Seems closer to a Federation than a Confederacy, due to the Presidency having all External Diplomacy under their control, and thus can declare war and bring every member state in the war without their say.
- 10
Are Federations actually Confederations?
- Thread starter Sapidianus
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Nah, it seems more federal in terms of structure. I don't think a confederacy would have allowed such a strong presidential figure. Federation presidents in Stellaris are practically dictators with a time limit.
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Oh great, it's That Guy. "Here's a nonstandard definition I dredged up from an obscure source! The word didn't mean this 50 years ago, therefore it doesn't mean this now!"
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/federation
noun
1. the act of federating or uniting in a league.
2. the formation of a political unity, with a central government, by a number of separate states, each of which retains control of its own internal affairs.
3. a league or confederacy.
4. a federated body formed by a number of nations, states, societies, unions, etc., each retaining control of its own internal affairs.
Confederation == Federation, get off your pedantic high horse.
1) No, because in 1864 the US was "That country where the people are so backwards they don't even like imperialism, now stop talking about Irrelevant Land and give us some news about Prussia or Britain, or, you know, any places that aren't shit"
2) But CNN didn't exist back then. So nobody cared in both theory and practice.
- 9
- 1
It honestly looks more like the European Union, which has traits of both a confederation and a federation.
Really, confederation, federation, and unitary state are on a continuum, they aren't discrete forms of government. In America, federal supremacy has gradually increased over its history (to the dismay of Southerners). America is actually a bit aberrant among Western federations in that our states aren't allowed to leave, though. (The UK, for example, will allow Scotland to go their own way if they vote for it. Same with Canada and Quebec.)
Really, confederation, federation, and unitary state are on a continuum, they aren't discrete forms of government. In America, federal supremacy has gradually increased over its history (to the dismay of Southerners). America is actually a bit aberrant among Western federations in that our states aren't allowed to leave, though. (The UK, for example, will allow Scotland to go their own way if they vote for it. Same with Canada and Quebec.)
- 2
- 1
- 1
Actually, the Confederates wanted a Federation (more state rights). Not sure why they called themselves the Confederacy...
- 2
- 1
Wait, Canada must have a different definition than the States
We were founded as a Confederation with a strong central government......
Then again John A MacDonald was an alcoholic so he probably screwed up.
- 2
- 1
Yeah, well it wouldn't surprise me. Cookie and Biscuit both mean totally different things in the US vs. Britain, so it makes sense that other words could also be different right across the border.
- 1
Having read the London Times from 1864 (hooray for microfilm), the US Civil War was front-page news in the London paper of the time*
*Well, technically not the front page as that was all ads back then. But the first page of actual news.
- 1
The difference between confederations and federations are purely academic. E.g. The Confederation of Canada was clearly what is more commonly called a federation (and today, we are more commonly called a parliamentary federation). If you examine the German word for Federation (Bund), it's clearly the same word as "band" (vis-a-vis Robin Hood, or "we band of brothers". Also the same meaning as the word band as a musical ensemble. The word basically means "people come together for a common purpose".) It's the same word used to describe the federal republic of Germany and the German confederation of the 19th century. Bund is a helpful tool to illustrate the fluidity between the two concepts.
We make political institutions and then we group them afterwards.We differentiate between confederations and federations in the same way we differentiate between nations and countries. However, they can be used interchangeably without any real harm. The thing about political institutions is that they aren't made in a mold, they are all bespoke. This means that there isn't really any difference between a federation and a confederation, as you will find the just as much variation WITHIN the family of confederations as you will find between federations and confederations.
We make political institutions and then we group them afterwards.We differentiate between confederations and federations in the same way we differentiate between nations and countries. However, they can be used interchangeably without any real harm. The thing about political institutions is that they aren't made in a mold, they are all bespoke. This means that there isn't really any difference between a federation and a confederation, as you will find the just as much variation WITHIN the family of confederations as you will find between federations and confederations.
- 2
Its closer to a Confederation since most provinces control most of what goes on, whereas the Federal government can't really force programs on the provinces, which is why they typically add a crap of 'strings' to a package.
Aside from foreign Policy and National Defense. Which is fine for a Confederation. Although not a true Confederation, you are right that it is 'stronger' than what is described.
I'm just working from memory.
P.S Maybe we've just changed over time.
- 1
More state rights would mean a weaker central government and therefore place more power in the hands of the member states. It falls more in line with the poli sci orthodox view of what constitutes a confederation.
Actually, the Canadian system, which was designed in the wake of the civil war favoured a strong centralised federation, with authority resting in the Prime Minister (which is why Canada has one of the most powerful executives in the world.) The Canadian Confederation is "misnamed" if you dogmatically and rigidly stick to definitions.
- 2
- 1
Well, yes... he is a strong executive but the provinces do still have more influence in a LOT of things.
Although what you have said is very much in line with the key point of Canadian Confederation, to streamline the Canadian rail to pass and Defense against the Americans which required a strong centralized government.
Been a while since I've looked at my government and history.
Hmm, I figured most people outside of the US would have studied our Civil War at least a bit because it was the first industrial war and thus a precursor to how the first World War would be conducted. It was also fairly large scale.
- 2
- 1
I think the 'Confederation of Canada' as a name was largely just named as such to differentiate from and stick it to their southern neighbour - it seems a very John A MacDonald thing to do.
Bottom line - I think federation is just being used for sci-fi cachet in Stellaris than for historical reasons - they seem to operate more like factions than real unions between nations.
Bottom line - I think federation is just being used for sci-fi cachet in Stellaris than for historical reasons - they seem to operate more like factions than real unions between nations.
- 1
- 1
Well, the developers are mostly Swedish, and being Swedish myself I can tell you that American history was given exceptionally little room in history class, and Swedes generally know very little about the American civil war.
- 1
- 1
I don't think we know anywhere near as much about your elections as you think we do. The only reason we know what we know is because the US takes so obnoxiously long with the lead up to an election. We'll hear about the primary candidates for elections in other countries for about a month as they figure out who should lead them, and then only hear about what their government is actually doing, while we're stuck hearing about the craziness of US candidate A for around 2 years.
Also, I have never actually seen CNN. The odd clip that news broadcasters here might replay as part of their coverage, yes, but CNN is otherwise pretty much unavailable outside of buying a world news cable package, of which CNN is only a small part of. There's a lot of other bits of the world that the world news covers instead.
The extent we learn here in Australia is North fought South, North won. Plenty of other major and noteworthy wars between industrial powers occurred in the 19th century, and we covered them about as poorly. There wasn't really much exceptional about the US Civil War beyond its length, calling it the 'first industrial war' is a questionable claim I think largely due to the problem of at what point do you decide that the two sides are 'industrialised' enough and that the war is 'advanced enough' to count; it's simply arbitrary. The Crimean War for example used most of the technologies that the US Civil War did, various campaigns of the Napoleonic Wars was against sides that had industrialised, wars just after the US Civil War used more technologies and tactics. The I think the process of industrialisation and industrialised war is fluid enough that you either just need to count if the belligerents were industrialised, or go to the point where warfare itself became industrialised. I doubt that any of the military leaders in the rest of the world would have given it any particular special treatment in terms of researching how the war was conducted as well.
- 4
The Swiss? Confederation is even in the official name of their country.... I suppose it depends of which country you come from, but I was never taught in school about the American Civil War. It took places around the same time as more important European wars (at least in the context of European history), and it is those we were taught.
Personally I am keen for a DLC that makes multi-state-organisations complicated.
I would like to see all kinds of options to have strong vs. weak centralisation and equal vs. unfair rights so that you can do anything from a common customs union to the Radch (from the Ancillary books by Anne Leckie: a bit like a weird Roman Empire in Space if you don't know it - I recommend the books!).
Multi-state-organisation management seems likes another potentially fun late-game activity (pushing absolutism or protecting federalism) in between dealing with Crises. It might even create the scope for Constitutional Crises!
I would like to see all kinds of options to have strong vs. weak centralisation and equal vs. unfair rights so that you can do anything from a common customs union to the Radch (from the Ancillary books by Anne Leckie: a bit like a weird Roman Empire in Space if you don't know it - I recommend the books!).
Multi-state-organisation management seems likes another potentially fun late-game activity (pushing absolutism or protecting federalism) in between dealing with Crises. It might even create the scope for Constitutional Crises!
- 2