Uh.... apparently I followed the reasoning correctly as witnessed by his reply. It is you who are confused and unable to follow along.
“Firstly, there wouldn’t have been a war without there being a national government.”
LOL! Why? We had two World Wars without a World government. No offense, but I think you are a bit over your head here.
“Secondly, Lincoln and the other nationalists were of a ming to assert the supremacy of the national government without the Civil War giving them inspiration.”
Indeed...the War Between the States gave them the MEANS to achieve their nationalist desires.
“They thought that up all by themselves, so accustomed were they to the preeminence of the America as the U.S.”
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.
I recommend you bone up on American history before corresponding any further.
“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.