I would say that Sweden is a candidate. As a nation it dates back to the 12th century (at least). There where some periods of rule from other countries (Denmark), but from 1521 when Gustav I (Vasa) was crowned Sweden has not been occupied by any foreign powers. The borders have changed a bit during that period though, Finland, Norway and parts of Poland, Germany and the Baltic states have all been under Swedish rule but were later lost or given independence.
There have not been any revolutions or such things either instead a gradual change into the current constitutional monarchy. Though technically if you are counting constitutions then the latest change was in 1971/1975 (I think).
One obvious reason for American continuity is that we haven’t lost a major war in the last 200+ years. (The same is true of the more stable European countries like Britain, Sweden and Switzerland.) Unsuccessful wars tend to result in the overthrow of the existing order either from within (Germany and Russia after WWI) or without (Germany and Japan after WWII).
Of course, to some degree the Constitution can take credit for our success at war, since it allowed us to prosper economically and build a strong military. But the more important factor was probably the happenstance of our being the first and largest nation to get up and organized on a sparsely populated, resource-rich continent.
Amongst the “luck” elements, the geographical position of the USA, lacking any potential ennemy on its borders certainly played a part. For instance, if France had been situated in the middle of the Atlantic, the constitutionnal monarchy implemented in 1789 could still be in place, since there wouldn’t have been any revolution war, and none of its consequences (including the king being deposed, the first republic, the empire) would have taken place.
Being somewhat ignorant of French history, why would geographic isolation have prevented the French Revolution? Were the revolutionaries aided by land armies from Germany or something along those lines?
Not even close to “entirely.” Lincoln, who was a lawyer, was on better legal ground than Jeff Davis in holding that unilateral secession by any state was unconstitutional. He did hold open the possibility of the Union being dissolved by agreement of all the states. But, even if the Confederate “compact” theory of the Constitution were correct and the Constitution was analogous to a contract between private parties, as Lincoln pointed out, no contract can be abrogated or rescinded except by agreement of all its parties.
I highly recommend you read What Lincoln Believed: The Values and Convictions of America’s Greatest President, by Michael Lind – http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385507399/qid=1133983029/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8368367-5191915?n=507846&s=books&v=glance. Until I read it I was not fully aware of the role racism played in Lincoln’s thinking. In particular, to the end of his life he was committed to a policy of “colonization” – that is, as soon as emancipation was achieved he wanted to deport all blacks, including freeborn blacks, to a colony in Africa, Latin America or the Caribbean. Like most white Americans of the time, he believed whites and blacks were just too different to co-exist in one society.
OTOH, Lincoln was fully committed to an industrial, as opposed to agrarian, vision of America’s future – and in that he was entirely right.
The other continental monarchies (well, Prussia and Austria, mostly) took a dim view of rabble interfering with their monarchs and first issued threats with armies on the border and then invaded France. This pretty much gutted any hope for moderates to prevail in the revolution.
It wouldn’t have prevented the french revolution, but what was institued after the revolution wasn’t a republic, but a constitutionnal monarchy.
Following it, however, France entered war with other European powers (Austria, UK, Spain, etc…) that supported the king of France. He tried to flee the country and join foreign armies and as a result he was deposed and the republic was proclaimed. The implementation of the terror regime (the period during which people were executed en masse on the most wimpsy basis) was also a direct result of France being invaded from all directions and finding itself in a desperate situation. And finally, these wars allowed a general to rise in power and eventually overthrow the Republic.
Without neighboring countries able to wage war in France, none of the above might have happened and France could have stayed a constitutionnal monarchy after the revolution (of course it’s not a given. Other monarchies could still have invaded by sea, or extremists could still have gained in influence, etc… But being isolated would certainly have had a significant influence)
I think one of the problems with defining this question is that the US seems to have a much stronger attachment to the idea of their constitution than other countries. Thus while the US might deal with major problems by passing a series of constitutional amendments, some other country might decide to lump all the changes together and call it a new constitution. In my opinion, the latter course does not necessarily invalidate the continuity of the nation or its system of government.
He was absolutely right if the megalithic empire that is currently America is your desire. Using other criteria for success, maybe not so much. The thing I find the most repugnant was taking people off of ships and forcing them to fight and KILL Americans in order to get their American citizenship.
Whats done is done, and the America I live in is the America that had Lincoln a President, BUT, I think its important to recognize what values he sold out, and what precedents he set by selling out those values. Even if the South had seceded, I think North and South would be so united economically anyway, that it wouldn’t even really matter. Southern cotton would still have gone to Northern Factories. The good thing we got out of it was the end of slavery (Sort of).
I think his shelling of New York is about the most unforgiveable thing that he did. I mean, to sum it up most clearly, I am glad that slavery ended as a result, but I’m also glad John Wilkes-Booth shot him.
The draft riots. You ever read Gangs of New York? They fired cannon down 7th Ave, and I think there may or may not have been offshore shelling from a naval ship.
You could still see the damage till the mid-80s. My dad told me a funny story about coming home from 'Nam, and suddenly realizing the pockmarks were from shelling, and he never could figure out why, till I brought it up in regards to the book.
Well, I’ve heard of the New York City Draft Riots, yes. Those links (and other sources I can find) talk about a lot of fairly horrific mob violence and lynchings and basically a white-on-black pogrom; and also that federal troops were used to “put down” the riots, but I can’t find anything much on the subject of New York city being shelled or bombarded.
