Is there a meaningful difference between a revolution and a civil war?
I vaguely think that a revolution is a war to overthrow a government and set up a new one – in the same territory as the old regime. But a civil war seems to have similar goals, in as much as the prevailing side in a civil war might take over (or retain) an entire country. Also, the American Revolution did not seek to overthrow England – as in setting up an American government in England – but to break away and become autonomous. This seems to be the same as the Confederacy in the American Civil War.
That’s rarely true. Most revolutions are considered to be internal.
A revolution is basically where one side is attempting to change the form of government rather than just changing the regime that heads the government.
A revolution is the complete overthrow and replacement of an “ancien regime” be they political or ideological whilst a civil war is a conflict between factions over the existing power structure.
Revolution without civil war: successful attempt to topple the present structure of government.
Revolution with civil war: attempt at the same, succeeding or failing after a drawn-out major violent internal conflict.
Civil war without revolution: drawn-out major violent internal conflict over other issues.
I think this is close to the most basic distinction. A revolution implies an attempt to change the basic system of government, whether democratic vs monarchic or dictatorial, communist vs capitalist, or the eviction of a colonial regime.
In a civil war, however, the conflict is between two factions which aspire to control an existing governmental structure rather than replace it entirely. It can involve two sides which both want to control the entire national territory; or a secessionist movement which wants to be independent of the central government.
Not necessarily. In many cases the victors want to invoke legitimacy by claiming that they’re the representatives of the old traditions - it was the guys they kicked out who were the usurpers.
The Confederates, for example, didn’t consider themselves as revolutionaries. They felt they were upholding the traditional values of Washington and Jefferson and Madison.
One of my pet peeves is when someone calls the U.S. war with Britain from 1775 to 1783 the “Revolutionary War.” I do not think this is accurate. It was not a revolution; they simply wanted *independence *from GB. I think a better term is War of Independence.
The CSA contended that they were applying their rights that the American Colonies used: People have the right to secede when they are being oppressed by the existing government. The Confederates believed they were seceding the same way the Colonies seceded. “Johny Reb” was the moniker both sides used. If the Colonies lost, it would have been an attempted secession and not a revolution. As others have said, if you win it’s a “revolution”; if you lose, it was an attempted secession.
Aside from history being written by the victors, fundamental political changes can’t actually be realized unless the ones seeking the changes are successful. So rebellion often can’t be declared to be a revolution until after the rebels are in power and have changed the system.