[x]

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."

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.

[lentulusgracchus]

The official name of the war in Northern records was "the War of the Rebellion."

Partisan propaganda -- as partisan as the regime in the North was. As the arrests of dozens of newspapermen, which are on the public record, attest.

"The Civil War" was a big concession to Southern feelings.

Then take it back. Don't mind us. We don't mind you.

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.

And if you lived anywhere south of Missouri or Kentucky, it was a pretty straightforward military invasion by a tyrant-adventurer.

Calling it the "War Between the States" leaves out those bums in Montgomery or Richmond who started the mess to begin with.

Jefferson Davis was a better gentleman than anyone on this board would ever try to be. Alexander Stephens and Judah Benjamin fall somewhere outside the casually abusive category of "bums", too. And this from an apologist for the cause of Benjamin "Spoons" Butler.

Let's just compromise and call it what it really was........"Lincoln's War".