“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.
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.
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.
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.
So therefore, that part of the world formerly known as the United States of America, shall thenceforth be known as 'British North America'. Men are to bow and women curtsey to your new Queen, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and now Queen of British North America. If you ever have the opportunity to address Her, you may call her, "Your Majesty" or "Your Grace".
In order to make things easier and more centralised (NOTE: 's' not 'z' which, by the way, is pronounced 'zed' not that horrid 'zee'), and to drain the swamp that Washington, DC has now become, your new Capital (no longer called a Capitol) will be d'Ottawa. Again, to make things easier, you will drop that insipid, "huh?" at the end of sentences and substitute the equally insipid, "eh?" at the end of sentences. OK, eh?
A fair warning to legislators heading to your new Capital d'Ottawa from Washington, especially those from semi-tropical regions like Florida and Hawaii. PLEASE be advised that in the winter, Washington is a tropical paradise compared to d'Ottawa. As a sign of the depth of love and respect by Her Majesty's government for Her new legislative subjects, a planeload of Stanfield's woolen longjohns will be forwarded to Washington. (Those legislators from Montana and North Dakota are exempt, as they should have their own woolies.)
Another note to assist our new legislators. PLEASE learn Franglais to properly fit in. It would be an especially wise idea to memorise various French phrases associated with the Roman Catholic faith, as such sacres assist in communicating with many Quebecois. Also, learning French words associated sex and excrement will help in communicating like a true p'tit gars. Memorising words such as, 'calisse', 'ciboire', 'criss', 'maudit', 'marde', 'osti', 'sacrament', 'tabarnack' and 'viarge' for inclusion in common dialogue will go a long way to increasing one's popularity in parts of Quebec.
One final note for all who have not yet figured this out yet. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO INSULT, MERELY TO BE somewhat HUMOUROUS. Seriously, there is one thing to note about all this. Our Prime Minister actually IS a Christian, unlike the current occupant of the White Hut!
Of course they had no legal right to declare independence.
They nowhere claimed they did. In colonial America, all Law flowed from the King in Parliament.
The Founders based their declaration not on Law, but on moral principles, overriding Law by Revolution, which is by definition the abandonment of Law for more direct action. (Hopefully with Law to be reinstated at some later date on a more sound footing.)
As Lee and other southern leaders recognized, the South had a similar moral right to revolution, although weakened by their revolution being for the purpose of denying independence to others.
But legality? Nonsense. When the southern states seceded, they rejected the legal procedures set up by the Constitution to settle differences. That's an act of Revolution, not one of Legality.
I eagerly await anybody who can prove the Founders ever claimed a Legal right for what they did, except insofar as they justified Revolution by an appeal to unwritten Natural Law.
Sure, citizens have a right to rebel against an unjust government. But was the South being treated unfairly enough to justify a rebellion is the question. Most Northerners say no, while most Southerners say yes. Under the constitution, the South had no right to secession. There’s no statement or words in the constitution that explicitly gives the right of secession to any state. Any dissolution of the union would have to be agreed upon by all participants i.e. the states. That obviously didn’t happen. So it was a rebellion....not some sort of legal secession.
Well, under British law, they did not have a right to independence. But then again, the patriots of 1776 did not appeal to British law to justify their revolution. They cited Natural law as justification for rebelling as a last resort against intolerable oppression.
I have seen nothing in the words of the Southern rebels of 1861 that cites either Natural law (which they in fact rejected) as a justification nor claiming intolerable oppression as an excuse.