Remundamom, regarding the 'civil war'

[Tracey in TX]

No more revisionist history. I am from the South. It was not a civil war.

I'm interested in your perspective on the 1860-1865 timeframe. I've told my children that it was a states' rights issue (slavery being a primary issue), which rapidly propelled itself into a civil war. States rights vs. Federal governing, I suppose.

What is your philosophy on the US civil war, revised? :P

[GothicGyrl]

I saw that too, and am interested in hearing what she has to say. I was always taught it was a slavery issue as well... And, just to educate me--what does "revisionist history" mean? And why wasn't it a civil war?

[Tarheel Heather]

No more revisionist history. I am from the South. It was not a civil war.

I'm interested in your perspective on the 1860-1865 timeframe. I've told my children that it was a states' rights issue (slavery being a primary issue), which rapidly propelled itself into a civil war. States rights vs. Federal governing, I suppose.

What is your philosophy on the US civil war, revised? :P


Mine too. Kinda funny my parents were Civil War renactors for ~12 years and have tons of books and assorted resources.

[kaylk in tx]

a civil war (to me) is when 2 factions are fighting for control of one country. in our "civil war", the south wanted to withdraw and form their own country, similar to what former parts of the soviet union have done in the past 20 years. they weren't trying to force the northern states to adopt the customs/laws of the south. does that make sense? (and i don't mean to imply by any means that i in any way approve of the institution of slavery, ok?) the war between the states (as it is still referred to here in the south) resulted in a very strong central government as opposed to the looser confederated model that had existed before then.

[Danestress]

the war between the states (as it is still referred to here in the south) resulted in a very strong central government as opposed to the looser confederated model that had existed before then.


I thought we were supposed to call it "The War of Northern Aggression." :)

[kaylk in tx]

shhhhh! we don't want the yankees to know what we really call it! :p

[Tracey in TX]

ROFL My dad is a first generation yankee, and I KNOW our ancestors are rolling in their graves! They were here before the Mayflower, mostly south of the later-known Mason-Dixon Line.

War of Northern Aggression. Sheesh, y'all are hardcore :P This could become a really humorous thread! Buckle in, ladies and gentlemen, you're in for a bumpy ride... :)

[Colleen]

a civil war (to me) is when 2 factions are fighting for control of one country

But that's not the actual definition. A civil war is simply a war between opposing groups within the same country. Thus, the term "civil war" in reference to this particular conflict is apropos. Btw, I lived in the south for years and knew many Southerners who referred to it as the Civil War.

[kaylk in tx]

thereby forming their own country and setting up their own government. so it really was 2 countries fighting, not one.

a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country (definition of civil war from online merriam-webster)

the north declared that once the states had joined the united states in the first place, they could NOT withdraw... even though the constitution is silent on that point. now imagine the outcry if the soviet union had gone to war against its former republics with the aim of not allowing them their independence. :o

kay
5th generation texan, absorbing texas history through osmosis since birth (if that's hardcore enough for ya Tracie ;))

[Old Dominion Heather]

If the did, then the term "Civil War" is not accurate because they were two countries fighting each other.

In the North, it was believed that the southern states could not withdraw... if the could not withdraw, then they were still part of the USA, hence it was a "civil war".

The North won, so they get to pick the name.;)

Edit: BTW, I don't mean to imply that any of you all don't know this... I'm just adding information. I didn't mean to post it under Colleen.

[melissel]

Oooooooh... http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/basic/popcorn.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

ETA: Oops! Durn it, this was also for the general thread, not for Colleen's post.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

[QUOTE=kaylk in tx;65222]thereby forming their own country and setting up their own government. so it really was 2 countries fighting, not one.

a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country (definition of civil war from online merriam-webster)

the north declared that once the states had joined the united states in the first place, they could NOT withdraw... even though the constitution is silent on that point. now imagine the outcry if the soviet union had gone to war against its former republics with the aim of not allowing them their independence. :o

QUOTE]

What about Chechenia, Dagestan, Northern Ossetia or Ingushettia? There are several sections of the Russian Federation that would like to be independent that have been prevented by force.
Calling the US war a civil war or not probably depends on your opinion of the legality of the secession. If you consider that to have been unlawful, then you are correct in labeling it a civil war.
In the same way, the conflicts revolving around the breakup of Yugoslavia are variously called civil war or wars for independence depending on if you are talking to a Serb or a Slovenian.

[Ellie]

I thought we were supposed to call it "The War of Northern Aggression." :)

That's what I have learned to call it :-)

A friend of mine, when asked about the "Civil War," will say, "Oh, did you mean the one in England? Because there has never been civil war here."

I grew up in the South in the 50s, when it was still being "reconstructed." There were many things about the War of Northern Agression that we did not learn.:(