Talk:Civil war

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should the American Civil War count as one of the world changers? Researcher 01:42, 22 November 2008 (EST)

I would say that it was. Taking a very simplistic look at it, the Civil war led to a restructuring of the political system in the US - it smashed not only the amoral institution of slavery, but also the political power that institution had in the organs of government. A dramatic restructuring is how I personally would describe the civil wars results, but then again the hole caused by the downfall of slavery in political institutions was replaced over time with other sources of unjust political power. MarcusCicero 12:53, 25 November 2008 (EST)
I didn't want to just go ahead and put it in there because I also want to be sure there's agreement that it was a world changer, rather than just changing the US. Slavery was already on the way out in most of the rest of the world. The only way I've heard anyone argue that it was a world changer was in the way that other states studied the tactics/strategies of the US Civil War. Anyone from outside the US have an opinion? Researcher 17:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)
Slavery was on the way out in the rest of the world. Several southerners have often made the case, rather unconvincingly, that slavery was on the way out of the US as well. I don't but it. The institution controlled political institutionals in the US and it needed something radical to get rid of it. I'm Irish by the way. MarcusCicero 08:59, 26 November 2008 (EST)
Damn my American-centric prejudice again! I don't know why, but I thought you were another Yank. Thanks, though. Researcher 11:29, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Another way to look at the 'world changer' question[edit]

What if the United States Civil War had gone the other way? How different might the world be? It seems as though if that would have been a world changer, then the actual outcome would also be one. My opinion is that it was a world changer and it most certainly would have been if it had gone the other way. This does, however, ignore historian Shelby Foote's belief (and mine also) that the South never really had any chance to win the war. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 09:35, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Presumably if the British hadn't abolished slavery and set up the West Africa Squadron to disrupt the slave trade, they would have sided with the South in return for concessions they would probably have been given... Maybe if Adam had eaten a pear instead... But if the South had won, I'm fairly sure the result would be another war within about 30 years. The North would have still had the economic power, and so they wouldn't have let the South dominate them the same way. Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)Approach the Presence 09:40, 26 November 2008 (EST)
Due to (seeming) consensus, I added it back. If anything, it was at least as world-changing as the Spanish one. EDIT: Wow, forgot to sign, AND I said back when it was never there to begin with. Maybe I should head back to bed. Researcher 11:30, 26 November 2008 (EST)
While I hate to deal in counterfactuals, gotta be a world-changer: if the South had won and there were two half-countries instead of one USA, the world would be a very different place. DeadHead 11:32, 26 November 2008 (EST)

I would say the chances of the South winning from the offset were extremely slim. They had some truly fantastic commanders who were bold and ingenious with lesser resources, while the north had overly-cautious nitwits. The funny thing about it all was that both sets of commanders would have trained at Westpoint together, so they came from the same 'stuff' so to speak.

In terms of industrial capacity and men, the north was always naturally stronger. They also had a steady flow of immigrants, many of whom went straight to the army (Such as us Micks). Spike Lee made a documentary called 'CSA', detailing the path of American history if the south had of won. It's an awful film though, just to let you know. MarcusCicero 14:22, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Oh, I have little doubt that the South had little to no chance of winning--but that doeasn't mean the Civil War's outcome did not shape world history in significant ways..PFoster 14:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

I agree, I posted as much above... Just sounding off is all... MarcusCicero 16:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)

English civil war (and Glorious Revolution) worth a mention?[edit]

Established the idea of Parliamentary supremacy, which is a pretty major concept in politics all around the world now. Thoughts? Pascal yuiop (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)