JamesHackerMP

excess of people...well what do you want to do, release a strain of antibiotic-resistant anthrax into the air or something?

or because it would blow his cover. You thought of that?

How many judges do you think are taking bribes?

thread drift?

Michael, you're partially right about the Renaissance era: the modern European-style "nation state" is a result of the Peace of Westphalia, I am informed. However, I doubt that we will enter any kind of post-national world any time soon. Politicians are beholden to their voters, who have to worry about their political survival, and their political survival depends on their constituents--not those of other nation-states.

Another good one is Gettysburg by the way, if you're looking for movies (what was The Great Locomotive Chase about? I'm guessing a train, obviously, but I'm sure there's more to it than that.)

Well, yeah you can't exactly help that you have raw materials. Then again, so did the northeast. It's partly about choices, not just dumb luck, that makes an economy succeed or fail. The south chose to tie its fortunes to a backward, slave-based economy. Those states are still--on the whole--poorer and less economically proficient than their northeastern counterparts.

Rue, I don't think your most recent comment really added to the thread. Can you please clarify it a bit?

Greetings Sir Humphrey! Whether you think it is about slavery or state's rights depends on where you're from, and also possibly if you're white or not. Like I said above, I think the debate is silly--state-sanctioned violence rarely begins for one reason. Part of that reason was that northern and southern Americans hated each other by the 1860s. The civil war itself did not create that sectional rivalry. Today, the south is still more economically "raw material" producing than the northeast. When you have a place that is more industrial depending on a place (or region) that produces the raw materials, the former prospers and the latter is left less powerful politically. Slavery is to blame for the economic backwardness (Alexis de Toqueville wrote of this, apparently) but not 100% to blame. To this day, when slavery is not legal, the south is still economically backward, and not all of that can be blamed on slavery or the destruction of the civil war. I checked up on the passage of the civil rights act of 1964. These are the vote totals on the final Senate version of the bill: In the Senate: Democrats: 46 yes 21 no Republicans: 27 yes 6 no In the House of Reps.: Democrats: 153 yes 91 no Republicans: 136 yes 35 no There were 54 days of filibusters in the Senate, led by a bloc of eighteen southern Democrats, including Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd of WV (14 hours, 13 minutes). So I would call it a victory that both parties could claim.

I seem to remember a certain Democrat--OK, not "remember" but you know what i mean--who is in the Guiness Book of Records, for the world's longest legislative filibuster, railing against the civil rights act for 24 hours in the Senate. The rest of the conservative (or reactionary) wing of the Democrats, still very large at that point, was behind this democrat in his opposition to the bill. His name was Senator J. Strom Thurmond, of South Carolina. The bill probably had more help from the Republican Party than the deeply-divided Democrats.

Any country wanting to prevent Israel from becoming a legal state is 70 years too late. Sure, you can choose not to recognize it, but it's a bit stupid not to do so, ya think?

Yeah, not sure what a modern electoral map would show about the civil war, necessarily. Some parallels, but don't forget that "Republican" was a four letter word in the south until the late 1960s.

That's a good question. The farthest south I've been is North Carolina and only briefly. But they have the reputation of being more relaxed than their northern counterparts.

I took a course called "Era of the American Civil War", but I don't have too many civil war books myself. Except one. It's called Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford History of the United States). It's got some pretty good background in it, a bit long though. Either "slavery" or "state's rights" doesn't quite explain it, does it? I rather think that when southerners say "oh it wasn't over slavery" what they REALLY mean is that it wasn't over slavery as a moral issue. I very much doubt it was a moral issue in 1860-62. But in 1863 of course, that changed. The Emancipation Proclamation, issued that year, galvanized the struggle over "let's preserve the Union" into "let's free the slaves". Before that, the American Government (and Americans of the United States) insisted they were fighting to preserve the Union. Where I disagree with the southern view (state's rights only) is twofold. First, wars don't always end over what they started over. The peace can be different from the original wartime objectives. Second, the economic system of the South--slave-based--was backward, and when you have a nation-state with an economically-backward region servicing the needs of the more advanced industrialized region, they're definitely going to come to blows at some point. Much of the south is still today economically backward compared to the rest of the United States. Where I disagree with the northern view (slavery only) is that most northerners really didn't give enough of a damn about the black people to fight over their freedom, at least until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued; and even then it was probably more about putting down the arrogant southerners than helping the enslaved to achieve freedom. But that doesn't mean there weren't a lot of people for whom it was an important moral issue. Where I disagree with both crowds is that they just want a simple answer for everything, and history rarely has such a thing to offer. Not only that, you ask the average soldier what they're fighting for, it's really the man next to them in their foxhole. Not economic reasons, not political ideals...SURVIVAL. And politics is an extension of the human survival instinct; war being an extension of politics itself.

That's a good point Altai! There may be an afterlife. Or there may not. So better to enjoy the time you have now. As for your question of what happens after reaching your goals, that's another good question. Alexander the Great killed himself at age 30 because he felt he had accomplished everything it was possible to do so in his life, and committed suicide. I guess his feelings on the subject were that, after doing and having everything, it would only be downhill from there, so better to end his life. I can't agree with his "solution" but it would seem a valid argument.

I'm wondering where you get your sources. It pays to be skeptical of any reporter, no matter what you may think of them or their news outlet. I don't understand. P.S.: this is a Canadian website. If you post a source, you might want to make it in English (or French) otherwise you run the risk of being misunderstood.

Exactly, I figured our histories were kind of intertwined like that. I was also curious to know what is known about our civil war in other countries, and their perspectives on it.

I just remember an Aussie telling me they taught him more US history in school than Australian. Was wondering if that was the same in Canada, figuring that it might have something to do with its (present) superpower status. They do mention the colonization of Canada in American history classes (at least in mine they did) so there was a little bit of Canadian history we learned, just not "modern" history thereof. But there's still a lot of interest worldwide in the US civil war, because it was one of the "transitional" wars of the 19th century, and there are certainly a lot of books floating around on it. There was some Anglo-Canadian intrigue involving the US civil war I understand. And it was just before the confederation (1867). Nonetheless, this is the reason I posted it in the US politics forum; Americans might have more interest in the subject after all, I don't know.

2015 was the 150th anniversary of the end of the American civil war. It settled two primary issues: that of slavery, and that of state v. federal authority and the legality of secession therefrom. I'm curious to know what they teach about the US civil war in Canada. I asked a Canadian on this message board once if they taught any US history in schools, and the answer was very little--apparently most of your information on the United States and its history comes from popular culture. Contrast this to an Australian I know, who informed me that in their country, they teach more US history than their own. In the US, it seems that the civil war issue is still fought along sectional lines. If you're from the south, you insist that the Civil War (which you probably refer to as the War of Northern Aggression) was fought not over slavery but over a romantic political idea styled "states rights". If you're from the north, you were likely taught it was fought over slavery. What both camps staunchly ignore is that wars sometimes start over one thing and are fought over another--at times, the peace settles a completely different issue entirely. I personally cannot stand that debate, I find it to be the sort of answers for people who want simple answers to everything. History and politics are too complicated to be confined to simple answers. I'll post more on this, but for now, what are everyone's thoughts on this? And what do Canadians think of it in particular?

I'll tell you what I think. But first Altai, answer me: why do you so readily believe them? You don't believe the american government, so why would you believe ISIS, either?

You know Cum Laude, I'm glad to hear someone say that finally! I think Obama's attitude of let's get everyone to like us was a major f**** up myself...but that's just me. Is it true the Saudis walked out of the talks?

except that the Senate makes sure that California can't. Unlike the Canadian Senate, the US Senate has actual power, in practice and on paper. CA may piss us off from time to time, but they're far from running the country, thank God. And that's exactly why a stable democracy requires anti-democratic features in its constitution.

This could have gone under US politics, but it might as well also go under world politics because it could apply anywhere. Do democracies need to have certain anti-democratic features in order to survive? I'm not talking about secret police, etc., I don't mean THAT kind of anti-democratic, but electoral systems that aren't directly wired into popular opinions, upper houses of parliaments/congresses that aren't based on one person/one vote at the national level. A democracy requires a stable state, and sometimes direct democracy can destabilize political systems. This is especially true when it comes to judicial independence. Would you really want supreme court justices elected in nationwide elections? Certain parts of governments, in order to function, must be insulated from the wilder winds of public debate. In the US system, for example: 1. The president, though elected by the people, is effectively elected through a filter that doesn't always reflect their will. (In 1888, 2000, and 2016, the president elected lost the overall popular vote.) 2. The Senate is actually more anti-democratic than the electoral college. California has 2 senators, so does Wyoming; but the former has a population of 38 million, the latter, about 600,000. 3. First past the post elections allow a victory for the candidate with the most votes, even if it wasn't a simple majority. And if it was a simple majority, legislatures divided into single member districts don't always produce the same party distribution as the number of people who, overall, voted for those parties. Just a few examples.

I didn't know Biden was a diplomat. He was the senator from Delaware before becoming Vice-President. (Americans don't really give a damn about Delaware....or Maryland, where I come from, for that matter.)