I have six general histories of the US on my shelves (I like Paul Johnsons; I even have Zinn, to cover all bases), five on the revolution, seven on the US Civil War (including both Foote and Catton), @100 on parts of the Civil War, US politics, important figures, etc. And another 200-odd on the US in the 20th century. Add economic, technical, military and social subjects that pertain to the US.
Thats out of the 1000-odd volumes I took from San Francisco to Bilbao, mostly history. I left behind (gave away) another 2000 volumes, and that all certainly doesn’t include a fraction of all the books I have read in my life.
So, does that constitute a lack of USA history? I think I am well qualified to teach some subjects in universities, assuming they actually want to teach history.
Did your teachers give you good Marks in your comprehension classes?
Just a question.
Instead, here you are spending an inordinate amount of time on a small internet political forum, endlessly bloviating, obfuscating, spewing insults, putting together long-winded, tiresome screeds that bore nearly everyone here to death and looking down your pompous nose at those who question your rabid love affair with Youcrayne; the most corrupt nation in Europe.
Surely a sign of sheer 'effin brilliance!
Two interesting confirm your ratioale:
1st- pg #9
“One of the major aims of multilateral treaty negotiation is to ensure that all state party to the negotiations reach a common understanding of the purpose and goals of the treaty. IN THIS WAY, MULTILATERAL TREATY NEGOTIATION IS AS MUCH ABOUT INTERNATIONAL NORM CONSTRUCTION AS IT IS ABOUT THE MUTUAL ASSUMPTION OF LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. Under this view, one of the very purposes of the treaty is to establish consensus about the ideals contained in the treaty. Indeed, the reason that some countries sign multilateral treaties is to gain assurance that other countries are committed to the same goals.”
2nd- pg # 11
“The “advice and consent” language of the Constitution suggests that the Senate should have some role in negotiating treaties. However, the notion that the Senate could ASSIST in treaty negotiation was briefly tested and quickly rejected by President Washington. After the initial failed involvement of the Senate in treaty negotiation, the practice of sole negotiation of treaties by the executive developed. Treaty negotiation became associated with the President’s power to conduct foreign relations. While the President is now the exclusive negotiator of treaties, in practice the executive branch often consults with Congress about ongoing multilateral treaty negotiations and the potential ramifications of contemplated treaties. At times, disputes have arisen between Congress and the President regarding the effect of conflicting presidential and senatorial interpretations of a treaty during its negotiation stages. However, the President’s monopoly on treaty negotiation has never been seriously questioned.”
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=law_lawreview