Was the Civil War a “civil war”?

[Ronin Truth]

Was the Civil War a “civil war”?

Was the Civil War a “civil war”?

Michael S. Rozeff


What’s a “civil war”? I searched using Google on civil war definition. The first heading read “a war between citizens of the same country.” There was a war. That’s for sure. The war began on April 12, 1861. Seven states had seceded before the war began (South Carolina December 20, 1860, Mississippi January 9, 1861, Florida January 10, 1861, Alabama January 11, 1861, Georgia January 19, 1861, Louisiana January 26, 1861, Texas February 1, 1861.) Were their citizens in the “same country” as the other states? That’s what the war was about. Secession as a political act to form a new political entity doesn’t automatically create that entity as a separate country. Most often, secession is contested by the mother country. Force usually or very often decides the issue. In 1861, we would not know whether or not the citizens of the seceding states were in the same country until after the war had been fought and the issue decided by force of arms. Now we know. The victory of the North determined that the seceding states were in the same country. While the war was being waged, southerners may have thought they were in a different country but within a few years they found that they were not. After the war was over, it could be termed a civil war because the North made it such by making the southerners remain as citizens of the U.S.A.

As a footnote, 4 states didn’t secede until after the war began, so that for a short period they were surely involved in a civil war. In addition, 4 states in the war never seceded: Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. They were surely involved in civil warfare.

The fact that the Civil War was a civil war doesn’t preclude other possible names for the war or descriptions of it. There is no claim that such names are mutually exclusive or that calling the war the Civil War rules out calling it by another name.

7:43 am on April 25, 2016

Email Michael S. Rozeff

The Best of Michael S. Rozeff

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/civil-war-civil-war/

 

[Ronin Truth]

FWIW, I lean strongly to much preferring the names, "The War of Southern Independence" and "The War of Northern Aggression".

 

[phill4paul]

As many in the North did not particularly care to fight their southern brothers perhaps "The War of Federal Hedgemony?"

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Abe Lincoln quotes below. If Lincoln had no interest in eliminating slavery where it existed, then why insist on keeping the country together? It's simply because Lincoln cared more about the raw materials of the South. The North would have crumbled without a tariff to protect it.


"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

"And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”

 

[otherone]

Was the Revolution a civil war?

 

[TheTexan]

I prefer "The War of Lincoln Freed the Slaves"

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Was the Revolution a civil war?

That's really stretching the meaning, but you could make a very technical argument for that.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Re: The Civil War as a civil war

Ryan McMaken

Thanks to Michael Rozeff for injecting some much-needed nuance into the debate over whether or not the American Civil War was, in fact, a civil war or simply a secession movement. As Rozeff notes, things were not nearly so simple as many attempt to portray them. This is immediately evident in any analysis of the border states, and in the case of Missouri and Kentucky especially, where competing regimes presented themselves as the “real” governments of their respective states.

Moreover, most people who write about the Civil War are easterners who have a bias for their own region and ignore the realities out west where the picture is also quite muddled. Kansas, of course, is famous for its conflicts among competing guerrilla groups even before the war began, in so-called Bleeding Kansas.

Certainly, Kansas was in a state of civil war.

And then there was the South’s New Mexico Campaign in which the Confederacy invaded New Mexico and Colorado as part of an attempt to seize western gold supplies. Southern armies were not simply in the business of waging a defensive war, as is often implied.

When the South invaded Colorado, Denverites sent a volunteer regiment South and defeated the invaders at Glorieta Pass. This further complicates matters since in the case of the New Mexico campaign, it was the Confederates who were the invaders, attempting to seize Colorado property far from any Southern State. In this case, the Northerners were the ones performing the morally legitimate role as defenders against a military invasion.

As a final note, we might also point out that in a similar way, the American Revolutionary War was also a civil war. After all, American colonists fought fiercely over control of local governmental institutions. It wasn’t a simple matter of expelling the British from the colonies. Bloody conflicts between Patriots and Loyalists were common, and certainly fall well within what one might label a “civil war” as well.

10:09 am on April 25, 2016

Email Ryan McMaken

The Best of Ryan McMaken

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/re-civil-war-civil-war/

 

[Ronin Truth]

re: “Civil War” Terminology

Thomas DiLorenzo

Ryan’s discussion of the “Civil War” battles in Colorado and New Mexico is correct: The Confederates did try to take over some Union territory during the war. This is yet another thing that apparently never entered Lincoln’s mind as a possibility when he launched an invasion of his own country in 1861 in a war that he thought would be over in a few weeks. By that time the U.S. government had killed tens of thousands of Southerners, including thousands of civilians, and bombed numerous cities and towns into a smoldering ruin (Over 4,000 artillery shells exploded in civilian-occupied Charleston in a single day). It should surprise no one that the Confederates would have responded to this by attempting to bring the war to the enemy, just as Stalin would later respond to Hitler’s invasion of his country by eventually invading and occupying Germany.

Of course had Lincoln not declared that he was “saving the union” by forcing the South to remain in it at gunpoint (after endorsing the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address, promising to never interfere with slavery) there never would have been a Confederate Army or an invasion of a tiny part of Colorado.

The South believed that the union of the founders was voluntary and that the founders would never have ratified a constitution that forced everyone to remain a part of it forever, or have their cities bombed, burned and plundered and their civilian populations massacred. A “one-way venus fly trap,” as Murray Rothbard once sarcastically described Lincoln’s constitutional theory. The Party of Lincoln disagreed. This is what the war was about.

By the way, the correct terminology is “War to Prevent Southern Independence.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/re-civil-war-terminology/

 

[Ender]

The War Between the States.

 

[Ronin Truth]

The War Between the States.

That would be a very small war, because there isn't really very much room between the states.

 

[Ender]

That would be a very small war, because there isn't really very much room between the states.

Har, Har!

 

[Thaddaeus]

That depends on how many Loyalists there were actively fighting to preserve the king and parliament's rule.


As far as the Civil War goes, absolutely not. The south was not fighting to dominate the north, though it did have dominance in the early years of the Republic. 1861-1865 was a failed War of Southern Independence. My favorite label for it is "the late unpleasantness", for sheer euphemistic glory.

 

[tod evans]

This goes here;

 

[pcosmar]

War happens when civility fails.

there is no civil war.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Were they fighting in a civil manner?

 

[Jesse James]

The War of Northern Aggression is good but I prefer The War of Southern Secession or Southern Independence.

by the way, the wrong guys won

 

[PierzStyx]

Abe Lincoln quotes below. If Lincoln had no interest in eliminating slavery where it existed, then why insist on keeping the country together? It's simply because Lincoln cared more about the raw materials of the South. The North would have crumbled without a tariff to protect it.


"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

"And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”

I don't know that Lincoln purely wanted access to Southern material. The war laid waste to huge chunks of the most productive parts of the Southern farmlands. But I do know for sure that Lincoln was a Hamiltonian through and through. He fetishized the "Union" as one singular country and like every good nationalist placed its worth above that of the people living in its boundaries. To the point that he was willing to kill them for daring to leave it. The irony is that by using force of arms to maintain the nation as it was boundary wise, Lincoln actually destroyed the Union that was and replaced it with a full-fledged nation-state. The Republicans have always been left wing, big government progressives from the beginning. The only argument between them and modern Democrats is about what should be ran how, not if it should happen at all.

 

[PierzStyx]

The War of Northern Aggression is good but I prefer The War of Southern Secession or Southern Independence.

by the way, the wrong guys won

I don't know. Look, the North was obviously wrong from our perspective. But the South wasn't any better. Maintaining your wealth and prestige literally on the backs of 5 million slaves means that no matter how much you favor succession, you are not a friend of liberty but are a tyrant. There were no good guy sides in the war. And either way you have tyrannies: the federal tyranny or the slaver's tyranny. Either way, both are tyrants.

 

[Ronin Truth]

I don't know. Look, the North was obviously wrong from our perspective. But the South wasn't any better. Maintaining your wealth and prestige literally on the backs of 5 million slaves means that no matter how much you favor succession, you are not a friend of liberty but are a tyrant. There were no good guy sides in the war. And either way you have tyrannies: the federal tyranny or the slaver's tyranny. Either way, both are tyrants.

The North was right on slavery. The South was right on states rights and secession. Slavery was a "gift" from the Brits.