PDA

View Full Version : Was it a "Civil War" or not?



indguard
07-12-2007, 08:14 AM
In a great story about a whole cache of Robert E. Lee letters that no one knew existed until 2002, we get a gem from the hand of the General himself written just after Sharpsburg...


Lee was far less sanguine two months later, when he wrote to Mary after learning that his daughter Anne had died of typhoid fever at age 23. "In the quiet hours of night when there is nothing to lighten the full weight of my grief, I feel as if I should be overwhelmed. I had always counted, if God should spare me for a few days of peace after this civil war has ended, that I should have her with me. But year after year my hopes go out and I must be resigned."


There you have it you "it wasn't a real civil war" proclaimers!

Even General Lee called it a Civil War! Are you going to cross Marse Robert?

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102385.html?hpid=features1&hpv=local

Rob Weaver
07-12-2007, 08:28 AM
Our own Civil War, for the most part was extraordinary in modern history because it was characterized by actions undertaken by large conventional armies, fighting in the style conventional to the time. It was also characterized by the political and diplomatic effort by a rival government to attain foreign recognition. Curiously, it was never a fight over control of the Federal government, which would seem logical in a "civil war." I would also argue that the "civil war" continued in a vastly different form after the conventional warfare ended, and had a less satisfactory result. (OK - I earned the grief I'll take over that remark!)
TJ Stiles argues in his book Jesse James: The Last Rebel of the Civil War that the war within a war as it was pursued in Missouri was much more characteristic of "civil war:" significant partisan activity, blurring of party lines, reprisal and brutality directly primarily at the civilian population with the goal of producing terror. Actions related to "the war" also continued long past the time when the conventional armies had passed from the scene. When compared to this nasty little war, the Civil War by and large was pursued as a conventional war conducted between two governments for a political result. Perhaps the "War for Confederate Independence" would be a more accurate, if longer, name.

Regular3
07-13-2007, 06:24 AM
As many professional and amateur scholars have pointed out, it was not a war over control of the "One" government, but rather an attempt to set up a completely separate nation under a completely separate government, just as the men of '76 had fought to break away from Great Britain - a rebellion. And so, many Confederates proudly referred to the conflict as The Second American Revolution, especially early on.

But both civil war and rebellion are more accurate than War Between the States. It was not a war between New York and Georgia; Illinois did not invade Tennessee; nor did Virginia declare that she was attempting to attain autonomous status for herself and Pennsylvania move to stop it. It is true that the war was fought by troops provided by the states, but that's only because of the way the militia system constrained the Federal government from dealing with armed insurrection under the Constitution.

tompritchett
07-13-2007, 06:49 AM
I suspect the "civil" aspect of the war, at least in the eyes of men like Lee, came from the fact that the fact that friends were fighting former friends (especially in the officer corps), neighbors were fighting neighbors (in some states), and family members were fighting family members. All of these occurred to a much greater extent in the Civil War than when we rebelled against England. I am not arguing that it was not a Southern rebellion, but rather pointing out why the term civil war was also applicable.

Frenchie
07-13-2007, 07:32 AM
Speaking of revolutions, tomorrow is le jour de la prise de la Bastille!

Aux armes, citoyens!
Formez vos bataillons!
Marchons! Marchons!
Qu'un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!

Jubilo
07-13-2007, 08:46 AM
Dear General ,
I suspect as time marches on the "Civil War " we love to study , will seem to future generations , a rebellion of the cotton interests much akin to the Whiskey Rebellion of the Washington Administration .
all for the old flag,
David Corbett ( formerly of the 12th Alabama Vol . Infantry )

Lee Ragan
07-13-2007, 08:59 AM
I never refer to it as the "Civil War", as there was nothing civil about it!

Parault
07-13-2007, 09:08 AM
War of Northern Aggression. Simply put. Nothing else.

TimKindred
07-13-2007, 09:52 AM
War of Northern Aggression. Simply put. Nothing else.

Typical apologist BS.

Do you also plan on accepting your SS retirement benefits from that "aggressor nation" when you retire? I'd hate to see your pure southern hands stained with that northern blood money.

respects,

tompritchett
07-13-2007, 10:07 AM
At ease boys. Let's not get all riled up over this topic and stop being civil with each other.

Regular3
07-13-2007, 10:10 AM
Dear General ,
I suspect as time marches on the "Civil War " we love to study , will seem to future generations , a rebellion of the cotton interests much akin to the Whiskey Rebellion of the Washington Administration .
all for the old flag,
David Corbett ( formerly of the 12th Alabama Vol . Infantry )Now that is an interesting analogy, and one that I never thought of before.

And I agree with Mr. Pritchett ... All were required to choose a side; No one was allowed to be neutral, and any attempt to appear so attracted the suspicion, contempt, and sometimes even assualt by those who adopted the "those who are not with us are against us" stance. Witness the treatment of the Mennonites and the Brethren of the central Shenandoah Valley, whose supposed Union sympathies (because they would not fight for the South) did not save them from having their homes invaded and looted, and - in the case of the entire town of Dayton, Virginia - destroyed by Sheridan's Union troopers because they had not taken up arms for the North.

MStuart
07-13-2007, 10:23 AM
Typical apologist BS.

Do you also plan on accepting your SS retirement benefits from that "aggressor nation" when you retire? I'd hate to see your pure southern hands stained with that northern blood money.

respects,

......for all those who think this country sucks and are still fighting the war.

Leave
Mon, Jul 16 Delta Air Lines 64
Depart: 8:25pm
Arrive: 9:40am Atlanta, GA (ATL)
Manchester, United Kingdom (MAN)

3 stops Economy 8hr 15min Boeing 767 View seats

Change Airline. Time between flights: 1hr 35min


British Airways 1391
Depart: 11:15am
Arrive: 12:20pm Manchester, United Kingdom (MAN)
London, United Kingdom (LHR)

Economy 1hr 5min Airbus A320 View seats

Change Airline. Time between flights: 2hr 45min


Qatar Airways 12
Depart: 3:05pm
Arrive: 11:59pm London, United Kingdom (LHR)
Doha, Qatar (DOH)

Economy 6hr 54min Airbus A346

Change planes. Time between flights: 0hr 51min


Qatar Airways 318
Depart: 12:50am
Arrive: 5:20am Doha, Qatar (DOH)
Karachi, Pakistan (KHI)

Economy 2hr 30min Airbus A320
Total duration: 23hr 55min

This flight arrives two days later.
----------------------------------------

I'll pay for 1/2 your ticket. Just so you can get outa this dump and relocate somewhere else. I hear the leather goods in Karachi are "the bomb". You can get a good kit while you're there.

Mark - Confederate reenactor

bob 125th nysvi
07-13-2007, 11:53 AM
in a sense neither the Civil War nor the Revolution were a rebellion because the party fighting against the "national" government was not seeking to replace the "national" government but secede from it.

It was not really a war between states since in both cases the "states" were subsidiary to the "national" government authority in fighting the war.

It truly was a civil war because not only were sections of the nation divided, but with in the seceding states there was armed resistance against the leaders trying to lead the state out of the union and there were people of "southern" birth fighting for the Union and vice versa. Even families were divided with relatives fighting on opposite sides.

Finally a "war" does not have to have certain characteristics (such as guerilla warfare) to qualify as one type or another. Prior to the 20th Century a purely guerilla war never worked and all successfully civil wars required an organized field force to accomplish its goals. Even in the 20th century you'd be hard pressed to name a civil war where the non-governmental side was successful without using conventional warfare.

Personally if R.E. Lee and the others that fought it thought it was a civil war, that's good enough for me.

CivilWarBuff1863
07-13-2007, 04:49 PM
Civil or not it was still a war!

I'm just glad that my ancestors fought and earned the respect of being Americans in this country. Even though they had to fight the British twice and then themselves in the Civil War.

Why bicker about whether the Civil War was civil or not? It was just a war we had where over 624,000 lives were lost. It was a costly war and we paid dearly with it. About 2% of the population died during those 4 God aweful years. I'm pretty sure there were times in between battles that it seemed civil. Given that the bordom that over came the soldiers that few actually played cards with the enemy, shared war stories and exchanged goods and letters. Maybe that's the civil aspect of the war or maybe not. Like one of the soldiers who said: "If it were up to us the war would be over." That's reasonable and logical thinking!

Parault
07-13-2007, 08:41 PM
Typical apologist BS.

Do you also plan on accepting your SS retirement benefits from that "aggressor nation" when you retire? I'd hate to see your pure southern hands stained with that northern blood money.

respects,
Mr. Kindred
I do not pay SS. I have two retirement funds. I have been paying into these funds for 18 and 1/2 years. In my profession we do not pay into SS. The only thing we do,is pay our income tax and state tax.

Mr. Stuart
I never said "this country --ks" I love this place,wouldn't trade it for the world. Besides there is no other place like the South.

TimKindred
07-13-2007, 09:08 PM
Mr. Stuart
I love this place,wouldn't trade it for the world. Besides there is no other place like the South.

Agreed. Especially with the Stars and Stripes flying so proudly over all of our state capitols. :D

Respects,

12thriv
07-13-2007, 10:25 PM
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s276/12thriv/l_2bee3f19b83f380e7a26cba68cbd0b45.jpg

12thriv
07-13-2007, 10:26 PM
yeah i'd say it was a civil war

indguard
07-13-2007, 10:31 PM
Personally if R.E. Lee and the others that fought it thought it was a civil war, that's good enough for me.

I kinda thought that, too!

WTH

CivilWarBuff1863
07-14-2007, 10:01 AM
Nice picture 12thriv! I'd say from that reenactor pic it was civil.

Parault
07-15-2007, 07:08 PM
Good Picture. Do some of that Photo Shop stuff to it. It would look really period then.

hanktrent
07-15-2007, 08:40 PM
Good Picture. Do some of that Photo Shop stuff to it. It would look really period then.

Knowing what the picture is actually of, the amazing thing is it really does look period!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

Jubilo
07-15-2007, 08:42 PM
Now that is an interesting analogy, and one that I never thought of before.

And I agree with Mr. Pritchett ... All were required to choose a side; No one was allowed to be neutral, and any attempt to appear so attracted the suspicion, contempt, and sometimes even assualt by those who adopted the "those who are not with us are against us" stance. Witness the treatment of the Mennonites and the Brethren of the central Shenandoah Valley, whose supposed Union sympathies (because they would not fight for the South) did not save them from having their homes invaded and looted, and - in the case of the entire town of Dayton, Virginia - destroyed by Sheridan's Union troopers because they had not taken up arms for the North.
Dear Darryl ,
Glad you agree ; now polish your brass !
all for the old flag,
Pvt. David Corbett ( 3rd US Regulars- one time )