[Gaffer]

I understand your line of thought but a Civil war is not solely defined by a ubiquitous intermingling of combatants.

It is most commonly described as a war between citizens of the same country - nothing in that description says that it has to be along state or regional lines nor does it confine itself to a melee conflagration with no distinct geographical boundaries. You are splitting hairs.

[Dr. Sivana]

It is most commonly described as a war between citizens of the same country - nothing in that description says that it has to be along state or regional lines nor does it confine itself to a melee conflagration with no distinct geographical boundaries.

Actually, the part usually present in a true civil war in the traditional sense is trying to grab (or change) the seat of power and take the whole thing. The French Revolution was a Revolution. The October Revolution was a revolution.

By the more expansive definition, the Colonies' War for Independence would be a Civil War, as nearly all involved (save some French, Hessians and Injuns) were British subjects.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is most commonly described as a war between citizens of the same country - nothing in that description says that it has to be along state or regional lines nor does it confine itself to a melee conflagration with no distinct geographical boundaries. You are splitting hairs.

The South leaving the American Union is no different than the Colonists leaving the British Union. Neither was a civil war in which both combatants fought for control of the central government.

In both cases, one combatant fought for independence from the central government, while the other fought to subjugate those who would be free of control from the central government.