More complex relations with American Indians:

• In modern day Canada there was much more cross cultural marriage and contact between the American Indians and settlers. You had larger Metis communities, and the settlers were fewer in number and lived in smaller settlements that had more day to day contact with American Indians. Meanwhile, in the 13 colonies, one of the key causes of the rebellion was that the British had ruled out colonial expansion west of the Appalachians. Also, by even this early point many Amerindian tribes had been pushed out of this eastern area, and were more seen as a threat than people to cohabit with.

More complex relations with the French:

• The 13 Colonies were eager for French support against the British from an early point. However, a lot of modern day Canada had been French territory ceeded to the British following the 7 Years War, prior to which there had been much raiding and fighting between the French and British settlers and indeed allied Indian Nations.

Didn’t have a new ruling elite in waiting to give it equal footing in an independent North America:

• The colonial elite of the 13 colonies were much wealthier and generally better travelled and tied into global networks than the elite of the provinces in modern day Canada. They were further from being economically independent, and ceeding from Britain would have made them entirely dependent on the poorer, but much closer colonies to the south, which would’ve greatly limited their political power making them more client than fully independent.

So that’s the longer version. Please help correct my misunderstandings and mistakes.

Because it remained loyalist.

As for why… Probably due to more complex relations with American Indians and the French, and didn’t have a new ruling elite in waiting to give it equal footing in an independent North America.

Ah, I had my date wrong. It was later than I remembered, and you were saying 1830 as that coincided with it.

I’m sorry, it was my mistake from the start. Thanks for being patient with me.

OK, so you responded to me talking about science and reason taking away women’s rights in 18th century England with a 19th century American religious resurgence. The religious aspect was not used to justify the removal of women’s rights in England.

I’m missing something I think. What are you implying or showing?

That’s the 19th Century, so it’s about 100 years after what I was talking about.

The Enlightenment is generally regarded as being the 17th and 18th centuries, or 1601 - 1800.

Women (who owned property worth more than £5 (which remained as the restriction on men) lost the right to vote in 18th century England off the top of my head.

Midwivery was illegalised too, and replaced by scientific male doctors.

Science and Reason was used to justify both.

Made friends with a member of the CCP who got lotteries to take part in an election. This is what they said the procedure was:

All the chosen electors assembled in a big city hall, and were told about the election procedure which included which candidate needed to win the election.

Everyone took their turn to vote, but no one was allowed to leave the hall until after the votes had been counted.