As for Latin America, I think it indisputable that independence came too soon and in the wrong way, considering the state of Latin American societies at that time. They needed time and experience to learn to govern themselves effectively, and insulation from enlightenment ideas which were a destablising factor from the beginning of independence.

America needed slower westward expansion and slower or no immigration in order to develop its civilisation. In the end, it wasn't that South European Catholics or East Europeans came over here, it was the speed at which they did. The rate of expansion in the colonial period and the early nineteenth century was natural. It was the result of the gradual growth and expansion of civilisation. The immigrant explosion of the late 19th - early 20th century, and resulting accelerated expansion westward and greatly accelerated growth of cities undermined society, to the detriment of the original Americans and the immigrants.

Best thing to do would be to restore monarchies at this point or go back to city states. There you have both ends of the centralization/decentralization spectrum. Monarchies are heavily centralized, but since the person in charge is going to pass it(power) on to his kids he is more likely to care about what shape his nation/empire/state is in. It is like how a person who owns his own home takes better care of it than a renter or squatter. City states would work out better than the current regime as localities can concentrate on what is best for them without worrying about an intrusive federal or state govt looking to mess things up. A lot less waste in terms of money and resources.

... or maybe there was just nothing else to play with, on either side, at that point. Still, given our present conditions I don't think a benevolent monarch (if one can be found) could hurt.

The point about the Revolution's character being "essentially Christian and Medieval" raises even more questions and touches confessional issues--and I am even less qualified to enter such a debate. Hence my appeal to Chronicles for a series on the subject.

Given the multiconfessional nature of the U.S. and this web site, I cannot articulate a full apologia of my views, as a Roman Catholic, to the contrary, but this does pick an interesting idea. There seems to be enough disparity among decent Americans and Chronicles readers as to the benignity (if that is a word) of the American Revolution that it might warrant an issue treating the subject from the various perspectives. Dr. Wilson, Dr. Fleming, what do ye say?

My own opinion is well known: we have not kept the republic and liberal democracy is failing us badly, so shouldn't we consider trying something else? But I should very much like to hear the manifestos of those who believe that the American Revolution was not inherently tainted by the Enlightenment, as well as their counterparts.

I view the American revolution much like the protestant reformation, in that it was just and necessary at the time, but that it was very unfortunate that it had to happen, and it had serious and often nasty consequences.

I think Sam Dickson was right to say that the way that American independence came about was unfortunate and that it was premature, and that it warped the development of American society. Looking back, it would have been better if we had gotten independence peacefully, maybe a hundred or so years later, perhaps even around the time that Australia or Canada got theirs.

Independence sure didn't keep us out of the world wars.

On the other hand, we cant judge the founders harshly, because they couldn't foresee all that , and they had to do what they found it necessary to do. I would have been right there with them. Besides, if we had waited for independence despite all the injustices at the time, and even if those injustices had subsided, who is to say that we wouldn't have asked for independence and then gotten the Rhodesia treatment?

But do the revolutionaries elsewhere look to the American Revolution for inspiration? Did not the freemasons and other free-thinkers play a prominent role in fomenting revolution elsewhere? It could be argued that they were accelerating the development of the nation-state in a certain direction, while [some of] the Founding Fathers were trying to reverse it.