Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Seth Barrett Tillman: Alexander Hamilton on Brexit

    Posted by Jonathan on June 22nd, 2016 (All posts by )

    Who said this?

    The battle over Britain’s national existence and parliamentary independence is a battle which will be fought through to the bitter end, however long it lasts. It is a battle in which no quarter will be asked and none will be given. It is a battle in the course of which all other political lines and links will continue to be overrun and broken, as it surges one way or the other. It is a battle in which the bitterest foes of the past will stand together and the closest of old alliances be destroyed. I say these things in no spirit of bravado. They are cold and sober deductions from fact, the fact that the fight is about the continued existence of the nation itself, an issue to which by definition all other political issues and causes whatsoever must be subordinated, as to the greater which subsumes the less.

    See Seth’s post for the answer.

     

    5 Responses to “Seth Barrett Tillman: Alexander Hamilton on Brexit

    1. ErisGuy Says:

      The people of Scotland must decide whether to remain in Great Britain, and the peoples of England and Wales, if Scotland will remain in Great Britian. Like Quebec in Canada, the nation would be better off if Scotland were ejected.

      The people of Northern Ireland must decide if they are British or Irish.

    2. PenGun Says:

      “Like Quebec in Canada, the nation would be better off if Scotland were ejected.”

      We almost lost her. I don’t think we’ll go there again soon. We are a multicultural society, it’s both our strength and our weakness. We would be much poorer without Quebec.

    3. raymondshaw Says:

      I lived and worked in New Jersey in the mid to late 70s. During those years I vacationed to Canada numerous times. While my french language skills were pretty
      good then, I noticed that quite a few Quebecers also spoke english. Later, during the late 90s into the mid oughts, I had occasion to again travel in Quebec on business. The percentage of bilingual speakers was dramatically lower. It is an anecdotal data set, but I had a very much harder time communicating with my customers
      and with merchants and such on the road, as my french language skills had degraded due to the 20 year hiatus. If what I experienced is a general trend, I would think it not a good sign. While I never partook, my male Quebec acquaintances bragged that the Montreal topless bars were the finest in North America. So they have that going for them.

      It does make me thankful that we did not prevail in the War of 1812. And if you folks up north could come down and burn DC to the ground again, why that would be appreciated.

    4. Will Says:

      The ugliness with Quebec goes way back. My Grandfather was from the Maritimes, and stories abound. I’m guessing it was that magical period post-1968 that really put the pedal to the metal, though. Trudeau was hailed as a rock star/savior by the press and French speaking Canada, but many had him pegged as Commie-Frog bastard and draft-dodger. I’m sure the sentiment holds to this day. Like another guy, this one from below the 49th parallel, he took an issue with a tenuous peace and made it much, much worse.

      These two examples are not independent of each other as well, there are many dots that can be connected.

    5. James Says:

      Alexander has a good point of view there. I just hope he is not wrong :)