well technically Saddam Hussein was democratically elected.


and yes, the USA is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Quoted: Quoted: Of course you fail to mentoin that only three states not in Confederate control had slaves, and that those states would have been alienated had the EP applied to them, and in fact those states banned slavery on thier own accord before 1865. Wrong again. The Emancipation Proclamation was January 1, 1863. The 13th Amendment (which freed slaves in nothern states) was not until December 6, 1865, not before. Again, check your history.

Right, but the border states made slavery illegal before 1865, through their state legislatures.  

Quoted: I know the South had 3,000,000+ slaves, and killed 800,000 americans to try to keep them, let's stack that up against how many the North had?

Slavery was not the single reason for the Civil War. To say so ignores the facts that there were several issues for the war. Also, the vast majority of CSA soldiers were NOT slave owners. In fact, many would never have enough money to even think of owning a slave not to mention many slaves.

If you will also go back and re-read your history books, most of the cotton grown in the south was needed by the mills in the north.

Slavery was a dieing institution. Up until the time just after the Civil War, labor costs and availability was exhorbitant. It would not have been much longer after the Civil War that it would have been cost prohibitive to continue owning slaves when the influx of many immigrants such as the Irish, etc. would have made labor costs more manageable.

Was slavery a horrible institution? You bet. But to think that the north was completely innocent of it and fought the war to free the slaves and nothing else is a fallacy. The north benefitted from slavery just as the south did. It's days were numbered as was cotton. It was not long after the war that the boll weevil and the lack of fertilizers also killed cotton.

Quoted: <Snip> I know the South had 3,000,000+ slaves, and killed 800,000 americans to try to keep them, let's stack that up against how many the North had?

We wouldn't be WILDLY EXAGGERATING there just a tad now would we?  You must have been recently reading Procopius of Caesarea's Secret History wherein he claimed the Byzantine emperor Justinian, along with various other dasterdly crimes, "murdered" over a billion people . You see, Procopius was what scholars of late Roman/early Byzantine civilization call "biased".  
I think the Secret History of the War "Betwixt" the States by Guardianus 855us of Arizonus is a weeeeee bit biased as well.

Quoted: Right, but the border states made slavery illegal before 1865, through their state legislatures.

Wrong again. At least with KY slavery was NOT banned until the ratification of the 13th Amendment.

Again, if you do not believe me go here www.ket.org/civilrights/timeline.htm

Quoted: Was slavery a horrible institution? You bet. But to think that the north was completely innocent of it and[r] fought the war to free the slaves and nothing else is a fallacy[/r]. The north benefitted from slavery just as the south did. It's days were numbered as was cotton. It was not long after the war that the boll weevil and the lack of fertilizers also killed cotton.

This is becoming a thread hijack, so maybe we should start another thread, but this topic comes up every month or so.  

The north fought the war to preserve the Union, and not to end slavery.
The south fought the war to preserve the institution of slavery.

Just because the front line soldiers didn't own slaves doesn't negate it as a cause.  What did the average soldier in Europe know about fighting the Nazis?  Most of them had never even met a Nazi.  What did the sailors have to do with the Philipines when we fought the Moros during the Philipine Insurrection?  What did the marine have to do with preserving the government of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War?  Before that war, most of the people fighting in that war couldn't even locate Vietnam on a map.  Policymakers decide what we fight for, not the guys on the frontline.

Quoted: Quoted: <Snip> I know the South had 3,000,000+ slaves, and killed 800,000 americans to try to keep them, let's stack that up against how many the North had? We wouldn't be WILDLY EXAGGERATING there just a tad now would we?  You must have been recently reading Procopius of Caesarea's Secret History wherein he claimed the Byzantine emperor Justinian, along with various other dasterdly crimes, "murdered" over a billion people . You see, Procopius was what scholars of late Roman/early Byzantine civilization call "biased".   I think the Secret History of the War "Betwixt" the States by Guardianus 855us of Arizonus is a weeeeee bit biased as well.

What?  There wasn't 800,000 casualties of the Civil War?

Quoted: What?  There wasn't 800,000 casualties of the Civil War?

In all fairness many accounts do place total casualties for both sides at around 600,000.  That said, most of these deaths were due to disease and not directly combat related.  That doesn't make any of them any less dead, of course, and it's a ghastly price to pay considering the total population of the U.S. at the time.

I was just implying that the way you phrased it made it sound like the Confederates killed 800,000 Union troops in combat.

Quoted: This is becoming a thread hijack, so maybe we should start another thread, but this topic comes up every month or so.

Agreed.

The north fought the war to preserve the Union, and not to end slavery.

Agreed.

The south fought the war to preserve the institution of slavery.

Disagree. That was not the *only* reason.

Just because the front line soldiers didn't own slaves doesn't negate it as a cause.  What did the average soldier in Europe know about fighting the Nazis?  Most of them had never even met a Nazi.  What did the sailors have to do with the Philipines when we fought the Moros during the Philipine Insurrection?  What did the marine have to do with preserving the government of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War?  Before that war, most of the people fighting in that war couldn't even locate Vietnam on a map.  Policymakers decide what we fight for, not the guys on the frontline.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. It was a cause among *causes*, that is all I am saying.

Quoted: India and Pakistan are democracies and have been duking it out on and off since they were founded in 1947. ANdy

Good point - even if the "democracy" at times in Pakistan and India has been a little muddled.  


Was Turkey a democracy when they and Greece went head-to-head over Cyprus?

Quoted: Quoted: Hitler was elected. Hitler was APPOINTED Chancellor by Hindenberg in 1933, had his boys burn the Reichstag so it could be reformed more in his favor, forced though the Enabling Act to grant himself legislative powers, and, when Hindenberg died in 1934, declared the presidency a dead position, and declared himself Fuhrer.  He did all this with the help of hundreds of thousands of party thugs who beat and killed people in opposing parties, and by jailing opposing political memebers, in some cases to the last man. Hitler was NOT elected, by any definition. -Troy

Unless you count the seats that the Nazi party won in the Reichstag which allowed all of that to happen in the first place....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip> In pre-1919 Germany, the Reichstag was for...? In pre-1919 Austria-Hungary the Orzagshaz in Hungary  was for...?  I've forgotten what the post-1848 parliamentary equivalent in Austria was, though I believe it was a Reichstag, as well.   I don't know a great deal about Austria-Hungary, but in Germany prior to the abdication of the Kaiser (actually, the abdication of Prince Max of Baaden, but his only act was to pass power to the Chancellor) the Reichstag was a consultative body only. It had no real power. Germany was more of a constitutional autocracy- the people voted for representitives that didn't do much more than make polite suggestions to the Kaiser, who really ran the show. They were about 60 or so years behind Britain in constitutional devlopment, except in taxation. Parliament in Britain had the power to raise taxes and  deny the monarch funds for about 800 or so years at that point. The British monarch ceased really ruling Britain directly just before Queen Victoria's reign, I think. At any rate, it was definitly on the decline by then. In Germany, the Kaiser was still the supreme autocrat.

I would say we are only talking about a question of degree especially when using contemporary to, say, WW I and the immediately preceeding period as examples.  As you point out there are only differences in the evolution of the bodies.  I would also say that the British Parliament, as much as I respect it, was not then what it is today.  As I recall, it was only in the lsat 15 years or so that the Lords  gave up a significant portion of their power.  Before that, they had much more say.  The Commons, though having some power did not have enough power to make England a democracy in the early part of the 20th century.  To be fair, Germany was somewhat less democratic, but both did have peoples' representation, and that's all I'll give them; the only "democratic" part was that representatives were democratically elected.  Also, to be fair, you did not make a blanket statement of democracy, but it was there by implication.  I took your meaning to be that a nation with a substantial popular representation in a House of government.  I don't think there were any TRUE democracies in existence at the time I pointed to - and, certainly, not before.  

Actually, I think the first democratically elected parliament was Sweden in the late 18th century or early 19th - the historians with more detailed knowledge can supply the facts.  They got into a few scraps.  And, they did, and do, have a monarch: one would have to delve more deeply into their history to review the evolution of the monarch's power.

Bottom line, "democracy" is a largely theoretical concept. Though we are closer to it now than in the past, one can point to just about any form of it or government and say it isn't fully democratic for one technical reason or another - no a criticism, just pointing out the way it is.  And, I'm not even addressing whether the pure form or anything approaching it is even a good idea.  Democracy and democratically elected are two different things.

Does the Chaco War count?

I'm not too familiar with the .Gov's they had down there at the time.
So one or more of the contry's down there could have been a democracy.

Quoted: Quoted: What we have here is a representative republic, not a democracy. i thought we were an autonomous collective?

No, we're an anarcho-syndicalist  commune.....

Quoted: I don't think I would call a country that allows slavery a democracy.

Then the United States prior to the secession wasn't either.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't think I would call a country that allows slavery a democracy. FYI, slavery was legal in the US. In fact, it was legal in the US after it was banned in the CSA by Lincoln. His Emancipation Proclamation *only* freed the slaves in the states that were *in rebellion.* He did NOT free the slaves in KY, MD and several other states that were part of the US. Go back and re-read your history books if you do not believe this. Can we have a discussion about war between two democracies without the crazy, "the south will rise again", slavery-wasn't-the-cause, slaves liked being slaves, the North had 100 slaves so that made the 3,000,000 the South had ok, revisionist historians coming out of the woodwork?

Actually, it sounds like YOU bought the revisionist history book 'pard.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Can we have a discussion about war between two democracies without the crazy, "the south will rise again", slavery-wasn't-the-cause, slaves liked being slaves, the North had 100 slaves so that made the 3,000,000 the South had ok, revisionist historians coming out of the woodwork. You call simply stating *facts* as being crazy? Also, I don't remember me writing that "the south will rise again", that sir is what YOU wrote. I also am not a "revisionist historian" as YOU wrote as well. If you do NOT believe what I wrote, then go back and re-read your history books. Oh, and FYI, the north had far more than "100 slaves", again, go back and re-read your history. How many slaves did the North have?   I know the South had 3,000,000+ slaves, and killed 800,000 americans to try to keep them, let's stack that up against how many the North had?

Not true.

Quoted: Quoted: Was slavery a horrible institution? You bet. But to think that the north was completely innocent of it and[r] fought the war to free the slaves and nothing else is a fallacy[/r]. The north benefitted from slavery just as the south did. It's days were numbered as was cotton. It was not long after the war that the boll weevil and the lack of fertilizers also killed cotton. This is becoming a thread hijack, so maybe we should start another thread, but this topic comes up every month or so.   The north fought the war to preserve the Union, and not to end slavery. The south fought the war to preserve the institution of slavery. Just because the front line soldiers didn't own slaves doesn't negate it as a cause.  What did the average soldier in Europe know about fighting the Nazis?  Most of them had never even met a Nazi.  What did the sailors have to do with the Philipines when we fought the Moros during the Philipine Insurrection?  What did the marine have to do with preserving the government of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War?  Before that war, most of the people fighting in that war couldn't even locate Vietnam on a map.  Policymakers decide what we fight for, not the guys on the frontline.

Not true.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't think I would call a country that allows slavery a democracy. Then the United States prior to the secession wasn't either.

How about a country that disenfranchised 70-80% of it's population? Assuming 40% slaves and 1/2 of the 60% remaining were women?

Without getting too deep into the numbers game I usually uses the 1860 census figures for the slave population.  throw out the border states (in red below) as "slave" states, the numbers  remaining in the "North"might surprise you.  I submit that although slavery might not have been illegal as alledged.  And I think a little real research you will find that although according to Federal Law slavery might havve been legal, most of the Northern states had long since outlawed slavery on the state level.  And outlawed or not it was clearly dead.

www.civil-war.net/census.asp?census=Total
www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

in case you need to see my source material.

STATE             TOTAL NO. OF SLAVES      TOTAL POPULATION
Total                 3,950,528                              31,183,582
VIRGINIA      490,865                                   1,596,318
GEORGIA             462,198                                  1,057,286
MISSISSIPPI   436,631                                   791,305
ALABAMA             435,080                                    964,201
S. CAROLINA 402,406                                  703,708
LOUISIANA  331,726                                  708,002
N. CAROLINA 331,059                                 992,622
TENNESSEE 275,719                              1,109,801
KENTUCKY  225,483                               1,155,684
TEXAS              182,566                                       604,215
MISSOURI  114,931                               1,182,012
ARKANSAS 111,115                                 435,450
MARYLAND   87,189                                  687,049
FLORIDA              61,745                                     140,424
DELAWARE      1,798                                    112,216
                 7,901,039                               43,423,875

NEBRASKA            15                                          28,841
KANSAS                         2                                    107,206
CALIFORNIA            0                                        379,985
CONNECTICUT         0                                     460,138
ILLINOIS                 0                                 1,711,942
INDIANA                       0                                 1,350,419
IOWA                            0                                       674,904
MAINE                          0                                      628,270
MASSACHUSETTS      0                                      1,231,057
MICHIGAN              0                                         749,104
MINNESOTA            0                                       172,014
NEVADA                        0                                        6,848
NEW HAMPSHIRE       0                                   326,064
NEW JERSEY            0                                        672,035
NEW YORK             0                                      3,880,726
OHIO                          0                                   2,339,502
OREGON                      0                                             52,456
PENNSYLVANIA       0                                2,906,206
RHODE ISLAND        0                                    174,611
VERMONT                     0                                         315,089
WISCONSIN           0                                        775,872
                            17                                      18,943,289


tried to column them up but it doesn't seem to be working

It's the "Golden Arches" theory of International Relations.

The idea that no two countries that have a McDonalds (in theory those are democracies, although Mickey D's is opening up in communist China now) have never gone to war with each other.

NATO did bomb Yugoslavia in the 1990's, so the theory is not entierly true.

.

Quoted: Aren't we a republic?

Yes, but the libs won't listen.

(Maybe that's why they are a minority party)

Quoted: well technically Saddam Hussein was democratically elected. and yes, the USA is a Republic, not a Democracy.

Because delegates who didn't vote for him were executed on the spot.

That's hardly what I'd call a legitimate election.

Quoting RJROBERTS Bottom line, "democracy" is a largely theoretical concept. Though we are closer to it now than in the past, one can point to just about any form of it or government and say it isn't fully democratic for one technical reason or another - no a criticism, just pointing out the way it is. And, I'm not even addressing whether the pure form or anything approaching it is even a good idea. Democracy and democratically elected are two different things.

I'd definitly agree with that. According to my former lecturers, democracy is known as an "essentially contested concept" meaning that everyone has an idea about what it is, its just that no one can agree. Ultimatly the only real democracy that has ever existed is amongst Athens and her client states in the Classical period. Even then, it was limited only to adult males of Athenian citizenship.

Like I said,  the theory has problems, and those problems are only going to grow as the international situation grows more chaotic. However, if you weaken the theory to state that countries with a large number of democratic features are less likely to engage in armed confilct with other countries with a large number of democratic features, then it seems to hold more water. Mind you, the U.S. and China, for example, haven't fought a war either since Korea, and China is authoritarian captialist (looks Communist at first glance, but really isnt). So I suppose YMMV

No country with a McDonald's installed has ever gone to war with the US once they have one.....