Was the Civil War a Revolution?

[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.

[ole]

Welcome Laurn. First you have to convince yourself whether or not secession was legal. If secession was legal, it was not a revolution. If secession was not legal, it was a revolution. Confederate leaders before secession maintained that they had every right to secede. During the war, many referred to it as a revolution. Maybe they thought it was a legal revolution?

Was reconstruction radical and/or revolutionary? Compared to what? Americans had no experience with reconstruction. (Did anyone in the world?) It could be nothing but radical and revolutionary. I probably missed your point.

Good to have your views; keep postin'.
Ole

[samgrant]

Civil War a a revolution:

Those proponents of secession, whether or not they anticipated that big war, did not consider their cause as a revolution, but rather a a return to the principles of the original revolution. In that the North had violated the principles that the "Founding Fathers" had set down.

Strictly speaking, a revolution involves an overthrow of one government and a replacement by another, so technically it would not qualify.

Reconstruction as 'radical'? I'm sure the Southerners regarded it as such.

Whether 'revolutionary', in some respects it was and in others it as not. The problem with this question perhaps lies in the the strict vs. wide interpretation of those terms 'radical', 'revolution', especially whether in the context of those times or as we currently define them.


Help!

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by ole

If secession was not legal, it was a revolution.
Ole

I always thought that revolution required the overthrow and removal from power of some governing body? The American Civil War certainly wasn't about that, just a separation from the group by some members (states) to improve conditions politically and financially. I don't think it really mattered if it was legal once the ruckus commenced. Had to be legal; it went to a vote of the people seceeding, state by state. The state by state part was the legal question that I believe Ole is referring to. States Rights advocates considered that well and proper, strict Unionists obviously didn't. Hence, a war.

[Will Posey]

Southerners, and many Northerners, saw themselves as citizens of their respective states, not citizens of the United States. So, at least in the South, most people did not see secession as overthrowing their government ("their" government was the state government), much as we today would not consider U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations as a revolution.

Yes, I realize there are differences, but the Southern concept of weak central government included primary allegience to one's state government, with the Union being a compact of convenience among several governments. So, it naturally followed that one would be able to withdraw from that compact when it became inconvenient to continue in it.

That strong state's rights sentiment hindered the Confederacy throughout the war era.

So, what the Southern states actually did by declaring separation may have been neither secession (legal withdrawal) nor revolution (overthrow of government). Whatever you call what the Southerners did, the Union's reaction to the initial separation actions led to havoc in this land.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by Will Posey

That strong state's rights sentiment hindered the Confederacy throughout the war era.

So, what the Southern states actually did by declaring separation may have been neither secession (legal withdrawal) nor revolution (overthrow of government). Whatever you call what the Southerners did, the Union's reaction to the initial separation actions led to havoc in this land.

I suspect the "strong state's rights sentiment" also gave the Confederate effort more strength during the conflict. Was that a help to ending the war? I think not. I believe your prior post is well on the mark.

[OpnDownfall]

To resist and overthrow the 'Authority' of a gov't, is to 'overthrow' (defeat) the gov't whose authority was resisted. In those areas' where that resistence was successful (i.e., the resisted gov't is rendered incapable or unwilling to reassert its authority) that gov't no longer exists, it and its authority has been eliminated (destroyed).
Revolutions are Always illegal, unless successfully 'imposed' by reality.
In the American War for Independence the American's and British considered the war a revolution, even though the Americans did not, nor wanted to overthrow the gov't of Great Britain, only it's authority to govern in North America. Both countries considered that a 'Revolution'.
The south were provinces in revolt, trying to eliminate the authority of its' old government and replace it with another government of its own choosing, whether the original gov't agreed or not. Sad to say, but the Confederate States of America was a nascent Revolutionary State.

[larry_cockerham]

I believe your last response was too simplified. The Confederate states who seceded weren't trying to conquer or change the government in the unseceded states. Hence no overthrow, just a separation locally. They didn't in their opinion need the northern legislators to conduct their future business. Remember that many of the seceded states were still comprised of counties who were totally in the column of Union support. This was merely civil war. Nothing less nor more.

[ole]

'Fraid I'm gonna hafta go with OD's masterful post, Larry. It is true that the secesh only wanted out and had no intention of destroying anything. However, it remains that a government that cannot maintain its authority is effectively not a government.

[OpnDownfall]

Larry, my point was simplified, but your example was answered in my comparison with the American Revolution and what was to be accomplished by it i.e. eliminate the authority of the British Gov't to govern it's N. American Colonies and to replace the eliminated authority with the authority of a gov't of their own choosing.
Both sides considered that Revolution, the south was attempting the same thing, the justification for eliminating the governmental authority may have been different (Freedom vs Slavery) but the 'intent' of both actions were the same.
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.