There would be as little difference from OTL as possible really. It mostly has to do with government actually representing the people's interests and local superiority over federal superiority. Maybe more of an emphasis on Jefferson's idea of revolution every 20 or so years. Anyway suffrage could be more egalitarian. Only small changes but they have great potential later and when they are repealed it has severe consequences.
How 'liberal' can the American Revolution and Constitution get?
- Thread starter ANARCHY_4_ALL
- Start date
There would be as little difference from OTL as possible really. It mostly has to do with government actually representing the people's interests and local superiority over federal superiority. Maybe more of an emphasis on Jefferson's idea of revolution every 20 or so years. Anyway suffrage could be more egalitarian. Only small changes but they have great potential later and when they are repealed it has severe consequences.
the world liberal had a different meaning in the 1790s. more like
Classical liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
with much of American being land owning farmers rather than urban workers I think it socialist ideas would have a limited appeal.
for socialist ideas to have more appeal they would need to be more based around a religion to be attractive to Americans.
maybe something like the Amish.
You might see some states going socialist later as they become more urbanised.
might be easier to have some state constitution with a more modern liberal ideas rather that the whole federal government.
or you could have the northern states going progressive in the 1860s and the southern states more free market.
could have a civil war between the modern liberal ideas and Classical liberal ideas
or you could socialist forming a voluntary community in salt lake city instead of the Mormons.
Classical liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
with much of American being land owning farmers rather than urban workers I think it socialist ideas would have a limited appeal.
for socialist ideas to have more appeal they would need to be more based around a religion to be attractive to Americans.
maybe something like the Amish.
You might see some states going socialist later as they become more urbanised.
might be easier to have some state constitution with a more modern liberal ideas rather that the whole federal government.
or you could have the northern states going progressive in the 1860s and the southern states more free market.
could have a civil war between the modern liberal ideas and Classical liberal ideas
or you could socialist forming a voluntary community in salt lake city instead of the Mormons.
Last edited:
Government at the time did not work in that manner, the local and state governments represented the peoples interests and the Federal government represented the states interests.
Also, another thing to keep in mind is that until the late 1820's the average person considered politics to be something that should be left to the elite to deal with/that it was'nt something ordinary people hould have to deal with or care about.
The States generally were superior to the Federal government right up to the Civil War, which was sorta ya know fought based on Slavery and States Rights (to have slaves, and not be forced to do other things they did'nt like).
He meant Political Revolution, as in shaking things-up, not armed revolts overthrowing the government, the latter of which really would be a horrible idea and would lead us to an early version of Turkey or Greece.
In several states Women had the right to vote, but this was restricted in the period right before and right after the Revolution for the most part.
IOTL the vote did pretty quickly become as egalitarian as it realistically could, expanding from white males with land to white males in general, you're not going to get Womens Right to Vote that early, and considering how the large majority of Americans at best considered African Americans partially civilized savages who could never truly live in white society and at worst not even human, you're certainly not going to get the right to vote for them.
If they were in the Constitution in the first place they would'nt be repealed unless they had a large amount of support among the populace on account of the Constitution being so difficult to amend.
Thomas Paine was practically a communist. Feel free to rage now, I'll be back to defend it.
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property" - Thomas Paine.
"That government is best which governs least" - Thomas Paine
Doesn't sound very communist to me.
He did advocate a georgist/geoist style land tax, but thats not really very communist either, more mutualist/libertarian.
It's entirely possible to support a free market whilst opposing capitalist land monopolies.
Don't confuse communism with stalinism.
True communists are also anarchists.
Thank you for expressing that so I didn't lol.
It really gets confusing to modern readers when you try to explain that liberalism and libertarianism use to be pretty much the same thing. When it comes to personal liberty, the Constitution was pretty liberal. Yeah, there's the whole avoid-salvery-at-all-cost issue, but that was because they viewed holding the States together to be far higher priority.
Don't confuse communism with stalinism.
True communists are also anarchists.
Therefore, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Molotov, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Bela Kun, Palmiro Togliatti, Antonio Gramsci, Josip Tito, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Krishna Menon, Fidel Castro, Enver Hoxha, Georges Marchais, Maurice Thorez, Nicolai Ceausescu, Earl Browder, Che Guevara, Rosa Luxemburg, Ernst Thalmann, Dolores Ibarruri, Santiago Carillo, Victor Serge, Diego Rivera, Yves Montand, Paul Robeson, Pablo Neruda, and Jessica Mitford were not true Communists.
Which is very odd, because all of them thought they were true Communists.
If you would like to force me to take that (rather extreme) position, fine, I will.
No, they weren't. Communism is made up of two roots: "Commune" and "ism". "Ism" can be ignored because it's just means "ideology". "Commune", though, has direct connotations of anarchy, because it highly suggest that society is communal, and not ruled from above. Communism is literally a society based on being a good neighbor.
Well Marx was an anarchist because he did believed that there should be a classly society without a state.