Replies

The real history of the holocaust of the "Indians" in the New World, is that they were felled by Old World diseases far more than they were killed by Europeans. When it came to actual killing raids, both sides gave as good as they got, unlike the pogroms. Much of the hostility between the colonists and the Indians in the early history of this continent was stirred up by the French, as an extension of the wars in Europe between the French and the British and everyone else.

BTW, thanks for the correction on the position of the Royals with regard to the pogroms. Whatever the power of kings and czars, the pogroms led to the emigration of millions of Eastern Europeans to this continent, adding to the population pressures on the Indians from those who had previously come to escape the religious wars of Europe.

We are not king-friendly in this nation. The most significant action President Washington took, was to set the precedent and leave office after two terms, even though there were Americans who wanted to acclaim him as King. This is the most critical aspect of any fledgling democratic republic, in that the leaders voluntarily leave. Failure to adopt this into the political fabric of a nation leads to tyranny. This is evident in almost all of the newly-independent countries of the developing world, and has led to their failure due to avaricious nature of their very human leaders. That is the idea of limited government, in that the nature of humans is acknowledged, and impediments to power are put in place.

Whatever the power of kings and czars, the pogroms led to the emigration of millions of Eastern Europeans to this continent,

The main reasons for the emmigration of millions of Eastern and Southern Europeans like Poles, Jews, Italians was poverty not pogroms. Pogroms were the exception, poverty was the rule.

We are not king-friendly in this nation. The most significant action President Washington took, was to set the precedent and leave office after two terms, even though there were Americans who wanted to acclaim him as King.

You said it! - There was a difference of opinion among Americans. BTW in the North the loyalists prevailed and that is why we have Canada. Either way the facts are facts, whether you like them or not.

Also with the growth of empire, many Americans seem to become more monarchist in their attitudes. especially in willingness to grant President more powers.

We are not king-friendly in this nation.

It is true that monarchy is not appropriate for our nation. That does not mean it is not appropriate for other nations, such as Iran, and we have recognized in the past that other nations may need kings. Putting the Shah in power was a great both for our interests and for the Iranian people. Too bad that idiot Carter abandoned him to the Soviet-backed Islamists.