There's been a fair about of childish snark going on, which I'd expect on somewhere like reddit, but I'd hope on a site like this people are thoughtful enough to discuss things sensibly. Instead people are misquoting, jumping to other time periods, or making otherwise silly comparisons.
Let us go back to the original argument: it was that the British political institutions and British political culture of British settler colonies help with stability and governance. Now let's look at the anodyne comparisons:
The three Kingdoms, 1639-51. A century before the time period we're talking about, and notably before the constitutional setup we are talking about developed in 1689.
The American colonies, 1775-83. This is the best of a bad bunch of comparisons, but still doesn't work. They had the British culture, but not the British institutions. That was the whole reason the war happened: they did not have responsible government and revolted because of it. Of course, if River Plate in this scenario doesn't get given substantial autonomy by the Brits, then there will be a revolt here, but no-one argued otherwise.
Canada, 1837-38. The rebellion in Upper Canada was so pathetic it is barely a historical note. The rebellion in Lower Canada was obviously a place of French culture and was still very small. In fact, this is a good example of how revolutionary plans don't get traction with the wider public in a place where British political norms and institutions have given them a stake in governance.
India, 1857-58. To claim that 19th century India had British political culture in the broader population is so obviously incorrect I'm not even going to address this one.
USA, 1861-1865. A war that occurred in a system that had thrown out British political institutions, notably the parliamentary angle, over the worry about one side capturing an over-mighty presidency and the patronage network that went with it.
South Africa/Boer states, 1880-81, 1899-02. This was a war between a British colony and two foreign states with their own instiutions that were never under British rule.
I'm happy to have a grown-up discussion about this, but pithy one-line putdowns that stereotype the other side don't constitute that. Nor do arguments akin to "smoking can't be less healthy to non-smoking: my nan smoked and lived to 95!"
Let us go back to the original argument: it was that the British political institutions and British political culture of British settler colonies help with stability and governance. Now let's look at the anodyne comparisons:
The three Kingdoms, 1639-51. A century before the time period we're talking about, and notably before the constitutional setup we are talking about developed in 1689.
The American colonies, 1775-83. This is the best of a bad bunch of comparisons, but still doesn't work. They had the British culture, but not the British institutions. That was the whole reason the war happened: they did not have responsible government and revolted because of it. Of course, if River Plate in this scenario doesn't get given substantial autonomy by the Brits, then there will be a revolt here, but no-one argued otherwise.
Canada, 1837-38. The rebellion in Upper Canada was so pathetic it is barely a historical note. The rebellion in Lower Canada was obviously a place of French culture and was still very small. In fact, this is a good example of how revolutionary plans don't get traction with the wider public in a place where British political norms and institutions have given them a stake in governance.
India, 1857-58. To claim that 19th century India had British political culture in the broader population is so obviously incorrect I'm not even going to address this one.
USA, 1861-1865. A war that occurred in a system that had thrown out British political institutions, notably the parliamentary angle, over the worry about one side capturing an over-mighty presidency and the patronage network that went with it.
South Africa/Boer states, 1880-81, 1899-02. This was a war between a British colony and two foreign states with their own instiutions that were never under British rule.
I'm happy to have a grown-up discussion about this, but pithy one-line putdowns that stereotype the other side don't constitute that. Nor do arguments akin to "smoking can't be less healthy to non-smoking: my nan smoked and lived to 95!"