Jules Verne Forum

<jvf@Gilead.org.il>

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 1996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Re: Civil War Memorial Edinburgh

From: <mystery1881~at~verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 12:16:34 -0500 (CDT)
To: jvf~at~gilead.org.il
Cc: drmmystery1881~at~gmail.com

Rick, Isn't that the point.There were two sets of citizens, two independent governments, two separate countries. Not at all like the Russian Civil War of Reds and Whites,  or the English Civil War of Cavaliers and Roundheads. 
I won't even discuss the "opposing" part except to say that it is foolish to twist the situation to fit the dictionary rather than the other way around by trying to say that one side wanted to leave and the other "opposed" it, and this makes it fit into a definition of "civil" war. No, it was not a "civil war"- but it was one great big War nonetheless.

 

 Let not the Jules Verne Forum perpetuate improper terms. Correct the erroneous thinking.

 

I know there are a lot of wars which are called different things by the historians of different factions. I think that the Russians, or rather Soviets, call what the West calls "World War II", "The Great Patriotic War", and Japan calls it "The Pacific War". Was the war in/over Finland after WWI, a civil war or a revolution? Sincere scholars debate. Was the "Winter War" a civil war?
The term "The XYZ civil war" may be short and easy for the lazy, but it's oftimes incorrect. Sometimes it just indicates that one side or the other remained after the conflict to write the history. Some foks use the term Nigerian-Biafran War, in preferance and greater accuracy to either of the terms "Nigerian-" or "Biafran-" "Civil War", both of which are also used.

"The War Between the States" is truly and objectively the best defining term - at least in English.

But, thank you Jan,  the French are accurate with the term La Gurerre de Secesssion. 

David McCallister

May 21, 2011 09:59:28 PM, jvf~at~Gilead.org.il wrote:



>the term "Civil War" is incorrect by definition. The use of this term is much criticiized among scholars. There was a Roman Civil War and an English Civil War, but not an American Civil War. The two factions did not vie for control of the central government.

 

Hi David,

 

MW's Collegiate Dictionary 11th ed. defines "civil war" simply and straightforwardly: "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." I'll continue to use this clear, understandable term when discussing our own 19th century conflict.   

 

Best,

 

Rick

 

Frederick Paul Walter

Albuquerque, New Mexico 

----- Original Message -----

From: Raymond Macon

To: 'Jules Verne Forum'

Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 7:32 PM

Subject: Re: Civil War Memorial Edinburgh

Mr. McCallister,

 

Writing as a black American, I found your take on the American Civil War to be interesting.  Let me say that I profoundly disagree with it.  The Southern States had no legal or constitutional right to secede from the Union.  Why do I say this?  Because secession would have meant an end to the government of the United States as it was then constituted.  Abraham Lincoln had the right view of this matter when he denied the right of any state to leave the Union in that manner.  That doesn’t mean that there was no legal or constitutional recourse for Southerners to pursue.  As Lincoln (and others) went on to point out, the question of secession was one that could be settled in two ways.  One was to introduce a constitutional amendment to that effect and have a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress pass it and then three-quarters of the states ratify it.  The second option was to convince three-quarters of the states to call for a constitutional convention where the question could then be debated.

 

The Confederacy pursued neither of these options, but instead chose armed insurrection.  The Union’s response was the correct one in my view.  This is aside from the deep moral questions the existence of the Confederacy raised and which I won’t bring up here.  The only thing I will say is that the destruction of the Confederacy was nothing to be ashamed of.  I have never doubted the bravery of those who chose to fight for the Stars and Bars, but I have also never regretted their defeat, either.

 

Raymond Macon

 

From: owner-jvf~at~Gilead.org.il [mailto:owner-jvf@Gilead.org.il] On Behalf Of mystery1881@verizon.net
Sent: Saturday, 21 May, 2011 15:06
To: jvf@Gilead.org.il
Subject: Re: Civil War Memorial Edinburgh

 

I will look up the memorials to the War Between the States in other countires.

Right off the bat, I can cite the monument of the Confederados in Brazil to their ancestors who emigrated to escape the destruction of the so-called "reconstruction". You can see their celebrations on youtube.

 

 I believe that the grave of Judah P. Benjamin , the Sec. of State of the CSA, and the first Jewish member of any American cabinet ( as well as a famous barrister and legal scholar in the British phase of his career), in Pere Lachaise Cemetary in Paris, has a Confederate marker.   

 

   

BTW, the term "Civil War" is incorrect by definition. The use of this term is much criticiized among scholars. There was a Roman Civil War and an English Civil War, but not an American Civil War. The two factions did not vie for control of the central government; the Northern or Union States, initially treacherously and unconstitutionally attacked the legally seceeding States, causing even more States to seceed. The proper term is The War Between the States.

 

With apologies to any Vernians who find this subject controversial - it is. As long as we can be fair to all points of view and relate the historical truth, then we can all get along. Truth is the first casualty of war.  Jules Verne may have had his own opinions on things; and that is fine, we are all here to study Verne. What he may have had to say about the War Between the States is valid for discussion. When side-lights are addressed, they should be considered objectively.     

 

David McCallister 

May 20, 2011 04:10:46 PM, jvf@Gilead.org.il wrote:

I was in Edinburgh this morning to discuss the translation of The
Blockade Runners with my publisher and visited Old Calton Cemetery, a
very small almost hidden cemetery at the foot of Calton Hill (visited by
Verne in 1859). Our American colleagues might be interested to know in
this anniversary year of the Civil War that here is what is claimed to
be the only memorial to the war outside America. It is a fine full size
bronze statue of Abraham Lincoln on a large plinth at the foot of which
is a second statue of a slave gazing at Lincoln and extending an arm in
gratitude to him. To see a picture of the monument and a short text
enter "Edinburgh's Civil War Memorial" in google. It is a moving
monument and I will include an image of it in the essay that I am
writing to accompany The Blockade Runners.
Ian Thompson

Received on Mon 23 May 2011 - 20:16:47 IDT

JV.Gilead.org.il
Copyright © Zvi Har’El
$Date: 2011/05/23 19:00:03 $$