Why It Makes Sense... (1 Viewer)

[VanguardFC007]

I was reading a thread this morning and I noticed tdubel used the phrase "War of Northern Agression" to describe the War Between the States. Which brings me to this point; what is the most accurate name of that conflict? To me it is War Between the States or as I like to refer to it, and some people for some strange reason are offended by it, is the War for Southern Independence. I feel that the War for Southern Independence is the most accurate way to describe it. The South seceded and declared independence, thus a war for independence. War Between the States is sort of a term that goes somewhere in between that and the misnamed "American Civil War." Civil War implies that two or more sides of one nation are looking to rule the entire nation. I dont believe the South ever gave any serious thought to governing the Northern states; we just wanted our half of the country.

I dont mean this post to offend anyone and I hope everyone who responds to it can do so in a mature manner.


Harris

 

[jazzeum]

Harris,

I think you meant well but I think Tom was using this slightly tongue in cheek. I'm not sure the name we apply is all that important. However, calling it one thing or another thing depends on your perspective. To me, Civil War is the correct label because it correctly describes what happened in the country at the time, which is somewhat similar to what happened in other countries that couldn't agree on the direction of their country.

This is also an issue that still can't be discussed unemotionally as we saw from the poster who called the Confederate Army the "bad guys". As I've mentioned to UK Reb in emails, 143 years is still too soon for this issue to be talked about with out someone getting emotional.

As an aside, I would recommend David Potter's book called the Impending Crisis, showing the march to disunion between 1848-1861. It's like being witness to a car wreck that you just can't stop.

 

[VanguardFC007]

I did note the post spawning mine was tongue in cheek as I read it. It was just the comment that some might find it offensive that spurred me on to my train of thought.


Harris

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

I believe it makes the most sense to call it the War to Preserve the Union, because it was fought on the North mostly to preserve the United States and Constitution.

Vick

 

[jazzeum]

Unless I'm way off, most of the battles were fought in the South.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

But to preserve the Union, and the Constitution of the United States of America, and if I might add the worst was fought on Northern soil.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

Unless I'm way off, most of the battles were fought in the South.

Jazzeum,

I think you misunderstood me, I meant the reason for fighting in the North, not fought in the North

 

[Spitfrnd]

Whether the term civil war is literally correct depends on whether you consider the succession by the South to have had legal effect. Literally the term means a war between the citizens of one state. The word "civil" is 14th century middle English, derived from middle French and the Latin word "civilus" which means of or relating to the state. Of course the South did secede but the North considered that an unconstitutional act without legal effect and the South considered it one of their inalienable rights. So depending on how you interpret that right, the term civil war would or would not be appropriate. Since the winners write history, the use of the term is quite understandable, as it the objection to it by those who lost.
I don't agree that the civil war cannot be discussed without emotion but I would concede that some people cannot discuss somethings without emotion and for some, this is one of those things.

 

[OzDigger]

The term Civil War and the specific American Civil War are entirely correct. In a global perspective the term State is often used to describe an entire Nation rather than one or more of the States that may make up that Nation.

 

[Spitfrnd]

The term Civil War and the specific American Civil War are entirely correct. In a global perspective the term State is often used to describe an entire Nation rather than one or more of the States that may make up that Nation.

That was my point Oz, if the secession was legally effective, it would have been a war between two "nations" or "states" and not between the citizens of one nation or state. So again, it depends on how you interpret the right of succession. Had the South won, it would have likely been called the War of South Independence.

 

[OzDigger]

That was my point Oz, if the succession was legally effective, it would have been a war between two "nations" or "states" and not between the citizens of one nation or state. So again, it depends on how you interpret the right of succession. Had the South won, it would have likely been called the War of South Independence.

Thanks for the clarification However a country is only a country when it is recognised as being a country by other countries. As the rest of the world did not consider the Confederate States of America as being a separate country the term Civil War still stands in this instance. Of course some could argue otherwise but that doesn't make them right

 

[Spitfrnd]

Thanks for the clarification However a country is only a country when it is recognized as being a country by other countries. As the rest of the world did not consider the Confederate States of America as being a separate country the term Civil War still stands in this instance. Of course some could argue otherwise but that doesn't make them right

Well in the long run I would agree. Recognition by another country is certainly an important indicia of nationhood but not the only one. The Europeans chose to hedge their bets and simply await the outcome.

 

[VanguardFC007]

Great thinkers such as John Locke and the Great Virginian Thomas Jefferson believed it to be a peoples natural right to seek independence if they felt the government was no longer meeting their needs.

President Lincoln, whether intentionally or unintentionally, recognized the CSA sometime in (I believe) 1863 or 1864. Horace Greeley in a criticism of Lincoln said that there were Confederate agents in Canada willing to negotiate the ending of hostilities. Lincoln is recorded as saying that if agents of the CSA government were willing to discuss a cease fire he would be open to the subject. If Lincoln had referred to these agents as agents of the rebels he would have continued his policy of no recognition. However, intentionally or unintentionally, he recognized the government of the CSA.


Harris

 

[jazzeum]

You've completely misunderstood the meaning of that meeting. At the time the War was not going well and Lincoln did not believe these so called agents had genuine negotiating powers. However, as Commander in Chief, he knew that he could not to rebuff any peace overtures, even if not real. So he sent Greeley a telegram offering safe conduct to anyone who a proposition of Jefferson Davis' for peace "embracing the restoration of the Union and the abandonment of slavery." (July 9, 1864). Lincoln sent one of his secretaries, John Hay, to meet them and he would have acknowledged the existence of the Confederacy if the agents accepted the restoration of the Union as a pre condition for negotiations. The agents admitted they had no authority to negotiate peace. So, since they couldn't meet the conditions, there was no recognition, tacit or otherwise, of the rebellious states.

Lincoln never recognized the rebellious states as a separate country and in early 1865 he rejected overtures from Davis to "enter into a conference with a view to secure peace to the two countries." Lincoln rejected this by saying he would meet with any commisioner of Davis' with the view of "securing peace to the people of our one common country." (Lincoln to Blair, January 18, 1865). Accordingly, this meeting was not held because of this refusal by the rebellious states to accept the notion of one common country. Although the President and Seward did meet with several commissioners on February 1, one of the preconditions was the "Restoration of the National Authority throughout all the States."

Never did Lincoln recognize the Confederacy and to argue otherwise is simply not borne out by the record.

 

[trooper]

In his original post Vanguard asked what is the most accurate name for the conflict? In my opinion the most accurate name would be The American War, but I think most people will still identify it as the American Civil War however the semantics are argued.

 

[Spitfrnd]

In his original post Vanguard asked what is the most accurate name for the conflict? In my opinion the most accurate name would be The American War, but I think most people will still identify it as the American Civil War however the semantics are argued.

The problem with using the "American War" is you are immediately inspired to ask "which one"? That label could applied to the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the War with Mexico, the War with Cuba, the various wars with the Indian nations and of course the War Between the North and South, just to name a few.

 

[VanguardFC007]

I was fairly certain this forum wouldnt come to any conclusion but I wanted to see what got churned up. As Brad said, 143 years is still to soon for any of us to peacefully agree on any hot topic of that time period. It seems regional differences still exist in education which I believe to be the cause of these significant differences of thought. However as I think all Americans can agree, it is the ability to have those different thoughts that makes the US great. Someone once said, "I might not like what you think but Ill fight to the death for you to have the right to think it." Something like that.


Harris

 

[Louis Badolato]

It was Thomas Jefferson who said "I may not agree with what you ay but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

 

[VanguardFC007]

It was Thomas Jefferson who said "I may not agree with what you ay but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

Thank you for the clarification.

Harris

 

[damian]

Could I just ask, and hopefully not get my head cut off but does anyone feel that it would have been a good thing for America if the South had succeeded. It seems to me the current leadership role which the US enjoys in the world is a direct result of being one unified country. If the South had succeded things may well have been different and then there would have been no USA to contribiute so magnificently to WWII or to lead the free world during the Cold War.
Regards