Replies

Try a definition that isn’t tied to some specific historical event for a place and setting that fits your interpretation

I didn't think I had to. I used examples to demonstrate, not merely to define. I assumed you knew the classic definition. You also avoid calling the colonists' war a civil war, even though it fits your definition squarely.

A Civil War means a struggle within a nation for control of the country, possibly with the aid of outsiders who do not intend to take over the country personally. That struggle must be contracted, and not just take place among a small number of rulers and regular armed forces (that would be a coup).

That is why I used the French and Russian revolutions as examples of a classic definition of Revolutions that really were civil wars, a difference in kind, and NOT a small one. People don't call activities of the Basque a Civil War. They call the Spanish Civil War a Civil War.

In the case of the United States, it was still an open question as of 1859 what degree of sovereignty actually lies with the several states which formed These United States. The war settled that question.

You also avoid calling the colonists' war a civil war, even though it fits your definition squarely.

Oh please! You stretch citizens of the same country to include an ocean-distant monarchy and its soldiers and mercenaries and expect me to swallow that? Ludicrous.

THAT was a revolution by unrepresented subjects. You just keep on equivocating and citing other historical events trying to justify the ridiculous statement you made in the first place. A basic not-event description of "civil war" need not include historical events to cling to.

In the case of the United States, it was still an open question as of 1859 what degree of sovereignty actually lies with the several states which formed These United States. The war settled that question.

It settled the question as a matter of force, but it did nothing to settle the philosophical understanding established by our own Declaration of Independence that people have a right to leave a government which they believe no longer serves their interest.

The conclusion of the US civil war merely re-iterated the old adage that "Might makes right."

Seems like the question is open for review each time hostilities flare.

In the case of the United States, it was still an open question as of 1859 what degree of sovereignty actually lies with the several states which formed These United States. The war settled that question.

Might makes right?