What does Australia have to do with anything?

Quote from: Desertfox on October 11, 2010, 12:25:04 PM
What does Australia have to do with anything?

I kind of associate you with Australia for some reason, but (insert country name here) for Australia and answer the questions.   

Hint...he's Mexican...so he might have a clue on that topic....maybe.

Quote from: Ithekro on October 11, 2010, 12:48:50 PM
Hint...he's Mexican...so he might have a clue on that topic....maybe.

And that clarifies much about DF's question.

The point here though is that my description of the sour US/Mexican history and current government to government and people to people class set attitudes is still deadly accurate as of 11 September 2010.

There is a state of quasi-war along the US/Mexican border with neither government doing much to change that condition. La Raza is a political movement inside the United States based as an immigrant reaction to current American bigotry and to American colonialist actions against Mexico in the past.

Those are facts, and boy we are drifting off the Civil War...

http://www.progress.org/gads.htm

James Gadsen, another southern imperialist who "loved" the British, and yet another reason why Mexico "loves" the United States. Note the year 1858 and who was the other name in that chicanery....Jefferson Davis.        

Quote from: damocles on October 11, 2010, 12:36:26 PM

Quote from: Desertfox on October 11, 2010, 12:25:04 PM
What does Australia have to do with anything?

I kind of associate you with Australia for some reason, but (insert country name here) for Australia and answer the questions.   

Why on earth would you assosiate Foxy with Australia? It's not like he has a very thick accent (that isn't Mexican)  :P

Foxy, that map put me in expansion mode....

I love Tex map  :D  :D  :D


Jef  ;)

Quote from: TexanCowboy on October 11, 2010, 11:29:17 AM
And....this has anything to do with Nicaragua how? This topic is drifting after it was split from another topic for drifting...

I have no idea how it got this far off.
I started off by saying that, had Walker met with the same success as Rhodes (who's immeasurable success goes ignored by the opponents of filibustering) and his Asian counterparts in India and China, that the Confederacy would have had a legal and legitimate cover for their purchases abroad. This would have given them an edge in the area they truly lacked- building an ocean-going fleet- and would have possibly enabled the breaking of the Union Blockade, which slowly starved the Confederacy for both supplies and hard currency.

One thing leading to another, it would have possibly provided the CSA with 1.) more ships, 2.) more money, and 3.) possible ties with the 'Rail Road Mafia' which would have caused possible ripples in Californian and New York politics (neither very stable at the time of the War). Had Cornelius Vanderbilt thrown his weight behind the Free City of Tri-Insula (a large source of the Union's money) to protest the Union going after Nicaragua, you might have seen a Union far less willing to start shooting back in the first place.

A lot of people are not looking quite far enough into just what Walker was connected to- and just how many blue bellies he had backing his little experiment. Walker had his fingers in a lot of pies... and though his reach and grasp was comparatively small, a lot of the people eating pie with him had far greater than he.

One thing about that war...what Yankees and Confederates go all at it online....I tend to remind them that it was the Westerns that caused the war.  Throws them for a loop from time to time.

More accurately the expansion westward and the balance of power in Congress.  California really throws that one for a loop.  ;D

In the leadup phase to the Civil War, you could have made a credible legal and Supreme Court case for individual states having the right to secede. While the original Articles of Confederation of the United States explicitly forbade such, the Constitution at least implicitly grants such under the Tenth Amendment.

The legally supportable course of action in terms of exercising these rights would have been the above mentioned court case. The shooting war was started by the Confederacy rather than do so, making the entire affair criminal in a legal sense as well as a moral one.

Once that happened, the only hope secession had of any kind of success was to exceed the price the Union was willing to pay to maintain itself. As I understand it, that price limit was 'whatever we damn well have to pay', making the only ultimate question in the entire war how many human beings would be murdered for the sake of the 'right' of a class of paranoiacs to behave monstrously.

Tex, just for you (noticed Absolut had made a mistake...):

Quote from: TexanCowboy on October 11, 2010, 02:42:02 PM

Quote from: damocles on October 11, 2010, 12:36:26 PM

Quote from: Desertfox on October 11, 2010, 12:25:04 PM
What does Australia have to do with anything?

I kind of associate you with Australia for some reason, but (insert country name here) for Australia and answer the questions.   

Why on earth would you assosiate Foxy with Australia? It's not like he has a very thick accent (that isn't Mexican)  :P

Foxy, that map put me in expansion mode....

He has this thing about Australians and Rommel.

Quote from: Carthaginian on October 11, 2010, 05:22:08 PM

Quote from: TexanCowboy on October 11, 2010, 11:29:17 AM
And....this has anything to do with Nicaragua how? This topic is drifting after it was split from another topic for drifting...

I have no idea how it got this far off.
I started off by saying that, had Walker met with the same success as Rhodes (who's immeasurable success goes ignored by the opponents of filibustering) and his Asian counterparts in India and China, that the Confederacy would have had a legal and legitimate cover for their purchases abroad. This would have given them an edge in the area they truly lacked- building an ocean-going fleet- and would have possibly enabled the breaking of the Union Blockade, which slowly starved the Confederacy for both supplies and hard currency.

1. I noted in passing that the Lairds rams were useless in Nicaragua and that the geography was also wrong for such a solution.    

Quote
One thing leading to another, it would have possibly provided the CSA with 1.) more ships, 2.) more money, and 3.) possible ties with the 'Rail Road Mafia' which would have caused possible ripples in Californian and New York politics (neither very stable at the time of the War). Had Cornelius Vanderbilt thrown his weight behind the Free City of Tri-Insula (a large source of the Union's money) to protest the Union going after Nicaragua, you might have seen a Union far less willing to start shooting back in the first place.

2. Cornelius Vanderbilt was a Union man. He gave up his own private super-yacht free of charge to be turned into a ram to destroy the CSS Merrimack as a plan B in case Monitor failed. He also virtually gifted his biggest packet steamer to Gustavus Fox as a convertible steam cruiser to reinforce the previously mentioned Admiral Wilkes flying cruiser squadron at a time when the USN scraped bottom for ships.

3. Nicaragua has no anchorages worth a dram, and NO USABLE COAL.  

QuoteA lot of people are not looking quite far enough into just what Walker was connected to- and just how many blue bellies he had backing his little experiment. Walker had his fingers in a lot of pies... and though his reach and grasp was comparatively small, a lot of the people eating pie with him had far greater than he.

The "ones" you want to look at are the MORGANS. They and the Blairs were at loggerheads and neutralized each other. As for Vanderbilt

http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/historyofcentralamerica/a/wwalker_2.htm

QuoteDefeat in Nicaragua

Walker had made many enemies in his conquest. Greatest among them was Cornelius Vanderbilt, who controlled an international shipping empire. As President, Walker revoked Vanderbilt's rights to ship through Nicaragua, and Vanderbilt, enraged, sent soldiers to oust him. Vanderbilt's men were joined by those of other Central American nations, chiefly Costa Rica, who feared that Walker would take over their countries, too. In addition, Walker had overturned Nicaragua's anti-slavery laws and made English the official language, which angered many Nicaraguans. In early 1857 the Costa Ricans invaded, supported by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador as well as Vanderbilt's money and men, and defeated Walker's army (which had been thinned by disease and defections) at the Second Battle of Rivas. Walker was forced to return once again to the United States.

It demonstrates itself.
==============================================================

Quote from: Valles on October 11, 2010, 08:59:20 PM
In the leadup phase to the Civil War, you could have made a credible legal and Supreme Court case for individual states having the right to secede. While the original Articles of Confederation of the United States explicitly forbade such, the Constitution at least implicitly grants such under the Tenth Amendment.

True, there is a post Civil War case that the Lincoln court finally selected to establish the no secession allowed precedent. Texas I believe was the party that sued over bonds?  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

QuoteThe legally supportable course of action in terms of exercising these rights would have been the above mentioned court case. The shooting war was started by the Confederacy rather than do so, making the entire affair criminal in a legal sense as well as a moral one.

The Fort Sumter/Pearl Harbor argument.

QuoteOnce that happened, the only hope secession had of any kind of success was to exceed the price the Union was willing to pay to maintain itself. As I understand it, that price limit was 'whatever we damn well have to pay', making the only ultimate question in the entire war how many human beings would be murdered for the sake of the 'right' of a class of paranoiacs to behave monstrously.

And that is about right.
==============================================================

Quote from: Ithekro on October 11, 2010, 05:46:20 PM
One thing about that war...what Yankees and Confederates go all at it online....I tend to remind them that it was the Westerns that caused the war.  Throws them for a loop from time to time.

Missouri/Kansas border war. Free Soilers, Copperheads, The Lawrence/Quantrill Massacre  The Deseret civil war (Buchanan's and Jefferson Davis' persecution of the Mormons)  

http://www.kancoll.org/books/cordley_massacre/quantrel.raid.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War

Buchanan, the fool, didn't help things with his pro-slavery shenanigans, and note the years 1857-1858 and the name of the other crook involved, Jefferson Davis.      

QuoteMore accurately the expansion westward and the balance of power in Congress.  California really throws that one for a loop.  ;D

RICH California, was the cause of so much heartburn between Britain and the United States in the Pacific after 1848 in the leadup to the Civil War. We muscled in on what the British regarded as one of their future projects in 1845-1848 Mexico.  

Notice how quickly the US fortified the anchorages and how quickly they established naval arsenals?

http://www.militarymuseum.org/HistoryNaval.html