Liberal Vox Calls American Revolution A ‘Mistake,’ Gives 3 Reasons, You’re Going To Want To See This

A liberal calling the American Revolution a mistake seems so common in 2018, but taken at face-value, the comment should still shock those who love and support the country.

Here’s the story…

Vox writer Dylan Matthews pushed a piece titled, “3 reasons the American Revolution was a mistake.” It was cheekily subtitled, “Happy Fourth!”

After colonists signed the Declaration of Independence, the event many Americans celebrated on Wednesday, the American Revolution was the consequential and pivotal effect.

Vox writes, however, “This July 4, let’s not mince words: American independence in 1776 was a monumental mistake. We should be mourning the fact that we left the United Kingdom, not cheering it.”

So what’s the deal? Matthews continued:

I’m reasonably confident a world in which the revolution never happened would be better than the one we live in now, for three main reasons: Slavery would’ve been abolished earlier, American Indians would’ve faced rampant persecution but not the outright ethnic cleansing Andrew Jackson and other American leaders perpetrated, and America would have a parliamentary system of government that makes policymaking easier and lessens the risk of democratic collapse.

He argues the British Empire mostly abolished slavery in 1834 and would probably have done so in the colonies, should they not have revolted.


— Advertisement —

It’s true that had the US stayed, Britain would have had much more to gain from the continuance of slavery than it did without America. It controlled a number of dependencies with slave economies — notably Jamaica and other islands in the West Indies — but nothing on the scale of the American South. Adding that into the mix would’ve made abolition significantly more costly.

But the South’s political influence within the British Empire would have been vastly smaller than its influence in the early American republic. For one thing, the South, like all other British dependencies, lacked representation in Parliament. The Southern states were colonies, and their interests were discounted by the British government accordingly. But the South was also simply smaller as a chunk of the British Empire’s economy at the time than it was as a portion of America’s. The British crown had less to lose from the abolition of slavery than white elites in an independent America did.

Of course, people on social media were quick to point out the logical fallacies.

Per Twitchy:

Matthews spends about a third of his piece trashing America’s system of government and says the country does not spend enough to help poorer citizens:

And the efficiency of parliamentary systems enables larger social welfare programs that reduce inequality and improve life for poor citizens. Government spending in parliamentary countries is about 5 percent of GDP higher, after controlling for other factors, than in presidential countries. If you believe in redistribution, that’s very good news indeed.

The Westminister system of parliamentary democracy also benefits from weaker upper houses. The US is saddled with a Senate that gives Wyoming the same power as California, which has more than 66 times as many people. Worse, the Senate is equal in power to the lower, more representative house. Most countries following the British system have upper houses — only New Zealand was wise enough to abolish it — but they’re far, far weaker than their lower houses. The Canadian Senate and the House of Lords affect legislation only in rare cases. At most, they can hold things up a bit or force minor tweaks. They aren’t capable of obstruction anywhere near the level of the US Senate.

People online, well, did not like the Anti-American push on the day the country celebrates the anniversary of their independence: