Talk:Names of the American Civil War/Archive 2

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).

German: Although "Sezessionskrieg" (war of secession) can be found occasionally (usually in history books) it's a rather uncommon term, and a lot of people (especially younger people in Germany) don't know the meaning of the term. The term 'Amerikanischer Bürgerkrieg' (American Civil War) is used far more frequently.Ulsterman (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, especially as Sezession is commonly used in German to refer to artistic movements, e.g. Vienna Secession. OTOH the German Wikipedia currently uses Sezessionskrieg as the title of the relevant article, and Amerikanischer Bürgerkrieg redirects to Sezessionskrieg. I recommend that we follow their lead. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

In Icelandic the war is called Þrælastríðið, The Slave War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.126.81 (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

"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)


 * Actually, the name of the country is America. It's the United States of America, no different than the United States of Mexico, the Commonwealth of Australia or the Federal Republic of Germany.  There's certainly some small ambiguity  with the word "American" because the country shares its name with a continent, but throughout the English-speaking word the assumed meaning of "American" is "of or pertaining to the USA" rather than "of or pertaining to the Americas", unless there's a contextual reason to suppose otherwise.  (And the term United States isn't totally without ambiguity either.)  But, as with most problems, the best way to deal with that ambiguity is to employ moderation, by using either "American" or "United States" depending on which is more appropriate&mdash;insisting on always using "United States" and never using "American" would be as silly as always using "American" and never using "United States".  In the case of the Civil War, American is already in far more common usage than the United States Civil War, and also happens to make perfect sense: a civil war by definition centres upon a conflict in one country, and so the Americas as a whole wouldn't be capable of having "a civil war".  There's thus no ambiguity at all in the phrase "American Civil War".  Binabik80 (talk) 05:24, 3 August 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)

National Park Service naming of the Battlefields
The comment in the text reads "The National Park Service occasionally uses the Southern names for their battlefield parks located in the South, such as Manassas and Shiloh." In a discussion with a Park Ranger at Manassas Battlefield (when the issue was raised), the Ranger stated that the NPS uses the name of the battlefield based on which side is generally considered the victor. Thus Manassas instead of Bull Run, and Antietam instead of Sharpsburg. However, I don't know if such information should be included in the article, because I guess it counts as original research? Anyone know if the NPS actually has guidelines that could be cited in the article?

ChrTh (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide appears to confirm the practice of favoring the name chosen by the victor. I have added this to the article. KimChee (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

War for Southern Independence
I removed some sentences from this section, commenting that concerns raised about identical passages two years ago had never been addressed. For anyone interested, here is a diff from Sept. 28, 2006. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you added some nasty language, with major POV problems, and it had to be removed. Please re-edit with citations of your sources, and keep the perspective scholarly. The "War of Northern Aggression" for instance is naturally a POV name by southerners. This article merely needs to document the name, because it is very commonly used, and has been so for a long time. Adding a negative hate-filled rant about it is not proper for the article. Similarly the north also had a POV-oriented title of "The War of the Rebellion". This article should document that as well. As a southerner I have no compulsion to remove that title, it is fine, and it should stay. Do I agree that it was a rebellion? Certainly not, since it was a war for independence, or rather to defend the independence taken. Was it a War of Northern Aggression? From the victor's perspective certainly not, and the death of a couple of million Americans was a completely reasonable alternative to merely making a constitutional amendment. So let's just let the titles alone, leave the descriptions alone, and seek to cite references using those titles for the informative value they offer to the reading audience.

Thanks Respectfully Grayghost01 (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Even setting aside the well-known Wikipedia rule (Assume good faith), I reject your characterization of my edits as containing a "negative hate-filled rant." The remarks are especially surprising because after browsing the article history yesterday, I visited your user page for the first time and read it with appreciation. It gave me a positive impression of you and of your contributions to Civil War articles. Now I find that the person I admired yesterday has publicly insulted me and implied that I am motivated by hate. While I am sure my edits can be improved upon — that's the whole point of collaborative editing — I am deeply offended by your remarks, and I request an apology. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If you meant it a different way, then I certainly do apologize, good sir. But bear in mind that you changed the description of WONA by adding that it was "with humorous intent" and you removed the previous correct phrase that it implied the "North unjustly invaded the South". In my entire life in the South, I've never heard it used with humorous intent. So my first impression of reading the change was that it was ripping on the true southern view and use of the term. You also deleted the description about how the southern states thought they had a right to secede, which is another key element behind the term. So I saw the original as a fair explanation of the term and view, and it seemed like you were making fairly substantive changes to its tone. Again, I publically apologize to have questioned the good nature and intent of Mr. Rob.Grayghost01 (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I accept your gracious apology, and your criticism of "with humorous intent." This is based on my personal experience with "old folks" in Georgia, and that is not a valid evidentiary basis for an encyclopedia article. I agree to leaving it out.
 * I meant to keep the information that the phrase was intended to characterize the Union army without giving it undue emphasis. The name itself makes the point rather obvious, I thought. How does it seem to you? — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 15:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Origin of "blue devils"
This edit asserts that southern athletic teams named "Blue Devils" were evoking the Union army during the Civil War. No source was given, and I have not been able to find one that backs it up. I did find that the Duke University Blue Devils are named for a French mountain infantry unit (Chasseurs Alpins) nicknamed "les Diables Bleus" and celebrated in the United States for their role in the 1915 Vosges campaign. After the U.S. declared war on Germany in 1917, some of the Blue Devils toured the U.S. in support of the war effort (see news item). The name was still in vogue in the early '20s when it was applied to the Trinity College, later Duke, athletic program, among others. In World War II the U.S. Army 88th Infantry Division took the name, presumably because they were called upon to fight the Germans in the Italian Alps. Until we can find a source that links "Blue Devils" to Yankees, I am removing this sentence. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL. If you care to browse long enough, you'll find plenty of southern schools (not colleges) using the old Blue Devil mascot. No one in the deep south bothered writing a book to explain it, because it's a tongue-in-cheek dig, intended to be a subtle form of resistance. Its a way for southerners to smile that big ear-to-ear grin at unknowing Yanks, not realizing the insult being flung. Right down the road from here, Culpeper High School has that mascot. When I type in Google the two phrases "blue devils" and "high school" I get a mere 443,000 hits. I've always wondered if that would be the next mascot to get "yanked" (no pun intended) after the Indian stuff all gets pulled. But the gag seems to have worked, because the thousands of uses of that mascot can't even get wiki-mentioned. It was just on here for completeness sake. I'd rather it got "yanked" ... so that it won't get "yanked" in reality, once the targets of the pun realize it, and start some left-wing campaign to scourge the south of its humor. Grayghost01 (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I know the name "Blue Devils" is very widespread (as is "Red Devils," my Georgia high school mascot) — and not only among southern schools. But the only documentation I could find on the origin of the name was associated with Trinity/Duke and the Diables Bleus, and the Yankee-baiting theory doesn't seem to hold up for, say, a Connecticut school. The nickname for the 88th Infantry also suggests that the association with mountain infantry was still strong in the '40s. You may be right about some southern "Blue Devils" being linked to Yankees, but if we can't verify it, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia — even if it's true!
 * If you'll indulge a little speculation: Seems likely that the French Blue Devils inspired the name, local high school teams adopted the collegiate mascot, and over time people in parts of the South forgot the French connection and linked it to the Yankees instead. Maybe we'll even turn up a memoir or newspaper column that says as much, one of these days.
 * As for touching off a left-wing campaign — Atlanta still has its Braves, right? ;-) — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 15:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Blue Devils" as a mascot name never occurred before the War. I can assure you that the truth, verifiable or not, is that these names were sparked by the Civil War.  Personally, I think the Duke-story is a bunch of hokie.  Now it was commonly talked about and understood, for instance, that the Blue Devils of Pearl River Central High School were named after those "damn Yankees".  I grew up just south of that high school.  Similarly Culpeper High School, near my current residence, is the same deal.  Over time, the name became adcepted by the very people it insulted, such as what happened a few years ago a UNC with the Fighting Whites.  They made so many T-shirt sales that this American Indian school kept the "derogatory" mascot, which was intended as a counter to use of American Indian names (e.g. Washington Redskins).  Same happened with "Blue Devils".  Of course, in this day and age, NO PUBLIC SCHOOL is going to allow a book or web article explain the TRUE source of the names.  So the challenge, perhaps, is verifiability.  But having grown up in the deep south, and having heard explanation of the "Blue Devils", I can give you my own anecdotal witness about what the name is for, which is Yankee soldiers.Grayghost01 (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Historical information, and sources
Although this is an article about a historical subject, it is noticeably lacking in historical information. It does not address the role of historical actors and institutions — veterans' groups, memorial associations, etc. — in inventing or promulgating various names. The shifts in preferred names for the war have often been bound up with shifts in interpretation of its meaning, and advocates for different names criticized each other. We "sort of" imply this history without making it plain.

I'll begin with self-criticism. I am largely responsible for the current text in the "War between the States" section, which has been criticized as a disconnected series of bullet points instead of a coherent narrative. I agree with this criticism and have been looking up some sources for a rewrite, which I hope will inspire other contributions. I'm finding that an earlier (tedious) version of the "War between the States" section is based on the case made by historian Mildred Lewis Rutherford, without (IIRC) mentioning her in the text or her significant role in popularizing this name. She was a very significant figure in the history of naming the Civil War, and she ought to be in this article, along with her most notable critics.

I think the historical context behind "War of the Rebellion" is similarly underdeveloped: The name expresses a view that southern slaveholders were solely to blame for the war. As Wikipedia editors, it's not our job to celebrate or condemn these theories, but to give a neutral, reliably sourced account of them, of their critics, and of their history up to the present. Then readers can draw their own conclusions.

Historical sources I'm looking at, from earliest to most recent: These are all new to me, and all meet Wikipedia's WP:RS standard. I'm sharing the list in hopes of sharing the research burden, and so others can readily "check my work" as I contribute. (Email me from my user page if you have questions about these sources, or difficulty getting access to them.) — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hughes, Robert M. "'Civil War' and/or 'War between the States.'" William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd ser., 15 (1) (Jan. 1935): 40-44.
 * Ramsdell, Charles W. "The Changing Interpretation of the Civil War." Journal of Southern History 3 (1) (Feb. 1937): 3-27.
 * Pressly, Thomas J. Americans Interpret Their Civil War (Princeton University Press, 1954).
 * Franklin, John Hope. "A Century of Civil War Observance." Journal of Negro History 47 (2) (Apr. 1962): 97-107.
 * Sutherland, Daniel E. "Southern Fraternal Organizations in the North." Journal of Southern History 53 (4) (Nov. 1987): 587-612.
 * Johnson, Joan Marie. "'Drill into us … the Rebel Tradition': The Contest over Southern Identity in Black and White Women's Clubs, 1898-1930." Journal of Southern History 66 (3) (Aug. 2000): 525-562.
 * Case, Sarah H. "The Historical Ideology of Mildred Lewis Rutherford: A Confederate Historian's New South Creed." Journal of Southern History 68 (3) (Aug. 2002): 599-628.
 * Cook, Robert. "(Un)Furl That Banner: The Reponse of White Southerners to the Civil War Centennial of 1961-1965." Journal of Southern History 68 (4) (Nov. 2002): 879-912.


 * At one time there was a lot of historical info in the WBTS section. (I'm not sure if this is the version you found 'tedious'.) It was mostly removed because someone thought the article was too long. I've rejuvenated it below. The primary source for it was
 * Coski, John M., "The War between the Names", North and South magazine, vol. 8, no. 7., January 2006.

War Between the States

 * This term has been used widely in the South 1868–1960s. It was seldom used during the war itself. The Confederacy referred to the "War between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America," so the term "war between the states" may have just been an informal shortening.  Reporting a January 1865 meeting with Maryland politician Francis P. Blair, Jefferson Davis paraphrased Blair as stated that he "felt very desirous to see the war between the States terminated." It first became prominent in 1868 when former Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens published his work, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States. He did not elaborate on the origin of the term, but explained in his introduction that he attempted to "present a Constitutional view of the late War between the States of 'the Union', known as 'the United States of America'." Another influential proponent of the term was Raphael Semmes, who also published in 1868 his Memoirs of Service Afloat during the War between the States (despite his writings during the war in which he used "civil war"). General Joseph E. Johnston's 1874 memoirs were entitled Narrative of Military Operations, Directed, During the Late War between the States. (An outlier from this trend of memoirs, General John B. Gordon, prominent in Confederate veterans' affairs, entitled his 1903 work, Reminiscences of the Civil War.) Although appearing in memoirs and some scholarly publications, the term did not become popular in the South until the late 19th century.


 * In the 1880s, the term War of the Rebellion (see next section) achieved some prominence in the North and in Congress, but it was considered a derogatory term by Southerners. They inferred that it carried a connotation indicating that the rebellion was against legitimate authority, which they denied. (Although Confederates during the war frequently used the term "Rebels" to describe themselves, this was considered to be pejorative when spoken by a Northerner.) It was in reaction to this term that War Between the States was seized upon as an alternative. In 1898 the United Confederate Veterans adopted a resolution:


 * That the expression "war of the Rebellion," which is frequently indulged by the papers and publishers of the South in alluding to the war between the States, is condemned by this organization, as we deem such expressions a reflection on the patriotism of the Southern people and the cause for which they so heroically fought for four years, and we respectfully request that all such publishers in alluding to the war designate it as the civil war between the States.


 * Campaigns were held throughout the South, often led by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, to promote War Between the States in periodicals, popular literature, and perhaps most importantly, in the public schools' teaching of history. In the 1920s, prominent UDC historian and speaker, Mildred Lewis Rutherford, wrote:


 * Reject a text-book that does not give the principles for which the South fought in 1861, and does not clearly outline the interferences with the rights guaranteed to the South by the Constitution and which caused secession. Reject a book that calls the Confederate soldier a traitor or rebel, and the war a rebellion. ... Ours was not a Civil War, ... it was the War Between the States, for the non-seceding States of the United States made war upon the seceding States of United States to force them back into the Union. Please call it so, and teach it so.


 * There is a modern myth that Congress officially adopted War between the States as the name for the conflict. The UDC created a committee in 1911 to promote this idea in Congress. A resolution was introduced in February 1913 by Congressman Charles G. Edwards of Georgia that stated:


 * Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the war sometimes referred to as the "Rebellion" and the "Civil War" be, and the same is hereby, officially and legally designated, named, and known as the "War Between the States."


 * The resolution died in committee and never reached the full House. Subsequent attempts to move the resolution by appealing to Presidents William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover were rebuffed. There was a resolution passed in 1928 that includes the term, but it related to a claim of the State of Nevada against the United States and the term was used merely to designate the time the claim originated. Since records of the debate regarding the resolution include the sponsor of the bill himself and others using the term Civil War, this resolution cannot be considered an official endorsement of any name for the war.


 * Although the term was most popular in the South, there are isolated examples of others using it, generally in efforts to promote comity between the regions or to avoid controversy. The USMC War Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery uses this term, for example. In 1994, the U.S. Postal Service issued a commemorative set of postage stamps entitled "The Civil War" / "The War Between the States". In the 1960s, an official group was named with an all-encompassing compromise: the Georgia Civil War Centennial Commission Commemorating the War Between the States.


 * The primary motivation for the use of this name is the belief that the term "Civil War" is misleading and inexact. According to the United Daughters of the Confederacy:


 * Therefore, since the war was between two groups of states, the United States and the Confederate States - two separate nations - the most exact name for that great conflict of the 1860s is "War Between the States." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlj (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 September 2008


 * Thanks, Hlj, for recovering that. I took the liberty of making "War Between the States" into a subheading. It does mention Rutherford after all.
 * I think this should be reorganized and shortened so the most salient (general) points are made first, without bias or undue emphasis. Coski is certainly a reliable source; he is (was?) library director of the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, and is a noted Civil War historian. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Apprently the pp. for Coski's article are 64-73. Can't find a copy yet, but a summary appears online here.
 * Here are two more online items:
 * "What’s in a Name?" by the Civil War Sesquicentennial team at the North Carolina Department of Archives and History, here.
 * Musick, Michael P. "Civil War Records: A War by Any Other Name." Prologue Magazine (National Archives) Vol. 27, No. 2 (Summer 1995): online here. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is beginning to look more and more like a list page
This is becoming more of a list article than one of prose, which suggests to me that the more natural thing to do (per WP:NAME) is to move this to a name beginning with the phrase "List of..." As it is, the current title, "Naming the American Civil War" implies a process to be described rather than an actual list of names and their (hopefully cited) origins. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are actually two related subjects in the article. The first -- names for the war itself -- is indeed a verbose list; it also contains a tabular list of foreign names for the war (which I don't think is so valuable, but what the heck). The second is an explanation of the differences in naming conventions between North and South for battles and armies; it has a tabular list associated with it, but also an explanation of the general methodology. At the time the article was created, "Naming" seemed like a good choice to cover both topics. I am not sure what a list-format article name would look like for the combined article or whether anyone would benefit from breaking the article into multiple pieces to make revised names feasible. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at featured lists and can't find one that looks at all like this page. Since improving pagespace is what we're all here for, I'd like to know what direction you're suggesting. I see few lists as brief as the one you're suggesting, and no featured ones. Show me. On the other hand, as an article, the page has potential for improvement. BusterD (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested improving the article with historical information (above), and offered a list of reliable sources, but have not had leisure to return to this. It would be great if others would jump in. This article is less about the Civil War than it is about the years since the war and changing interpretations of the war. The challenge is to represent the name changes accurately, in context, and without taking sides or giving undue emphasis. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Northern Aggression, cont’d
Grayghost01 and I have discussed our varying experience with the term "War of Northern Aggression." In my experience with Georgians and Alabamians, esp. "old folks," the term is always used facetiously, except among the minority who sincerely adhere to the view that the Lincoln administration was solely responsible for the war. Grayghost01, on the other hand, has only known the term to be used in earnest, and has never known it to be used in any humorous context. We agreed that our personal experiences were not valid sources for encyclopedic content.

The article only represents the "earnest" interpretation of the term, with a "citation needed" flag that is periodically removed and restored. I hope we can provide more substantive information about this notable term for the war, esp. about its history.

A news story this week refers to a Missouri legislator's reference, during a floor debate, to the "War of Northern Agression." Rep. Don Calloway was using the term in earnest. His colleagues responded with "an audible gasp," and one demanded an apology. Calloway (from Webb City in the state's southwest corner) immediately granted the request. What the story implies is that the term really is used in earnest, but it is also considered "inappropriate" in some way, at least in such a public context as the floor of the Missouri House of Representatives.

I'm considering using the news story to source the usage of "WONA" and get rid of the "citation needed" flag.

The term also made headlines in 2006 during the early stage of the U.S. presidential campaign. Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, during a 20-minute talk in Charleston, S.C., jokingly referred to the "War of Northern Aggression" and drew a few laughs in response. His spokesman told reporters afterward that the audience "understood he was using it in a humorous context." But he may have been joking about the earnest use by southerners of the term. And Romney is from Massachusetts. So I'm afraid it doesn't prove my point about southerners using "WONA" facetiously.

It's possible that I hung around with some unusual southerners. In the archive of this talk page, you can find a comment by an editor whose Latino history professor used to refer to the Mexican–American War as the "War of Northern Aggression." Pretty funny, but it's not encyclopedic.

Now all we need is some history. How old is "WONA," and who first coined it? There are 1860s references to northerners and aggression, but no "War of Northern Aggression" until the latter 20th century, it seems. What's the oldest reference in print? — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Obvious bias and simple rhetoric in the (very inadequate) section on the name "War of Northern Aggression". Why is the word "belligerent" used? Both parties involved were equally "belligerent," look up the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.169.238 (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming the battles and armies
The article currently states that battles were named by the North for nearby bodies of water. However, a short look at the accompanying list and it is plainly obvious that something else is at work. Less than half of the battles are in fact named after waterways! (I believe Chantilly is a plantation and Fair Oaks is a train station.) The Union clearly named most battles for local landmarks, whether it was a river or a land formation or a crossroads.

I'm not experienced enough to judge if something so self-evident would be considered original research, and can't be bothered to find a source -- and on the other hand, I don't know if the Wikipedia list is representative -- so I'll just leave this comment. 66.41.154.228 (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think one purpose of this article is to inform those who know almost nothing of the war; perhaps for their benefit there should be an aside that many regiments on both sides were named for the states in which they were raised, and that's often how they're remembered today. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Second American Revolution
''Ward Moore used this term for the war in his alternate history novella Bring the Jubilee. Ironically, the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, would have opposed the term. In his first inaugural address, he claimed that the Southern states' secession was rightful and only "by abuse of language... [has] their act been denominated a revolution."[16]'' This seems out of place and can be deleted, in my opinion, without any harm to the article.Nitpyck (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I don't think we need fictional sources. -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jefferson Davis's First Inaugural Address (as Provisional or Permanent President?) is not a fictional source. It would be an extremely reliable source (and one verifiable in multiple places and forms) if it indeed said that "only by abuse of language ... their act been denominated a revolution." —— Shakescene (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He's referring to Ward Moore's alternate history story, which is a work of fiction. There's no need for the article to include terms used in fiction. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

"In Other Languages" Section Fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR
For international wars like the Seven Years War, the Napoleanic Wars, the two World Wars, yes, details of what those specific wars were called in countries that were combatants or were otherwise involved is expected. However, the American Civil War was solely a war between Americans, therefore the names given to it by uninvolved countries is not useful or germane to the discussion, and just clutters the article. Seriously - Latvian? - few if any Latvians were even aware that America was fighting a Civil War at the time; their later name for it is not important. Notice that the English Civil War article is not bogged down by a list of random foreign names for it. I removed this section once, my change was reverted with no other justification than "I don't think it is superfluous", so now I have deleted it again, and my policy basis for doing so is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", as well as "Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details". Before anyone considers readding this section, there should be discussion leading to consensus based on Wikipedia policy.Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not feel strongly about the resolution of this issue, but here is the justification. The selection of the name for this war is a political statement in a manner that is not similar for the other wars you mentioned. For someone who believes that the southern states legally withdrew from the Union and that the Confederacy was a legitimate separate country, the term Civil War has negative connotations. Therefore, a few years ago some reviewers started mentioning alternative foreign names for the war to demonstrate that other countries did not all share common viewpoints about how the conflict should be interpreted. Whether people of a particular nationality were aware of the conflict in the 19th century is not really material because this is an issue of historiography, which continues to evolve. I personally do not think this is all that interesting, but some people might. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your description of the justification, but as I see it the section still fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Moreover, the section does not satisfy the motive you state reviewers had for mentioning the different names, as the section listed the different names for the war by language, not by country. For instance, Arabic - would Jordanians necessarily have similar views of the war that Syrians do, just because they share a language? Another is China - would mainland Chinese have the same view of the US Civil War that Taiwanese do? Or Spanish versus Bolivians? Or Cubans? So the section fails your justification for it. And if we were to go into the details of what this or that different county thought about the war, possibly snowballing into opposing views of different factions within those countries, we would end up with an overlong mess trying to explain how different people's differnt viewpoints of a war they took no part in shaped their names for it, when really, our civil war had little if any importance or even interest to most people in these foreign countries. Certainly the fact that all of these countries were uninvolved and unaware of our Civil War is material to the weight placed on the notability of their viewpoint and namer for our war in being discussed in this article.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm the editor behind that "I don't think this is superfluous" comment, and I stand by that opinion. However, I don't have really strong feelings about the section (I just don't think it's superfluous), so I have no problem going along with consensus either way. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

War of Sec.
I know getting stats or authoritative citations is hard for a topic like this, but can some-one try to do so for War of Sec. the article currently indicates it is only uncommonly used, and then in the South. I wonder if this is true. If no one has support for the statement at the moment, could some-one please put a "ref needed" marker on it (I have no idea how to do that, otherwise I would). Kdammers (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. The way to do it is by inserting . It's helpful to add the month you inserted it, like this:  . Type shift-backslash to get the "|" character, which is called a pipe. — ℜob C. alias  &Agrave;LAROB  15:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

War of Northern Aggression
Calling the Civil War one of Northern aggression is a blatant lie, because the Slave Power was the aggressor, end of story. This is not editorial opinion; it is verifiable and well-documented historical fact, a fact of which Southern leaders of the time were proud. Southern partisans seized federal installations, fired on a federally-chartered vessel (the military escorts of which declined to return fire, I might add), shelled a federal fort into submission, and if you wish to include political maneuvering in the years before the war they used their control of the federal government to ram pro-slavery laws down the throats of the northern states, who notably failed to start shooting at them over it. There is no legitimate basis to say the war was one of northern aggression; to do so is a contemptible lie and it is the duty of any chronicler of history to point this out. Rogue 9 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation of the facts. It may be a popular interpretation, but there are other valid ones, so calling a commonly used (at some times and in some places) name "the lie" is not encyclopedic and not a neutral point of view. If you were to calm down a bit and work on finding sources to support the idea that this name is widely seen as inaccurate, perhaps a reasonable phrasing of that position could be included. "Easter Egg" links and unsupported name-calling are blog content, not encyclopedia content. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What other valid ones are there? The shooting started with the Slave Power, the political posturing started with the Slave Power, the Slave Power continuously threatened secession and war to extract concessions in domestic policy from 1850 on, it was the congressional delegation and governor of South Carolina who plotted to dispatch militia to attack Washington if John Sherman was elected Speaker of the House in 1859, it was a South Carolinian representative who viciously caned Senator Sumner on the Senate floor, it was a Southern-dominated Congress that unconstitutionally suppressed the freedom to petition the government and freedom of the press of abolitionists by barring their petitions to Congress and banning the postal service from carrying their mail, it was Slave Power partisans who launched the terror campaign in Kansas to force the Lecompton constitution upon the state, it was a Southern-dominated Congress that passed the Fugitive Slave Act which stripped the right to trial by jury from free black men accused of being escaped slaves, and I could go on and on all day. Anyone who says the North initiated the war or was aggressive prior to it (or that the South was not) is either stupendously ignorant or willfully lying; it is not up for debate nor open to interpretation. It is simply not a matter of opinion. Rogue 9 (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your neutrality in this matter is very apparent. How about some "neutral"comments from the other point of view. The aggressive Northern Army was imbedding itself on the ancestral lands of the peace loving Southern folk. The Northern garrison, led by its commander, Major Robert Anderson, secretly, and against orders, moved his company into a South Carolinian fort, known as Sumter and raised his flag in contempt of the will of the people. He then set and aimed his guns on a civilian city full of non combatants. A city that had been the home of the company for months. Anderson continued to deceive and delay peace by failing to relinquish his garrison and lying about his hopes for peace. Despite nearly being out of supplies, Anderson denied requests from the Charleston leadership to accept food, leaving his men starving for no reason. It was only when faced with the aspect of being besieged themselves, did the Southern batteries feel forced to fire on the fort in order to prevent the fort from being resupplied with men and guns, thereby protecting themselves from the onslaught of Northern aggression.-- JOJ Hutton  02:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sumter was and is a federal installation, not a South Carolinian one, which the legislature of South Carolina voluntarily surrendered all claim to by statute in 1836. |Source.  The federal army was present in a federal installation owned by the federal government.  It was not the "northern" army, it was the United States Army; Major Anderson himself was a native of Kentucky. The heavy guns of Fort Sumter were not aimed and set at Charleston, as any high school history student can tell you; it is a major point of the battle that the batteries at Sumter were unable to effectively return fire because they were pointed out to sea as part of the fort's design. Major Anderson was under no obligation to relinquish his garrison to rebels; in fact it was his duty not to do so. The Charleston leadership offered food on condition of the fort's surrender; see previous point.  At no point were the rebels illegally manning the batteries at Fort Moultrie, Fort Johnson, or Cummings Point obligated to fire on Sumter; it was their own outrageous aggression that led to the shelling. In short, you have lied in every major point of your argument; it is simply not true. Neutrality does not require making stuff up to support the unsupportable. Rogue 9 (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The fort was illegally occupied by an aggressive and repugnant northern occupier whose only mission was to taunt and harass the civilian population of Charleston. If Anderson truly wanted peace, he would never have disobeyed orders by moving his men into Sumter. He also, and again against orders, goaded the good people of the city by illegally attempting to acquire guns from the warehouse in Charleston, knowing this would incite action from the town. It was Anderson's aggressive and illegal actions that left the Southern batteries no other choice but to fire upon the fort that had its guns trained on a civilian population, in order to protect itself from the northern tyranny that was trying to destroy it. The Northern presence in Sumter left the South with no other option. If the North was truly peaceful, Anderson would never have illegally occupied Sumter and should have stayed at Moultrie. It was this aggressive and unwarranted move that gave the South no other choice but to fire on the fort in order to preserve its national identity.
 * Then, Lincoln the dictator, asked 100,000 men to invade the south so that he could control the population of the Southern states. Lincoln was the aggressor, not the South.-- JOJ Hutton  00:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Anderson was in command of the Charleston Harbor batteries, which South Carolina by its own law had no claim to; it was his prerogative to garrison any of them he so chose, as his orders were to man whichever fort was most defensible if he had intelligence of hostile plans, which he did. The federal arsenal in Charleston was likewise his to draw on. There was nothing illegal about anything he did. The South had and has no national identity apart from that of the United States, because it never was a separate nation; secession by the method used by the so-called Confederate states is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, duly ratified by South Carolina. Furthermore, none of this addresses the outrageously aggressive behavior of the Slave Power prior to the Battle of Fort Sumter. I defy you to cite reliable evidence of any of your claims, which I'm comfortable doing because I know you cannot. Rogue 9 (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anderson knew that his actions upon moving his men to Sumter would invoke a response. He knew it, he took it. He was the aggressor. He failed to keep the peace, by taunting the enemy. And BTW, the Supremacy Clause is only as good as the "invading army" it represents. Might makes right.


 * If your argument is that might makes right, then everything you said about Anderson's actions being illegal is void under your own argument, because under it law has no meaning. Concession accepted.  I will edit the article to reflect the truth shortly.  Rogue 9 (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The argument is that one POV isn't the only POV, whether or not you feel it is true or not. JOJ  Hutton  01:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't about what I feel is true; it's about what is true. There is an objective right and an objective wrong to this issue. The only way to make the federal government out as the initial aggressor in the Civil War is to engage in tortuous rhetorical contortionism, whereas the opposite is straightforwardly demonstrable. I go to Abraham Lincoln:
 * "In that supposed event (the election of a Republican president), you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" - Abraham Lincoln, speaking at the Cooper Union, February 27, 1860
 * It is simple sophistry; to blame the Union for starting the war is a flat denial of the historical record. I do not deny that the War of Northern Aggression is used, and it should certainly be in the article as an extant name for the conflict, but it is reckless to not note how inaccurate it is when we're supposed to be building a reference of (hopefully accurate) knowledge. Rogue 9 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope twelve separate references to as many instances will be enough. If not, I have more. There is no denial of the facts; they are numerous and all point the same direction. Rogue 9 (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. You might want to do a quick – or not so quick – review of WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, and WP:PRIMARY and try again. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No. I am well aware that Wikipedia's wrongheaded policies are what make it a terrible source for information; I hardly need you to remind me. You might want to do some quick - or not so quick - research of your own so you might figure out what you're talking about, because clearly you do not know at the present time. Citing instances of Southern aggression shows that the South was the aggressor, which is the entire point. Rogue 9 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look at the article, where it says this: "The 'War of Northern Aggression' has been used by those who maintain that the Union side was the belligerent party in the war.[17] The 'War of Southern Aggression,' conversely, has been used by those who maintain that the South was the belligerent party." This looks fine, and there's no need to say here who actually was the belligerent party.  That can be addressed in the main article on the Civil War.  No need to get into it here.  One might even consider that neither side wanted the violence that came.71.88.58.198 (talk) 05:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * One might also consider that several members of the Confederate leadership did want war, wanted it badly, and wrote down their desire for posterity. Rogue 9 (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Confederate leadership wanted just be left alone. They wanted to leave the Union in peace. And wrote it down for posterity. The North invaded the South and all the South did was defend itself. JOJ  Hutton  16:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Gettysburg is in Pennsylvania. That said, the leaders of the Slave Power had threatened and plotted military force against the federal government and free states on multiple occasions throughout the 1850s, including threatening armed occupation of California to enforce slavery in the new state in 1850 (Congressman Albert G. Brown of Mississippi) and to "kick them out of the Capitol and set it on fire" (James Henry Hammond, South Carolinian planter and later Senator from that state) if Southern demands in its admission were not met, requests from Senator James Mason to Jefferson Davis (then serving as Secretary of War) to transfer arms from northern to southern armories to enable immediate attack on Washington should John Frémont have won the 1856 Presidential election, Governor William Gist of South Carolina's promise to his state's Congressional delegation to "have a regiment in or near Washington in the shortest possible time" to enact a coup of the House of Representatives should John Sherman have won the speakership in 1859 (you may note at this point a disturbing willingness on the part of the Fire-Eaters to respond to unfavorable election results with mass violence), and Louis Wigfall advocated an immediate assault on the Charleston forts. You can't feed me a line on this; I've done my homework and know too much for it to work. And let us say for a second that they all wanted to be left alone. Left alone to do what? Destroy their nation? Balkanize the United States? Keep millions of men and women in chattel bondage and acquire millions more and more land (much of it from U.S. western possessions) to keep them on? (This was, after all, the stated goal of secession; to ensure the further expansion of slavery. ) The Confederacy initiated hostilities and was in both the legal and moral wrong. In every sense, they were the initial aggressors, and a concerted effort to deny this has been underway since Reconstruction. Rogue 9 (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats why POV stands for "Point Of View". The conclusions from one point of view will almost always differ from the conclusions of another point of view. Two people meet on a busy street and both will come away with a different impression based on their POV, despite the fact that the encounter only happened one way. Ten people witness a bank robbery, and you get ten different stories based on the point of view. Thats why Wikipedia has a policy called WP:NPOV. So that one point of view is not dominant over the other. Its makes little difference what you "think" the facts are or were. Its only one point of view, and should only be represented according to weight. In this case, we are not saying that the South was wrong. No matter what you feel about the issue. And I know that Gettysburg is in PA, What did it take, 2 and half years to get there though? Lets not weigh the battles on who invaded who more often.-- JOJ Hutton  23:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I realize that, and I realize what you're trying to convince me of by saying really stupid things (I've talked with committed neo-Confederates before, and you're posting more like a caricature of one than the real thing) from the opposite point of view, but the problem is that the actual, tangible evidence is overwhelmingly one-sided. You might as well go to the article on pi and seriously propose that it is a point of view that it is exactly 3, and suppress passages that point out that this is manifestly incorrect.  Rogue 9 (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And of course the complete opposite view of your POV is "Stupid Things". Do we need any more reasons as to why we have WP:NPOV. I think we just found it.
 * As to the tangible evidence, its based and written from a POV. You say the South fired the first shots, and I say Anderson invaded South Carolina by taking Fort Sumter. Then he tried to get a resupply, which the South defended itself against. They also defended themselves against the invasion of Virginia. Overwhelming evidence for all of that. The North were the invaders.-- JOJ Hutton  23:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There are things to say in defense of the Confederacy that are not overwhelmingly stupid (though still misguided and misinformed), but you haven't said any of them. Anderson didn't "take" Fort Sumter. It was under his command to begin with, and was federal, not South Carolinian, by South Carolina's own law. We've been over this. Also, the last time there was an invasion of Virginia was in the War of 1812; one cannot invade one's own territory. It isn't the POV you're representing that makes it stupid; it's your persistent refusal to acknowledge cited sources and total disregard of the facts. You've made no attempt to seriously defend the points you're arguing; you just make them and then make them again, never citing anything nor even going beyond vague generalities. Which is totally understandable, even if you are being serious, because no such sources exist; the historical record is painstakingly clear, more so than for any other war before or since (largely because it was fought by a literate soldiery to a degree that had never come before, and predated wartime controls on what soldiers could write home, but that's a discussion for another page), and it does not support the neo-Confederate narrative. Rogue 9 (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

To start from the top: I feel I've been unclear in stating the core of my case, rather getting bogged down in details. This is a burden of proof issue. Saying that the war was one of northern aggression is a positive claim, and as such, it requires supporting evidence. Saying that it was one of southern aggression is also a positive claim, a claim which is persuasively argued for and evidenced in the sources given for it. I made a serious error in citing Southern aggression as evidence of Northern non-aggression; in my frustration I attempted to prove a negative, which of course doesn't work. That said, the source cited for "The War of Northern Aggression" being used does note that it is used - in the context of disbelief of this fact. I have never, in years of studying antebellum society and politics, seen any evidence of particular aggression by the free states outside of actions of individual citizens condemned by society (including Northern society) at large (unless you count personal liberty laws, the pre-Fugitive Slave Act mandates of jury trials for people accused of being escaped slaves, or exercising the right to vote in the 1860 presidential election as aggression), while both political and physical aggression by slave state governments and their congressional delegations was widely lauded. (In point, John Brown was hanged, while Preston Brooks was sent new canes to replace the one he broke while beating Senator Sumner and was nearly unanimously reelected after the incident.) Given the total lack of actual evidence of northern aggression, it is irresponsible to simply presume that it existed. I apologize for earlier outbursts, but the point stands. Rogue 9 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of accuracy, the fact of the matter is that "War of Northern Aggression" is a commonly used name and thus must be included in this article. For example, the head of the NRA recently referenced it in a speech. Wikipedia is not saying this name accurately describes anything, merely that enough people use it for it to be worth mentioning. 50.203.89.70 (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed, which is why I at no point took it out of the article. Rogue 9 (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It needs to be made very clear how factually inaccurate that name is, though. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Names of the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1989/01/19/the-war-of-southern-aggression/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sovereign states no longer
The unsourced POV contribution has been repeatedly posted, ""War Between the States" is the correct nomen for the war. This was a war between Sovereign States and a Federal Government starving for power. When referencing the War Between the States, one should use this name as it is the proper term.” ---

But the Federal Government was not "starving for power", it was a democratic republic. It had a constitutional majority, an electoral majority in the presidency, a majority of both population and voters represented in Congress, and a majority of the national population willing to take the field in mass armies to defend its sovereignty, including federal forts ceded by the states using lawful compacts.

The states gave up their sovereignty on their people adopting the U.S. Constitution — the Constitution, laws of Congress and treaties are the "supreme law of the land" --- although they did not give up the right of revolution as the people of the United States collectively. On the other hand, to secede requires a state to secure a constitutional amendment. Though it was floated in 1861, it failed the constitutional test in Congress that requires two-thirds of each house; an illegitimate rebellion ensued, without the justification of a "long train of abuses" from the national government over twenty years as had been suffered by the American British colonies by 1776. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
I don't want to edit this article as it is a subject I don't know about, but want to learn about. But the first paragraph is so ungrammatical that I can't understand it. Can anyone fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.231.168.110 (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Foreign languages
In French writings on American history, the usual term is Guerre de sécession. I believe that's because Guerre civile denotes a conflict like the Spanish Civil War, in which both sides seek control of the whole country. It would be interesting to check the terms in other languages and possibly add a new section to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynzmoar (talk • contribs) 13:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

War of Yankee Agression
Where I work this is what the Civil War is called. 24.51.217.35 (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Names of the American Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19980128034930/http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html to http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The South is not the Confederacy
This sentence strikes me as a problem: "The term "War Between the States" was rarely used during the war but became prevalent afterward in the South, as part of an effort to perpetuate its interpretation of the war."

Here, "its" refers back to "the South". But this is not 'the south's' interpretation of the war. It is the pro-confederate POV or, if you like, the neo-confederate POV. Surely few African American southerners held/hold this view, yet 'the south' includes anyone living in that area. 'The south' is not easily defined but can generally include places that were never a part of the confederacy, but are culturally 'southern' such as Kentucky.

One possible fix is to replace "its" with another term such as confederate, neo-confederate or pro-confederate. Given the sensitivity of this issue I would rather discuss than jump into an edit. Thoughts? DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In the Union at the time, it was generally called "The War of the Rebellion". What was it generally called by the Confederacy at the time?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't the slightest idea. My point is simply that we should not use the terms "the south" and "the confederacy" interchangeably. It is racist to do so when four million Americans were held in slavery and I think it's safe to assume they did not generally share the confederate POV. But they were southerners and their descendants are southerners. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as long as we all agree that there was no possible difference in opinion between those white Southerners who owned slaves and the >98% whites that didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.41.238 (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Just because they didn't own slaves does not mean they were not racist, even poor white families who didnt own slaves believed that black's were not equals its the one thing they held on dearly in their lives, as long as they were poor and white, they still were not black and poor. so dont try insinuate that white people in the south were not pro slavery because they did not own a slave at all. Racism is racism ownership or not.199.38.125.132 (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)mindaltering@gmail.com