This is your political and philosophical opinion.
Is it? I mean, the Quebec Act was one of the intolerable acts. Don't you agree that there's at least a slight conflit of interest here?
Last edited:
This is your political and philosophical opinion.
Really? I heard that almost all of them were forced out.
https://communistleaguetampa.org/20...tional-presidents-and-dysfunctional-politics/Less remarked on is what this says about the political class. If a half bright fool like Trump can walk all over the best prospects in both parties what does that say about the competency of America’s “best and brightest.” He didn’t do this through some kind of Machiavellian maneuvering. Nor is the staff he surrounded himself with doing him many favors. This is how helpless the political class is. Trump is like a bull that wandered into a china shop and was able to break everything because we assumed the dishes were much stronger than they actually were. He dispatched the front runner in the Republican primary through a combination of name calling and suggesting that maybe the Iraq war wasn’t the best idea. He defeated the Democrats because they insisted on nominating an unpopular candidate that, even without real and imagined scandals, was an avatar for all of the opportunism and rightward drift of the Democratic party. Oh, and by the way she also supported the Iraq War.
The effects of the Iraq War on the politics of the United States is extremely under analyzed. The Iraq war was poorly thought out, poorly executed, and disastrous by virtually any rubric. It’s lead to a rolling crisis the scope of which is difficult to comprehend. It’s probably the worst foreign policy blunder in US history. It was also supported by the “Responsible Adults” in both parties and the media (perhaps explaining its lack of analysis). It would be weird if this did not result in some kind of crisis of confidence in the political elites.
Wrong place ?The War in Iraq fundamentally transformed America IMHO. Its really important that Trump was anti war, and that Hillary lost the states with the most war dead. I think more than anything else, Trump's victory represents the thinning of American institutions, American parties (which were always paper thin things) have been totally hollowed out. Republican and Democrat are barely more unified politically than Occupy was, and it at least had General Assemblies to organize it's "membership".
https://communistleaguetampa.org/20...tional-presidents-and-dysfunctional-politics/
I don't think so. The problem with the Quebec Act in theeyes of Americans was not that it guaranteed Quebecois practices in what we'd call Quebec, but that it extended them to Ohio. On the other hand...Is it? I mean, the Quebec Act was one of the intolerable acts. Don't you agree that there's at least a slight conflit of interest here?
There were major religious issues. At the time the 13 colonies were pretty much uniformly hostile to Catholics, the French in Quebec were virtually all Catholic. The final treaty language that ceded Canada to Britain included considerable protections for the Catholic minority (something that did not sit well with many of the colonists who had fought as militia in the North American portion of the Seven Years War).
Well...I don't think so. The problem with the Quebec Act in theeyes of Americans was not that it guaranteed Quebecois practices in what we'd call Quebec, but that it extended them to Ohio. On the other hand...
America's actual Catholics, before the Irish showed up, were treated fine. If you scroll through writings from the period, you can't really find anyone who is angry that the Catholic Church was preserved in Quebec. Although there was a great incident in 1775 where Washington asked his troops to stop burning the Pope in effigy.
Well...
Maryland was originally founded as a home for Catholics. After the Glorious revolution the Catholics were suppressed, as was the case elsewhere in the colonies.
Catholics were literally illegal in New Hampshire (even after the Constitution passes, State Law remained on the books).
In 1741 John Ury was hanged for being a "Popish Priest (he wasn't, and the charges were mainly convenient) under a New York law that made being a Catholic priest punishable by death anywhere in the Colony.
In 1753 the Virginia Assembly passed a law that declared Roman Catholics incompetent to give testimony in court.
Several colonies had freedom of religion as part of the law, but specifically excluded "papists".
America in 1803 is very different from America in 1775, both demographically and ideologically, and even more different from French perceptions thereof. That said, there absolutely was discrimination against Catholics on a national scale in the 19th Century (see, e.g. the Know Nothings).Why were these sentiments not extended to the wholly Catholic Louisiana? I believe you are underestimating the early Americans.
America in 1803 is very different from America in 1775, both demographically and ideologically, and even more different from French perceptions thereof. That said, there absolutely was discrimination against Catholics on a national scale in the 19th Century (see, e.g. the Know Nothings).
As to the original question:
- There were cultural differences between the 13 Colonies and the French Canadians that made coordination different. People are slightly exaggerating them (several French Canadians did join the Continental Army when it invaded Canada), but they did exist
- The Americans actually launched a major invasion of Canada in 1775. It failed, and the British kept sufficient garrisons in the area to prevent any second attempt. Those troops were also more than sufficient to discourage any would-be rebels
The Constitution wasn't approved until 1789, after the U.S. WON the revolution. Freedom of Religion was enshrined in the Bill of Rights.Why were these sentiments not extended to the wholly Catholic Louisiana? I believe you are underestimating the early Americans.
The Constitution wasn't approved until 1789, after the U.S. WON the revolution. Freedom of Religion was enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
During the Revolution New Orleans was under control of the Spanish Crown, as deeply Catholic a government as existed.
I don't know about what happened in Louisiana, but in New England discrimination against both French Canadian and the Acadians was rampant until quite recently actuallyBut did this discrimination seep into states? As in, local levels abd wats in which it could actually affect the strongholds of Catholicism in the US, such as Louisiana. From my study, there was none.
I don't know about what happened in Louisiana, but in New England discrimination against both French Canadian and the Acadians was rampant until quite recently actually
I understand this. However, why would this development change with the addition of francophone Canada? It would seem likely that freedom of religion would be even more defined than it already was. Would you not agree?
[...] For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
I understand this. However, why would this development change with the addition of francophone Canada? It would seem likely that freedom of religion would be even more defined than it already was. Would you not agree?
Well I on the opposite end, know of what occurred in Louisiana in regards to this issue. Though, I do not know of New England.