If the South actually did technically secede and became its own country, then was this really a civil war?  Wouldn't it just be a war between two countries?  I presume the North never recognized the South seceding; thus, it would have actually been a technical civil war between men of the same country.  But from the Southern perspective, when they refer to the Civil War as being the War of Northern Aggression, does that mean they assumed they were truly no longer part of the country and that this was actually not a civil war but instead just a war between two separate countries?

 

 

I'll give you a topic - the chickpea. It is neither a chick, nor a pea. Discuss.

 

^ Thanks for that. I've been giggling maniacally for the last 5 minutes.

 

Talk amongst yourselves...I'm all verklempt.

I'll bite... You have a point, since we think of the US starting in 1776, rather than after we'd won.  I guess it's one of those retroactive, winners write history situations.  If the rebels win, it was a revolution and if they don't it was a civil war.  So to answer the title question, yes it was a civil war.

But from the Southern perspective, when they refer to the Civil War as being the War of Northern Aggression, does that mean they assumed they were truly no longer part of the country and that this was actually not a civil war but instead just a war between two separate countries?

 

Yes, that is the Southern perspective.

 

No one under 40 calls it the War of Northern Agression anymore, but yes, Southerners consider the CSA to have been a different country, thus it was not a true civil war.

Southerners called it "The War between the States" at that time in history..

 

Northerners viewed it as "Preserving the Union"

I'll bite... You have a point, since we think of the US starting in 1776, rather than after we'd won. I guess it's one of those retroactive, winners write history situations. If the rebels win, it was a revolution and if they don't it was a civil war. So to answer the title question, yes it was a civil war.

 

Yes - winners write history and get to call it what they want.

I'll give you a topic - the chickpea. It is neither a chick, nor a pea. Discuss.

 

 

Man you're making me want "cawfee" now.....

 

Who cares what those country fried hicks think anyway!

:roll:

I prefer to think of the Civil War as the failure of the Constitutional system.  We sort of revere the Constitution, but the system of government it set up ultimatelty failed to accomodate political differences, leading to war and the maintenance of the Union by force of arms and susbequent failed military occupation of the South. 

 

So the US had two failed systems of government: The Articles of Confederation and the Constituion.

 

 

 

 

I think of it as a Civil War because to the best of my knowledge, the Constitution does not provide for the legal dissolution of the Union. The United States, whether we like it or not, is a PERMANENT UNION and it can not be broken. People in the South were US Citizens who took up arms against the Government of the United States and its citizens in the North whom wished to maintain the Union. When you take the oath of office, don't you promise to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from ALL enemies, whether they are Foreign or domestic? And on a personal note, MY Family fought for the winning side!!! LOL  :wink:

I've contemplated this question for a few hours, and come to the realization that "Civil War" is an oxymoron. War is not civil. :-P

I've contemplated this question for a few hours, and come to the realization that "Civil War" is an oxymoron. War is not civil. :-P

 

Which side did you fight on?

 

*Runs*

 

I never knew there was a debate about whether or not it was a civil war. You learn something new every day.

"Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque

and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin

a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law

impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

 

It seems the very act of forming a confederation also went against the constitution. Therefore, the Northern States were simply upholding the constitution.