Try this counterfactual

Try this counterfactual: suppose Britain had acquiesced in say, 1775, to allowing for North American representation in Parliament. Then what reason can Whitehall give for denying additional parliamentary representation to British sugar planters in the West Indies?

Historically these planters (and their investors back in Bristol, etc.) were richer than anyone else in the 18th century. They didn't see any need to agitate for representation--they simply BOUGHT OFF MPs from British constituencies, rotten or not. But give them elected MPs in addition to those from the royal colonies of the Carolinas, Virginia, etc., and you create a large, well-funded pro-slavery bloc that I could easily see dragging out the abolition of the slave trade for a long time past 1833, and the continuation of colonial slavery for years beyond that.

Context.

Viet Cong / NVA

But think about it for a second. We were in Vietnam until 1973. Tet occurred in January of 1968. Are we to believe that it was the media that prevented us from finally defeating the Viet Coing for good during those five years?

Ok, I thought about it. We did defeat the Viet Cong in 1968...it was the NVA that we were fighting afterwards.

Context.