What to call the American Civil War - Historum

**Toltec** · December 30th, 2012, 12:33 PM

In simpler times if you heard the word Revolution applied to a historical event you could be pretty sure it would involve some angry peasants and a king of some sort losing his head. The Russian overthrowing the Tsar, The English chopping off Charles I's head or booting James II out the country, the French peasants killing..... well almost everybody.

OK, there was a grey area.... were a civil wars a revolutions? Were the War of the Roses The Edward IV Revolution? Or could we call the Spanish Civil War the Spanish Revolution. In the latter case most likely yes as it was peasants overthrowing and aged dynasty whereas with the former it was more a scuffle within the regime.

Then some bright spark came along and started to call wars of independence revolutions. So one country fighting another was a revolution? It was now the American Revolution not War of Independence despite there being not a peasant nor headless royal in sight, and soon everyone had to jump on the band wagon. We had the Indian Revolution, Haitian revolution then every bloody country in the Americas (except Canada........loyal house trained Canada...... mmm) Revolution.

Now is there any war that isn't a Revolution? The Afghan Revolution? (against the erm invading US troops), the Chinese Revolution where they invaded crushed Tibet. And what next, "Iran if you don't lose those nukes, we're gonna invade...,,,,,,, erm I mean Revolution you"

So anyway musings over here's my question I'm wondering what to refer to the American Civil War as from now on. I'm no-longer going to call it the American Civil War so please help me decide on a new term I shall in future. Some candidates are, The Southern Revolution, The Confederate Revolution, Y'ALL Revolution.

So come on Americans give me a hand.

P.S> I think there should be a rule. If a royal doesn't die in a horrible way at the hands of a large mob of unwashed peasants it shouldn't be allowed to be called a revolution.

**tjadams** · December 30th, 2012, 12:34 PM

Other names the struggle has been called:
"The War of Northern Aggression"
"The War Between the States"
"The Great Rebellion"

**Rongo** · December 30th, 2012, 01:08 PM

I was always under the impression that one of the criteria for being called a "Revolution" is that it had to be successful.

sgtdole · December 30th, 2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tjadams

Other names the struggle has been called:
"The War of Northern Aggression"
"The War Between the States"
"The Great Rebellion"

I was just about to post that, luckily I read through.

**Toltec** · December 30th, 2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rongo

I was always under the impression that one of the criteria for being called a "Revolution" is that it had to be successful.

The 1905 Russian Revolution and the 1848 German Revolution both failed. However you do have a good point I missed, mostly they are successful.

**Salah** · December 30th, 2012, 01:57 PM

I like War of the Rebellion, it suits it best.

ShoobeeDoobeeDoo · December 30th, 2012, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toltec

In simpler times if you heard the word Revolution applied to a historical event you could be pretty sure it would involve some angry peasants and a king of some sort losing his head. The Russian overthrowing the Tsar, The English chopping off Charles I's head or booting James II out the country, the French peasants killing..... well almost everybody.

OK, there was a grey area.... were a civil wars a revolutions? Were the War of the Roses The Edward IV Revolution? Or could we call the Spanish Civil War the Spanish Revolution. In the latter case most likely yes as it was peasants overthrowing and aged dynasty whereas with the former it was more a scuffle within the regime.

Then some bright spark came along and started to call wars of independence revolutions. So one country fighting another was a revolution? It was now the American Revolution not War of Independence despite there being not a peasant nor headless royal in sight, and soon everyone had to jump on the band wagon. We had the Indian Revolution, Haitian revolution then every bloody country in the Americas (except Canada........loyal house trained Canada...... mmm) Revolution.

Now is there any war that isn't a Revolution? The Afghan Revolution? (against the erm invading US troops), the Chinese Revolution where they invaded crushed Tibet. And what next, "Iran if you don't lose those nukes, we're gonna invade...,,,,,,, erm I mean Revolution you"

So anyway musings over here's my question I'm wondering what to refer to the American Civil War as from now on. I'm no-longer going to call it the American Civil War so please help me decide on a new term I shall in future. Some candidates are, The Southern Revolution, The Confederate Revolution, Y'ALL Revolution.

So come on Americans give me a hand.

P.S> I think there should be a rule. If a royal doesn't die in a horrible way at the hands of a large mob of unwashed peasants it shouldn't be allowed to be called a revolution.

Had the Johnny Rebs won, then they themselves would have called it their revolution. But nothing revolved. It became nothing more than a very bloody insurrection.

It was indeed a failed civil war.

So "The American Civil War" makes perfect sense.

If the red states go ahead with secession, again, than it will be called "The 2nd American Civil War" but only if there is a war. More likely it will be a series of lawsuits, imprisonments, and jail time. I don't expect a real war this time around.

ShoobeeDoobeeDoo · December 30th, 2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rongo

I was always under the impression that one of the criteria for being called a "Revolution" is that it had to be successful.

Exactly right.

WeisSaul · December 30th, 2012, 02:08 PM

The Southern Rebellion?

I wouldn't call it a revolution. The south rebelled to preserve a social order. Revolutions involve rapid change or an attempt at a rapid change.

**Rongo** · December 30th, 2012, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeisSaul

The Southern Rebellion?

I wouldn't call it a revolution. The south rebelled to preserve a social order. Revolutions involve rapid change or an attempt at a rapid change.

Good point. And the big irony of the situation is that there was indeed a rapid change to the social order, but it was the result of the rebellion failing.