How would you change history?

[Plotinus]

Oh and "live as freemen" = crap to you? You don't like Freedom? You prefer Soviet Union? SOunds like it.

I think his point was that you go on about freedom, but in your post here you make it clear that you don't think the Irish, Indians, etc should be free. Which indicates that you don't really believe in freedom at all.

British colonies were free we were never tyrants like the Nazi's or the Japanese Empire we were good overlords.

Leaving aside your odd use of "we" here (I take it that you, personally, have never administrated any part of the British empire), someone who lives under an "overlord" isn't free, no matter how benevolent that overlord may be.

Also, a helpful hint: it's neither wise nor rational to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a communist.

 

[Lone Wolf]

British colonies were free we were never tyrants like the Nazi's or the Japanese Empire we were good overlords.

While the British Empire was indeed better then the Nazi or Japanese empires, being better then them isn't much of an achievement. Though I admit I have some irrational affection for the British Empire and am always pleased when I see a powerful England in Civ (RFC especially), Europa Universalis and the like...

 

[Quackers]

I think his point was that you go on about freedom, but in your post here you make it clear that you don't think the Irish, Indians, etc should be free. Which indicates that you don't really believe in freedom at all.



Leaving aside your odd use of "we" here (I take it that you, personally, have never administrated any part of the British empire), someone who lives under an "overlord" isn't free, no matter how benevolent that overlord may be.

Also, a helpful hint: it's neither wise nor rational to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a communist.

Irish and Indians were mainly free but independence is a differant matter

Maybe overlord is a wrong choice of word. But for colonists we were the best possible you could get and we gave pretty much the same freedoms we gave to them as we did to those at home.

 

[LightSpectra]

Except representation in government. Can't forget that little pesky detail, yeah?

 

[TheWesley]

I think his point was that you go on about freedom, but in your post here you make it clear that you don't think the Irish, Indians, etc should be free. Which indicates that you don't really believe in freedom at all.

You assume that freedom requires an independent nation-state. How did you establish that?

Leaving aside your odd use of "we" here (I take it that you, personally, have never administrated any part of the British empire), someone who lives under an "overlord" isn't free, no matter how benevolent that overlord may be.

Also, a helpful hint: it's neither wise nor rational to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a communist.

1- Again, how do you establish that premise?
2- Given that you are to an extent nationalist (or else you would not consider it slavery to live under a foriegn government), I should point out that for nationalists the use of "we" in that fashion is normal
3- Have you considered he might be using rhethoric to exaggerate?

Except representation in government. Can't forget that little pesky detail, yeah?

Children and animals are not represented in government. Are you saying they aren't free?

 

[Mathalamus]

i rewrote history AGAIN ( stupid Work in progress stage).

i let the arabs take whatever they did in the OT. i kept the turk situation the same (AKA turkish culture never got to Anatolia, corrected a few holes, and increased Byzantine colonial power to Compensate for the loss in middle east.

oh and all the colonies are given representation, 10 people per province, no matter how big they are. the America thing was just a "accidental mistake"

 

[LightSpectra]

Children and animals are not represented in government. Are you saying they aren't free?

Animals don't have free will of the same nature as humans so this is not applicable. Children are not free, given the severe legal limitations they face; for good reason.

 

[TheWesley]

Animals don't have free will of the same nature as humans so this is not applicable. Children are not free, given the severe legal limitations they face; for good reason.

Doesn't that make it hard to condemn a government (assuming you were condemning it) for having some of it's people not be free- freedom clearly is not an absolute moral right.

 

[Karalysia]

You're clearly not American. Freedom is an absolute moral right and part of the inalienable natural rights of man.

 

[TheWesley]

You're clearly not American. Freedom is an absolute moral right and part of the inalienable natural rights of man.

1- Can you demonstrate that premise?
2- How can you explain the United States:
i- Not giving the vote to children
ii- Not giving the vote to women/slaves
iii- Invading the Confederate States of America and annexing it. (Whether or not the law gave them the right, it is questionable if it was compatible with freedom- referendums including the slaves would have been the most freedom-compatible thing)
iv- Creating a colonial empire (if briefly)
v- Signing up to conventions which restrict freedom by preventing people becoming stateless.

EDIT: Come to think of it, you may have been being sarcastic- if so, I'm sorry for insulting you.

 

[LightSpectra]

Doesn't that make it hard to condemn a government (assuming you were condemning it) for having some of it's people not be free- freedom clearly is not an absolute moral right.

Children don't have the mental capacity to have freedom of the same nature as adults. Reaching for straws doesn't make a good argument.

ii- Not giving the vote to women/slaves

There are no slaves of legal status in the United States, and women can vote.

iii- Invading the Confederate States of America and annexing it. (Whether or not the law gave them the right, it is questionable if it was compatible with freedom- referendums including the slaves would have been the most freedom-compatible thing)

The CSA was not a legitimate government. They repressed parts of Kentucky and Alabama that had no interest in secession, so the notion that they were fighting a war of independence is ridiculous.

iv- Creating a colonial empire (if briefly)

I don't know what you're speaking of. If you mean Liberia, then this would be a free nation founded for the purpose of having a nation for former slaves and was not a colony. If you mean territories acquired from Spain in the Spanish-American War, then I agree that this was not just, but this was hardly colonialism.

v- Signing up to conventions which restrict freedom by preventing people becoming stateless.

Has nothing to do with freedom.

 

[TheWesley]

Children don't have the mental capacity to have freedom of the same nature as adults. Reaching for straws doesn't make a good argument.

Can you demonstrate this?

There are no slaves of legal status in the United States, and women can vote.

Both practices have existed in the United States in the past, and put a clear and well-known blemish on the idea that it stands for freedom.

The CSA was not a legitimate government. They repressed parts of Kentucky and Alabama that had no interest in secession, so the notion that they were fighting a war of independence is ridiculous.

What would be so wrong with invading to reclaim Kentucky and Alabama, holding legitimate referenda (permitting slaves the vote) to see which regions want to secede and which don't, and letting the rest secede? It would be the option most compatible with freedom.

I don't know what you're speaking of. If you mean Liberia, then this would be a free nation founded for the purpose of having a nation for former slaves and was not a colony. If you mean territories acquired from Spain in the Spanish-American War, then I agree that this was not just, but this was hardly colonialism.

The United States supressed rebels in the Phillipines- a gesture clearly incompatible with freedom (unless you can demonstrate that most of the population wanted the U.S to be there).

Has nothing to do with freedom.

Unless you take a ludicrously nationalistic view of freedom, yes it is does- a person is not free to become stateless. This means they are in fact forced to be a citizen of a country and in effect bear allegiance to it- a severe restriction on freedom.

 

[rollo1066]

Spartacus takes Rome and is first leader of Democracy of Rome. Slavery is abolished in territory of Roman Republic. This lead to much faster scientific progress. Does Rome reach New World by 800AD, moon by 1500AD, and other star systems by 2000AD? Seems likely to me. Other possiblity is Rome falls much before 476AD. What occurs. What do others think?

 

[Lord Baal]

Spartacus takes Rome and is first leader of Democracy of Rome. Slavery is abolished in territory of Roman Republic. This lead to much faster scientific progress. Does Rome reach New World by 800AD, moon by 1500AD, and other star systems by 2000AD? Seems likely to me. Other possiblity is Rome falls much before 476AD. What occurs. What do others think?

Are you high? Seriously? If your previous post seems likely to you, then you clearly have no knowledge of history, science, politics, philosophy... Hell, I can't write all the disciplines you must be utterly ignorant in to reach those conclusions.

Spartacus could not take Rome, all he could do was run like hell to escape Italy before his army was slaughtered. He tried to do this and failed. Abolishing slavery in the Roman Empire would destory their economy, which isn't good for scientific development. Besides which, before the American Revolution - I believe - no-one had a working model for a large-scale democracy. Unless you think that Spartacus was a time-travelling Ben Franklin, he's not going to come up with the idea of democracy, even if Rome somehow exploded and he was made Imperial Poobah of the Grand majesty.

The Western Empire had been gradually failing for a few centuries before it finally fell to the Ostrogoths. You'd have to specify when and why it fell earlier.

 

[Dachs]

What would be so wrong with invading to reclaim Kentucky and Alabama, holding legitimate referenda (permitting slaves the vote) to see which regions want to secede and which don't, and letting the rest secede? It would be the option most compatible with freedom.

Yeah, see, in the Confederate constitution, the Confederate Congress was prohibited from making any law, bill of attainder, etc. prohibiting or abolishing slavery; those slaves would thus be voting not as free human beings with the knowledge to be able to exercise judgment, but as the property of other voters, who could in turn exercise unusual persuasion or simply force the slaves in question to vote their way. Any remaining scrap of a possibility that one might be able to say that this mockery was "legitimate" with a straight face (if it did ever happen) would be wiped out by the acts of armed rebellion, grand theft, conspiracy, and almost certainly murder in order to enforce these so-called "legitimate" referenda; the men of the rebel states weren't about to take up arms in order to peacefully install impartial voting organs. In short, this is total nonsense, and wasn't on the table in the first place.

 

[Mathalamus]

Spartacus takes Rome and is first leader of Democracy of Rome. Slavery is abolished in territory of Roman Republic. This lead to much faster scientific progress. Does Rome reach New World by 800AD, moon by 1500AD, and other star systems by 2000AD? Seems likely to me. Other possiblity is Rome falls much before 476AD. What occurs. What do others think?

that is quite simply impossible. o tored to do something similar to the Byzantine Empire in 1385, no one thought even that was possible.

faster scientific progress is also impossible. newer technology is often more complex and slows down research times. your rome WILL stagnate somewhere. probably in the middle ages era technology level. by comparison my Byzantine Republic is around 50-80 years ahead of the rest of the world, not centuries. and even that stagnated pretty recently.

by 800, the Byzantine Republic founded gunpowder ( around 50 years eariler than the chinese)

by 1500, the Byzantine Empire was a world power, at a barely Renascence era.

by 2000, Byzantium was still a world power, but they haven't been to mars yet.

so my history is more realistic because of a slight technological lead, not an insane one like yours.

oh, democracy was adopted in 1840. not 500 AD or something. slavery too.

 

[TheWesley]

Yeah, see, in the Confederate constitution, the Confederate Congress was prohibited from making any law, bill of attainder, etc. prohibiting or abolishing slavery; those slaves would thus be voting not as free human beings with the knowledge to be able to exercise judgment, but as the property of other voters, who could in turn exercise unusual persuasion or simply force the slaves in question to vote their way. Any remaining scrap of a possibility that one might be able to say that this mockery was "legitimate" with a straight face (if it did ever happen) would be wiped out by the acts of armed rebellion, grand theft, conspiracy, and almost certainly murder in order to enforce these so-called "legitimate" referenda; the men of the rebel states weren't about to take up arms in order to peacefully install impartial voting organs. In short, this is total nonsense, and wasn't on the table in the first place.

1:
As I thought you would realise was implicit, slavery would be abolished by force first- the U.S have ignored their own Constitution enough that ignoring another one would be possible. This would be clearly illegal, but the option most compatible with freedom.

2:
When the Confederates seceded, war did not happen immediately- the Confederate Congress did not believe that a Union invasion would occur (it did in fact not occur until significantly later), and therefore taking up arms would not be necessary.

3:
The reason this wasn't on the table was firstly that nobody thought of it, and secondly that Lincoln's priority wasn't freedom but nationalism.

 

[Dachs]

1:
As I thought you would realise was implicit, slavery would be abolished by force first- the U.S have ignored their own Constitution enough that ignoring another one would be possible. This would be clearly illegal, but the option most compatible with freedom.

Why the hell would a group of people who seceded precisely because they thought slavery would be abolished abolish slavery after they attempted to secede?

2:
When the Confederates seceded, war did not happen immediately- the Confederate Congress did not believe that a Union invasion would occur (it did in fact not occur until significantly later), and therefore taking up arms would not be necessary.

Kind of an odd characterization of the train of thought that led to rebels firing on government troops to start the war and long before then, rebels disarming a full quarter of the United States Army in Texas. When exactly in the timeline does your episode of mass psychosis happen to the Southerners?

3:
The reason this wasn't on the table was firstly that nobody thought of it, and secondly that Lincoln's priority wasn't freedom but nationalism.

This has balls-all to do with Lincoln. You can't say that nobody thought of it and then in the same breath claim that Lincoln is at fault - for, presumably, rejecting a plan that nobody proposed in the first place.

 

[TheWesley]

Why the hell would a group of people who seceded precisely because they thought slavery would be abolished abolish slavery after they attempted to secede?

The United States would force them to. This may seem somewhat pointless, but I am discussing the course of action which would be most compatible with freedom as an ideal.

Kind of an odd characterization of the train of thought that led to rebels firing on government troops to start the war and long before then, rebels disarming a full quarter of the United States Army in Texas. When exactly in the timeline does your episode of mass psychosis happen to the Southerners?

1- The "rebels" believed that their secession was legitimate- at the time, whatever the law behind it, large numbers did (or else why was the C.S.A allowed to peacefully secede instead of a suppression like what would be likely today).

2- If they had believed war was coming, wouldn't they have disarmed the whole United States army within their territories?

This has balls-all to do with Lincoln. You can't say that nobody thought of it and then in the same breath claim that Lincoln is at fault - for, presumably, rejecting a plan that nobody proposed in the first place.

That was the reason why Lincoln would never have supported it. I don't claim Lincoln is at fault (for one, I am merely giving the hypothetical most freedom-compatible course of action I can think of), but the fact that nothing of the sort was thought of or tried is a blemish to the idea the United States stands for freedom. (which is what the dispute was about)

 

[Dachs]

The United States would force them to. This may seem somewhat pointless, but I am discussing the course of action which would be most compatible with freedom as an ideal.

Oh, this isn't actually about history or a viable proposal for the time or anything, just a pixie-dust idealized conception of freedom that not everybody shares, which you've decided to crowbar into a different era. And people whine about althisters taking over the forum.

1- The "rebels" believed that their secession was legitimate- at the time, whatever the law behind it, large numbers did (or else why was the C.S.A allowed to peacefully secede instead of a suppression like what would be likely today).

Suppression? What with? The militia, which were under control of the traitor governors? The Army, which was tiny, spread out in garrisons and focused on Utah, the Plains "Indians", and Mexico, and nearly destroyed by Twiggs' surrender? And James Buchanan was supposed to order this to happen?

2- If they had believed war was coming, wouldn't they have disarmed the whole United States army within their territories?

Uh, to a very large extent, they did, save for the garrisons that either escaped to the North or who, as in the cases of Ft. Sumter and those Floridian forts, resisted the rebellion.

That was the reason why Lincoln would never have supported it. I don't claim Lincoln is at fault (for one, I am merely giving the hypothetical most freedom-compatible course of action I can think of), but the fact that nothing of the sort was thought of or tried is a blemish to the idea the United States stands for freedom. (which is what the dispute was about)

Mhm. I have zero interest in discussing some nebulous founding principles of any government, so go have fun with that.