US Civil War
History of the United States
American Revolution

Why would it be correct to say that the Civil War represented a second American Revolution?

User Avatar
Wiki User
2016-01-29 01:30:15

It would not be correct to say that at all. The Southern states

were fighting to try to preserve the relationship between the

several states and between the states and the central government

that they thought had always existed. They were trying to avoid

having to accept what they feared were significant changes to those

relationships. Thus they were not conducting a revolution at all.

they were conducting a rebellion for conservatism. Also, the "sore

point" being slavery was still very Constitutional. The American

Revolution was a war to be independent of a semi-monarchy, not the

case with the US Civil War.

---

It would be correct to say for a few reasons actually. They

broke away from their nation, similar to the way the colonies did.

That one fact is what makes the two relatively close. The

Confederates created their own government, constitution, and army.

Like the British, the North saw it as just a rebellion. The South

also seceded from the Union for similar reasons. They felt they did

not have the right to govern themselves. They also felt they had no

voice in the national government when Lincoln was elected. In fact,

one could say they actually did have their right and voice in both

occasions, but they still felt that way. Had the Civil War been

successful, the connection between the two would probably feel

stronger.

But, with that said, the American colonies were "owned by

Great Britain, just as they owned Canada. The 11 Confederate states

were members of a government they helped create. This makes the

American Revolution very unique compared to the US Civil

War.


Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.