By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - So my professor told me Democracies never go to war in class a few days ago

PhoenixKing on 19 March 2010
Samus Aran said:


Hmm, Bioshock?

Anyway democrocies are less inclined to have war with other democrocies, but never is a big word. Too big in this case. So, I can't really agree with your professor.

Like I said, one could call communism to be a form of democracy and look what happened at the cold war. Or just look at the Polish-Lithuanian war. Or the Paquisha war.


Winner! xD

 

And I suppose so but it seems like people just say such and such nation isn't a democracy to try and project this image that democracies never go to war with one another like Nationalism does to state that "Our country is better than every other country in the world.",etc.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 19 March 2010
PhoenixKing said:
Samus Aran said:


Hmm, Bioshock?

Anyway democrocies are less inclined to have war with other democrocies, but never is a big word. Too big in this case. So, I can't really agree with your professor.

Like I said, one could call communism to be a form of democracy and look what happened at the cold war. Or just look at the Polish-Lithuanian war. Or the Paquisha war.


Winner! xD

 

And I suppose so but it seems like people just say such and such nation isn't a democracy to try and project this image that democracies never go to war with one another like Nationalism does to state that "Our country is better than every other country in the world.",etc.

To be fair, those really do some pretty crazy circumstances.  Democracies have gone to war with each other... but not two just regular straight up democracies... outside of Russia and Georgia.  With Russias democracy being a bit questionable.

Nations like Georgia and Israel are the only kind of nations i'd see getting into war with other democracies because of land disputes and rebels.



makingmusic476 on 19 March 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
PhoenixKing said:
TheRealMafoo said:
THe civil war started in 1861. Slavery was not outlawed until after the war, in 1868.

It has less to do with slavery, and more to do with the souther states not liking the federal government taking over there laws (that suited the north much more then the south).

Now if only there was a way to accomplish what they were trying to do, without war. That would be awesome. Time has proven them right.


There was still the fear of Lincoln abolishing slavery, which was admittedly unfounded at the time, it was also fiercely debated and was a major reason for the events that took place in 1861-1868. Buchanan's inaction may have been one of the main reasons it happened but to try and devalue the issue of slavery that was one of the main driving forces behind that decision to break away from the Union is, with all due respect, a rather naive thing to do.

Slavery was the issue of the time. It would be like if the federal government today told every state that they could no longer sell meat. The issue we would have with that is more that the federal government does not have that authority, and less to do with meat.

if in 150 years from now, the most disgusting thing those people could think we did, was eat meat, then they would feel the issue of today was far more about meat, and less about states rights.

Same thing here is all I am saying. 

Import tariffs, another States' Rights issue, also had a heavy hand in things.  The North used its political power to enforce unjust tariffs on the South in an effort to keep Southern farmers buying goods from Northern manufacturers as opposed to importing cheaper goods from Europe. The Morril Tariff proposed in 1860 was nearly as bad as the Tariff of Abominations of 1828.  Given that South Carolina almost came to blows with the Federal Goverment then, it was no surprise they pulled out in 1860.



starcraft on 19 March 2010

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

PhoenixKing on 19 March 2010
Kasz216 said:
PhoenixKing said:
Samus Aran said:


Hmm, Bioshock?

Anyway democrocies are less inclined to have war with other democrocies, but never is a big word. Too big in this case. So, I can't really agree with your professor.

Like I said, one could call communism to be a form of democracy and look what happened at the cold war. Or just look at the Polish-Lithuanian war. Or the Paquisha war.


Winner! xD

 

And I suppose so but it seems like people just say such and such nation isn't a democracy to try and project this image that democracies never go to war with one another like Nationalism does to state that "Our country is better than every other country in the world.",etc.

To be fair, those really do some pretty crazy circumstances.  Democracies have gone to war with each other... but not two just regular straight up democracies... outside of Russia and Georgia.  With Russias democracy being a bit questionable.

Nations like Georgia and Israel are the only kind of nations i'd see getting into war with other democracies because of land disputes and rebels.

Pretty much all wars are from crazy circumstances, I think...



Around the Network
Zucas on 19 March 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
THe civil war started in 1861. Slavery was not outlawed until after the war, in 1868.

It has less to do with slavery, and more to do with the souther states not liking the federal government taking over there laws (that suited the north much more then the south).

Now if only there was a way to accomplish what they were trying to do, without war. That would be awesome. Time has proven them right.

Well states' rights was the issue they used, but that's not what made them go to war.  If they had said they couldn't drink wine anymore, I doubt there woudl have even been a conflict.  But because, it was about race relations, that is what caused it to being more than just a disagreement and turning into a war that killed almost a million Americans.  Let's not pad it down, like some people try to do with Nazi Holocaust.  We know why it happened and we know the underlying cause, let's not soften it up.

 



Zucas on 19 March 2010
makingmusic476 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
PhoenixKing said:
TheRealMafoo said:
THe civil war started in 1861. Slavery was not outlawed until after the war, in 1868.

It has less to do with slavery, and more to do with the souther states not liking the federal government taking over there laws (that suited the north much more then the south).

Now if only there was a way to accomplish what they were trying to do, without war. That would be awesome. Time has proven them right.


There was still the fear of Lincoln abolishing slavery, which was admittedly unfounded at the time, it was also fiercely debated and was a major reason for the events that took place in 1861-1868. Buchanan's inaction may have been one of the main reasons it happened but to try and devalue the issue of slavery that was one of the main driving forces behind that decision to break away from the Union is, with all due respect, a rather naive thing to do.

Slavery was the issue of the time. It would be like if the federal government today told every state that they could no longer sell meat. The issue we would have with that is more that the federal government does not have that authority, and less to do with meat.

if in 150 years from now, the most disgusting thing those people could think we did, was eat meat, then they would feel the issue of today was far more about meat, and less about states rights.

Same thing here is all I am saying. 

Import tariffs, another States' Rights issue, also had a heavy hand in things.  The North used its political power to enforce unjust tariffs on the South in an effort to keep Southern farmers buying goods from Northern manufacturers as opposed to importing cheaper goods from Europe. The Morril Tariff proposed in 1860 was nearly as bad as the Tariff of Abominations of 1828.  Given that South Carolina almost came to blows with the Federal Goverment then, it was no surprise they pulled out in 1860.

Well sure you and I both know that pissed off the rich southernors, but we know the underlying issue that pissed all the southern people off.  Let's not give those who aren't from down here, the benefit of the doubt haha. 



Zucas on 19 March 2010
Samus Aran said:

Lol, democratic countries have wars.
Just look at Ancient Greece. Athens was a democracy and they were blood thirsty bitches.

And then we have... The United states of America.... Israël... UK... France... Russia(one could even call communism to be a form of democracy)

Yes but Greek city-states aren't the best example, mainly because they were a Theocracy.  Obivously its hard to tell because we look at it from a different stance, but there was no separation of church and state in Ancient Greece. There was never anything like that back then, because that was absurd then.  So while having a from of democracy, is was also very religious which obviously conflicting theocracies will clash.  Which the greek city-states did all the time.  Not that they believed in different gods, but obvious we know that never plays into anything haha.



Zucas on 19 March 2010
TheRealMafoo said:
PhoenixKing said:
TheRealMafoo said:
THe civil war started in 1861. Slavery was not outlawed until after the war, in 1868.

It has less to do with slavery, and more to do with the souther states not liking the federal government taking over there laws (that suited the north much more then the south).

Now if only there was a way to accomplish what they were trying to do, without war. That would be awesome. Time has proven them right.


There was still the fear of Lincoln abolishing slavery, which was admittedly unfounded at the time, it was also fiercely debated and was a major reason for the events that took place in 1861-1868. Buchanan's inaction may have been one of the main reasons it happened but to try and devalue the issue of slavery that was one of the main driving forces behind that decision to break away from the Union is, with all due respect, a rather naive thing to do.

Slavery was the issue of the time. It would be like if the federal government today told every state that they could no longer sell meat. The issue we would have with that is more that the federal government does not have that authority, and less to do with meat.

if in 150 years from now, the most disgusting thing those people could think we did, was eat meat, then they would feel the issue of today was far more about meat, and less about states rights.

Same thing here is all I am saying. 

Woops nvm.



makingmusic476 on 19 March 2010
Zucas said:
TheRealMafoo said:
THe civil war started in 1861. Slavery was not outlawed until after the war, in 1868.

It has less to do with slavery, and more to do with the souther states not liking the federal government taking over there laws (that suited the north much more then the south).

Now if only there was a way to accomplish what they were trying to do, without war. That would be awesome. Time has proven them right.

Are you from the south or ever lived down here for any period of time.  I don't make assumptions, but if you've ever been down here you would know exactly that slavery and black rights WERE the biggest issues for the South seceeding from the Union.  Sure States' Rights was an issue for the rich, but most of the south was poor.  Deep, cemented racism is what pissed the poor white southernors off to break awy from the union, not the government telling them what to do.  The south is not like Paris: they don't protest everything just because its fun.  If it were any other issue, I'm sure they wouldn't have gone to war over it, although might have been pissed.  But the thought of a black man being free in their state with the same rights, is what pissed the southernors off enough to say "fuck you America". 

I don't know what the history books are teaching the kids these days, but trying to throw the Civil War off as having not to do mainly with racial issues would be like trying to say the Holocaust was allowed to happen without the help of anti-Semitism throughout Europe.  Sure there are other reasons and both cases, but we all know what the real reason is.

I don't try to hide the history of my state or region.  Racism was strong then, and still pretty strong now.  There is a history of rebelliousness down here, but so is there throughout all of America: we share the same founding fathers.  But there isn't anyone in the world that knows the history of southern America, that wouldn't tell you that racism played the biggest part in the secession of the southern sates. 

 

Bah, what are they trying to tell people nowadays.  Maybe should have a law like in Germany where you can deny the Holocaust, where here ya can't twist the Civil War around to support your form of anarchy. 

 

~95% of white male southerners (including my great great grandfather) didn't own a single slave.  I doubt they were willing to sacrifice their lives just so those rich plantation owners you speak of could keep their slaves.  There were far deeper political issues at stake.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the Civil War actually furthered racial divisions in the South, helping to prolong racial issues well into the modern era.  I'm sure many looked upon freed slaves as a giant flashing sign saying "haha you lost", and I wouldn't be surprised if that created a strong sense of resenment towards the black race that lasted for decades, and still has struggled to fade. 

And the US was the only country that ended the practice of slavery through war (and an incredibly bloody war at that).  Every other country gradually outlawed slavery and came to terms with their racial issues in a peaceful manner, and the way in which things were handled here in all likelihood increased racial tensions at the time.

And just looking at the advent of the war shows what issues were at stake. Only the Deep South states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina seceded upon the election of Abraham Lincoln.  Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina only seceded AFTER arms were taken up against the Deep Southern states, once they saw that even the right of secession was being challenged.

From wiki (it's a crappy source, but whatever):

Four states in the upper South (Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia), which had repeatedly rejected Confederate overtures, now refused to send forces against their neighbors, declared their secession, and joined the Confederacy.