| Revision as of 23:20, 5 June 2005 editPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:28, 6 June 2005 edit undoRobert A West (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,469 edits Federations and ConfederationsNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| The clause about wars between third-world democracies and dictatorship in the third was deleted because it was vague and void of examples, and there were very few examples of '''democracy''' in the Cold War Third World to fight wars - at least in the sense required by strongest DPT. ] 23:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) | The clause about wars between third-world democracies and dictatorship in the third was deleted because it was vague and void of examples, and there were very few examples of '''democracy''' in the Cold War Third World to fight wars - at least in the sense required by strongest DPT. ] 23:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Federations and Confederations == | |||
| A union of democracies, where each member state is effectively represented in the federal legislature, should be considered a democracy for purposes of this theory if a sufficient number of states are democracies (using whatever definition applies at the moment) so that war cannot be effectively waged without their consent. | |||
| In the instant case of the American Civil War, in 1851, Virginia abolished the property requirement, and allowed all adult white men, other than felons and lunatics, to vote. Since the slave population was a bit under half the white population, this suggests that Virginia met the 2/3 requirement, or was as close as the accuracy of census roles will permit. | |||
| Similarly, Pennsylvania had long established universal manhood sufferage by 1860 and had no slaves. Other states on both sides qualified as well, but I think these two suffice. Each was practically sine qua non to effectively prosecuting the war on their respective side. Both had 2/3 manhood sufferage and had had it for three years, both had strong democratic traditions, both qualify as democracies under the strong form, yet each enthusiastically supported the war against the other. | |||
| Rather than trying to exclude the American Civil War, would it not be better to admit that, under the special circumstances of a disintegrating union, the "better angels of our nature" are likely to be out-shouted. If the spirit of reason and compromise had existed sufficiently in 1860 to avoid war, the same spirit would probably have sufficed to avoid secession entirely. | |||
Revision as of 00:28, 6 June 2005
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
 | Democratic peace theory/Archive 1 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
The article is incomplete. Rummell did not originate the idea. I'm quoting: "Much of the contemporary research on this subject, however, can be traced back to an article by Dean Babst, a research scientist at the New York State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission, that was evidently originally published in 1964 and was later reprinted in 1972 in the journal Industrial Research"
see: http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/bennetta/APSA97.htm
Also, there are several suggested counterexamples of democracies at war. see http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/992/schwartzskinner.html (Sept. 24, 2004)
NPOV
see: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm#Demopeace
- I have removed some of the communist conflicts as examples of wars which was valid critique and added why the confederate states was not a democracy. Otherwise I see no valid critique. Ultramarine 12:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please do not meddle with the edit history of this Talk page: I repeat:
If the following are all true:
- The North did not have absolute manhood suffrage - and it didn't.
- The South gave the vote to 30-40% of the adult male suffrage
- And the populations are comparable (and for this purpose 2-1 would be comparable)
Then the percentage of enfranchised adult men in the United States as a whole cannot have been much higher than the 67% that Ultramarine claims as Rummel's dividing line. That's arithmetic. Septentrionalis 23:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The clause about wars between third-world democracies and dictatorship in the third was deleted because it was vague and void of examples, and there were very few examples of democracy in the Cold War Third World to fight wars - at least in the sense required by strongest DPT. Septentrionalis 23:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Federations and Confederations
A union of democracies, where each member state is effectively represented in the federal legislature, should be considered a democracy for purposes of this theory if a sufficient number of states are democracies (using whatever definition applies at the moment) so that war cannot be effectively waged without their consent.
In the instant case of the American Civil War, in 1851, Virginia abolished the property requirement, and allowed all adult white men, other than felons and lunatics, to vote. Since the slave population was a bit under half the white population, this suggests that Virginia met the 2/3 requirement, or was as close as the accuracy of census roles will permit.
Similarly, Pennsylvania had long established universal manhood sufferage by 1860 and had no slaves. Other states on both sides qualified as well, but I think these two suffice. Each was practically sine qua non to effectively prosecuting the war on their respective side. Both had 2/3 manhood sufferage and had had it for three years, both had strong democratic traditions, both qualify as democracies under the strong form, yet each enthusiastically supported the war against the other.
Rather than trying to exclude the American Civil War, would it not be better to admit that, under the special circumstances of a disintegrating union, the "better angels of our nature" are likely to be out-shouted. If the spirit of reason and compromise had existed sufficiently in 1860 to avoid war, the same spirit would probably have sufficed to avoid secession entirely.
Categories: