Why did these contiguous lands make different decisions regarding their political status? I've been speculating about the reasons for this quite a bit lately. One the provocations for these speculations has been Maya Jasanoff's Liberty's Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary War. She follows 6 different grouping of Loyalists from the lead-up to the Declaration of Independence, through the war, and then after, to their fortunes in the various places of their exile, transported by the British. Among these groups are Native peoples and enslaved people, as well as the very wealthy feudal families in the south and north, and mercantilists such as the Delanceys. As I learned during my days at the Fraunces Tavern Museum, the Delanceys didn't make the clever move of the Livingston family, by having members on both sides, so they were in position to win-win as a family. (The Livingstons continued afterwards during the early days of the Republic and after the War of 1812, as an elite powerhouse player, in NYC, Maryland, New Orleans and greater Louisiana.)
There were proposals on the table, at the beginning of the 'troubles,' that would have put the 13 colonies into the same relationship that Canada eventually established for itself -- entire independence and autonomy domestically, just not internationally -- no power to begin a war on its own for instance. Why didn't the 13 colonies go that way?
Maybe Jasanoff will provide some answers to my questions via her presentation here tonight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment