Talk:Naming the American Civil War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
2005. 2006.

Contents

[edit] Defining a civil war

The second paragraph (on how political scientists define a civil war) seems likely to confuse readers, and strikes me personally as pedantic. Can we find some clearer, but still neutral way of stating that some people do not agree that this was, strictly speaking, a "civil war"? For that matter, there is disagreement on whether it is really more properly described as a war over "a secession movement," as the passage now states.

I agree that this should be dealt with briefly and near the beginning. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user deleted the passage and was reverted. I support the removal and have repeated it. I would welcome a discussion here. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War of Northern Aggression

Moved anonymous comment from article to here: (Hal Jespersen 02:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC))

Please keep ths focus of the discussion on the article, not on historiographical issues. This is not the place for dueling opinions about the Civil War. -- Rob C (Alarob) 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I have seen on other talk pages where editors' comments that were deemed irrelevant to the improvement of the article were deleted; the same seems appropriate here, and I have done so. Unschool 08:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user deleted the sentence in this section about Fort Sumter. FWIW I support the deletion, as the sentence read like special pleading or point-scoring. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment that this is an isolated term not widely used is incorrect. It's a common term in the South, and much more recognizable than "The War Between the States" (a northern term). Can we get a more accurate description and move it up top, rather than a definite bias. To be more accurate, either move ALL alternate names down or bring this one up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.76.139 (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it is commonly heard in Texas, but not from any scholarly source or even the public schools I went to. "War Between the States" I have heard on a level just under that of "Civil War" itself. -BaronGrackle 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Under the header for this term the article currently provides no origin or history of usage, only a theoretical justification for its use ("... a name which emphasizes the opinion that..."). Can anyone add documented discussion of when & where first used, in what context, and how frequently in various contexts since then? 67.101.123.171 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone ever seen "War of Northern Aggression" used seriously? Can someone cite a book title, or a point to a photo of a war monument where it's used? Should the paragraph call it's usage a joke, or ironic or semi-serious or something? 4.152.222.46 (talk) 03:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign languages

I know it's not directly relevant to the topic of the article itself (alternate English-language names for the war within the US), but I thought it interesting that the Japanese call it Nanboku sensō (南北戦争), the "South-North War". A conflict which had very little if any bearing at all on Japan, and yet they have their own name for it, not a direct translation of any of ours. LordAmeth 09:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In Latvian, it is called "Amerikas pilsoņu karš." I don't know how to add it to than language box, though. Kevin 87.110.59.120 (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

[edit] War of the Rebellion

For what it is worth, I've seen at least one old monument(in Illinois) that called it the "War of the Rebellion". Bubba73 (talk), 03:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Writings of prominent men such as Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, William Tecumseh Sherman, P.G.T. Beauregard, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Judah P. Benjamin used the term "Civil War" both before and during the conflict. Abraham Lincoln used it on multiple occasions.[4][5][6]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfalter (talk • contribs) 04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusing entry but this is my first shot. My concern with this sentence is the assertion that Jefferson Davis, P.G.T. Beauregard, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Judah Benjamin "used the term "Civil War" both before and during the conflict." No problem with Abraham Lincoln, but I have serious reservations that any of the other aforementioned would ever use the term "civil war" to describe the conflict in which they were engaged. The references cited are unclear and, given the significance of the assertion, incomplete. I am looking for the Proclamation which is attributed (?)to Jefferson Davis but have been unable to locate it. Wfalter 04:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wfalter. Those references really do need to be more precise. Good catch. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 07:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Seldom used"

"English-speaking historians outside the United States usually refer to the conflict as the "American Civil War" or, less often, "U.S. Civil War". These variations are seldom used in the United States except in cases in which the war might otherwise be confused with another historical event (such as the English Civil War)."

Does it matter whether it is often used "in the United States" for us to describe the war accurately? "America" is a term used to describe North America, Central America, and South America. I understand what you mean when you say "American Civil War," but our understanding does not mean the term should not be changed. Perhaps I am being "picky," but the name of my country is not "America." People use what is often used--or what is perceived to be "better." The example I will give is the use, by those in the Ichthyology field, of "Fishes"--to describe many individuals of more than one species of fish (where "fish" is used to describe many individuals of one species). Oh, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fishes... The use of "fishes" is made with an explanation that, to many, makes sense. I don't like that change (my history in English class maybe), and I still call them fish, deer, etc... In a similar manner, the "American Civil War" was not really about "America" so much as it is about the United States--whether anyone "likes" the change should be irrelevant. The change to "United States Civil War" makes it clear what we are talking about...--Manos Lijeros (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it not the case that most historians, even in the United States, include the word "American" in "Civil War"? It's true that they would not keep repeating "American Civil War" throughout the entire course of a work after the context is established, but wouldn't this be the case regardless? When a British writer covers the topic, does he/she call it "American Civil War" every single time it appears on the page, or does he/she revert to "Civil War" after introducing it? I'd wager that an American author who writes on the English Civil War, after referring to it, would eventually just call it "Civil War" to avoid repeating the longer phrase. -BaronGrackle 19:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer your first question, not really. Having read American history at all levels of my education, I would say it is far more common for an American historian to write "Civil War" throughout. So long as the book or article provides context early on, there is no reason to say "American Civil War". No one would read an opening paragraph about Southern slavery or Lincoln's election in 1860 and wonder if the article is about the Spanish Civil War. -Rrius (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rruis here. Context is all important. We all tend to be somewhat centred on our own country. If I refer to "The Cilvil War", I would normally mean the ECW, but equally, if i stated that "Lincoln's assassination at the end of the Civil War was a great tragedy", I suspect that not too many would see the hand of Cromwell behind it! Mbalmer (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I would have been better advised to just edit the page quietly and keep my mouth shut here :-). The original text I changed was the "seldom used" line quoted when I began this header. The sentence now reads: "These variations are also used in the United States in cases in which the war might otherwise be confused with another historical event (such as the English Civil War)." I do understand and somewhat agree with what all of you are saying, but I felt the "seldom used" phrase was misleading and/or unfair. Nearly any American-written book on "the Civil War" is going to use the phrase "American Civil War" at some point in the book, even if it's just once. And (as Rrius seems to agree), I'd say that U.S.ers use just the phrase "Civil War" about as often as any country's denizens would use just the phrase "Civil War" to describe their own conflicts. Still, we wouldn't say something like: "The name 'Spanish Civil War' is seldom used in Spain itself." Do you think my edit was fair/accurate? -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)