what is the most impressive war in the history of america?

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

. . . FI'WER you I would have chosen a better way of saying that.

Disturbing image.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I made it a point to mount the Flag, in front of my house

FI'WER you I would have chosen a better way of saying that.

0 Replies

Interesting that this discussion should be coming up today, Sept. 17, and that the
war often referred to as the US Civil War (though it was no such thing) has been mentioned. Today happens to mark the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Antietam, a town in Maryland. It's been estimated that more than 3,500 people were killed in that one day, many more wounded or captured or went missing.

That impressive enough for you for a single day?

As perversity would have it, this battle was actually indecisive and inconclusive. It halted the Confederate advance into Maryland but neither side could claim a clea-cut victory. Some wars are like that.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Re: OmSigDAVID (Post 5109906)
Quote:
I made it a point to mount the Flag, in front of my house

farmerman
Quote:
FI'WER you I would have chosen a better way of saying that.

Or, at least, have done it behind the house. Laughing

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

. . . the war often referred to as the US Civil War (though it was no such
thing) . . .

I've heard this point made when I lived in Louisiana.
Care to expand on it?

1 Reply

@George,

Well, the expression 'civil war' usually refers to a war between mainly civilians or an insurrection of civilians against the forces of the established government. Thus, the Russian revolution of 1917 was followed by a civil war between the Bolsheviks (Communist followers of Leninn) and the Mensheviks (followers of Kerenski). The Spanish Civil War in the 1930s came about when a group of insurgent high-ranking Spanish Army officers, led by Francisco Franco, pulled a coup d'etat and usurped control of the Republican government. The backlash they had to face was a phalanx of civilians, most of them very Left-wing, who rose up to defend what they called 'the Republic.

The war in North America was, in the final analysis, a formal war between two organized armies, uniformed and trained to wage war. Whether the Confederate States of America was or was not a "legitimate" government is immaterial in face of the fact that it was a real, functioning governemnt. But 'American Civil War' is the most common designation for this conflict in the history books so we continue to use it. (IMO, 'war between the States' is no better because it ignores the Federalistic character of the war; this wasn't a warbetween individual states but between two central governments, the USA and the CSA).

0 Replies

Jesus, you're really full of poop on this one, Andy.

a war between political factions or regions within the same country.
Dictionary-dot-com

A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united nation state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies. The term is a calque of the Latin bellum civile which was used to refer to the various civil wars of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC.
Wikipedia-dot-org

a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country
Merriam-Webster-dot-com

Have you imbibed that old "war of Northern aggression" bullshit, or something similar? It was a civil war. To pretend otherwise is a distortion for some reason or another.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Would this mean the Blair Mountain War was a civil war instead of a rather protracted and bloody labor/management confrontation?

Rap

1 Reply

@raprap,

Whatever floats your boat, Boss.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Have you imbibed that old "war of Northern aggression" bullshit, or something similar? It was a civil war. To pretend otherwise is a distortion for some reason or another.

As to the "Northern aggression" bullshit, you know better than that.

As to the definition of "civil war", you are obviously using a definition which is simply contrary to common usage. This war was a conflict between two uniformed, organized armies, commanded by competent general officers, representing two separate states or governments. As I said in my previous post, whether or not the Confederacy constituted a legitimate government (hence, a legitimate state) or not is irrelevant. During the course of the Holy Roman Empire there were several wars between several small German-speaking states. Would you call those 'civil wars' merely because they were waged between virtually identical ethnic groups?

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

As to the definition of "civil war", you are obviously using a definition which is simply contrary to common usage.

I used more than one source precisely to show that it is common usage.

Quote:

This war was a conflict between two uniformed, organized armies, commanded by competent general officers, representing two separate states or governments.

Leaving aside that hilarious claim about competent officers, the civil war between Charles I and Parliament is called a civil war, and it was a conflict between two organized armies, commanded by more or less competent commanders. Armies in the 17th century were not commonly uniformly attired, although scarlet coats for the infantry and buff coats for the cavalry were introduced into the New Model Army by Parliament. Do you allege it wasn't a civil war?

Quote:

As I said in my previous post, whether or not the Confederacy constituted a legitimate government (hence, a legitimate state) or not is irrelevant. During the course of the Holy Roman Empire there were several wars between several small German-speaking states. Would you call those 'civil wars' merely because they were waged between virtually identical ethnic groups?

Straw man, i said nothing about ethnic groups. The wars between separate states are not considered civil wars because they are not wars between factions within the same nation. Surely you're not now going to allege that the so-called Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation constituted a coherent and cohesive political entity?

1 Reply

By the way, Andy, if you don't consider that to have been a civil war, how do you describe it?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Leaving aside that hilarious claim about competent officers, the civil war between Charles I and Parliament is called a civil war, and it was a conflict between two organized armies, commanded by more or less competent commanders.

This is another example of Malvolio's hypocrisy. When first I mentioned the English Civil War, he started jumping up and down, like a small dog shagging someone's leg, pointing out how clever he was because he knew that the Civil War was actually three separate conflicts, and, by extension, how uninformed I must be, (even though they're collectively known as the English Civil War.)

And here he is, without any sense of irony, committing the same 'error' he accused me of. He's not interested in furthering knowledge, just strutting about like an ineffectual peacock.

1 Reply

@carolgreen145,

I never thought of a war as something impressive. Depressing is more like it.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

The most impressive war was the one we did not engage at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This is the winner.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Not to put too fine a point on it . . . bullshit.

1 Reply

By the way, bright boy, when the second civil war took place, Charles was a prisoner. When the third civil war took place, he was dead. It would be more quixotic of me to refer to all three civil wars and Charles I, given that he had no part in either the second or the third civil wars. You're awfully ******* stupid about the history of your own nation.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

You're memory is going, but not to put too fine a point on it, you're a pedant, who's more interested in strutting and point scoring than offering anything of any real value.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

I never thought of a war as something impressive. Depressing is more like it.

Your thoughts

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

You're a sad little man who, in addition to thinking that a has-been pop music group is a fount of wisdom, has nothing better to do than to follow me around to puke up your venom.

I pity you.

1 Reply

what is the most impressive war in the history of america?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know