Should America have separated from England?

Should America have separated from England?

Yes, a monarchy thousands of miles away could not efficiently govern such a large land mass and booming population.

This.
It was inevitable.

No. giving them a seat in parliament would have been sufficient.

Americans think the Kings and Queens of England held absolute power, similar to a Russian Tsar, truth is they didn't.

Catholics also do not worship Mary and Saints and the USA lost in Vietnam.

It wasn't just parliamentary representation, most laws established by colonial legislatures required approval by the king before being ratified, which meant years would pass before new laws could be enacted.

Sure, it was better for both nations in the long run. Still our best Ally.

>calls out the US on the only loss we've had in a war
>Lost to Iceland 3 times
> Lost to Pajeet
>lost to Yemen

Except it WAS Parliamentary representation that the British-Americans wanted at the time.

The chant was "No taxation without representation!" not "we want an independent state!"

Travel times between western Europe and north America would take the average ship 6 weeks, that's 12 weeks there and back, that's close to 3 months.

>But Parliament would take time to make decisions

No shit, so does every government, even your own.


At the absolute most the 13 colonies should have established their own parliament, similar to the system Scotland has today. Instead you lot went full retard and the wealthy Jews took control.

>Except it WAS Parliamentary representation that the British-Americans wanted at the time.

Are you not familiar with an opening bid? Does the concept of offering a compromise to avoid a serious conflict elude you?

>Travel times between western Europe and north America would take the average ship 6 weeks, that's 12 weeks there and back, that's close to 3 months.
So that's three months there, on top of the weeks of travel time on land for the legislature to assemble in the colony, then three months to return after deliberating in britain. So that's over 3/4ths of a year assuming that everything goes as well as possible.

Its not so much calling you out on it, lots of Americans believe memes like

>We won in Vietnam
>Catholics are polytheistic and worship Mary and Saints as equal to God
>The AWI was always intended to break away from Britain
>The King of England was evil and held absolute power

It just irks me when people are so wrong and vehemently believe that they are 100% correct.

It wasn't an opening bid, you don't offer servitude in the hopes of bargaining for independence. Asking for a seat at the table was the colonials putting all their cards on the table.

Parliament in in London dude, they sail into London, put a guy on a horse and he trots away to the Parliament building. Westminster is literally on the Thames river, the message could just sail right up the Parliament.

No.

Separatism is degenerate.

Without this divide and conquer anglos would still rule the waves in an actual empire and not just muh foreign bases muh economy wise

Really should have proofread that, fuck

Why am I not surprised to see the aussiefag defending catholicism of all religions.
If you are still defending catholicism in 2017, then please off yourself.

All England had to do to quell the rebellion or "revolution" was to give each colony one seat in Parliament....for a while at least. is right in the medium and long term.

fpbp

I'm not defending it friendo, just pointing out how lots of Americans actually believe propaganda that was spread hundreds of years ago. If you want to look at history properly you need to understand everything written has bias.

yes otherwise we would be a bunch of cucks with no guns today just like canada

Catholics are heathens though. No getting around the fact they worship idols and pray to mortals.

>It wasn't an opening bid, you don't offer servitude in the hopes of bargaining for independence. Asking for a seat at the table was the colonials putting all their cards on the table.

Obviously that changes when the british loose the battle of saratoga and the french and spanish join the war.

>Parliament in in London dude, they sail into London, put a guy on a horse and he trots away to the Parliament building. Westminster is literally on the Thames river, the message could just sail right up the Parliament.

I don't see how that's particularly important, the deciding role for movement on land would be the movement of representatives from the frontier of the colonies to the state capitols. The travel from the frontier of Virginia and Pennsylvania to the state capitol is much more limiting.

we did win vietnam we had like a 5:1 k/d ratio

I'm talking about the events leading up to the war, obviously once the war started in earnest it was impossible to end hostilities with a seat in Parliament, only way it would end at that point was complete victory for either side.


Government wasn't as hands on back then as it was today, a representative for his area could either live in London or in a larger city on the coast of the 13. The day to day management of the state would be in the hands of another who would write to the representative in London explaining the situation and asking for Parliamentary assistance. Travel time would take longer sure but as I said a secondary house of Parliament for the 13 colonies would have eventually been built in north America and would have probably included Canada.

Memes aside the USA would have eventually become a state of its own over time, the same way all the other Anglo countries did, if the Americans didn't throw an autistic fit over taxes the USA would have probably avoided the civil war and wouldn't have as many niggers in it as it does. It would have probably have also included Canada.

So if the USA never made the mistake of fighting for independence and had bee patient they would not only be larger than they are today, Canada would be as gay as it is today and one of the most destructive wars in its history would have been avoided. I'm not going to argue the legal benefits of a more Anglo system of Laws because I know they anger Americans but they are good in their own way.

reeeeee

>Government wasn't as hands on back then as it was today, a representative for his area could either live in London or in a larger city on the coast of the 13. The day to day management of the state would be in the hands of another who would write to the representative in London explaining the situation and asking for Parliamentary assistance. Travel time would take longer sure but as I said a secondary house of Parliament for the 13 colonies would have eventually been built in north America and would have probably included Canada.

Isn't there a serious discussion as to how the american revolution influenced later british policy towards their settler colonies?

>It wasn't an opening bid, you don't offer servitude in the hopes of bargaining for independence. Asking for a seat at the table was the colonials putting all their cards on the table.
>Le americans have niggers, so nothing they do has merit maymay.

Ok, I don't really see how a a governor appointed by the king and needing the laws of the legislature approved by a ruler thousands of kilometers away made sense for a territory which surpassed the home islands in population in a few decades and area, after independence.

>Canada would be as gay as it is today and one of the most destructive wars in its history would have been avoided.

So which island jew world war?

> I'm not going to argue the legal benefits of a more Anglo system of Laws because I know they anger Americans but they are good in their own way.

Did you know Georgia was one of the first anglo polities to formally codify common law?

If kd mattered Germans would have won WW2, don't be silly.

Should S.America have separated from Spain?