Leaderboard

@Chevdove you ask a thoughtful historical question. When most people today speak of federalism we think of sovereign states of elected representatives joined together but if you expand federalism as any union of sovereigns, the roman empire was a federation of provinces, many provinces controlled by a general thus a level of sovereignty . What is my point? I think federalism was bound to happen, as you say, if you consider said white slavers wanted to make washington a king. He would had been a king of states, an elected king of states, a federation under a crown, which isn't unheard of in european history, that was the holy roman empreror, which was actually centered in modern day germany , not rome or italy. as for the military success of the usa at its infancy well, the three reasons were simple. 1)The atlantic ocean 2)the impotency of Black DOSer+ First People allies to the English 3) the involvement of france The atlantic ocean meant the english couldn't send a larger force to the thirteen colonies absent leaving their flank over to france who borders england by a channel. The reason why military vessels about the water are all nuclear powered is the energy it takes to push through water is not little, sailboats really couldn't do that in the same way so had timing limitations that aided the thirteen colonies more than anything else. Second, DOSers + First Peoples were just to impotent. More first peoples needed to fight against the colonist , i argue all did , but all didn't. And most blacks as you know were enslaved during these fights, the enslaved black populations even at that time counter for a near majority in many southern states. And in my view all the free blacks should had fought against the colonist but as we know, they didn't either. Even in the usa's infancy, the individual allowance, the individual opportunity breaks communal strength.. which makes sense. In any group some will always exist who want to go their own way and when someone offers them the opportunity they will take it. Third, which is one of the odd things that most don't calculate in the colonist victory, is france. France backed the usa heavily against the british, money/food/arms, in the same way the usa backed afghanistan against the soviet era russians.. and as history goes in cycles, in the same way, the usa didn't become a strict partner with france is the same way, afghanistan didn't become a strict partner with the usa. The confederation of the colonies is at best fourth or irrelevant to the militaristic victory the colonist had. BUt, it is not unimportant. Benjamin franklin comprehended what you see Chevdove, that the identity after the fight is what is most important and going back to history this is why, china/cuba survive and thrive better than their ther non white european contemporaries in asia/africa/central or south america or the caribbean. BEnjamin frnaklin like Castro like Mao comprehended what is this country after we win the war. Fighting the war is easy, oppressor is over there, get them. But if you win the war, your identity after is hard. After the battle against the oppressor is won the questions are: who are we? what do we want? how do we want to live? where do we want to go? when do we want to change or not change? why should we do anything? these are the questions that Ben Frnaklin found answered in the form of federalism he pushed for. He knew the colonies hated each other. He knew they only united cause the wealthy slavers in control of each wanted more money free from england's control. He knew that the enslaved black populace , the various white religious groups, the first peoples were all not invited to the table but would inevitably have a role to play in things. So, what about a federal government of elected officials. A federal system of law that is more flexible than any state within it. careful language so as to be able to bend in the future a little, not a lot, a little. This will give slow change which will be painful for many but will also slow down various fast movements. When you look at Mandela's south africa, which i focus on as it is one of the last non white european country to create a government and mandela, the former long term prisoner to whites, looked to mirror the english parliamentary system. You see the difference. South africa has four peoples: blacks the undeniable majority but a set of tribes in itself who sometimes fight and only align strong agaisnt whites, whites the wealthiest and whose main goal is isolation and ways to disenfranchise blacks, the colored populace, inevitable between black and white who has grown and grown but has to choose between either , the indian populace a tiny populace that tend to be financially wealthy but disempowered from the heights of government through the blacks or finance through the whites. The parliamentary system is totally dysfunctional to fit the people of south africa. thus, in 2025, all of these populaces are dysfunctional. The black populace infights between getting rid of all the non blacks, living with the non blacks, black individuals who care little for the black group but want to profit off of it 's position, small black tribes in south africa that don't have the quantity of people to do great things but are doing efficient things. The white populace has two groups, wealthy whites trying to live in gated communities reflecting a desire to live in the south africa of yore absent the presence of blacks. A poor white group that works with blacks but has a love hate relationship that doesn't have any chance of settling on which. The colored populace that embraces the mandela project but doesn't have the money the whites have or the population the blacks have to turn that desire into what most of south africa wants. Lastly, the indians who are just coasting in the country, almost mythical widl west style, playing their cards where they can. confederation wasn't what won the colonies the war against the english but thinking on what their union, what federation will be before the war ended gave the white slavers who rule the colonies a better idea of what will be wiser than merely mimicking what they knew or come from.