A few months ago, I had asked some teenagers (In truth, the ages were from 18 to 20 years of age) to name a battle ship. None of them could think of a single name! Then my wife chiped in with the Maine, and about twenty minutes later named the Arizona. (She was preparing for her US citizenship test at the time) It seems like the younger generation today has not been taught history properly!
Excuse me? There are many intelligent people in the younger generation, many of whom are adept at history. I, being a high school student, taking college level history classes, am quite good at it, but the curriculum does not have time to go into detail about pearl harbor. There are only 90 classes per year, and in that time, we have to cover then entire history of the United States, going back to its roots in the exploration era. I think that there are some of us who do know(especially those whose hobby includes naval history), but we cant learn everything.
When I was in school I give you an example. We were taught what happend before the Civil War and what happend after. I asked " why do we have to memorize the Gettysburg Address and why was it so important.Also the Emancipation Proclimation. Well I was told to be silent.I did all my research about this conflict with no help from the schools. It is not just now.
I still say the CSS Arkansas. That vessel put a Union Ironclad the Charneot out of action. Forced the gunboat Tyler and the Ram Queen of the West to flee. Exchanged broadsides with Admiral Farrugut's 35+ vessels and got to Vicksburg and did not sink. That was the Battleship of that time period. Let see if that log boat matches that.
There lies the problem. More about the economics and bank history. What good it has done us now.Never learn from our past. 9/11 will some day be put as a foot note as Pearl Harbor is now.
I would say big gun, as two, large, stick-wielding cavemen are considered 1/4" cannons. And we must learn from our past, as it is the only way not to repeat it. Right now, i am going in depth into the party system in adams' and jefferson's administration. We learn the economic, political and social reasons and consequences of every single action that takes place. The Civil war, in my opinion was the most important moment in american history involving the fight between pro-strong central gov't and pro-strong state gov't in our country (as it wasnt about slavery). I havent even covered the subject yet, but i know it has roots in hamilton's economic plan and thus, the whiskey rebellion. I can write an essay on this topic if you'd like. And pearl harbor is a footnote, because it was a catalyst, but not as important to the overall war as other parts. And many people dont know, but there is conclusive proof to support the theory that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. What it seems to me, is that you are stereotyping my generation, which seems common in your generation. I dont think its fair that you should assume about a whole generation based on the stupidity of 2.
I'm feeling a little fiesty, so I'm going to jump into this. But before I do, I want to point out that I have no hard feelings for anyone I may argue with, it's just all for fun. 1. Say what you like, the Civil War WAS about slavery. Oh sure, it may have been about states rights, but what right was it they were fighting to keep? Slavery. Bingo, no matter which way you tango you're going to step on slavery. 2. False, bears beats battlestar galactica. 3. Actually, there is absolutely no proof that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen... just a convenient theory that works, but can't be proven. There was one man in the intelligence department that believed Pearl was the target - but he was not taken seriously because Pearl was actually a pretty bad target for conventional warfare at the time, although it had half our navy sitting at bay... conventional torpedos and submarines would not work there, and the new radar system should have seen any incoming enemies (which it did, but they were believed to be a flock of birds or a group of scheduled bombers arriving). Whether or not Roosevelt wanted to enter the war is moot, but show me the facts he knew of Pearl.
If there are IS proof, it's still classified. The overwhelming majority of the diplomatic intercepts are still classified, and the fact that they ARE still classified is what makes many of the conspiracy theorists think there is something in there worth hiding. I disagree with the notion that the Civil War was about slavery. It was certainly a catalyst, but things would have come to a head regardless. The war was about the North forcing their ideals (political mostly) on the South who shared different ideals. Slavery was the core issue. If the War was about slavery, the Union would not have felt obligated to wait until the Confederacy opened fire on Ft Sumpter before kicking off hostilities. They would have simply declared slavery illegal in the Congress, and marched in. That means that the war was REALLY about the federal government being able to cram it's desires down the states throats. The states lost, and slavery was destroyed along with it. That war would have happened regardless of slavery or not though. As for the CSS Alabama, not only was it NOT a battleship, it's far from the most famous. Not many average Americans would even be able to name it let alone what's role was. Its a ship people who have an interest in who are interested in the American Civil War, nothing more. Frankly, in comparisson to other ships, it's career was rather uninspiring. Old Ironsides, USS Constitution is far more famous then the Alabama ever will be. But as for fame, nothing beats the Bismarck (God I loathe that ship) The proof is in the actions of visitors to our events. Someone always asks (regardless of what the ship might really be) "Is that the Bismarck?" as for Boomer, all generations think the ones that come after them are unworthy. My parents had nothing but poor things to say about my generation. Its the way of things, don't take things so personally.
Kenny, You hit the nail right on the head. The Civil War was indeed about slavery. The southern states rights to have slaves and other things. I invite anyone to come to one our Civil War Living History events. The subject comes up from time to time. Just don't bring a tent. We don't use them. We use a ground cloth and a wool blanket. That's all they had. They called it being out on campaign. Boomer you are correct also, it was a very imprtant time in our history.
Mike, As for the civil war I somewhat agree - I'm not saying that every single person fought for or against slavery - but if it wasn't for slavery it probably wouldn't have happened... or at least not the way it did. Slavery is the root cause, and had been the biggest factor between the North and South since the revolution. I agree with the Alabama, doesn't even come close in a contest of the most famous. Are we talking about in America or the world? I'd throw out Bismarck, Arizona, maybe Warspite... Missouri. I think had Montana been built it probably would compete. As for most famous Ironclads (which I'll start due to Alabama being rejected), at least in America - it's hands down between Monitor and Merrimack/Virginia. Not because they were better or anything, but in basic public school history the only ironclads you learn about are those two. My money is on Monitor.
All wars are about one thing, MONEY! Revolutionary War, money, no taxes with out representation. War of 1812, money, Brits were interupting our shipping. Spanish War, money, we wanted their land, they "blew up" our property. Civil War, money, The south's slaves were free they like free stuff & big federal goverment takes more taxes, everyone hates taxes. WW1, money, at that time wars were short and when you took over some land you got the taxes from those people. A lot of countries latter in the war came in with promises of land and cash from the loser. WW2, money, Germany wanted it's land back, Japan wanted resourses to be independant. Korea, money, USSR, through China & N Korea, wanted to push their economic modle on everyone. Vietnam, same as above. Pick a war any war they are all about money. What was the last fight you had with your wife, brother, sister, mom, dad... most of those are about money too. Get back to boats, politics suck.
Ok, the war was definetly about state's rights. every single disagreement, politically, that has happened since the dawn of the USA has to do with state's rights. Ever since the formation of hamiltons economic plan including a nat'l bank, which led to political parties, people have disagreed about who gets more power, states or the feds. The Civil war was about succession guys, and that Lincoln would not allow the states to try and do the same BS that Jefferson and Madison pulled with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in the early 1800s. I will agree, slavery was a major part of why the south wanted to leave, but it was not the reason for war. Believing that slavery is the reason is to be ignorant to the truth behind Lincoln's ultra-strong central gov't techniques that he learned from Hamilton (aka the whiskey rebellion). I can go on about this, but it the interest of keeping this forum clean, ill just leave it at : Im right, because the facts show it that way, and only people who havent delved deeply into Lincoln would disagree with me. Period. The end.
Battleships guys, battleships. If we're talking famous amongst the general population, I'd say probably (in the US that is) Bismarck, Arizona or Maine. Bismarck because of how widely its tale is told, Arizona because it became the symbol of Pearl Harbor, Maine because its in all the US history books as a primary catalyst for a war. Can throw a honorable mention in to Yamato as well, but it just doesn't tend to receive as many mentions in my experience (outside of this hobby at least).
Boomer, argue what you want but you can't convince me. I know the entire debate like the back of my hand, I'm an avid ACW student (I hesitate to use the term historian) and I've debated with countless pro-confederacy scholars. I'm not going to do it here, for the same reasons you won't. I just wanted to inform you that you are not "right, because the facts show it that way." You believe you are right, because you believe what you read or were told in high school or wherever. I understand the entire debate, and why the South says it wasn't about slavery. Many times I've argued that as well, (in debates), but it is impossible to argue the causes of the civil war without constantly stepping on slavery. The whiskey rebellion is a mere footnote, simply stating it doesn't prove anything. I'm not bringing these points up to insult you, or say you are wrong, just to help prepare you for the future - if you decide to go study history further in college you've got to open your eyes more, be critical of everything you read, and not be so self-confident. Having said that, I hope you do go into history... just don't get dismayed by all the rhetorical philosophies and theories the academic historians get caught up in to make themselves feel better. Depending on the school you go to, they'll try to convince you the facts aren't important. Just keep your head down, and you'll survive. Once you make it to the other side, stick to the facts. Now, back to the battleships - if we are scratching the Alabama, scratch the Maine - she was an armored cruiser, not a battleship. I agree with Yamato, aside from the naval history enthusiasts (and some anime fans) it's simply unknown. Outside of the older generations and history fans, Bismarck is rapidly dissolving from popular memory. My bet's on the Arizona. I still consider the Missouri a contender though, because she's also in the history books for the surrender.
Alright, lets agree to disagree. And no im not going into history, its merely a hobby of mine. im going into aeronautical engineering, im much to literal of a person to get into much else other than engineering. I would say it depends on the person, but my dad knew the Hood, Bismark and Arizona.
That raises an interesting question of 'what do we consider a battleship?' - The Maine was originally designated as 'Armored Cruiser 1' before being named, but it was frequently referenced as a '2nd class battleship' . The term battleship isn't all that standardized leading to interesting translations (the other day I was reading a news article regarding some russian warships in the Black Sea, the headline of the article made mention of 'battleships' as did the content - I think the largest vessel mentioned within was a destroyer. )
I would have to say Bismarck, or Arizona. If I were and Englander I would say Hood. By the way, who sank the Hood?
Well, once again it depends on our definition of battleship - Hood was a battlecruiser. As for who sank it? Popular legend says the Bismarck, but I've actually seen some pretty compelling info that said it was a German destroyer that scored a lucky hit that exploded the magazine, or something like that... forget the details. If there is enough debate I may be able to dig it up.
