NationStates Jolt Archive

Good, now that I have your attentinamation, please answer the poll for no reason.

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation] "Abe Lincoln had rabes". Hmmm.... Interesting title for a thread. :p [/modedit]

There are too many polls in general ._.

There are too many polls in general ._.

I couldn't agree more! ;)

But you can't say we aren't learning anything.

There are too many polls in general ._.
But they are so much fun :fluffle:

obviously civil war!

Both "Unpleasentness Between the States" and "War of Northern Aggression" are acceptable.

I'm gonna say, the name change probably describs this thread better than, "Abe Lincoln had rabes"

But who says he didn't?

Roflmao "northern agression"

Y'all fired on federal property first, in case you didn't notice.

how about:
'righteous beat-down against enemies of humanity'

though unfortunately it was poor people who wound up doing the fighting and dying for their ruling class fucktards. like always.

Roflmao "northern agression"

Y'all fired on federal property first, in case you didn't notice.

hey man, that fort was totally looking at my girl. he started it.

I am a little disappointed that "Jefferson and Abes Bogus Journey" wasnt a poll option :(

hey man, that fort was totally looking at my girl. he started it.
Of course, Idaho wasn't even part of the Union yet. Still, I have to say Civil War, only because I am a Yankee. I think we'd actually prefer "Uprising by those really nice, but rather backward farming yokels who send us the raw materials for our factories" but that wouldn't ever take off.

I would like you please to call it the AMERICAN civil war. That war was not THE definitive civil war of all time

how about:
'righteous beat-down against enemies of humanity'


Hey, works for the English one too. ;)

I think it should stay the "American Civil War". That way it doesn't implement which side was "right" and which side was "wrong" (Although in my opinion, the only way the North was more "right" was because it was anti-slavery), and that it doesn't get confused with the 60 gillion other civil wars in history.

Neo Cannen made the point I was about to make. I mean - so many countries had a 'civil' war before America even existed as it is known today... It just feels like sheer arrogance for Americans to refer to it as just the 'Civil War' on international forums. Either arrogance, or just bad education.

Hey, works for the English one too. ;)

if only it worked for the spanish civil war

isnt it interesting that the renaming of the civil war is the only PC thing that won't fly?

after all the name hurts the feelings of certain southerners so really SHOULDNT it be changed just as much a the word BLIND becoming "visually impaired"?

is it the last refuge of the non-pc world?

Neo Cannen made the point I was about to make. I mean - so many countries had a 'civil' war before America even existed as it is known today... It just feels like sheer arrogance for Americans to refer to it as just the 'Civil War' on international forums. Either arrogance, or just bad education.

Well, the British call theirs the "Civil War",and the spanish call theirs the "Civil War".

It's just that 1. The American Civil war was one of the most deadly(not THE most deadly, mind you) Civil Wars in history.

2. No offence, but America is a VERY influential, powerful, and large country. So you will see alot of Americans.

3. It was really the first "Modern" war, where Trench Warfare and alot of modern tactics were developed.(well, the Europeans didn't use those tactics until 1915, but oh well.)

isnt it interesting that the renaming of the civil war is the only PC thing that won't fly?

after all the name hurts the feelings of certain southerners so really SHOULDNT it be changed just as much a the word BLIND becoming "visually impaired"?

is it the last refuge of the non-pc world?

PC thing?

Well, the British call theirs the "Civil War",and the spanish call theirs the "Civil War".

It's just that 1. The American Civil war was one of the most deadly(not THE most deadly, mind you) Civil Wars in history.

2. No offence, but America is a VERY influential, powerful, and large country. So you will see alot of Americans.

3. It was really the first "Modern" war, where Trench Warfare and alot of modern tactics were developed.(well, the Europeans didn't use those tactics until 1915, but oh well.)

No we dont, certianly I have always called it "The English civil war" and I have never heard it any other way

1. There have been bloodier civil wars in Englands history, I have no statistics to hand but the War of the roses springs to mind

2. That doesnt give you any right to be arrongent

3. That does not detract from it being an American civil war, and not the definitve civil war.

technically speaking...it wasnt the american civil war either. to say it was the american civil war would be to say that the united states of america has been the only nation in both north and south america that had a civil war worth calling THE american civil war. it was the civil war of the united states of america...

isnt it interesting that the renaming of the civil war is the only PC thing that won't fly?

after all the name hurts the feelings of certain southerners so really SHOULDNT it be changed just as much a the word BLIND becoming "visually impaired"?

is it the last refuge of the non-pc world?

except that those southerners want to change it so that it is just false. the facts on the ground are that the south attacked the north. they're lucky they got away with 'the civil war', instead of 'the war of southern aggression', or 'the war against retarded southern hypocrites'. 'the civil war' is about as pc as you can get and still be accurate.

There are too many polls in general ._.
i couldnt agree more with this... shall we have a poll on it?

No we dont, certianly I have always called it "The English civil war" and I have never heard it any other way

1. There have been bloodier civil wars in Englands history, I have no statistics to hand but the War of the roses springs to mind

2. That doesnt give you any right to be arrongent

3. That does not detract from it being an American civil war, and not the definitve civil war.

1. Well then whoop-di-do. It may have something to do that England is now part of Great Britain, and if you said the civil war it would refer to a "British Civil War", which never occured.

2. I never said it did. I'm just giving some reasons why people might.

3. See number 2.

except that those southerners want to change it so that it is just false. the facts on the ground are that the south attacked the north. they're lucky they got away with 'the civil war', instead of 'the war of southern aggression', or 'the war against retarded southern hypocrites'. 'the civil war' is about as pc as you can get and still be accurate.
not that i understand why its offensive.

how about "the war between the states"?

not that i understand why its offensive.

how about "the war between the states"?

Because that would mean that all the states were against each other.

How about the "United States Civil War"?

if only it worked for the spanish civil war
:(

I know, lets just get rid of it entirly! The whole concept of wars is seen to increase violence in children, so thus the Civil W*r shall be renamed:

An undesireable large scale interface caused by Sociopolitical Tensions occuring betwen two 19th century Nationstates relating to human indenturment and political disagreements over said indenturment.

Got it?

Actually, the Civil War didn't start over the issue of race. It was states' rights.

That is if you're talking about the US Civil War. If you're talking about any other, I've got no clue

how about:
'righteous beat-down against enemies of humanity'

though unfortunately it was poor people who wound up doing the fighting and dying for their ruling class fucktards. like always.

Post of the Week.

Actually, the Civil War didn't start over the issue of race. It was states' rights.

That is if you're talking about the US Civil War. If you're talking about any other, I've got no clue

That's correct. The South didn't like the North telling them how to treat people in their states.

However, it developed into a war into an issue of race. So while it didn't start as one, it ended as one.

Well, the British call theirs the "Civil War",and the spanish call theirs the "Civil War".

It's just that 1. The American Civil war was one of the most deadly(not THE most deadly, mind you) Civil Wars in history.

2. No offence, but America is a VERY influential, powerful, and large country. So you will see alot of Americans.

3. It was really the first "Modern" war, where Trench Warfare and alot of modern tactics were developed.(well, the Europeans didn't use those tactics until 1915, but oh well.)

I'm struggling to see the point here? Are you arguing for American's rights to have their civil war known as the only 'Civil War', bar none? I'm not trying to dampen it's importance on culture or history, but to refer to it simply as the 'Civil War', is not very helpful in, as I said, internationally used forums. At the time of the English Civil War, it was also a VERY influential country. So meh. If America collapses - I don't think it's namesake should be affected. As for Trench Warfare tactics... oh yes, very nice ;) The others? I've never studied your war in depth, so I can't say I am aware of other tactics.

Civil War is an oxymoron.

Call it the Dysfunctional Nation Picnic or Nation Reunion

it was the Conference of Two Sets of Idealogical Differences

Actually, the Civil War didn't start over the issue of race. It was states' rights.

That is if you're talking about the US Civil War. If you're talking about any other, I've got no clue
And what state's right is that?

Actually, the Civil War didn't start over the issue of race. It was states' rights.

then explain why the southern states got all pissy and demanded that the federal government enforce their 'property rights' against northern states that refused to return runaway slaves. it was about slavery. everything else is either a smoke-screen or reduces to slavery.

You should have done a little more research before conducting your poll.

Southern terms for the Civil War

The War Between the States
The War of Northern Aggression
The War of Southern Independence
Mr. Lincoln's War
The War of Secession
The Second American Revolution
The Late Unpleasantness

Northern Terms for the Civil War

The War of the Rebellion
The War of Southern Rebellion
The War to Save the Union
The War for Abolition
The War of the Insurrection
The War of the Attempted Secession

Since all Americans know immediately what is being referred to when they hear "Civil War" I imagine that will remain the common usage.

Why would we call the Great War to Pacify the Southern Treason anything besides the "Great War to Pacify the Southern Treason"


???

None of the above---"The War between the States"

None of the above---"The War between the States"

That, even without your location, tags you as a southerner.

Southern terms for the Civil War

The War Between the States
The War of Northern Aggression
The War of Southern Independence
Mr. Lincoln's War
The War of Secession
The Second American Revolution
The Late Unpleasantness

War Between the States. It wasn't a civil war at all. It was one sovereign nation fighting another sovereign nation, which hardly fits the definition of 'civil war' at all.

War Between the States. It wasn't a civil war at all. It was one sovereign nation fighting another sovereign nation, which hardly fits the definition of 'civil war' at all.
What sovereign nation was this? The rebellion was not sovereign...

War Between the States. It wasn't a civil war at all. It was one sovereign nation fighting another sovereign nation, which hardly fits the definition of 'civil war' at all.

Besides the Davis administration in Richmond, what other government recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation?

Besides the Davis administration in Richmond, what other government recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation?

Didn't Great Britain recognize it as one?

I know it can be hard when people want to take away your slaves, but sometimes you just have to let go... :)

That, even without your location, tags you as a southerner.

How does that tag me as a southerner? Because some list says it does? I don't support that name because I'm a redneck hillbilly who thinks the South was right---I just think it's a more appropriate name for the war. I don't see what location has anything to do with this.

War Between the States. It wasn't a civil war at all. It was one sovereign nation fighting another sovereign nation, which hardly fits the definition of 'civil war' at all.

Yes, but that nation wasn't recoginized by the Union Government, and was considered a rebellious area. Also, it wasn't recoginzed by many nations (that would be like if New Jersey became and independent country and was then invaded. Would that be a Civil War, or just a war?)

Didn't Great Britain recognize it as one?

Yes.

How does that tag me as a southerner? Because some list says it does? I don't support that name because I'm a redneck hillbilly who thinks the South was right---I just think it's a more appropriate name for the war. I don't see what location has anything to do with this.

I think it's a cultural thing.

Alot of people in the south are brought up thinking that the Civil War was a war between two nations(The C.S.A. and the U.S.A.), and people in the north(where I am from) are brought up learning that it was a war against a rebellious portion of the country.

Didn't Great Britain recognize it as one?

Yes, but that was only because it could try to undermine the U.S. without having to send troops(the last two times they tried, they were defeated.)

I think it's a cultural thing.

Alot of people in the south are brought up thinking that the Civil War was a war between two nations(The C.S.A. and the U.S.A.), and people in the north(where I am from) are brought up learning that it was a war against a rebellious portion of the country.

I don't think "the South will rise again" or whatever, but I see the war both ways. The South was a soverign nation by seceeding from the Union, but they were not right in doing so and the North had every right to invade the rebellious part of the country. But, as they say, the winners right the history books, so the war will probably be forever known as a war against a rebellion.

I don't think "the South will rise again" or whatever, but I see the war both ways. The South was a soverign nation by seceeding from the Union, but they were not right in doing so and the North had every right to invade the rebellious part of the country. But, as they say, the winners right the history books, so the war will probably be forever known as a war against a rebellion.

Unless...

There is ANOTHER Southern Rebellion(Highly unlikely, I know), and then they WIN against the North. Then they can say that the South was a soverign nation invaded by the warmongering North.

Yes.
"Although negotiations took place between the Confederacy and several European powers (including France and the UK), it was never granted formal recognition by any foreign state. Following Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, the UK and France broke off negotiations."

...Right.

I would like you please to call it the AMERICAN civil war. That war was not THE definitive civil war of all time
It's the only one that matter though...
[/sarcasm]

I would like you please to call it the AMERICAN civil war. That war was not THE definitive civil war of all time

I agree. There have been lots of Civil Wars, and it's important to keep ours seperate from all the lesser Civil Wars. And part of that is clearly identifing which one you're talking about right at the begining.

Also, nobody ever really considered the South a soverign nation anymore than for the possibility of making the Union look weak. After the Emancipation Proclaimation officially said that the slaves would be freed (actually it only said that slaves in rebellious states would be freed) no nation would toutch the rebellion.

An done of the interesting paradoxes of the Civil War is that officially (according to the Union gov't) none of the states actually seceeded, but after teh war they all had to reapply for statehood.

Having thought about it some more though, I think we are fine just calling it the Civil War. After all, all the others were a bunch of dead guys with boring names fighting over issues no-one understands, much less cares about these days. Plus the English had that whole thing with every team having a different flower as a mascot. Flowers? You've got to be kidding me. At least in our Civil War, The Civil War, if you will, we had cool names, and we were fighting over freedom and federalism, two things everyone at least has a bit of an understanding of.
;)

You mean slavery. Freedom and federalism aren't really what it was about. It was because the Northern states could elect an abolitionist as President without a single Southern electoral vote.

No, I mean freedom and federalism. The North tried to make it about slavery later into the war to try and get the moral upper hand, when really they were just supressing an excercise of rights granted in the Articles of Confederacy, claimed in the Declaration of Independence, and at least implied in the Constitution.

No, I mean freedom and federalism. The North tried to make it about slavery later into the war to try and get the moral upper hand, when really they were just supressing an excercise of rights granted in the Articles of Confederacy, claimed in the Declaration of Independence, and at least implied in the Constitution.

We DID make it into a War about Slavery. We were at war anyhoo, so the abolitionist majority said "Well, we're already at war, so let's stamp out slavery once and for all!"

Of course, the South didn't like that they had lost the moral high-ground, by they kept on fighting.

The Civil War is how it's known to us Americans, and how it shall generally continue to be known. Why do people have to change things just because times change? Hey instead of it being Christianity, let's call it Jesushood. That's more accurate and sounds better, right?

Christianity refers to "christ" so "christianity" is descriptive enough. Islam is what I have a problem with.


I call it the Civil War. And all you fools who claim it to be the "war of northern aggression" need to read up on some history. The south attacked first. Ever hear of Fort Sumter? And about the whole CSA being a soveriegn nation thing, they weren't, and THAT'S what they were so mad about.

No, I mean freedom and federalism. The North tried to make it about slavery later into the war to try and get the moral upper hand, when really they were just supressing an excercise of rights granted in the Articles of Confederacy, claimed in the Declaration of Independence, and at least implied in the Constitution.
" Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

Yep, sounds like you can dissolve that union to me. 'Cause that's what perpetual means.

" Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

Yep, sounds like you can dissolve that union to me.
Read the rest of them buddy. I'll find the quote in a bit though.

Read the rest of them buddy. I'll find the quote in a bit though.
"Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."

"And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual."


Yes?

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. And then in 1787 nine states withdrew from these Articles to ratify the Constitution, with no repecussions. And then none of the Confederate state leaders were ever tried for treason, which would have been the case if they were in violation of the Constitution. And the Declaration of Indepence says
...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
I can see the argument for secession being allowed. Look, I am a Yankee, born and bred, but on the merits of the argument, I would have agreed with the South.
Edit:I can see your point about the A o C not allowing secession though. I'll grant it isn't explicitly granted. It appears I was mistaken.

Besides the Davis administration in Richmond, what other government recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation?
Didn't Great Britain recognize it as one?
Yes.

Actually, no. No other nation or government recogonized the CSA as a sovereign nation.

How does that tag me as a southerner? Because some list says it does? I don't support that name because I'm a redneck hillbilly who thinks the South was right---I just think it's a more appropriate name for the war. I don't see what location has anything to do with this.

Don't take offense. There is no shame in being a southerner and I certainly did not call you a redneck. The term, "War between the States" is a phrase often used by southerners.

I would like you please to call it the AMERICAN civil war. That war was not THE definitive civil war of all time
That is correct. ;)

It was "The American Internal War Against Racist Slave-owning Scumbags"
which lasted more than 100 years until victory was declared and the offspring
of the losers turned Republicans and Abe Lincoln is now crying in his grave.

Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Declaration of Independance have any bearing on the laws of the United States. Thus any argument based off them is irrelevant. The Constitution could be argued either way that it allowed states to seceed. And we went to war over it, and look who won. Now states can't seceed. But they seceeded becasue an abolitionist was elected president. Thus, it was over slavery.

Sure, I'd love to rename the Civil War! I think, like everything else in the US these days, the Civil War should have a corporate sponsor. You know, something like: The Liberty Mutual Civil War. Or, the American Express Civil War. Granted, it might confuse people as to who was actually fighting and for what, but that's a minor problem when considered against the millions of dollars the government could collect on licensing fees.


Sorry, just in a sarcastic/silly mood this morning. :D

Sure, I'd love to rename the Civil War! I think, like everything else in the US these days, the Civil War should have a corporate sponsor. You know, something like: The Liberty Mutual Civil War. Or, the American Express Civil War. Granted, it might confuse people as to who was actually fighting and for what, but that's a minor problem when considered against the millions of dollars the government could collect on licensing fees.


Sorry, just in a sarcastic/silly mood this morning. :D

Wait, that's not a half bad idea...

Selling the rights to the names of wars...This could do WONDERS for the economy...

If only I were president!

There are too many polls in general ._.

We should have a poll to see who agrees with that.

How about:

The war of southern mistakes

How about:

The war of southern mistakes
or

the war of northern arrogance

or

the war of northern arrogance

or

"The War of Southern Mistakes and Northern Arrogance"?

3. It was really the first "Modern" war, where Trench Warfare and alot of modern tactics were developed.(well, the Europeans didn't use those tactics until 1915, but oh well.)

Wow, are we ever backward. You guys sure did humanity a service coming up with that one. Thanks a gizillion.


And I'll thank you in advance for not noticing that the British invented concentration camps during the Boer War.

Wow, are we ever backward. You guys sure did humanity a service coming up with that one. Thanks a gizillion.


And I'll thank you in advance for not noticing that the British invented concentration camps during the Boer War.

:D

In all seriousness, though, if you people had used our tactics there woulda been alot less deaths in WWI, because there wouldnt be lines of sodiers charging into machine guns.

You're welcome.

or

the war of northern arrogance


More likley southern arrogance... They thought that they were better than the north, but look who lost?

Or ' A an amusing scuffle between the Americans.'. Everyone else has had civil wars too, you know.

More likley southern arrogance... They thought that they were better than the north, but look who lost?
no im pretty sure its the north at this point... especially with intelligent comments from you all knowing one

"the War of Southern Desertion and Feudalism," how's that?

no im pretty sure its the north at this point... especially with intelligent comments from you all knowing one

Ok, how about...

"The War of Northern Arrogance and Northern Mistakes and Southern Arrogance and Southern Mistakes"?

no im pretty sure its the north at this point... especially with intelligent comments from you all knowing one

Well, considering that Northerners accuse Southerners of being stupid and Southerners accuse Northerners of being Intellectual then the one thing that we can agree on is that Northerners are Smarter. Where it breaks down is Southerners complaining that we're elitist because we think we're smarter, but you think you're humble because you're the only people in the country who know what it means to love America and be afraid of the god of peace and love and be complete teatotalers in the name of the guy who's also the god of wine. We see that as being just as elitist, only you're being elitist about the things that you lack, like good sense and tolerance.

Roflmao "northern agression"

Y'all fired on federal property first, in case you didn't notice.Okay, this is bullshit. Federal property to the Union, maybe. To the Confederates, it was Union occupation. Besides, the political war had already started.

Ok, how about...

"The War of Northern Arrogance and Northern Mistakes and Southern Arrogance and Southern Mistakes"?That works.

[Might makes right!]I disagree.

Well, considering that Northerners accuse Southerners of being stupid and Southerners accuse Northerners of being Intellectual then the one thing that we can agree on is that Northerners are Smarter. Where it breaks down is Southerners complaining that we're elitist because we think we're smarter, but you think you're humble because you're the only people in the country who know what it means to love America and be afraid of the god of peace and love and be complete teatotalers in the name of the guy who's also the god of wine. We see that as being just as elitist, only you're being elitist about the things that you lack, like good sense and tolerance.
i complain people are elitist when they say shit like that, not because of who they are or where they are from

oh yeah and hypocrites, i complain people are hypocrites when they accuse people of intolerance while being intolerant

Okay, between 1861 and 1865 the United States was engaged in a war. Before the war began the people on the northern side were American citizens and the people on the southern side were American citizens. After the war was over people on both sides were still American citizens.

That, my friends, is a civil war; a war between factions or regions of the same country.

All this passion about renaming the American Civil War is mental masturbation; enjoyable, no doubt, but ultimately unlikely to produce anything new.

Okay, this is bullshit. Federal property to the Union, maybe. To the Confederates, it was Union occupation. Besides, the political war had already started.
No, not really, it was still federal land, owned by the US government, even after the south 'left' (which, by the way, they didn't, see texas v. white). It would be the equivalent of attacking an embassy today.

Okay, this is bullshit. Federal property to the Union, maybe. To the Confederates, it was Union occupation. Besides, the political war had already started.

so then you believe it would be all fine and dandy for castro to blow the shit out of gitmo, yes? and the united states retaliating would be a case of american aggression?

Okay, between 1861 and 1865 the United States was engaged in a war. Before the war began the people on the northern side were American citizens and the people on the southern side were American citizens. After the war was over people on both sides were still American citizens.

That, my friends, is a civil war; a war between factions or regions of the same country.

All this passion about renaming the American Civil War is mental masturbation; enjoyable, no doubt, but ultimately unlikely to produce anything new.

3. It was really the first "Modern" war, where Trench Warfare and alot of modern tactics were developed.(well, the Europeans didn't use those tactics until 1915, but oh well.)

Trench warfare was used at least as early as the English Civil War (1640s), and may well have been employed even earlier. Europeans had been using trench warfare since before the USA even existed. Furthermore, the American Civil War featured distinctly unmodern tactics, such as shoulder-to-shoulder infantry advances.

I think the dubious honour of the first Modern War probably goes to the Crimean War (1854-56), which was the first war covered by specialist news correspondants, the first war to be photographed, and the first war to feature telecommunication to any extent.

Either that, or the Russo-japanese war of 1904-5, which was the first to feature barbed wire and land mines, and such.

Trench warfare was used at least as early as the English Civil War (1640s), and may well have been employed even earlier. Europeans had been using trench warfare since before the USA even existed. Furthermore, the American Civil War featured distinctly unmodern tactics, such as shoulder-to-shoulder infantry advances.

I think the dubious honour of the first Modern War probably goes to the Crimean War (1854-56), which was the first war covered by specialist news correspondants, the first war to be photographed, and the first war to feature telecommunication to any extent.

Either that, or the Russo-japanese war of 1904-5, which was the first to feature barbed wire and land mines, and such.

Don't forget the War of the Triple Alliance in South America (1865-1870).