Worst day in USA, ever?
Poll
 | 1 vote (6.25%) | ||
| | 1 vote (6.25%) | ||
| | 5 votes (31.25%) | ||
| | 2 votes (12.5%) | ||
| | 7 votes (43.75%) |
16 members have voted
Gettysburg tends to get more attention, in part because a greater number of total casualties, but I believe they were spread out over three days, with no one day greater than Antietam.
p.s. Damn! Just noticed the "something else" option. I should have picked that.
Quote: WizardGiven the choices, I voted for 7-1-1863, because it had the greatest number of casualties of the choices given, by far. However, the single bloodiest day in US history was September 17, 1862, the Battle of Antietam, which would have been my choice if it was given.
Gettysburg tends to get more attention, in part because a greater number of total casualties, but I believe they were spread out over three days, with no one day greater than Antietam.
p.s. Damn! Just noticed the "something else" option. I should have picked that.
Wost doesn't need to mean just casualties. True, Gettysburg was most over a several day battle, but it also showed the war was not going to end soon.
Quote: AZDuffmanWost doesn't need to mean just casualties. True, Gettysburg was most over a several day battle, but it also showed the war was not going to end soon.
That is a matter of opinion. If it were close I would consider other factors, but body count is paramount in my vote.
Quote: WizardThat is a matter of opinion. If it were close I would consider other factors, but body count is paramount in my vote.
I understand completely. I just realized I should have put the stock market crash of 1929 in there. I guess I was just thinking body count.
Edit: Thank you, Voice of Doom...
What about the day the President moved the fleet out of San Diego and stationed it at Pearl Harbor which at the time was classified as a hardship post because the sailors had to sleep on the ships, not barracks or off-base housing. Was that a bad day? When the Admiral involved protested that the fleet would be unprotected and that Japan would consider it provocative, the President relieved the Admiral of command. Was that a bad day just because FDR wanted America to get involved in a European war? What about the day it was decided to not route the intercept station's data to the Fleet Intelligence Officer at Pearl Harbor? Was that a bad day? The US knew that Japan had asked for a "bomb plot"... a grid work map of Pearl Harbor but never told the people at Pearl Harbor about this. How bad a day was that compared with the day they made use of that bombing grid? How about the shipping reports that were in the newspapers ... do you really think everyone was ignorant of the fact that the Japanese merchant vessels were all marching across the Pacific to the safety of the home waters so that no Japanese vessels would be interned for the duration in neutral ports? It was a profitable day in New York but no one notified the US Navy in Pearl Harbor about it. Alot of people wanted a war! Was the day the President ordered that all post offices and courthouses would be sandbagged and guarded by armed troops a bad day because its sole purpose was to whip America into a war fever? Was that a worse day than the day the actual attack came? What about the day Sargent York was released to American movie theaters? Was it a bad day to have Hollywood want America in the war in Europe so bad that Hollywood was simply a propaganda machine for war?
Now of course September 11th was far worse than December 7th... in the same way.
The war -should- have ended at Antietam, or at least been in the latter, southern defensive stages after it, but the Union failed to push it's massive advantage forward.
I haven't voted.... not sure I can really state what's "worst" for the USA not living there. All three options are big, but I'd lean toward 9/11.
Quote: AZDuffmanI understand completely. I just realized I should have put the stock market crash of 1929 in there. I guess I was just thinking body count.
The body count over three days at Gettysburg, and a single day at Antietam was higher than 9/11. Certainly the wounded were much higher. The body count when the Hurricane hit Galveston nearly a century ago was also much higher for a single day.
But, the civil war was a prolonged war in a time when most people died of wounds or starvation. It clearly is the worst period in the history of the USA, probably with the Spanish flu and WWII a close second.
But warfare will create significant battles where large numbers of people will die in the course of a few days. It is one thing to go through the war, and pick out the worst battles. I think it is significantly "worse" to not know you are at war, and have all your casualties be civilians.
No idea about Antietam. I'd imagine higher as the fighting took place in the town.
One could easily write a book in answer to this question. I'm just suggesting that it is worth considering.
Edit: We sure as shit could have used saving us the extra trillion.
Quote: WizardOne could easily write a book in answer to this question. I'm just suggesting that it is worth considering.
One book? :)
It's one of the most popular topics in Alternate History fiction. Harry Turtledove alone wrote 10 books in a series about it, stretching from the "Second Mexican War" in the 1880s or thereabouts, to a Great War between the CSA, France and England on one side vs the USA, Germany and Austro-Hungary on the other, to the interwar period, to the equivalent of WWII with very similar alliances; in the last part there's a holocaust of the black population in the CSA.
That's just one author, there are many others.
The second most popular topics is "what if the Nazis had won WWII?" I haven't read any of those, though. There was a movie done on one called "Fatherland," and it was the theme for a movie involving time travel and a stealth "fighter."
Anwyay, Turtledove posits that slavery would have neded due to pressure by France and England, the CSA's allies, around the 1880s, but that black people would remain a permanent underclass, never even gaining citizenship in their own country.
Quote: WizardA bit off topic, and I'll separate the threads if necessary, but may I submit the radical opinion that the cost of the Civil War was not worth unifying the nation over. Would it be the end of the world if the Confederate States of America were given independence without a fight? It wouldn't surprise me if the two countries unified again later anyway. You might argue about the cruelty of slavery, but I think the south would have ended it within a few decades anyway, as did the rest of the world.
One could easily write a book in answer to this question. I'm just suggesting that it is worth considering.
The cassus belli of the civil war was slavery, but the real cause was establishing whether a state had a right to cede from the Union, or if the Federal government could preserve the Union against states ceding (someone else puts it better than me).
From my position in 21st century, the South was morally wrong to continue to fight for the continuation of slavery, politically, but the right of each state to self determine and cede if they so decide seems to me (at least) something that was worth arguing about politically if not on the battlefields. The slavery issue cost the CSA their natural allies in Britain and France (who both would have been happy to see a limitation in power of the USA). After Antietam, Lincoln could safely issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and the war WAS about slavery, at least to the outside world.
I think if the North had allowed the CSA to exist, it would have dissolved again in the 40-50 years after 1861, as various states would have ceded either back to the North, or on their own (Texas, possibly). However, the ability of the individual state to have primacy over the Union on more matters might have well led to a much more unstable Union as a whole.
Quote: WizardA bit off topic, and I'll separate the threads if necessary, but may I submit the radical opinion that the cost of the Civil War was not worth unifying the nation over. Would it be the end of the world if the Confederate States of America were given independence without a fight? It wouldn't surprise me if the two countries unified again later anyway. You might argue about the cruelty of slavery, but I think the south would have ended it within a few decades anyway, as did the rest of the world.
One could easily write a book in answer to this question. I'm just suggesting that it is worth considering.
A tough question. We need to look at a few ways. But in the end I say if we divided we would never have reunified.
First, consider slavery. I propose that slavery was in its last generation and would have died out by 1900 at the latest. Oil was disovered in 1859 and the internal combustion engine came about by 1886 or so. Electricity was on its way. These would all have lowered the need for slaves. In the north my fellow Irishmen flooded the country, working the factories. Nobody cared if an Irishman starved to death or got sick, there were 10 more to take his place. Slaves, OTOH, must be fed, housed, and most importantly watched. You need to watch them 24/7/365. While slavery was no picnic, it was a poor master who did not give some level of care. Thus at some point it would have been cheaper to mechanize and hire migrants for the seasonal work.
But consider what would have happened if there was a split. The north would have lost the ability to export much of its production via the Mississippi as the south would have had New Orleans. The south would have had no manufacturing. Both sides would be weakened economically.
I doubt reunification would be possible without a collapse of one side or another or a war. Countries that have split have not easily reunified historically.
Quote: NareedOne book? :)...The second most popular topics is "what if the Nazis had won WWII?"
I did not know that, thanks. About the broader question, I tend to subscribe to the anti-chaos theory, that had some significant historical decision or battle gone the other way, eventually life on earth would resume to pretty much the way it is today anyway.
Quote: AZDuffmanI doubt reunification would be possible without a collapse of one side or another or a war. Countries that have split have not easily reunified historically.
One exception here would be Germany....
Quote: pacomartinThe body count when the Hurricane hit Galveston nearly a century ago was also much higher for a single day.
Just for stats(since I'm Texas sensitive ;-)):
On September 8, 1900, a killer hurricane struck the Texas coastal city of Galveston. This hurricane would become the greatest natural disaster, by number of deaths, in United States history: 8,000 by accepted figures, perhaps as many as 12,000. Of that total, 6,000 perished in Galveston alone. The tragedy killed more Americans than any other natural disaster, indeed, more than the legendary Johnstown Flood, the San Francisco Earthquake, the 1938 New England Hurricane and the Great Chicago Fire combined.
Quote: thecesspitOne exception here would be Germany....
The GDR had pretty much collapsed.
Quote: MoscaMay 23rd, 1838.
Cherokee's Trail of Tears?
Quote: WizardI did not know that, thanks. About the broader question, I tend to subscribe to the anti-chaos theory, that had some significant historical decision or battle gone the other way, eventually life on earth would resume to pretty much the way it is today anyway.
The development of monetary economy (as opposed to barter or serfdom) gave much more freedom to control of people than slavery ever did. In a few short years in the late 19th century, Europe was able to divert close to the entire 100m population of Africa to serving their economic ends. A far more effective accomplishment than pulling some 4 million slaves out of the continent over a period of several hundred years.
The Europeans also effectively did the same thing with far more people in Asia.
So, I agree that it is difficult to see the Confederacy still practicing chattel slavery by the end of the 19th century, if they were allowed to peacefully form their own country. World opinion was too much against the practice of slavery.
But many people in the North felt that leaving the Union was a treasonous act of it's own accord.
Quote: WizardI did not know that, thanks. About the broader question, I tend to subscribe to the anti-chaos theory, that had some significant historical decision or battle gone the other way, eventually life on earth would resume to pretty much the way it is today anyway.
Well, if you do take an interest, I recommend staying away from Turtledove. He tends to replay actual history merely changing the location. Sure, it's creepy to see Woodrow Wilson decalring war agsint the USA, and later reading that he's running for reelection mid-war against Doroteo Arango (extra points to whoever identifies Arango by his better known alias, no web searching), but the rest gets old fast.
Some writers take a different tack. I don't recall the author, but there's a book called "Stars and Stripes Forever," where the CSA makes common cause with the Union, in the middle of the USCW, against England (long story). In another book "The Guns of the South," Turtledove has time travelers supply the CSA with Ak-47s. But that's considered bad form in the AH community.
Anyway, I'll post on AH elsewhere. I've yet to mention the late, great H. Beam Piper.
Quote: AyecarumbaCherokee's Trail of Tears?
IMO it was when the country first actively turned its back on its own ideals.
down 500, all the profit for the year gone, the
Schmuck in the White House is still there sitting
on his hands doing nothing. At least congress
can do nothing to make it worse in the next
year and a half, like pass another bill to bankrupt
us.
Quote: NareedIn another book "The Guns of the South," Turtledove has time travelers supply the CSA with Ak-47s.
That was also the plot in A Rebel in Time, although not necessarily that model of machine gun. Darn good book.
Quote: EvenBob...the Schmuck in the White House...
How about making that a separate post in the FSZ.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt's coming up on 10 years. While among the worst, I do think other days were worse than 9-11-2001. What do you people on the board think was thbe worst dayh in USA History?
October 29, 1929. Black Tuesday started an unbelievably awful period in our history.
Quote: zippyboyNareed: how is it that a Mexican has so much interest in American history?
<shrug> I don't know as much as I'd like.
Quote:Do you also post in Mexican forums?
Hell, no.
That's easy!
On August 24, 1814, a British force occupied Washington, D.C. and set fire to many public buildings following the American defeat at the Battle of Bladensburg.
The facilities of the U.S. government, including the White House and U.S. Capitol, were largely destroyed.
This has been the only time since the Revolutionary War that a foreign power has captured and occupied the United States capitol.
Quote: Wizard
How about making that a separate post in the FSZ.
Nope. I don't want to waste one minute talking
or thinking about the useless SOB. I'm way too
pissed off.
Quote: FleaStiffH'mmm.... suppose I were to vote for December 7th 1941. Was that a bad day? Alot of men had bad days on punishment detail and had to keep the officer's club lawn neatly tended. Was it bad for them to see that lawn entirely red with blood? Alot of men spent punishment details washing out garbage cans at Hickam Field's base hospital. Those were bad days for them. On December 7th, eighty-seven garbage cans were filled with severed limbs.
What about the day the President moved the fleet out of San Diego and stationed it at Pearl Harbor which at the time was classified as a hardship post because the sailors had to sleep on the ships, not barracks or off-base housing. Was that a bad day? When the Admiral involved protested that the fleet would be unprotected and that Japan would consider it provocative, the President relieved the Admiral of command. Was that a bad day just because FDR wanted America to get involved in a European war? What about the day it was decided to not route the intercept station's data to the Fleet Intelligence Officer at Pearl Harbor? Was that a bad day? The US knew that Japan had asked for a "bomb plot"... a grid work map of Pearl Harbor but never told the people at Pearl Harbor about this. How bad a day was that compared with the day they made use of that bombing grid? How about the shipping reports that were in the newspapers ... do you really think everyone was ignorant of the fact that the Japanese merchant vessels were all marching across the Pacific to the safety of the home waters so that no Japanese vessels would be interned for the duration in neutral ports? It was a profitable day in New York but no one notified the US Navy in Pearl Harbor about it. Alot of people wanted a war! Was the day the President ordered that all post offices and courthouses would be sandbagged and guarded by armed troops a bad day because its sole purpose was to whip America into a war fever? Was that a worse day than the day the actual attack came? What about the day Sargent York was released to American movie theaters? Was it a bad day to have Hollywood want America in the war in Europe so bad that Hollywood was simply a propaganda machine for war?
Now of course September 11th was far worse than December 7th... in the same way.
Hey bro, your tin foil hat is showing....just sayin!
Quote: vert1276Hey bro, your tin foil hat is showing....just sayin!
So, how about if I said December 21, 2012? ;) (Wiz, you need some smileys on this forum)
Quote: matildaAug. 6 and 9, 1945
Good call.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe GDR had pretty much collapsed.
Still, two country reunified into one...
Here's another one for you : North and South Vietnam.
I'd also not be surprised to see an eventual reunification of Moldova and Rumania.
China has also been split and recombined several times in it's history. It's the sort of thing that does happen, and the hard part will depend on the reason for the split in the first place (cultural/ethnic or political).
Quote: AZDuffmanI understand completely. I just realized I should have put the stock market crash of 1929 in there. I guess I was just thinking body count.
how about the stock market crash of August 4th 2011?
Quote: odiousgambithow about the stock market crash of August 4th 2011?
It may be worse today, looking at what is already happening in world markets.
Quote: timberjimIt may be worse today, looking at what is already happening in world markets.
You mean future archeologists will be trying to figure out how a civilization could bankrupt itself.
Quote: WizardThat was also the plot in A Rebel in Time, although not necessarily that model of machine gun. Darn good book.
I've heard about it.
There's a split in the AH fandom. Some like the time travel stories, others deride them as gimmick-based stories.
Take Robert Silverberg's Roma Eterna series. The basic premise is that the Egyptians never let their Jewish slaves free and the latter never returned to Israel. This means Jesus does not set Christianity in motion, and this allows the Roman Empire to exist indefinitely, rather than to decay and fall.
Fair enough.But what happens next is mostly a mirror-image view of history, with events like the Renaissance, the Terror era of the French Revolution, and such things taking place within the context of a Roman-dominated Europe. Not all of it. There's an interesting part where the Greek half of the Empire rises to dominate the Latin half, then things turn around. And when Roman sailors discover a new continent, the results are a disaster for Rome.
But one speculation among historians is that the Dark Ages set back human progress for centuries. This period came about partly due to Catholic ideology and theology being dominant, but also as a result of the fall or Rome. So what if Rome had not fallen and the Dark Ages had been averted? Would we have a more advanced society and technology by now? Silverberg, who also writes science fiction and so should know better, isn't interested in that.
* The default that wasn't. If we stopped mailing out Social Security checks, etc. because some idjits in Washington refused to do what they did 89 times before, that would have been a really bad day with unknown consequences. We're not out of the woods yet.
* The day some nervous nellie at TSA (if it was established then) decreed that all American air travelers would take off their shoes to go through security. Richard Reid, you can kiss my... sock-clad feet.
* The day the U.S. went off the gold standard. This would be Steve Forbes' pick, but I'm less certain it would have made a difference. I still have a chance to be wrong about this.
* The day we bailed out our biggest banks with limited consequences for them. They'd still rather gamble in the casinos of Wall Street than take a chance on the guys on Main Street.
* The day Reagan fired those air traffic controllers. It's been open season on unions ever since, and they haven't done very well. Coincidentally, or not, the rich have gotten richer and everyone else has suffered (relatively speaking).
Other bad days I couldn't put into a single day include the start of the Civil War (if it hadn't been Ft. Sumter, it would have been something else), the Dust Bowl, and the real estate crash.
Authors Terry Hunt and Carl Lipo place the lion's share of the blame at the feet (claws?) of the Polynesian rat, which feed on tree seeds and sprouts, preventing new tree growth.
Here's the link, though WSJ's links don't always fly: book review
Talk about going off on a tangent....
Quote: MoscaIMO it was when the country first actively turned its back on its own ideals.
I think February 19, 1942 also falls in the same category. More than 200,000 innocent Americans imprisoned by their own government.
We, as a people, need leaders who will do the right thing even if it is not popular, nor personally profitable.
Now of course Italians and Germans on either coast were not interned.
Quote: FleaStiffSorry but you have to whip up the people into a fever to win a war and that means "the yellow peril" and "the dirty Japs" (Court Martial offense to say Japanese in the Pacific theater). Stories of fifth columns and truck farms underneath the power lines were needed. Evidence was not needed. Some of those "Japanese" who were interned were white girls of anglo saxon heritage who had been adopted. And one white woman who boarded the bus taking Japanese diplomats to be repatriated shortly after Pearl Harbor had to be escorted by an extra set of marines for her own protection from crowds of jeering Americans.
Now of course Italians and Germans on either coast were not interned.
Erm, Germans were interned during WW2.
It wasn't a wholesale internment of every German citizen, but it did happen.
