Emancipation ruining Europe Support

[artix101]

Every time I am about to get European intervention the Union immediately activates their emancipation proclamation and thus ruins any support I can receive from the British. Should their be a set of limits, like a certain amount of victories or major victories, control of territory, and complying policies that would allow for the emancipation to work as it was intended, not as a way to screw my plans as the South even when I am winning battles in Northern Territory with little of my own lost.

[HB]

Originally posted by mogami_99:

It seems to me history records the way to exercise sovereignty is to win the war against the power that denies you have it.

The power that has it, transfers it back to you you mean, sovereignty passes from one ruler to another, the subjects of the sovereign change fealty from one to another without the use of force. In the ECW colonies in the america changed fealty to Crown or Parliment as the sovereign body by a vote of their citizens, ECW was also a contest of what rights the englishman had to be governed by consent by the sovereign power. If it proved anything it proved sovereign powers can came to a bloody end when they dont govern by consent, which was why in the GR sovereignty passed peacefully from one king to another.

[HB]

Originally posted by mogami_99:

Intervention in the American Civil War was never going to involve foreign troops coming to America. First and foremost the North was feeding Europe. Second the French had no troops to spare they couldn't even deal with Mexico. The Trent affair resulted in 10k British troops going to Canada (with the help of the USA) And a deal where USN would assist RN in stopping the slave trade at sea. Russia wintered her fleet in USA supposedly to show support for North but really to prevent them being froze in should any problems with other European power arise.
The best the South could ever hope for was financial support and that had to be mostly under the table because again the North was feeding Europe.
Europe was quite busy with its own wars and rumors of war to invest in Americas troubles.

Its in game to cater for the ignorant of history and who think it was realistic POD, which it never was but does make for some fun Al history books.

[HB]

Originally posted by swibtn:

I'm not sure how the whole European intervention thing works.

I would agree with the one poster that European military intervention in the conflict seems extremely unlikely . I dare say , as unlikely as seeing tanks in the war.

On the other hand , if Missouri , Kentucky , and Maryland fall to the CSA , and the CSA is regularly laying waste to Illinois , Ohio , and Kansas , and the CSA is garrisoned in Philadelphia , then diplomatic recognition of the CSA by a European power is not far - fetched.

And diplomatic recognition by a European power would , alone , be a bad piece of news for the USA , very good news for the CSA.

Because its an incomplete game mechanism, very underwhelming when it fires, Devs have more things than this what if to worry about, just turn it off and re visit if its every finished.

[artix101]

The Europeans were threatening foreign intervention if the North had not ended its conflict with the South, which is common in history. Cotton was needed for their mills, the British government was focused on global dominance more than they were focused on the freeing of slaves, especially since none of the human rights violations were resolved in their own country until Ghandi came around. Besides, the workforce they used was specifically termed a different way other than slavery, but these people (Indians and Africans) were used just like a slave with nowhere to go. What I am getting at here is that they were going to intervene if a meant a hold on North America with the South as its main progenitor (a way to spread its global dominance), and as a game mechanic it seems like a click button decision with the proclamation that ruins any support for foreign intervention when the Union AI gets kicked in the behind throughout the war with no significant victory in sight and no territory gained.

[Brygun]

Originally posted by artix101:

, and as a game mechanic it seems like a click button decision with the proclamation that ruins any support for foreign intervention when the Union AI gets kicked in the behind throughout the war with no significant victory in sight and no territory gained.

As you are the original poster thanks for coming back to expand on your view.

[Brygun]

Originally posted by hannibalbarca120002001:

Originally posted by mogami_99:

It seems to me history records the way to exercise sovereignty is to win the war against the power that denies you have it.

The power that has it, transfers it back to you you mean, sovereignty... without the use of force.

Wrong.

America exists through acts of violence even forcing inhabitants off their land such as the United Empire Loyalists forced out of New York. America exists by having a recent enemy supply warships against their kin. If this guy thinks the 1770s origin of America independent sovereignty was without the use of force how could he understand the 1860s slavery issues of that same nation?

Also he uses the phrase "you mean" to completely flip the meaning of a poster from violence to make it like maogami meant the opposite. Oh yeah, rhetoric tricks here. Don't fall for them.

>>>

Hey dude...

The indigenous have called and want their land back with your "peaceful transfer of sovereignty"

Hey dude...

The Canadas called and they didn't vote to have you steal their land in the failed 1812 attempted "peaceful transfer of sovereignty"

Hey dude...

The Alamo called and they wonder when this vote for "peaceful transfer of sovereignty" took place

[HB]

Originally posted by hannibalbarca120002001:

The power that has it, transfers it back to you you mean, sovereignty passes from one ruler to another, the subjects of the sovereign change fealty from one to another without the use of force. In the ECW colonies in the america changed fealty to Crown or Parliment as the sovereign body by a vote of their citizens, ECW was also a contest of what rights the englishman had to be governed by consent by the sovereign power. If it proved anything it proved sovereign powers can came to a bloody end when they dont govern by consent, which was why in the GR sovereignty passed peacefully from one king to another.

Originally posted by Brygun:

Wrong.

The power that has it, transfers it back to you you mean, sovereignty passes from one ruler to another, the subjects of the sovereign change fealty from one to another without the use of force. In the ECW colonies in the america changed fealty to Crown or Parliment as the sovereign body by a vote of their citizens, ECW was also a contest of what rights the englishman had to be governed by consent by the sovereign power. If it proved anything it proved sovereign powers can came to a bloody end when they dont govern by consent, which was why in the GR sovereignty passed peacefully from one king to another.

Scotland is in a Union with the crown, it has had its vote on secession and stayed in the union, had it not it would still be a sovereign when it left as it was a sovereign when it came in. Neither side contemplated the use of force.


[/quote]

Originally posted by Brygun:

Wrong.

So when you post re peatedly that you have blocked my post, thats actually not a fact either.

The first colonial charters in the New world grant the colonist all the rights of an englishmen, as if they were in England and in perpetuiaty, under article 15 of James the first grants, this includes the right to alter or abolish any government, with the use of force, (from Magna carta) that does not govern acording to the laws the people through their representatives in parliment have created, it being the supreme law making authority in the UK and that this is right, just and lawful, and not rebellion. So when the GR of 1689 there was a peacfull change of fealty to a new sovereign in the colonies in america. So when colonists seperatly left the union with the crown, 1770s, they reverted back to being a sovereign people not subject to the crown, and then set about electing officials etc, draw up a constitution, and only then are they a sovereign body able to enter compact with other sovereigns. This time they had to employ force to compel to crown to acept they were, which it did in a treaty, passing sovereignty to them seperatly.

Pretty basic history and its compltly new to you since your fond of posting about which you have no clue at all, so no not wrong.

[HB]

Originally posted by artix101:

The Europeans were threatening foreign intervention if the North had not ended its conflict with the South, which is common in history. Cotton was needed for their mills, the British government was focused on global dominance more than they were focused on the freeing of slaves, especially since none of the human rights violations were resolved in their own country until Ghandi came around. Besides, the workforce they used was specifically termed a different way other than slavery, but these people (Indians and Africans) were used just like a slave with nowhere to go. What I am getting at here is that they were going to intervene if a meant a hold on North America with the South as its main progenitor (a way to spread its global dominance), and as a game mechanic it seems like a click button decision with the proclamation that ruins any support for foreign intervention when the Union AI gets kicked in the behind throughout the war with no significant victory in sight and no territory gained.

Not the Uk, it only offered to mediate during the initial phase, rejected by the US, by 63 it was not even interested in doing that, and the CSA was doing pretty ok up to 63. You can check on Hansard, intervention was not really considerd in Parliment.

[artix101]

I'm not debating on whether or not it would have happened in real life, I am trying to explain a game mechanic that needs requirements instead of a way for the Union to instantly stop British intervention since French intervention is useless. Besides, there were talks of possible intervention by the European nations (Specifically the UK) in order to spread their influence since the Monroe Doctrine was not being enforced at the time of the Civil War. Just remember that not everything is done through the parliament and some other government minister or even the Queen could have sent for direct aid for the Confederacy.

[Shermanpanzerkamp]

So the Founding Fathers believe that the Articles of Confederation were too weak or else they would not have replaced it with a government with a stronger central power. But really this is a tangent.

Again, I think we are basically in agreement here just with different emphasis.

You make it sound like the Republicans are radical but the South was radically pro slavery and infringed on states rights with things such as the fugitive slave law. The thing is with any disagreement like this is that there is no middle ground. Slavery is either good and so should be allowed every where or evil and allowed nowhere. Both sides are insanely radical and there is no getting around this. It is logically impossible to have a middle ground so both parties were moving farther and farther apart from each other. Again, I simply do not believe the situation had reached a point where it required that drastic action. One cannot tell the future from one political statement and there is no guarantee the Republicans win out.

You miss my point here. I am talking about any group of people that wants to declare itself its own sovereign state/country. What makes something a sovereign state? To use a real example, does West Virginia have a right to exist as a sovereign state since they left Virginia? What if a county wanted to leave a state and become its own independent state/country? What if a small area in a county wanted to become its own independent state/country? What if a family living on a farm with a couple acres wants to be its own independent state/country? Where do you draw the line? I think our understanding of sovereign states/countries is where we disagree and where we should probably focus the rest of our conversation as this is where most of our differences of opinion come from.

[artix101]

Guys, I'm not talking about forms of government, the cause of secession and civil war, slavery, or whatever else. I'm talking about a game mechanic in relation to history that played out. You have your opinions, however your missing the point that I was talking about when I made the post, which is in relation to real life events. The way the game is presented with the Emancipation makes it near impossible for British Support, a game mechanic that can help the CSA player to win.

[HB]

Originally posted by artix101:

I'm not debating on whether or not it would have happened in real life, I am trying to explain a game mechanic that needs requirements instead of a way for the Union to instantly stop British intervention since French intervention is useless. Besides, there were talks of possible intervention by the European nations (Specifically the UK) in order to spread their influence since the Monroe Doctrine was not being enforced at the time of the Civil War. Just remember that not everything is done through the parliament and some other government minister or even the Queen could have sent for direct aid for the Confederacy.

Originally posted by Shermanpanzerkamp:

So the Founding Fathers believe that the Articles of Confederation were too weak or else they would not have replaced it with a government with a stronger central power. But really this is a tangent.

Again, I think we are basically in agreement here just with different emphasis.

You make it sound like the Republicans are radical but the South was radically pro slavery and infringed on states rights with things such as the fugitive slave law. The thing is with any disagreement like this is that there is no middle ground. Slavery is either good and so should be allowed every where or evil and allowed nowhere. Both sides are insanely radical and there is no getting around this. It is logically impossible to have a middle ground so both parties were moving farther and farther apart from each other. Again, I simply do not believe the situation had reached a point where it required that drastic action. One cannot tell the future from one political statement and there is no guarantee the Republicans win out.

You miss my point here. I am talking about any group of people that wants to declare itself its own sovereign state/country. What makes something a sovereign state? To use a real example, does West Virginia have a right to exist as a sovereign state since they left Virginia? What if a county wanted to leave a state and become its own independent state/country? What if a small area in a county wanted to become its own independent state/country? What if a family living on a farm with a couple acres wants to be its own independent state/country? Where do you draw the line? I think our understanding of sovereign states/countries is where we disagree and where we should probably focus the rest of our conversation as this is where most of our differences of opinion come from.

Originally posted by artix101:

I'm not debating on whether or not it would have happened in real life, I am trying to explain a game mechanic that needs requirements instead of a way for the Union to instantly stop British intervention since French intervention is useless.

That game mechanism question, has already been answered.

Originally posted by artix101:

Besides, there were talks of possible intervention by the European nations (Specifically the UK) in order to spread their influence since the Monroe Doctrine was not being enforced at the time of the Civil War.

At the time of the Trent affair Prince Albert used his influence in Government to climb down as he saw nothing to be gained and was against full recognition and any intervention except political intervention to mediate between the two sides, with his death Victoria explained she would not go against his wishes, this was in 1864 when Davis sent Jenner to first France who sai maybe, but only if the Uk does it as well, he goes to the UK with the promise of full emancipation post war if the Uk would formally recognize the CSA, both Crown and Government refused even to discuss it and rejected his approaches.

So early war its political intervention only, small numbers sent to help defend British N America late, war no intervention of any kind.What about the middle period when EP was issued then.

H Jones https://www.amazon.co.uk/Union-Peril-British-Intervention-America/dp/0807873969 explains UK intervention from the UK perspective, unlike most US authors who write from a pro Northern perspective*, he make the point there was serous mil intervention contemplated by the Uk, in fact he argues the EP had the opposite effect on the Uk, it increased the hawks in government position, ( they wanted something done on humantitarian grounds if a slave war broke out) as the CSA sent to the Uk the original EP declaration, in which there is a call for servile insurrection in the CS States that will be aided by the US, it having already sent 00s of military with 000s of weapons to forment the slave uprising in the CS states, you can read about how they failed and ended up being executed in the south in G Durand https://www.amazon.co.uk/Americas-Caesar-Decline-Repbulican-Government/dp/0615825621

So the EP from the Uk pov was that of a POTUS calling for Servile Insurrection in the South, that his plan to effect it failed and it was omitted from the EP when issued, puts it in a different perspective if you dont know the Uk knew of how far he would go

* Almost all ignore that POTUS had no fear of any European military intervention, and was doing it to make winning easier against the CS and not to keep europe out of the war.

Originally posted by artix101:

Just remember that not everything is done through the parliament and some other government minister or even the Queen could have sent for direct aid for the Confederacy.

Funding any war is done through parliament. Crown is on record it will not intervene. You have an odd idea of UK Ministerial conduct.

Originally posted by Shermanpanzerkamp:

So the Founding Fathers believe that the Articles of Confederation were too weak or else they would not have replaced it with a government with a stronger central power. But really this is a tangent.

Again, I think we are basically in agreement here just with different emphasis.

AoC had a stronger central Government, it required all members to agree, it was ended by use of the sovereignty of the separate states as it was to hard to get all to agree, it was replaced with a constitution that uses majority rule a looser form of Government.

Originally posted by Shermanpanzerkamp:

You make it sound like the Republicans are radical but the South was radically pro slavery and infringed on states rights with things such as the fugitive slave law. The thing is with any disagreement like this is that there is no middle ground. Slavery is either good and so should be allowed every where or evil and allowed nowhere. Both sides are insanely radical and there is no getting around this. It is logically impossible to have a middle ground so both parties were moving farther and farther apart from each other. Again, I simply do not believe the situation had reached a point where it required that drastic action. One cannot tell the future from one political statement and there is no guarantee the Republicans win out.

FSA did not infringe on states rights, the USA was formed by 13 slave states, with its protection of property that includes humans, ie slavery and convicted felons, the rest of the states were formed from terr that was governed by the NWT and others, which includes a FSA requirement from any state formed out of the NWT, so it was States that were breaking federal law and the constitution. Slave states were radical in that that looked back and wanted to keep/maintain things, the Republicans were radical in the sense they wanted change, they wanted to run the country, not just for a time but for as long as they could, just as the slave power had done and wanted to keep doing. Good and evil are points of view of the same thing, the thing of course is the law says slavery is lawful and exist all over the union, which was why pre republican party the free states wanted out of the union. Sure there good and evil slave owners, just as there were good and evil slave traders, and good and evil child exploitation in the north with its indentured for life but at least your not a slave.Good and evil as concepts we get from religion, and the two mostly widly used bibles at the time were the Walker and King James, in both God is ok with slavery.

Originally posted by Shermanpanzerkamp:

You miss my point here. I am talking about any group of people that wants to declare itself its own sovereign state/country. What makes something a sovereign state? To use a real example, does West Virginia have a right to exist as a sovereign state since they left Virginia? What if a county wanted to leave a state and become its own independent state/country? What if a small area in a county wanted to become its own independent state/country? What if a family living on a farm with a couple acres wants to be its own independent state/country? Where do you draw the line? I think our understanding of sovereign states/countries is where we disagree and where we should probably focus the rest of our conversation as this is where most of our differences of opinion come from.

The WBTS only had state who were Sovereign or a union that was Sovereign so your examples dont work or have already been covered.I *think*Lysander is a writer you might enjoy.

Constitution requires both congress to agree, and the state from which a section of its land is used to erect a new state from to do it.WVa got it sovereignty from VA sovereignty, ( VA is in insurrection according to the Government) but VA only post war in the USSC case on the formation of WVA accepts and gives its consent. In the WBTS POTUS and congress were willing to ignore the Constitutional requirement and simply say WVA is the state, VA is in insurrection so we can ignore it, so WVA can grants its own secession from itself and form a new state, another example of how radical the the North was willing to be, POTUS even deciding that c10% of the state population can be the State itself and their actions bind the remaining 90%.

Supreme Court of the United States. in the case of McIlvaine vs. Coxe, in 1805, held that, "on the 4th of October, 1776, the State of New Jersey was completely a Sovereign, Independent State, and had a right to compel the inhabitants of the State to become citizens thereof." this was a case in which a british born citizen was forced to either leave the state or become a citizen of it.

I *think*Lysander spooner is a writer you might enjoy.

[HB]

Originally posted by artix101:

Guys, I'm not talking about forms of government, the cause of secession and civil war, slavery, or whatever else. I'm talking about a game mechanic in relation to history that played out. You have your opinions, however your missing the point that I was talking about when I made the post, which is in relation to real life events. The way the game is presented with the Emancipation makes it near impossible for British Support, a game mechanic that can help the CSA player to win.

Er i can get intervention, so the problems not with the game, i can also win without it, so the game not the problem.

[Shermanpanzerkamp]

We are probably using different definitions of weaker since I meant weaker as things such as the inability of the central government to collect taxes. They did not have power to actually do much.

You are right that good and evil are just perspective. What I am saying is that one cannot simply say slavery should only be allowed in some areas. If it is okay to allow in some areas then it should be everywhere. If it is not okay to allow in areas then it shouldn't be anywhere. I am simply pointing out that on a topic like this, middle ground is impossible so both sides will be "radical" as both sides seek to reinforce their position. The South became more pro slavery as time went on just as the North became more anti slavery. Yes, both sides wanted to run the country and you can't have a middle ground because there are only two options.

So are you saying that a state should have to withdraw from the Union if it wants to make something illegal in its borders? I would assume that you would say the Missouri Compromise and such also should not have existed under your same argument for the Fugitive Slave law?

Maybe I am just explaining my question poorly here so I will try again in another way. Again this is just talking about the basic right of people to rule themselves and not in a specific Constitutional/American sense. What gave the original 13 colonies a claim to sovereignty? They were naturally part of England. Why did they have the right to form their own country?

[Shermanpanzerkamp]

Also, Lysander the Spartan?