Was the Civil War a Revolution?

[unionblue]

Larry,

A lot of us are still hung up on the slave thing because there is just too much of a historical paper trail to consider it just a 'thing.'

The government of the United States, the one voted on by all the states in 1860, represented every state whether one wants to admit that or not. To say that the rebellion was done locally and did not attempt to overthrow the central government of the United States it just too much like a bit of modern slight-of-hand, to make us here in the 21st century feel more comfortable with our ancestors blowing it.

The very fact that there was a bit of shooting and a bit of dying over that supposed 'local' withdrawal speaks volumes (and has since there are tens of thousands of books on this very subject) that the country at large, to include those tens of thousands of those US citizens who happened to reside in the South at the time, didn't buy the 'local' theory argument.

Didn't wash then, history. Doesn't wash now, opinon.

Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Neil, I agree most heartedly, to a point. The whole mess exploded like wildfire. A good Congressional committee would have been a better choice than half-a-million armed men and boys for resolving the issue. Slavery included.

[unionblue]

Larry,

Your a good man, a good sport, and you have the gift of common sense.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[gary]

Returning to the question as to whether the Civil War was a revolution, we should look at definitions. A revolution is a successful uprising that changes the government. A rebellion is a failed uprising. If we accept these definitions, then it was a rebellion and not a revolution. It is not altogether surprising that we have the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion.

[OpnDownfall]

Well IF the southern 'uprising' had been successful, would that have changed the gov't of the south?
Logically, if the south had successfully overthrown the authority of the U.S. Gov't and replaced it with the authority of a 'different' gov't, like the CSA, then we would have had a revolution i.e. it would have resulted in a changing of gov'ts.

[subace914]

Originally Posted by LAURN

Hello
I'm new to the site. One idea that i've been debating with myself is weather or not the Civil war was or could be considered a revolution. Also, weather deveopments during reconstruction were radical and/or revolutionary. I don't know, i can see it either way and I need some one to convince me.

IMO, it was most certainly a revolution. The Southern States were rebelling against the authority of the federal government.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by subace914

IMO, it was most certainly a revolution. The Southern States were rebelling against the authority of the federal government.

Historians define a revolution when a complete sweeping change in government has taken place. This did not occur as the 11 seceding states remained in the union when the war ended. If the South had won the war and the Confederacy became a new nation then indeed a revolution would have occurred. It was an attempted revolution that failed. It was as others have said a rebellion. Revolutions, including the American, French, and Russian, had complete changes in government.

[General Stuart]

There is no doubt in my mind that the Civil War was in fact a revolution, especially inso far as it was a war for independence. The two can easily be combined.

I have seen several peoples' definitions of the term "revolution." All of these that I've seen contain the typical "overthrowal of government" or "revolving of the social order" defs. Please consider that a revolution is also named thus because of its unorthodox effects upon society. A Thought can be just as revolutionary as an Act. This is why our war for independence is rightly called a revolution, because of its revolutionary effects upon mankind and governments all over the globe, not necessarily because a revolving of the social order occurred.

Now, I'm not saying that the Civil War was a revolution because of its profound revolutionary effects upon society. In this situation, the Civil War was a revolution merely because of the fact, as several people stated earlier, that the South was defying "the establishment" If we were discussing teenagers here, I think we'd all agree that we could correctly call kids with this attitude "rebels."

[samgrant]

OK.

Can't recall just now, but...

Somewhere I read that the secession/CW etc. could be considered a "Counter-Revolution"; in that the Southern leaders believed that the Northerners/Black-Republicans, etc. had in fact subverted the true government, and they were attempting to restore the nation to it's true and proper condition as the 'founders' had meant it to be. (Or something to that effect.)

[gary]

Originally Posted by General Stuart

Now, I'm not saying that the Civil War was a revolution because of its profound revolutionary effects upon society. In this situation, the Civil War was a revolution merely because of the fact, as several people stated earlier, that the South was defying "the establishment" If we were discussing teenagers here, I think we'd all agree that we could correctly call kids with this attitude "rebels."

So, folks engaged in a rebellion are rebels and folks engaged in a revolution are revolting? Sorry, I couldn't resist. Paz!