Why It Makes Sense... (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

Actually, it was Voltaire who said that, not Thomas Jefferson.

 

[jazzeum]

Could I just ask, and hopefully not get my head cut off but does anyone feel that it would have been a good thing for America if the South had succeeded. It seems to me the current leadership role which the US enjoys in the world is a direct result of being one unified country. If the South had succeded things may well have been different and then there would have been no USA to contribiute so magnificently to WWII or to lead the free world during the Cold War.
Regards

I don't think you'll get your head chopped off but I don't think it's a worthy line of discussion because "if this" or "if that, " so forth and so on. However, I believe there has been a lot written about it so perhaps you should check out those sources.

 

[trooper]

The problem with using the "American War" is you are immediately inspired to ask "which one"? That label could applied to the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the War with Mexico, the War with Cuba, the various wars with the Indian nations and of course the War Between the North and South, just to name a few.

Not really, in all the other conflicts you name another nation was involved, the Civil War was the only one where both participants were American. I realise that it could be argued that the Indian Wars were also technically a war between Americans but there is an ethnic difference there.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Could I just ask, and hopefully not get my head cut off but does anyone feel that it would have been a good thing for America if the South had succeeded. It seems to me the current leadership role which the US enjoys in the world is a direct result of being one unified country. If the South had succeded things may well have been different and then there would have been no USA to contribiute so magnificently to WWII or to lead the free world during the Cold War.
Regards

Having lived in both the North and the South, I've always beleived both were really too different culturally to be one country. I have often argued that it would have been better if Lincoln had not won the election, and the South had been permitted to peacefully go its own way. I think had the countries separated peacefully, they would have been closely allied and tied together by economic necessity (the south producing the raw materials and the north having the industry and transportation), but the cultural differences which so plague our cobbled-together peoples would have been avoided.

As to slavery, with the two nations the Confederacy needed to trade its cotton with (the Union and the U.K.) having banned it, it would have died out on its own fairly quickly. Another benefit would be both the north and south avoiding the millions of young men killed and maimed during the Civil War.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

I was fairly certain this forum wouldnt come to any conclusion but I wanted to see what got churned up. As Brad said, 143 years is still to soon for any of us to peacefully agree on any hot topic of that time period. It seems regional differences still exist in education which I believe to be the cause of these significant differences of thought. However as I think all Americans can agree, it is the ability to have those different thoughts that makes the US great. Someone once said, "I might not like what you think but Ill fight to the death for you to have the right to think it." Something like that.


Harris

Very Well said.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Not really, in all the other conflicts you name another nation was involved, the Civil War was the only one where both participants were American. I realise that it could be argued that the Indian Wars were also technically a war between Americans but there is an ethnic difference there.

The US has many ethnic differences, in fact, more than any other major country, we are a nation of immigrants (or as Bill Murray's Stripes character so eloquently put it, mongrels) so I don't think that distinction helps. It is also technically incorrect that only the so called Civil War involved Americans. The others I mentioned all involved either one other North American nation or were fought on US soil. While the US is frequently referred to as the only America, I think that is confusing since there are so many other North and South American countries.

 

[trooper]

The US has many ethnic differences, in fact, more than any other major country, we are a nation of immigrants (or as Bill Murray's Stripes character so eloquently put it, mongrels) so I don't think that distinction helps. It is also technically incorrect that only the so called Civil War involved Americans. The others I mentioned all involved either one other North American nation or were fought on US soil. While the US is frequently referred to as the only America, I think that is confusing since there are so many other North and South American countries.

It is true that there are many other countries on the American continent but only one is named America therefore the designation "The American War" is reasonable as it was fought in America by Americans.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Having lived in both the North and the South, I've always beleived both were really too different culturally to be one country. I have often argued that it would have been better if Lincoln had not won the election, and the South had been permitted to peacefully go its own way. I think had the countries separated peacefully, they would have been closely allied and tied together by economic necessity (the south producing the raw materials and the north having the industry and transportation), but the cultural differences which so plague our cobbled-together peoples would have been avoided.

As to slavery, with the two nations the Confederacy needed to trade its cotton with (the Union and the U.K.) having banned it, it would have died out on its own fairly quickly. Another benefit would be both the north and south avoiding the millions of young men killed and maimed during the Civil War.

Well I grew up in one and have lived much of my adult life in the other and I don't think the North and South are any more culturally different than the East and the West; maybe less so at this point. While there are distinct cultural pockets in both regions, the same can be said of the Mid West, the North West and the Plains. In fact, I think Texas and California are as different from both the North and South (and each other) as the North and South are today.

As I have lamented before, to me the War Between the States was a horrendous waste of good people and an extremely sad conflict between people with essentially the same roots. Of course similar examples abound, such is our violent history. I also think that slavery would have died almost as quickly as it was forced to by the end of the war. I still think the best result would have been to let the Southern states reach that conclusion for themselves but that would have left open the states rights issue for many future controversies, which of course we had anyway. As sad as it was, if the only alternative was two nations, it may be that the war produced the best long term result for this country and the world.

As an interesting aside on Harris's reference to the oft misquoted phrase "I disapprove of what you say........", it was actually first said by an English women, to summarize the attitude of a French philosopher.
These words were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in The Friends of Voltaire (1906). They are often incorrectly attributed as a quote by Voltaire but are actually a paraphrase of his attitudes expressed in his Essay on Tolerance. Its ultimate origin may lie in a letter from Voltaire to M. le Riche (February 6, 1770): "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."
Ms Hall's words have a much better ring to them.

 

[Spitfrnd]

It is true that there are many other countries on the American continent but only one is named America therefore the designation "The American War" is reasonable as it was fought in America by Americans.

Well I hate to disagree again but while the US is called America by many, there is actually no country named America, it is the United States of America. Anyway, you can call it that if you like but no one else will know what you are talking about.

 

[jazzeum]

I lived the first part of my life overseas in South America and the fact that people of the United States seem to have appropriated the word "America" for themselves gets South Americans quite unhappy as North and South America are the "Americas." So, calling it the American War is not really correct or appropriate.

 

[VanguardFC007]

If the war had taken a turn towards involving Mexico and in turn France and the Caribbean holdings then maybe it could be called the American War. But seeing as how that far fetched idea came nowhere near fruition I have to agree that the American War would be an incorrect name.


Harris

 

[lancer]

Hey all, what's wrong with the old War Between The States label? Seems pretty accurate and true. -- lancer

 

[VanguardFC007]

Hey all, what's wrong with the old War Between The States label? Seems pretty accurate and true. -- lancer

Definitely the most politically neutral name for it.

 

[trooper]

I bow to the majority opinion. I find it interesting that that war, by whatever name you care to call it, should still evoke such intense debate even at this distance in time. The last survivors died during my lifetime and I often wonder what those old soldiers who fought with muskets must have thought about the changes they witnessed during their life. War in the air, mechanised warfare, ICBMs....a far cry from Bull Run and Gettysburg.

 

[jazzeum]

I find it interesting that that war, by whatever name you care to call it, should still evoke such intense debate even at this distance in time.

Like I said 143 years is still to early to discuss this unemotionally. I don't think this is uncommon as I seem to remember that the Russians still harbor grudges from conflicts in the 1700s.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Like I said 143 years is still to early to discuss this unemotionally. I don't think this is uncommon as I seem to remember that the Russians still harbor grudges from conflicts in the 1700s.

Wow, I must have missed something here. Perhaps I am confused but I thought the exchange in this thread was reasoned and dispassionate. Could someone point me to the intense and emotional parts of this discussion?

 

[jazzeum]

I was referring to trooper's comment and my thought doesn't necessarily refer to this forum but to society at large.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I was referring to trooper's comment and my thought doesn't necessarily refer to this forum but to society at large.

Ah well as I said, perhaps to some that is true. The French, Germans and English also have some real problems with each other. One generation's war makes the next several generations' enemies I suppose.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Ah well as I said, perhaps to some that is true. The French, Germans and English also have some real problems with each other. One generation's war makes the next several generations' enemies I suppose.

I had a teacher in high school who was very proud of his German heritage. He said he could always find the French in the room because theyd run away when he walked in.

I know not politically correct but I figured Id share.

 

[Spitfrnd]

I had a teacher in high school who was very proud of his German heritage. He said he could always find the French in the room because theyd run away when he walked in.

I know not politically correct but I figured Id share.

My point exactly.