Was the American Civil War actually a civil war?

[maxama10]

"On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 p.m., April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War. Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely when firing a salute during the evacuation."

from http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftsumter.htm


definately a war of Southern Aggression

thats what i thought....

[maxama10]

so what do u have aginst Ga, and a teacher who calls it the War of Northern agression is a very special person, last year in hist my teach always made fun of people who called it that.

see you wouldnt understand cause you obviously are a southerner and well im not
born in Wyoming and raised in ID WY and NJ


dont take it personally, theres multiple reasons for me not liking Ga;then again it could just be where i live ppl are really stuck up

[Eagle]

what happened in the 'revolutionary war'? the colonies, part of england at the time, revolted and tried to leave england's control.

Well, my understanding that in Britain they call it the American Rebelion.

As for the question of him moving to Gettysburg, I've never heard of that, I doubt it.

But as bleachit's post shows, the south started the war, not the north. Just the opinion of someone who's lived most of his life in the 'Capital of the Confederacy'

[Jakedubbleya]

As far as the Union was concerned, the south was still part of the Union, there secession from the Union illegal because they did so on their own without the approval of Congress. So by the victors standards, yes, it was a civil war.

Exactly.

If the south had won, MAABY you could say it wasnt a civil war.

[Jakedubbleya]

"On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 p.m., April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War. Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely when firing a salute during the evacuation."

from http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftsumter.htm


Definately a war of Southern Aggression

I think, that when you hear "war of northern agression" people are talking about the politics between the north and the south before the war.

I admit that yes,the north was a little harsh on the south, but not to that degree, both sides were at fault. Thats just your bountiful ignorant southern pride talking. Southerners are STILL really sore about that war, i mean, how many more civil war re enactments do you see in the south compared to the north?

[Lohman446]

Exactly.

If the south had won, MAABY you could say it wasnt a civil war.

I understand that "the victor shall write history". But doesn't the motiviation of the south make this less than a civil war? A question in today's world, if Taiwan (sp) and China start shooting, is it a civil war?

[Jakedubbleya]

I understand that "the victor shall write history". But doesn't the motiviation of the south make this less than a civil war? A question in today's world, if Taiwan (sp) and China start shooting, is it a civil war?

That is a more complicated question, seeing as taiwan has always resisted chinese influence it is more a war of indipendance.

The south on the other hand wished to save face and save their economy. Indipendence was just a bonus. Before the war, the south merely petitioned for more controll in congress and fairer trade laws. These issues were not resolved, thus war broke out.

[Lohman446]

That is a more complicated question, seeing as taiwan has always resisted chinese influence it is more a war of indipendance.

The south on the other hand wished to save face and save their economy. Indipendence was just a bonus. Before the war, the south merely petitioned for more controll in congress and fairer trade laws. These issues were not resolved, thus war broke out.

But can these not be likened to Taiwan's attempts to gain more "independence" from the mainland? The idea of leaving hte union was not an overnight thing in the south's mind, it can be noted that it was brought up several times before it actually happened. Do you think, had the south gotten these concessions in congress that it would have stopped it, or just postponed it? I would say that a cultural divide was there, that only war could bridge in the end.

[Jakedubbleya]

True, but the largest reason there was such a gap is because of the norths refusal to grant equality to the south. Had that equality been granted, the south could very well gone on its happy way.

And had the south won, i think it evident that wars would have continued between the north and south through the end of the 19th century and into the 20th, clarifying it as a civil war.

Of course that is just speculation. But knowing the souths tactics, and motives. And knowing the legalities of the whole ordeal and the outcome. This most definitely was a civil war.

How much of an effect would taiwans recession have on china? If the south suceeded, it would have broken america and left the road clear for axis victories in WW1 or WW2.

[TheTramp]

But can these not be likened to Taiwan's attempts to gain more "independence" from the mainland? .

You really can't compare the two. Taiwan effectivly was a seperate country for more than 40 years due ot it's occupation by the British. It never took part in the revolution etc. I'm not debating China's rights (or not) to Taiwan but it's really a completely different situation than here with the north and south of one country right before the war.

[PyRo]

It's arguable weather the American Revolution was a civil war or not because of the status of the colonies. The question is were the colonies possetions of the British, or part of Briton itself.

n/m i'm not even going to try explaining this.

[PyRo]

Um , yes. But consider that the Southern States voted to remove themselves from the Union whos goal was to take that right from the States power. As they had made the decision to no longer be a part of that Union, then what was legal or illegal within that Union had no jurisdiction within that seperate state. The Union basically fought to force those Southern States, the Confederacy, to rejoin the Union. Thus the "War of Northern Aggression".

As stated above though, the wording has more to do with who wrote the history....

P.S. on edit*** I don't want this to turn towards the darker reasons behind the split. The convo was based around the definition of "civil" war. ***

Wow, I thought that ideology died out a hundred years ago. What plan to take power from the states are you referring to? The south was basically scared that their slaves were going to be taken away which actually wasn’t going to happen. You know what though? Welcome to democracy if the majority of the country doesn’t want slaves well then too bad. That’s just ludicrous; you’re telling me you would have no problem if New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona decided to form their own country because they didn’t agree with the patriot act?
I don’t know how to make you understand this but those states were part of the United States and bound by its laws. By leaving the U.S. they broke those laws which they were bound by.
All that the North did was put down a rebellion.

[MarkM]

Well, my understanding that in Britain they call it the American Rebelion.

As for the question of him moving to Gettysburg, I've never heard of that, I doubt it.

But as bleachit's post shows, the south started the war, not the north. Just the opinion of someone who's lived most of his life in the 'Capital of the Confederacy'

All I have ever called it was the War of Independence but then maybe I have watched too many american films

We had other rebellions within the Empire such as the Boxer revolution in China and the non agression rebellion in India...plus we also had the Boer war (South Africa) which began as a rebellion and quickly grew in size...incidently in that war we introduced Concentration Camps for the housing of the farmers familys, but even then that model was a copy of a previous war of attrition we had fought, I honestly forget who we copied, but the modern Concentration Camp if such a thing deserves such a title was really an english thing not a nazi invention the main difference was we didn't use those camps to kill people we just badly managed them and so deaths occurred.
Even the slavery issue that the American Civil war was alledged to have been fought over (I say alledged as it was this but a few other things as well) is a strange point as within Great Britain the main agitator for the slaves freedom was a man whose fortune was based on slave workers, hell if you want to be that picky the complier of the Declaration of Independence Ben Franklin was a card carrying slave owner and Franklin wrote the line about equality
History will always show something from a different perspective and often from the victors point of view but internal politics and the way things were done at the time often colour how something is now perceived. You have to remember that when you win a war/rebellion etc there is no such thing as war crimes but the losers well they were dirty dogs who were doing all kinds of things....the things the British did in Cyprus was way out of order but nothing came of it because we won.
This doesn't excuse the Holocaust as that was out of line (can't think of a better thing to call it) but the allies did some downright wrong things but nothing ever came of it...sure now we have the soldiers in the Gulf getting caught on camera (english and american) and all that stuff but does anyone really think that these actions are a modern thing? It is simply that we live in a media led society. Had the Civil War been covered with todays media attention can you really imagine the spin that both sides would put on it?

[hitech]

what happened in the 'revolutionary war'? the colonies, part of england at the time, revolted and tried to leave england's control.

what happened in the 'civil war'? the confederacy, part of the union at the time, revolted and tried to leave the union's control.


what's the difference?

England was a country BEFORE the colonies existed.

[hitech]

It is a civil war because the major combatants were all part of the same county prior to the start of the conflict. One of the groups in conflict did not join the other. They "all" became a country at approximately the same time.