Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

June 10th, 2005

Tags

, , ,

Comments

8 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Ceasefires and Peacetalks: A Satire

Aware of the dangers of sarcasm in the blogosphere, I’ll make this clear again: this is a satire to explain by proxy my problems with ceasefires with rebels and insurgents et al. If you get it—good for you!

Talks Between Confederacy and Union Collapse; Sherman Reissues State of Emergency
The London Times
May 22, 1889

Representatives of the Confederate States of America walked out of London peace talks yesterday after the United States negotiator refused to guarantee that Washington would recognize the legality of slavery in any new federation. The talks, the first of their kind in more than two decades, were considered by many to be the last best hope for a permanent peace solution in the continent in a standoff which is now approaching its fourth decade.

Speaking at a press conference shortly thereafter, Confederate Ambassador to Great Britain Cletus Jackson excoriated US policy towards his nation. “The Union aggressors demand we sacrifice our culture” he said, pointing his Smith & Weston towards the ceiling of the hall in a symbolic gesture of defiance. “We will fight them wherever we can, however we can. It is our right to be free and govern ourselves.”

Hours later an explosion ripped through the Federal Bank in Philadelphia killing dozens of civilians and injuring hundreds. President General William Sherman reissued his state of emergency declaration and vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Although the two armies have not met in battle since the Wyoming Incident in 1875, clandestine organizations have carried on the war by proxy agents to destabalize the other side. Although a ceasefire is in effect, both sides use violence to try and gain the upperhand at the negotiating table.

It is estimated that more than 180,000 Union civilians and 270,000 Confederate civilians have died in similar attacks since the ceasefire of 1863, not including as many as 400,000 slaves who have died in the sporadic mutinies that have hit the plantations of the Confederacy.

ORIGINS OF THE CONFLICT

The states that make up the Confederacy seceded from the United States over a 5 month period from 1860-1861 after the election of President Abraham Lincoln. The two sides fought a bloody war until 1863 when a ceasefire was declared.

Peace talks began after the election of 1864 that returned Lincoln to the White House, but meetings were suspended after the president’s assasination in early 1865, allegedly by a Confederate agent. President Andrew Johnson’s administration was marked with heavy violence as an undeclared war broke out in the far west.

After Missouri seceded from the Union in 1867, a military coup deposed Johnson and inaugurated William Sherman as President General, a position that was legally recognized with the 13th “War Emergency” amendment to the US constitution in 1866. No elections have been held since, and Sherman has now held office for 22 years.

The standoff calcified after France, Spain, and Holland recognized the new Confederacy and supplied it with military and economic aid, legitimizing the government of the confederacy. Russia and the Austro-Hungary only recognize the United States, and Great Britain has done its best to work with both parties to achieve peace.

Although the positions have remained static, the borders have not. Following Missouri’s secession in 1867, Tennessee declared independence from the Confederacy in 1871 formed a federation with the newly independent Kentucky in 1875. Both the Confederacy and the United States accuse the Federation of being a de facto supporter of the other side.

The war has taken a heavy toll on domestic stability. The United States has suspended Habeus Corpus since the Bloody Thursday bombings on Wall Street in June of 1879 and the Bill of Rights was nullified by executive decree in 1882. The Confederacy has no similar guarantee of rights in its Constitution, but experts say the average citizen is more concerned about security from northern invasions and sporadic slave revolts.

PROSPECTS FOR PEACE

Speaking with journalists in the White House bunker, Secretary of State Hayes was optimistic despite the collapse of negotiations. “The United States is willing to continue talks based on good faith and mutual understanding,” he said, although he conceded that the road ahead was uncertain.

President of the Confederate States George Pickett has ruled out peace talks, predicting that war would conclude with the Richmond government, not that in Washington, ruling America.

The quasi-democratic nature of the Confederacy, which has held presidential elections every five years and has yet to see a president reelected, has given it added legitimacy in the salons of the free cities of Europe.

There are concerns that Canada, which recently occupied the Oregon Territory in the Pacific Northwest, could intervene on the side of the Confederacy. President Fremont of the California Republic has offered to serve as an independent mediator between all side, but his speeches in support of abolition have soured him to the Confederacy.

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT

Walter Longview, professor of Government at Princeton University and noted contrarian on the subject gave his typically unorthodox view of recent history in a speech to a packed hall in Trenton, NJ. “This whole fiasco can be traced back to the ceasefire of 1863 when the pacifists infiltrated Lincoln’s cabinet,” he said. “Had the Union found the moral strength to fight this war to the finish, we could have reunited this country and stopped the sectarian violence that has overtaken our continent.”

Although popular with the general public, experts dismiss Longview’s as unrealistic, although his hard-nosed analysis has found some supporters in the capital.

“Negotiations are overrated. Sometimes one side just has to win fair and square and impose a peace from a position of strength,” continued Longview, who refuses to call the conflict anything but “The American Civil War” and has repeatedly warned against peace talks with the Confederate government.

“The people who run that place, Davis, now Pickett, we’re talking about real lunatics here,” he said in his speech. “You can’t negotiate with these people.”

Comments to this entry

Alfred Russel Wallace
June 10, 2005
1:09 pm
Amen to Professor Longview - "Negotiations are overrated. Sometimes one side just has to win fair and square and impose a peace from a position of strength."Â?
But lets hope its the right side.......
Dan
June 11, 2005
12:07 am
Huzzah! A fantastic post.
Mike
June 11, 2005
3:45 am
This cuts to the heart of an important truth: there is no peace without victory. And that is why Africa/Israel/the Balkans will remain at war.
Kushibo
June 11, 2005
4:03 am
Africa, Israel, and the Balkans? I thought the veiled analogy was supposed to be Korea. In which case I would add: what a bunch of horse shit.

Oh, wait. It's a satire.
Mike
June 11, 2005
7:05 am
I am sure it was meant to be aimed at Korea, but the analogy can be extended to any conflict that never sees a resolution. The Civil War ended because one side won. Just imagine the wreck America would be if the UN had existed back in the 1860s, we would probably still be fighting.
Curzon
June 11, 2005
7:16 am
No Mike, you were right the first time. I did slightly have Israel-Palestine in the back of my mind, noted with the two vague references to Arafat, but no current analogy was intended. I'm just making a point: peacetalks with terrorists and ceasefires with criminal states often very bad things, and I just used an American history "what if" to make the point ring truer to educated American readers. Remember: peace is bad business for peacemakers!
Kushibo
June 11, 2005
10:11 am
I had thought (prior to Curzon's clarification) that it was a suggestion that just taking out North Korea right now once and for all would be the best thing to do in the long run. The two lunatics, "Davis, now Pickett," I thought, were supposed to be Kim Ilsung and son.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » On War Crimes; or, "What makes it immoral if you lose but not if you win?"Â?
October 31, 2005
4:11 pm
[...] McNamara never comes to grip with the answer: nothing—war is war. Victors judge right and wrong, decide who is a war criminal, and write the history books (mentioned here and here; or see Marmot on the subject here and here). As horrible as the firebombing was, as horrible as Japan’s war in East Asia was, when it comes to war, the victors must fight total war until surrender. Ceasefires and conditional surrenders frequently perpetuate conflict. That is the result of war between great powers. [...]