Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
a general consensus has it that the American Civil War fits the bill.
I agree. The Civil War was a major conflict with modern technology: railroads, telegraph, etc. It saw the development of modern weapons such as the armored, steam-powered warship. But it was a modern war because it was a "total war" meaning it was waged against civilians as well as soldiers. The Civil War a modern war because it was a conflict between societies, not just armies. In the Civil War the ability of a polity to maintain an army in the field became a target of war, thus war was waged against civilians as well as soldiers resulting in things like Sherman's march to the sea. I haven't read much about the Crimean War, but I believe it was a war between armies, not societies. I don't think the ability of the populace to field an army was a target of war in the Crimean War as was the case in the Civil War. If so the Crimean War was not a "total war" and would not quality as a modern war.
We are a federal Republic not a monolithic centralized state.
The Civil War did more than end slavery. It changed the meaning of the constitution and how we are governed.As a professor of mine used to teach the constitution can be changed by amendment, Supreme Court decision...and civil war. He's right. Those who can't/won't understand the Civil War substantially "amended" the constitution don't understand history...that the South lost, states rights died, and things changed forever. One of the decisions the Civil War handed down is that once a state joins the union it forever gives up its sovereignty. Just like a bride gives up her virginity when she consummates her marriage. Before the Civil War we were a federal republic and states had rights. No more. Those who continue to assert states rights, that the constitution forbids a strong central gov't, etc. do not understand how the Civil War impacted the constitution and the way we are now governed under the constitution as amended by civil war.These changes may or may not have been the best thing for the nation. But they happened. Our constitution and form of gov't today is vastly different from what existed before the civil war--and there is no going back to the way things used to be.
Bottom line is that slavery was the key issue of the civil war...I think the South was right in their defense of states? rights, I just think they chose the wrong issue to get upset about. A more morally repugnant issue than slavery to go to war about is harder to come up with.
I agree. Without slavery there never would have been a civil war.The Civil War was perhaps the most defining moment the constitution has ever seen. As a professor of mine remarked, there's more than one way the constitution gets interpreted. The constitutional interpretation handed down by the Civil War is that states don't have rights--a decision that some people have yet to "read."
I hope that we will see a showdown between the state and federal governments over state sovereignty and federal usurpation of powers.
We did; it's called the Civil War. The outcome was states aren't sovereign and don't have rights.
I think what Lincoln wanted was very doable, but not with Meade as the commanding general. Grant, Sherman, or Sheridan, for example, were capable of doing what Lincoln wanted. The South was in worse shape than the North. They too had suffered great causality; they were out of ammunition for their cannons so assuming a defensive position might not have worked. The South also had to evacuate their wounded, so the North had the opportunity--and numbers--to get ahead of Lee, cut him off from supplies and force the South to attack to get home. Or, alternatively, to surround Lee.
Yes, the Catholic say they were first, but that doesn't make it true. Following the Apostles all bishops were equal in authority. And for that matter the Armenian Church predates the Roman Catholic Church.First century Christianity was overseen by the Apostles. The death of the Apostles coincided with great persecution, the net effect being the Church was left without central leadership.In time leaders arose such as the Bishop of Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and others. But before this happened each and every Bishop was co-equal.If the Catholic Church was first then why the need for all the Church Councils to set doctrine? And why were these councils held in Asia Minor instead of Rome? (Early Christian history runs counter to Catholic teachings regarding the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, Papal bulls, the infallibility of the Pope, the right of the Pope to speak ex cathedra, etc. wouldn't you say.)
I agree with Wikipedia that Baptists are Protestants. Like other Protestant groups the Baptists descend from Christians that left the Catholic church in a doctrinal dispute.Here's the first part of the Wikipedia article:A Baptist is a member of a Christian denomination characterized by the rejection of infant baptism in favor of believer's baptism by immersion. While the term Baptist has its origins with the Anabaptists, and was sometimes viewed as pejorative, the denomination itself is historically linked to the English Dissenter or Separatist or Nonconformism movements of the 16th century.Baptists are typically considered Protestants...
Henry VIII had a policy of trying to play France against Spain (although that's an oversimplification of what happened). If you counted how many years France was his enemy and how many years Spain was his enemy you'd get the answer. My bet is on France.
No. He was far to public a person–and far too watched by the nations who defeated him–to have gone to Corisca without our knowing about it today.
This sounds interesting. Can you guys give some examples of ideas that are changing due to new material.
About 1/3 of the empire died of plague during Justinian's rule. The plague had so much impact that it makes Justinian's actions almost irrelevant. Without the plague he probably would have restored the “glory of Rome.” After the plague the Byzantine Empire couldn't sustain his accomplishments.
Hmm the more I research the more I find it interesting that on one hand he was responsible for so many positive "reforms" and on the other hand he could be so brutal....
You need to stop looking at things through the eyes of 20th/21st Century Western Values. (BTW, that's why so many people today have trouble understanding events in places like the Middle East. Other eras and places have different values upon which they base their actions.)
Yes. I think it had a basis in fact in that there were Christian leaders in places other than Europe.One possibility is a Christian leader in India. St. Thomas is supposed to have preached in India; and centuries later Europeans found--and absored--Indian Christians.Another possibility comes from the Keraits of Central Asia who became Nestorian Christians in the 11th Century. Genghis Kahn's foster father, Toghrul, king of the Keraits, is a possible source of the legend.
If you get a chance, you should read the book "Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal" written by Stuart Lake in 1929 the year of Earp's death. Lake has some really good interviews with him and you get a point of view from Earp as he saw things during that time.
I've read it; it's an enjoyable read. However, Lake hero-worshiped Earp. While the book is interesting--and perhaps provides a little insight into Earp's thought process--I don't think it's a balanced account of Earp's actions.
I just go by how de Blij and Muller define it. The Middle American realm consists of the regions of Mexico, the Central American nations, and the Caribbean Islands.
Mexico is indeed part of Middle America. The points I tried to clarify above are:--Middle America is the southern part of North America.--Middle America contains both Mexico and Central America.--Mexico is not part of Central America.
