Replies

Well, if the Washington Post prints it, it must be true... but that aside, what too many people COMPLETELY overlook is that the South didn’t go to war over anything... it declared independence from the North, for whatever reasons people wish to argue, and only FOUGHT BACK when occupied or otherwise made war upon by the North! That’s a distinction that cannot be stressed enough. It was a war of independence, same as the 13 colonies separating from Britain. Second, and just as important, is why the North started the war in the first place. Anyone who thinks it was to wipe out slavery flunks American history outright. It was entirely about “preserving the union,” much the same way Turkey wanted to preserve their “union” when the Balkan states began agitating for independence. Honest Abe himself said that if he could preserve the union by freeing all of the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of the slaves... he would do it. Holding the nascent empire together was the only thing that mattered in the end.

“what too many people COMPLETELY overlook is that the South didn’t go to war over anything... it declared independence from the North, for whatever reasons people wish to argue, and only FOUGHT BACK when occupied or otherwise made war upon by the North!”

Depends on where you pinpoint the start of the war. Is it at Bull Run—as I assume you place it—or Fort Sumter? Surely, Washington didn’t have use it as casus belli, and perhaps some twist of argument can be employed to justify South Carolina’s aggression. Nevertheless, they fired first. They absolutely did not only fight back.

“COMPLETELY overlook is that the South didn’t go to war over anything... it declared independence from the North, for whatever reasons people wish to argue, and only FOUGHT BACK when occupied or otherwise made war upon by the North!”

Oh really?

Are you saying the the South did not launch an attack on Ft. Sumter?

If so, that would be quite a piece of revisionist history on your part.

Chiltepe: "what too many people COMPLETELY overlook is that the South didn’t go to war over anything...
it declared independence from the North, for whatever reasons people wish to argue, and only FOUGHT BACK when occupied or otherwise made war upon by the North!
That’s a distinction that cannot be stressed enough.
It was a war of independence, same as the 13 colonies separating from Britain."

In actual history the Deep South slave-holders:

Declared their secession (beginning in December 1860).
Immediately began seizing Federal forts, armories, ships, customs houses, a mint, etc. (December 1860 thru May 1861).
Fired on Federal forces attempting to defend those (April 1861).
Declared War on the United States (May 6, 1861).
Waged war in every Union state and territory adjacent to the Confederacy (from April 1861 on).

Prior to the Deep South's declaration of war, in no significant example did Union forces first increase the level of violence.
And the Union never did declare war against the South.

So, it ended you might say, as a War of Northern Aggression in the South, but it certainly started as a War of Deep South Slave-holders Aggression against the Union and its Constitution.