Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Reaper
The issue was, given the definitions of an insurgency, did you agree or disagree with the position that you posted by Bard O'Neill?
Do you think that the American Civil War was an armed insurgency?
TR
|
The only reason I posted O'Neill's view was that I am reading his new (newly revised, technically) book and thought some might be interested in his opinion. I don't think I know enough to answer your question, but it seems to me that you can argue it either way.
Your argument seems to be that because the South's attempt to secede initially was peaceful, and the North started the armed hostilities, there was no insurgency. I don't know if that matters. There certainly was an attempt to overthrow the government, and the fact that the regime did not allow a fait accompli does not necessarily mean you can't call this an insurgency. I certainly don't think the fact that the South sought to secede rather than overthrow the federal government in its entirety means there was no insurgency -- was/is there a Kurdish insurgency in Iraq/Turkey/Iran?
On the other hand, one might argue that an insurgency must be a movement from within a state, and that the War Between the States was exactly that -- a war between separate, sovereign groups of states, not an attempt to overthrow a state from within.
Is there an insurgency in Taiwan right now?
