More 'Anglicised' Deeply Integrated British Empire

[flaja]

Explain things that happened well before American colonization even started? As in, things that happened completely independent of American political development?

Magna Charta was still in effect when the British colonies were settled, the American Revolution fought and the U.S. Constitution adopted.

And by the time the British Bill of Rights was issued by Parliament (1688-89) 12 of the 13 colonies that became the United States had already been established.

 

[flaja]

Just. Stop. Posting.

Me or DTY?

 

[flaja]

I don't think even in a politically integrated Empire the non-Anglo majority would be give a majority say in political affairs. There would be significant malapportionment in electorates and parts of the Empire. This would be biased toward the UK and other predominantly white areas.

Why couldn’t a parliament like the U.S. Congress not work for the British Empire? Give each part of the Empire home rule over purely local affairs and then let one house of Parliament have proportional representation based on population and the other house equal representation for each part of the Empire.

 

[flaja]

American political tradition draws itself from a lot more than just one source. British and Continental political theory of the Enlightenment is the main one.

What country in Europe, other than Great Britain, recognized the rights inherent in Magna Charta and the British Bill of Rights?

What country in Europe, other than Great Britain, had a long history of deposing a king who played the tyrant?

What country in Europe, other than Great Britain, had common law legal due process?

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

Many countries had some kind of democratic tradition. Some stayed, others got subverted. England was graced with being on an island.

 

[flaja]

Many countries had some kind of democratic tradition. Some stayed, others got subverted. England was graced with being on an island.

Which countries are you talking about?

Doesn’t it take more than simply majority rule to constitute a legitimate democracy? Can a country really be democratic if it doesn’t have the rule of law and mechanisms whereby the state cannot unjustly condemn an individual and a majority of individuals cannot abuse the rights of the minority? What countries other than England and the U.S. have had such a tradition?

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

Poland-Lithuania for the big one. Her enemies took advantage of the system though and Poland was partitioned.

Spain had the Spanish cortes, and was subverted by the monarchs.

Bohemia and Hungary both had elected monarchies, which only fell apart because of the chaos caused by Ottoman invasions and the subsequent Austrian Hapsburg dominance.

England never had to deal with an invasion since William I. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge anglophile, but England was lucky. So was the states, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Other nations weren't.

Besides, neither America nor Britain were true democracies in the modern sense (USA for one had something like only 10% of the population being allowed to vote at the nations conception).

 

[mtg999]

Why couldn’t a parliament like the U.S. Congress not work for the British Empire? Give each part of the Empire home rule over purely local affairs and then let one house of Parliament have proportional representation based on population and the other house equal representation for each part of the Empire.

Would agree as such with you, however I still think it more likely that the Westminster Parliament would be biased in favour of the UK and perhaps to a lesser extend the Dominions as opposed to the Colonies.

It would be easier to graft this onto the existing UK political system.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The one in which nearly all the grievances of the Declaration of Independence were explicitly addressed in the Constitution and its Amendments. That would make them rejections of the British democratic tradition as applied to the colonies, rather than emulations of. And when the Constitutional Convention set up a federal republic in the (idealized) image of the Romans with distinct separation of powers, as opposed to a more British parliamentary system with a more vague separation between Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, it can be called following a different path.

Dean, I really think you're wrong here. We weren't rejecting British democratic traditions, we were applying them - it was their lack of application that caused us to revolt.

Common Law is not just a small common factor, it underlies our entire system of government. While there are certainly Roman influences in our governmental system, it's on the macro level, i.e. all European governments have that same influence.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I don't think even in a politically integrated Empire the non-Anglo majority would be give a majority say in political affairs. There would be significant malapportionment in electorates and parts of the Empire. This would be biased toward the UK and other predominantly white areas.

Also I think that in a more 'French' style of British Empire in places such as S Africa rather than racial categories being used there would be categories such as 'civilisied' and 'non-civilised'. I believe that the French used such categories in some of their colonies.

That won't work though. If you give non-Anglos any representation at all, they will want equality, and the need for political alliances will inevitably cause them to get it.

Example: The Liberals need the Indians to form a ruling majority, the price being increasing the proportion of Indian representation.

Eventually, it's the Indian Empire. Or the British population gets tired of seeing power shifting into the hands of "brown people" and ends the relationship.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Abdul, I suppose I'll concede to those points.

Me or DTY?

Since I've never gone around telling people "your people deserved to be starved to death by the millions and reduced to a purely agricultural society for the actions of an insane leadership," or "centuries of white minority rule without equal rights was the best thing to ever happen to 1/3 of the world," I have a smidgen of a suspicion that it's not me.

 

[flaja]

Poland-Lithuania for the big one. Her enemies took advantage of the system though and

Poland was partitioned.

A country that can seldom maintain its own sovereignty is hardly a country no mater what kind of democratic features it may have. What good did it ever do Poland to have an elected king if that king didn’t have enough authority to insure that the country had an effective government? In the Polish system power was effectively vested in the regional nobility. That’s hardly democratic as a Brit or American would understand the term.

Spain had the Spanish cortes, and was subverted by the monarchs.

Explain? Are you talking about things that the Moors had put in place? Something from a religion like Islam can hardly be considered to be democratic. And the same goes for any country that would permit something like the Inqisition.

Bohemia and Hungary both had elected monarchies, which only fell apart because of the chaos caused by Ottoman invasions and the subsequent Austrian Hapsburg dominance.

Again Poland.

England never had to deal with an invasion since William I. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge anglophile, but England was lucky. So was the states, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Other nations weren't.

But England had to deal with a lot of invading before 1066. I think the fact that tyranny is anathema to the Anglo-Saxons insured that England survived the pre-1066 invasions. And if it weren’t for the fact the Normans had similar governmental customs, they never would have been able to hold England. William the Conquer did not have absolute power any more than any Saxon king ever did.

Besides, neither

America nor Britain were true democracies in the modern sense (USA for one had something like only 10% of the population being allowed to vote at the nations conception).

You can document this 10% figure? Freed blacks could vote in some states at the time and women were allowed to vote in others. Gradually the franchise was restricted to white men, but at the same time any property requirements were done away with. And the property requirements were never all that strenuous. When the Constitution was written America was land rich but labor poor. Any man who was willing to work could meet any property requirements for voting in short order.

 

[flaja]

Would agree as such with you, however I still think it more likely that the Westminster Parliament would be biased in favour of the UK and perhaps to a lesser extend the Dominions as opposed to the Colonies.

It would be easier to graft this onto the existing UK political system.

If the British were willing to see the people throughout the Empire as British and not colonials and then the Empire’s People were represented in that Westminster Parliament, then that Parliament would not be biased.

There would have been no American Revolution if the British had treated us as British. In 1763 you wouldn’t have found one man in ten over here who didn’t want to be part of the British Empire. The British said that we were Americans before we wanted to be Americans.

 

[flaja]

Abdul, I suppose I'll concede to those points.

Since I've never gone around telling people "your people deserved to be starved to death by the millions and reduced to a purely agricultural society for the actions of an insane leadership," or "centuries of white minority rule without equal rights was the best thing to ever happen to 1/3 of the world," I have a smidgen of a suspicion that it's not me.

You obviously know nothing of World War II or how the Germans and Japanese treated the people that they subjugated.

 

[Roberto]

You obviously know nothing of World War II or how the Germans and Japanese treated the people that they subjugated.

I don't mean to stray off topic and get attacked by a reincarnation of Hypern, but the actions and opinions of leaders of the Axis powers were lightyears away from the opinions of your average person living in an Axis country. Besides, you really can't be saying that a whole people deserve to be ground into the ground for the actions of their former regime.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

You obviously know nothing of World War II or how the Germans and Japanese treated the people that they subjugated.

Oh, I know.

I also remember how the United States actually did wipe out the vast majority of the Indians in its westward expansion. I had no part in it, and I don't support it, and I get annoyed when people suggest collective punishment on me for something I had no part in. Similar issues with slavery and reparations there.

Knowing that, and having something called "balance" and "reason," I can also see that just as it would be wrong for me to be blamed for something I had no choice in or influence over, so it would be wrong to not only punish the contemporaries who had no hand in it or who actually opposed it in various (if minor) ways, but also punishing their children and the children's children for the rest of history.

There's also a nice little part of the Constitution about guilt by blood. Very sane piece of advice in that.

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

Explain? Are you talking about things that the Moors had put in place? Something from a religion like Islam can hardly be considered to be democratic. And the same goes for any country that would permit something like the Inqisition.

WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN!

 

[flaja]

I don't mean to stray off topic and get attacked by a reincarnation of Hypern, but the actions and opinions of leaders of the Axis powers were lightyears away from the opinions of your average person living in an Axis country.

How did these axis leaders do what they did if they didn’t have fellow countrymen who were willing to follow orders? Guilt rests with the whole of Germany and the whole of Japan.

 

[flaja]

Oh, I know.

I also remember how the United States actually did wipe out the vast majority of the Indians in its westward expansion. I had no part in it, and I don't support it, and I get annoyed when people suggest collective punishment on me for something I had no part in.

You happen to be talking to someone who is part Cherokee, so get off your high horse.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

How did these axis leaders do what they did if they didn’t have fellow countrymen who were willing to follow orders? Guilt rests with the whole of Germany and the whole of Japan.

Wow, I think we need to dial this down a little bit. This is an alternate history discussion group, not a forum to discuss these kinds of issues.