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
click here to read article
FWIW, War Between the States always struck me as the most neutral term.
Civil War implies war within a nation, whereas the whole point of the war was over whether it was now one or two nations. The term at least implies acceptance of the single-nation idea.
There are also variants of more extreme terminologies. War of Northern Aggression vs. The Great Rebellion.
WBTS is most accurate, IMO, because to a very large extent that’s exactly what it was, especially in the beginning. The Federal and Confederate governments just did not have the machinery in place to run a war of such size, with much of the organization defaulting back to states as a result.
If Union states had just refused to support the war wholeheartedly, it would have quickly petered out.
There was a third nation, Mayland, that seceded from the South. Mayland had no slavery. The people there were brutalized by the North. I have visited some of the caves where the people lived for years hiding from the invading Yankees.
“Fort Sumter could have been eventually negotiated, but the Rebs decided to start the war.”
It was an act of war for the USA to fortify Ft Sumter and to send ships to blockade the Charleston harbor. So, no, the South didn’t start the war. In fact, no one knows who fired the first shot.
It is a more accurate description of that conflict too.
“War Between the States “
Same here. When using the term “State”, that doesn’t mean a State of the USA but a national State. A union is not a State. So, the USA and the CSA went to war, using their States to do it.
The USSC is dead to me. They have rarely upheld the truth, much less the Constitution or what it stands for.
“As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.”
Robert E. Lee
Uhh, not exactly.
Edmund Ruffin, noted Virginian agronomist and secessionist, claimed that he fired the first shot on Fort Sumter. His story has been widely believed, but Lieutenant Henry S. Farley, commanding a battery of two 10 inch siege mortars on James Island fired the first shot at 4:30 A.M. (Detzer 2001, pp. 26971). No attempt was made to return the fire for more than two hours. ... At about 7:00 A.M., Captain Abner Doubleday, the fort's second in command, was given the honor of firing the union's first shot, in defense of the fort.
Before the chorus of wiki-detractors chimes in, may I point out that they are free to post evidence that wiki is inaccurate in this case?
Always love it when folks point out that Southern secession was nothing more than a second Revolutionary War...with Southern states trying to reclaim the balance of power originally afforded to states.
Good post. Thanks.
-- U. S. Grant
How about “The War of Slavery-Endorsing Democrats against the Republicans, founded and financed by those who believe in the dignity of Human Life”?
(I am well aware there were more issues at stake, and the federalism questions involved...so no need to flame. I just want to re-emphasize the oft forgotten FACT that Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, and subsidies that result in dependence on government. Democrats are also the party of abortion and welfare—all designed to keep the population SUBSERVIENT to the bureaucracy.)
If you were around at the time, the prospect of the old country falling apart and being replaced by something new, most likely two countries hostile to each other, would be more apparent than anything about who would have the upperhand in a country that might not exist any more.
States weren't fighting each other. It was two governments that claimed to be federal bodies composed of states.
I wouldn't want somebody to think that it was all about an evil federal government or gang of bad states beating up on good states (or vice versa).
I wouldn't want people to forget that the CSA laid claim to being a nation or country or federation of its own.
You are viewing the mod 19th century form a 21st century perspective and are getting a very distorted view on American history. You are not alone in that mistake.
Pity. Because that's exactly what has damaged the cause of States' Rights ever since. Of course sovereign states may secede from a Union. Unfortunately, the main reason why the South wanted to secede was to preserve ... and perhaps extend ... slavery.
Mention the term "States' Rights" today and you will be called a racist. However, if the federal government fails to live up to its obligations, or intrudes into state matters, what other choice do the people of a sovereign state have? It's either secede, or armed rebellion, which are not the same thing.
Slavery probably could have been ended in a variety of ways, without war, as was done in other countries. E.G., witness the many plans to buy the slaves using bond issues, etc., free them, and send them to other countries. Actually done in a very small way!
Grant wasn’t stupid. Only fools believed people who had willingly joined a union from which the could not with draw. Only fools still believe it today.
Can’t remember exactly how many years it was, but I know some of the northern states had threatened to leave the union some 20 to 40 years earlier. Just liberals, I guess they believed it was OK if the did it, but other people. LOL!
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.