Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

When is the Welsh referendum?

When the people vote for one in elections.

we allow constituent countries to leave when the USA doesn't?

You don't that's kind of the point. You somehow seem to have repeatedly missed that.

 AustonT wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

When is the Welsh referendum?

When the people vote for one in elections.

we allow constituent countries to leave when the USA doesn't?

You don't that's kind of the point. You somehow seem to have repeatedly missed that.

You're claiming that the UK doesn't allow countries to leave, despite an upcoming referendum on independance in Scotland.

Is there some really obvious thing I'm missing here?

 labmouse42 wrote:
I think you missed the phrase 'peacefully'. Only an idiot wants a civil war.

Funny thing about that? The South would have peacefully seceded if the North had let it during the Civil War. Full-fledged secession attempts result in violence.

What exactly was your point?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It's better to nip this in the bud now, look like the good guys while doing it, and take fewer casualties.

We sure looked like heroes in Iraq round 2.

 Seaward wrote:
Funny thing about that? The South would have peacefully seceded if the North had let it during the Civil War. Full-fledged secession attempts result in violence.

Uh...no. If that was the case, they would have looked for peaceful solutions instead of firing bullets -- which was the spark that started the civil war.
Stating "The Southern States would have gladly peacefully succeeded, save for the Northern aggression" is as off as when my wife says "The Civil War was all about slavery".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

 Seaward wrote:
What exactly was your point?

I think I was perfectly clear. During the US Civil War, more Americans died than in any other war in history. Only an idiot was want another US civil war.
(US citizen of course, the Talaban would dance with joy if we started killing ourselves)

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

When is the Welsh referendum?

When the people vote for one in elections.

we allow constituent countries to leave when the USA doesn't?

You don't that's kind of the point. You somehow seem to have repeatedly missed that.

You're claiming that the UK doesn't allow countries to leave, despite an upcoming referendum on independance in Scotland.

Is there some really obvious thing I'm missing here?

Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Whales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?

 AustonT wrote:

Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Wales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?

You don't form governments in a day but yes, if the Welsh voted for independence they'd get it.

Please try to keep the condescending tone out of your posts in future, too. And it's Wales, not Whales.

Huffy wrote:Baron,
What is Tel Mediggo? and at the risk of the conflict spreading is far smaller than people claim, both the Turks and Israelis will see to that. Furthermore the US does not have the political capital to wage another war in the ME anytime soon.

Tel Mediggo is probably better known by it's Greek name: Armageddon. It was a hilltop town at the north end of the Judean section of the Via Maris during the Roman period. Throughout history, several battles have been waged there, the most recent being the first world war, the British using it as a more or less as a diversion while they encircled the Ottomans through the Judean hills. It's a terrible defensive position, but one that the terrain has, in the past, forced on more than one army, as it's an important road junction.

Frazzled wrote:
What the hell is that letter?

Quite possibly the worst conceived parent- teacher letter ever. Snopes has it listed as 'undetermined' if genuine or not, but it's been making the rounds of the internet for years now. When I was a kid, my parents got a similar one for my pointing out that if Lee had, in fact, won the battle of Gettysburg, then the Union would be a very different place than it is. (The teachers edition apparently had a typo, the teacher having no idea about the Civil War beyond it happened when Lincoln was president.) Sadly, my parents didn't keep a copy of that one, unlike the framed one they had of the superintendent issuing them a written apology for calling them liars.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whitedragon wrote:

We sure looked like heroes in Iraq round 2.

Iraq round 2, as you put it, would have been very different if the US invaded in the middle of Saddam committing a massive pogrom of the entire population of Iraq, and stopped it, instead of afterward.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Honestly I'm not worried about ANYTHING in Israel because screwing the IDF has proven to drastically lower the human life span by an incredible margin.

You're really dancing around the question though. Lay it out. I've had enough concussions that I have issues remembering my name some days. What exactly does burning money and lives in another Middle Eastern gakhole get us? Besides keeping mortuary techs busy and letting us show off the COIN operation stuff we've been practicing for the last decade somewhere that isn't Afghanistan.

For the US not having anything to do with Syria is a two fold issue. The first is that if the US refuses to stop Syria or aid anyone that gets caught up in it, it means that the US will be abandoning it's treaties left and right. This is not a good thing, for one's international standing. Second is Syria is already spreading, and destabilizing other countries as it does. If you think it would be bad fighting in Syria, wait until the US ignores if for a few years until half the region is going up in smoke and THEN tries to put the fire out. We both know they will.

Saying 'let Israel deal with it' is a bad idea, no matter how hard they are, there are not enough of them, considering how bad this has the potential to get. Unless you LIKE the idea of a conventional World War III in the desert. It's better to nip this in the bud now, look like the good guys while doing it, and take fewer casualties.

I don't recall any treaties to deal with Syria. Sure Turkey can do the whole NATO thing but that's really about it.

Yes the Israelis CAN and WILL handle ANYTHING the rest of the middle east can throw at them. They've done it before with a smaller army and worse equipment so I don't think it's outrageous to think that the IDF can take care of business.

As to Syria spreading, isn't it what was spread to? Part of the Arab Spring or whatever the media's calling it now?

There is no direct benefit to the United States or any one else for intervening in the Syrian civil war, possibly a little more then Libya, but considering that was a complete waste of time and money as well there you have it. The French keep acting like they want to sack up and be a real world power again, they can handle this one.

 Seaward wrote:

Funny thing about that? The South would have peacefully seceded if the North had let it during the Civil War. Full-fledged secession attempts result in violence.

What exactly was your point?

The south fired the first shot.

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Wales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?

You don't form governments in a day but yes, if the Welsh voted for independence they'd get it.

Please try to keep the condescending tone out of your posts in future, too. And it's Wales, not Whales.

Not a goddamn thing would change. Referendums are not legally binding. Niether is a popular referendum for independance constitutionally enforceable without a corresponding Act by Westminster, which there is no compunction to make.

 LordofHats wrote:
The south fired the first shot.

I expect this from Canadians, but you're an American. You should learn the history. The South firing the first shot does not negate my statement that they would have peacefully seceded had they been allowed.

Lincoln campaigned on a, "secession is treason!" platform. He won. Several states declared they were leaving the union. Nobody had shot anybody at this point. Buchanan and Lincoln both declared the seceding states to be in open rebellion, and the latter declared he would put said rebellion down by force if he had to. There was even a peace conference prior to the commencement of hostilities, but nobody could agree on terms.

I'll go on, if you need me to.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 labmouse42 wrote:
Uh...no. If that was the case, they would have looked for peaceful solutions instead of firing bullets -- which was the spark that started the civil war.
Stating "The Southern States would have gladly peacefully succeeded, save for the Northern aggression" is as off as when my wife says "The Civil War was all about slavery".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

See above. You might want to take a poke around the rest of Wikipedia before making assertions with no basis in fact.

Secession is treason. I don't see what is so complicated or controversial about this.

TheHammer wrote:
Secession is treason. I don't see what is so complicated or controversial about this.

Right or wrong... that's what Scalia's salient point was...if indeed that was him. The Civil War proved that.

TheHammer wrote:
Secession is treason. I don't see what is so complicated or controversial about this.

Oh Noes I agree with THEHAMMER. The world must be ending.

TheHammer wrote:
Secession is treason. I don't see what is so complicated or controversial about this.

Just to recap:

Me: "The South would have seceded peacefully had they been allowed."
Canadian: "Nuh uh! They shot first!"
American: "Yeah! They shot first! You're wrong!"
Me: "Actually, they tried to peacefully secede, and didn't take up arms and fire that first shot until the government of the Union said they'd be going to war to keep the South."
Another American: "Secession is treason!"

I'm starting to suspect there's a hive mind at work here. One line of defense fails, another unrelated one gets opened.

 Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
The south fired the first shot.

I expect this from Canadians, but you're an American. You should learn the history. The South firing the first shot does not negate my statement that they would have peacefully seceded had they been allowed.

Lincoln campaigned on a, "secession is treason!" platform. He won. Several states declared they were leaving the union. Nobody had shot anybody at this point. Buchanan and Lincoln both declared the seceding states to be in open rebellion, and the latter declared he would put said rebellion down by force if he had to. There was even a peace conference prior to the commencement of hostilities, but nobody could agree on terms.

I'll go on, if you need me to.

Please do, I would love to see what you know about the American Civil War.

 Seaward wrote:

TheHammer wrote:
Secession is treason. I don't see what is so complicated or controversial about this.

Just to recap:

Me: "The South would have seceded peacefully had they been allowed."
Canadian: "Nuh uh! They shot first!"
American: "Yeah! They shot first! You're wrong!"
Me: "Actually, they tried to peacefully secede, and didn't take up arms and fire that first shot until the government of the Union said they'd be going to war to keep the South."
Another American: "Secession is treason!"

I'm starting to suspect there's a hive mind at work here. One line of defense fails, another unrelated one gets opened.

To be clear then, I don't give a flying feth about the cause of the Civil War.
To also be clear, as a Southerner and a Texan, Secession is treason. Send them to The White Tower! The British will know what to do.

 Seaward wrote:
I expect this from Canadians, but you're an American. You should learn the history. The South firing the first shot does not negate my statement that they would have peacefully seceded had they been allowed.

Your lack of historical knowledge is showing. Everything about the Southern secession was NOT peaceful. They wanted to fight and they wanted a war. They took the first chance they had to start a fight which was nothing more than a mere supply run to a fort. Go read the speeches and news paper articles from across the South of the time period. They wanted a war so they could win it, assure their independence, and gain international support. Their entire plan was built around having a war.

Lincoln campaigned on a, "secession is treason!" platform. He won. Several states declared they were leaving the union. Nobody had shot anybody at this point. Buchanan and Lincoln both declared the seceding states to be in open rebellion, and the latter declared he would put said rebellion down by force if he had to. There was even a peace conference prior to the commencement of hostilities, but nobody could agree on terms.

I'll go on, if you need me to.

A willingness to use force = aggressive party? Lincoln was still open to negotiation. It was Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, and Southern governors and political machines that were unwilling to work together. Lincoln was a moderate in the political conflicts leading up to the war. He was the best friend the South had in the North.

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

These are not the words of a man who is trying to start a war. The South wanted to fight, and they took the first chance they got. Even a basic analysis of Southern Secession produces a lack of justifiability for secession or aggression at Fort Sumter. The South started the war. They started it over petty senseless fears that make absolutely no sense, and worse they started it to protect an institution that less than a quarter of the South's (white) population had any stake in! Pretending otherwise is a flight of fancy.

 AustonT wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Wales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?

You don't form governments in a day but yes, if the Welsh voted for independence they'd get it.

Please try to keep the condescending tone out of your posts in future, too. And it's Wales, not Whales.

Not a goddamn thing would change. Referendums are not legally binding. Niether is a popular referendum for independance constitutionally enforceable without a corresponding Act by Westminster, which there is no compunction to make.

No because allowing it constitutionally would be bizarre, and unEnglish. There is no presadant for the breakaway of a part of the United Kingdom. The Conservative government, despite the full title of their party being the Conservative & Unionist Party (i.e. they are ideologically opposed to a break up of the union), have said that the referendum will be binding. If the Scots vote yes, they'll grant it.

Not only is this odd from the Conservative Party (though since we've had 12 years of Thatcherite Labour, not *that* odd), but it still means that peaceful sucession is possible. Do you think Obama would announce that he would permit the peaceful breakaway of the state of the Union? I don't believe that for a second.

 Seaward wrote:

TheHammer wrote:
Secession is treason. I don't see what is so complicated or controversial about this.

Just to recap:

Me: "The South would have seceded peacefully had they been allowed."
Canadian: "Nuh uh! They shot first!"
American: "Yeah! They shot first! You're wrong!"
Me: "Actually, they tried to peacefully secede, and didn't take up arms and fire that first shot until the government of the Union said they'd be going to war to keep the South."
Another American: "Secession is treason!"

I'm starting to suspect there's a hive mind at work here. One line of defense fails, another unrelated one gets opened.

You're only half as cute as you think you are.

There's no such thing as "peaceful secession" when they were seceding so that they could continue inflicting violence upon those they have violently enslaved.

Or should we continue talking about the civil war and the South's treasonous secession as though it was done for anything more than to perpetuate violence upon those they had cruelly and grotesquely exploited?

TheHammer wrote:
Or should we continue talking about the civil war and the South's treasonous secession as though it was done for anything more than to perpetuate violence upon those they had cruelly and grotesquely exploited?

They pretend it wasn't about slavery. Some states rights nonsense. That way they can scream 'For the Confederacy!" and "But I'm not Racist" at the same time.

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Wales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?

You don't form governments in a day but yes, if the Welsh voted for independence they'd get it.

Please try to keep the condescending tone out of your posts in future, too. And it's Wales, not Whales.

The opinion polls show 86% of Welsh people don't want to leave the union.

No one at the time seriously thought that the US was going to split into two countries, everyone was going to be happy about it, and that would be the end of it. The goal of Southern secession was to insure, once and for all, through military force, the slavocrats' position that their property rights in slaves could not and would never be infringed upon.

The irony is two-fold. First, the fact that the pro-slavery bloc was in fact easily one of if not the most powerful factions in national politics at the time, with the federal government coming down in most cases in support of slavery (Dred Scott, Prigg v. PN, Compromise of 1850). Secondly, that for all their vaunted support of "state's rights", the South was perfectly willing to abandon this position and demand that the Federal government interfere with Northern or territorial affairs (again, Prigg v. PN, Dred Scott), as long as it benefited slavery.

Hopefully?!

What the gak dude?

My fathers family has deep roots in Virginia. Got a decent number of relatives living there.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Yeah we'll circle around to the obvious thing you are missing.
First: Let's pretend Wales not Scotland, are we still following?, had a referendum for independence yesterday. Would they be forming a Government today?

You don't form governments in a day but yes, if the Welsh voted for independence they'd get it.

Please try to keep the condescending tone out of your posts in future, too. And it's Wales, not Whales.

The opinion polls show 86% of Welsh people don't want to leave the union.

edit - just realised you're from the UK, forgive me if I seem patronising in my post I assumed you were American and therefore I'd need to explain British politics a bit more than I would otherwise.

I never said they wanted to leave, I said they could if they wanted to. Or at least I'd infer that, since they're allowing Scotland to break away. Though whether or not they'd actually allow it, or are just saying that they would because they know the nationalists will lose the referendum, is anyone's guess.

It's worth noting that support for Scottish independance is actually higher in England. Could you say the same in the US? Would more New Yorkers be in favour of the South seceeding than the locals themselves?

 LordofHats wrote:

TheHammer wrote:
Or should we continue talking about the civil war and the South's treasonous secession as though it was done for anything more than to perpetuate violence upon those they had cruelly and grotesquely exploited?

They pretend it wasn't about slavery. Some states rights nonsense. That way they can scream 'For the Confederacy!" and "But I'm not Racist" at the same time.

See thats a Yankee misnomer. It wasn't about slavery.

It was about rich people and slavery. The average Joe Blow didn't have slaves. The average Joe Blow couldn't legally buy his way out of the draft.
On boths dies it was Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.

 LordofHats wrote:
Your lack of historical knowledge is showing.

I'm as big a fan of irony as anybody, but c'mon, buddy.

Everything about the Southern secession was NOT peaceful. They wanted to fight and they wanted a war. They took the first chance they had to start a fight which was nothing more than a mere supply run to a fort. Go read the speeches and news paper articles from across the South of the time period. They wanted a war so they could win it, assure their independence, and gain international support. Their entire plan was built around having a war.

Think there would have been a war had Lincoln let them go? We'll never know, but I doubt it. No point. They didn't want to destroy the North, they wanted to form their own country.

A willingness to use force = aggressive party? Lincoln was still open to negotiation. It was Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, and Southern governors and political machines that were unwilling to work together. Lincoln was a moderate in the political conflicts leading up to the war. He was the best friend the South had in the North.

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

These are not the words of a man who is trying to start a war. The South wanted to fight, and they took the first chance they got. Even a basic analysis of Southern Secession produces a lack of justifiability for secession or aggression at Fort Sumter. The South started the war. They started it over petty senseless fears that make absolutely no sense, and worse they started it to protect an institution that less than a quarter of the South's (white) population had any stake in! Pretending otherwise is a flight of fancy.

I understand you talked yourself into a corner earlier, but trying to inch deeper into it isn't going to help. To suggest that the North was willing to allow the South to secede is absolutely ludicrous. Either you believe the North was indeed willing to let the South secede, in contravention of all established historical record, or else you do not. If you do not, then you're making my point for me; had the South been allowed to go, they would have gone.

 LordofHats wrote:

TheHammer wrote:
Or should we continue talking about the civil war and the South's treasonous secession as though it was done for anything more than to perpetuate violence upon those they had cruelly and grotesquely exploited?

They pretend it wasn't about slavery. Some states rights nonsense. That way they can scream 'For the Confederacy!" and "But I'm not Racist" at the same time.

In addition to slavery, I thought one of the biggest reason why the south wanted to fight was what they thought were unfair taxes/tariffs on the textile industry imposed by the "North"??

TheHammer wrote:
You're only half as cute as you think you are.

There's no such thing as "peaceful secession" when they were seceding so that they could continue inflicting violence upon those they have violently enslaved.

Or should we continue talking about the civil war and the South's treasonous secession as though it was done for anything more than to perpetuate violence upon those they had cruelly and grotesquely exploited?

I'm not talking about why the South fought the war, why the South wanted to secede, whether it was legal, or anything else but whether or not the South would have left the Union without a fight had they been allowed to. You're welcome to continue railing against the evils of an institution that hasn't shown its face in this country for over a century if you like, I guess. Good luck?