A civil war is a struggle between two (or more) contending factions for control of the same country.
But the Confederates were not trying to take over the central government. They had no interest in ruling the North. They were fighting for independence, very much as they had, oh, about four score years earlier.
I think “War Between the States” is objectively more accurate, as well as more lyrical. But it may be a lost cause.
Clever wordplay, though of the kind that ceases to be amusing after one has heard it a few times, and especially after one has heard it a few dozen or more times. Compare (in response to “good morning”) “what’s so good about it?”.
Certainly no reason not to call it The Civil War. Anyone with two or more functioning brain cells knows which definition of “civil” applies.
I didn’t say I AGREED with that viewpoint. I just reported that it was the viewpoint for much of the South.
They weren’t trying to take over the entire government, but they certainly wanted control of some of the same country that the Unionists claimed as part of the U.S. I see no reason not to call it a civil war.
Starting with a WAG then ending with a conclusion that a viewpoint is total bullshit 
Also just to add the victors write the history. Can you really be so certain that the bullshit is total as you state.
The objectives of the two sides were not equivalent; in the aptly-termed Spanish Civil War, for example, they were.
Now they do. For many years the name in Federal military accounts (some of which originals I’ve seen) was “War of the Rebellion.”
It was my impression that the majority of the units formed in both armies were handled on the state level, hence a lot of units were men from the same locale.
Example: 33rd Virginia Infantry Regiment - Wikipedia
This would almost make it seem like a “War Between the States” to me.
I know that there were some Regular Federal Units that might be made up of men from different states, but compared to the State raised forces, their numbers were smaller, IIRC.
It would be helpful to know which war was originally called a civil war.
The earliest I can think of is the English Civil War with Charles I and then Charles II. We got off lucky with only one war. The English Civil War was actually three wars.
I think it’s drifted pretty rapidly in that direction, so it’s probably best to move it.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
They were entirely equivalent. Both sides were fighting over sovereign authority over the land. The fact that the disputed land did not make up the majority of the country is irrelevant.
Looking at the list of names for the Civil War, I have to say “The War of Southern Aggression” carries a certain charm to it, particularly since they fired the first shots of the war in their attack on Fort Sumter. But yeah, I was always taught that it was The American Civil War, and for the longest time, assumed that when anyone said “War of Northern Aggression”, they were just being tongue-in-cheek about the whole thing.
I think a threshold question is, “do these programs accurately depcit Southern attitudes?” Was “War Between the States” actually a preferred locution, or just a Hollywood trope?
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing that!
But Congress never declared it a war, so perhaps as long as we are wordsmithing, “Police Action Among the States” is objectively even more accurate.
According to Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, TheFreeDictionary, and this Stanford University article, the American Civil War was indeed a civil war. I would suggest that those arguing it doesn’t qualify due to some nitpicky nuance are perhaps being a bit too fussy over the term.
My ex-SiL from George calls it “the Civil War” and given a chance will go on and on about how it was all about state’s rights, and freedom. She get’s really annoyed when anybody mentions slavery.
That was not a WAG. The articles of secession specifically stated that slavery was the reason SC was seceding. Many other formal papers also stated the same. It was after the War that revisionists (southerners) for some reason denied that slavery was the issue, but that the reason was “state’s rights.” Some southerners even deny that slavery had anything to do with the attempted secession. Most southerners admit that slavery was an issue, but not the main issue. This is not germane to the OP. I just wanted to make a short comment on that issue.
Q: “Why has there only been one American civil war?”
A: “Americans are a rude people.”
Neither, it should be either the Great Rebellion or the Southern Rebellion.
I’ve felt this to be the more accurate general definition for a long time, although I’m open to hearing a convincing counter-argument.
This I don’t agree with. Using this description makes it sounds as if both the core dispute and the fighting was only conducted between individual states; it completely ignores the existence of both federal governments and their central role on both sides of the conflict.
My preference is for something along the lines of “the War of the [Southern] Secession”.