Why do Americans call it the "Civil" War?

>the war in question is called THE Civil War
Because it was the only civil war that the United States had, and its official name is "The American Civil War", so if you're from the United States you can just say "The Civil War" and everyone knows what conflict you're referring to.

reading comprehension on fleek mate

that's because it's the War of Northern Aggression you silly goof

btfo southcucks

It’s interesting to think about how quite a few Midwest outlaws were former confederate soldiers who considered or justified it as a contuation of the war

A civil war is when one nation wars against itself. Considering both the secessionists and the nationalists were American, it qualifies.
What do you call it, OP?

Just call it the War Between the States

But the South wasn't another country ever
This, except it would still be a civil war even if the insurrection succeeded.

>but the south wasnt another country ever

Name 5 countries that recognised it as a sepperate country

People, do some simple self research.
Google the "Ghost Amendment" then ask how was the American Civil War about slavery?

UK, France, Russia, Prussia, and Spain provided arms to both sides. Actual recognition of their status would result in cutting many ties to the union

Because no one had tried leaving until the South did, and it was then decided that secession was illegal. The North won and that's that

It functioned as a country even if it wasn't recognized as one. That sets it apart from a lot of civil war factions that are attempting to take control of a single government.

>state governments engaged in active rebellion a country makes

>Russia
>providing anything to the Cuckfederacy
No.

Secession was always illegal and against the spirit of the Constitution
Nobody but grade school teachers say it was about slavery. Slavery was just the catalyst, it was really about preserving the Union and saving the country

>Secession was always illegal
No, it was a legal grey-zone until 1861

No, it was unconstitutional and therefore illegal

>guerra de secesion
secession war

>Not defined by law or precedent until the war
>Somehow retroactively illegal

>What is the Constitution of the United States?

You're talking in circles; New England and South Carolina had previously threatened to secede from the Union but ultimately their threats came to pass. Therefore there was no legal precedent on secession until Southern states started seceding one by one. Is this hard to understand? The Constitution didn't say jack shit about states leaving the union, therefore it was in a legal grey-zone

>The Constitution didn't say jack shit about states leaving the union, therefore it was in a legal grey-zone
Have you even read the Federalist Papers bro?

You mean the one that gives all powers not specifically given to the federal government to state and local governments? Where does it say that the federal government can stop states from voting to leave the union?

most importantly, why do you call it "The Civil War" on an international environment such as the internet? fucking americanocentrism ruins the whole thing everytime

Low-quality bait

They literally imported new varities of mortar artillery and military commanders to teach the Confederates how to use them, you baboon

>using american internet
>speaking american english
>eating american food
>watching american entertainment and listening to american music

Sorry, I'll start the thread in Basque for you next time.

"No"

The tenth amendment is about performing duties. Unless it means the States absolutely must leave the Union or they are violating the Constitution, it's irrelevant.
Hamilton said that anything at variance with the spirit of the Constitution is against the Constitution. Secession qualifies.

From all the casualites it should have been called the UNCivil War.

>using latin words
>living in democracy
>eating bastardized european or other food
>living in a country which name is from an italian dude
>discovered by another italian

see how little sense you make?

>Russian-American relations were very generally cooperative. Alone among European powers, Russia offered oratorical support for the Union, largely due to the view that the U.S. served as a counterbalance to the British Empire.
>During the winter of 1861–1862, the Imperial Russian Navy sent two fleets to American waters to avoid their getting trapped if a war broke out with Britain and France. Many Americans at the time viewed this as an intervention on behalf of the Union, though historians deny this. The Alexander Nevsky and the other vessels of the Atlantic squadron stayed in American waters for seven months (September 1863 to June 1864).
>1865 saw a major project attempted: the building of a Russian-American telegraph line from Seattle, Washington through British Columbia, Russian America (Alaska) and Siberia – an early attempt to link East-West communications. It failed and never operated.
Russia was the most pro-Union of the European powers.

>Hamilton said
Hamilton isn't the law, faggot

most boring civil war ever.
>"""war""" just at the borders, no rebel actions inside unionist cities
>bumfuck poor and unorganized confederation vs rich urbanized union

I mean sperg on the real shit like the civil war in lebanon

This

>tfw you're describing my great-great-great-great grandfather there

*blocks your path*

But he is more responsible for the existence and ratification of the Constitution than any other man. I think he is a greater authority on what the Constitution means than some neoconfederate on Veeky Forums.

Wow your wikipedia copy paste surely comprehensively rebuked me. Certainly don't look up the concurrent delegations they sent to the South or their spying on the Union army that was discovered in a series of letters and documents within the last ten years. You're completely in the right to defensively fall back on rotely memorized information instead of attempting to prove or disprove new things. My bad!

Jesus fuck user; I never made an argument for secession, just that there was no legal proceedings and nothing in the constitution specifically barring them from doing so. Are you so pea-brained that this is somehow a neoconfederate defense of secession? Get a fucking grip

>I mean sperg on the real shit like the civil war in lebanon
>Not autistically studying the Jordanian civil war

But the Constitution did bar them from doing so, I just proved it

>I just proved it
No, you stated Hamilton's interpretation. Which itself is one man's opinion and was not the law of the land, fuck off

Ok user, let me explain. The primary purpose of the Constitution was to prevent disunion (this is by far the most prominent argument of the federalists in favor of ratification). The second biggest intention of the Constitution was to put an end to the crisis of the confederation, created by the lack of federal power in the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, the mere existence of the Constitution contradicts both the matter and form of secession, since it means states have neither the cause nor the authority to secede. This gets more explicit once we dive into the document itself. The preamble states its purpose is for forming "a more perfect Union". More perfect either means more complete or better. Either way, it contradicts secession, since it means a strengthening of the "perpetual Union" the Articles intended to create. But most important is Article 6, which explicitly gives supremacy to the federal government despite any contradiction with the state constitutions or governments. This means the states had less authority than the federal government, which coversely means they do not have the right to secede, since that requires equal or greater authority than the body they are withdrawing from.

This is why I said it was a legal grey zone. Your whole argument relies on interpretation and not hard, written law. I'm not saying your argument is invalid per se, but that there was nothing explicitly barring states from leaving the union. Many felt the 10th amendment included the power to secede as the colonies once did from the UK prior. All I've been saying is that up until 1861 the issue was up in the air, as in not solidified. Talk about hair-splitting, good god

...

Do it again General Sherman!

>This is why I said it was a legal grey zone. Your whole argument relies on interpretation and not hard, written law. I'm not saying your argument is invalid per se, but that there was nothing explicitly barring states from leaving the union
Remember when I referred to Hamilton, and how he said the spirit of the Constitution is equivalent to the express statements of the Constitution?

Do it again, Sherman GeneraFUCK I MESSED THAT UP!!

"DO IT AGAIN GENERAL SHERMAN!" TO THIS POST

Again, what he said wasn't concrete law. If SC had seceded and Jackson sent in the troops then you'd be 100% on point, but that never happened

...

The point is that Hamilton, who is a major authority for interpreting the Constitution, recognized that what is said implicitly by the Constitution is said actually in the Constitution. Because the Constitution implicitly contradicted secession, it did actually contradict secession, and therefore, secession was illegal, meaning that the confederate side was unjust and the Union was the justified side in the war. This is why Lincoln refused to recognize the confederacy, turn federal property over to them, or treat with them.

>who is a major authority for interpreting the Constitution
Funny, I thought that was the judiciary. This isn't about who was or wasn't justified and the fact that the Confederates capitalized on vague wording doesn't suddenly make their secession legal. You are aware there's a limbo between legality and illegality, yes?

>Funny, I thought that was the judiciary
In all the history of mankind, no usurpation has been more pernicious than the devious claim of the supreme court to be final arbiter of the Constitution.

>The War of Northern Aggression
>The South attacked first

Please burn Atlanta good sir
It’s practically a portal to The Congo at this point

you lost. Get over it

>having troops stationed in a foreign *gasp* country is not aggression

>Land sold to the federal government is suddenly now southern land again

That's not how property works user. Fort Sumter was sold fair and square to the federal government and the south certainly kept the money.

The main reason for the war was purely political. It would be a stretch to call it an independence war.

South Carolina renounced any claim to Fort Sumter by a Congressional resolution.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue but leaving foreign troops in your country unattended is not a good idea.

Proofs? I'm actually interested.

I'm arguing Fort Sumter was federal property and that the Union had every right to keep it's troops stationed there, as agreed upon with the state of South Carolina.

That they then attacked the fort was an abashed act of aggression that was met with an appropriate response. One that Lincoln had warned the south would happen if they attacked yet they did so anyway.

By all means, post these letters and documents since you love proof so much, smartass.

I'm sorry, what agreement? Between the federal government and the state of South Carolina.

In Atlanta right now for a business trip. All the laborers at the airport, hotel, restaurant, anywhere are black.

All the more reason to burn it again.

DO IT AGAIN GENERAL SHERMAN

our only mistake was not finishing off the south

>who was James Madison
>why did the two of them contradict each other in so many way in the federalists papers
The Federalist Papers are a way overrated source m8, their purpose was convincing people in a select few states to ratify the Constitution and the multiple authors of them wrote all kinds of things that contradicted each other because the people of New York were different from the people of Virginia.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about states leaving and the Declaration of Independence makes it pretty clear secession is okay. During the constitutional convention a proposal was put forth that would have made secession illegal but it was tossed out for obviously being against the founding principles. Secession was treated as a given clear until the civil war. In fact when states started declaring secession several northern publications said it was for the best.

Do it again General Sherman!
Please.

...

This is like a personification of the left's inability to meme. You expect anyone to read all that?

I don't think that text is a leftist angle, user.

The confederates actually sent delegates to Washington to negotiate a peace settlement so prevent a war and even raise a bunch of money to buy federal property in their states but Lincoln refused to even try with them so they resorted to war.

>Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
Where did you get this might I ask? Sounds all too explicit. Cede seems like an odd word to use in this context.

Enlighten why don't you? But you won't further proving my point.

>reading is leftist
calm down cleetus

That's actually the reason why this resolution was adopted, because some faggot showed up and claimed the land actually belongs to him personally, his name was William Laval.

>the Confederacy was an anti-white shithole that wanted to flood America with niggers and race-mixing and needed to be stopped
This is "leftism" to you?

this sentence right here
What the littoral FUCK am I reading

Source on William Laval please. I want to know more.

>Confederacy was anti-white
I'm sorry what?

To treat with them as a foreign power was to recognize their claim of sovereignty as legitimate. It would have spelled the dissolution of the union as a whole. You can't let even one domino fall before the whole stack collapses.

The Constitution is unconnected to the Articles of Confederation, it's like saying you get rid of your junky old car and go get a new better car.

Use your brain.
>slavery devalued the price of white labor
>wanted to introduce nigger slaves to free white territories
>chimped out and seceded when the Union didn't let them
>backed by the Rothschilds in Britain and France
>Secretary of State was a Jew
How can anyone claim the CSA was anything but anti-white with a straight face?