Why was it called the war of Northern Aggression?

I don't claim to be anywhere near an expert on the Civil War but my guess is that the term started in the South and over time has just spread. In fact I have never heard of the war being called that myself but once again I am not an expert on the Civil War.

Obviously this term did have to start in the South because I don't think people that supported the North would have started it. I suppose the viewpoint was that the South just wanted to secede and the North wouldn't let them do that and used aggression (ie war) to keep them in the Union. So supposing you were a Southern sympathizer that is how you would see things.

 

in its most simplistic reasoning...though it was no doubt a union, there was a lot more of a state by state philosophy/culture. less than a hundred years off the British defection, the southern state's viewed the north's unwillingness to let them separate as tyranny and aggression.

one could say the south painted the north into a corner, and this term for the war is Confederate propaganda.

thats without getting into enormous detail, and all the precursors to war.

 

it was called that in the South because the South fought an overwhelmingly defensive war (on purpose), on it's home turf, and the North fought a war of invasion, and fought using far more "aggressive" terms, like scorched earth tactics, shelling civilian populations, pillaging, and stealing. transversely, even on the rare occasions when the South did invade the North (at Gettysburg and Antietam Maryland), their armies were under strict orders to NOT cause undue stress to civilians, and to pay for any provisions from farms and merchants.

now, allow me to pose another question; why is the war you are speaking of known as "The Civil War" to most?

a civil war is, by definition, two opposing sides fighting over control of a government.

and that is a very significant distinction because the South did not seek to "take over" the federal government of the US militarily, which renders the term "Civil War" historically inaccurate.

their goal was simply to leave the union via secession. and therein lies the key to the whole issue; was secession legal?

well, according to what West Point taught the officers on both sides, North and South, up to and even beyond the end of the war in 1865, it most certainly WAS.

in fact several of the original 13 states (Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia for certain,off the top of my head, as well as a couple other Northern States) specifically included language in their ratification of the U.S. Constitution reserving the right to secede at their sole discretion.

among the other states, the right of secession was considered a given, with no need to codify it in law at the time of the founding of the U.S. and continuing up until the War Between the States, according to several histories i have read. it was considered common knowledge, basicly.

so if it was ok to secede from England in 1776, then why would it not be in 1861? logical consistency dictates it must be, to those living a mere three generations later. and many of those fighting had parents and grandparents who fought in the American Revolution, and therefore viewed history thru a much different perspective than we do now.

so with all that in mind, i prefer the term "War Between the States" to describe that conflict.

because "Civil War" and "War of Northern Aggression" are BOTH propaganda terms used by the opposing sides to gather sympathy for their respective side.

and while i agree the term "War of Norther Aggression" was a Southern propaganda term, there is some accuracy to it, unlike the term "Civil War" in this instance.

after Fort Sumter, the North invaded the Southern states and the war was fought almost exclusively in the South. the South even made a point NOT to invade the North, and fight a defensive war, in order to further validate their cause, and so no one could mistake what they were doing (seceding), for a civil war.

they only invaded into Maryland and Pennsylvania after two long years of war ravaged the Virginia countryside, in an effort to give the civilians and farmers a break and in hopes of giving the US government a political issue that might turn public sentiment against continuing the struggle.

 

Actually until early 1863 the North worked under the Soft Policy where they did not harm the land or pillage any in the South because they were convinced that the Southern people were under control of the "Slave Power." Which was the rich white upper class. It wasn't until they figured out that the common Southerners did in fact hate them and weren't under control of the "Slave Power" that they changed their policy to be more aggressive. Mostly as a result of a lot of guerrilla warfare by locals they turned to "Hard Policy" to keep the people in line. I am not sure about the Southerners policy in the North however but the North did not come into the South as evil conquerors pillaging but rather they came in to get the South back in. The legality of secession I do believe is up in the air however.

 

the north actually didn't make much headway into the south originally. their early victories were all in the west.

 

Secession was deemed Constitutional that is one part of the reason for the War of Northern Aggression, the other was the Federals moved first and basically invaded Kentucky and Maryland and put them under Military Jurisdictions to prevent them from seceeding.

A footnote though, the Confederacy had no such problem as West Virginia was allowed to separate itself from VA and join the Union.

And the people of the South were not all 100% certain and supportive of the Secessionist movement, several areas were extremely poor and slave labor was viewed as depressing small farmers.

The term was "Rich man's Fight, Poor man's war" when the Confederacy imposed conscription in the South.

 

thats also because the draft could be avoided by both side's rich by hiring a replacement or paying a fee only the rich could afford.I think like $300 dollars or something.

 

Nice find..

Lost to history though, the Union PTB knew that not everyone in the South was thrilled with the idea of the war, so they offered a 50 dollar (in gold) enlistment bonus for Southern men who enlisted in the Union Army.

The SE TN/WNC region was ripe with piney wood folk who took them up on the offer..the tidewater regions were the massive plantation were generally located were literally hundreds of miles away and held little reason not to join the Union Army.

 

Wasn't Missouri also in that originally invaded states to keep them in the Union (along with KY and MD)?

I agree with what you say although technically the South attacked first at Fort Sumter so technically you could say they started the aggression.

 

Ft. Sumter was going to be resupplied by the Union Navy in effect breaking the mild siege on the facility:

Now in modern legal views, Sumter was in a foreign country, the Confederate States of America, and to allow it to be resupplied would be in effect to cede the land to the Union.

Not that I agree with that of course.

 

Yeah I that's what I remembered about Fort Sumter was the South fearing that the re-supply was a trick. I also know that Confederate Southerners hated Fort Sumter being in control of the North, so that probably had something to do with the strike but that's my own theory.

I don't personally think it was a War of Northern Aggression but there is definitely a strong argument for it.

 

My personal view is that the War, no matter what it was called, was a tragedy with the best young men on both sides dying for precious little reason.

 

Which is true for every war (I'm not saying some wars aren't justified but in all wars great young men and women die).

 

that's one way to look at it, and there is some credence to that. another is that Lincoln saw his fortunes going poorly, having been stung repeatedly on the battlefield, and knowing the war was losing popularity, so he became desperate and changed tactics accordingly.

no President wants to go down in history as having presided over the rapture and dissolution of the country. evidence to back this viewpoint can be seen in his shutting down the presses and arresting opposing Northern newspaper publishers, arresting the Maryland legislature so they could not vote to secede, and suspending habeus corpus.

but the Union armies most assuredly lived off the Virginia breadbasket during the first two years of war, if for no other reason than to deprive the Southern armies of those same supplies and rations while conducting war in Virginia.

 

there is no denying or belittling the role of slavery. but keep it in context. slavery was legal and constitutional at the time the war broke out.

South Carolina seceded first, and named it among it's causes for seceding in it's articles of secession. that is beyond dispute.

but what most people fail to understand (because they are never taught this in school) is the majority of the other Southern states did not secede in defense of slavery.

they began to secede only when Lincoln called for the states to send soldiers to form an army of 75,000 to invade SC and put down the "insurrection."

they viewed this as unconstitutional, an overt act of tyranny, and that the federal govt had no constitutional right whatsoever to invade a sovereign state of our union.

so several seceded reluctantly, feeling that Lincoln's actions backed them into a corner.

arguing over the constitutionality of secession with New England states was ironic to many in the South, since it was those states who threatened to secede decades earlier, circa 1814, around the time of the Missouri Compromise.

another mitigating factor that gets little-to-no attention in history classes; tariffs on southern cotton exports accounted for approximately 80% of the federal govt.'s operating budget at the outset of the war.

how was Lincoln to run his country, and get re-elected having lost 80% of his budget, if he let the South go? there was no federal income tax then.

Northern states had seen to it, thru their population advantage (and the electoral representation advantage that came with it) that Northern imports and exports flowed untaxed thru their ports creating an uneven playing field the South, while cotton exports were subject to tariffs.

 

There was more money spent on the war then it would have cost to offer manumission for every slave?

The War of Northern Aggression cost 6,190,000,000 the cost to have freed every slave would have been 2,520,000,000.

So it would have been possible to simply have legislated the purchase and manumission of every slave in the US and that would have saved roughly 3 billion dollars and 600,000 lives...but war was appealed to instead.

 

It would have avoided the whole thing, not ended it.

The post War period was no bed of roses either, emancipation or not.

Secession was a Constitutional Right granted to the Several States.

 

hardford convention. and it was actually a minority of the delegates there. Word got out about the possible succession however and it pretty much spelled the demise of the federalist party.

 

Back to the original question, I always thought it was called "The War of Northern Aggression" because the South viewed the North's attempts to impose their views on slavery and other issues on the South as aggression.

 

the south never would have agreed to a constitutional amendment ending slavery, regardless of any monetary reimbursement.

 

I agree that Lincoln wasn't the great figure he was made out to be and I agree Northerners lived off of Southern land but that was only because it was the invading force. Also the war's unpopularity kept gaining right on into 1864 the second time Lincoln was elected with the only things saving him were key victories in the eastern front (I believe) and the fact that his presidential opponent was not well liked. I also agree that the reasons you mentioned influenced Lincoln's decision to switch from a "Soft Policy" to a "Hard Policy" in early 1863 but I don't see it as desperation simply based off of those reasons. It makes more sense to me that when you try to make nice with people and they basically (and literally in some cases) spit in your face that you take a hard line approach. I don't buy into the South necessarily being the victims as they caused much of their own problems with their actions (which was not universal but a majority).

Also padre I disagree that paying for the slaves would have avoided the war even if we are assuming that slavery was the only reason (I know that you know it wasn't but for argument's sake). Simply because it was ingrained in the South's style of life and economy so they would not have given that up.

 

My most favorite subject other than Miami Dolphins Football. While I can live with the War between the States or the War of Northern Aggression it was most certainly not a Civil War IMHO.

First let me say that slavery was a problem, it was Constitutally legal at the time, so in fact to maintain it all the Southern states had to do was to stay in the Union. Look up the facts and the numbers if you don't believe me (What does it take to amend the Constitution?). Second, if slavery was the cause, why were we the ONLY country to fight a war to free the black man. The last country to free the african slave was Brazil in the 1880's and they did so without firing a shot. England did so in 1807 and they also did it without going to war. Were we really so different or are we just so brain washed that we don't want to find out what really happened to our government during those 4 years that changed forever the way we, the people, are governed.

IMHO you can only believe that secession is illegal if you believe that the Union is more important than the Consitiution, in other words, that the Constitution rest on the health of the Union rather than the Union rest on the health of the Constitution. Lincoln put it this way "Say a man is dieing but if you cut off his arm he will live. I'm trying to save the Union so you let me worry about the Constitution." It's just my 2 cents but I'm saying Lincoln was dead wrong and he killed Constitutional law to save the Union. The hot heads on both sides were wrong and we never had to let it go as far as it did. Lincoln had the power to keep it in check but he chose war instead. Remember until the Fort Sumter firing only 7 states had seceed and Virginia was not in that group. Virginia was the key to keeping the border states in the Union and IMHO Lincoln panicked, miss judged his southern country men, and we then had a mother loving, gut busting, hell of a war.

Let me say in relation to the Hartford Convention the New England states were ready and able to seceed and would have save for the fact that the war of 1812 was stopped. It was hurting their business and they would have been legally correct if they had in fact pulled out of the Union.

More later, fire away.

 

untrue. the delegates there supporting succession were in the vast minority. the majority of them wanted to voice their grievances to what they thought was a southern bias and seek restitution. However once word got out that there was talk of succession, the Federalist party went into the dumpster as they were seen as the traitorous party. and the Hartford convention, was a meeting of only one of the 2 major parties(granted, the one with the strongest ties in new England) at the time.

as for slavery being resolved without blood shed. when slavery in Kansas was put to a vote, the area became a battle ground between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces. almost as a pre-cursor to the civil war(war between the states, or war of northern/yankee aggression, etc.). Kansas at the time earned the nickname bleeding kansas due to the amont of fighting going on there. 2 government were even instituted, one a slave government, another a non-slave government.

had the civil war never happend, the U.S would not be what it is right now. Maybe it wouldn't have slavery, but it would have taken much longer to go about destroying it. and we would have probably been split, maybe forever.

 

All good points GA and the only thing I have to add is that obviously the war was about way more than slavery.

The one thing I want to see is where in the Constitution it legalizes secession. I am not saying it doesn't but my natural curiosity wants to know where. I have heard it many times and have never really wanted to check it out until now, so if someone knows where to find it please let me know.

Additionally I just had to give this awesome thread five stars.

 

There is no adhereing contract between Sovereigns Sking, if a State can enter into a compact, it also can remove itself from the same compact unilaterally.


For example the 10th amendment does not exclude that from a State power, in fact it is silent on the matter.

 

there is a clause(the elastic clause) in the constitution that says any power not expressively given to the federal government it is reserved for the states

 

Yes but if it was like a contract and everyone agreed to honor it wouldn't secession be like a breach of contract, which could led to repercussions like you would see if a modern contract was broken? Could this not have been the reason for the Union to engage in the war?

Thanks Padre. I am learning a lot in this thread.

 

Yes but couldn't that mean so many things?

 

It was not a "contract" meaning two parties agree to duties and obligations, the Constitution is more along the lines of a Treaty between two Kings, one sat in Washington, one sits in the Several States Capitols.

The truly interesting angle is, the Several States have "Rights" as found in the 10th Amendment, the Government of the United States has only duties.

 

yes. its one of the extremely vague parts of the constitution and i was just throwing that out there as a possible reason why they think they have the right to succeed.in in it there is also clause that states that the federal government may take any power in which it deems necessary and proper.known, not surprisingly, as the necessary and proper clause. that's 2 contradictory clauses in the constitution

 

I'll only say this about the Hartford Con. Was the war ended or not? Is Secession legal or not?

So you are saying that the American people are the only people in the world who must fight wars to solve their differences? That most certainly was not the way this government was intended to operate, was it, IYO?

 

the 9th and 10th amendments are practically non-existant. Those two rights went out the window long ago.

 

Rights MUST be asserted in the face of counter claims that they do not exist.

 

i say we try and get wyoming to succeed from the union. no one will miss it.

 

Do we have the right to secede or not? That is the 64 million dollar question, right?

There are those who will point to the Articles of Confederation and say that it says that it says that all 13 states have to agree before they can secede and that it is a union in perpetuity yet only 6 years later those same states came together and forged a new Constitution without all 13 agreeing to it and in fact one member had to be pulled kicking and screaming into it some thee years later, RI. One other state had a real hard time joining also; North Carolina. In point of fact it was agreed that it would only take a 9 yea vote to approve this new Constitution and all the other states could peaceably go their own way. IJMHO but I would think that that very fact was reason enough that nothing be written into the Constitution concerning secession; it was on record as to how the founding fathers handled this change without the sword.

If in fact it was a Union in perpetuity; that perpetuity only lasted 6 years. Gentlemen, it was and is a compact between the several states, should it be easy to leave? No it should not but that doesn't make it illegal and that is also why the states that did so did it in the proper form. I will leave you with this one question, for those of you who claim it was treasonous to have done so, why was no one from the South brought to trial and hung for treason if what you feel is true? Surely you won the war and had the power to do so yet it seems you didn't have the law behind you to make it stick.