Should Reconstruction and/or The Civil Rights Movement Be Considered Civil Wars?

Joshism

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2019
Messages
488
Reaction score
587
As we live in an era when people wonder if we might have another civil war, lets consider which Nth civil war should a conflict would be.

The first American civil war is actually the American Revolution, which saw quite a bit of fighting between Patriots/Rebels and Loyalists/Tories.

The War of Southern Secession is the second American civil war.

Should Reconstruction, and at least part of the Civil Rights Movement, be considered limited civil wars? Or only an extension of the 2nd American Civil War?

There's a modern school of thought that WW1 did not end in 1918, but actually continued until 1923. In other words, the Russian Revolution and Civil War, Polish-Russian War, Greco-Turkish War, Fiume Revolution, and other uprising and conflicts during this time should be considered as extensions to The Great War. We've long talked about "The Hundred Years War" between England and France even though it was really four wars. The Napoleonic Wars are likewise discussed collectively, even though there were about eight different wars, often formally concluded with peace treaties.

Reconstruction included involvement of uniformed federal soldiers, militia, and paramilitary groups. There was a struggle for political control, often with violence.

The Civil Rights Movement is a little more nebulous and less openly an armed conflict, although the third Klan might be considered a paramilitary organization and there were some uses of federal troops (ex: Little Rock). It's also less clear than Reconstruction where the "war" ended and even moreso where it began (Brown v. Board of Education ruling to passage of Civil Rights Act?). Unlike Reconstruction, the war was also somewhat one-sided regarding the use of violence as most black groups and their white allies used peaceful protest.

What do you think?
 

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
As we live in an era when people wonder if we might have another civil war, lets consider which Nth civil war should a conflict would be.

The first American civil war is actually the American Revolution, which saw quite a bit of fighting between Patriots/Rebels and Loyalists/Tories.

The War of Southern Secession is the second American civil war.

Should Reconstruction, and at least part of the Civil Rights Movement, be considered limited civil wars? Or only an extension of the 2nd American Civil War?

There's a modern school of thought that WW1 did not end in 1918, but actually continued until 1923. In other words, the Russian Revolution and Civil War, Polish-Russian War, Greco-Turkish War, Fiume Revolution, and other uprising and conflicts during this time should be considered as extensions to The Great War. We've long talked about "The Hundred Years War" between England and France even though it was really four wars. The Napoleonic Wars are likewise discussed collectively, even though there were about eight different wars, often formally concluded with peace treaties.

Reconstruction included involvement of uniformed federal soldiers, militia, and paramilitary groups. There was a struggle for political control, often with violence.

The Civil Rights Movement is a little more nebulous and less openly an armed conflict, although the third Klan might be considered a paramilitary organization and there were some uses of federal troops (ex: Little Rock). It's also less clear than Reconstruction where the "war" ended and even moreso where it began (Brown v. Board of Education ruling to passage of Civil Rights Act?). Unlike Reconstruction, the war was also somewhat one-sided regarding the use of violence as most black groups and their white allies used peaceful protest.

What do you think?
There was hardly any fighting between federal troops and white paramilitaries. There was some sporadic fighting between the KKK and the Arkansas State Militia in 1868. There was very limited fighting in the Kirk-Holden War in North Carolina between the North Carolina State Troops and KKK. The biggest battle was between New Orleans Police and Louisiana Milita vs the Red Shirts in the batttle of Liberty Palace in which ironically former Confedrate General Longstreet led black Milita Men vs the Red Shirts. The Red Shirts won.
Still Reconstruction was more like a very low insurgency vs a proper civil war.
Leftyhunter
 

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
As we live in an era when people wonder if we might have another civil war, lets consider which Nth civil war should a conflict would be.

The first American civil war is actually the American Revolution, which saw quite a bit of fighting between Patriots/Rebels and Loyalists/Tories.

The War of Southern Secession is the second American civil war.

Should Reconstruction, and at least part of the Civil Rights Movement, be considered limited civil wars? Or only an extension of the 2nd American Civil War?

There's a modern school of thought that WW1 did not end in 1918, but actually continued until 1923. In other words, the Russian Revolution and Civil War, Polish-Russian War, Greco-Turkish War, Fiume Revolution, and other uprising and conflicts during this time should be considered as extensions to The Great War. We've long talked about "The Hundred Years War" between England and France even though it was really four wars. The Napoleonic Wars are likewise discussed collectively, even though there were about eight different wars, often formally concluded with peace treaties.

Reconstruction included involvement of uniformed federal soldiers, militia, and paramilitary groups. There was a struggle for political control, often with violence.

The Civil Rights Movement is a little more nebulous and less openly an armed conflict, although the third Klan might be considered a paramilitary organization and there were some uses of federal troops (ex: Little Rock). It's also less clear than Reconstruction where the "war" ended and even moreso where it began (Brown v. Board of Education ruling to passage of Civil Rights Act?). Unlike Reconstruction, the war was also somewhat one-sided regarding the use of violence as most black groups and their white allies used peaceful protest.

What do you think?
WWI was a war between many large nation states vs just two in the Russo-Polish War or the fighting between Greece and Turkey. The Russian Civil War did briefly feature foreiegn troops but they were more for guarding supplies to the Whites vs fighting the Reds us they were as stated withdrawn in the early phase of the Russian Civil War.
Leftyhunter
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Still Reconstruction was more like a very low insurgency vs a proper civil war.
Leftyhunter
Good point I think, and that insurgency continued on until the troops were sent in during the Civil Rights movement,
 

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
Good point I think, and that insurgency continued on until the troops were sent in during the Civil Rights movement,
I would say the insurgency pretty much stopped once federal troops left and Democrats gained control of all the Southern and border state legislatiors. Kentucky was part of General Thomas's military district has some parts of My were pro Confederate.
By the mid 1960s the Klan had no intention of chalanging the US Army which was good because urban blacks in the US Army would of loved to get their hands on a Klansman .
Once Hoover under pressure instituted Cointelpro the KKK was so riddled with informants that the KKK just gave up violence but did merge after 1968 into the Republican Party.
Leftyhunter
 

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
As we live in an era when people wonder if we might have another civil war, lets consider which Nth civil war should a conflict would be.

The first American civil war is actually the American Revolution, which saw quite a bit of fighting between Patriots/Rebels and Loyalists/Tories.

The War of Southern Secession is the second American civil war.

Should Reconstruction, and at least part of the Civil Rights Movement, be considered limited civil wars? Or only an extension of the 2nd American Civil War?

There's a modern school of thought that WW1 did not end in 1918, but actually continued until 1923. In other words, the Russian Revolution and Civil War, Polish-Russian War, Greco-Turkish War, Fiume Revolution, and other uprising and conflicts during this time should be considered as extensions to The Great War. We've long talked about "The Hundred Years War" between England and France even though it was really four wars. The Napoleonic Wars are likewise discussed collectively, even though there were about eight different wars, often formally concluded with peace treaties.

Reconstruction included involvement of uniformed federal soldiers, militia, and paramilitary groups. There was a struggle for political control, often with violence.

The Civil Rights Movement is a little more nebulous and less openly an armed conflict, although the third Klan might be considered a paramilitary organization and there were some uses of federal troops (ex: Little Rock). It's also less clear than Reconstruction where the "war" ended and even moreso where it began (Brown v. Board of Education ruling to passage of Civil Rights Act?). Unlike Reconstruction, the war was also somewhat one-sided regarding the use of violence as most black groups and their white allies used peaceful protest.

What do you think?
[/QUO
US Army troops in the 1960s South didn't come into violent contact with white racist demonstrators. The US Marshalls Service did at the University of Mississippi where they shot tear gas at rock throwing whites and when they ran out of tear gas they were about to use their .38 revolvers but the US Army arrived just in time so the white rock thrower's scattered.
The closest analogy to Reconstruction although our mutual friend @ Pat Young might disagre is the Troubles of Northern Ireland aka Operation Banner from 1969 to 2007 with of course some major differences.
Although Operation Banner was not perfect and far from smooth at the end of the day Irish Catholics did acheive equal rights with the Scotch Irish aka Protestant Irish. No it wasn't pretty but the British Army , Royal Ulster Constabulary and British Intelligence services overall did a better job then federal troops did during Reconstruction.
One can also argue the 1960s was Reconstruction 2.0
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

Wehrkraftzersetzer

Hüter des Reinheitsgebotes
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
1,171
No since a civil war means that You have at least two factions which openly battle each other.

One might argue that there were several (wanna be) preludes to additional civil wars in the US. Thankfully they didn't ignite
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,619
Reaction score
4,544
Civil Rights Movement, be considered limited civil wars?
The Civil Right Movements over time are political revolutions changing politics and society from the inside, without the use of force to do it. So, NO to your assertion...
 

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
The Civil Right Movements over time are political revolutions changing politics and society from the inside, without the use of force to do it. So, NO to your assertion...
Actually the 1960s had quite a bit of politcal violence especially riots. That's not a civil war but it's not peace either. There were riots this summer as well and as police stood down homicides among African Americans increased.
Leftyhunter
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
[
Actually the 1960s had quite a bit of politcal violence especially riots. That's not a civil war but it's not peace either. There were riots this summer as well and as police stood down homicides among African Americans increased.
Leftyhunter
I like your term a very low insurgency
 

Tom

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
561
War according to international law:
"The use of violence and force between two or more states to resolve a matter of dispute. Under international law war is waged by states or state-like entities."
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
War according to international law:
"The use of violence and force between two or more states to resolve a matter of dispute. Under international law war is waged by states or state-like entities."
Poor Tom. Still trying to make dead confederates a country.
 

Leftyhunter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
302
War according to international law:
"The use of violence and force between two or more states to resolve a matter of dispute. Under international law war is waged by states or state-like entities."
No nation recognized the Confedracy so the Confedracy wasn't a nation but could buy arms. Rhodesia was never recognized as a nation but it was able to buy arms from South Africa , Singapore and the Commoros Island's. The Tamil Tiger's of Sri Lanka was not a nation but they could buy military aircraft from Poland. The PLO was not a nation but they could buy weapons from the Soviet Union and East Germany. The Leabanese Falangists were not a nation but could buy weapons from Bulgaria and Israel.
So no the Confedracy wasn't a nation but they could buy weapons just like the above examples.
Leftyhunter
 
Top