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.
Agree with the above three and would add a fourth: A peaceful process for transferring political power.
Very good point. I was going for simplicity, but could have added several sub factors to each of the main points. Under "common law" you could basically add: representative government, peaceful method for transfer of power and a military subordinate to civilian authority.
Well that's rather unfair considering the roiling history of European countries that make most "third world dictatorships" look like the paragon of stability.
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
The latter three are the best examples, better than anything in British history or that of the United States.
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.
Basically the only actual internal war within the country itself was the English civil war. The resistance movements from conquered lands (Ireland, and the much smaller movements in Wales) are not the same thing. You might as well discuss the Puerto Rican resistance movement, its not comparable. None of those had any major effect on everyday life within Britain (the UK yes, but only because it includes the island of Ireland).
The only major disruptive schism as far as internal war was concerned (in post-1600's history) was the ECW. Its entirely comparable.
Basically the only actual internal war within the country itself was the English civil war. The resistance movements from conquered lands (Ireland, and the much smaller movements in Wales) are not the same thing. You might as well discuss the Puerto Rican resistance movement, its not comparable. None of those had any major effect on everyday life within Britain (the UK yes, but only because it includes the island of Ireland).
The only major disruptive schism as far as internal war was concerned (in post-1600's history) was the ECW. Its entirely comparable.
You are forgetting the 1715 and 1745 rebellions in Scotland.
Its because of Democracy.
Whenever anger is directed towards a leader rather than channeling towards a violent revolt its channeled towards the next election.
When discontent with the Bush Administration grew people didn't go to overthrow the government they went to the polls and first voted in the Democratic Congress then voted for Obama.
When they were mad as hell about Vietnam they voted for the guy that would end the war
When they were mad about Government corruption after Watergate they voted for the most honest guy they could find etc.
Election allow government to be fluid as opposed to static and building up tension until it finally breaks.
Most wars are fought over scarcity of resources. The United States boasts the world's largest food surplus. Well fed people tend to be peaceful. The United States has never been hit with a crushing famine.
If the United States had a long stretch (say 10-20 years) of poor crop harvests, and massive food shortages, I could see it becoming more like the middle east with internal fighting.
So do you think there will ever come a time where most people in Asia/Africa/Middle East get to live in say an equivalent of middle class America/Europe and have all the rights, freedoms and the like? Or do you think those parts of the world are just doomed to have constant strife and civil wars until the end of the world?
Also, isn't it quite sad that some people from the 18th century are more progressive and intelligent than practically everyone that lives in Asia/Africa/Middle East today?
Not really an apt comparison. As previous posters have stated, American geography allowed for expansion thus disparate groups never really HAD to get along. Although it seems strange today, even Scandinavians weren't immediately allowed into the Anglo country club and found it much more advisable to settle the Old Northwest.
This was all made possible by the dissipation of the aboriginal population (Native Americans) creating a "blank slate" effect. You see similar patterns in Canada and Australia. Most of Sub-Saharan Africa's and the Middle East's population did not succumb outright to disease and warfare during colonization. Because the native populations persisted in these regions, any lack of cultural/religious/social cohesion didn't evaporate with a fading population.
In a contemporary sense, these African and Asian cultures aren't going to form nation-states because it's now the thing to do much less fashion a Jeffersonian Republic based on expansion and self-sufficiency. Anytime we now see a population trying to clear out the "natives" to assert their social/political/economic dominance we refer to it as GENOCIDE. Groups like the Igbo and Tutsi who would have had the greatest aptitude to assert their culture on a landscape essentially had the least ability to do so based on numbers and actually bore the brunt of the casualties:
This is effectively the reverse of the Anglo expansionist experience. However, this doesn't make the people of the 18th or 19th century any more enlightened. There were just different (more) global actors producing a far different result in post-Colonial Africa and the Middle East.
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.
"the president is always right" ? Seriously ?
Do we live in the same country ?
On my memory, the President could never be right. And I can go back to at least Ford's times. If only one party / side of the political spectrum was calling the President an evil schemer / useless idiot / whatever, that was a good day. Every now and then, especially by the end of their term, they would be ganged up upon by both the right and the left. I can't think of any president on my memory that had it easy. Ford "I got hit in the head far too many times", Carter "can't walk and chew gum at the same time", Reagan "destroys our economy / is going to start a war with USSR", Bush Sr "No more taxes you lying SOB", Clinton "Slick Willie / killed Foster / defiled the Oval office with a cigar", Dubya... well we all remember it. And while I really dislike Obama after 8 years in the office, it's not like he has it easy. Name ONE president in the past 40 years that "was always right".
I believe it's the Constitution, and the Preamble, and the amendments, and above all, the rule of law. However imperfect it may be. We can argue fiercely and passionately, and do; the freedoms we have prevent a poisonous festering. They also mean we have responsibilities, well as rights.
We are blessed because we used to be One Nation under God. As a Nation, I think we are "pushing the envelope". I presently have a one dollar bill, on the back it says "IN GOD WE TRUST". If those words ever get removed from our currency, it's over.
Meaning God will punish us if we don't push His brand? That's kind of a low-minded God, if you ask me. You might want to read through
One nation under God : how corporate America invented Christian America / c2015, Basic Books
Authors
Kruse, Kevin Michael, 1972-[
Subjects
Christianity and politics -- United States -- History -- 20th century.
Church and state -- United States -- History -- 20th century.
New Deal, 1933-1939 -- Public opinion.
Corporations -- Political activity -- United States -- History -- 20th century.
Conservatism -- United States -- History -- 20th century.
Political culture -- United States -- History -- 20th century.
]Notes
pt. I. Creation : "Freedom under God" ; The great crusades -- pt. II. Consecration : "Government under God" ; Pledging allegiance ; Pitchmen for piety -- pt. III. Conflict : "Whose religious tradition?" -- "Our so-called religious leaders" ; "Which side are you on?" -- Epilogue.
Includes index.
Summary
"We're often told that the United States is, was, and always has been a Christian nation. But in One Nation Under God, historian Kevin M. Kruse reveals that the idea of 'Christian America' is an invention--and a relatively recent one at that. As Kruse argues, the belief that America is fundamentally and formally a Christian nation originated in the 1930s when businessmen enlisted religious activists in their fight against FDR's New Deal. Corporations from General Motors to Hilton Hotels bankrolled conservative clergymen, encouraging them to attack the New Deal as a program of 'pagan statism' that perverted the central principle of Christianity: the sanctity and salvation of the individual. Their campaign for 'freedom under God' culminated in the election of their close ally Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. But this apparent triumph had an ironic twist. In Eisenhower's hands, a religious movement born in opposition to the government was transformed into one that fused faith and the federal government as never before. During the 1950s, Eisenhower revolutionized the role of religion in American political culture, inventing new traditions from inaugural prayers to the National Prayer Breakfast. Meanwhile, Congress added the phrase 'under God' to the Pledge of Allegiance and made 'In God We Trust' the country's first official motto. With private groups joining in, church membership soared to an all-time high of 69%. For the first time, Americans began to think of their country as an officially Christian nation. During this moment, virtually all Americans--across the religious and political spectrum--believed that their country was 'one nation under God.' But as Americans moved from broad generalities to the details of issues such as school prayer, cracks began to appear. Religious leaders rejected this 'lowest common denomination' public religion, leaving conservative political activists to champion it alone. In Richard Nixon's hands, a politics that conflated piety and patriotism became sole property of the right. Provocative and authoritative, One Nation Under God reveals how the unholy alliance of money, religion, and politics created a false origin story that continues to define and divide American politics to this day"-- Provided by publisher.
"In One Nation Under God, award-winning historian Kevin M. Kruse argues that the story of Christian America begins with the Great Depression, when a coalition of businessmen and religious leaders united in opposition to the New Deal. As Kruse shows, corporations from General Motors and Kraft Foods to J.C. Penney and Hilton Hotels, poured money into the coffers of conservative religious leaders, who in turn used those funds to attack FDR's New Deal administration as a program of "pagan statism" that perverted the central tenet of Christianity: the salvation of the individual"-- Provided by publisher.
Excellent background to the seeming resurgence of religiosity under Pres. Eisenhower. @ the national level, it wasa shell. Present @ the creation - this particular one, anyway - were Richard Nixon & Billy Graham. Nixon turned out to be a strange one. Graham may have been sincere in his aims - but he certainly consorted with people who could have used a lot more discernment than moral approval from him.
Much has been written here and I agree with most of it. I will add one more thing: The Framers of our Constitution had the wisdom to create an independent judiciary. The judiciary was actually established as a third branch of government to be co-equal with the President (executive branch) and the Congress (legislative branch). The Constitution specifically stated that judges were to serve for life and that their compensation could not be reduced during their term of office. Federal judges in our court system do not answer to politicians or special interests.
This independence allowed our courts to stand up for individuals in lawsuits involving either the state or powerful private interests. It lead to court decisions establishing principles of law that guarantee and protect individual rights. It is why judges can fearlessly declare acts of Congress to be unconstitutional.
I believe most people think that when the chips are down they can generally count on our courts to decide cases in accordance with neutral principles than on the basis of political expediency.
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.
Christian soldiers?
