Since we're dreaming up new titles, why not just call it a Struggle for Unity -- and yes, I am being facetious without trying to sound *arrogant*. And no, I am not an historian, but why try to rewrite history. From what I have been reading on the List *nobody* seems to know *exactly* what occurred during the time of the Civil War, and never will. I had a g-grandfather, and gg-grandfather who fought opposite sides as well as several great uncles. There were biological weapons then, too, according to a statement in one of the CW records of one ancestor. The southern soldiers poisoned some creeks with strychnine where the northerners drank water. Other than 'poisoned some creeks with strychnine', would there be another description or would that simple phrase suffice. Seems as though there has been a lot of nit-picking among a few, about what the Civil War should, or should not be called -- but of course not being an historian, nor a student of history, I suppose I am not in a position to make a judgement. I wonder when the debates/arguments will begin about what the war of today will be called. Virgene in northwest Indiana In a message dated 11/6/2005 12:27:57 A.M. US Eastern Standard Time, wmorgan1@kc.rr.com writes: Somehow I don't feel it fitting to refer to any war as "civil." Isn't the term an oxymoron? Did the troops in battle address their opponents in a gentlemanly fashion or did they resort to hoots and catcalls? Did they apologize after shooting some poor lad from another state or did they leave him bleeding on the battlefield? It strikes me that War of Northern Aggression and War of Southern Rebellion are much more appropriate terms. It matters only to historians to standardize such terminology but if it must be done I would prefer "the Struggle for Southern Freedom." Bill, in KC =-=-=-=-=