TBH, that timescale just sounds like several battles in an ongoing war rather than seperate wars - though there is a fine line, of course. Only once was the monarchy ousted, which kinda marks that out from all the other battles.
This is accusing me of lying. That’s a violation of the Board’s rules. Did you know that?
Quite apart from that fact, I never lie here (it’s pointless to do so). I could have said, “that’s a red herring.” However, people who know me here (and I’ve been posting here since before the split from AOL in 1999) know I like at times to use descriptive phraseology that is expressive, and not especially direct. This was such an instance.
I don’t accuse people of trolling because it’s against the Board’s rules, and besides, what you were doing isn’t even remotely like “trolling” as that concept exists on the internet. But if you prefer to adopt a feeling of moral outrage over simply accepting that you mis-interpreted something, well, I’m sorry you feel that way.
If you assert that the government of the United Kingdom isn’t “stable,” then we are never going to see eye-to-eye on the concept, no. For the last 300 years, the UK is a model of stability in government (the '15 and the '45 don’t make me feel otherwise). I’ve outlined what it is I feel makes a government stable, and you don’t want to accept that definition. Well, fine, but I think that’s going to put you out in the distinct minority of opinion on the meaning of ‘stable government,’ especially if you really don’t intend to consider the government of the UK as “stable.”
You seem to want to view this situation in black and white terms. The government of the United States can certainly be “stable,” and yet there can be other issues. If you want to poke holes in the original document that we call our Constitution (of 1787, if you will, though we often conveniently forget we had a prior document that controlled our method of government), then poke a hole at the fact that it codified and institutioinalized the “peculiar institution.” It was this fact that made the Civil War inevitable. Stable, yes, but monolithic, no.
And what does any of this have to do with the relative “strength” of the democracy that is America? Is Sweden a “stronger” democracy for the fact that it has had no recent revolutions or civil wars? Were the United States a “strong” democracy in the 1840s, when we were in the process of expanding our territory, but would have likely failed to survive any concerted war effort from any of the European powers? Of course not. Yeah, Americans can be real boobs about the relative merits of Americanism, and we’ve been really obnoxious jerks about trying to foist our particular brand of democracy upon anyone who will let us. But in trying to get us to eat some humble pie, there’s no particular reason to torture the meaning of common words (like “stable”) to accomplish your task.
As for whether you care to continue the conversation or not, well, that’s your choice. I just note that, sticking fingers in your ears and saying, “I can’t hear you” is not particularly mature behavior. Or behaviour, if you prefer.
As far as the teaching of history in schools is concerned, the subject has been downgraded in recent years, and I think it is optional altogether after 14 (used to be compulsory in the 1970s).
More serious is the fact that Modern Languages is now optional. Used to be that you had to do at least one. Now they have given up trying to beat it into people whose ability remained abysmal even after five years of it. A grave mistake, IMO. We seem to think that because the rest of The World is learning English, foreign languages don’t matter any more.
I had said I was going to stay away from this discussion with you, but I have to respond to this.
“Thus, citing the Civil War as evidence that the Constitution is/was somehow unable to guarantee stable government is to troll with a red herring.”
You clearly know what “trolling” is in the internet sense. Are you so stupid as to think that isn’t how everyone would read it? Let me suggest an alternative:
“To fish with a red herring”
Or there’s the alternative; that you knew exactly what you were saying and are now trying to pretend it is something else.
So what is it, stupid or lying?
I didn’t bother reading the rest of your post. Judging by the rest of your posts in this thread, it would have been full of a bizarre amount of inability to accept that the US has ever been anything but strong in the face of everything ever along with a touch of childish nationalism.
I can’t be arsed with reading that sort of crap.
I have told you that I did not intend to accuse you of trolling. You can now either accept that as truth, and ascribe to me whatever “stupidity” you want for not realizing you would think that, or you can believe I am lying. I don’t really give a damn which you think. Your tone and rhetoric are such that I’m not particularly worried about your opinions (I notice you’ve left unaddressed the very valid point I’ve made about the United Kingdom and “stable,” since you don’t have anywhere to go from that corner you’ve painted yourself into).
And as I’ve pointed out, I have no “childish nationalism” nor do I accept that the US has ever been anything but strong. I even make clear my positions on these issues. But you go ahead and just wave your hands at it all. Makes it pretty clear who’s being “childish.” 
C’est fin.