So many problems with this article. First off, there’s the statement that it wasn’t a Civil War because only wars with two or more entities trying to take over the central government can be caused Civil Wars. First off, this definition is wrong, and secondly, who cares! By any name it was an illegal war over slavery.
The next big problem is that the article talks about outlawing slavery and poo-poos the Emancipation Proclamation. So, for at least the fifth time, the Union was not fighting the Civil War to outlaw slavery, it was fighting the war to maintain the Union, and because the Confederacy started the shooting part of the war by engaging in an unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter.
When I say the war was about slavery what I am talking about is why the Southern States seceded and started the war. The reason, as in shown in the Articles of Secession (for 5 states at least, the other states did not list a reason in their Articles of Secession) was slavery. I will conclude with my go-to statement from the Mississippi Articles of Secession “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.”
So, to summarize, this article splits hairs over a word meaning, and then talks about an issue that is not in contention at all (that the North didn’t fight the war to outlaw slavery), without once ever discussing who started the war (the South), and why (defense of slavery).
“By any name it was an illegal war over slavery.”
Ha! Who decides which wars are “legal”?
Some court in the Hague?