For the same reason the US justified slavery.
no
In wars between colonial powers, the usual result was the reconfiguration of territorial control, often favoring the more powerful or strategically adept nation. These conflicts typically led to the expansion of empires, increased exploitation of resources, and the subjugation of local populations. Additionally, such wars could trigger nationalist movements in colonized territories, eventually contributing to decolonization efforts in the long term.
no country could continue to exist as a nation if a state could secede anytime it wished -Blissful
The fort had a number of weapons that could be used by the Continental Army.
This weekend's events could destabilize the nation by igniting deep-seated divisions and triggering widespread unrest. If tensions escalate into violence or significant protests, it could undermine social cohesion and erode trust in institutions. Additionally, misinformation and polarized narratives might exacerbate conflicts, leading to further fragmentation within communities. The cumulative effect could hinder national unity and progress before it even begins.
For the same reason(s) that a democracy allowed slavery (US 1776-1865).
All white men could vote. This was the most democratic state at the time.
The idea that the nation could be enriched by controlling trade with colonial markets.
It would help the nation's diversity and also their tolerance to other races/values. This could benefit everyone by creating a multicultural population.
basicly the difference would be the name and the size of the group. the function is about the same but the status of the nation could be diferente as the United STates uses congress as being a democratic nation.
only people with no children could be a Tanner in colonial times
In at least two significant ways, Imperialism as a central economic and political impetus could threaten the American democratic system in an essential way. First, it could weaken the commitment of ordinary citizens to democratic processes and values. Second, and more drastically, it could cause sudden changes to governmental policies and powers through the action of elected and appointed officials -- which would weaken, eliminate, or otherwise transform constitutional checks and balances and other democratic 'basics' in the American system.
Colonists could be taxed only by colonial assemblies.
Colonist could be taxed only by colonial assemblies.
The Progressives did not bolt from the Democratic Party in 1948. They were actually an increasingly dominant part of the Democratic party in the 1950s and 1960s. The Dixiecrats bolted because the Democratic Party was becoming increasingly race-neutral (i.e. not racist). This alienated a number of southern Democrats (who called themselves Dixiecrats) who felt that their view of the South and the future of the nation could not be properly dealt with by a race-neutral Democratic party.
The only similarities I can think of is that they both wanted what they believed to be best for the nation, and they both believed this could be achieved through a representative democracy.
There are a number of things that could be examples of democratic leadership. Holding elections is an example of democratic leadership.