Civil Wars

[Guest spartacus]

Do you think Civil Wars leave deep scars on a Nation, and in some cases that scar can be felt today ?

 

 

Rome had numerous internal conflicts, England had a Civil war, and more recently America was divided by them !

 

I have heard Americas Civil War still affects the nation, but I will leave it to our American members to answer that prickly issue !!

 

As well as being a drain on resources, it seems such a waste of life !

 

Have you any thoughts on this issue?

[Hamilcar Barca]

Civil wars almost certanley leave scars. Rome's civil wars evidently led to its destruction and while I am not American, I think everyone in the world is aware of the contempt that the Northern states have for the south.

 

One thing I do find interesting is how the Wars of the Roses (1455 - 1487) is not recorded as "The First English Civil war" and that the war between the Cavaliers and the Roundheads (1642 - 1651) is not recorded as "The Second English Civil War". Instead we just have the latter recorded as the former. After all the Wars of the Roses was without doubt a civil war, I guess the name just sounded cool so it stuck.

[skel]

Civil wars almost certanley leave scars. Rome's civil wars evidently led to its destruction and while I am not American, I think everyone in the world is aware of the contempt that the Northern states have for the south.

actually most northerners couldnt care less, we won its the southerners that hold a grudge if anyone does i reckon...

 

 

and civil wars are just like any war. it will inevitably leave a scar, with emotions and physical damge. but all things heal with time...assuming you use the time wisely.

[Zeke]

I am an American and today are Civil War is still talked about Constantly.....

The Southerns versus the Northerns, one supporting slavery the other not....the Northerns win and we don't have slaves anymore.

But still today Southners hold a deep resenment toward the North, they always vote differently in the elections. Most of the North voted for John Kerry, most of the South voted for George Bush.

 

Zeke

[Ursus]

In my experience there are only a few groups that are still hardcore about the American Civil War. Scholars, historians, and civil war reenactors, obviously. A few somewhat anachronistic Southern patriots, some of whom still have political parties advocating secession. African-American and civil rights groups who are still leery about the South's commitment to racial equality. And then various political groups who use the South as a martyr against what they regard as a bloated federal government. Generally speaking, if someone brings up the South outside a purely academic context, it's usually as a pretext for modern day politics. In the last election when regional trends did play a factor, the South and its shady past was all I heard about for a few weeks from the side that lost.

 

I don't live in England but I've known some English and I can't recall them ever talking about their civil war. Must be too far in their past to matter.

 

To put this back on topic, how did the civil wars effect Rome? By the late Republic it seems Roman society was fraying at the seems, which Augustus (if we are to believe his writings) was only too happy to try to restore. When the civil war with Antony ended, it didn't seem like it took too long for the Romans to recover. There was an economic boom shortly afterward, along with a cultural revival. I guess the biggest scar left was the idea that anyone with an army at their back could overthrow the government, and certainly the pattern would repeat itself occasionally.

[P.Clodius]

I am both English and American and I can tell you the English Civil War doesn't figure too much as part of everyday conversation. But of course important results were accrued from it one of which is the political supremacy of the House of Commons. The American Civil War was an important event and most people deem it to be a war of race/equality when it was far from such. It was a war purely about $$$$, the south being the breadbasket of the US at the time could not be aloud to leave the Union. It was the first war where the industrial might of one contender was a key factor in winning. It was also the first war (in the modern era) that war was waged against the civilian populus, with them being seen as a legitimate target.

As for Rome, well Ursus nailed it on the head. The closing of the Gates to the Temple of Janus was a major political coup for Augustus. Truly he deserved the title.

[pompeius magnus]

the south has their famous saying the south will rise again. first they need to have cities to compare with north. it won't happen

[Fatboy]

how the War of the Roses is not referred to as the first English civil war

 

The war of the Roses could be more accurately be called a war of succession. The term civil war is rarely used in reference to medieval times partially due to the lack of true national identity at the time.

They were fighting over a kingdom rather than a country. Such wars, common throughout the Middle Ages, rarely involved either physically or emotionally, the average person. They were usually a case of various nobles, often foreign to the area, squabbling over a Crown. Only with the emergence of the new nation states of Europe do what can be described as true civil wars reappear in Western European History.

[P.Clodius]

There was an English Civil War though, you've heard of Oliver Cromwell, The New Modell Army and the Roundheads, right? FYI, Cromwell was Englands only flirt with dictatorship!!

[dnewhous]

Yes, in the past it has been the die hard southern patriots that were still bitter over the civil war in America. The most important division in America these days is the red America (Republican voting)/blue America (Democrat voting) divide. In the past this has been parodied as a cultural elite that lives on the east and west coast and a reference to the rest of America as "flyover country." But it's not quite that simple. If you look at a detailed map it is the difference between urban voters and non-urban voters, and it's just that most of the urban centers are on the coasts. This is more important than the classical distinctions between ideological "liberal" and "conservative." For instance, it is blue America that generates the tax revenue and red America that receives it (this will hurt some people's feelings, but it is absolutely true). The policies of the Republican party have adjusted accordingly.

 

I have not investigated the history closely but it is frequently said that Lincoln wanted to fight the war because he was afraid that the union would disentegrate completely if southern states were allowed to secede. I also have the impression that many in the north wanted to let the south go. The incident that started the war was Lincoln sending a warship off the coast of some fort in the south, he wanted to set it up so that the it would at least look as though the south fired the first shot. He felt he needed to do this to get public support.

 

Partly what set the southern states off was that Lincoln wanted to put a freeze on the number of states that were allowed to have slaves. His hope was that then slavery would die out eventually in the slave holding states. If Lincoln hadn't won the election, the southern states wouldn't have seceded. Not at that moment at least. I think there is also an issue of a tariff on cotton. I.e., the north wanted to kill the cotton tariff so they could buy cheaper cotton from foreign countries, though I may be misremembering. I highly question the notion that the north depended on southern cotton.

 

Also, I don't think most foreigners (or Americans) understand just how loose the union was. The constitution and the bill of rights was a guarantee of rights ONLY at the federal level. Any state constitution/law was free to violate them. Your highschool history teacher may deny this, so ask a lawyer if you don't believe me. (This is an absolutel rock solid truth, I have no uncertainty on this one.) It is only after the civil war with the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment, passed by the radical Republican congress, that federal courts over time have ruled constitutional rights to be applied to the states.

 

In short, my country started as an uneasy union of independent states, and the constitution left a lot of loopholes in that relationship. We fought a war to decide the issue, and the more centralized nation won. (The south was hampered terribly by the confederation government's limited powers, especially in regards to taxes.) It has anecdotally been said before the war you would say "The United States are..." and after the war you would say "The United States is..."

[Fatboy]

Oh, yes certainly P, Hamilcar had written:

One thing I do find interesting is how the Wars of the Roses (1455 - 1487) is not recorded as "The First English Civil war" and that the war between the Cavaliers and the Roundheads (1642 - 1651) is not recorded as "The Second English Civil War".

 

I was just trying to clear things up for him as to why the War of the Roses is not usually referred to as a civil war.

Cromwell was Englands only flirt with dictatorship

 

Heh, yes it didn't catch on fortunately. Actually its often forgotten that England was briefly a republic under his guidance. Many of my Irish compatriots are very suprised when they hear that.

[Guest spartacus]

The History Channel from time to time has re-runs called The Civil War, concerning Americas conflict, worth watching!

 

I have seen it and it strikes me as being so sad, especially when they read out letters sent home to loved ones

 

A common theme in letters/diaries was the amount of people that wanted an end to the war and the damage it was causing

[Hamilcar Barca]

Thanks for the explanation Fatboy. Good to get that cleared up.