Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
The American Revolution didn't seek to overthrow the British government, it sought to remove imperial supervision from the existing colonial governments. So the fact alone that the Confederates sought a new political entity without overthrowing the federal government in Washington doesn't mean the CW wasn't a Southern Revolution. In fact, the American Revolution was much less disruptive to the British Empire than the CW was to the USA.
In order to defeat the British, and then to govern themselves effectively, the states formed a new nation. The CSA in order to accomplish the same goals did the same. States Rights true believers, like Gov. Brown of Georgia, were an slightly ridiculous hinderance to the CSA war effort.
the idea of secession had already been considered by the North in the Hartford Convention. I don't mean to be foward, but how can the North be againsit or consider the idea of secession illegal when they were the first to formally consider the idea of secession within the country??
But back to the topic of it being a revolution. From a northern perspective the Civil War could be the completion of the American Revolution, though not immedieately, it granted equality (though not the original intention). In today's perspective would that be vaild?? And from the southern perspective it could be considered a revolution in itself replacing a government that did not fit them (the economy, lifestyle, etc.). These are just opinions and ideas that i would like to hear feedback and other opinions on.
__________________ "You can have anything you want - if you want it badly enough. You can be anything you want to be, have anything you desire, accomplish anything you set out to accomplish - if you will hold to that desire with singleness of purpose." -Robert E. Lee
An accepted phrase for generations, it shows that the the South was rebelling against the constituted government.
And rebels have to win to impose their rule of law.
The Confederate States stated that peace was unacceptable without the inclusion of the border states and the U.S. New Mexico territories in the Confederate States of America. It was clearly a threat to conquer territory that had not sided with the Confederacy. The Confederacy had no clear right to U.S. Territory, unless it conquered it by force.
The firing on Fort Sumter and the invasion of the U.S. Territory of New Mexico, in retrospect, meant a long war. The Civil War, by Confederate definition, was both a defensive and offensive war. Many historians seem to ignore the importance of Confederate military offensives in what was a U.S. territory.
I tried to distinguish "revolt" from "rebellion", and really couldn't come up with much of a difference to speak of, so I looked up the terms on dictionary.com and got the following definitions. I posted the first three definitions offered for each term. (Laurn, good topic, and welcome to the board.)
6 results for: rebellion
re·bel·lion–noun 1.open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler. 2.resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition. 3.the act of rebelling.
re·volt1.to break away from or rise against constituted authority, as by open rebellion; cast off allegiance or subjection to those in authority; rebel; mutiny: to revolt against the present government. 2.to turn away in mental rebellion, utter disgust, or abhorrence (usually fol. by from): He revolts from eating meat. 3.to rebel in feeling (usually fol. by against): to revolt against parental authority.
–noun 1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2. Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.
3. a sudden, complete or marked change in something: the present revolution in church architecture.
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Lots of folks are still too hung up over the slave thing. There were even blacks in Virginia who imported slaves, as I've read today in the Hampton, VA paper. Too many Confederates cared not a thing about slavery to make me believe that was the paramount cause of the war. Could John Brown have scared some Southerners into action. Possible.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
I realize the significance of the idea of secession: supposedly legal, and revolution, supposedly illegal.
But to the folks of 1860, the word revolution was a pretty respectable one; after all George Washington was a revolutionary. Howell Cobb, in his famous statement
about if blacks made good soldiers, the whole theory of slavery was wrong, referred to the CW as a revolution.
James McPherson in "Battle Cry" refers to the secessionists of 1860 as "counter revolutionaries" seeking to counter threats to slavery.
Larry
As far as slavery being the "paramount" cause of the war, we've been down that particular trail before.
During the history of Early America, various groups and individuals dabbled with the 'idea' of unilateral secession but their claims and justifications were Always rejected by the Nat'l Gov't and Always resisted, up to and including, military force, if deemed necessary.
the idea of secession had already been considered by the North in the Hartford Convention. I don't mean to be foward, but how can the North be againsit or consider the idea of secession illegal when they were the first to formally consider the idea of secession within the country??
The Hartford Convention didn't formally consider secession. Suggest you see if you can find mention in the records. Then check around to find out who said what. We discussed that years ago, so maybe a search of the forum might save you some trouble.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
The fact that the Southern 'Leadership' regularly shied away from the word 'Revolution' probably says more about their fear of such an example to their slaves than to any particular political theory.
It is true that even the most ardent secessionists rarely used the word before the war, but in their speeches and debates and private letters during the war used the word quite frequently. I noticed that in Dixie Betrayed, by David Eicher, because we'd discussed this before.
We can surely agree that "secession" sounds like a court fight and "revolution" can only mean blood.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
