"Was the American Revolution a Civil War?" Topic

""Every great revolution is a civil war," as David Armitage has recently remarked. That insight could change the way we think about the American Revolution. Contemporaries understood it that way—or at least, they did at first. David Ramsay, the first patriot historian of the war, held that the Revolution was "originally a civil war in the estimation of both parties." Mercy Otis Warren wrote that the fires of civil war were kindled as early as the Boston massacre. But in the narratives of these historians, the moment the United States declared independence was the moment the conflict stopped being a civil war. It was no longer being fought within a single imperial polity. Now it was a war between two nations….."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I say YES.

Very much so in some parts of the country. Look at the battle of Kings Mountain, only the Loyalist commander was British, all other combatants were Americans.

In parts of the country it was, but not overall. As mentioned, the fighting between patriot and Loyalist was especially brutal, with personal vendettas sometimes taking the place of fighting for one side or the other.

The Hudson Valley also saw internecine warfare between Americans, but the main 'argument' was between the US and Great Britain for independence.

The article refers to 'the US.' Was there such an entity during the AWI? While there were two interested parties, namely the British Crown and rebel elements who had declared the colonies to be independent states, (represented by the Continental Congress), what ever conclusion one draws, the conflict was not, initially, between two sovereign states.

Yes

Could someone define what the term civil war is supposed to mean? I'd just like a consensus that is the basis for a discussion. BTW if you don't agree with me I'll secede. H

Yes, it was a civil war. Certainly chunks of it were fought that way. But Rebel identity was something that evolved. They certainly considered themselves Britons at the outset, maybe not so much toward the end.

To the main question – Yes. And NJ saw alot of internecine warfare too. And the "whaleboat war" across LI sound was largely between Americans too. The British forts/outposts/occupying troops were mostly Tory.

As to whether the US was the US, it was as of July 4, 1776.

Pan Marek has the truth of it.

Simple, yes.

Interesting….

Amicalement
Armand

I am confused. If the US was the US why,for instance, was the Continental Congress not called the 'US Congress' ditto the Continental Army? Was there a legally embodied entity called the United States?

As to whether the US was the US, it was as of July 4, 1776.

The new nation is referred to as the United States in the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

'…We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America…'

Interesting factoid I read a while back, but don't remember who said it.
Before the Civil War "The United States" was plural. After the Civil War, it was a singular noun.

We have had an English Civil War, an American Civil War, a Russian Civil War… throw in Roman civil wars.
Many other conflicts described as "civil wars". The only unifying factor was that it was MOSTLY between national factions. Foreigners were not involved, unless they were. All different, yet all called "civil wars".
I suppose we could impose a definition for "civil war" on these conflicts, and say that the Ruritanian Civil War was not really a civil war, but who would listen? Certainly not the Ruritsnisns.

Left to their own, the areas in America mentioned above might have stayed peaceful. Some, like those on the northern frontier, maybe not. (Indians thinking "We're on the British side now?")
In other areas, like the South, it had just gone through Lord Dunmore's War, the Regulators, and more. Maybe they didn't need the spark of Independence to renew simmering conflict. What Independence did was to clarify (as if they needed it) whose side a faction was on. Surprisingly, Scots Jacobites were for the Crown, but if the enemy of my enemy is my friend, maybe not so surprising.

I think a good case can be made for calling the AWI *a* Civil War, or for rejecting that, depending on how tightly or loosely you want to define a Civil War. Some areas were very bloody, and had not seen a single Briton for ages.

The Declaration also refers to these 'united Colonies'- small 'u' as in 'united States.' These are descriptive phrases not titles.

I believe the difference between civil war and- well- war, is that in international law only legally consituted states can declare war and make treaties. Hence the 'Peace of Paris,' not the 'Treaty of Paris.'

Yes, and the ACW was not a civil war but a failed war of succession.

Winston, your factoid is from Bruce Catton. He doesn't give a source, but I suspect it's largely true.

Civil war. Every secessionist struggle is a civil war in the eyes of the power claiming the greater territory--and a war of national liberation for the power claiming a portion of the larger state.

As for the AWI, there are days I don't think there was much of a "Loyalist" element as such, whatever Anglo-Canadians might say in retrospect. (We all have our founding myths, after all.) But where a North American colony or state was already politically divided, the weaker faction sided with the British. I suspect the Carolina back country was even more complex than that, and the loss of authority let old quarrels perhaps dating to Ireland or Scotland resurface. But the issue needs to be examined in a detail I haven't seen yet.

and the ACW was not a civil war but a failed war of succession.

It was an attempt by 11 southern states to separate from the Union and to destroy that union. That is a civil war.

The official title is The War of the Rebellion.