Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why is it called the American revolution, and not civil war. Been reading a lot on the subject, and this is the question I ask myself.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Why is it called the American revolution, and not civil war. Been reading a lot on the subject, and this is the question I ask myself.

Becasue we won, hence it was a revolution. If we had lost it would be a civil war, or minor kerfluffle.

sebster wrote:Thinking about it, I'm not sure that's true. I'm not saying anything with any great deal of certainty, but it seems to me the national icons of the past generally weren't soldiers, other than Washington. Stories were written about cowboys and frontiersmen, but not soldiers. That seemed to change after WWII.

Andrew Jackson was probably the most influential single man in American culture from 1820-1850. There's also our aggressive expansionism of the 19th and turn of 20th centuries. Soldiers aren't the most prominent individuals in US culture prior to WWII, but there is a very militant aspect to the US psyche that I think is very clear.

Not just the strongest military in the world, you're arguably as strong as everyone else put together

U.S.A. U.S.A.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Why is it called the American revolution, and not civil war. Been reading a lot on the subject, and this is the question I ask myself.

Because a civil war is fought for control of a country and typically between members of the state. Americans, though technically British citizens, were not quite members of the British state and they did not fight for control of the state. The American revolutionaries were fighting to breakaway and set up a state of their own within the boundaries of British colonies, which is both revolution and rebellion in a single package, but American Revolution sounds more positive than American Rebellion.

Distinguished from the American Civil War in that the position is that States do not have a right to secession and there for could not legally leave the Union turning that conflict into a civil conflict within the boundaries of the United States between members of the national state. Though I'd argue that the American Civil War was also a rebellion and a failed revolution.

Obviously, the lines between Secession, Revolution, Rebellion, and Civil War are all kind of a little blurry and they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive things either.

Here's another question: If any state votes in a democratic referendum to break away from the union and a majority says yes, can they break away?

In the US? The case of Lincoln vs. Davis found thats a no.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Here's another question: If any state votes in a democratic referendum to break away from the union and a majority says yes, can they break away?

No. Secession is a legally given right to leave a political union (Secession in its proper form is not rebellion or revolution, simply a legal exit). The Constitution makes gives no such right to the States. Some have argued that it falls under the 10th amendment, but that is a somewhat weak argument as the 10th amendment is kind of the useless amendment. It's so vague just about anything can fall under it. It's only purpose is an open door to allow the Supreme Court to grant state powers down the road, but it isn't a door for every power under the sun the Constitution doesn't already cover.

The Supreme Court decided that the States had no right to leave the Union, which frankly is the only way to get a political system like the US in the 1860's to work. You can't have every state leaving the Union the moment something they don't like happens.

Once you vote to join the US as a State, you can't heel face turn and leave.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Here's another question: If any state votes in a democratic referendum to break away from the union and a majority says yes, can they break away?

The original Articles of Confederation signed in 1776 did contain the right to secession. They were left out of the constitution.

snurl wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Here's another question: If any state votes in a democratic referendum to break away from the union and a majority says yes, can they break away?

The original Articles of Confederation signed in 1776 did contain the right to secession. They were left out of the constitution.

...How did a thread on Line Infantry tactics get to the Articles of Confederation?

infinite_array wrote:

snurl wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Here's another question: If any state votes in a democratic referendum to break away from the union and a majority says yes, can they break away?

The original Articles of Confederation signed in 1776 did contain the right to secession. They were left out of the constitution.

...How did a thread on Line Infantry tactics get to the Articles of Confederation?

He asked a question and I actually knew the answer.

Back on topic; Hardee's Tactics is one of the best known drill manuals from the civil war era. Used by both sides. Reprinted often by reenactors. In it are the schools of the soldier, company, and battalion.

Frazzled wrote:You'll have to support that statement bigtime Dogma. Of course I said wars so your definitional use of "conflict" could be extremely broad.
Here's the ones I can think of in the 1800s
*Quasi War
*Seminole War
*War of 1812
*Mexican American War
*War of Northern Aggression
*"Indian Wars" of the 70s/80s
What else? Thats not a war every 2 years. Did you mean every twenty?

Well, again, it depends on what you consider a war to be. But, if we consider any possible military conflict to be a war (which is an oft advocated position) then this isn't a bad place to start (because it saves me from typing).

When I claim a war every two years, I'm essentially claiming the broadest possible definition of "war"; ie. any military conflict that is independent of any other military conflict.

Volley fire at its most devestating:

(starts about 1 minute in)

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You'll have to support that statement bigtime Dogma. Of course I said wars so your definitional use of "conflict" could be extremely broad.
Here's the ones I can think of in the 1800s
*Quasi War
*Seminole War
*War of 1812
*Mexican American War
*War of Northern Aggression
*"Indian Wars" of the 70s/80s
What else? Thats not a war every 2 years. Did you mean every twenty?

Well, again, it depends on what you consider a war to be. But, if we consider any possible military conflict to be a war (which is an oft advocated position) then this isn't a bad place to start (because it saves me from typing).


When I claim a war every two years, I'm essentially claiming the broadest possible definition of "war"; ie. any military conflict that is independent of any other military conflict.

Gotcha. I was thinking major wars, but see what you're referring to now.

Joey wrote:Volley fire at its most devestating:

(starts about 1 minute in)

even with the breech loading rifles and repeating ones do volley fire has its merits?

now ... the only 17th century heritage still practiced by modern riflemen (as i've known of) is... column formation. but i think it was used when a rifle squad moves through narrow chokepoints.

Lone Cat wrote:even with the breech loading rifles and repeating ones do volley fire has its merits?

Volley fire was originally developed because some bright spark realised that if you could troops marching faster by having them march in a steady rythym, you could also get them reloading faster by doing the same. When troops reloaded on their own, they were inclined to worry about what the guy next to them was doing, losing concentration after the guy next to them fired, or thinking too far ahead in the process. Instead you heard a drumbeat, and knew to pour in powder, another drumbeat to pack it in with the ramrod, and so on, until you reached the end of the process and everyone unloaded. Once deployed in combat, it was found to have added benefits, as a single volley unleashed at one time could break an enemy unit, but mostly it was about increasing the rate of fire.

Once you move away from muzzle loading rifles the rate of fire becomes a lot less important. For starters, the greater accuracy of rifled weapons meant it became murder to stand in close formation, and you see loose formation and the use of cover.

Volley fire was no longer effective. Instead you see the development of suppression tactics, which eventually evolved into the use of fire teams, one unit firing to cover the movement of another.

now ... the only 17th century heritage still practiced by modern riflemen (as i've known of) is... column formation. but i think it was used when a rifle squad moves through narrow chokepoints.

Troops were marching in column formation before the rifle, and afterwards. It's the most practical way to keep an army organised when moving it over long distances.

Column formation used in the age of blackpowder was about advancing on the enemy in order to engage in melee, basically you were concentrating the bulk of your forces on one narrow point in the enemy line, and were willing to sacrifice firepower to achieve it. It's very different to the line formation used by some urban combat teams today.