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?
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?