Erinevus lehekülje "Civil war is the second revolution in the United States" redaktsioonide vahel
(Uus lehekülg: 'There is no doubt that the true meaning of the civil war is very different from what we are used to. Some great historians call the Second American Revolution a civil war. Charle...')
Redaktsioon: 16. jaanuar 2020, kell 16:36
There is no doubt that the true meaning of the civil war is very different from what we are used to. Some great historians call the Second American Revolution a civil war. Charles and Mary Beard first described the American civil war about 70 years ago, using the term "second American Revolution". Only the civil war can be seen from a different perspective. All unity and reconciliation was settled, the monument building was completed, all veterans were happy, and most of the time was cloudy. "The armed conflict was a catastrophic phase, only a transitional phase. In essence, the so-called civil war or interstate war ... was undoubtedly a social war that brought the government a new power creation." In a constitution inherited from his father. "
Over the years, the term "second American Revolution" has been treated differently in different parts. Civil war historians have always had difficulty accepting this term. In any case, the civil war has significantly changed the North-South balance and has greatly accelerated the emergence of postwar industrial capitalism. Most historians consider the abolition of slavery in the south a revolutionary consequence of the war. Another view is that those who survived the war saw their struggle as revolutionary. The southern people have called his revolt a revolution in the northern tyranny. On the contrary, the North viewed their conflict as a struggle to dominate the coalition that emerged after the revolution against Britain. However, both sides saw the war as a continuation of the struggle for freedom that began in 1776.
Birthday Party Entertainment Orange County California, Anaheim Hills, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, Irvine, Anaheim Hills, Coto de Kaza California.
The famous historian bearings were very accurate in what they called the "revolution". In 1940, Louis Hacker briefly summarized work that was later recognized as the Hacker Bart newspaper. It was no coincidence that the war on the ground and the liberation of blacks in the Congress Hall benefited from the transfer of tariffs, banks, land, rail and contract law.
Bahasa Malaysia and flowers
Famous historians and James McPherson sometimes talk about Abraham Lincoln's "The Second American Revolution" (the title of McPherson's book). It's perfectly fair to call Lincoln a revolutionary. However, this is not an exhaustive explanation. It is true that Lincoln led the revolution, but it was an anti-American revolution to almost all the fundamental values of the country. It was a revolution: opposing free market capitalism (Lincoln was a committed trader). Principles of the Declaration of Independence; Constitution; Rights and federal system created by the founder. And anti-citizen bans in international law and cannons of western Christian civilization. Lincoln never believed in his life that all races were equal. He always regarded white people as good varieties. Maybe he wanted all the races to be the same, but not in the United States. Lincoln was to save the union, but it only happened geographically, was destroyed philosophically, and the union was no longer spontaneous. Lincoln deprived the constitutional freedoms of the north, permanently damaging all Americans' constitutional freedoms.
Avoid bedside techniques to improve your comfort
Despite all the struggles of famous historians, facts remain as history progresses, but at the same time they are a step back in history. I think everyone has a personal right to consider the Civil War a second revolution in the United States. Each generation justifies this event, depending on its context and political perspective.