posted
Well the war of the roses, noone seceded, it was simply a war over who got to rule, that was a civil war. The american war of secession, was two seperate nations.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure that if the south won, it wouldn't have been considered a civil war. And if the English had won the Revolutionary War, it would have been called a civil war. Since when is anyone surprised when history is dictated by winners?
Posts: 127 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, Speed...but what if China gets Taiwan back through use of military force? Would we call that a really long civil war?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is the fighting with Chechnya a civil war or a war of aggression? How about Kazakhstan? Russia claims it is the same as the American Civil War, which keeps other nations out of the fighting.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I was just going to ask if, in fact, the American Revolution was not really a civil war? What is the difference between civil war(if secession defines the Civil War) and revolution?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It doesn't matter what the victors name it, only what it truly techincally was.
I, as well as most of history, would beg to differ. Greece, Rome, Egypt, Spain, France, Russia, the Holy Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, the Ottomans, and Germany would probably all beg to differ as well.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and India would definitely beg to differ, being regions of long standing colonialism and imposed borders.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a civil war when it is the same people fighting against each other. But yeah, I do think the American Revolution was a civil ware itself. Not only was it transplanted and second generation English fighting against English, but there were extremely divided loyalties among the colonists as well.
But the Yankees wrote the history books. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina, I think you are mistaken. Weren't there also a large population of other nationalities already at that time? I seem to recall something about that when talking about the colonies of New York and Pennsylvania. It wasn't just the English fighting, and that is what set it apart from being a civil war.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were also people of other nationalities living in England. England considered the colonies to be part of England, and there were as many loyalities in the colonies as revolutionaries. Some of those loyalists fought on the British side. It was a civil war - I think the difference between the Revolution and the War Between The States is that the loyalists, when the revolutionaries won, were not systematically oppressed and exploited for the next twenty years. Since the two groups were not separated geographically, it was harder to do.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find that line of reasoning questionable, katharina, though I do not have any links or written documents to contradict it. What about Texas? Didn't they have sovereignty at one point?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I heard somewhere that Texas, due to the documentation drafted when they joined the Union, is the only state that can legally seceed from the Union.
posted
I have to make it clear that I also believe Taiwan is its own nation...I only asked that to make sure that I knew his perspective on it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Kazakhstan its own nation? They have representation in the olympics, don't they? Where is the support from other nations for their fight with Russia? Is it because Russia claims it is a civil war?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't know enough about those situations to have an educated opinion, but I am hoping to learn more.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find that line of reasoning questionable, katharina, though I do not have any links or written documents to contradict it. What about Texas? Didn't they have sovereignty at one point?
Let me know when you have something to counteract it, then.
Yes, Texas was an independent nation for ten years before it joined the USA. The Texans applied for statehood immediately after the war with Santa Anna, but because of the politics in the U.S., was delayed from joining for ten years.
quote:The Constitution is silent on the issue of the secession of a state from the United States. The Civil War was fought to prevent states from leaving the Union. Some people claim that it is still not established whether any state can secede legally. Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation stated that "the union shall be perpetual."
posted
I believe Kazakhstan, Taiwan, Chechnya, etc are all independent states. They govern themselves, acording to their own laws and values, to me that defines a nation, a state, a people. Though their are others tat wish to govern them, and use them, if they resisit that, and continue to govern themselves as they have, they ar a free and independent people.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Khazakstan is its own nation and has been since the breakup of the USSR. I think you are referring to Chechcnya (sp?) which isn't,and as far as I know doesn't have its own olympic delegation.
quote:I believe Kazakhstan, Taiwan, Chechnya, etc are all independent states. They govern themselves, acording to their own laws and values, to me that defines a nation, a state, a people. Though their are others tat wish to govern them, and use them, if they resisit that, and continue to govern themselves as they have, they ar a free and independent people.
Then why are Kazakhstan and Chechnya not getting support from other nations? Last I heard it was because Russia claimed it was a civil war. Do you have information to counter this?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Khazakstan is its own nation and has been since the breakup of the USSR. I think you are referring to Chechcnya (sp?) which isn't,and as far as I know doesn't have its own olympic delegation.
I'm referring to both. Both endure different levels of aggression from Russia without international assistance.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why not, I'm not a policy maker for the United States. All I know is that in my mind, I believe them to be sovereign nations.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know why not, I'm not a policy maker for the United States. All I know is that in my mind, I believe them to be sovereign nations.
You don't understand. They don't get support from a lot more places than the US. As for you not knowing why, I would seem the situation is a modern example as to why your claim about who wins and what technically is would seem a little prematurely based on opinion. Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BannaOj, I don't think you are understanding what I'm getting at. I already know about those links. What I'm saying is that Khal Drogo's statement regarding whatis defined by victors and what really is does not seem to be applying with modern events. Of course Khazakstan is sovereign. The second link you gave defines why it is so valuable to Russia, which is still aggressive towards them.
I'm asking why, if they are recognized as sovereign, are they not being assisted more? The only major difference between Kazakhstan and Chechnya is that Kazakhstan is further along. Both groups are ethnically different from Russia, speak mostly different languages, and have established histories separating them from Russia before the Soviet Union.
So, I ask again, why does the world not seem to be interfering? Is it because Russia claims it is a civil war?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well just because a thing shoudl happen doesn't mean it will. Not many nations are going to want to anger the Russians, they still control the caucassus, as well as a rather large and volatile army. By recodnizing these people as free states, you would get the russian premier rather ticked off I expect.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recognizing doesn't help. They still get attacked with little to no outrage from the rest of the world.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And when has right or wrong ever been figured into politics since the rennaisance? Which was not a rebirth but a death.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not arguing right or wrong. I'm arguing that how things are recorded later is most definitely dependant on who gains most from it. If we were looking for what technically is or was, we would have to teach eight different versions of every historical account.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything will be classified in a way as to make the victor seem glorious and powerful, but I am simply saying that they govern themselves, does that not make them an independent nation?
Posts: 148 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they are recognized as sovreign, then their internal problems are their own other than the assistance from the UN or generousity from other countries.
I don't think Russia has near the influence over Khasakhstan that it does over chechnya, and I think there would be more international outrage over them invading Khazakhstan than there was with chechnya.
quote:Everything will be classified in a way as to make the victor seem glorious and powerful, but I am simply saying that they govern themselves, does that not make them an independent nation?
And I'm saying it is always going to depend on who you ask.
This is why there are many southern Americans who truly believe that the civil war was an injustice.
[ August 20, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they are recognized as sovreign, then their internal problems are their own other than the assistance from the UN or generousity from other countries.
Mighty convenient way to stay out of it, don't you think?
quote:I don't think Russia has near the influence over Khasakhstan that it does over chechnya, and I think there would be more international outrage over them invading Khazakhstan than there was with chechnya.
It all depends on who is defining what invasion means. Shelling and other fighting takes place, but no mass troop movements across borders does. Kazakhstan has moved its capital southward because of the Russian aggression. Over the last few years, it seems to have waned, but not disappeared. The most striking thing about relations between the two nations is that the fighting is rarely, if ever, reported. Diplomatic relations are, but not the aggressive relations.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been thinking, Justa, about the rest of the world getting involved with Kazakstan and so on. Maybe we should, I don't know. But it does seem like we're evening it up by backing away from Taiwan, and that makes me really sad.
I guess what I mean is, maybe we should be more involved with the other places fighting for independence. But America's way of dealing with it is beginning to be laying down and letting China tell us what to do regarding Taiwan, so our relationships with the other places doesn't surprise me much.
Bweh, it still isn't articulate, no matter how much I reword it. But I'm not about to start letting that stop me now.
posted
As a note on Taiwan, it is NOT an independent country, they don't say they are, they don't want to be. Taiwan sees itself as a part of the same cultural China that Mainland China (PRC) but a seperate political entity, the PRC is the only one that sees Taiwan as a provence. Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As best I can tell, Taiwan would declare themselves an independent country in a second if they didn't fear it would trigger a war with China. In fact, I think the U.S. has no formal agreement to defend Taiwan to discourage them from doing that.
posted
Okay, I think it's time we all come clean. The real name of the war that was fought when the southern states seceded is the Totally Bogus War. We just tell everyone that it's the Civil War to see if they'll notice.
Curse you Khal, you foiled all our clever plans.
[ August 20, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Speed 2: Cruise Control ]
Posts: 127 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's the Civil war because of the difference of this and this.
It can be both.
If you secede it is a revolution, because the new nation you are striving for becomes a reality.
If you fail, then the new nation wasn't viable, at least not enough to survive, and it was a civil war.
The American Civil War was fought over the very right of the states to secede, and they had no legal way to quit the Union other than an amendment, which would have never passed in the North.
Unless the whole government was wiling to disolve....which they obviously weren't.
It was a civil war because the people fighting were all members of the same country, or at least started off that way.
Since the Union preserved, the Confederacy was never a sovereign nation within the US borders, despite what they claimed....or what they call it now.
posted
Dag, Most westerners think that, but it just isn't true. Taiwan depends upon the mainland for it's prosperity, their economies are tied together so tightly it'd be like removing California for the United States, whenever either side rattles sabres, the economies of both shudder, Taiwanese investors are a very major force in the economy of southeast China, declaring indepedence would cut all political and economics ties...severly crippling the richest portion of the mainland, as well as the entire island, however what Taiwan does know (or think they know...depending on who you talk to) is that to join Mainland would be the death of any and all political freedoms that they only recently (early '90s) got with the sucession of martial law from the Nationalist Party, you can almost say Taiwan's prosperity depends upon it's precarious state as a non-state state (if that makes any sense). Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty [of Texas] failed, the United States Congress passed--after much debate and only a simple majority--a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States. Under these terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt, it would have the power to divide into four additional states "of convenient size" in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government. (Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas' Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.)
http://www.geocities.com/rebel12th/history3.html Bolds mine. Yes, Texas was sovereign at one time, the Republic of Texas. It surrendered it's sovreignity to become a state. But what I find funny is their ability to divide into 4 additional states--this would gain the population of Texas 8 additional senators and allow them to dominate the senate. It's all part of W's plan!
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Cybil Wahr! I love that Annie! Somehow I missed it the first time this thread was up.
