I don't know where Dr. Williams get's his definition but every on-line dictionary I've checked defines a civil war as " war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Which is an accurate defintion of what happened.
'...war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country..."
Then there is no such thing as a war for independence? Mr. Williams has it right. He is the maverick's maverick.He is a Southern Black man that displays the Confederate Battle flag proudly in his office.
As Granny said of the War on the Beverly Hillbillies, "it was when the North invaded America".
since it was a war between TWO SOVEREIGN nations, you are (as usual) obviously WRONG!
free dixie,sw
There is always the idealistic northerner who presents the image of the "ideal northerner's pure intentions" in that war. The fact that northerners also owned slaves (which were not freed by the emancipation proclamation) is conveniently discarded in the northerner's attempt to cast themselves and their ancestors in the heroic light of perfectionism.
History is rewritten by the victors of any conflict; just as the Vietnam Veterans Against the War rewrote the history of that conflict to cast John Kerry in the role of hero. Being controlled by the Communists, in essence they WERE the victors with the power to rewrite history.
So, now, your state or region absolutely cannot secede from the Union, just as you or your state or region must, in reality, bow to the many times insufferable and outlandish actions of the federal government. You have no recourse. We pay an awful lot of taxes, the likes of which would have gagged the founding fathers of this country. . and a lot of good is done with those taxes, but then there are the Pork Barrel Princes with a lifetime slot at the trough in this very powerful central government who shamelessly abuse our largesse.
If you like the concept of a very powerful central government, just wait until Hillary Clinton ascends the royal throne of power acquired for her by the brave soldiers in blue so long ago.
If the northern states hadn't wallowed in the slop of slavery also, the ringing platitudes of their descendants villifying those "horrible slave holding southerners" would not ring so hollow. If the slavery supporting remarks of Lincoln hadn't been so very clear in their intent, his alleged crusade against slavery would hold more water as THE cause of that war.
Whenever I have any doubt about much of anything, I have learned to follow the money and cause and effect is usually then pretty well explained.
It's a shame what has happened to these new dictionaries. Dumbed down for the "new" Americans.
Williams is older than the new dictionaries. He probably learned his definitions when they weren't generalities for the intellectually lazy.
Mr. Williams definition is correct. The citizens of the South were no longer citizens of the US, but citizens of the Confederacy. Civil war would not be appropriate.
I don't know where Dr. Williams get's his definition but every on-line dictionary I've checked defines a civil war as " war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Which is an accurate defintion of what happened.
His definition is for revolution.
Now Noni!
You know that dog "aint" gonna hunt.....
It was TWO countries at war: USA vs. CSA :)
That's not really accurate here.
The legally, duly constituted governments of several states, elected by the citizens and reflecting the sentiments of the majority of them, voted to remove themselves from a civil compact they had willingly entered several decades before.
A "Civil War" is more properly a situation as existed in Englan in the 1660's when fighting broke out between Royalist forces and Puritan Parlimentarian forces all over England. In this situation, there was no attempt to establish an independent state, but rather to overthrow an existing government.
I don't know where Dr. Williams get's his definition but every on-line dictionary I've checked defines a civil war as " war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Which is an accurate defintion of what happened.
Whether a war is later labelled by historians as a "Civil War" or a "War of Independence" is determined by who wins.
Before the defeat of the British at Yorktwon, the British considered the Americans as citizens of the same conutry in rebellion. Was it then a "Civil War" or a "War of Independence"? Both sides agree it was a "Revolution".
During the 1861-1865 period, contempory writings on the Confederate side describe the war as a "War of Independence" and contemporary Union writing always refer to a "Rebellion".
The term "Civil War" came into common use in the North at a later date as a less "in your face" term to use than "The Great Rebellion".
If the Confederate States had won, it would have been called the "War of Independence".
I just thought I'd get back to you after talking to him.
The key then would be whether you recognize the states' acts of secession. If you agree with those who deny the validity of the secessions, then it is a war between citizens of the same country. If you agree with the secessionists, then it was a war to regain the seceded states.
If you deny the validity of secession, then it was a civil war. If you recognize the secession, then civil war is not a valid term.