Notice also that despite executing their monarch, they also instated monarchs in all but name: Cromwell and Bonaparte.
The British revolutionaries were not republicans. The French ones were. 'They' did not install Bonaparte, they were removed in the Thermidorian Reaction, replaced by the Directory - the abbe Sieyes of whom then conspired with Bonaparte to prevent a restoration of the monarchy. Neo-Jacobins in fact opposed Bonaparte because he was a monarch.
Of course they returned the monarchy (albeit in a reduced power capacity), they never actually established proper Liberalism that weakened the government
Of course not. The whole point of the Revolution was strengthening the government and centralizing it. A jurist in Provence was hanged for objecting to the removal of the traditional privileges of the county.
His charges may not have even had merit legally (even if they should have because fuck you for invading your own country with a foreign army to attack your own people with), and the The Commons was just making shit up as they went along, while appointing a biased and ignorant judge to oversee the whole thing.
Correct. But note that David Frum was a while back citing Charles I as a warning to Donald Trump, in a veiled warning that he may want a similar fate for POTUS.
This is the thing about "Popular Sovereignty" that they introduced, but in a bastardized way. The people being Sovereign is correct. However, the people claiming to represent the people are not the Sovereigns. This is a fine distinction that the British repeatedly failed to learn, and the Americans literally rebelled against them for.
But then you instituted the same system.
The American Revolutionaries, particularly the New Englanders, understood that the British government and Parliament hadn't done fuck all for them in 200 years
This is incorrect. The British had protected them from the French. It's likely that the British were contributing more to the colonies than they collected in taxes.
When the Americans screamed that they couldn't be taxed without having representation in the British Parliament
It must also be noted that they also refused to have representation in the British parliament.
You have to treat the government as a weapon, and not a friend. If you build a government to solve problems, it's one day going to see you as a problem and try to solve you.
But note that David Frum was a while back citing Charles I as a warning to Donald Trump, in a veiled warning that he may want a similar fate for POTUS.
Seriously, that comment would have deserved more of a violent blowback from what it got. Do not threaten to arrest or kill foreign dignitaries.
The British had protected them from the French. It's likely that the British were contributing more to the colonies than they collected in taxes.
Not really, no. The French never really posed any significant military threat in North America. They were, at best, a check on colonial expansion. Even then, the Colonial Militias were doing a lot of the fighting
It's likely that the British were contributing more to the colonies than they collected in taxes.
"We make money from trade, not taxes. Let the Americans tax themselves." one of the few intelligent people in Parliament during the American Revolution. Mercantalism is how Britain made money, not from taxation.
The British revolutionaries were not republicans. The French ones were. 'They' did not install Bonaparte, they were removed in the Thermidorian Reaction, replaced by the Directory - the abbe Sieyes of whom then conspired with Bonaparte to prevent a restoration of the monarchy. Neo-Jacobins in fact opposed Bonaparte because he was a monarch.
Of course not. The whole point of the Revolution was strengthening the government and centralizing it. A jurist in Provence was hanged for objecting to the removal of the traditional privileges of the county.
Correct. But note that David Frum was a while back citing Charles I as a warning to Donald Trump, in a veiled warning that he may want a similar fate for POTUS.
But then you instituted the same system.
This is incorrect. The British had protected them from the French. It's likely that the British were contributing more to the colonies than they collected in taxes.
It must also be noted that they also refused to have representation in the British parliament.
That ship has sailed.
Seriously, that comment would have deserved more of a violent blowback from what it got. Do not threaten to arrest or kill foreign dignitaries.
Not really, no. The French never really posed any significant military threat in North America. They were, at best, a check on colonial expansion. Even then, the Colonial Militias were doing a lot of the fighting
"We make money from trade, not taxes. Let the Americans tax themselves." one of the few intelligent people in Parliament during the American Revolution. Mercantalism is how Britain made money, not from taxation.
Nah.