Don't concede the Unionist position by calling the War Between the States a "Civil War." By calling it a "Civil War" you presuppose the conflict to have been an internal struggle between one people bound together in a single indivisible nation. But in a very real sense the proposition that the United States were one nation indivisible was the fundamental issue in dispute between the parties.
Referring to the conflict as the "War Between the States" is a relatively neutral way to describe accurately the conflict. If you want to give the unionists a taste of their own medicine refer to the conflict as the "War of Northern Aggression" or the "War for Southern Independence." These monikers are the Southern equivalents of calling the conflict the "Civil War."
It is a measure of how deeply the unionist view has permeated the culture that any reference to the conflict other than the "Civil War" is now considered strange and confusing even in the South. But this only reflects the fact that history is written by the victors.
Again, in a very real sense, the assault by the PC left on Southern history is just the modern day incarnation of Reconstruction.
You raise a very good point.
The "Pledge of Allegiance" codifies and seeks to cast in stone for the students who are asked to recite it, the politics of Daniel Webster and the Yankee industrialists, whose political program consisted of three basic premises:
This was the real significance of Webster's construction, or should I say "re-imagining", of the Union. Everything else was window-dressing.
The Framers, needless to say, did not share Webster's bullyboy conception of the Union (and its self-proclaimed champions and keepers, as a group) as master of the People.
Seen in that light, your point is well taken that the locution "the American Civil War" as a descriptive term of art actually biases the discussion. However, in general usage the term has been accepted for generations now throughout the country, and so I wouldn't make too big a deal of it until and unless I had successfully demonstrated by rational exposition the falsity of Webster's and Lincoln's position. That exposition is the essential work of anyone who wants to show American history in a clear light.
Defense of the usage "War Between the States" is in order, I think. I also think it is always necessary for clarity in argument, to object to the use of the words "rebellion" and "insurrection" to describe secession and the war of conquest which followed.
Referring to the conflict as the "War Between the States" is a relatively neutral way to describe accurately the conflict. If you want to give the unionists a taste of their own medicine refer to the conflict as the "War of Northern Aggression" or the "War for Southern Independence." These monikers are the Southern equivalents of calling the conflict the "Civil War."
The official name of the war in Northern records was "the War of the Rebellion." "The Civil War" was a big concession to Southern feelings. And indeed, if you were living in Kentucky or Missouri, that war was very much a "civil war" that pitted brother against brother, father against son for control of your state.
I guess if you really believe that we became two countries overnight, you'd object to calling the 1861-1865 war the "Civil War." But "War Between the States" is also awkward. States weren't fighting against other states. Rather, two large federations composed of states fought against each other (with a variety of guerrillas and freebooters also involved).
Wartime Confederate terminology reflected this. It was the "War between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America," not a war betwen Mississippi and Alabama, Maine and New Hampshire. Calling it the "War Between the States" leaves out those bums in Montgomery or Richmond who started the mess to begin with.
"The War of Southern Independence may be a "Southern equivalents of calling the conflict the "Civil War." "The War of the Secession" is another possibility. The "War of Northern Aggression" isn't. It's a lot worse, more biased and inaccurate than "the Civil War," which may contain assumptions you don't agree with, but which doesn't demonize the other party.
As you wish. So long as you don't mind that I apply the more correct label of "War of Southern Rebellion."