I cannot imagine why a magazine dedicated to lifting up the Commonwealth of Virginia, the capital of the Confederacy, would use a Northern term to describe the war, which Virginians and Southerners call the "War Between the States." We don't think there was anything "civil" about it. Are your writers not true Virginians, or are they simply young and thus influenced by textbooks written by out-of-state scholars?
It's hard not to comment on something like this.
First, I believe the term is "War of Northern Aggression." No reason to pretend to a chivalry you do not feel.
Second, from English 101: the term "civil" in this situation does not mean "genteel." The primary definition of the word relates to a person's citizenry. War is, by definition, not courteous and mannerly.
But even bypassing the writer's tenuous grasp of language, there's another nagging point which perhaps references a nuance lost to my plodding Northern mind. The Civil War is now nearly 150 years behind us and you, Mr. Vaughan, LOST. Actually, YOU didn't lose--you weren't here yet by a long shot; the cause was lost at least a hundred years before you breathed your first. The Confederacy lives on now only in Klan rallies and in the back windows of pickup trucks next to the "Maybe Hitler Was Right" bumper stickers. I'd say get over it, but there is nothing in your life's experience to get over except a self-perpetuating inferiority complex which you hand down like the family chastity belt to your children and grandchildren. Surely there are many other noble things to celebrate about your beloved Virginia than this one bloody footnote.
My suggestion: let's move beyond this exercise in self-flagellation of identifying yourself on some indecipherable principle with somebody else's bad idea.
(P.S. I expect a good thrashing from Esbee on this matter!)