Was it really a "civil war"?

[JoeHenry]

This here is my first post. Seeing as how the Southern States succeded from the USA and formed the CSA werent they a sovereign country? My understanding of a civil war,and please correct me if Im wrong how els would I learn,is a country fighting itself.Civilians wanting to take over thair government might be an example.I know the CSA was never reconized by anybody.But would they have needed that to be a country.The CSA had a government,thair own money and constituion.And I thought it was legall to succed.I had the understanding when the country was formed the states where asked to join the USA.If they didnt like being part of the USA they could leave the union. If the CSA was a sovereign country then the USA invaded for no reson and took back the south by force.
The USA has ocupyed other country beat in war but never took them over.Just hoping see other opinions.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Ask the good citizens of Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, northwestern Virginia, Maryland, eastern Tennessee, northern Alabama and Georgia, western North Carolina, and Florida if it was a "civil war" or not. You're likely to get a very different response than asking South Carolinians.

 

[JoeHenry]

Ask the good citizens of Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, northwestern Virginia, Maryland, eastern Tennessee, northern Alabama and Georgia, western North Carolina, and Florida if it was a "civil war" or not. You're likely to get a very different response than asking South Carolinians.

Why?

 

[CSA Today]

Ask the good citizens of Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, northwestern Virginia, Maryland, eastern Tennessee, northern Alabama and Georgia, western North Carolina, and Florida if it was a "civil war" or not. You're likely to get a very different response than asking South Carolinians.

I don't think I've ever seen the American Revolution referred to as a civil war, but by your reasoning it was far closer to that than the War for Southern Independence.

"The aggressor in a war is not the first to use force but the first to make force necessary."

Alexander Stephens

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

That's a fair question. I think the Revolution and the Civil War were very similar, with the primary difference being that one was successful in creating a new country and government and one was not. (The Revolution is a bit misnamed... it was certainly a different kind of war from the French Revolution or the Russian revolutions...)

 

[rpkennedy]

This here is my first post. Seeing as how the Southern States succeded from the USA and formed the CSA werent they a sovereign country? My understanding of a civil war,and please correct me if Im wrong how els would I learn,is a country fighting itself.Civilians wanting to take over thair government might be an example.I know the CSA was never reconized by anybody.But would they have needed that to be a country.The CSA had a government,thair own money and constituion.And I thought it was legall to succed.I had the understanding when the country was formed the states where asked to join the USA.If they didnt like being part of the USA they could leave the union. If the CSA was a sovereign country then the USA invaded for no reson and took back the south by force.
The USA has ocupyed other country beat in war but never took them over.Just hoping see other opinions.

The Federal government argued that since unilateral secession was illegal, the Confederacy was simply a group of states in rebellion, not a sovereign nation. And unilateral secession was not legal.

R

 

[James B White]

Why?

Lots of unionists in those areas.

The problem is that you're treating things as simple and settled, which were in fact unsettled, hotly debated and the very heart of the conflict--whether the CSA was a country, whether states had the right to secede, whether the USA had the right to bring the states back by force, etc.

 

[cash]

This here is my first post.

Welcome to the forum.

Seeing as how the Southern States succeded from the USA and formed the CSA werent they a sovereign country?

H**l, no. Unilateral secession was an unconstitutional, illegal act.

My understanding of a civil war,and please correct me if Im wrong how els would I learn,is a country fighting itself.Civilians wanting to take over thair government might be an example.I know the CSA was never reconized by anybody.But would they have needed that to be a country.

H**l, yes.

The CSA had a government,thair own money and constituion.

I could set up a government, print my own money, and write my own constitution for my house. Does that make my house a sovereign country?

And I thought it was legall to succed.

Sorry, but you thought wrong.

I had the understanding when the country was formed the states where asked to join the USA.If they didnt like being part of the USA they could leave the union.

But join, they did, and when they joined they accepted the fact that their sovereignty became limited, and they were joining a nation, not a club.

If the CSA was a sovereign country then the USA invaded for no reson and took back the south by force.
The USA has ocupyed other country beat in war but never took them over.Just hoping see other opinions.

Since the CSA was never a sovereign country, it was a civil war.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Most southerners, or their leaders, actually made little distinction between secession and revolution. But, in relation to revolution, as already noted, both the American Colonies and the southern slave states, had to establish their Independence; which the Colonies did and the south did not, i.e., they both were, provinces in revolt. The United colonies succeeded in establishing their gov't(and peoples) 'independent' of all other claims to gov't by anyone else except themselves.(Something the csa never accomplished)

 

[Jayboss1]

Why?

First off Joe Henry, welcome to the site. Lots of good stuff here. I'm from Kansas and can give you a little insight on "our Civil War". When Kansas became a territory there was a desperate struggle over wether it was going to be a slave state or not. You see geographically Kansas is as far south as Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia. Scores of partisans from pro slavery Missouri streamed into Kansas territory in an effort to strong arm new Kansans into slavery--which did exist in a limited basis in Kansas. The Missouri partisans were known as bushwhackers or simply criminal trash here in Kansas. The pro abolition/union Kansas partisans were known as Jayhawkers. Hence the University of Kansas Jayhawks in Lawrence. Speaking of Lawrence, it was burned to the ground and a hundred plus old men, women, and children were murdered in cold blood by William Quantrill and his group of murderers from Missouri. My avatar is a mural in the Kansas state Capitol depicting John Brown and the conditions surrounding my states birth. Google "bleeding Kansas" for further info. Civil is the furthest thing from the feelings between Kansans and Missourians to this day. I as a student of the war have profound respect for the Confederate soldiers who put on a uniform and stood toe to toe with my ancestors in battle. But have different feelings- to put it mildly- for cowards that hid in civilian clothing and murdered civilians while anyone that could fight back was away at war.

 

[Carronade]

Neither Civil War nor American Revolution are really the right term. Either one is better used for a struggle within a country, for control of that country, like the English Civil War or the Russian Revolution. The rebels of 1776 or 1861 had no desire to control the United States or United Kingdom, just to separate their own little area from it. War of/for Independence would be the better term, depending in part whether it succeeded or failed. Realistically though the names are set in convention and are little more likely to change than Battle of Bunker Hill for the engagement on Breed's Hill......

Every group seeking independence claims that their new state has come into existence the moment they declare it so, and they generally do exercise the functions of government within it. Indeed the separatists usually are distinct political entities like states or provinces with functioning local governments.

For whatever reason, nations rarely acquiesce in the separation of parts of themselves. Peaceful divorces like the Czech Republic and Slovakia are very much the exception, not at all the rule. However we feel about the issues, there is no reason to act shocked or surprised that the United States government in 1861 did what governments usually do. The secessionists themselves were not nearly as shocked as some of their advocates today profess to be; they knew what they were getting into and moved promptly to take or buy every fortress and weapon they could get their hands on.

 

[GAvolunteer]

This here is my first post. Seeing as how the Southern States succeded from the USA and formed the CSA werent they a sovereign country? My understanding of a civil war,and please correct me if Im wrong how els would I learn,is a country fighting itself.Civilians wanting to take over thair government might be an example.I know the CSA was never reconized by anybody.But would they have needed that to be a country.The CSA had a government,thair own money and constituion.And I thought it was legall to succed.I had the understanding when the country was formed the states where asked to join the USA.If they didnt like being part of the USA they could leave the union. If the CSA was a sovereign country then the USA invaded for no reson and took back the south by force.
The USA has ocupyed other country beat in war but never took them over.Just hoping see other opinions.

Well, about this CIVIL war, there was nothing CIVIL about it.

 

[unionblue]

Well, about this CIVIL war, there was nothing CIVIL about it.

GAvolunteer,

The word CIVIL cannot stand alone or separate when talking about the CIVIL WAR.

No war is civil in the way the dictionary describes the word as it stands by itself.

It would be more honest to look up the definition of "civil war" without separating the two.

Sincerely,
Unionblue