eagleye13 wrote:
sUp is a limey.
He hasn't figured out what America had to overcome to become a Constitutional Republic..
sUp doesn't appreciate what America is.
This is probably the 5th time that I've seen you do this. LOL... So, were you one of those kids in grade school that went around spreading rumors about other kids behind their backs? Ya know, it's kind of a weasel thing to do.
But since you brought it up... Sure, I immigrated here from the UK with my parents when I was a baby. If we came illegally I would be what you call a Dreamer. But not only did we come here legally, we were
invited here because the U.S. aerospace industry was desperate for qualified engineers, which they had to get from Europe. My dad was one of them. In fact, they gave him citizenship and national security clearance almost immediately.
I had to wait until I turned 18 to naturalize as a U.S. citizen, which means I had to pass that U.S. civics test that natural born citizens are not required to take but studies have found that when they do the vast majority of them fail miserably.
But enough about me... Let's talk about what America had to overcome to become a constitutional republic (which is not a proper noun, so you don't have to capitalize).
Let's start with the fact that Britain was already a constitutional monarchy, where the king might have been the head of state but the government was controlled by representatives in Parliament and the biggest influence on those representatives was the merchant class that basically owned the colonies through corporate charters.
What this means is that before America became a republic or even a sovereign nation it was a profit seeking business and as such, many unfair policies were deployed, mostly based on maximizing profit for the owners at the expense of both the colonists in America producing the raw material and the workers producing finished products in Britain (where the Industrial Revolution was already starting). And if that wasn't bad enough, Britain was also starting it's abolition movement which threatened to squeeze the plantations even more.
So... some local slave-owning businessmen got together and started forming a resistance movement. This created a division on both sides of the pond as the conservatives (Tories) we're concerned about protecting the business and the liberals (Whigs) were excited about sticking it to the Tories.
The resistance movement gathered momentum (at least among the Whigs) and recruited militias from 13 of the 29 colonies then wrote an FU letter to the king. So the king sent in some troops that basically kicked ass, but then the French, who were still smarting from losing the last war to Britain saw the opportunity to screw them out of their colonies... So THEY sent in some troops and advisors and that changed the game. In response, the king (who was actually German) hired some German mercenaries (Hessians) to supplement his regiments and of course all the slaves that weren't chained down jumped on the British side. There was a bunch of smoke and blood and flags and eventually, The redcoats cut their losses and left. Kinda like we did in Vietnam and for much the same reason. Political pressure. The Whigs (in Britain) were opposed to the war.
I know this isn't the version you're familiar with and it makes sense that it wouldn't be. Most countries resulting from a revolution take the same approach to their own history... The revolution is always glorious and the peasants always drive the highly trained military forces out with their pitchforks and the will of God. It's just not a proper birth of nation if it doesn't in some way retell the story of David and Goliath.
In any case, we're not at the republic yet. The second part of what America had to "overcome", was the disputes among their own leaders as to how to take over the business. They needed a new system of authority to replace the Crown. But should that be left up the 13
colonies states as individual sovereignties? Or should they go with a confederacy, which was kind of the default at the time?
In the end, they decided on a more centralized but federated government. So the next question... Monarchy or republic? Indeed, there was a serious argument for making George Washington the new King of America, which invalidates all that glorious nonsense about the revolution being a war against monarchy. They decided to make Washington a president, thereby making the new nation a republic. (Republic = ANY form of government where the head of state is an elected president).
Everything else they pretty kept the same but with new names... so the House of Lords became the Senate and the House of Commons became the House of Representatives... Common Law of course and a judicial branch to uphold it. A Constitution with a Bill of Rights... all adopted from the old British system in the interest of minimizing disruption to the business they were now in charge of.
A few years later the Tories became Federalists with close ties to the British corporations that continued to profit from the plantations even though they could no longer force their will through the Crown.
In the end, nothing really changed. America is still primarily a business where we toil under a centralized authority that serves the corporations that serve the wealthy class. Maybe we're a little more delusional now because we are told we can vote, but being flooded with so much misinformation, many of us don't really know if we are actually voting in our interest or against our interests and half of us don't even bother. We don't even elect our president... the EC does... on behalf of Congress. Technically, a vote for the president is a vote for which party gets the electoral vote for your district, but the EC can still dissent, so ultimately we get what we get... and how different is that really from a monarchy?