I could sell a book on E-bay, draw up a flag, and shoot a gun out my window, does that make me a nation?lowing wrote:
Is global recognition a must when you start a country? If so, all of this shit about the "nation of Palestine" seems to be out the window.S.Lythberg wrote:
they failed in their secession, and were never recognized by the global community as a sovereign nation, therefore, it is a civil war, they were independent only in their own minds.lowing wrote:
There was no such thing as the American civil war. (technically)
A civil war is a fight between 2 factions of the same country. The South seceded, so they were officially their own country. It then became a war between 2 nations and 2 different govts. Am I right or wrong?
The south traded with other countries, formed their own govt. flew their own flag, had their own money, their own culture, their own military, their own borders. Sounds like a country to me.
there, I started a new thread, you can have this one back
Last edited by S.Lythberg (2009-06-15 23:21:32)
Yeah maybe in Australia!AussieReaper wrote:
That's why it is also known as the War Between the States.
Yes, we now refer to them as the "John Kerry" states. Damn flip floppers!AussieReaper wrote:
Weren't there a few states the changed sides, also? (or back and forth. You'd know better than me )
lol'dKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Yes, we now refer to them as the "John Kerry" states. Damn flip floppers!AussieReaper wrote:
Weren't there a few states the changed sides, also? (or back and forth. You'd know better than me )
They were always separate states with individual constitutions. The United States was so diverse that in order to succeed our founders had ensure the sovereignty of each state. They were united for things like the "common defense".. but it was never intended to go much further than that.Pubic wrote:
If the southern states seceded, then I would say it was a civil war. If they were a seperate nation from the get-go, then I would say it is not a civil war.
Ok it was a war between the states, but don't ya think it was more like a war for independence? Like I said they not fighting for control over the same the govt. They were figting for indenpendance from the established govt.AussieReaper wrote:
It was a civil war.
Eleven Southern slave states declared their secession from the U.S. and formed the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy). Led by Jefferson Davis, they fought against the U.S. federal government (the Union), which was supported by all the free states and the five border slave states in the north.
That's why it is also known as the War Between the States.
They were not fighting for independence because they were not dependent to begin with.lowing wrote:
Ok it was a war between the states, but don't ya think it was more like a war for independence? Like I said they not fighting for control over the same the govt. They were figting for indenpendance from the established govt.
Then why is the American revolution not also considered a civil war?Pubic wrote:
If the southern states seceded, then I would say it was a civil war. If they were a seperate nation from the get-go, then I would say it is not a civil war.
Well if that were the case, WW1 WW2 and just about every other war is a civil war. Being from a different country does not make you a different race.oug wrote:
A civil war is called an 'εμφύλιος' in Greek - meaning 'within the same race'. I hope that clarifies things.
Oh but they were, there was an established federal govt. and they were dependent on trade from the industrial north.AussieReaper wrote:
They were not fighting for independence because they were not dependent to begin with.lowing wrote:
Ok it was a war between the states, but don't ya think it was more like a war for independence? Like I said they not fighting for control over the same the govt. They were figting for indenpendance from the established govt.
No, the established federal govt. was not that well established. It was so un-established in fact that the South declared secession before Lincoln was able to take office after winning the Presidential Election. And his government didn't not consider it secession, but rebellion. Along with, as S.Lythberg said, "they were never recognized by the global community as a sovereign nation",lowing wrote:
Oh but they were, there was an established federal govt. and they were dependent on trade from the industrial north.AussieReaper wrote:
They were not fighting for independence because they were not dependent to begin with.lowing wrote:
Ok it was a war between the states, but don't ya think it was more like a war for independence? Like I said they not fighting for control over the same the govt. They were figting for indenpendance from the established govt.
Different governments and economies with trade from other nations... So which is it, lowing, dependent or not? Make up your mind.lowing wrote:
Or was it a war between 2 separate nations?
there were
different govts.
different economies
distict military's
trade with other nations.
Sounds like a war between 2 nations more than a civil war. Whatcha think?
Dependant BEFORE secession, independant and trade with other nations AFTERwards.AussieReaper wrote:
No, the established federal govt. was not that well established. It was so un-established in fact that the South declared secession before Lincoln was able to take office after winning the Presidential Election. And his government didn't not consider it secession, but rebellion. Along with, as S.Lythberg said, "they were never recognized by the global community as a sovereign nation",lowing wrote:
Oh but they were, there was an established federal govt. and they were dependent on trade from the industrial north.AussieReaper wrote:
They were not fighting for independence because they were not dependent to begin with.
And to say they were now dependent on trade from the north goes against what you stated in the OP:Different governments and economies with trade from other nations... So which is it, lowing, dependent or not? Make up your mind.lowing wrote:
Or was it a war between 2 separate nations?
there were
different govts.
different economies
distict military's
trade with other nations.
Sounds like a war between 2 nations more than a civil war. Whatcha think?
And as the government was not that well established by the US to begin with, even the Southern States government you would be hard pressed to consider legitimate since as soon as they formed they were neither recognised nor operated as such.
They were not established in the concept of ending slavery, which was one of the main factors leading to the South's withdrawal from the Union. Have a look at the motives behind the Southern secession. They were against the ending of slavery that the previous government was pressing, and that concept was to be further pressed and eventuate under Lincoln.lowing wrote:
Dependant BEFORE secession, independant and trade with other nations AFTERwards.
the federal govt. was not established? By the time the civil war broke out the federal govt. was on its 16th ELECTED president. Sounds established to me.
It was one nation BEFORE the war. As soon as the south seceded, it then became 2 nations. The war was also not about slavery, it was about states rights over a stronger federal govt. I made the comparison between the secession of the south and the colonies break form England. Was this also a civil war based on your criteria?AussieReaper wrote:
They were not established in the concept of ending slavery, which was one of the main factors leading to the South's withdrawal from the Union. Have a look at the motives behind the Southern secession. They were against the ending of slavery that the previous government was pressing, and that concept was to be further pressed and eventuate under Lincoln.lowing wrote:
Dependant BEFORE secession, independant and trade with other nations AFTERwards.
the federal govt. was not established? By the time the civil war broke out the federal govt. was on its 16th ELECTED president. Sounds established to me.
Oh and thanks for clearing up that they were dependant before secession. Because your OP suggested it was more of a war between nations since they were so independent. I guess you've proven yourself wrong on that fairly well. The states were dependent, and thus it was a civil war. Not a war between nations.