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.
How about “The War Against State’s Rights”.
So much so that I think we should use it for the next one as well.
"The Rebs decided to start a war", and President Buchanan, the second worst occupant of our White House in America's history, mishandled the situation. Both sides handled it badly.
Definitely not the CSA losers.
Hyuk hyuk hyuk!
Nothing is wrong in calling it “The war between the states.” It is simply a fact that most of us call it the Civil War.
I hope we're not under time pressure to choose a name for the next unpleasantness, but that decision is in the hands of one of the most evil, anti-American thugs in our country's history. I will continue praying for peace, but "if you wish for peace, prepare for war".
When we first arrived here in GreenAcres (rural NWGA) I was commenting to someone about living in an area rich with Civil War history (specifically, the taking of "The General"). Someone gently said to me, in a wonderful southern drawl, "Son, you need to understand that we don't call it the 'Civil War' here. In these parts it's known as 'The War of Northern Aggression'".
Still puts a smile on my face to remember that encounter.
I disagree. By denying Southerners the right to secede from a union of their own making they became slaves...demonstrating the hypocrisy of all those who desperately want the northern cause and their aggression to somehow be morally superior to the Southern cause. You simply cannot be simultaneously for and against slavery, even if one is bondage and the other is by denial of self governance...both eliminate self determination.
It’s the one fact Southernphobes and Lincoln lovers can neither refute nor acknowledge, because it destroys their world view and holier than thou self image. To admit the truth is to admit that they support the slave master and that they actually should loath themselves. Not going to happen.
That's not uncommon, but one that I've never heard (though it would be more accurate) is the
War for Federal Supremacy
The Constitution gave very specific and limited authority to the federal government, and any sane reading of the Constitution would inform you that the modern thought
federal law trumps state law is a lie: only federal law pursuant to the Constitution is superior, anything not so pursuant is null and void (see the last third of Maybury v. Madison for an excellent logical/legal proof.)
War for Federal Supremacy, the federal government has usurped a lot of powers that are rightly those of the several states — this usurpation has been quickly growing in the very recent years, but the trend for greater and greater usurpation is illustrated very well with prohibition and
the war on drugs: in the former there was a Constitutional amendment, in the latter no such amendment exists. (The difficulty of the acceptance of each indicates the implicit authority accepted to enact the laws. Prohibition was at least following the letter of the the law that is the Constitution, the War on Drugs does not even need that form followed to be held as legitimate.) Now we have reached the point where the federal government is telling us we must engage in commerce.
That’s a lot of words to describe what the war was. That war was about making Washington, DC the central power of it all.
If Gitmo had been under French rule instead of US rule, Castro would have attacked.
> The most accurate name I have heard to date is the War of Secession.
I just coined “The War for Federal Supremacy” — does that qualify as more accurate? (See post 30)
And 'Waw-uh' is a two-syllable word.
I don't have a problem with "The War Between the States." It's better than the polemical versions you find out there, but it does have just a hint of an old fashioned, eccentric feel to it.
I notice many of the instances Williams finds for TWBTS, also use "The Civil War." It sounds like they just throw in TWBTS to keep from saying "Civil War" over and over again.
All the "south haters" They should all stay in Florida and Virginia?
My dear southern grandmother referred to that time as “The Great Unpleasantness”.
No intelligent person on the planet would argue that you cannot unjoin a club that you voluntarily joined. Just liberals and Lincoln lovers.
Wrong side won and that’s my Canadian opinion.
My SIL (hubby’s ancestors are from the south) still calls it the “War of Northern Aggression”
True. I wanted the Southernphobes to have to go and ask their moms to explain it to them.
-- Granny Clampett.
Don’t forget North Carolina.
Eventually wouldn't have taken long. Anderson had informed the Confederates that he would have to surrender within three days or so if not resupplied.
To me, the US died after that war, it was all a downhill slide to where we are today.
RE: “It was never about slavery.”
If you take slavery out of the dispute, I don’t see how you motivate millions of soldiers - North or South - to run across open fields into direct gunfire.
I mean, would you risk your life today to stop California or New York City from seceding?
In 1860, as war talk heated up, half the people in America had lived their entire lives within 100 miles of their birthplace.
Very hard for me to believe that farmers in Vermont got so agitated about farmers in Georgia seceding from the Union that they went to war.
According to the author of this article, RE Lee used the term Civil War, so I fail to see why any good southerner would object to the term.
The Mafia and the CIA not withstanding....
I do believe the southern soldiers disliked the idea of a government far away telling them how to live and what to pay them among other things.