Why was it called the war of Northern Aggression?

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.:shifty::yes:

"gafinfan wrote:

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.:shifty::yes:

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. :up:

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

"sking29 wrote:

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. :up:

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.

"sking29 wrote:

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. :up:

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

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

"padre31 wrote:

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.

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. :up:

"Dannyg28 wrote:

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 couldn't that mean so many things?

"sking29 wrote:

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. :up:

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.

"sking29 wrote:

Yes but couldn't that mean so many things?

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

"Dannyg28 wrote:

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.

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?:wink2:

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

"FinSane wrote:

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

:pity:

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

"gafinfan wrote:

"Dannyg28 wrote:

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.[/QUOTE]

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?:wink2:

their emissary reached washington the same day word from ghent arrived saying the war was over. among their demands was not succession.. and actually, new England made money during the war of 1812, illegally trading with Canada. its just they were pro british so they didn't like to war with them. and washington basically ignored the envoys due to the fact the war had ended and the federalists seemed unpatriotic for making such demands during a time of celebration.

and is succession legal? i dont know to tell you the truth, i have never read anything in the constitution that says "any state can break its binds when ever it so pleases" or something to that effect. it can be an implied power i suppose.

im not saying Americans are the only ones in the world that are unable to solve their problems peacefully, i am however saying for this specific issue, tensions were too high on either side to let down. When the British ilegalized slavery,it was not really a first hand issue for them as most of their slaves were in the new world, not in Britain so they could judge upon the issue with disdain much more easily.

"padre31 wrote:

:pity:

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.:shifty::wink2:

"gafinfan wrote:

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.:shifty::wink2:

because it was Abraham Lincolns wish not to do so. it was one of the last things he tried to make sure would happened before he was assassinated. with all the things that congress did during reconstruction, if they wanted to hang confederates, they easily could have. also, i live in Florida, so technically im a confederate.

Well I'll agree that we disagree as to how much or little the HC had to do with the war ending. Just as we might disagree on just how much or little SC's nullification act had in bring down the Tariff of Abomination.

As for the issue of slavery IMHO there are no winners here, as well as, no bloodless hands North or South though I'm somehow sure some will disagree.:no: I don't know much of English History so I'll not comment on your claim one way or the other. My point was, and still is, that slavery in and of itself was no reason to have a war esp. one which cost the lives of over 600,000 good and true souls to resolve it.

"Dannyg28 wrote:

because it was Abraham Lincolns wish not to do so. it was one of the last things he tried to make sure would happened before he was assassinated. with all the things that congress did during reconstruction, if they wanted to hang confederates, they easily could have. also, i live in Florida, so technically im a confederate.

That doesn't make you a confederate it makes you a southerner there is a difference or is there. :wink2:

Anyway you are exactly right a lot of Radical Republicans did want to put the highest ranking Confederate officials on trial for seceding for the Union but Lincoln wanted unity as quickly as possible. In fact with Congressional Reconstruction I fairly sure that they would not let ex-Confederate high-ups vote (not sure on that though).

Also Padre it seems that if all the States entered into a binding contract that they should not have disobeyed it. However once again I want to say I am not an expert on these things but those are my feelings.

"gafinfan wrote:

Well I'll agree that we disagree as to how much or little the HC had to do with the war ending. Just as we might disagree on just how much or little SC's nullification act had in bring down the Tariff of Abomination.

As for the issue of slavery IMHO there are no winners here, as well as, no bloodless hands North or South though I'm somehow sure some will disagree.:no: I don't know much of English History so I'll not comment on your claim one way or the other. My point was, and still is, that slavery in and of itself was no reason to have a war esp. one which cost the lives of over 600,000 good and true souls to resolve it.

Meaning there were better ways to resolve it, not that slavery was acceptable. :huh:

"gafinfan wrote:

Well I'll agree that we disagree as to how much or little the HC had to do with the war ending. Just as we might disagree on just how much or little SC's nullification act had in bring down the Tariff of Abomination.

As for the issue of slavery IMHO there are no winners here, as well as, no bloodless hands North or South though I'm somehow sure some will disagree.:no: I don't know much of English History so I'll not comment on your claim one way or the other. My point was, and still is, that slavery in and of itself was no reason to have a war esp. one which cost the lives of over 600,000 good and true souls to resolve it.

no doubt.

maybe pressure from federalists as a whole pressured the ending of the war of 1812, the convention itself, as i said, didn't even end until the war itself was over.

we'll agree to disagree about whether ending slavery is worth having a war.

"Dannyg28 wrote:

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

Ah, here is where things become interesting, if one diminishes Wyoming's right to seceed, you diminish your own rights, in that way we are in this together.

"sking29 wrote:

That doesn't make you a confederate it makes you a southerner there is a difference or is there. :wink2:

Anyway you are exactly right a lot of Radical Republicans did want to put the highest ranking Confederate officials on trial for seceding for the Union but Lincoln wanted unity as quickly as possible. In fact with Congressional Reconstruction I fairly sure that they would not let ex-Confederate high-ups vote (not sure on that though).

The fascinating thing about that is, the high ranking Confederates could not be charged with treason for swearing an Oath to the Confederate States of America because at the time there was no jurisdiction known as "The Federal States of America"...only the compact between the Several States.

Also Padre it seems that if all the States entered into a binding contract that they should not have disobeyed it. However once again I want to say I am not an expert on these things but those are my feelings.

Any voluntary agreement between Sovereigns is subjected to both parties to the agreement remaining within that agreement, the simple analogy is one can register with a political party, but then one can withdraw that registration, or refuse to vote, or vote for an entirely different party..

"sking29 wrote:

That doesn't make you a confederate it makes you a southerner there is a difference or is there. :wink2:

Anyway you are exactly right a lot of Radical Republicans did want to put the highest ranking Confederate officials on trial for seceding for the Union but Lincoln wanted unity as quickly as possible. In fact with Congressional Reconstruction I fairly sure that they would not let ex-Confederate high-ups vote (not sure on that though).

Also Padre it seems that if all the States entered into a binding contract that they should not have disobeyed it. However once again I want to say I am not an expert on these things but those are my feelings.

they took away their right to vote and obtain public office after elections were reinstated in the south, and essentially the entire confederate congress was put into office. needless to say, radical(which is sort of a demeaning term really) republicans such as charles sumner didn't take to kindly to that. Andrew Johnson(either a righteous defender of the south or a stubborn racist depending on how you were taught history) refused to work with congress and essentially turned the radical into more radical.

"padre31 wrote:

The fascinating thing about that is, the high ranking Confederates could not be charged with treason for swearing an Oath to the Confederate States of America because at the time there was no jurisdiction known as "The Federal States of America"...only the compact between the Several States.

Any voluntary agreement between Sovereigns is subjected to both parties to the agreement remaining within that agreement, the simple analogy is one can register with a political party, but then one can withdraw that registration, or refuse to vote, or vote for an entirely different party..

with how much power republicans had following the civil war, they practically could have done nearly everything they wanted.

"padre31 wrote:

Ah, here is where things become interesting, if one diminishes Wyoming's right to seceed, you diminish your own rights, in that way we are in this together.

if wyoming succeeded tomorrow, would anyone notice?