To the Editor:
Re “Don’t Call It the ‘Civil War,’” by Anthony Conwright (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 2):
The American Civil War has been given many names: the Civil War, the War Between the States, the War of the Rebellion, the War of Northern Aggression and, as Mr. Conwright now argues, the Slaveholders’ Rebellion. We could say that the war pit Pennsylvanian against Virginian or Northerner against Southerner or abolitionist against slaveholder. But it is better to say that it pit American against American — and that is what makes a civil war.
Consider Abraham Lincoln’s characterization of the conflict in the Gettysburg Address: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”
The Civil War was a war for the soul of the United States. To the Confederates, the United States was a vehicle of state sovereignty — even if the states trampled upon freedom and equality through slavery. To the Unionists, the states had given up that sovereignty in order to safeguard the liberty of their people. The Union’s victory transformed the federal government from a shield of the several states to a shield of the people of the United States.
Calling this conflict the Civil War does not feed into Lost Cause narratives or legitimize the secessionists’ cause. Rather, it acknowledges the conflict’s complexity and impact. Civil War is not a rhetorical abstraction, but the rightful name for a bloody conflict between Americans over the meaning of America.
Evan Carlisle Austin, Texas
To the Editor:
Anthony Conwright’s argument makes sense. In addition, naming the conflict the Slaveholders’ Rebellion captures the war’s unique nature. Many countries have had civil wars for many reasons — but the United States is the only place in the Americas, and perhaps the world, that had one that began because enslavers wanted to protect slavery.
Our war of 1861 to 1865 is a concrete, if unflattering, example of American exceptionalism.
James E. Strickler Evanston, Ill. The writer is the author of the forthcoming book “Let Us Die to Make Men Free: American Slavery and Civil War in Global Perspective.”
To the Editor:
As a consequence of my father’s military service during World War II, I attended school in several places in the mid-1940s. In the fifth grade, in a city south of the Mason-Dixon line, I learned a great deal about the War Between the States. In the sixth grade, north of that line, I diligently studied the Civil War.
I was puzzled for some time by the apparent personality changes of the opposing generals between these two wars. Eventually, a dinner-table conversation with my parents proved much more educational than all of that classroom time.
Jon C. Liebman Urbana, Ill.
To the Editor:
I grew up in Virginia in the early 1960s. The history book I read in the my public school stated plainly at the beginning of the chapter on the war that it was under no circumstances to be called the Civil War. It was the War Between the States, which was the title of the chapter. In my experience and reading at the time, Southerners hated its being called the Civil War.
Only about 25 percent of the white population of the South owned slaves, but the war was also widely supported by those who did not own slaves. The makeup of most of the Southern armies reflected that.
As Ulysses S. Grant so famously wrote in his memoirs, he felt no joy upon the Confederate surrender at Appomattox because he felt sad for foes who fought so valiantly for a cause that was “one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”
Racism ran deep throughout the white South, as the Reconstruction more than amply proved. It was not just the slaveholder’s rebellion. It was a Southern rebellion in support of white supremacy.
Chris Datta Washington The writer is the author of historical novels set during the Civil War.
The Red Scare Ploy Won’t Work
To the Editor:
Re “The New Tactic Trump Thinks Will Rally Votes” (The Opinions, nytimes.com, July 25):
I find the idea of resurrecting the Red Scare a nonstarter for a Republican political campaign for the same reasons “fascism” worked so poorly for the Democrats in 2024.
Too many Americans do not follow politics the way those of us accused of living in bubbles do. Not enough Americans know what distinguishes fascism from communism. Not enough Americans have enough engagement in public affairs to affect any serious level of participation.
Finally, kitchen table issues are far more salient than most political ideas.
Ken Esch Pittsburgh
The post A Civil Debate About the Civil War appeared first on New York Times.
