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