We never established it, the first recorded slave shipment to the US was actually Dutch.
"In 1607, English settlers established Jamestown as the first permanent English colony in the New World. Tobacco became the chief crop of the colony, due to the efforts of John Rolfe in 1611. Once it became clear that tobacco was going to drive the Jamestown colony, more labor was needed. At first, indentured servants were used as the needed labor. These servants provided up to seven years of free service and had their trip to Jamestown paid for by someone in Jamestown. Once the seven years was over, the indentured servant was free to live in Jamestown as a regular citizen. However, colonists began to see indentured servant as too costly, and in 1619, Dutch traders brought the first African slaves to Jamestown."
This means that the English settlement was the first in the New World to use African slaves that they purchased from Dutch traders.
Most of our cotton came from India, somewhere that we actually liberated slaves when we arrived. Under their previous rulers including other European powers slavery had been allowed.
Most? A lot of British cotton was imported from the American South.
Slavery was not outlawed in India until a century after the "British Empire" took military control. It was not called an "Empire" because of mere trading agreements, even if they may have started out that way. It was only 1947, when Britain was weakened by WWII, that India gained its independence after many years of both violent and non-violent (Gandhi) confrontation with their English masters. A country does not have to "gain independence" if it is only a trading agreement, and as you noted above when making reference to India's "previous rulers" Britain did "rule" India for quite a long time. Being occupied and forcefully ruled by a foreign nation for a millennium is not the same as slavery, but is not exactly what the Indians preferred.
No, it was not imposed by military force in most cases. It was imposed by trade. If so many countries did not want to continue being associated with Britain then why would so many still be part of the Commonwealth? With the exception of Zimbabwe (kicked out because of Mugabe) and the Republic of Ireland, they've all remained. 2.1 billion people can't be wrong.
Really? The British put down many rebellions by force in both America and India. The association of countries in the Commonwealth is rather weak, especially India, and is merely a nostalgic wet-dream of Anglos who like to think that India and other independent countries are still part of the British Empire.
Ironically US territories still don't get the same rights to elect as others in the US, neither does Washington DC. Obviously you will defend this as being part of the US constitution.
Not sure what you mean by "ironically"? Are you saying that people in the Commonwealth can elect the British Prime Minister? Washington DC does vote in local and presidential elections, but is not given the same representation as the states in Congress, party due to its small size, and also due to the fact that US government runs the District and pays its bills (it is not self-sufficient), unlike how real states operate.
The fact that any topic getting political causes you to go on this crusade on behalf of the US constitution almost borders on religion. I feel I have to add a few words every so often when something is historically of interest but they do always seem to be you versus everyone else! Keep up the good work... and the triple posting when you've got multiple arguments to make.
I did not start this thread, nor any of the other similar ones attacking American politics, American voting, or whatever. I have tried to explain how the US system works, and the US Constitution and the Republic of States is a big part of that, and important in understanding the US form of government, how and which US laws must be changed to make things different than they are now, and other matters directly relevant to the topics discussed here.
I personally am not commenting on whether any other country should adopt the US Constitution, or its Republic of States form of organization. Others can choose for themselves what to do in their own countries. It would never even occur to me to start a thread (in fact multiple threads) about the internal politics of another country, especially when I didn't really understand how the other country's government and politics really works. But when someone does start such as thread, the American system of government is different than the British, so it does take some explaining, and even many Americans don't understand how it works (and many liberals don't like that we have a Republic of States).
As for triple posting, I do seem to need to post the same facts and arguments over and over again because many people keep posting their same arguments (and misconceptions) over and over again, and I feel an obligation to provide a response when I am quoted. If you look closely at this thread (and others), some people get just as upset when I don't respond to their posts (even if I previously answered their question or provided a definite link that answers their question) as when I do respond.