Jules Verne Forum

<jvf@Gilead.org.il>

JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec 1996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

Re: Civil War Memorial Edinburgh

From: <mystery1881~at~verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 22:43:45 -0500 (CDT)
To: jvf~at~gilead.org.il

Thanks. Craig, I think that helps make my point.

There were actually several phases of the conflict, especially involving, as you say, Scotland and Ireland, as well as England.

I believe that the Channel Islands recognize the Queen as the Duke of Normandy, as well. 

David

May 23, 2011 02:27:52 PM, jvf~at~Gilead.org.il wrote:

May I add that there was no such thing as the "English Civil War". It
might have started there, but actually involved five nations, not just
England, and many refer to it as "The War of Five Nations". Americans
tend to refer to Britain as "England" when, in fact, England is only
one constituent part of the island of Britain which also includes the
Celtic nations of Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. The last might
surprise you but, at law, Cornwall is what's known as a Crown
Dependancy (similar to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands) whose
Head of State (uniquely in Britain) is not Elizabeth II, but the Duke
of Cornwall (currently Charles Windsor).

Craig



On 23 Me 2011, at 19:08, Rick Walter wrote:

> > Let not the Jules Verne Forum perpetuate improper terms.
>
>
> Hi David--
>
> Apparently you feel you're smarter than Merriam Webster's 11th ed.
> You're being silly.
>
> Otherwise, I've enjoyed your posts and your acquaintance over the
> years, so I'm sorry to have to write this.
>
> I think it's an appalling shame that after 150 years and the deaths
> of over 600,000 young Americans from both the North and the South,
> some people are still re-fighting this war from their armchairs. How
> about getting a life.
>
> * You didn't bear arms in it, nor did your parents or your
> grandparents.
>
> * You aren't a recognized authority on the topic.
>
> * You don't have a monopoly on the truth.
>
> I hope, David, you aren't among those southerners who deny the
> realities of slavery in our country's past ... I hope you aren't
> among those who keep trying to tar Obama as a false American . . . I
> hope you aren't among those who deal with their own personal and
> psychological issues through classic scapegoating.
>
> I hope you're none of these, David, because the above behaviors have
> been destructive not only to black people and white people, but to
> our entire democratic republic.
>
> Finally, David, please keep these outside matters off the Jules
> Verne Forum. You have our email addresses. If these concerns are of
> such devastating importance to you, have the courtesy to write us
> privately.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rick
>
> Frederick Paul Walter
> Albuquerque, New Mexico
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mystery1881~at~verizon.net
> To: jvf@Gilead.org.il
> Cc: drmmystery1881@gmail.com
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 11:16 AM
> Subject: Re: Civil War Memorial Edinburgh
>
> 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@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@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
>

--
Craig Weatherhill

Received on Tue 24 May 2011 - 06:44:03 IDT

JV.Gilead.org.il
Copyright © Zvi Har’El
$Date: 2011/05/24 06:00:03 $$