Revolution v. Civil War

[Cozarkian]

I posit that the U.S. Civil War should be called the Confederate Revolutionary War.

In the American Revolution, the colonies successfully revolted against the authority of the British government and set up their own government. In the Civil War (Confederate Revolution), the Southern States unsuccessfully revolted against the authority of the U.S. government and attempted to set up their own government. The wars were fundamentally similar in their goal and should not be classified differently based solely upon which side was the victor. Further, I propose the following definitions for classification of all future such wars.

Civil War: A war in which multiple factions are fighting for control of the same government. For example, the King dies and his sons fight each other to become the next king.

Revolutionary War: A war intended to free the revolters from the control of the established government by either replacing the government, deposing its leader, or forming a new, autonomous government.

edit: I put this in the Loresraat because why it is called the Civil War has always been a mystery to me (and also because there is no language forum).

[Avatar]

Hmmm, we do have a history forum though, Vraith can move it if he thinks it's better suited to it.

Anyway, yes, it was a failed revolution really, which is probably what it would have been called if they'd won.

Personally, I call it a war of secession.

--A

[Vraith]

Hmmm...maybe it would make more sense to call the American Revolution a civil war like the Civil War.

I say this because the point wasn't to [as in the French and Russian revolutions, among many others] overthrow/replace the gov't.
The point was to break the civil status, form a new/separate nation.

Just a thought.

Edited to add: I'm fine with it staying here. It's not EXACTLY history, so much as theory/definition. If I was gonna move it at all, it would probably go over to the Close cuz it's muchly semantics.
But as everyone knows by now, I LIKE semantics. So I'll keep it in my Fiefdom, unless someone objects.

[Avatar]

I thought the original point of the Revolution was to get representation?

--A

[wayfriend]

Cozarkian seems to posit that a 'revolutionary war' is a war of secession.

This need not be the case. Consider the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution. England had a Revolution a hundred years earlier, and then had another. I am sure there are more. A Revolution is replacing a system of governance with another.

The American Revolution was a war of secession. The US Civil war was a war of secession. Similar, but different: on the one hand, a colony breaking from a empire, on the other, a single extant nation splitting in half.

In neither case was there a Revolution, I would say. Rather, it was a declaration of independent sovereignty that left the existing government alone (excepting that it lost some territory). Still, I could see one arguing that, for the people seceding, it is replacing a government. Still, the original government was not overthrown.

A 'civil war' is merely a war within a nation. It is an "internal war". Any Revolutionary war would be a Civil War, I would have to conclude. (Unless one is revolting against an external occupier, perhaps.)

But a Civil war need not be a Revolutionary war. It can be also be a war of secession, when the secession is splitting a nation. It can also be other things, I imagine.

So the American Revolution seems to be a Secessionary War and not a Revolutionary War. Arguably it was a Civil War.

And the US Civil War seems to be a Secessionary War and not a Revolutionary War. Certainly it was a Civil War.

So I conclude that they are very similar, as Cozarkian posits. Just for not the same reason.

The difference in the outcomes makes all of the difference.

[Vraith]

I thought the original point of the Revolution was to get representation?

--A

Heh...representation WHERE?
In gov't.
The colonies tried normal "civil" methods first. The Brits wouldn't consider it.
Then came independence/war.
By my reckoning/thought process, it was a civil war [war of secession is a civil war, not a revolutionary one, it's attempted splitting of one gov't/civilization into 2 or more independent gov/civ's.]
IF we had sailed over, overthrown the Brit gov't and replaced it, taking over and becoming the United States of Brit. and America...that would be revolution.

[I'm Murrin]

Within the colonies, however, it was a revolution - an uprising against and replacement of the system of colonial government.

[wayfriend]

Within the colonies, however, it was a revolution - an uprising against and replacement of the system of colonial government.

Like I said, you can argue that secession is revolution, on the mere basis of 'something changed'. But I think it's not, since your not doing half of what is required - deposing the old rulers - and your not effecting the whole nation - just that one piece. Not that this opinion matters as anything other than a statement of what I think.

But the term 'revolution' is applied to these kinds of things on the basis of, what was at the bottom (or a wagon wheel) comes around to the top, and what was at the top goes around to the bottom. Everyone moves in the hierarchy. That applies to the French Revolution more than it does the American one, surely.

Yes, I am rereading The System of the World at the moment. These things are in my head just now ...

[SerScot]

I've always thought of a "civil war" as a war between factions for control of an entire nation. As such, the American Civil War, was not a "Civil War" as I understand it. The Confederates were not fighting for control of the U.S. they were fighting for independence from the U.S.

[I'm Murrin]

Within the colonies, however, it was a revolution - an uprising against and replacement of the system of colonial government.

Like I said, you can argue that secession is revolution, on the mere basis of 'something changed'. But I think it's not, since your not doing half of what is required - deposing the old rulers - and your not effecting the whole nation - just that one piece. Not that this opinion matters as anything other than a statement of what I think.

But the term 'revolution' is applied to these kinds of things on the basis of, what was at the bottom (or a wagon wheel) comes around to the top, and what was at the top goes around to the bottom. Everyone moves in the hierarchy. That applies to the French Revolution more than it does the American one, surely.

Yes, I am rereading The System of the World at the moment. These things are in my head just now ...

I meant it in the sense that the colonies were not strictly a part of the British nation, just under British rule, and it was the governance of the colonies that was rebelled against.

[Vraith]

I've always thought of a "civil war" as a war between factions for control of an entire nation. As such, the American Civil War, was not a "Civil War" as I understand it. The Confederates were not fighting for control of the U.S. they were fighting for independence from the U.S.

Heh...precisely the opposite of my thoughts, literally.
Civil war is about dividing/separating/independence, splitting territories/nations...even the people [as applied to 'citizen' in various ways]
Revolution is about overthrowing/replacing Gov't, but KEEPING WHOLE , including territory/nation....even people [as applied, etc.]

[Cozarkian]

Cozarkian seems to posit that a 'revolutionary war' is a war of secession.

Close. I basically three types of internal wars:

Uprisings - A war intended to depose a leader/replace a government.
War of Secession - A war intended to remove a government's control over a certain area while leaving the government intact in other geographic areas.
Civil War - A war in which the warring factions are fighting each other for control of the government rather than fighting against the established government.

I would classify uprisings and secessions both as revolutionary wars. I like that classification largely because a partially successful uprising could result in secession. For example, if the colonies had originally intended to go conquer England and subsequently settled for just kicking the British out of the colonies, it would be a failed uprising/successful war of secession, or alternatively, a revolutionary war.

On further thought, I suppose a failed civil war could also end up as a successful secession. For example, if the king dies and his sons go to war, the result could be one gaining control of the entire government (successful civil war), one gaining control of the crown but the other establishing his own nation (secession) or the monarchy collapsing and both of the sons setting up two new governments (two secessions, or alternatively, one secession and one uprising).

Given that, maybe what I call a civil war should be a faction war and all three of them could be civil wars, with revolutionary wars covering both uprisings and secessions.

The latter system would make U.S. Civil War a technically correct name, although Confederate Revolution would convey more information about the type of civil war and would be less of a mouthful than Confederate War of Secession.

[Cozarkian]

Heh...precisely the opposite of my thoughts, literally.
Civil war is about dividing/separating/independence, splitting territories/nations...even the people [as applied to 'citizen' in various ways]
Revolution is about overthrowing/replacing Gov't, but KEEPING WHOLE , including territory/nation....even people [as applied, etc.]

See, for me, revolution entails fighting against the established government. Let's say the Red States and Blue States in the U.S. suddenly go to war against each other, each trying to conquer the entire U.S.

Under your definition, even though nobody is actually fighting against the U.S. Government, it would be a revolutionary war. In fact, it would be two revolutionary wars (the Blue Revolution and the Red Revolution).

[Vraith]

Heh...precisely the opposite of my thoughts, literally.
Civil war is about dividing/separating/independence, splitting territories/nations...even the people [as applied to 'citizen' in various ways]
Revolution is about overthrowing/replacing Gov't, but KEEPING WHOLE , including territory/nation....even people [as applied, etc.]

See, for me, revolution entails fighting against the established government. Let's say the Red States and Blue States in the U.S. suddenly go to war against each other, each trying to conquer the entire U.S.

Under your definition, even though nobody is actually fighting against the U.S. Government, it would be a revolutionary war. In fact, it would be two revolutionary wars (the Blue Revolution and the Red Revolution).

Fun...but I don't think so.
Because BOTH colored state sets are trying to replace the existing gov't, which does not allow states or groups of states wage war on each other.
They may not LIKE it, but they are ALLIES in a revolution...which is a totally weird thing. Nevertheless so. Because EVERY side wants one whole country in the same place as before. Only who is in charge changes.

of course, we're all just arguing impressions/definitions, trying to get at the most precise denotation, based on various denotations and connotations already existing...which is ultimately fruitless, [in one way] cuz someone[s] will change, slangify, elide, it to something else almost immediately.
But bountiful fruitiness in another [or do I mean fruity bountifulness?]
cuz an unchanging language is just...dead. Being a linguistic purist [or grammartarian, and all the related things] is to be a murderer.
To go tangential [my spec-ial-i-tea...]
If one thinks terrible grammar and misplaced commas are a sign that society/education is decaying...well, the one thinking that....hee heee... is the killer, in the schoolhouse, with the dogma.

ALL of that, in a way, lead to this for Cozarkian which I should have said earlier:
someone noted there is history thread.
There is also, though not "linguistic" anywhere I've notice, a place called "The Close" for things philosophical/religious.
Technically, this issue could be history, most likely a semantics/linguistics thing belongs in the Close...[/sigh...I guess I'll try to figure out how to move things, since I've argued myself into believing it ain't rocket science.

[wayfriend]

A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same nation state or republic, or, less commonly, between two countries created from a formerly united nation state. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region, or to change government policies.

A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution: Complete change from one constitution to another; Modification of an existing constitution.

[Cozarkian]

They may not LIKE it, but they are ALLIES in a revolution...which is a totally weird thing.

Why should we prefer a definition that creates such a weird situation? By definition, they can't be allies because they are the two opposing forces in war. To illustrate, imagine every elected leader and the entire line of succession for the Presidency is dead. There would literally be nobody in charge of the current government, so the only fighting would be between the two sides fighting for control of the government. That's not a revolution, it's a civil war.

of course, we're all just arguing impressions/definitions, trying to get at the most precise denotation, based on various denotations and connotations already existing...which is ultimately fruitless,

Intellectual debate is never fruitless.

ALL of that, in a way, lead to this for Cozarkian which I should have said earlier:
someone noted there is history thread.
There is also, though not "linguistic" anywhere I've notice, a place called "The Close" for things philosophical/religious.
Technically, this issue could be history, most likely a semantics/linguistics thing belongs in the Close...[/sigh...I guess I'll try to figure out how to move things, since I've argued myself into believing it ain't rocket science.
[/color]

Semantics is the branch of linguistics that studies meaning. Linguistics is the science of language. This is the science forum, so I still think this thread is in the right forum.

The more I think

[Orlion]

Intellectual debate is never fruitless.

Afraid I'll have to disagree with you... intellectual debate (particularly on the Internet) is one of the most futile endeavors you can embark on.

[Avatar]

Wait...how come this ended up in the Close of all places?

--A

[Vraith]

Wait...how come this ended up in the Close of all places?

--A

Cuz I put it here.
It's not about history. It's about linguistics/semantics and opinion...and while some aspects approaches on that are science-like, they're the soft way, and mostly philosophical. The Close IS the philosophy place, isn't it?

Which I already mostly said in my previous!
That's how you read so fast!
You skim and scan!

[Avatar]

Haha, I read it after I posted. But it amused me to ask anyway.

Revolution:

Noun: A forcible overthrow of a government or social order for a new system.

Civil War:

Noun: A war between citizens of the same country.

It could be both at the same time.

--A