More than that, I’d say. I’d include both Baron’s Wars (against King John and his son Henry III respectively) at the very minimum as I think they rise above the level of merely failed rebellions, of which there were many. That’s at the very minimum. The struggle of Edward II and his Despenser favorites for dominance leading to his eventual deposition seems arguable as well.
It was a war for independence, but also a revolution in that we fought to replace one government with a new one. It was especially revolutionary because we were changing the entire system of government itself.
It was also very much a civil war - loyalists vs patriots in civilian and political theaters was a huge part of the conflict even if they weren’t shooting at each other.
The Boer Republics weren’t even that, hence the moniker. It was a standard colonial war for access to resources.
It was generally believed by Union supporters that the Confederates were lying when they said they just wanted to go their own way. Actually, their plan was to achieve independence, then put a trade embargo on the US. This would hurt the USA economy much more than the CSA’s, because the CSA produced mostly cotton and other raw materials that could be sold to Europe. Faced with the prospect of economic collapse, the USA would then be forced into reuniting with the CSA under a new constitution that would abolish democracy and leave the slaveholding class holding all the power.
So if you buy that, then obviously it should be considered a civil war, not a war of independence for one part of the country.
IANA Civil War scholar by any means. Rather the opposite.
First I’ve heard of this contention. I’m not disputing your contention, but do you have any suggested reading to learn more about this belief and how credible it’s now thought to have been then?
I may have overstated the extent to which that argument was widespread. I believe that opinion was held by, among others, Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Post, but I can’t easily find any quotes to that effect.
It is very easy to find quotes from before the war from abolitionists and Republicans including President Lincoln arguing that the country would inevitably become all free or all slave eventually, but not quotes specifically explaining why splitting into two different countries would be insufficient to prevent this. See for example Sen. William Seward’s 1858 speech, “An Irrepressible Conflict”.
What about Cromwell?
Except we weren’t eliminating the previous system of government, or even the government itself. That carried on without interruption, across the pond.
See third bullet point for Cromwell.
I suppose the choice of the term “civil war” was partially driven by classically educated contemporaries who knew their Latin. In classics, “civil war” (bellum civile) is the usual term for the numerous intra-Roman hostilities of the first century BC that ultimately ended up in the establishment of the Empire. The etymology goes back to the fact that Roman citizens were fighting each other.
And one Revolution, in 1688.
Said revolution may have been the inspiration for the Americans using the term.
That was more of a palace revolution.