The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-02-17
THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES"

THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES"
military critic. whose name is not given is
quoted in the dispatches declaring that the
term War Between the States" as applied to the
war of lsel-1s65, oficially designated as the
Civil War" is misnoma
The critic was Directing to the resolution In
troduced into congress by Representative Ed
wards, OF Georgia, making War Between the
States" the official designation. "A moments
consideration OF wartime facts" this critic says
should convince Mr.. Edwards of the unsuitable
ness of the name he prefers and then continues:
He would make it appear that certain States
as States fought certain other States as States
But such was not the fact All of the states
were divided in their sentiment, and some OF
them contributed recruits to both armies, as,
for example, Maryland, Kentucky, missouri ana
Tennessee while the most CONSPICUOUS example
was that of Virginia, 'the mother OF presidents.
which split up over the question of union
or disunion that part OF her territory was
taken from her and called West Virginia the
war was not between States, but between oppos-
ing theories of government and irreconcilaole
Industrial systems. each of which had his friends
and It's enemies in every State of the Union.
There we're fer example, in the Union army 348-l
2Ss from slave territory. For this reason,
then would not the name War Between the
States be misnomer?
The military critic is correct In saying that
sentiment was divided in all the States and
that some of them contributed volunteers to
both sides. He Is correct also In saying that the
was between opposing theories of govern
ment and he does justice to the South and to
himself In refraining from saying that II was
a to free the slaves. 1t was not, however a.
civil war In the proper conception of the term.
Cromwell's war against Charles / was civil
war-a war between opposing faction in Eng
land. Civil war is on in Mexico. Our Civil
War" as 1t Is enormously called, however, vas
not civil war 1t was a war between the
States, just as the critic quoted says II was not.
II was war between the seeding States band
ed together against the non-secedng States
banded together Technically ii was a war
between nations but the two nations grew out
OF the war. Virginia withdrew from the Union
as a State. That some virgnians did not ap-
prove that action and supported the Union arms
does not alter the fact that Virginia fight
ing State and those Virginians who fought
under the Confederate flag entered the army as
subjects OF Virginia and to uphold the action or
the government of Virginia Some virginians
fought in the Northern armies. but Virginia, the
eracy Certain States as States did not fight
other States as States, but certain States as
States joined themselves into confederacy and
fought other States joined together into closer
union. 1t was war between a confederacy
composed of States against a union composed
of States Should the United States and Canada
engage in and should Americans in Canada
espouse the cause of their adopted country and
some Americans along the border enter the
Canadian army 1t would certainly not be proper
to call that civil war 1t would be war be-
although citizens of the same country would
be found opposing each other The same is true
of the war of 18611S65. 1t was a war between
aggregations of citizens in section forming
States, which in turn formed nation, and other
aggregations OF citizens forming other States
which in turn formed another nation, and not
war between two aggregatons Of citizens
drawn together from all sections of the country
into separate organizations and divided by con-
ficting purposes.
The trouble with the military critic who OPP
conflict is that he does not believe the Southern
State had the right to secede from the Union
The fact remains however, that they did SO
and this made the conflict one between States
and not one between individuals and, there
fore, not a civil war.