View Full Version : Democracies at war
Sagy
22 Mar 2006, 12:29 PM
An acquaintance of mine made the claim that the only shooting war between two true democracies was the US Civil war.
For the purposes of this discussion:
A democracy is defined to include both democratic and republic forms of government
The "true" part refers to the practices and not to the formal/self definition (Hitler was elected in a democratic elections, but once elected the practices of his government were for from democratic).
The US Civil war is considered to have been fought between two countries (The Union and the Confederate) and not as a civil war.
Does anyone have any other examples of a shooting war between two democracies?
russ
22 Mar 2006, 07:37 PM
Apparently for the purposes of this discussion,we're going to ignore the fact that one of those democracies practiced chattel slavery based on racial lineage.
If you're willing to ignore that,the possibilities expand I suppose.
Sagy
22 Mar 2006, 07:43 PM
Apparently for the purposes of this discussion,we're going to ignore the fact that one of those democracies practiced chattel slavery based on racial lineage.
If you're willing to ignore that,the possibilities expand I suppose.
Fine, the South was not a true Democracy.
Is there an example of shooting war between two democracies?
russ
22 Mar 2006, 09:44 PM
The war of 1812 occurred between a fledgling republic which had slavery in several (but not all) areas and a monarchy which ,while not employing universal suffrage ,was operating under the principles of responsible parliamentary government.
Closest I can get....
African colonial era boundary disputes,perhaps?
topcatcole
22 Mar 2006, 11:21 PM
Apparently for the purposes of this discussion,we're going to ignore the fact that one of those democracies practiced chattel slavery based on racial lineage.
If you're willing to ignore that,the possibilities expand I suppose. Actually, both did. And one of them continued to do so after the end of the war.
So I guess they are both out, right?
topcatcole
22 Mar 2006, 11:26 PM
The war of 1812 occurred between a fledgling republic which had slavery in several (but not all) areas and a monarchy which ,while not employing universal suffrage ,was operating under the principles of responsible parliamentary government.
Closest I can get....
African colonial era boundary disputes,perhaps? Again, both had slaves. Slavery was outlawed in Britain in 1834.
needs
22 Mar 2006, 11:27 PM
Were there ever Southern elections? There must have been, but I've never read anything about them. Anyone know?
topcatcole
22 Mar 2006, 11:31 PM
Were there ever Southern elections? There must have been, but I've never read anything about them. Anyone know? Yes. And there was a bicameral house, which is not surprising given that the CSA Constitution was extremely similar of the US Constitution. The major differences were in the areas of (surprise!!) states rights and slavery.
needs
22 Mar 2006, 11:34 PM
Yes. And there was a bicameral house, which is not surprising given that the CSA Constitution was extremely similar of the US Constitution. The major differences were in the areas of (surprise!!) states rights and slavery.
Were there political parties? Democrats and "Don't call us Whigs"?
topcatcole
22 Mar 2006, 11:39 PM
Were there political parties? Democrats and "Don't call us Whigs"? I'll have to look it up, but IIRC it was a much more state-level organization and there were more parties. In part due to this I don't recall that Davis ever had an opponent, for example.
DJPoopypants
23 Mar 2006, 11:51 AM
do the wars after the breakup of yugoslavia count? I thought most of the newly independant states were relatively democratic (elections) as opposed to military rule.
the boer war? England was for all purposes a democracy like they are now, and the boers/afrikaaners were relatively democratic (no king or military rule)
From wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory#Exceptions
This has been a persistent class of criticism by realist critics: that "democracies have been few in number over the past two centuries, and thus there have few opportunities where democracies were in a position to fight one another." This is particularly cogent against the theories which claim that no two democracies have ever gone to war (which this article may call an "absolute" democratic peace), and argue that the Confederate States of America, the Boer republics, the Second French Republic, and so on, were not real democracies for one or another reason; and also with respect to the nineteenth century data. Only half a dosen republics or crowned republics achieved 2/3 male suffrage before the late nineteenth century, and several of those only for a few years. [82]
Jeanne Gowa analyzed the claims of these theorists. She finds that there were so few democracies before 1939 that the claims of the theory are not significant.
She also finds that there were only independent, non-allied, Great Powers for a relatively short time before the Entente Cordiale of 1904; and that there were several crises and minor conflicts, between them, in several of which war was popular on both sides. While war was averted in these cases, there was only one war between Powers in that period, and the Spanish-American War was between a democracy and a borderline democracy.)
Actually, both did. And one of them continued to do so after the end of the war.
jesus christ talk about splitting hairs.
russ
23 Mar 2006, 06:23 PM
I'll have to look it up, but IIRC it was a much more state-level organization and there were more parties. In part due to this I don't recall that Davis ever had an opponent, for example.
The CSA constitution provided for a six-year presidential term.
Davis was originally elected by Congress.
topcatcole
23 Mar 2006, 10:01 PM
jesus christ talk about splitting hairs. I don't think I'm the one that brought it up.
Russ, thanks for the clarification on Davis's term
topcatcole
25 Mar 2006, 09:59 AM
The CSA constitution provided for a six-year presidential term.
Davis was originally elected by Congress. Wikipedia article that talks about the Confederate elections. They were held in odd years and took place in 1861 and 1863. The 1865 elections were called off due to the presence of US troops at the polling sites. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_Confederate_States
taosjohn
25 Mar 2006, 11:00 AM
Wikipedia article that talks about the Confederate elections. They were held in odd years and took place in 1861 and 1863. The 1865 elections were called off due to the presence of US troops at the polling sites. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_Confederate_States
At some point near the end the Government abdicated in favor of a military dictatorship under Lee, which seems to have helped slightly with his supply and transport problems, but confused the crap out of everyone in all other spheres..
topcatcole
25 Mar 2006, 11:07 AM
At some point near the end the Government abdicated in favor of a military dictatorship under Lee, which seems to have helped slightly with his supply and transport problems, but confused the crap out of everyone in all other spheres.. I am not sure if you are joking here. Lee defied Davis' orders in negotiating with Grant. Political control over the military only disintegrated after they could no longer contact each other.
spejic
25 Mar 2006, 05:06 PM
Apparently for the purposes of this discussion,we're going to ignore the fact that one of those democracies practiced chattel slavery based on racial lineage.Well, sure. Why would that be undemocratic? Frankly, I'm surprised that you are ignoring that half of all citizens couldn't vote until 1920.
nicephoras
25 Mar 2006, 06:46 PM
Well, if you are willing to define "democracy" broadly enough, ancient Greek warfare might qualify.
Sagy
25 Mar 2006, 09:07 PM
Well, if you are willing to define "democracy" broadly enough, ancient Greek warfare might qualify.
I was thinking along these lines. I can accept that Athens was a democracy most of the time. I know that Sparta was considered by some to be the first democracy. But I don't know if at the times of war both were democracies. I seems to remember that at times war they appointed dictators, or was this only in Rome?