The American Civil War

[Laerod]

Please don't lie.

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

No, this would be genocide, a subcategory of ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing refers to the cleansing of an area of an ethnicity. Which is exactly what happened and is exactly what Churchill supported.

[Laerod]

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. :meh:

Only in the sense of not being seen as hypocrites for standing aside after talking about supporting freedom and such.

[Minnysota]

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

Really? I thought it was to clean every ethnicity through the use of scented soaps.

[Vulpae]

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.

first off, true Churchill and Rosevelt didn't close them persionally, there was a comittie sometimes backed by popular support, sometimes not, that did so.

Lincon went to war to preserve what was, that america should not dissolve into small states as each would leave.
Lincon did try diplomatic channels to try and reconsile the southern states at first, dispite warhawks in his cabinet demanding an al out attack, but then came the attack on Fort Sumter, who the government was discussing withdrawing.
if Lincon sent supplies to the fort he would have been violating the constitution, but once the fort was taken he had every right to go to war

[Rio Cana]

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.

If Panama managed to get the US to relinquish control of the Panama Canal zone , which contained US bases, then Cuba could do the same.

Read this on the US base in Cuba.
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/fu ... uantan.htm

[Laerod]

if Lincon sent supplies to the fort he would have been violating the constitution, but once the fort was taken he had every right to go to war

Where exactly in the constitution is the resupplying of federal military installations prohibited?

[Laerod]

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.

If Panama managed to get the US to relinquish control of the Panama Canal zone , which contained US bases, then Cuba could do the same.

Read this on the US base in Cuba.
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/fu ... uantan.htm

I see how you use the word "relinquish". This shows it required US approval. Just like Guantanamo Bay does and just like Ft. Sumter did. Panama taking back the zone unilaterally would be an act of war, just like attacking Guantanamo Bay would be and like attacking Ft. Sumter was.

[Post War America]

The Union Forever, hurrah boys hurrah, down with the traitors and up with the stars...

My favorite is from John Brown's body.

We'll hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree,
We'll hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree..

[TomKirk]

There were considerable differences. Except in the case of the "charter" colonies there wasn't actually any written agreement about how powers should be divided between the Parliament and the local self-governing bodies; James II tried to revoke the charters, but after 1688 it was, or so it was thought, understood that those colonies had considerable autonomy, and even within the crown colonies there was at least a tacit understanding of how far the governor could go (the House of Burgesses had always had a strong role in Virginia; New York and New Jersey, on the other hand, because they were acquired by military conquest, had considerable dissension over the role of the governor); the direct imposition of taxes on the colonists by the Parliament was a novelty and an unwelcome surprise. The Americans had no right to participate in elections for Parliament, so this is a major distinction between the 1776 and 1860 cases. And the Americans first sought to negotiate a peaceful separation; proposals to give Americans seats in Parliament, or to recognize Congress as a new "constitutional" body (in the English sense of "constitution" as an unwritten but binding understanding) analogous in America to Parliament in England (essentially the "Dominion" status later given to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) were rejected. When it did come to conflict, the Americans "out of a decent respect for the opinions of mankind" declared their reasons for seeking separation, and obtained sympathy in the outside world, whereas the reasons declared by the Southerners (their desire to continue the institution of slavery forever) inspired zero respect. It is not possible to become a "nation" just by saying so, without any recognition from anybody else.

What they obtained from the rest of the world was a recognition of advantage to be had, what the confederacy lacked was sufficient military power for another country to see the value in allying with them or antagonising the Union.

Well you know, it doesn't really matter why they didn't get recognition; they didn't. Which means they were never a separate country, no matter what they said.

It had sweet fanny adams to do with the reasons they wanted independence.

Actually, you're mistaken there. In Britain, France, and Spain the government saw a lot of advantages to breaking up the US, giving them opportunities to improve their position in the Western Hemisphere (Britain imposed martial law in Canada and stomped on movements for self-government, reversing field naturally in 1867; France invaded Mexico, pulling out naturally in 1865; Spain imposed martial law in Cuba and attempted to invade Chile; all of those things might have gone quite otherwise if the US had broken up). The upper class in Britain had romantic views of the "chivalry" of the Southern aristocracy; and powerful corporations in both Britain and France had ties to the Southern states. However, the populace found the slavers quite repulsive, and it would have been politically dangerous for either government to recognize or assist the Confederacy.

[TomKirk]

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.

If Panama managed to get the US to relinquish control of the Panama Canal zone , which contained US bases, then Cuba could do the same.

Read this on the US base in Cuba.
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/fu ... uantan.htm

It has never been held by Cuba. Cuba doesn't hold anything, except what the United States allowed them to have after we defeated Spain. Part of the condition for them to have any independence at all is that we could use that base as long as we wanted it. It was the same in the case of Panama. In the cases both of the Canal Zone and of Guantanamo Bay, we declined to annex the territory but recognized it as ultimately the territory of the other country, subject to a "perpetual lease" (that is, for as long as wanted it). In Panama we decided (note: were not forced) to leave, and in Cuba I'm sure we will, sometime, but it is not up to the Cubans when.

[Forsakia]

What they obtained from the rest of the world was a recognition of advantage to be had, what the confederacy lacked was sufficient military power for another country to see the value in allying with them or antagonising the Union.

Well you know, it doesn't really matter why they didn't get recognition; they didn't. Which means they were never a separate country, no matter what they said.

Why does other countries' recognition define that?

It had sweet fanny adams to do with the reasons they wanted independence.

Actually, you're mistaken there. In Britain, France, and Spain the government saw a lot of advantages to breaking up the US, giving them opportunities to improve their position in the Western Hemisphere (Britain imposed martial law in Canada and stomped on movements for self-government, reversing field naturally in 1867; France invaded Mexico, pulling out naturally in 1865; Spain imposed martial law in Cuba and attempted to invade Chile; all of those things might have gone quite otherwise if the US had broken up). The upper class in Britain had romantic views of the "chivalry" of the Southern aristocracy; and powerful corporations in both Britain and France had ties to the Southern states. However, the populace found the slavers quite repulsive, and it would have been politically dangerous for either government to recognize or assist the Confederacy.

[/quote]
And they didn't think that the confederacy were going to win and didn't want to piss off the union without benefit.

[Rick Rollin]

I'm from the north and i would have sided union only to preserve the country and thats it

So you're willing to kill thousands in order to force unwilling States to be part of your union?

They left for an elite minority. In some states, a (small) majority wanted to stay. Stop sucking slave owners.

When they were stupid enough to attack first then yes.The Confedarcy was an illigal movement that was willing to split the nation simply so they could get their way.

What was the American Revolution?

A war for the ideals of the enlightenment.

The IHR?! Are you serious?! You're linking to a holocaust denial site to support your argument?

What's on the site doesn't matter, the article itself is well sourced.

Like so many User-Content generated sites it will undoubtedly hold nasty, distasteful and wrong information. You could very well say "YouTube?! Are you serious?! You're linking to a site which is full of Nazis and 9/11 conspiracy theories!" if I were to link you to a video holding well sourced evidence on the site.

A Nazi site generally has an incentive to fudge the facts against Lincoln.

[Vulpae]

if Lincon sent supplies to the fort he would have been violating the constitution, but once the fort was taken he had every right to go to war

Where exactly in the constitution is the resupplying of federal military installations prohibited?

there isn't, but the topic was up on debate if it violated this or that, if lincon had sent the supplies while this was going on, it might be construed as invading a state, giving legitimacy to the southern cause.
legitimacy it did not yet have, and after taking the fort, could never have

[Seleucas]

The Confederates, so as to break up the Union. It would have been preferable if the North had seceded so that it could have put an end to the Fugitive Slave Laws, or, better yet, if they had never gone beyond a confederation with the South, but since we are assuming that it has gotten to a Civil War, that apparently is not an option.

[GrandKirche]

A war for the ideals of the enlightenment.

Really?

Since when is protesting a tax on tea to pay for your defences part of the ideals of the enlightenment?

[The UK in Exile]

in fact I wonder what the souths reaction would have been to the north seceding?

[Seleucas]

Really?

Since when is protesting a tax on tea to pay for your defences part of the ideals of the enlightenment?

It wasn't even the tax on the tea that was the problem; it was the fact that the British East India Company was undercutting the American smugglers. So much for competition and all. (Not to mention that a good deal of the Enlightenment was nonsense.)

[Seleucas]

in fact I wonder what the souths reaction would have been to the north seceding?

Really not much they would have been able to do about it...

[Vulpae]

Really?

Since when is protesting a tax on tea to pay for your defences part of the ideals of the enlightenment?

when the government in question does so from half a world away, without giving you a voice, ignores every suggestion and compremise (colonies wanted to self-tax and give the money to england), browbeats your delegations (in the case of Ben Franklen was an ardent loyalist until they dragged him and his delegation before court and scapegoated them for the boston teaparty.) raises your taxes without concent, punishes you for trading with anyone but the motherland, then bans industrial factories in your country selling off those your people own, kick people off land awarded to native allies by burning their farms, AND when you complain occupy your lands as if you were a forgien nation? all the while claiming you are equal citizans?

yeah... the federal government didn't do anything remotely like that to the south before they tried to leave the union. When a president they didn't like got into office, who would deny the expansion of slavery (but not outright abolish it, too risky) they decided to form their own country and attack the federal government.

it would be the equilivent in england if Wales did not like prime minister, so they left Great Britian, bought weapons, and launched rockets at an english military base a few counties over.

[Rick Rollin]

A war for the ideals of the enlightenment.

Really?

Since when is protesting a tax on tea to pay for your defences part of the ideals of the enlightenment?

The rest of colonies didn't give a shit about the tea.

Really?

Since when is protesting a tax on tea to pay for your defences part of the ideals of the enlightenment?

It wasn't even the tax on the tea that was the problem; it was the fact that the British East India Company was undercutting the American smugglers. So much for competition and all. (Not to mention that a good deal of the Enlightenment was nonsense.)

How?

[TomKirk]

Well you know, it doesn't really matter why they didn't get recognition; they didn't. Which means they were never a separate country, no matter what they said.

Why does other countries' recognition define that?

That is always how it has been. If you want to be your own country without getting along with any other countries, you need to emigrate to another planet.

And they didn't think that the confederacy were going to win and didn't want to piss off the union without benefit.

Also an excellent reason not to support them. It would have been an excellent for the south not to start the fight in the first place, except that they were deluded enough to think they were going to win.

[Coccygia]

Well you know, it doesn't really matter why they didn't get recognition; they didn't. Which means they were never a separate country, no matter what they said.

Why does other countries' recognition define that?

As a general rule, if no other country recognizes you as a country, it ain't a country. Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules. But there you are.

[Farnhamia]

if Lincon sent supplies to the fort he would have been violating the constitution, but once the fort was taken he had every right to go to war

Where exactly in the constitution is the resupplying of federal military installations prohibited?

The You Are Not The Boss Of Me Clause. Article XXXVI, Section 14.

[The Black Forrest]

Why does other countries' recognition define that?

As a general rule, if no other country recognizes you as a country, it ain't a country. Don't blame me, I didn't make the rules. But there you are.

Indeed. There are all sorts of things you can't do if you are an official. Shaking hands with an official of an unrecognized country would be a recognition......

[Seleucas]

How?

People aren't equal, never have been, never will. Consent of the governed is a fantasy, government is its own interest just the same as any company or the like. (Government is a monopoly on the use of force, and its primary motives are A.) self-preservation, the same as any institution, and B.) using said monopoly for its own benefit; it is no more obligated to uphold rights than a factory is obligated to make its employees happy, and both will only do so out of convenience.) Furthermore, there are no objective rights, and, referring back to my former point, there most certainly is no right to be equal. Constitutions are desperately overrated, to boot; considering that the government ends up interpreting such documents on its own, it ends up being little more than a promise to oneself. Though I do not believe in the existence of God, or the supernatural in general, it seems difficult to believe that secularism or anti-clericalism is always superior to religion; oftentimes its proponents come up with their own baseless beliefs just the same as their more spiritual counterpart.

If there is to be a government, it would be better that it be motivated to be beneficial through its own self-interest, rather than idealistic fiction that makes government seem friendlier without actually improving its performance.