Civil war in USA (19th century)

[MigL]

Another Canadian to pipe-up in Dim's defense.
Up until the 1800s wars and battles, at least for the 'noble' class, involved a certain amount of pageantry, showmanship and 'gallantry, with colourful uniforms and flag bearers.
The 1800s saw a change in this; war was no longer glamorous, as new weapons and old tactics fed the common foot soldier into the shredder that saw tens of thousands killed in single battles.

The need for the Red Cross was inspired by the carnage and bloodshed at the battles of Solferino and Magenta in the Italian wars of unification in the late 1850s.
The American Civil War was no different ; bloody carnage and destruction that pitted brothers against each other in pointless battles of little strategic significance ( watch Sergio Leone's 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly', starring me, of course, for a good depiction ).

By the time of WW1, the bloody carnage of hundreds of thousand of soldiers, in pointless battles, had been implemented on an industrial scale.

Edited May 17 by MigL

[Endy0816]

On 5/13/2024 at 1:41 PM, Linkey said:

 

For me, this is a too simple explanation. I believe that in a theoretical ideal democracy the civil wars are inpossible - the people in different regions of the country would simply vote for some compromise decision.

 

There were a number of compromises made prior to. Ultimately they only pushed the problem into the future with devastating results.

With runaway slaves and attempt to maintain the power balance between the sides, the issue of Slavery ended up crossing State borders.

 

[dimreepr]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

The US Civil War happened for entertainment? WTAF? 

When did I say that?

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/spectators-witness-history-manassas?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2mX0QB0RqUupWigL0tXDlexICHoaD66FEusNY4bnyCaPSEvD-hlXBk-lM_aem_AdJUJwgueDkpOj0ewWkvrSsAp8nzczPoxZyFEPydu44kwthVDOBHoLa2xQRyMFpidMvLJLvn8GL7y_iCP72umPje#:~:text=Watching the Federal army advance seemed like the perfect Sunday afternoon diversion.&text=It is a popular%2C almost,battle of a short rebellion

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

Anyone even remotely involved in it.  A bitter bloody destructive war that shattered the nation, destroyed cities and vast areas of land and the South's economy, leaving dire poverty and hunger and around 2 million wounded on top of 600,000 dead.

Your question is like someone suggesting the Hutus in Rwanda took  machetes to their Tutsi neighbors and hacked them to death because it livened up block parties.  

The view from that hill was such bc it didn't really affect them.

I was listening to a debate a few weeks ago, in which the story of a runaway slave helped a northern general with an overwhelming army, corner and then refused to attack, letting them slip away, which happened time after time; some think it was bc of his trust/distrust of a negro, I wonder how his perspective was different?

I'm sorry I can't remember the specifics or the source bc it was a tangent of the debate.

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

In your defence Dim, near the start of the war, there was a battle that, from some in the North's point of view prior to the battle...fit that description enough to bring sightseers.

"On July 21, 1861, Washingtonians trekked to the countryside near Manassas, Virginia, to watch Union and Confederate forces clash in the first major battle of the American Civil War. Known in the North as the First Battle of Bull Run and in the South as the Battle of First Manassas, the military engagement also earned the nickname the “picnic battle” because spectators showed up with sandwiches and opera glasses. These onlookers, who included a number of U.S. congressmen, expected a victory for the Union and a swift end to the war that had begun three months before."

https://www.history.com/news/worst-picnic-in-history-was-interrupted-by-war

Otherwise no. Far from it. 

Quote

The Battle of Gettysburg was also spectated by a number of tourists,^[4] including Arthur Lyon Fremantle.

 

Apologies @TheVat But this is well worth a listen and it's beyond me to summarise a summary.

 

Edited May 17 by dimreepr

[swansont]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

When did I say that?

“For a start, the battles were considered a fine days entertainment, that seems to answer most of this” (emphasis added)

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

“For a start, the battles were considered a fine days entertainment, that seems to answer most of this” (emphasis added)

Indeed, but there's a lot of context missing in your emphasis...

We determine who we are by what we do.

 

One day we might agree...

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

One day we might agree...

but who cares..

MY dad died the day after yeterday...

[Linkey]

On 5/16/2024 at 2:19 PM, swansont said:

So democracy wasn’t possible until the last couple of decades?

I think - yes)

If any celebrity in the USA had the possibility to initiate and online referendum, the world would become much better. For example, currently, as far as I can see, the USA has a strange situation: when Rep president is in power, the shale oil rigs are activated, when a Dem president is in power - the rigs are closed, and so on. The USA needs simply a referendum on the question of rigs closing, and it does not matter who will initiate this referendum.

[zapatos]

48 minutes ago, Linkey said:

I think - yes)

If any celebrity in the USA had the possibility to initiate and online referendum, the world would become much better. For example, currently, as far as I can see, the USA has a strange situation: when Rep president is in power, the shale oil rigs are activated, when a Dem president is in power - the rigs are closed, and so on. The USA needs simply a referendum on the question of rigs closing, and it does not matter who will initiate this referendum.

We have a referendum every four years. Surely we have the right to change our minds.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

but who cares..

MY dad died the day after yeterday...

Sorry to hear of your loss Dim. May he RIP.

[MigL]

Cryptic as always, even on such a somber day.
My deepest condolences, Dim.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but there's a lot of context missing in your emphasis...

That was your lead sentence. You had not posted prior to that post.

What followed was “as for the rest of your question” 

So no, there was no context that’s missing. 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

but who cares..

MY dad died the day after yeterday...

So…today?

Condolences. 

5 hours ago, Linkey said:

I think - yes)

If any celebrity in the USA had the possibility to initiate and online referendum, the world would become much better.

Why should celebrities have more rights and power than the average person. Surely that’s more like an oligarchy than a democracy.

5 hours ago, Linkey said:

For example, currently, as far as I can see, the USA has a strange situation: when Rep president is in power, the shale oil rigs are activated, when a Dem president is in power - the rigs are closed, and so on.

Evidence that this is the case?

the US is currently pumping more oil than ever, and we have a dem president.

“United States produces more crude oil than any country, ever”

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545

Production rose dramatically between 2009-2016, when a dem was president, after having dropped under the previous repub president

https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart

 

5 hours ago, Linkey said:

The USA needs simply a referendum on the question of rigs closing, and it does not matter who will initiate this referendum.

But that opens us up to the tyranny of the majority. Why should people far away have a say in something that might pollute your back yard? 

[Linkey]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Why should celebrities have more rights and power than the average person. Surely that’s more like an oligarchy than a democracy.

The possibility to initiate a referendum is not a "power" in common sense.

For initiating a referendum, simply a sufficient number of "likes" must be gathered (and not too many "dislikes"), so many people like celebs or bloggers will be able to use that.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

the US is currently pumping more oil than ever, and we have a dem president.

Ok, I didn't know that. But strange.

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Linkey said:

Ok, I didn't know that. But strange.

Strange? In that it didn’t fit your preconceptions?

It’s why we try and deal in facts, and want sources of information, rather than assertions about what one “feels” is the case.

[zapatos]

30 minutes ago, Linkey said:

For initiating a referendum, simply a sufficient number of "likes" must be gathered (and not too many "dislikes"), so many people like celebs or bloggers will be able to use that.

It seems that while everyone in your ideal democracy is equal, some seem to be more equal than others. 

Unfortunately you are moving us back to the democracy of the 1700s, when democracy was more democratic if you happened to be a white, rich, male landowner. With your model you can be a female of color but you'd better have enough money for a computer and internet access.

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

That was your lead sentence. You had not posted prior to that post.

What followed was “as for the rest of your question” 

So no, there was no context that’s missing. 

Indeed my apologies, I could have sworn that my sentence ended with "for some people", it's what I intended to write.

15 hours ago, swansont said:

So…today?

Condolences. 

It was my perspective, but then I've never had to fight to protect him.

My apologies to all who found my words objectionable, and I'm not trying to Present the English solution as somehow better; for them every slave was pure profit; they didn't care if they lived or died, as long as they couldn't escape then enough of them survived, to pay for the trip + fund's for the next trip + bonus, many steps down the moral ladder than anything America could claim; in the end we had made enough, before the noise of moral objection came into focus, America didn't have that luxury.

Civil War, 1861-1865 | Slavery, Abolition, Emancipation and Freedom - CURIOSity Digital Collections (harvard.edu)

Quote

 

Jonathan Karp, Harvard University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, PhD Candidate, American Studies

The story of the Civil War is often told as a triumph of freedom over slavery, using little more than a timeline of battles and a thin pile of legislation as plot points. Among those acts and skirmishes, addresses and battles, the Emancipation Proclamation is key: with a stroke of Abraham Lincoln’s pen, the story goes, slaves were freed and the goodness of the United States was confirmed. This narrative implies a kind of clarity that is not present in the historical record. What did emancipation actually mean? What did freedom mean? How would ideas of citizenship accommodate Black subjects? The everyday impact of these words—the way they might be lived in everyday life—were the subject of intense debates and investigations, which marshalled emerging scientific discourses and a rapidly expanding bureaucratic state. All the while, Black people kept emancipating themselves, showing by their very actions how freedom might be lived.

 

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed my apologies, I could have sworn that my sentence ended with "for some people", it's what I intended to write.

It’s irrelevant, really - that some people would observe battles for entertainment is not one of the causes of the war. I’m not sure if one can make an argument that it’s a sign of living in or not living in a democracy, but nobody has made that argument, one way or another. Since that’s the topic of the OP, why bring it up?

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s irrelevant, really - that some people would observe battles for entertainment is not one of the causes of the war. I’m not sure if one can make an argument that it’s a sign of living in or not living in a democracy, but nobody has made that argument, one way or another. Since that’s the topic of the OP, why bring it up?

Just another perspective...

It's the people who pay for protection, that inspires a war...

IOW, what am I free to express, without a barrage of negs, that have no context or explanation??? 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Just another perspective...

It's the people who pay for protection, that inspires a war...

IOW, what am I free to express, without a barrage of negs, that have no context or explanation??? 

How about posting stuff that has context and explanation, that’s on-topic? That might help.

I mean, what does “It's the people who pay for protection, that inspires a war...” mean? Who are the people to which you refer? How are they paying for protection? How does this “inspire war”?

How is any of this relevant?

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, swansont said:

How about posting stuff that has context and explanation, that’s on-topic? That might help.

I mean, what does “It's the people who pay for protection, that inspires a war...” mean? Who are the people to which you refer? How are they paying for protection? How does this “inspire war”?

How is any of this relevant?

It turns out that predicting a civil war is possible (so science) and it has a lot to do with who holds the purse strings.

The Ted talk I linked, does a much better job of explianing why...

[swansont]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It turns out that predicting a civil war is possible (so science) and it has a lot to do with who holds the purse strings.

The Ted talk I linked, does a much better job of explianing why...

Making a prediction doesn’t make it science. There’s the joke about economists predicting nine of the last four recessions. Science requires more. Does she say when the next US civil war will start?

[Endy0816]

On 5/17/2024 at 9:06 PM, Linkey said:

The possibility to initiate a referendum is not a "power" in common sense.

For initiating a referendum, simply a sufficient number of "likes" must be gathered (and not too many "dislikes"), so many people like celebs or bloggers will be able to use that.

Ok, I didn't know that. But strange.

Yeah, the parties are not exact opposites in some respects.

 

Main issue with a national referendum is the limited powers granted to the Federal government. A referendum wouldn't open up a new mechanism for change. A majority of States hold referendums and similar at their level though.

I feel need to expect our representatives to represent us on  the more complex issues. There's legislation that truly requires specialists to spend time to analyzing and debating.

 

 

[dimreepr]

23 hours ago, swansont said:

Making a prediction doesn’t make it science. There’s the joke about economists predicting nine of the last four recessions. Science requires more. Does she say when the next US civil war will start?

Indeed, but it is a path to scientific understanding...

On 5/19/2024 at 5:52 PM, swansont said:

Does she say when the next US civil war will start?

The day after yesterday, would be my guess...🙏

[swansont]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but it is a path to scientific understanding...

Only if it leads one to a more refined model, which can then be tested, and given the time constant for civil wars that seems like it’s not going bear much fruit.

[dimreepr]

On 5/20/2024 at 9:45 PM, swansont said:

Only if it leads one to a more refined model, which can then be tested, and given the time constant for civil wars that seems like it’s not going bear much fruit.

How do we know what seeds will bear fruit, If we don't plant them?