Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: trek

No I am referring to the Civil War, no need to sugar coat it.


49 posted on 10/15/2005 9:33:24 AM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany it now is: Question Everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]


To: aft_lizard
"no need to sugar coat it."

In that case I'm:

sending back my fierce defiance and stamping on the cursed alliance!

55 posted on 10/15/2005 9:35:20 AM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: aft_lizard; Dawgreg
To quote Webster:

Civil War: War between geographical sections or political factions of the same nation. {emphasis mine}

To call the conflict a civil war is to presuppose the outcome. The right of the southern States to secede and form the Confederacy was the central question being contended between the parties. Calling the War Between the States a "civil war" is done to hide the true causes of the war. Its just one of many ways modern elites poke southerners in the eye.

But I will admit that it is wisely, if unfortunately, written that the victors write the history.

153 posted on 10/15/2005 11:12:00 AM PDT by trek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: aft_lizard

Technically not a civil war. Carefully and properly used, a civil war is a word for a war to overthrow a government; for instance, the English Civil War is, in fact, a civil war.

The US "civil war" isn't. It's a war of independence.


243 posted on 10/15/2005 6:29:14 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson