"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[AndreusMaximus]

Starting a new thread for this, which came up in a thread of a different subject.

If they do though it'll start the Second Civil War.

Second?
There was never a first.

Not a civil war.

The seceeding states were not attempting to take control of the central state. They were walking away.

That was a war to prevent southern independence. That was a war of northern aggression. Nothing more; nothing less.

Yeah, because nothing says walking away peacefully like attacking federally owned forts.

If you want to argue that the Confederate States should've had the right to secede, I'm perfectly willing to listen to that argument, but if you're acting like they were all just trying to walk away peacefully when the Union States shot them in the back, well, that's about as accurate as the left's narrative about George Floyd.

What the Hell is in the water down there in Bloomington?

First you want to compromise your natural rights with serpents and now this.

Here you go.

The War of Secession – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

Next thing I know you're going to be claiming lincoln freed slaves.

I never said I want to compromise my rights; I just said that if we could ever get to the point of a real compromise, it would better than what we're getting now.

Haven't had time to read the whole thing yet; I'll try to get to it tomorrow. In the first bit, though, it has already stated that the Confederate States were, as I pointed out, the first to attack the Union, not the other way around. Hardly the thing that those looking for a diplomatic and peaceful secession would do.

Name someone who deserves the credit more than he does.

P.S.
Quickly skimmed the rest of the article after typing the above; unless I missed it, it looks like it does the typical thing I've noticed with those who argue that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, which is never cite a single written source from the time period, and conveniently forget to even mention the fact that most of the Confederate States explicitly cited the preservation of slavery (their "peculiar institution") as a primary reason for wanting to secede, and most of the top politicians of the Confederate States reiterated this in their speeches. Tomorrow I'll try to find time to give the article a more thorough read, and provide some citations for the above.

Show me one.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Show me one.

I wasn't completely sure on the context of this question, but I think you're asking me to show you someone who deserves the credit for ending slavery in the USA more than Lincoln does?

I don't think there is one; that's the point. As much as a single person could ever take credit for such a thing, I think the credit rightly goes to Lincoln.

 

[ditcherman]

IBTL.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

P.S.
Quickly skimmed the rest of the article after typing the above; unless I missed it, it looks like it does the typical thing I've noticed with those who argue that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery, which is never cite a single written source from the time period, and conveniently forget to even mention the fact that most of the Confederate States explicitly cited the preservation of slavery (their "peculiar institution") as a primary reason for wanting to secede, and most of the top politicians of the Confederate States reiterated this in their speeches. Tomorrow I'll try to find time to give the article a more thorough read, and provide some citations for the above.

A few quotes supporting my above claim:

The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions — African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. [Emphasis Added]

-Alexander Stephens, Confederate Vice President, in his "Cornerstone Speech"

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

-Mississippi's Secession Declaration

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

-South Carolina's Declaration of Immediate Causes of Secession

I can easily provide more for anyone still feeling doubtful.

 

[jamil]

In.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

So to circle back to more directly addressing the question at hand of whether or not "Civil War" is an accurate term (yes, I'm sure this will inevitably get into questions about slavery as the primary cause of the war, but that's only indirectly related.)

@BigRed provided a link to this article:

The War of Secession – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

I gave this article a more thorough read today. The concluding line of the article is:

The great pity is that the issue of secession was not first decided in the halls of the Supreme Court via a case of United States v. South Carolina, rather than a four-year War of Secession fought on so many blood-soaked battlefields.

I think this line really encompasses the conundrum we have in this discussion, which is that the legal status of the Confederate States never had a chance to be hashed out in court. And whose fault is that?

The fact remains that the Confederate States were the first to attack the Union, and they did so while there was still an ongoing legal disagreement about their status. The above article makes the extremely weak claim that the Union made the first act of war by moving troops to Fort Pickens. Even if you believe that the Confederate States were within their legal rights to form a separate country at that point, the Union would still have claim to its own properties within their borders, and to suggest that moving troops to them is an act of war is like suggesting that the UK moving troops into Gibraltar is an act of war against Spain. I'm not saying the Union is completely free of fault in inciting the war; but to place the blame fully on the Union side seems very far from the truth to me.

All in all, I think Civil War is as close to a fair name as we're going to get. Immediately before the war and immediately after the war both parties were part of the same country, and there was never time during the war to fully settle the legal questions surrounding the attempt to separate from the country.

 

[rob63]

The South lost the war and consequently they remain a part of the country. Thus, it meets the definition of a civil war. If the south had been successful in establishing their new nation, then they could have called it whatever they wanted.

I think you can make a case for calling it the "War for Southern Independence," or you could certainly call it the "War to Save and Expand Slavery." However, "War of Northern Aggression" is hard to justify considering who fired the first shot. The North did decide to refuse to allow the South to go, so they certainly had a hand in it all though.

I don't really understand why people insist on arguing in favor of one side or the other as if one side was good and the other bad to the point of ignoring the sins of the side they favor.

As stated above, this isn't necessarily germane to the question of what to call the war, but I will add it just because it will come up anyway. The South seceded in order to save the institution of slavery. They were quite open about it at the time. There is no debate to be had about why they seceded, you only need to read what they wrote about it in their declarations of why they seceded. Yes, they used flowery language about "State's Rights" and the failure of the Northern states to abide by the Constitution, but when they get to the details the only "right" they were concerned with was the right to own slaves. Ironically, in the same documents in which they bloviate about "State's Rights" they condemn the Northern states for failing to return escaped slaves under the terms of the Fugitive Slave Act. They appear to have been quite fine with a strong Federal government when it suited their purposes.

The North wasn't exactly without sin either. The decision to wage "hard war" rather than let the South go is one I find hard to wrap my head around. Arresting people without actually charging them with a crime and other violations of the constitution were all too common.

I also find nothing in the Constitution that prohibited the South from seceding. I find it a strange argument to say that once you join a country you are never allowed to leave it, particularly when there was nothing actually spelling it out at the time. That just doesn't sit well with me, and it doesn't square with the Declaration of Independence either.

I really enjoy studying the Civil War, but, frankly, I find it impossible to strongly identify with either side. I assume I would have stayed out of it had I been alive at the time. However, ending slavery was certainly a noble goal even if arrived at in a backward way.

I know some people who want so badly for the South to have been the good guys have a hard time accepting the idea that slavery was really the issue. You can lead a horse to water..., but if anyone wants to see for themself here is a link to what they said at the time:

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Here is a small taste of it, from the South Carolina document since they started it.

"The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do."

 

[SEIndSAM]

 

[Expat]

As I recall, Kirk Freeman has made some very insightful posts on this topic over the years.

 

[grillak]

just my 2¢....we all know that politicians are liars by default.

back to the show

 

[oze]

In.

 

[Principal Skinr]

Whatever it is called, whatever anyone thinks started it, the fact is that slavery is one of the two biggest sins in our country's history, whether cloaked in a states' right argument, or not. It was the root cause and it had to be ended.

 

[jake blue]

The term Civil War simply refers to an internal conflict within the nation as opposed to a conflict with another Nation. BigRed made that same response to my statement in a number of different threads but I never engaged because there is no reasoning with that kind of dispute over terminology. I blame this on Bill Clinton when he wanted to debate what the meaning of the word IS is. Ever since then we have had this redefinition of language debate in our society in which instead of debating the merits of an argument we want to debate the proper terminology. Heck, we can't even define what a woman is in the supreme court! All I'm pointing out is that Texas seems to be at the forefront of the forthcoming conflict between the (Dis)United States over not just the issue of secession but basically if we will exist as to completely different nations ideologically.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

The term Civil War simply refers to an internal conflict within the nation as opposed to a conflict with another Nation. BigRed made that same response to my statement in a number of different threads but I never engaged because there is no reasoning with that kind of dispute over terminology. I blame this on Bill Clinton when he wanted to debate what the meaning of the word IS is. Ever since then we have had this redefinition of language debate in our society in which instead of debating the merits of an argument we want to debate the proper terminology. Heck, we can't even define what a woman is in the supreme court! All I'm pointing out is that Texas seems to be at the forefront of the forthcoming conflict between the (Dis)United States over not just the issue of secession but basically if we will exist as to completely different nations ideologically.

This may have started as merely a debate over semantics, but I'm still interested in the underlying ideas. There are several important questions at play here, such as, is secession legal? Even if it is, do the Confederate States still bear some of the blame for starting the war? To what degree does the existence of slavery, and its subsequent abolishment, affect this conversation?

I am very interested in discussing these questions, not because I think I can change someone else's worldview by posting online, but, first of all, because I've never really engaged in an in-depth discussion with anyone who holds different viewpoints than I do regarding the causes and/or morality of the Civil War, and I'd like to learn more about the other side, and secondly, because, frankly, I am very interested in the question of secession from a legal standpoint, and would very much like to see it become a topic of discussion in the mainstream, and not simply seen as a fringe ideological idea.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

In.

 

[Wolfhound]

There were good people on both sides as well as atrocities ie Andersonville and Sherman’s March. Anyone who paints it as 100% good vs evil is trying to sell something. And yes, it was a Civil War. Secession and slavery both played a roll.

 

[ancjr]

Out of all the countries that participated in slavery and later abandoned it, the US is the only one that had a war...

 

[Keith_Indy]

If I recall Northern Busybodies kept telling Stubborn Southerners give up your slaves, while we need that cotton we buy from you for our mills, the method by which you obtain it is distasteful. (Should sound familiar, replace cotton with coal, oil, metals, meat, etc)

As a matter of pride and temperament, Southerners said F'U Northerners, mind your own business.

In the end, the FEDERALISTS won.

I believe the political argument boils down to STATE sovereignty over FEDERAL control. While the moral argument was over SLAVERY and SECESSION/UNITY. Also with how new territories in the west would have control. The South would have had a better moral argument had they given up slavery and still seceded over state sovereignty.

---

Just as the map is not the terrain, history books are not history. The books are an incomplete picture from a certain perspective. You have to read multiple books and make your own conclusions. There are many debatable points on all sides.

You could start threads on every war, causes and culpability. How far back do you want to go?

 

[Leadeye]

To me the civil war was about economics more than anything and really should have been negotiated out with that in mind. Southern states depended heavily on slave based agriculture and slaves were, for the sake of this discussion just agricultural machinery. Moving them away from that economy into a more diversified economy by federal subsidy of manufacturing and technology, while costly, was nothing compared to years of war damage and lives lost.

Bad decisions and big egos of leadership on both sides brought the civil war which was nothing but grief for the people at large. Winfield Scott, the smartest soldier of the era understood that the war would be long, destructive and bloody, but nobody was listening.