quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline


The War of 1812 is a good example - where American seamen and merchant ships were being impressed into  British service.
The history books seem to indicate that the U.S. declared war on Britain.
 
The war with the Barbary pirates - where tribute had to be paid by all nations as an extortionary means and a US Ship was boarded and stolen because the tribute was not paid in a timely manner.
Call it tribute or tax makes no difference to me.  If you do not pay your taxes your property gets confiscated. 
 
There are others as well.
And those would be???
thompson
 
~J

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Perhaps you might enlighten me as to when in the history of the US that we have ever been attacked by a foreign nation.  Every war we have been involved in we either started or intruded ourselves into.

thompson

First World War
Second World War

Arguably the Mexican-American War.

And it is a good idea to remember that at the time reasonable people believed Spain had attacked the Maine or at the least had allowed the destruction of the ship when the Spanish-American War started in 1898.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

You are absolutely right.
 
That will teach me to talk out my rear.
Your candor, if not your consistancy, should be applauded
thompson
 
~J

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Name Wars  for which economic gain was not the prime driving force.
Take a chance....the US and Brit Civil Wars and the wickedest of recent History....Vietnam.

The US to maintain the Union.
The Brit because Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist.
Vietnam...to kill the Cong ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline


The War of 1812 is a good example - where American seamen and merchant ships were being impressed into  British service.
The history books seem to indicate that the U.S. declared war on Britain.
 


http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f06/hickey.html


Can't work out how a messed up the format.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 12/19/2006 11:39:50 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to thompsonx)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Name Wars  for which economic gain was not the prime driving force.
Take a chance....the US and Brit Civil Wars and the wickedest of recent History....Vietnam.

The US to maintain the Union.
The Brit because Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist.
Vietnam...to kill the Cong ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Name Wars  for which economic gain was not the prime driving force.
Take a chance....the US and Brit Civil Wars and the wickedest of recent History....Vietnam.

The US to maintain the Union.
The Brit because Cromwell was a religious fundamentalist.
Vietnam...to kill the Cong ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

The English Civil War was fought primarily for the right of either the king or Parliament to control customs and taxation. It had been brewing for decades as the king was short of money (unlike Parliament). As an example, charles ordered everyone in England to pay ship money under the pretence of the upkeep of the navy and Parliament forbade this. Furthermore, areas of the country sided based on economics. As an example, Newcastle had been granted a royal charter as the main production coal-fields in the area at the expense of its competitor Sunderland - Sunderland sided with the Parliamentarians and Newcastle with the king. Ultimately, charles needed the money that Parliament controlled and attempted to dissolve Parliament.

I don't know a great deal about the US Civil War but I'll take a guess the North intended to use freed slaves to work in the industrialising North i.e. to give them the labour needed to compete with the established world powers. The South wanted the labour to run their plantations? Also, all nations bind together primarily out of economic convenience and maintaining a large union is a means of competing economically - the whole is more than the sum of its parts etc.

Vietnam, again I maybe getting out of my depth here but I was under the impression Vietnam was an arena playing out an element of the cold war (a game for influence and markets in certain parts of the world).

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

As for the North wanting to free the slaves in the American Civil war, one of the posters on CM, (I think it was Sinergy but I could be wrong), said that Lincoln only agreed to the freeing of the slaves in the south under pressure from Britain and that he had no intention of freeing the slaves in the North. I can't remember which thread it was on but I'm pretty sure he gave links.

I did one module at University on the US Civil War (which hardly makes me the authority on all things US history). However, I was taught there was hope/belief in the North that the freed slaves of the South would head North in search of work in the industrialised areas that desperately needed them. I've no idea on the intention to free Northern slaves but I'm fairly sure the intention was to free Southern slaves and to use them as labour (the usual story of human migration from rural to industrialising areas).

There is no getting away from the fact its roots were economic, I don't see how it can be argued that there was an element of keeping the Union intact but I will stand to be corrected.

Yep, a bit of a guess here and maybe I'm confusing causes and results but one of the main results of the war was the restoration of the Union.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline


The War of 1812 is a good example - where American seamen and merchant ships were being impressed into  British service.
The history books seem to indicate that the U.S. declared war on Britain.
 


http://www.press.uillinois.edu/f06/hickey.html


Can't work out how a messed up the format.

meatcleaver:
This is a very good book and makes the point that the primary justification for the war was economic...the conquest of Canada and the eviction of the British from North America and not the impressment issue which really was a non issue since England had already agreed to quit doing it.
thompson

(in reply to meatcleaver)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Re the US civil War a certain Mr A Lincoln is on record as saying the he would have fought the Civil War regardless of the condition of the slaves. The issue for the Southern States was States Rights.. Both have economic implications but  I believe that was not the main motivating factor. Overall economic control of the US rests in the "big cough" nominally democratic, but at least representative Federal Govnt. with a large amount of States ability to control their own affairs. ie local income tax.

Actually Puritan that I am I wish Cromwell had lived longer so that a republican "small R" form of government could have taken root. I would have to disagree that Cromwell was not a religious fundamentalist, in fact he tried to establish a regime of simple piety based on devotion to the Christian God. He totally reject the extravagent flim flammery of the monarchial form of government.

As for Viet Nam, no resources for the US to plunder only an indigineous nationalist movement associated , probably of necessity to get the weapons, with the communist bloc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

He totally rejected the extravagent flim flammery of the monarchial form of government.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

It seems unlikely to me that the US could have extracted minerals from VietNam, which I must admit I did not know were present, since VietNam had been in a permanent state of War from about 1936 to 1976.
I am unsure what you are refering to as a permanent state of war from 1936-76. 
 
The japanese were invited into Viet Nam by the Vichy french government. 
 
Viet Minh struggle against the french was fairly limited in scope. 
 
Durring the 60's when I was there I was able to view first hand the removal,  from that country, of its resources.
thompson
Re States Rights and slavery, control of the cotton trade was just as likely to have exploded into a major issue of conflict. I havent "looked anything up" so I may be wrong.

Did find out that China/VietNam have agreed a 10 billion dollar mineral extraction programme.