“LOL! Why? We had two World Wars without a World government. No offense, but I think you are a bit over your head here.”
Obviously, I meant there wouldn’t have been THAT war. No central government, no Civil War. There might have been wars between factions that became U.S. states under the Constitution, but such wars would’ve had nothing to do with the subject at hand, namely “the nationalist path that has given us Obama and ObamaCare.” I hardly think I’m “a bit over my head” to assert that the creation of the national government had something to do with the “nationalist path.”
“Indeed...the War Between the States gave them the MEANS to achieve their nationalist desires.”
So did the original creation of the national government. Moreso, I’d say.
“Which is so historically wrong as to be laughable. Not sure if it’s your wording or you just don’t know better. It makes little sense that they would be ‘so accustomed’ to such a thing when secession was a threat made by the north before it was put into practice by the south.”
Maybe it’s your inability to understand my words. I wonder, if we polled the posters on this thread, whether they’d agree that Lincoln and other federalists were more likely to defend the Constitution, against successionism, as perpetual because that’s the way Americans had lived for four score and seven years, whereas the various successionists movements that popped up here and there died as soon as the appeared. Which is really more laughable, that 80+ years of national government accustomed Lincoln to national government, or that the fact that some people in the North wanted to succeed at one point or another means, I guess, that there is no such thing as a custom of nationalism prior to the Civil War.
How do you figure the perpetual unionists came to their ideology? Was it out of the blue? Were the nationalists who started us on the path to Obama only after defeating the South like V.I. Lenin, creating the political world anew? Or did it have something to do, perhaps, with the fact that there had been a union for as long as they could remember, and that it was more important than the states because none of them had ever seen a state that wasn’t under the control of the national government?
What part of my argument, remind me, was “laughable”?
“Uh.... apparently I followed the reasoning correctly as witnessed by his reply. It is you who are confused and unable to follow along”
That proves nothing. He could have decided to address what it was that you were talking about, without regard to the simple point he had originally made. But even if I’m wrong and have no idea what he was talking about, he still made a good point. Namely that the Constitutional Convention put us on the road to nationalism long before the Civil War did, and that it not being able to pass without leaving slavery alone is neither here nor there.
“Maybe it’s your inability to understand my words.”
Yup. I don’t understand gobbledygook.
“I wonder, if we polled the posters on this thread, whether they’d agree that Lincoln and other federalists were more likely to defend the Constitution, against successionism, as perpetual because that’s the way Americans had lived for four score and seven years, whereas the various successionists movements that popped up here and there died as soon as the appeared.”
Seriously...poll them with the question above as written and no one will have the slighest idea what the hell you are talking about.
I will, however, try to address some of the misconceptions as you stated.
“...whether they’d agree that Lincoln and other federalists were more likely to defend the Constitution, against successionism, ....”
I think...and I’m going out on a limb here...is that you meant “nationalists” instead of “federalists”. A federalist believed in states’ rights. Your boy was a nationalist. That’s not semantics or typos, that’s just not knowing what the hell you’re talking about. A typo would be using “successionism” rather than “secessionism”. (which I’m pretty sure aren’t even real words.)
Once we weed through all that the point is, your poll would be stupid because it was impossible for Lincoln or anybody else to defend the Constitution “against secessionism” because secession was not addressed in the Constitution. You MIGHT be able to argue that he was protecting the country from secession, but it had nothing to do with the Constitution.
The rest of your statement is uttered in such total ignorance of an understanding of the day that it would require hours of history lessons to get you to the point we could have a meaningful discussion. Let me try to make this as simple as possible. Up until the WBTS people considered this to be a federation, i.e., the United STATES of America. “States” by definition that were sovereign and joined together by mutual agreement. After the war people began to look at the U.S. as the one “nation” you mistakenly believe people perceived as belonging to before the war. In other words, as you would define, the United STATE of America.
Really. And I’m not using this word as an insult, but rather as the most correct word to apply....you are way too ignorant of the history, the times and the people to be having this conversation.
Please read up on the subject before posting any more comments. It’s embarrassing.