Skip to comments.Is There Something Wrong With The Term: "War Between the States?"
Posted on 01/11/2014 11:16:07 AM PST by Davy Buck
However if one truly wants to make such a big deal out of what we call the armed conflict which occurred in America from 1861 to 1865 , and if its historical accuracy and honesty that one truly seeks, then I think Douglas Southall Freeman is, perhaps, the truest to historical accuracy in coining the proper term . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
I enjoy using an older title: “War of Northern Aggression”.
Dick.G: AMERICAN !
The war of Southern Rebellion.
Nothing wrong with it, but people who have no clue might think every state was at war with every other state. lol
“War Between The States” is more accurate than “Civil War” because it was a war for independence and not a war for one faction inside a nation to exert control over the other.
Of course, from Lincoln’s point of view (and that of the victors, who write the history) the Confederate States of America never left the USA, so they see it as a Civil War.
But, the CSA did secede and the USA did defeat them in war and re-annexed them as conquered territory for the duration of “Reconstruction”. To claim that the CSA had no legal right to secede requires an honest person to admit that the colonies had no legal right to present the Declaration of Independence to the legal ruler of those colonies.
Call it the ‘War over Slaves’ and be done with it.
I understand it was referred to as “The Recent unpleasantness”.
The rebels tried to legitimize their insurrection by calling it a secession but no one - even the rebels - considered unilateral secession legitimate.
And the colonialists never tried to split hairs by calling theirs a secession. They knew it was rebellion plain and simple.
I think “the War Between the States” is pretty accurate but AMerican Civil War is shorter.
I remember hearing it called the War Between teh States about half the time as a kid, maybe because my grandparents were transplanted Southerners, but not so much anymore.
Don’t know why.
Without Northern aggression, there would have been no war.
Well, as soetoro links himself to Lincoln, who could blame a secessionist?
So, are you saying that buying and selling human beings like cattle is bad? Who knew?
That’s what I call it because that’s what it was.
It was never about slavery.
As A kid in school I questioned why the south wasn’t simply allowed to go its way. I was rudely informed that I had it all wrong. But the story as told in school never made sense. I think they should have simply left and that was that. If you look at when Lincoln freed the slaves and the fact that he did not free them in the territories that remained in the union, it puts the lie to the “it was a war against slavery meme.”
Frankly, I think now would be a good time for the red states to leave the union and take the nukes along.
I agree with the rights of the states. Though not all people’s were allowed to determine their states fate.
Anyway, war could have been avoided. You didn’t see Castro attack Gitmo after he took over power. Evil, but smart man.
Fort Sumter could have been eventually negotiated, but the Rebs decided to start the war.
That used to be an important term of distinction in the Old South.
The Confederate states claimed that the Constitution gave them authority to secede.
Lincoln and the North claimed that no such authority existed.
Thus, the North called Southern soldiers “rebels,” and the North called the conflict a “Civil War.”
If the libtards stayed true to form, they would demand that we take the nukes with us. I vote all the South haters stay in the blue states where they are with people more their ilk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.