The American Civil War

[Laerod]

It's also just as hilariously illegitimate as the Confederacy...

Why is it illegitimate? They want to rule themselves and they do. Exactly what is your problem with that? That they're not part of the nation you want them to be in?

Why are you even asking this?

[GrandKirche]

They have a right to territorial intergrity which the USA should respect if they want to get torture towers off their land. They agreed to a coaling station.

Territiorial integrity isn't infringed upon. It's still Cuban territory.

You'd object pretty sharpish if they sent the Cuban Police in to arrest the American troops for violations of Cuban Law.

[GrandKirche]

Why is it illegitimate? They want to rule themselves and they do. Exactly what is your problem with that? That they're not part of the nation you want them to be in?

Why are you even asking this?

Because ultimately it boils down to a key question:

Do you support the right of a people to say "we want to be free to rule ourselves" or do you support crushing people's desires when they run counter to those of the best interests of the USA?

[Laerod]

Territiorial integrity isn't infringed upon. It's still Cuban territory.

You'd object pretty sharpish if they sent the Cuban Police in to arrest the American troops for violations of Cuban Law.

I'd object pretty sharpish if they did it to an embassy as well. Are you suggesting that embassies are an infringement on territorial integrity as well?

[Laerod]

Why are you even asking this?

Because ultimately it boils down to a key question:

Do you support the right of a people to say "we want to be free to rule ourselves" or do you support crushing people's desires when they run counter to those of the best interests of the USA?

I'm terribly interested in your argument for the democratic legitimacy of warlord controlled territories.

[GrandKirche]

Because ultimately it boils down to a key question:

Do you support the right of a people to say "we want to be free to rule ourselves" or do you support crushing people's desires when they run counter to those of the best interests of the USA?

I'm terribly interested in your argument for the democratic legitimacy of warlord controlled territories.

You should read the economists' recent article on Somaliland and aid:
Some warlords. http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2011/06/aid-and-somaliland

[GrandKirche]

You'd object pretty sharpish if they sent the Cuban Police in to arrest the American troops for violations of Cuban Law.

I'd object pretty sharpish if they did it to an embassy as well. Are you suggesting that embassies are an infringement on territorial integrity as well?

You can tell an Ambassador to leave at once, and the relationship is reciprocal. How many detention centres does Cuba have on the coast of Maine?

[Minnysota]

I support the right of all peoples to self determination in the face of Imperialism.

The South wasn't anti-imperialist at all. In fact, it can be argued (as ASB has brilliantly done) that they actually wished to take over the northern states.

And Cuba, parts of Latin America, etc.

[Vulpae]

Well for starters the south wasn't a far away colony that didn't have legal representation in congress.

They were however a group of governing entities that wanted to break away from a larger state as they felt they were being exploited and mis-treated.

the wealthy southerners thought they were going to be mistreated, they hadn't been mistreated so far.

in the years before lincon's election the southern states actually had political superiority over the north, while they were equal in the senate, in the house of representives and electorial collage voting power is determened by population, and every slave count as 1/2 or 1/3 a citizan, dispite free states having more free men than the south, the south came out ahead because of it's slave population.
that combined with enormious profits from cotton being put into congressional lobbying... gave them a political advantage, the south completely dominated the legislative branch since the nation's inception. untill the north's industrialization started tipping the balance, and abolitionists started talking about the rights of slaves as human beings.

When a president who was completely against slavery (but would not act on the issue) and had little support from the south, was elected, they threatened to leave the union if he was sworn into office, and they did.
While the federal government was trying to figure out how to handle this upset, the newly formed "confederate states" attacked a US fort, an act of war by any regard.
so instead of adressing political grevnces and protesting, the Dixie states had just gone to war with the federal government for fear of loosing their right to determine the liberity of others.

Lincon would do whatever it took to preserve the United States that he believed in, while a great man, he fully mobilized the north's military and industrial capacity to war. Like churchill and Rosevelt in WW2, he closed (not persionally, but signed the papers) papers and organizations that would aid the enemy from either a proppaganda or materal standpoint.
he nationalized the railroad, allowing union forces to be supplied easily, the south did not, and so while union troops had medical supplies, bullets, and food, Lee's army was eating their shoes dispite being stationed about five miles from their captial Richmond because the confederacy left it's rail lines in private hands.
he built telegraph lines, to build a better command structure, the south did not, this also allowed reporters to get access to a ton more information on the bloodyness of war than ever before, which was the first time that had ever happened.

Yet while civic liberties were on a wartime status, Persional liberties flourished, especally for immigrants, minorities, women, and children.

The south had great military leadership, taking all of the best generals with them when the left the union, but the north had better industrial capacity, superior logistics, and a better more organized command structure. on top of things, when the war moved away from being about states rights & federal power, and became about slavery itself, the south lost the proppaganda war.
once the union raised generals that were capable in the form of grant, sherman, and others, the war was over in all ways but the killing.

also for those going on about what sherman did, if you check the journals of the men there he did not order the burning of atlanta, which the wiki mentions in passing, but it was sparkjedby cannon durning the seige, and in the chaos of the union capture, grew out of control with nobody there to put it out. it burned a total of 1/3 of atlanta not the entire city, mostly gutting the industrial areas of the city like a wildfire.
while he didn't order it, watching fires gut the factories that had been making cannons, guns, and more for the confederate army? I don't think any general of that age would have put it out.

Sherman's march here were his orders.


"IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.

VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms....

— William T. Sherman , Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864"

it was not a rampage, as it is often depicted, looking at the accounts unpoliticized, sherman's goal was a march to the sea while using the surrounding countryside to feed his army, and wreck the southern war effort, and sap their will to fight, in the process.
the someone doing this left an unmistakable psychological scar on georgia, and he is blamed for all the ills that befell the white people of georgia at that time. I remember a few tourists from the south blaming sherman for burning down their ancestor's barn... when his forces were really on the other side of the state.

[Laerod]

I'm terribly interested in your argument for the democratic legitimacy of warlord controlled territories.

You should read the economists' recent article on Somaliland and aid:
Some warlords. http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2011/06/aid-and-somaliland

Reluctant to encourage other separatist movements, the West remains committed to supporting the embattled Transitional Federal Government in Somalia which opposes its separation.

Yup.

I'd object pretty sharpish if they did it to an embassy as well. Are you suggesting that embassies are an infringement on territorial integrity as well?

You can tell an Ambassador to leave at once, and the relationship is reciprocal. How many detention centres does Cuba have on the coast of Maine?

You can tell an ambassador to pack up and leave because this right is covered in the relevant international agreement on it. A military base is not an embassy, and as such a country's right to tell the power owning it is governed by the specific treaty. The treaty on the lease from 1935 leaves no wiggle room for Cuba to kick out the US without US consent.

[GrandKirche]

They were however a group of governing entities that wanted to break away from a larger state as they felt they were being exploited and mis-treated.

Lincon would do whatever it took to preserve the United States that he believed in, while a great man, he fully mobilized the north's military and industrial capacity to war. Like churchill and Rosevelt in WW2, he closed (not persionally, but signed the papers) papers and organizations that would aid the enemy from either a proppaganda or materal standpoint.

Churchill and Roosevelt however wanted self determination. They went to war to free, not to subdue.

[Laerod]

Lincon would do whatever it took to preserve the United States that he believed in, while a great man, he fully mobilized the north's military and industrial capacity to war. Like churchill and Rosevelt in WW2, he closed (not persionally, but signed the papers) papers and organizations that would aid the enemy from either a proppaganda or materal standpoint.

Churchill and Roosevelt however wanted self determination. They went to war to free, not to subdue.

This isn't reflected by historical reality. Especially for Roosevelt.

[GrandKirche]

You should read the economists' recent article on Somaliland and aid:
Some warlords. http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2011/06/aid-and-somaliland

Reluctant to encourage other separatist movements, the West remains committed to supporting the embattled Transitional Federal Government in Somalia which opposes its separation.

Yup.

You can tell an Ambassador to leave at once, and the relationship is reciprocal. How many detention centres does Cuba have on the coast of Maine?

You can tell an ambassador to pack up and leave because this right is covered in the relevant international agreement on it. A military base is not an embassy, and as such a country's right to tell the power owning it is governed by the specific treaty. The treaty on the lease from 1935 leaves no wiggle room for Cuba to kick out the US without US consent.

Since 1935 Cuba has had a revolution which removed the governing system which was a mixture of the Army and US puppets. They asserted their right to be their own people which they didn't have in 1935. When a government is overthrown as the people hate it the people should not be bound by rules laid down by that government. It's as if the USA doesn't believe in any interests besides their own...oh wait.

[GrandKirche]

Churchill and Roosevelt however wanted self determination. They went to war to free, not to subdue.

This isn't reflected by historical reality. Especially for Roosevelt.

Are you referring to the Eastern Bloc there? Because Winnie was against it. He's the one that popularised the phrase "the iron curtain"

[Laerod]

Yup.

You can tell an ambassador to pack up and leave because this right is covered in the relevant international agreement on it. A military base is not an embassy, and as such a country's right to tell the power owning it is governed by the specific treaty. The treaty on the lease from 1935 leaves no wiggle room for Cuba to kick out the US without US consent.

Since 1935 Cuba has had a revolution which removed the governing system which was a mixture of the Army and US puppets. They asserted their right to be their own people which they didn't have in 1935. When a government is overthrown as the people hate it the people should not be bound by rules laid down by that government. It's as if the USA doesn't believe in any interests besides their own...oh wait.

There is no internationally recognized right to unilaterally revoke binding treaties solely because management changed.

[Minnysota]

It's as if the USA doesn't believe in any interests besides their own...oh wait.

It's as if this is the case with every nation on Earth... oh wait.

[Laerod]

This isn't reflected by historical reality. Especially for Roosevelt.

Are you referring to the Eastern Bloc there? Because Winnie was against it. He's the one that popularised the phrase "the iron curtain"

More to Germany and Austria. Winnie's support for ethnic cleansing flies in the face of self-determination while Roosevelt was quite specifically there to subdue the Germans through a campaign of malnutrition, something that it took Truman to abolish.

[GrandKirche]

It's as if the USA doesn't believe in any interests besides their own...oh wait.

It's as if this is the case with every nation on Earth... oh wait.

Actually many nations have acted without a self interest based on taking advantage of others when they're down. For example: Libya. Britain & France go in and help the rebels, then go home, without demanding bases or the right to otherwise exploit the land.

No carpetbaggers in Tripoli, plenty made a home in Atlanta.

[GrandKirche]

Are you referring to the Eastern Bloc there? Because Winnie was against it. He's the one that popularised the phrase "the iron curtain"

More to Germany and Austria. Winnie's support for ethnic cleansing flies in the face of self-determination while Roosevelt was quite specifically there to subdue the Germans through a campaign of malnutrition, something that it took Truman to abolish.

That was in the 20s, by the 40s he was quite against it, see the Holocaust.
Blockading is quite standard in war. Ask the people of Savannah circa 1863.

[Laerod]

More to Germany and Austria. Winnie's support for ethnic cleansing flies in the face of self-determination while Roosevelt was quite specifically there to subdue the Germans through a campaign of malnutrition, something that it took Truman to abolish.

That was in the 20s, by the 40s he was quite against it, see the Holocaust.
Blockading is quite standard in war. Ask the people of Savannah circa 1863.

In the 40s, he was very, very much in favor of it:
"Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble...A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions..."
- Winston Churchill

[GrandKirche]

That was in the 20s, by the 40s he was quite against it, see the Holocaust.
Blockading is quite standard in war. Ask the people of Savannah circa 1863.

In the 40s, he was very, very much in favor of it:
"Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble...A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions..."
- Winston Churchill

That wasn't ethnic cleansing, that was the massive migrations that established the modern borders and the longest period of European peace since the Roman Empire. People were packed into trains and ships and moved to their new countries. Germans left Prussia (original Prussia, now wholly in Poland/Russia) and so on, so that states would have less minorities to lead to situations like the Sudetenland.

[Laerod]

In the 40s, he was very, very much in favor of it:
"Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble...A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions..."
- Winston Churchill

That wasn't ethnic cleansing, that was the massive migrations that established the modern borders and the longest period of European peace since the Roman Empire. People were packed into trains and ships and moved to their new countries. Germans left Prussia (original Prussia, now wholly in Poland/Russia) and so on, so that states would have less minorities to lead to situations like the Sudetenland.

Please don't lie.

[GrandKirche]

That wasn't ethnic cleansing, that was the massive migrations that established the modern borders and the longest period of European peace since the Roman Empire. People were packed into trains and ships and moved to their new countries. Germans left Prussia (original Prussia, now wholly in Poland/Russia) and so on, so that states would have less minorities to lead to situations like the Sudetenland.

Please don't lie.

To ethnically cleanse is to massacre. Not to put into trains and ship off. Though it was pretty badly timed as the infrastructure was wrecked. But then the USA weren't keen on restoring things until they found a way to make it pay.

Anyway we're getting off topic.

In case anybody hasn't guessed, I'd have fought for the Confederacy, but being a Brit that might have got a little, well, handing Lincoln a certain part of his anatomy on a plate.

[Wamitoria]

Please don't lie.

To ethnically cleanse is to massacre. Not to put into trains and ship off.

No, that's exactly what ethnic cleansing is.

[Minnysota]

Actually many nations have acted without a self interest based on taking advantage of others when they're down. For example: Libya. Britain & France go in and help the rebels, then go home, without demanding bases or the right to otherwise exploit the land.

No carpetbaggers in Tripoli, plenty made a home in Atlanta.

Ermm.. NATO intervened because it was in their interest to.