Civil war is generally considered to be a conflict between two parts of the same country. In that respect then civil war would be correct in 1861 and not in 1776 because the colonists were not strictly speaking a part of England.
Usually in a civil war you have at the minimum one faction trying to overthrow the government, but the South never wanted to overthrow the Union. The South wanted independence from the Union and to be permitted to form its own government.
Then rebellion would be accurate. Originally the conflict was originally titled the War of the Rebellion or War of Southern Rebellion. Civil war was actually a compromise that became popular around the turn of the century.
A better analogy is to look at independence or secessionist movements rather than civil wars.
Then by all means pick an independence or secessionist movement of the period and show me one where the losing side got off as easy as the South did.
I do not see the conflicts with either Ireland and Scotland as civil wars. They are closer to independence or secessionist movements, much like the American Revolutionary war. I have absolutely no idea how many Irish were killed in those wars. But at least 600,000 Americans died in the 1860’s and I am not certain if Ireland even had a population of 600,000 in the 1500’s.
OK, then if the Irish conflict of that period was something akin the the Southern rebellion then upwards of 40% of the population of Ireland died as a result of their secessionist movement. How does the South's losses compare to that?
The South has still not recovered from the affects of the Civil War.
Oh please!
Reconstructionist treated the South far worse than the US treated either Germany or Japan after WWII.
Now who's comparing apples and oranges?
I understand that from your point that being assimilated back into the Union is a good thing; however, the South did not want to be reassimilated back into the Union, it wanted its independence from the Union. They were Confederate by choice, and Union by force. It would be similar to the colonists being reassimilated under British rule if the American Revolution had failed.
And had the American Revolution failed, what do you suppose would have happened to the American leaders? Would John Adams lived to a peaceful old age in retirement? Would George Washington been a college president? Or would they and dozens of others wound up at the end of a rope?
I made the point that those that signed the Declaration of Independence would be executed by the Brits. If a civil war has to do with a geographical location, then Ireland, India, and Africa would not apply. It would have to do with the Civil War within the boundaries of England. The monarchy was reestablished immediately after Cromwell's death. Reconstruction ,on the other hand, prohibited many confederates from holding political office and placed Negroes into political offices. Lands were confiscated and carpet baggers took advantage of political opportunities. Martial law was declared and Union troops intimidated the Southern population. Cities, such as Atlanta and Richmond were devastated.
To say that the South got off easy is your opinion and not one shared by people that actually endured the affects of the war. Your opinion reveals much about your presuppositions. Again, let me say, the South did not want to be part of the Union. Being part of the Union is punishment, not reward. The South is not a member of the Union by choice, it is solely by force. There is a significant and growing number of people that would gladly secede from the United States if it were not for military force.