Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By that I mean, with the obvious exception of the American Civil War America has never had tons of civil wars or on again off again fighting with each other like just about every other country has had. You look at places like Syria and Pakistan where people being blown up/shot up, new civil wars happening even today with tanks routinely seen driving through streets to kill others etc. etc. Why has America been so fortunate that (again with the exception of the ACW) it has never really had such internal strife where a new civil war or mass chaos is a common occurrence? I mean think about it, Americans look back at the ACW and just look at it as some terrible thing but it happened over 100 years ago and despite what people may say is unthinkable of ever happening again, whereas in so many other countries they learn a new civil war has started or tanks come rolling in and you could wake someone and tell them and they'll just be like "What's new?' and act like it's just another Tuesday.
Among the reasons would be that the authors of the Constitution designed a government loaded with checks and balances which made it difficult to get things done without a great many compromises. What it has meant has been that the nation's government does not lend itself to extremism of any sort.
If you ask who was our most radical president, or ask who was our most reactionary president, in both cases you still get someone who was more middle of the road than radical or reactionary. Obtaining power requires the rejection of extremism in order to avoid rejection by the voters.
I know that the constitutional designers had in the mind the avoidance of tyranny when they crafted the checks and balances system. I'm less certain that they had the idea to make getting things done very difficult, but it has worked out that way and it has worked to our benefit in keeping extremism in check.
By that I mean, with the obvious exception of the American Civil War America has never had tons of civil wars or on again off again fighting with each other like just about every other country has had. You look at places like Syria and Pakistan where people being blown up/shot up, new civil wars happening even today with tanks routinely seen driving through streets to kill others etc. etc. Why has America been so fortunate that (again with the exception of the ACW) it has never really had such internal strife where a new civil war or mass chaos is a common occurrence? I mean think about it, Americans look back at the ACW and just look at it as some terrible thing but it happened over 100 years ago and despite what people may say is unthinkable of ever happening again, whereas in so many other countries they learn a new civil war has started or tanks come rolling in and you could wake someone and tell them and they'll just be like "What's new?' and act like it's just another Tuesday.
Your problem is in comparing the United States with third-world dictatorships that are a hodgepodge of ethnicities grouped together more or less arbitrarily due to colonial boundaries. A much better comparison would be to put the United States up against those countries that are most similar to it - former British colonies largely settled by Brits and other western Europeans. These could be counties such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The mother country, the United Kingdom, also provides a useful comparison in this regard. More appropriate comparisons such as those show a much more consistent history of relatively little internal strife.
As Grandstander notes, a governmental system in which power is diluted (and in which the grievances of groups of citizens have functional avenues for redress) goes a long way toward heading off civil wars.
In addition to reasons already given, the U.S. had large amounts of "unsettled" land occupied fairly thinly in many places by semi-nomadic native people or relatively small groups of settled native populations. The discontented American could move westward and begin a new life in an area far from the central government and the social organization of the eastern states. By the time these people and their areas were firmly integrated into the national picture a lot of their discontent had gone into making a new life for themselves.
I think the possibilities offered by internal migration may have provided a safety valve for some discontented.
Your problem is in comparing the United States with third-world dictatorships that are a hodgepodge of ethnicities grouped together more or less arbitrarily due to colonial boundaries.
Well that's rather unfair considering the roiling history of European countries that make most "third world dictatorships" look like the paragon of stability.
Quote:
The mother country, the United Kingdom, also provides a useful comparison in this regard. More appropriate comparisons such as those show a much more consistent history of relatively little internal strife.
Surely you jest, if you did a timeline of English stability only the latter portion of Britain's history hold true. It wasn't until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the establishment of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 would begin a lasting period of British rule. Of course that discounts the centuries of Irish discontent, and violence in the pursuit of Irish independence something that didn't end until 1997
Quote:
A much better comparison would be to put the United States up against those countries that are most similar to it - former British colonies largely settled by Brits and other western Europeans. These could be counties such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.
The latter three are the best examples, better than anything in British history or that of the United States.
Quote:
As Grandstander notes, a governmental system in which power is diluted (and in which the grievances of groups of citizens have functional avenues for redress) goes a long way toward heading off civil wars.
Personally I give the greatest credit to the officer corps of the U.S. military. Every major civil war, coup d'tat that I can think of was either fomented or supported by members of the military and their respective officer's corps who were critical in either's success. The steadfast adherence to the Constitution, and the supremacy of civilian leaderships.
Personally I give the greatest credit to the officer corps of the U.S. military. Every major civil war, coup d'tat that I can think of was either fomented or supported by members of the military and their respective officer's corps who were critical in either's success. The steadfast adherence to the Constitution, and the supremacy of civilian leaderships.
The above is important as well. George Washington set a splendid example of the head of the US military always submitting himself to the civil authorities. He probably had more cause than anyone else to blow off the Continental Congress and take matters into his own hands, but he not only refrained, he even studiously avoided public criticism of that body.
He then set another superb example as president when rejecting all titles beyond "Mr. President" and refusing to have any royal trappings associated with the office.
We were fortunate that he had this mentality. Anyone wishing to do differently has the lesson of Washington to overcome.
Well that's rather unfair considering the roiling history of European countries that make most "third world dictatorships" look like the paragon of stability.
It's not at all unfair. The OP specifically asked about the infrequency of civil wars in the United States. The United States has been around since the late 18th century, governed by a constitutional framework which significantly limits the amount of power any individual may possess and which maintains mechanisms for the addressing of grievances which limits internal strife.
Comparing that to monarchies or what feudal countries did several centuries ago would be nonsensical.
Quote:
Surely you jest, if you did a timeline of English stability only the latter portion of Britain's history hold true. It wasn't until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the establishment of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 would begin a lasting period of British rule. Of course that discounts the centuries of Irish discontent, and violence in the pursuit of Irish independence something that didn't end until 1997.
Yeah, gee, post-1689... Oh, right! That's the time-frame in which the United States - about which the OP asked - has existed. Why you want to uphold earlier periods of pre-industrial pre-Bill of Rights British history, which simply are not analogs in any way to the United States, as comparative models for the U.S. escapes me.
Quote:
The latter three are the best examples, better than anything in British history or that of the United States.
Well, I'm not playing the "U.S. is better!" game, and why you're playing the "Canada/Australia/New Zealand are better!" game also escapes me. I was addressing the question of the OP, and the fact remains that those examples are vastly more relevant than the ones the OP tossed out - Syria and Pakistan.
Why don't you start a thread titled CANADA AND AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND ARE BETTER THAN THE UNITED STATES - LET'S DISCUSS! rather than try and pretend it's relevant to this thread or my post?
The above is important as well. George Washington set a splendid example of the head of the US military always submitting himself to the civil authorities.
There were two remarkable events where Washington set by example the necessity of officers of the U.S. Army to respect and submit to the civilian leadership of the country.
First in 1793 when officers of the Continental contemplated conspiring in a general mutiny if the Continental Congress pay the Army its back wages and pensions. The officers meeting in secret near Newburgh, N.Y. to discuss their plan, Washington unceremoniously appeared before them and while sympathizing with their grievances reminded them of their duty to the civil government:
"If peace takes place, never sheathe your swords, says he, until you have obtained full and ample justice; this dreadful alternative, of either deserting our country in the extremest hour of her distress or turning our arms against it (which is the apparent object, unless Congress can be compelled into instant compliance), has something so shocking in it that humanity revolts at the idea. My God! What can this writer have in view, by recommending such measures? Can he be a friend to the army? Can he be a friend to this country? Rather, is he not an insidious foe? Some emissary, perhaps, from New York, plotting the ruin of both, by sowing the seeds of discord and separation between the civil and military powers of the continent?...
I have not a doubt. But, like all other large bodies, where there is a variety of different interests to reconcile, their deliberations are slow. Why, then, should we distrust them? And, in consequence of that distrust, adopt measures which may cast a shade over that glory which has been so justly acquired; and tarnish the reputation of an army which is celebrated through all Europe, for its fortitude and patriotism?"
Washington went on to pledge that he would do all required to insure that the Congress would pay both the back pay owed and the pensions promised and with one speech Washington ended the Newburgh Mutiny and set forth a standard for the military that has been proudly honored ever since.
Washington's second act was during his resignation as Commander in Chief of the Army's given before the Congress on December 23, 1783.
Mr. President: The great events on which my resignation depended having at length taken place; I have now the honor of offering my sincere Congratulations to Congress and of presenting myself before them to surrender into their hands the trust committed to me, and to claim the indulgence of retiring from the Service of my Country.
Happy in the confirmation of our Independence and Sovereignty, and pleased with the oppertunity afforded the United States of becoming a respectable Nation, I resign with satisfaction the Appointment I accepted with diffidence. A diffidence in my abilities to accomplish so arduous a task, which however was superseded by a confidence in the rectitude of our Cause, the support of the supreme Power of the Union, and the patronage of Heaven.
The Successful termination of the War has verified the most sanguine expectations, and my gratitude for the interposition of Providence, and the assistance I have received from my Countrymen, increases with every review of the momentous Contest.
While I repeat my obligations to the Army in general, I should do injustice to my own feelings not to acknowledge in this place the peculiar Services and distinguished merits of the Gentlemen who have been attached to my person during the War. It was impossible the choice of confidential Officers to compose my family should have been more fortunate. Permit me Sir, to recommend in particular those, who have continued in Service to the present moment, as worthy of the favorable notice and patronage of Congress.
I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my Official life, by commending the Interests of our dearest Country to the protection of Almighty God, and those who have the superintendence of them, to his holy keeping.
Having now finished the work assigned to me, I retire form the great theatre of Action; and bidding an Affectionate farewell to this August body under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my Commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.
united states also brainwash their people with the allegiance, national anthem and that the president is always right. remember when the movies played the national anthem before every showing and baseball games had the national anthem. why is that, it just baseball. but its brainwashing into making everybody think that America is great.
Because America was chosen by The Elite for its purposes. You can very easily figure what those are. As the result, it is protected from those type of skirmishes.
Just like any other country, as soon as The Elite is done with their goal here, this will change. There have already been plans for split USA. There's even a map posted of what the new countries will be, I am simply lazy to look it up for you.
I can give you a hint though. When a particular ethnicity will start fleeing the country, follow them. Just like it happed in the late 80s in the USSR before its collapse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, right! That's the time-frame in which the United States - about which the OP asked - has existed. Why you want to uphold earlier periods of pre-industrial pre-Bill of Rights British history, which simply are not analogs in any way to the United States, as comparative models for the U.S. escapes me. 
