780's, then veered.
And, the historical question is relevant, who was President and their policies on slavery directed affected American history.
This is an appropriate thread.
By the way, how did you make the leap to an attack on you? Truly puzzled.

The issue of slavery is irrelevant to the luck of the US and the advancement of the US to the country it is now. It makes no sense why you bringing up slavery as reason the US was a reason it was lucky or unlucky in comparison to Latin American countries. Some of whom practiced slavery both before and after independence.

 

[triscreen]

You could make a counter argument that having Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe certainly didn't help the possibility of a gradual, peaceful, abolition of slavery over time.
Or to use some current language, the Virginian Presidents were enablers of the sexualized violence and general horror of American slavery.

Jefferson abolished the slave trade, which would have led to the decline of slavery were it not for the cotton gin, which gave slave owners even more of a financial incentive to keep slaves.

There was not much anyone could have done about slavery, especially in the early days of the Union - it was political suicide, and it might have easily divided the young nation. Slavery was truly a "way of life" in the South, no matter how apprehensible it was, and it was probably inevitable that a violent conflict of some kind would arise over slavery. All Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe could have done is delay this conflict, which is a good thing for the young nation as a major conflict this early on could well have led to an early breakup of the Union.

Ok in today’s context that would be politically important but in terms of how people thought and behaved in the 18th century it is irrelevant. Please do not bring these topics Into the the thread thanks.

PS please do not high jack this threat to attack me or to talk about slavery and other social political points. There are threads for that not this one.

The issue was very relevant in the late 18th and early 19th centuries - just look at the 3/5ths Compromise or the Missouri Compromise, for example. It even influenced the Declaration of Independence. However, as I said above, early American leaders were wise enough to try to forestall any war until the United States was prepared to fight it.

A civil war in 1810 or 1820 would turn out very different than a civil war in 1860.

 

[Arcavia]

I think it's about the nature of how the respective states became independent.

The US rose up against an empire and had to be on its game to achieve independence.

Most Latin states picked up the reigns when the Spanish dropped them. Most combat in Latin Americas wars of independence was between local elites who stayed in the country after the wars rather than against the Spanish army.

The war of indepence was a uniting one for the US. For Chile or Argentina or most other Latin states it was divisive.

I think you're forgetting the massive civil conflict in the colonies between patriot and loyalist; each group probably made up about 1/3 of society (with the remainder being on the fence) for the majority of the war.

As for the OP's question, I would dare say that Brazil was lucky with its first two emperors, but was less fortunate than the US down the road when it came to handling ethnic and social division, resulting in its backsliding from a stable constitutional monarchy.

 

[Lusitania]

You could make a counter argument that having Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe certainly didn't help the possibility of a gradual, peaceful, abolition of slavery over time.
Or to use some current language, the Virginian Presidents were enablers of the sexualized violence and general horror of American slavery.

Jefferson abolished the slave trade, which would have led to the decline of slavery were it not for the cotton gin, which gave slave owners even more of a financial incentive to keep slaves.

There was not much anyone could have done about slavery, especially in the early days of the Union - it was political suicide, and it might have easily divided the young nation. Slavery was truly a "way of life" in the South, no matter how apprehensible it was, and it was probably inevitable that a violent conflict of some kind would arise over slavery. All Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe could have done is delay this conflict, which is a good thing for the young nation as a major conflict this early on could well have led to an early breakup of the Union.



The issue was very relevant in the late 18th and early 19th centuries - just look at the 3/5ths Compromise or the Missouri Compromise, for example. It even influenced the Declaration of Independence. However, as I said above, early American leaders were wise enough to try to forestall any war until the United States was prepared to fight it.

A civil war in 1810 or 1820 would turn out very different than a civil war in 1860.

Now if we look at the two posts in which one attacks three founding fathers and provides no context to their rant and second one in which a context to the continuation of slavery is provided to the long term survivability of the US.

The second post provides reason to believe it was lucky that country was smart enough to compromise on slavery otherwise the US would of split into two or multiple countries.

Again this was not a discussion on social and human tragic issue on slavery.

 

[Marc]

Jefferson abolished the slave trade, which would have led to the decline of slavery were it not for the cotton gin, which gave slave owners even more of a financial incentive to keep slaves.

There was not much anyone could have done about slavery, especially in the early days of the Union - it was political suicide, and it might have easily divided the young nation. Slavery was truly a "way of life" in the South, no matter how apprehensible it was, and it was probably inevitable that a violent conflict of some kind would arise over slavery. All Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe could have done is delay this conflict, which is a good thing for the young nation as a major conflict this early on could well have led to an early breakup of the Union.

Well, yes, of course. However, it might have gone a touch better for the country in the long run, if the first gang of presidents weren't personally married to the slave status quo to the degree they were. The fascinating question would be, would we have been luckier having say a Massachusetts/New York dynasty than a Virginian?
I've casually wondered how we would have fared under say a DeWitt Clinton presidency instead of Madison - not a supposing really explored.

 

[CalBear]

Just imagine if they had got someone with the personality of Donald Trump.

Wow. Took a whole seven posts for someone to bring current politics into this.

Are the Mods REALLY going to have kicking folks to get the point across here?

NO CURRENT POLITICS OUTSIDE OF CHAT!

 

[triscreen]

As far as I'm aware, Clinton probably wouldn't have done anything that Madison didn't do in terms of slavery. While he was supported by the Federalists, he was still a Democratic-Republican, and even the elder Adams didn't do much in terms of slavery.

Just because we had presidents that owned slaves doesn't mean that they negatively impacted the course of slavery in the US. Pretty much all of the Founding Fathers had a "kick the can down the road" mentality, so even if there were more presidents from free states, they still would not have done much about the issue.

Even John Quincy Adams, who was famously against slavery (albeit more during his time in Congress) couldn't do much about the expansion of slavery.

Now if we look at the two posts in which one attacks three founding fathers and provides no context to their rant and second one in which a context to the continuation of slavery is provided to the long term survivability of the US.

The second post provides reason to believe it was lucky that country was smart enough to compromise on slavery otherwise the US would of split into two or multiple countries.

Again this was not a discussion on social and human tragic issue on slavery.

Please don't use what I write to attack others. The first post suggested that the positions of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe on slavery were in fact unlucky for America, which certainly falls within the bounds of this thread.

 

[Marc]

As far as I'm aware, Clinton probably wouldn't have done anything that Madison didn't do in terms of slavery. While he was supported by the Federalists, he was still a Democratic-Republican, and even the elder Adams didn't do much in terms of slavery.

Just because we had presidents that owned slaves doesn't mean that they negatively impacted the course of slavery in the US. Pretty much all of the Founding Fathers had a "kick the can down the road" mentality, so even if there were more presidents from free states, they still would not have done much about the issue.

Even John Quincy Adams, who was famously against slavery (albeit more during his time in Congress) couldn't do much about the expansion of slavery.


I have to, sadly, agree that probably not. An expression that I use in real life conversations is that the "Peculiar Institution" is America's Original Sin...
I occasionally get blow-back from friends that how we treated over Natives over four plus centuries is a matching sin - and yes they are right.