American history game

Nick22 · **Reply #560 on:** December 08, 2006, 05:40:58 PM

grant was in charge at the time, had a more able president been in charge the Senate would have approved..Although it is interesting that such a high percent wanted to join.. they'd be a state now, and probably better off than they are in an economic sense

Malte279 · **Reply #561 on:** December 08, 2006, 07:14:40 PM

While I still didn't get a number for the Senate vote. I expect I could find it in the university library, but quite frankly that would take up more time than I'm ready to give for this game. One remarkable thing about the whole business is that apparently Senator Seward, the very same who bought Alaska (an undertaking which was named Seward's fooly back then), played a major role in preventing the annexation of the Dominican republic. Knowing your stand on this I don't presume you will ever forgive Seward about that one, will you?

Nick22 · **Reply #562 on:** December 12, 2006, 01:55:16 PM

the voted was tied 28-28, with a 2/3rds bvote needed to pass. Considering that Seward was an expansionist, I'm suprised he would oppose adding terotory to the union. I'm guessing racism was involved, since the Dimincians were black.

Malte279 · **Reply #563 on:** December 12, 2006, 05:38:31 PM

Perhaps Seward just wanted to annoy Grant (they didn't get along too well). Perhaps Seward still remembered the "Seward's Fooley" headlines about the Alaska purchase (which was conducted during Johnson's presidency). After all Alaska hadn't "paid off" at all by that time.
As for the matter of racism I'm not too sure about it.
In fact some of those in favor of the annexation had much more racist plans about the Dominican Republic. Some people suggested that "the freed slaves should do something for their freedom" that is they actually suggested that the freed slaves, to gain all their rights, should have to leave for that island, so white people in the South wouldn't have to live with their former slaves. :angry:

My turn?

Nick22 · **Reply #564 on:** December 13, 2006, 05:19:21 PM

Yes it is your turn. That idea was called repatriation" and there were attempts to create a colony for the former slaves. All of them failed...

Malte279 · **Reply #565 on:** December 13, 2006, 05:28:49 PM

"Creating a colony for them" is one way to look at the matter. Deporting them to a place where they won't bother racist neighbours is another way to look at it.

Nick22 · **Reply #566 on:** December 13, 2006, 06:23:56 PM

Yes, I'm well aware of the "getting them out of the way part.."

prehistorian · **Reply #567 on:** December 25, 2006, 11:30:35 AM

Quote from: Nick22,Dec 13 2006 on 04:19 PM

Yes it is your turn. That idea was called repatriation" and there were attempts to create a colony for the former slaves. All of them failed...

Did they? What about Liberia? Does that count?

Malte279 · **Reply #568 on:** December 25, 2006, 07:39:04 PM

I suppose that to discuss we would have to define when a country could be considered as "failed". Liberia has gone through terrible times which certainly wasn't what the freed slaves had hoped for. At least of lately things are improving a little.

I forgot to post a new question. Sorry about that. Here we go:
What plan (which was never carried into action) was codenamed "Operation Vulture" by the US military?

Nick22 · **Reply #569 on:** December 28, 2006, 11:32:53 AM

liberia was an independent country, and considering that it still exists, it was a sucess. As for your question. Operation Vulture was a planned bombing raid on Dien Bien Phu in 1954. It would have tried to help the French against the North vietnamese.

Malte279 · **Reply #570 on:** December 28, 2006, 01:04:09 PM

So a country is always a success so long it is independent? Is independence really the only thing that matters about the question whether or not a country is to be considered a success?

Your answer is correct. The considerations for "operation vulture" even included the use of nuclear missiles.

Nick22 · **Reply #571 on:** December 28, 2006, 01:40:25 PM

In comparison to the other attempted colonies, yes it was a sucess. Naturally independence alone does not make a country a success.. look at Somalia. in order to be sucessful, a country must have a stable government, a monopoly over violence, and the loyalty of its people, just to name 3 things.

Malte279 · **Reply #572 on:** December 28, 2006, 07:48:25 PM

And more things need to be added, for loyalty can also be the result of fear or huge propaganda campaigns or persona cults conducted by very foul governments. Look at North Korea. The three points you named can be applied to that country (at least while the ruler lives the government is fairly "stable"). I suppose the welfare of the people is another crucial (perhaps the most important) point about how sucessful a country is.

It's your turn Nick.

Nick22 · **Reply #573 on:** December 29, 2006, 10:16:26 AM

Keeping with Liberia, what US president did the Liberians honor by naming thier capital after?

Malte279 · **Reply #574 on:** December 29, 2006, 06:47:20 PM

James Monroe. The capital is named Monrovia.

Nick22 · **Reply #575 on:** January 04, 2007, 02:57:11 PM

indeed, your turn..

Malte279 · **Reply #576 on:** January 04, 2007, 06:03:23 PM

During which American war an order was issued to kill every citizen of the enemy country who was older than 10? And who did issue that infamous order?

Nick22 · **Reply #577 on:** January 05, 2007, 11:40:10 AM

World War II? I'dimagine it was Hitler..sounds like something he'd do in 1944-45...

Malte279 · **Reply #578 on:** January 05, 2007, 06:36:24 PM

Nope, not WW2. The person who issued the order was actually an American. It was not by the way a war between American's and native Americans.

Malte279 · **Reply #579 on:** January 07, 2007, 04:46:59 AM

Another hint, the order was given little more than a 100 years ago while the end of that war is less than a 100 years past.