Poll: Way Down SouthFollow

Glad to see you're able to identify when you're being a douche.

By the dictionary definition, not the Varus definition, the North and the South were two factions or regions within the same country that started a war.

How'd that work out for you?

Varus makes a good point.

Just think, if the Confederate Army had won the war, Varus would be sitting on some forum right now talking about how the Confederate Founding Fathers saw it in their Divine Will to protect the Right to Slavery in the constitution. But that Right doesn't extend towards federally administered Negro Immunization programs and if typhoid wipes through your okra farm, the wraith of Jefferson Davis would smile warmly upon you as you used strong conservative ideals to head down to the Negro Farm and buy yourself a fresh batch of slaves.

Edited, Apr 13th 2010 12:24pm by Jophiel

Oy vey.

Tulip,

nuh uh...


Miserly...sure.

Edited, Apr 13th 2010 2:13pm by knoxxsouthy

Sure. And both cars and planes are vehicles. But if we want to make a distinction between them, it's helpful to use the more specific terms. I'm not denying that a car is a vehicle. But I am saying that it is more specifically called a "car". We have this useful phrase called "War of Secession". It allows us to make a distinction between a conflict like the US Civil War, and say the War of the Roses.


Other than name, why use a less precise descriptive term on purpose? Is it for historical reason? Cause that's not necessarily a good way to determine what something is or isn't. Just look at the US Revolutionary War. Despite the name, it was *not* a Revolution. Yet it's only been relatively recently that textbooks have changed the name they apply to it. Was the Civil War actually a "civil war"? It really depends on how broadly you apply the definition. There are much more accurate descriptions of the nature of that conflict.

I don't honestly care that much what someone calls it in terms of label. The purpose of a label is so that people know what you're referring to. If someone talks about the "Civil War" (in a presumed US historical context), we all know which conflict they're talking about and we move on. But it is not at all incorrect for someone to point out that the Civil War doesn't perfectly fit the normal model of a "civil war". And if someone does do that, I'll tend to agree that there are more accurate terms to use if our purpose is to describe the nature of the conflict itself.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

That was really all you had to write. You agree that it was a civil war. Because, the only reason we're having this idiotic discussion is that Varus claims it's not a civil war at all. He wasn't trying to clarify it, or make it more specific. He was saying- Better yet, just read what he wrote:



Now, you can keep trying to write long, meaningful posts and twist Varus's position if you like, but he's wrong.

That's not only true for the US but internationally as well. The CSA failed to gain international legitimacy. It was a battle between the federal armies of the US and those people in the United States who were attempting to rebel. It was never a war between two nations but a war contained within a single nation, the United States of America.

Jophed,

Actually if we're using the strict term of the word Nation...the confederacy was most certainly a nation.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nation

A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.

The territory occupied by such a group of people




Remind me again, did the south create their own constitution? Were the people south of the mason dixon line occupying that territory?

Tough questions..

I did read it. Did you? He didn't say, "The south didn't think it was a civil war."

It doesn't really matter what the South thought it was called. What it was, in actuality, was a civil war. Where two regions in the same country went to war. And you put it perfectly. All the labels you want to try to apply afterward does not change that simple fact.

Tulip,



So any two regions going to war with one another constitutes a civil war. Sounds about right considering you were publicly educated.

Most definitions define a civil war as being two factions fighting for control over one government. The south wasn't fighting to control the govn. Can you even see the difference? What you call the civil war is closer to a revolution than anything. However, yankees didn't want the common people, like yourself, being forced to compare the american revolution with the "civil war". They couldn't very well have people they were drafting in the north think they're fighting against a modern day George Washington could they?

It's no different than liberals changing muslim terrorists to man-made disasters. They both mean the same thing right? What does it matter what it's called? It is after all only a name. And since the Dems won the election they get to re-define words to mean whatever they like.

Yes. Any two regions in the same country. That's an important bit.



According to lolWiki, a civil war may have one side trying to take control of the nation, or to change policies.

I have not, before this discussion, seen anyone stipulate that in a civil war, both sides MUST be fighting for control of one government. It seems assinine to do so.

And, really, you wouldn't be arguing what it was called if you were still allowed to own black people.