Monarchy or Republic?

This is for Discussions about Napoleonic History only.
User avatar
Ambassador
Serf
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:52 am

Postby Ambassador » Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:14 am

Buxford wrote:Definition time:

Democracy is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

Abraham Lincoln described democracy as a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."...


These are not definitions but are just pretty words that actually mean next to nothing.

Buxford wrote:So was Great Britain prior to the turn of the century a true democracy?

Hardly...


No, but a true democracy has never existed.

We could easily look at the USA.

- Taken from the US Dept of Justice Website
the former Confederate states nearly all black citizens were disenfranchised and removed from by 1910. The process of restoring the rights taken stolen by these tactics would take many decades

- Alaska (pop 660,000) and California (pop 34,000,000) are represented by the same number of people in the Senate (2).

- American women got the vote in 1920 (after Britain in 1918)

- The use of the Electoral College in Presidential Elections. Not only do the College members not have to vote the way the public has told them to vote but a system like this can prevent the popular vote winner failing to become President as in 2000.

We could go on, the voting rights of released prison inmates, Wealthy political dynasties, Native American History, the mass slaughter of American Loyalists ater the Revolutionary War etc..

So again
Buxford wrote:So was Great Britain prior to the turn of the century a true democracy?

Hardly...

No it was not, but a true democracy has never truly existed and the USA, behind the hype and propaganda, was never really any better. Any voting system defines who the "people" are differently. There are even people wanting voting rights for kids now!, 200 years from now whose to say they will not be in the majority.

Wow, I came here to talk Nap. History and end up on US politics. Who said life is not interesting.

Oh, by the way I am a US Citizen before I get accused of hating America.

The Ambassador

User avatar
SirDabrowski
Posts: 786
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:34 am

Postby SirDabrowski » Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:46 am

Democracy-
1. [n] the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group
2. [n] the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
3. [n] a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them

Source: www.hyperdictionary.com

So, what Bux just said is the actual definition, as both mean the same thing.

Alaska and California may have the same number of Senators, yet California has a greater amount of Represenatives in the House. A cunning strategy, considering the States complained about equal rights during the framing of the Constitution. Two senators from each state allows each state to have equal say, yet different numbers of members in the House based on population allows the majority a voice as well. Don't use one part of Congress as an example, yet totally ignore the other that disproves your statement.

If there was a popular outcry against the Electoral College then it would be disbanded.

Democracy is 'Majority rule' and a rule by the common people. Women did not receive the vote because a majority of the population did not believe they should ( Many women didn't believe they should get the vote, either. ). The same thing applies for Tories that were killed and kicked out of the US after the Revolutionary War, the long time it took to free the slaves, etc. 'Majority rule'.

User avatar
Ambassador
Serf
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:52 am

Postby Ambassador » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:08 am

You are just justifying things rather than viewing them in a true democratic framework.

[GG]SirDabrowski wrote:
Alaska and California may have the same number of Senators, yet California has a greater amount of Represenatives in the House. A cunning strategy, considering the States complained about equal rights during the framing of the Constitution. Two senators from each state allows each state to have equal say, yet different numbers of members in the House based on population allows the majority a voice as well. Don't use one part of Congress as an example, yet totally ignore the other that disproves your statement.
.


I am not ignoring it, it was just not relevant. In a democracy why should all states have equal say when there are disproportionate populations. It is undemocratic. It is a check and balence against the actual democratic part of Congress. I understand why it exists, I may even think it is effective, but it is not democratic in the purist sence.

[GG]SirDabrowski wrote:If there was a popular outcry against the Electoral College then it would be disbanded.


Again, irrelevant. It is a mechanism that sits inbetween the vote of the people and the direct result of an elected official. It is a tool that dilutes democracy (theoretically rather than in practice). Whether it is unpopular enough to be disbanded is neither here nor there.

[GG]SirDabrowski wrote:Democracy is 'Majority rule' and a rule by the common people. Women did not receive the vote because a majority of the population did not believe they should ( Many women didn't believe they should get the vote, either. ). The same thing applies for Tories that were killed and kicked out of the US after the Revolutionary War, the long time it took to free the slaves, etc. 'Majority rule'.


Hmm, some potentially interesting assumptions there. Some women may not have wanted the vote but we know that when given the vote a mass female movement was not formed to give it back. Also a democracy does not give Carte Blanche to the elected to commit any attrocity they desire.

An elected official in a democracy is responsible to ALL in their ward not just those that voted for them.

Reading this shows why Africa is in such a mess (Im currently working here). The application of democracy with a primitive application of social justice allows 'Majority Rule' to decend into violence and corruption.

User avatar
Lord Crow

Postby Lord Crow » Tue Feb 14, 2006 5:32 pm

Kenya being a good example if all the reports are to be believed. Speaking from the world's oldest surviving Democracy I think it's the amount of prople you represent not just the amount of representatives you have. California and Alaska has been mentioned, I have no idea how your system works but if California has a greater population shouldn't it have more representatives? As far as voting goes it is generally believed over here that 'proportional representation' is more Democratic that the 'first past the post' system that is in place at the moment. But that said there is no will from our two major political parties to change though only from the minor Liberals who would have the most to gain I suppose.

User avatar
MacAdder
Gentleman
Gentleman
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:17 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby MacAdder » Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:53 am

[quote="Miles Gloriosus"]A great paradox of History there. France eventualy became the democracy the revolution strived for three Empires and Five Republics later with no small amount of bloodshed along the way......England which remained a Monarchy eventualy evolved into a democracy while avoiding revolution, internal choas and general nastiness (the process remained incomplete until the mid-20th century).quote]

Mind you, when it comes to the "power vacuum" phenomenon, England has a similar story to Ancient Rome and Napoleonic France - I'm referring, of course, to the Cromwellian republic.

After abolishing monarchy and executing the king, England was a "republic," but eventually Cromwell was made "Lord Protector," a monarch in all but name. Cromwell kept corruption and anarchy in check while he was leader, but at great expense to the happiness of his people. After Cromwell's death, as the king staged his return to power, there was an explosion of corruption.

Like Napoleon, Cromwell was more or less "democratically" elected, but was nevertheless a dictator, and like Napoleon he was essentially competing with another form of dictatorship - Monarchy.

My point is this - Revolutions, whether for better or worse, always bring pain and corruption; democracy often gives way to dictatorship, and one form of dictatorship often gives way to another form of dictatorship. Basically, it's all one hideous cycle of pain and corruption. :(
"The discharge of every gun was followed by a fall of men and horses like grass before the mower's scythe."
--- Captain Alexander Mercer

"All I'm asking for is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy!"
--- Spike Milligan

User avatar
Salis De Silver
Baronet
Baronet
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:19 am
Location: NW England
Contact:

Postby Salis De Silver » Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:15 am

Exactly, power corrupts. Arguing about which system is best is mute, none do what the people want. In the UK we are faced with high taxes and speed camera's at every turn. The system is in favour of the state, not the citizen, 1999 here we come. ID cards, restrictions on free speech, CCTV's all over the place, greater Police powers stop and search. On the other side of the coin we have a general lawlessness, civilized standards are at an all time low, respect and understanding is sadly lacking, and religious bigotry is at a new high. We live in a democracy?? Who are we kidding!

The French revolution, was brought about by the poverty and frustration of the common people, it was a cry of pain from a country that was corrupt and uncaring for its peoples who were starving.
The English revolution was somewhat different, in that it was the Gentry who led the fight against the King, was not a peoples revolution as such. No, for that you need to read about the 1381 Peasants Revolt, which was a true uprising against the state. The English civil war was just a transfering of power.
Up, Guards, and at 'em. ~ Wellington
'Failing to prepare, is preparing to fail!
To call war the soul of courage and virtue is like calling debauchery the soul of love - Old german proverb

Salis De Silver

User avatar
Lenny
Baronet
Baronet
Posts: 1203
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 6:25 am
Location: England...but my heart's still in Australia

Postby Lenny » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:30 pm

1999?? I don't get it, do you perhaps mean 1984?? As in George Orwell's novel?? Or am i showing me ignorance heh
All the world's a stage,
And all men merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts.

"As You Like It" act II scene VII

User avatar
Lord Crow

Postby Lord Crow » Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:31 am

You should work for the English Tourist board we wouldn't get any, LOL> I hear what you are saying and agree but then I have no qualms about the ID card system. They have had it in Europe for years and I also think it might bring some stability (hopefully anyway) but it has to be compulsory otherwise the people who the ID card targets just won't bother. You say about the ECW just a transference of power but for me it went a whole lot deeper than that and went to the core of society from the bottom to the top. There were numerous families that were torn apart by siblings and fathers fighting for either side. The ECW (2 civil wars really) is still where the most Englishmen have died on the battlefield. The French Revolution was different as it all seemed to be going one way and Napoleon (who was not a revolutionary) used it to great effect. But really it's not really the system you have, for instance communism is good in theory, it is how it's implemented.

User avatar
SirDabrowski
Posts: 786
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:34 am

Postby SirDabrowski » Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:05 am

Nobody kills better then when they're killing their own brothers.

User avatar
Buxford
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Louisiana, USA
Contact:

Postby Buxford » Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:09 am

I am not ignoring it, it was just not relevant. In a democracy why should all states have equal say when there are disproportionate populations. It is undemocratic. It is a check and balence against the actual democratic part of Congress. I understand why it exists, I may even think it is effective, but it is not democratic in the purist sence.


Yes it is, as our officials are ELECTED BY US, THE PEOPLE. Population sizes are represented by numbers in the House, and the equal sovereignty of each state is represented in the Senate; this is representational democracy at its finest. True, the US isn't a literal democracy (we're a republic) like the Athenians, but we're democratic nonetheless.

Hmm, some potentially interesting assumptions there. Some women may not have wanted the vote but we know that when given the vote a mass female movement was not formed to give it back. Also a democracy does not give Carte Blanche to the elected to commit any attrocity they desire.


True, but most American women in the 19th century were either indifferent to the vote, or didn't want it. When the issue was pressed in the early 20th century and most women in America wanted the vote, they got it. Again, democracy at its finest.

An elected official in a democracy is responsible to ALL in their ward not just those that voted for them.


He is also elected to do the WILL of the people, and represent them. If the people don't want it, what gives him the right to do it?

Reading this shows why Africa is in such a mess (Im currently working here). The application of democracy with a primitive application of social justice allows 'Majority Rule' to decend into violence and corruption.


Well, the US isn't Africa, so this off-the-wall comparison is, as you are fond of putting it, IRRELEVENT.
"Sic semper tyrannis." -State motto of Virginia

User avatar
Salis De Silver
Baronet
Baronet
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:19 am
Location: NW England
Contact:

Postby Salis De Silver » Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:28 am

Gawd 1999 must have got that from Prince..lol no you are quite right 1984. Got quite carried away, but I beleave that the English are now becoming the minority in our own land, we care to much far more about upsetting other cultures, so we bury our own.


On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does.

Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.

Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)
Up, Guards, and at 'em. ~ Wellington

'Failing to prepare, is preparing to fail!

To call war the soul of courage and virtue is like calling debauchery the soul of love - Old german proverb



Salis De Silver

User avatar
MacAdder
Gentleman
Gentleman
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:17 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

ECW

Postby MacAdder » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:39 pm

Quote Lord Crow:

You say about the ECW just a transference of power but for me it went a whole lot deeper than that and went to the core of society from the bottom to the top. There were numerous families that were torn apart by siblings and fathers fighting for either side. The ECW (2 civil wars really) is still where the most Englishmen have died on the battlefield.

Oh, absolutely. I've been reading a book about Peter Cooke, the Barrister who sent Charles I to the scaffold, and this book elaborates a lot on the division caused by the civil wars, the fact that even brothers, fathers and sons from the same families fought on different sides. What's more, I believe that roughly 1 in 10 Englishmen died in the civil wars. There were some touching accounts in Schama's A History of Britain as well.
"The discharge of every gun was followed by a fall of men and horses like grass before the mower's scythe."

--- Captain Alexander Mercer



"All I'm asking for is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy!"

--- Spike Milligan

User avatar
Lord Crow

Postby Lord Crow » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:37 am

Yeah even though other Nations were caught up in it like, Scotland, Ireland for example and some others as well it was mainly English that fought English, some prople don't realise how bloody the wars were really. And how it lives on in some people even today!

User avatar
Salis De Silver
Baronet
Baronet
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:19 am
Location: NW England
Contact:

Postby Salis De Silver » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:58 am

That I don't disagree upon, but lets not kid ourselves it was a peoples rebellion.
Up, Guards, and at 'em. ~ Wellington

'Failing to prepare, is preparing to fail!

To call war the soul of courage and virtue is like calling debauchery the soul of love - Old german proverb



Salis De Silver

User avatar
MacAdder
Gentleman
Gentleman
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:17 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby MacAdder » Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:47 pm

Well, people certainly had strong views on whether the King was divinely ordained or not.

I think the beheading of Charles I is the greatest single republican act in history, even though Parliament was purged and it eventually led to the election of Cromwell as Lord Protector, who dissolved parliament! It was a symbolic destruction of the king's "untouchable" status, to be beheaded by his own people.
"The discharge of every gun was followed by a fall of men and horses like grass before the mower's scythe."

--- Captain Alexander Mercer



"All I'm asking for is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy!"

--- Spike Milligan

User avatar
Salis De Silver
Baronet
Baronet
Posts: 604
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:19 am
Location: NW England
Contact:

Postby Salis De Silver » Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:45 am

And Charles the II was back on the throne soon after.
Up, Guards, and at 'em. ~ Wellington

'Failing to prepare, is preparing to fail!

To call war the soul of courage and virtue is like calling debauchery the soul of love - Old german proverb



Salis De Silver


Return to “The Napoleonic Library”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests