Timeline for answer to Why did North America economically prosper, and maintain stable government and South/Central America didn't? by user2848
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 4, 2017 at 0:20 | comment | added | Ryan | @PeterA.Schneider... Didn't happen for the "Spain" that conquered much of the Americas, and was suppressed for hundreds of years, not to mention it wasn't a true standing parliament but merely a gathering convened every so often for years (again until the kings suppressed them or took control of them). | |
| Apr 1, 2017 at 18:26 | comment | added | user2848 | @MAGolding: There appear to have been a lot of different municipal government arrangements throughout the empire, which was vast in space and time. Most of the municipal governments in the Spanish colonial system do not seem to have been very democratic. The cabeza de barangay in the Phillipines was a hereditary post. In Oaxaca, there was apparently an "anciano" or "principal" who chose all the other office holders. At various times, some cabildos had a mixture of elected and appointed members, and there was also a corregidor. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 17:25 | comment | added | user15620 | The English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution were likely more important, and had a direct impact on the thought processes of the leaders of the American Revolution. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 16:31 | comment | added | MAGolding | As I remember the Spanish established lots of municipalities in the new world, and most municipalities throughout history have had some form of republican government with elections of officials even if they were selected from rich neighboring landowners. Thus I suspect that many institutions of Spanish local government were more or less republics similar to municipalities in the English colonies. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 14:13 | comment | added | David Richerby | @PeterA.Schneider Good challenge -- that makes the comparison in the answer even less accurate! | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 12:56 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @DavidRicherby I wanted to challenge you for the first Spanish parliament; good that I looked it up, because one could claim it was in 1188 ;-). Nordic t[h]ings were also held earlier than 1215, so England is actually late to the party. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 12:24 | comment | added | David Richerby | @PeterA.Schneider The key word is "started"; the answer makes an unfair comparison between the very start of democracy in the UK (which it represents by an event that substantially predated democracy) and the emergence of a stable democracy in Spain. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 12:06 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | @DavidRicherby So you are saying that England only started to become democratic in 1296? 1296 -- that's pathetic. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 9:29 | comment | added | David Richerby | Let's not pretend that England was a democracy in 1216. It was another fifty years before parliament included people from outside the nobility, and another 30 years after that before it had any legislative power. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 2:36 | comment | added | SPavel♦ | This doesn't really factor in Quebec - it kept its own legal system which had nothing to do with the Magna Carta, and is one of the richest Canadian provinces. | |
| Mar 31, 2017 at 2:17 | history | answered | user2848 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |