When Did The Civil War Officially Become Named The Civil War?

CTH

Private
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Location
South Central PA
At the time it started, it was simply called a rebellion, and for a few years after, it was still referred to as the Great Rebellion, or the War of the Rebellion. So when did put start calling it "The Civil War"?
 
The thing is, it was Confederates who saw it as a war for independence. The other side saw it as a war to preserve the Union. African Americans saw it as a war to gain freedom and equality. If you say it was a"War for Independence" then you are describing the war in terms of language that reflect the CSA view of the war, but which do not reflect how others saw it.

I like the term Civil War as it implies that there were separate, conflicting interests at work.

- Alan

Politicians are always trying to prop up their cause by using names which incorporate what they hope will be accepted as the public view of the war. Hence early in the conflict you hear the war described on the Northern side as the "War to preserve the Union" or "War against slavery", or simply "treason" or "revolution", depending upon the speaker's particular primary interest. On the Southern side, you heard "the War of Northern Aggression" or "War for State's Rights" or "War of Independence", or something similar.

It's much the same today, as a foreign aid program was called the "Peace Corps", and and military operations have pretty silly names designed for public consumption such as "Enduring Freedom". (I miss the old WWII operation names such as "Olympic" and "Clarinet", etc.)

So I think the term "Civil War" came about as an attempt to reject that sort of verbal manipulation, and give a more neutral term to use in discussions - even though it is a bit vague, since "Civil War" could cover anything from total upsetting of society (French and Russian revolutions) to a mere splinter of an empire seeking indepence.
 
Vote Here:
The late unpleasantness.

--BBF
I had to laugh at your comment, even though it is accurate and has been used in "polite society". I remember when Prince Charles first toured the U.S. in the late 1970's, and he was mobbed by reporters asking what he thought of the U.S. HRM Charles made the usual polite comments and commented on how everybody was so friendly, despite "the little misunderstanding in 1776". That example of British upper-class propensity for understatement brought a huge laugh from the assembled crowd.
 
Vote Here:
No offense, FF, but a war for independence by definition includes an "other side" trying to preserve the Union, nation, empire, etc. - otherwise there wouldn't be a war! Wars have been called a lot of things, but I've never heard of a "War of _______ Preservation" :wink:

I agree with your comment in bold, but still: for people in the Union, this was decidely not a War of Independence. They saw what we call the Civil War as a necesseary conflict to defeat traitors who sought to annul an election they didn't like by engaging in an illegitimate of secession and then military attack on US property. They saw this as a "War for Union," if we want to give it such a name.

I think that people in the Union would want the war to have a name that reflected their cause, if it was to have any name that would reflect a cause. Calling it a War for Independence would make it all about the enemy's cause. Similarly, I don't think we'd call War War II the "War for Japanese Pacific Supremacy." If anything, we'd call it "the War to Defeat Japanase Agression," or some other kind of name.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
Interesting topic ya'll.
I know that during the war there was a lot of debate about what to call it because such affected legal issues (e.g. the blockade). A war is legally different than an insurrection or rebellion. These days I think we perhaps worry too much about the semantics of the thing. While I think WBTS or war of rebellion make sense I'm happy with civil war and, as pointed out already, it's easier to say and type.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top