Comments by "buddermonger2000" (@buddermonger2000) on "Monsieur Z"
channel.
-
71
-
17
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@williampennjr.4448 That's not what an empire is, lol. An empire is explicitly the domination of one people over neighboring peoples. They're explicitly expansionist and increase their boundaries by force and by conquest acquire peoples. Even more relevant, they prioritize their own people and put their group as the administrators and leaders, thus cementing the domination of their nation at the expense of others. So, while an empire must be multi-ethnic and thus multi-national by design (unless you're a failed empire like the holy Roman empire), that doesn't mean every multi-ethnic state is an empire. Otherwise, you get the very silly allegation that every African country is an empire. This makes no sense and runs into a LOT of issues.
Multiple states into one is also just incorrect as well as the states who come under the purview of the first are dismantled. They cease to exist. The people remain, and the nations remain, but the state that has governed them is dismantled and replaced by the incoming power.
Finally, a "country" is a state. A state is a political entity with shared laws within a given set of borders. A nation is, in fact, a group of people with a shared culture and identity. In fact, they often share blood as well. It's a people group first and foremost. You have stateless nations such as the Kurds, but then you have nation-states like Iceland and Japan, and finally, multi-ethnic states like the rest. At this point, this is just social studies 101.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
33:55 Here's the problem: you fundamentally misunderstand the goals of the southern states. The goal of the southern states were to keep the institution of slavery alive. The southern elite needed it at all costs to stay alive. The problem is that with the growing population, with ceasing the expansion of slavery past the Mason-Dixon line, and the increasing movement of northerners west, that new states would be formed which would end slavery democratically. The war for hearts and minds on the issue was failing with "Uncle Tom's Cabin" being a major boost to the abolitionist cause and coloring the issue to millions and creating more die-hard abolitionists. If not the civil war, then the 13th and 14th amendments get drafted and adopted anyway by the new states. A constitutional convention is called, the southern states are out-voted, and it's a done deal. Slavery is banned. The confederate cause dies not with a bang, but a whimper. Thus it dies anyway. With secession, at the very least they could claim the constitution did not apply. They could try to make their own USA but with the institution of slavery preserved. It was a last ditch effort that only failed due to what was essentially happenstance of igniting a full scale conflict.
The rebellion too would be a last ditch effort when out of options and people being pushed to their breaking points under crisis after crisis. The pressures of the 20th century's fallout overwhelming the population, until the best interest their elites have is to in fact, launch a rebellion for control of the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1