There actually were some English Civil War battles in Maryland where the Catholics and Protestants took advantage of the opportunity to kill each other.
Civil War Battlefield sites
- Thread starter Medvedya
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
buffnut453
Captain
No surprise there. I find it amazing that people who supposedly are Christians can become so intent on harming other Christians whose only difference is one of doctrine.
When I was a kid, there was a Catholic school down the road from us. There were regular pitched battles between the kids of our schools purely based on religious differences. The stupidest part of the whole thing was that most of the parents, on both sides, never attended or even took their kids to church.
It was this experience that started me thinking about the true nature of such battles. They clearly have less to do with religion and more to do with humanity's base tribal nature. Our tribe is "us" and the other tribe is "them."
My memory is hazy but I think some of the combatants in Maryland had pre-existing disputes not related to government or religion and the Civil War was just a good excuse to do what they had been wanting to do. If you fight over religion, remember that heretics should be burned with green wood so that they have more time to consider the error of their ways. If they repent before dying, their soul can be saved.
My wife was raised Catholic in Germany. The local Catholic church was this beautiful medieval church originally built back between 1180 and 1220. We wanted to get married in it. The local Priest from the church refused to marry us unless I converted to Catholicism. The protestant church down the street said he did not care, it makes no difference to him if I am Catholic or not. In the end we found a Catholic priest who did not care either and we used the medieval church. But I found it crazy the head priest made such a big deal about it.
It's been many years since I heard it, but i was told back in the eighties, A Soviet military delegation was in the U.S. for arms limitation talks or something. Before they went back home, they were asked if there was anyplace they would like to visit. They asked to see the Gettysburg battlefield as it was all their military textbooks.
Related, I was also told that people from other countries, who had been led to believe that Americans were lazy people, not warriors or fighters. upon visiting some American Civil War battlefields and seeing the monuments (most put up by the States, not the Federal Govt.) with their statues, plaques and engravings telling of bravery and heroic deeds, some listing every casualty by name, they were shocked, realizing that America should not be taken lightly.
Related, I was also told that people from other countries, who had been led to believe that Americans were lazy people, not warriors or fighters. upon visiting some American Civil War battlefields and seeing the monuments (most put up by the States, not the Federal Govt.) with their statues, plaques and engravings telling of bravery and heroic deeds, some listing every casualty by name, they were shocked, realizing that America should not be taken lightly.
I used to give school presentations on the American Civil War. A fellow reenactor once told me that in doing a talk, a teacher informed him that there were students from other countries present who escaped from more recent "civil wars" and to stress that he was talking about the American civil war.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
One should always remember Little Round Top. The 20th Maine and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain should have statues in every patriotic square in the USA
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
If the American War for Independence had failed, would it be remembered as a civil war?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The war of 1775 is more of a "rebellion" against the Crown than a civil war.
The war of 1861 is more of a war of succession.
The term "civil war" is really an odd label, to be honest.
The war of 1861 is more of a war of succession.
The term "civil war" is really an odd label, to be honest.
buffnut453
Captain
By definition it was a civil war, regardless of what we call it or how it's remembered. Essentially, it was an escalation between opposing views of how the colonies wished to be governed. There were ardent loyalists and equally ardent separatists--essentially an insurgency--that, between them, forced the average citizen to decide which side they would support. Actions against the loyalists led to the deployment of more British soldiers which simply inflamed the situation.
Where/when separatists were more numerous, loyalists had their mail intercepted and were run out of town, having to abandon their property and belongings. Unsurprisingly, folk in the middle-ground would make appropriate separatist noises to avoid being singled out as disloyal. Conversely, when loyalists were more dominant (e.g. when Philadelphia was captured), the common folk came in droves to declare their loyalty to the Crown and get the vital piece of paper affirming the same. The vast majority of folk were simply scraping by trying to run their farm/business and raise their families. The number of desertions from Washington's army at planting and harvest time illustrates where many soldiers' loyalties lay...to their families.
Defining the War of Independence as simply "Americans against the Brits" really oversimplifies a far more complex set of conditions.
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
Even I am married in a church, my wife being protestant, me being agnostic. No problem at all for our protestant pastor. I even participated in the baptizing of our kids. In this great old 10th century church here in Dordrecht. An amazing experience and it's nice that this church is so inclusive, I feel right at home.
buffnut453
Captain
Nah...it just takes people corrupting religion for some other purpose, typically driven by a lust for power.
Thumpalumpacus
Colonel
I think that's a distinction without a difference ... but this is also a topic for another forum, so I will not carry on any further.
The "civil war" part of it was very nasty. William "Bloody Bill" Cunningham and the Bloody Scout - Journal of the American Revolution
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,306
- Jun 25, 2013
When you get out of the severely bowdlerized high school history classes in the US and start looking into what actually happened, groups like the Sons of Liberty met ay sane definition of a terrorist organization. The behavior towards loyalists was also remarkably similar to many other revolutionary groups, including harassment, tar-and-feathering (being stripped naked and painted with hot -- 2nd or 3rd degree burn hot -- tar is not a harmless prank) and seizure of property was certainly in "civil war" range of behaviors.
