Do You Support John Brown's Revolutionary Violence

[Slargos]

I dug a rather deep, nice hole, didn't I.

I still maintain that violence isn't the answer.

Yes. It is.

It always is, and it always will be.

Violence or the threat of violence permeates your entire existence.

[Martinus]

Meh, I'm with Timmay on this one.  To claim that the American Revolution was no true revolution is a significant challenge to the status quo interpretation, and as such requires more evidence than saying simply "it was a power grab from an already entrenched elite" (not that Norgy necessarily gives enough of a shit to do so, mind), especially considering it is usually societal elites who lead a revolution.  The Am Rev was arguably less utopian and radical in scope than, say, the Bolshevik revolution, but I still don't see why it doesn't qualify as a true revolution.

I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war. Perhaps it could be the reason why it is called the American Civil War. 

[Martinus]

McPherson, who wrote a pulitzer prize winning history of the war, agrees with me and not you. He even title one of his later books Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. I'll take his word over yours.

An appeal to authority?

It's actually less than an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to a book title (which are known for their scientific precision and lack of hyperbole).

[jimmy olsen]

McPherson, who wrote a pulitzer prize winning history of the war, agrees with me and not you. He even title one of his later books Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. I'll take his word over yours.

An appeal to authority?

It's actually less than an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to a book title (which are known for their scientific precision and lack of hyperbole).

If I had The Battle Cry of Freedom on hand I'd quote where he expounds on the war's revolutionary nature, but I don't have it with me.

[Martinus]

McPherson, who wrote a pulitzer prize winning history of the war, agrees with me and not you. He even title one of his later books Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. I'll take his word over yours.

An appeal to authority?

It's actually less than an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to a book title (which are known for their scientific precision and lack of hyperbole).

If I had The Battle Cry of Freedom on hand I'd quote where he expounds on the war's revolutionary nature, but I don't have it with me.

[derspiess]

The American "Revolution" was no revolution, but a powergrab from an already entrenched elite. It doesn't count. By the same accord, Norway's constitution of May 17th would be a revolution. It wasn't.

I had this constantly force-fed to me in college, and I even started believing it at a certain point.  On the surface & in immediate terms, yeah it was a transfer of power from one set of elites to another.  But that superficial argument ignores the radically different course we decided to take with how we formed our new government.  Sure, it was less of an upheaval than the Bolshevik Revolution & some others, but it was very much a revolution.

[Habbaku]

I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

[The Brain]

I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

[Slargos]

The American "Revolution" was no revolution, but a powergrab from an already entrenched elite. It doesn't count. By the same accord, Norway's constitution of May 17th would be a revolution. It wasn't.

I had this constantly force-fed to me in college, and I even started believing it at a certain point.  On the surface & in immediate terms, yeah it was a transfer of power from one set of elites to another.  But that superficial argument ignores the radically different course we decided to take with how we formed our new government.  Sure, it was less of an upheaval than the Bolshevik Revolution & some others, but it was very much a revolution.

This again.

If you're going to argue whether something or other is something or other, can't you agree on the definition of the something and other first?

Dictionary.com gives us the following definitions (snipped the irrelevant ones)

1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. 2. Sociology . a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.

By both these definitions, the American Revolution is indeed a revolution.

It doesn't matter if the people in revolt are the landed class or the plebes.

[Habbaku]

I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

[The Brain]

The American Revolution can be described as a revolution. In America. Hence not the "British Revolution". The American Civil War could possibly be described as the "Southern (Attempted) Revolution" but not as an American revolution for reasons analogous with the original American Revolution above.

But what kind of sick fuck cares about these terms anyway?

[The Brain]

I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

[Tonitrus]

I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

[Martinus]

I think most people disagree with Timmy's claim that the ACW was a "revolution". It was a classic civil war.

  Really?  The South was looking to overthrow Lincoln and install Davis as President of the USA?

Merriam-Webster defines a civil war as "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country". Other dictionary definitions include:

"A war between factions or regions of the same country." (American Heritage)
"a war fought between different groups of people within the same country" (Macmillan)
"a war fought by different groups of people living in the same country" (Cambridge)
"a war within a nation between opposing political factions or regions. (Wordsmyth)

I don't know where you take the requirement of a violent overthrow of the government from - it may be one of many goals of a civil war, but does not need to be one.

[Slargos]

According to that definition the ACW wasn't really a civil war though.