There can’t be a “Veterans of the Civil War” organisation; and if there was, there aren’t any people who fought in that still alive. So why not just “Veterans of Wars” or “War Veterans Organisation” or something along those lines?
Because at the time the VFW was founded, there were living vets of the Civil War.
The VFW was founded in 1899, when there were quite a few living Civil War veterans. When the last of them died in the 1950’s, the name was well established and there was no compelling reason to change it.
In addition, I believe that members must have served during a war (so veterans from the years 1919 - 1941 (November), 1946 - 1950 (June), and 1954 - 1963, or 1973 - 1990) would have been precluded, automatically (unlike the American Legion who will take anyone with an honorable discharge, regardless when they served). Further, I believe that, (originally–I don’t follow their by-laws), a vet had to have actually served in an active theatre of operations, so that my Dad, who served from July, 1941 through January, 1945, but who was never shipped overseas because the Army kept using him as an instructor, was not eligible for the VFW.
It sounds as if the VFW founders specifically meant to exclude from their ranks Civil War veterans, then?
If so, why?
It may not have been an act of exclusion so much as an effort to provide a new place for vets who were ineligible to join the G.A.R.–which was an extremely powerful political organization of (Federal) vets from the Civil War.
It was founded by veterans of the Spanish-American War (1898) and Phillipine War (1899 or so), and they didn’t want a bunch of old farts messing up their parties? 
Not to mention it would be a BIG bunch. Even in 1899, there had to have been 20 times more surviving CW vets than vets of the S-A and Phillipine Wars.
It’s like the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) who didn’t want a bunch of desk sergeants from WWII who never saw combat to join their organization and become a PITA.
BTW, some of the VVAW did join the American Legion and become a PITA to them.
Pretty much a serious and a facetious way of saying the same thing, and both correct. This is a hard mind-set to imagine today, when we fight lot of small wars instead of one big one, and have a big peace-time army in between. Modern veterans’ organizations are more oriented toward all veterans than toward particular wars.
But for a generation after the Civil War, other than a few Indian fighters, the GAR was it–a bunch of guys mostly about the same age, very fraternal and cliquish, and sometimes politically active. One can easily imagine why the younger, non-Civil War vets felt they needed a new organization, even had the GAR been willing to admit them (which I’m sure it wasn’t).
Maybe they didn’t want, say, the soldiers who broke up the Bonus Army’s encampment, or who machine-gunned striking coal miners. :dubious:
The SUVCW has a history of the GAR, so we won’t have to be on the QT about BH in the GQ of the SDMB and get CC regarding YAFAs.
IOW, expand your freaking abbreviations! 
Heh…when my dad was alive, he collected GAR (Grand Army of the Republic) memorabilia, so I’m so used to using “GAR” as the full term that it never even occurred to me that other people wouldn’t recognize it…
The GAR was a wonderful organization. Perhaps uniquely for any such group, then never admitted anyone who was not there. They simply allowed their own group to die out. In one state (Wisconsin? Minnesota?) they passed title to the old Civil War colors (regimental flags) back to the state with the one proviso that they never be repaired or conserved. They hang in the capitol building slowly rotting away. Wonderful, poetic.
Before they died off, they built monuments to themselves with all the money the group acquired over the decades. They are inscribed with the group’s motto:
“Death Before Dishonor.”
In the Mad magazine parody of Little Big Man, artist Mort Drucker drew Jack Krab (Dustin Hoffman’s character) in the old age home wearing a medal that read “Veteran of Domestic Wars”. I’m sure there wasn’t any deep intent or brutal satire intended – but Krabb’s character was one who was involved in the actions against the Indians, and it must’ve seemed appropriate in contrast to Veterans of Foreign Wars.
But it does raise the question – was there an organization for veteran Indian Fighters (as opposed to Civil War vets. Or Mexican war vets.)?
Why wouldn’t the Mexican-American War count as a foreign war? Much of it (possibly most of it) took place inside Mexico itself.
On an unrelated note, it’s a lot of fun to study the military history of the US and Mexico in relation to eachother. It’s complicated and twisty, with the peoples of the two countries alternately helping or fighting eachother.
It would, but the VFW didn’t exist then. So was there such an organization, and what was it called?
That would include Douglas McArthur, would it not? 
Ahh, now don’t I look silly. :smack:
So, was there an organization for veterans of the War of 1812? And how many of them fought in the Civil War? I’ve heard of one veteran who served under Colonel Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans who joined up with one of the Union brigades during Gettysburg. All the soldiers thought this spunky old coot was funny until he started picking off Confederate solders from a couple hundred yards away with his antique Pennsylvania rifle like ducks in a shooting gallery :eek:
IIRC, he was later captured by the rebels after a musketball hit him in the ankle. I need to finish that book (“Under a Northern Sky”) to see how he came out of that.
And George S. Patton, IIRC, who commanded the cavalry units that broke up the Bonus Army’s camp.
There was–the National Association of Veterans of the Mexican War.
Even earlier, there was the Society of the Cincinnati, an organization of Revolutionary War officers. Because membership was restricted to officers, the society was often mistrusted as secret and elitist.
I’m not aware of any nationwide organizations founded for enlisted veterans of the Revolutionary War or War of 1812. Before the railroad and the telegraph, one supposes, it would have been too difficult to keep such an organization active.