I read on the Mises wiki that the definition of “civil war” is “to overthrow the central government.” I have only seen this definition used in the Mises circle and nowhere else. Is this a Mises only definition or is this the real definition?
overthrowing the government is a subset of ‘civil war’,
its a variety of civil war.
Is the “overthrowing” more like a conventional wisdom type thing or is this really a part of the definition of ‘civil war’? Again, until coming to this web site, I’ve never seen that being necessary in order to define something as civil war, correctly. A quick check on some dictionary web sites don’t even have that as a part of their definition.
A civil war is a contest between two factions for control of the center of power.
Wiktionary:
If it’s a war of secession, however, then one party will aver that a single nation or political entity is illegitimate, and it won’t exist in realistic terms for the duration of the conflict, nor after the war if the seceding party succeeds in its aims.
A “civil war” therefore cannot include wars of secession. The only type of conflict it can describe is one described by the Mises definition, because this is the only type of conflict in which the single nation or similar political entity in question continues to exist during the conflict, and afterwards regardless of which party wins.
I have read a civil war is “a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies”, or more simply “a war between citzens of the same country.”
Definitions really depend on who is asked, even within the greater Mises umbrella there are dozens of definitions. I agree with the Mises Wiki deiniton to an extent.
one might disagree on the basis that ‘nation’ can have a wider meaning
Noun
nation (plural nations)
- A group of people sharing aspects of language, culture and/or ethnicity.
- The Roma are a nation without a country.
- A historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, andpsychological make-up manifested in a common culture
- The Kurdish people constitute a nation in the Middle East
- (law) (international law) A sovereign state.
So for example, if the Roma split into two factions that fought each other ‘civil war’
If we go with this definition, wouldn’t it be correct to call the United State Civil War, just that?
There was a large Loyalist contingent in the American colonies. The colonies were part of Great Britain, and as such the American War of Independence was a Civil War. The whole issue with the Civil War word debate is that ‘civil war’ sounds a lot less appealing than ‘war of independence’. But if you go by the dictionary definition any war for independence is a civil war.
jmorris84:
or more simply “a war between citzens of the same country.”If we go with this definition, wouldn’t it be correct to call the United State Civil War, just that?
Yes. Luckily I do not go by this definition.
is there a real definition? Mises’ definition isn’t real?
“A civil war is a phrase properly reserved for the case wherein each side is contending for rule over that which is claimed by both. In sharp contradistinction, the South in the War of Northern Aggression – or, more radically, the First War of Southern Secession – was attempting to achieve a divorce from the North, not a conquest of it.” - Walter Block
But I’ve always liked this quote:
“All wars are civil wars because all men are brothers.”- Francois Fenelon
The Patriots and the British belonged to the same people. This is not the case in other wars of independence or wars of national liberation, eg the Algerian War. (But you are right on the smaller point that due to existance of collaborators, every war of independence includes as its subset a civil war among the nationality striving for the independence.)
I would say a seccessionist conflict counts as a civil war when it is a political entity which is attempting to seceede (eg the Thirteen Colonies, the Southern States), but not when it is a distinct people (eg the Kurds in Turkey).
“a war between citzens of the same country.”
Wouldn’t this mean that the war on drugs is a civil war? Or a police shoot out? Maybe even a fist fight?
Though, maybe then we must beg the question of what is war verses some other type of killing.
Every Civil War I’ve heard of… even recent ones like Algeria and Sudan… seem to be conflict over control of the central government. Algeria, mentioned above by Marko, differentiates their war of independence in the sixties from their civil war in the nineties.