during the early times of the usa, americans were more loyal to the states than to the federal goverment, so they were home state first, american seco...

during the early times of the usa, americans were more loyal to the states than to the federal goverment, so they were home state first, american second.

when did americans became americans first and home state second like nowdays?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'd never willingly defend the major cities of other states since they're all failed experiments but I'd welcome my brother refugees from the suburbs

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >when did americans became americans first and home state second like nowdays?
    probably just a byproduct of interstate highways and domestic aviation. My whole extended family was born and raised in new york, but when they got older, they just started moving to random states. Hard to have fixed regional identities when everyone is so transient.

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Perhaps when, "The United States" went from being plural to being singular? Wasn't that a result of their Civil War?

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    all the activist supreme court decisions over the years contributed to this. also people back then would probably think it crazy that we pay more taxes to the federal government than state or local. wickard v filburn shelly v kramer roe v wade everytime the supreme court weighs in on something it takes away the states ability to do so due to the supremacy clause. there was another case i think from connecticut where scotus decided that states had to give new residents the same gibsmedat as long term residents of a state, finding the 6 month or so waiting period unlawful

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The civil war changed everyone's perspective. After the war everyone was American rather than a "Carolina or New Yorker"

      Completely the opposite. Respect for the government has gone significantly downhill compared to what it was in the 19th century. In those times the Federal government was tiny and had very few powers yet in many ways was stronger and more respected than now. Federal posts were highly prestigious and sought after even when they didn't pay that much. Today nobody likes the government or respects it at all. The more you have of something the less valuable it becomes.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        proof OP is correct because there is no longer a thing as "federal government" there is no more federation, there is only the government which is intertwined in every institution and aspect of governance, with the state being The American State, the Empire, the idea of a localized government semi independent only exists on paper and the proper meaning of localized government has practically become just an introduction or halfway house to the former federal government.
        America is more centralized now at the village level than the entire nation was at the outset of the 1800s.
        A local township bureau has more power than George Washington.
        Washington could not demand a man give up his home and ancestral lands in the same way a township troony can demand it of anyone in their municipality because "too much traffic, need road here"

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        There are several reasons for that one of them that Federal agencies are adult daycare centers used to warehouse people who can't do anything useful elsewhere. Nogs, LGBT, Mormons, and other useless/parasitic demographics comprise a huge amount of government workers.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          when did this start exactly?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            With FDR when significant numbers of LGBT were hired to government jobs as part of New Deal programs. It accelerated with LBJ when they also began hiring lots of nogs on affirmative action quotas.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >With FDR when significant numbers of LGBT were hired to government jobs as part of New Deal programs
            Based Eisenhower banned them from Federal jobs and this held until Jimmy Cuckter removed the ban. We need to bring that back. Washington is probably 70% gays at this point.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            fire all Mormons too, they're a disproportionate amount of glowBlack folk

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why are Mormons so fricking slimy?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mormons are easy to recruit for letter agencies because of their hyper-collectivist culture. They will obey all orders without question and never have any self-awareness or individual free thought.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            WWII saw the creation of sociology which was mostly used by communists and marxists for propaganda purposes swept the globe. The US wanted access to this power and designated a bunch if eggheads to study it and see if the marxists produced anything useful. What they found was a bunch of sociological theories by marxists (like sexology) that lacked the funding to be tested, so what happened were these large foundations with grants from the government like the Rockefeller Foundation started hiring these wackjobs. At the same time FDR was pushing for a massively expanded social bureaucracy within the US government, basically a swarm of government social workers which would facilitate any "changes" to federal US policy. Within a decade the US government is filled with marxists, women and homosexuals and the US is on the fast track to being the largest welfare state in the world

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Completely the opposite
        lol

        in fact there are many cases that disprove this claim and the Supreme Court has generally moved away from backing FDR-era centralization since the 70s

        >in fact there are many cases that disprove this claim and the Supreme Court has generally moved away from backing FDR-era centralization since the 70s
        the federal government has gradually centralized power over time even if it is true it has backed off slightly in recent decades, you'd have to be crazy to think the states are more autonomous now than early in the country's history before scotus started getting creative with constitutional interpretation

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      in fact there are many cases that disprove this claim and the Supreme Court has generally moved away from backing FDR-era centralization since the 70s

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    civil war, right

    the union forever

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Civil war changed everyone's perspective. After the war everyone was American rather than a "Carolina or New Yorker"

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      that's what they want you to think

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Civil War.

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    > post-WWII America
    > people used to identify with their states more than 'Murica
    > then civil rights happens
    > racism and injustice big issue
    > 'Murica comes together to fight it
    > state identity not as important anymore

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >when did americans became americans first and home state second like nowdays?
    The Civil War.
    Since that was a war, though driven by slavery, officially about state's rights and whether the union came first or the rights of the state government

    In the north it obviously became immediately uncouth to swear allegiance to a state first, since the North was fighting for the union, not for state.
    So in the north, the view died right there.
    In the south the pro-state view stuck longer.
    But as media became more widely spread and travel between states easier, there ceased to be as strong state identities as now most states are basically like all the other ones. More or less.
    So the south became more America first probably around ww1

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wow it's almost as if they fought a bloody civil war over this.

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Spanish-American war is often credited for getting Northerners & Southrons uniting against a common enemy.

    Xanthus Russell Smith. "The Destruction of Cervera's Fleet at Santiago de Cuba July 3rd 1898." With an inset of Capt. Schley.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Battle of Manila Bay, 1 May 1898

  12. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >burgers obsessed with state rights
    >constitution explicitly states that states have no rights
    ?????

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      beg your pardon? the Federal government is only given a limited handful of powers and whatever is not goes to the states per the 10th Amendment.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        State law is subordinate to federal law.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          that was his point. there are specific enumerated powers granted to the Federal government like currency, national defense, international diplomacy, etc and these override the states.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Technically a state is not forbidden in the Constitution to perform those tasks (states can issue their own currency, have a postal service, etc) but Congress gets priority for them and can take over those items from a state government. for example the National Guard is normally state controlled but can be nationalized under the national defense clause. Immigration and citizenship was always an enumerated power but Congress did not actually regulate it until the late 19th century, although it could have from the beginning.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, the federal government is the only one allowed to make law concerning these things, not any state. A state can make a law say effectively banning abortion but a federal law saying that abortion is legal in all cases supersedes the state law

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but a federal law saying that abortion is legal in all cases supersedes the state law
            there's nothing granting that as an enumerated power nor is the right to an abortion in the Bill of Rights so it falls under the 10th Amendment. if you recall Ron Paul opposed a proposed Federal partial birth abortion ban once on constitutional grounds, despite his personal objection to partial birth abortion.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That anon you replied to is LBJgay. He is a welfare POC who supports unlimited big government especially when it concerns giving him gibesmedat.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That goes back to Andrew Jackson's war on the BOTUS. Democrats said the Constitution had no authority for a national bank (Thomas Hart Benton famously stood on the Senate floor and challenged anyone to point out where the words "national bank" appeared in the Constitution). Jackson as a compromise offered to operate the BOTUS out of Washington DC, on Federal land, and only to operate it in states with their consent.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            IIRC the Federalist position had been that it was covered under the currency clause.

            Technically a state is not forbidden in the Constitution to perform those tasks (states can issue their own currency, have a postal service, etc) but Congress gets priority for them and can take over those items from a state government. for example the National Guard is normally state controlled but can be nationalized under the national defense clause. Immigration and citizenship was always an enumerated power but Congress did not actually regulate it until the late 19th century, although it could have from the beginning.

            States did issue their own bank notes until the Currency Act of 1857. In the early years of the nation it was something of a necessity as the US Mint couldn't produce enough coins to supply the needs of national commerce.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >States did issue their own bank notes until the Currency Act of 1857. In the early years of the nation it was something of a necessity as the US Mint couldn't produce enough coins to supply the needs of national commerce.
            it was also legal tender to use foreign currency back then

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            one other obscurity was intellectual property laws. most of these were quickly nationalized by the Copyright Act of 1791 however copyrights for recorded music were not covered by national copyright laws until 1971 for some reason and fell under state authority prior to that; this resulted in a bizarre confusion of copyright terms from state to state.

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have only lived in a state other than Massachusetts for eighteen months of my life. I spent it in Rhode Island and it ended in a suicide attempt.
    OP is over-generalizing.

  14. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >during the early times of the usa, americans were more loyal to the states than to the federal goverment
    A bit of a meme. States were taken very seriously but there was a massive surge in American nationalism just prior to the revolution.

  15. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    It depends on the state. Many people don't like Californians and don't consider them to be "Real Americans" for example. And other states have rivalries and squabbles with their neighbors to the present day.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The funny thing is that Californians largely don't give a frick. State rivalry is mostly a flyover thing

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Lots of Californians buy into the no cal socal rivalry that's pretty gay

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Lots of Californians buy into the no cal socal rivalry

          California should have been 2 or more states

          Only reason it wasn't was because there wasn't enough people for 2 states, and most people were in San Francisco and Sacramento
          -but they felt they needed to make a state to ensure the Mexicans wouldn't try to take it back

          It really should be 3 states.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Actually 'Southern California' wasn't originally claimed
            that's why the counties form that straight line there between southern and central Cal.
            Then our army saw San Diego bay and thought it would make a nice Port or Navy base..

            We should have taken Baha - Lower California too. Imagine the Resorts, potential Rum- running in the 30's, cheap land. Cabo Wabo would be American.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            no. they made it into one state as a cheat trick to prevent another slave state from being created.

            >admit CA as one free state
            >or admit CA as two states, one free and one slave.

            in the Civil War there was also stronger secessionist support in SoCal than NorCal. since the state government was based in the latter, however, secession was never a serious concern. Confederate troops under Henry Sibley attempted to cross from Texas to California in early 1862 but were defeated at Glorieta Pass and they simply didn't have the logistics to cross the Southwestern desert anyway.

  16. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Non-American here, what's the deal with Vermont and American independence?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Vermont was a disputed zone claimed by New York and New Hampshire which nearly went to war over it. The people, not wanting to be part of either state, briefly declared an independent republic. It was added to the union in 1792 as the first state admitted after the original 13.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *