Difference between civil war and revolution?

[billwald]

Seems to me that in a civil war, a geographic segment of a country wants independence from the geographic majority and has no interest in changing the majority government, as illustrated by the so-called American Revolution.

A revolution is where a cabal wishes to change the nature of the existing government, such as the so-called American Civil War.

 

[Pastor David]

The American Civil War (1861-1865) concerned secession (leaving) from the existing government, not changing the nature of the then existing government. Essentially using the same arguments of their American Revolutionary predecessors.

Blessings,

 

[just-want-peace]

Just like the 1776 revolution, the 1865 fracas (More accurately called the "War of Northern Aggression") was the South trying to get independence from the North.

Incidentally, this war & CiC, IMNSHO, began the erosion of the constitution.

 

[ray Marshall]

Just like the 1776 revolution, the 1865 fracas (More accurately called the "War of Northern Aggression") was the South trying to get independence from the North.

Incidentally, this war & CiC, IMNSHO, began the erosion of the constitution.

There were several reasons why America had a civil war but one was manipulated so that England could come in from Canada and Maxamillan would come up from Mexico and both would defeat a nation that had been weakened by the war, however Czar Nicilas of Russia loaned Lincoln his navy, some of the ships would be on the east coast and some would be in the pacific ocean on the west side of American, He wrote the English government an automatium that if they sent troops on the American soil, that they would have Russia to deal with too. Later Russia was dealt with by the English government and Russia failed to be the strong Russia that they was before hand.

 

[puros_bran]

The difference between a civil war and a revolution is whether you win or lose.

 

[Jim1999]

Ray, if truth is to be known, England supported the South financially and they had to collect their money in Montreal, Canada...fact..We needed the cotton from the South.....Hardly enemies!

Canada had to defend its borders because Irish rebels used the time as an opportunity to atack Canada...That was Canada's only involvement in your Civil War...Fact.

Oh wait,,Canada did receive the underground railroad which delivered Black slaves to Canada for freedom...Fact.

Cheers,

Jim

Canada supplied troops for both sides in the Civil War. Fact.

 

[StefanM]

The difference between a civil war and a revolution is whether you win or lose.

No, that's the difference between a patriot and a traitor.

 

[Jim1999]

Which one is the traitor?

Cheers,

Jim

 

[StefanM]

Which one is the traitor?

Cheers,

Jim

The one who loses, of course .

 

[rsr]

There were several reasons why America had a civil war but one was manipulated so that England could come in from Canada and Maxamillan would come up from Mexico and both would defeat a nation that had been weakened by the war, however Czar Nicilas of Russia loaned Lincoln his navy, some of the ships would be on the east coast and some would be in the pacific ocean on the west side of American, He wrote the English government an automatium that if they sent troops on the American soil, that they would have Russia to deal with too. Later Russia was dealt with by the English government and Russia failed to be the strong Russia that they was before hand.

This is certainly a novel reading of the historical record. I know of no evidence that England and France fomented the Civil War; there are plenty of domestic reasons for the war without dragging in an international conspiracy.

It is true that the Russians were more friendly to the U.S. government than were the French and British governments, but the tsar (Alexander II, not a Nicholas) never "loaned" his navy to the North. Russia was at odds with Britain and France over other matters (you will remember that Britain and France both fought Russia in the Crimean War only a few years before) unrelated to the American Civil War, and having his navy put in at neutral (and ice-free) ports seemed a sensible step with fear of an imminent war.

I am unaware of an Russian ultimatum, and it seems not to be in the interests of Russia to make one. How the British later "dealt with" the Russians I am not aware, but it certainly did not prevent Britain from fighting — and winning — another war with the Turks. Britain and France did pressure the Russians to accept a peace that limited its gains, but that pressure was unrelated to anything arising from the American Civil War but was an attempt to keep Russia from gobbling up the entire Ottoman Empire and becoming the predominant power in the region.

 

[Jim1999]

Canada, which came under British rule in those days was neutral on the US Civil War. Canadians joined the armies on both sides as individuals. We did provide some financing to the South as did Britain, but we were primarily trying to protect our industrial interests; cotton and tobacco. We didn't even have an active army to get involved then...Shucks, when WWII broke out, Canada only has three ships!!! Whoo.look out America!

Cheers,

Jim