-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
150 years since the Civil war.
- Thread starter SaggyWoman
- Start date
Other than a couple of good Irving Berlin songs, I don't think most people even know there was a World War 1.
The War of Yankee Aggression (that's the "Civil War" to the rest of the world), on the other hand, and the evil policies of Reconstruction that followed it, fundamentally shaped our culture and caused damage that took generations to overcome.
Having been born and raised in Alabama, I can tell you first hand that a lot of our culture and our mindset come from that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Very true - especially due to all the Carpetbaggers - in spite of the honor that Grant gave to Lee, by allowing the Southerns to keep their sidearm and horses as they ventured back into civilian life.
As far as WW I the US was only actively involved for about a year and half. There was some talk about WWI four years ago when Frank Buckles was the last WWI vet to die
Thanks for the information. Most of the American civil war knowledge that I have is directly from "Gone with the Wind".... So this war shaped the minds and culture of the USA. For Australia and New Zealand it was the disastrous Gallipoli campaign that welded these British colonies into national identities for both counties. I find it sad that great calamities achieved a shared nation hood or cultural maturation don't you think. We see this in the aftermath of natural calamities as well. No doubt those who study anthropology etc can speak upon a shared " thing" in cementing a basic tribal or familial identity...does that make sense?
Not so much. Although there are in fact an abundance of World War I memorials, its significance faded rather rapidly after World War II, Korea and Vietnam.
Part of the reason is that U.S. casualties were far less than in European nations and the Commonwealth. In Europe, practically an entire generation was destroyed by the war. That was not the case with the United States.
In addition, the war did not radically change the United States, which retreated into isolationism afterward.
World War II was different: The United States was directly attacked, casualties were higher (though not so high as the European combatants) and the war led to an era of American hegemony. It was a real turning point in American history.
The war has a special place in ANZAC history because the Gallipoli campaign forged Australian and New Zealand nationhood. After the display of British military ineptitude, the ANZAC nations decided to relay more on themselves (and the Americans) and less on the British.
A thoughtful reply rsr, thank you. Certainly, Australia never allowed total control of their forces by foreign leadership after the Turkish fiasco, although that may not have occurred until after the war. I am uncertain about the European front in relation to leadership.
In WW2, Britain wanted direct control over Australian and no doubt other colonial forces for their immediate need, to the point where Australia was forced to insist on its forces to go to Singapore rather than off to Europe as the Japanese were on the offence with the Asian countries. FAustralia was very fearful and with good reason that the Japanese would attack and invade Australia. It was Australia's good fortune that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and thus the American response. Without the American response, Australia probably would have been invaded....New Zealand would have suffered in turn.
Why Japan attacked Pearl Harbour has always intrigued me, a colossal blunder in hind sight. In a sense, this calamity has also inspired the rise of the USA in it's being the world's policeman since then.
In WW2, Britain wanted direct control over Australian and no doubt other colonial forces for their immediate need, to the point where Australia was forced to insist on its forces to go to Singapore rather than off to Europe as the Japanese were on the offence with the Asian countries. FAustralia was very fearful and with good reason that the Japanese would attack and invade Australia. It was Australia's good fortune that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and thus the American response. Without the American response, Australia probably would have been invaded....New Zealand would have suffered in turn.
Why Japan attacked Pearl Harbour has always intrigued me, a colossal blunder in hind sight. In a sense, this calamity has also inspired the rise of the USA in it's being the world's policeman since then.
Last edited by a moderator:
PreachTony
Active Member
World War II is the time in which the US would've really liked to have established an empire, but the age of empires was ending. Britain, France, etc. were all giving up their imperial territories. Since the US could not annex land to establish an empire, they began establishing military bases across the globe. What better way to establish an empire in an age in which empires were suddenly passe...
See my response above.
I've always wondered why, after the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto did not press his advantage and launch attack on the West Coast. The US Pacific Fleet was so heavily damaged that the Japanese could have wreaked havoc on the west coast before the US could offer up a stout response. But Japan withdrew, I assume thinking they had forever gained advantage in the Pacific.
Gods and Generals never makes the list of the better Civil War movies, but it's one of my favorites, because it shows the conflict Lee had in choosing to go with Virginia. Lee's preference was to stay with the Union, but he felt that the federal government had abused and violated its covenant with the Southern states, particularly, his beloved Virginia. Because of this, he felt he had no choice but to fight for the South, as by doing so, he believed he was defending Virginia.
Lee's decision is often glossed over, but I feel that Robert Duval, as Lee, captures it very well.
Robert E. Lee was always a person of great interest to me, as my maternal grandmother was a Lee and traces her line back to the Lees of Virginia.
Interesting - would that be a direct linage to Robert E.?
Not direct, but close.
In all fairness, EVERYBODY in the South says they're related to Robert E. Lee, so...
But I grew up next door to Bobby Allison and Pat Buttram went to our church when I was a kid, so that makes up for it.
It was not for nothing that Roosevelt ordered MacArthur off Corregidor and to Australia, solving two problems: It avoided the capture of a top general and shored up relations with Australia. Even though the Americans were able to send precious little real support at first, just having Mac Down Under was encouraging.
The Americans and Aussies stemmed the Japanese advance on New Guinea, a campaign that few Americans even know about. It was some of the most god-forsaken terrain imaginable, but the Japanese were halted and the threat to Australia and New Zealand was blunted.
The Europeans certainly weren't giving up their territories voluntarily. The Japanese offensives were all against colonies: Singapore, Hawaii, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies and New Guinea (which the Australians were administering for the British).
One of Roosevelt's goals was break up the British Empire, which explained his propensity for trading material for bases and for refusing to help the British in their colonial troubles.
After the war the Europeans were broke and could only afford to keep their empires if the United States (which controlled the money) countenanced it. Thus Eisenhower threatened to sink the pound if the British (and French and Israelis) didn't get out of Suez pronto in 1956. The U.S. provided some support to the French in Indochina, but when push came to shove it stood aside and let the French flounder.
The French, BTW, certainly did not let their colonies go easily, as proved by the disaster in Indochina and the bloodletting in North Africa.
You will remember that the U.S. involvement in the Cold War began in earnest in Greece, of which Britain was the longtime protector (going back to when Lord Byron personally paid to outfit a fleet in the Greek Revolution against the Turks.) The Brits couldn't afford to provide aid, so Truman did it.
The British did let go of Palestine on their own, but that was a horribly messy situation with no up side (as has been proven in the 70 years since), and let India go, partly because they owed the Indians a lot of money they'd borrowed to pay for World War I and partly because they couldn't handle such a large population with limited resources. And they mishandled the handover, allowing the partition that created Pakistan, an endless source of mischief that might have been prevented had Gandhi had his way.
Even though the breaking up of the British Empire was rather messy and one can be endlessly picky about it, I don't think any breakdown of empires is a smooth transition.
I must read up on the PNG history, Britain got Papua and New Guinea due to Germany losing territory in the aftermath of WW1. Australia had a lot of influence until independence. West Papua or Irian Jaya is under Indonesian control still.
I must read up on the PNG history, Britain got Papua and New Guinea due to Germany losing territory in the aftermath of WW1. Australia had a lot of influence until independence. West Papua or Irian Jaya is under Indonesian control still.
PreachTony
Active Member
I agree. I was speaking in a more Eddie-Izzard-tone about the end of European imperialism. You might not agree with him (and he certainly doesn't work clean) but his bit about Europe ending imperialism is quite funny to anyone who knows the history and understands that he's telling a joke and not teaching a class.