[broken_arrow1]

Article states: "That in the American civil war, it was George Washington who became military leader not because he was the only one with the skills and training to do so, but..."

Oops, wrong war.

[blondiegoodbadugly]

LOL

[HighSierra5]

Maybe it was the wrong guy.

[Who is John Galt?]

Our War for Independence was a war of secession: the colonies fought for withdrawal from the British empire, not for dominion over it. That war is nevertheless misconstrued at times as a “civil war.” That is even more true of our War for Southern Independence, which was also a war of secession (fought for withdrawal from the United States, not dominion over them). The War for Southern Independence was no more a “civil war” than was our Revolutionary War...

[El Laton Caliente]

From a European prospective the revolutionary war would also be a civil war. British subjects fighting British subjects and the British Military. Just my guess...

[VanShuyten]

It was a war of people against their own government. That’s pretty much a definition of “civil war”. On this side of the Atlantic, we like to see it as revolution, but the government in Britain, the country we were a part of, didn’t change. Our side seceded successfully.

[SolidRedState]

He is British, to the British our Revolutionary War was a Civil War.

[Tallguy]

Some historians look at the American Revolution as an extension of the series of English Civil Wars that had been going on for centuries.