The Bush Doctrine, stated in clear terms, is 'The US will invade anybody it likes, any time it likes, for whatever reason it deems adequate'
That isn't the Bush doctrine. Depending one what standards are considered adequate it is the standard for most countries throughout history and even today. Some countries don't have the power to pull off the invasions, and certainly what would be deemed adequate varies widely.
If you mean that the Bush doctrine is that the US will invade anyone at any time with no justification considered necessary that your statement doesn't accurately reflect US doctrine.
'the Tories/Loyalists where always mentioned' - mentioned yes, but in what context? ... representatives of a 'foreign' power, opponents of the 'patriots'
Mostly the 2nd. They were not portrayed as the despised enemy, they where just dealt with as the opponents of the revolution, without giving them an especially positive or negative image. They had less positive coverage but mostly they had less coverage overall, which is not rare when describing the people who lost a war, and who's vision for the future did not happen.
and peaceful law-abiding patriot loyalists prevailed in the struggle
If their participating in "the struggle" than they are not acting peacefully.
leading the thirteen colonies to a more civilized canadian path to democracy, i think it's entirely possible that advance of our species would have been aided, not hindered
I also think "it is entirely possible". I don't actually think it would have been better, but its certainly possible.
but the reality was that Whitehall was a long ways away, and there was a great deal of local autonomy on most matters
In 1812? Did things change that much from the late 1700s?
Virginia has a certain amount of autonomy even today, and it has much more before FDR, and still more before the Civil War, but at least since the Constitution went in to effect it was ruled from the Federal capital (except the parts not controlled by the North during the Civil War).
so a lot of us liked this situation, and for all the normal friction that happens between jurisdictions everywhere, we did not for the most part feel 'ruled by Britain', in a real sense we were Greater Britain
That makes my point rather well. IF the US is at war against Britain in 1812 then Canada would be part of the war as well.
So when Jefferson et al started up a war to take this country from us, using alleged impressing of sailors as pretext, it may have made sense to them, but it sure wasn't justifiable to canadians .
If the Canadians didn't want to be part of the war they should have made more of an effort to keep the Royal Navy from performing acts of war against the United States. The US might not have had grounds of war against Canada directly but Canada was as you said part of "Greater Britain".
Tim |
