#do i believe that the distance and salutary neglect affected America? of course

[ameliafuckinjones]

Interesting tidbit from Magnalia Christi Americana by Cotton Mather, which showcases what the early colonists of New England thought about old England:

They pretty much saw themselves and their settlement as an extension of the old country even as they were thousands of miles from it. And didn't want to separate from it so much as they wanted to become an ideal version of it. I imagine this sentiment stayed with the colonies even as they were in the throes of Revolution and especially during the setup of the US government. Good info to understanding the foundational relationship between America and England pre-revolution and pre-Enlightenment (though this book was published in 1702, around the age of Enlightment, it is in spirit an in depth analysis and recollection of early American religious history from the viewpoint of a late 17th/early 18th century puritan minister). The language, though, is what really interests me, "the little daughter of New England in America," "Mother England," "local secession, yet not a separation." and "Undesired local distance from her dear England". Family, though not separated emotionally, are distant physically against their will, and the child is still loyal to the mother country, at least from the pov of the English settlers. There is no true resentment for the mother country yet. I highlight this because it has become a sort of myth - especially in real life - that there was incredibly bad blood from the start when it's far more nuanced than that. The resentment that was built was gradual, it didn't happen all at once, and when things finally did "explode" emotionally speaking, it wasn't nearly as violent as it could have been. Of course, relations between America and England were strained after the Revolution (and 1812), but not so much that they wouldn't do trade deals immediately after the fact or make efforts to mend old wounds or even form a military alliance. I think the "bad blood" between them is often overstated, which turns England into a spiteful, mean creature, and America into some strange pitiful caricature of himself (or vice versa). The former is far to level-headed for that and the latter to sentimental, and for that reason I always try to approach their relationship with a bit more nuance (and realism?) in lieu of letting my fandom brain, hungry for dramatic angst, take over.

The main point is that yes things were rough between them, especially circa 1812, but not as rough as any of the complicated relationships England has with his other kin or neighbors with whom he shares centuries' worth of animosity. I think it's probably why he was comfortable and confident enough to make such a concerted effort with America (via Rapprochement and Dollar Princessess marrying into his aristocracy among other things) even after the Revolution and War of 1812 (and after it was determined that America would not be collapsing anytime soon and crawling back to him on begging hands and knees), because he knew that things could always be much worse and he was smart enough probably to understand that many of America's motivations and ideologies were inspired by him, even if he was perplexed by such childish rebellion.

I believe l've already made a post about why he didn't respond to the Revolution in the fashion America might have wanted him to and the conclusion was that he obviously did care but was under the assumption that America would fail and so he dedicated his energy to what he saw as the bigger threat in Europe. With the analysis above, I'm simply bringing forth the argument (again) that America as a child and a teen idolized England enough to emulate him and become a better version or at least his definition of a better version, and the seed to do so was there from the very beginning. And that for this reason, the relationship isn't as venomous as most make it seem. Both parties very much wanted to connect with each other for a myriad of reasons and did just that even with minor hiccups. It took centuries for France and England to reach such a point (though I'm sure they're both glad that they eventually did). It took America and England a few decades even after the war of 1812. That two stubborn and prideful nations would quickly let bygones be bygones after war, and separation is a miracle and evidence that even with minor and major contention, there is an innate desire to be closer despite everything.

I can go on and on about this, but I think I'll stop here.