Why was it called the war of Northern Aggression?

"Dannyg28 wrote:

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.

And thusly the Grand Knights of the Southern Order were created.

"DrAstroZoom wrote:

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.

From my understanding that is partly correct. There were slave holding states in the north such as NY,MD,DE and I believe NJ, although the north was becoming more anti-slave by this time. The south did not like the tariffs imposed on the cotton, The Northern stats were for a more centralized big government where the southern states wanted thing to remain as is with a small central government and the states holding the bigger say. That is what I have inferred from what I have learned over the years reading on the subject and learning from the different guys who are well versed in the war at reenactments.

I stand corrected NY and NJ did not legally hold slaves. Not sure when I read/heard that they did. so I guess my brain is starting to fail me.

"Dannyg28 wrote:

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.

Neither actually I was taught that he was a buffoon and I am being serious when I say that.

Also like you I am unsure if secession was legal or not but it still doesn't sit right with me.

"Dannyg28 wrote:

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

Which is what I was getting ready to post. Clearly the North won and the South was so weak they could have been done with as they pleased.

"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.

Ah, Danny, it was Lincoln's wish that Davis NOT be captured so that he would never have to put the question to a test. He and they knew where Davis was and it was easily done right after Lincoln's death.

Please don't be offended when I say this but there are people on both sides who feel the other side was wrong so it makes no difference where you live. I'm a confermed Rebel and I see many things we did wrong. I blame Davis for being hot headed and allowing himself, and the South, to be drawn in by Lincoln's ploy. As a Military man and a constitutionalist there were other options open to him. He did a dumb thing after Lincoln's dumb thing and we ended up with a war on our hands.

sking29 - Contracts are broken and torn up all the time without bloodshed and for all sorts of reasons. Most sane people don't go around killing the other party because of it, do they?

"padre31 wrote:

And thusly the Grand Knights of the Southern Order were created.

something else i forgot to mention. because of that taking away the right to vote, blacks were elected into congress in the south, which helped bring about the KKK.and the terms scalawag and carpetbagger came from reconstruction times. a scalawag was a "traitorous" southerner who was pro-reconstruction and carpetbaggers were northerners(normally coming down with their belonging in bags made of carpet material) who were "taking advantage of the south".

"sking29 wrote:

Neither actually I was taught that he was a buffoon and I am being serious when I say that.

Also like you I am unsure if secession was legal or not but it still doesn't sit right with me.

normally if you're taught he was a buffoon you were taught he was a racist as well. he was a Southerner who was on record saying blacks were inferior, so its an easy leap to make.

"gafinfan wrote:

Ah, Danny, it was Lincoln's wish that Davis NOT be captured so that he would never have to put the question to a test. He and they knew where Davis was and it was easily done right after Lincoln's death.

Please don't be offended when I say this but there are people on both sides who feel the other side was wrong so it makes no difference where you live. I'm a confermed Rebel and I see many things we did wrong. I blame Davis for being hot headed and allowing himself, and the South, to be drawn in by Lincoln's ploy. As a Military man and a constitutionalist there were other options open to him. He did a dumb thing after Lincoln's dumb thing and we ended up with a war on our hands.

sking29 - Contracts are broken and torn up all the time without bloodshed and for all sorts of reasons. Most sane people don't go around killing the other party because of it, do they?

the whole fort sumner affair seemed like to just play right into the Unions plans. pretty apparent that Lincoln wanted the south to attack so he had a reason to declare war.

"Dannyg28 wrote:

something else i forgot to mention. because of that taking away the right to vote, blacks were elected into congress in the south, which helped bring about the KKK.and the terms scalawag and carpetbagger came from reconstruction times. a scalawag was a "traitorous" southerner who was pro-reconstruction and carpetbaggers were northerners(normally coming down with their belonging in bags made of carpet material) who were "taking advantage of the south".

More or less, due to Reconstruction's terms, the KKK came into being, I cannot find the meaning of the acronym, but iirc it was "Grand Knights of the Southern Order" or some such.

When the first real Depression hit in 1873, the Radical Republicans were relegated to the sidelines and the US Military pulled out of the South leaving nothing between the violence of the KKK and the fmr Black Politicians who had achieved office due to the auspices of Reconstruction.

That was an ugly time in US history Dannyg.

"padre31 wrote:

More or less, due to Reconstruction's terms, the KKK came into being, I cannot find the meaning of the acronym, but iirc it was "Grand Knights of the Southern Order" or some such.

When the first real Depression hit in 1873, the Radical Republicans were relegated to the sidelines and the US Military pulled out of the South leaving nothing between the violence of the KKK and the fmr Black Politicians who had achieved office due to the auspices of Reconstruction.

That was an ugly time in US history Dannyg.

i know it was, if i seem like i am glamorizing it i am not trying to. i had an entire debate on it in APUSH.

Military reconstruction ended with the election of 1877, with the votes dead locked due to a florida miscount(shocking!), a back door deal was made that republican hayes would take the white house in exchange for reconstruction ending, as the south was major Democrat territory.

It seems the "War" is still alive and well.:lol::lol:

Thaddeus Stevens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens

Love him or hate him He was one of the two most powerful men in the US from 1861 to
1868.

the only member of the House of Representatives ever to have been known, even if mistakenly, as the 'dictator' of Congress."[1]

"gafinfan wrote:

Ah, Danny, it was Lincoln's wish that Davis NOT be captured so that he would never have to put the question to a test. He and they knew where Davis was and it was easily done right after Lincoln's death.

Please don't be offended when I say this but there are people on both sides who feel the other side was wrong so it makes no difference where you live. I'm a confermed Rebel and I see many things we did wrong. I blame Davis for being hot headed and allowing himself, and the South, to be drawn in by Lincoln's ploy. As a Military man and a constitutionalist there were other options open to him. He did a dumb thing after Lincoln's dumb thing and we ended up with a war on our hands.

sking29 - Contracts are broken and torn up all the time without bloodshed and for all sorts of reasons. Most sane people don't go around killing the other party because of it, do they?

There has been bloodshed for a lot less over America's history and to me yes I do wish that something had of been worked out but to save the Union war had to waged. To me they were treasonous in the same way the original revolutionaries were in regards to England and as we know the same situation arose. However history is told by the winners and that is why the North and the colonies earlier are the good guys. I struggle myself with how I support the colonies and not the South ideologically but that may be a life long journey. :wink2:

"gafinfan wrote:

It seems the "War" is still alive and well.:lol::lol:

Thaddeus Stevens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaddeus_Stevens

Love him or hate him He was one of the two most powerful men in the US from 1861 to
1868.

Charles Sumner too ,who was beaten over the head with a metal cane for bad mouthing the south by a southern congressman

"sking29 wrote:

There has been bloodshed for a lot less over America's history and to me yes I do wish that something had of been worked out but to save the Union war had to waged. To me they were treasonous in the same way the original revolutionaries were in regards to England and as we know the same situation arose. However history is told by the winners and that is why the North and the colonies earlier are the good guys. I struggle myself with how I support the colonies and not the South ideologically but that may be a life long journey. :wink2:

theres your answer really.

"charlestonphan wrote:

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.

Hmmm If I'm not mistaken both sides had small bands of guerrillas which did what would be described as war atrocities.

"Dannyg28 wrote:

theres your answer really.

Not really since I know the stories of losers. :lol:

Like I can admit that the original colonies did owe extra taxes to England for the protection they received in 7 Year War (I believe or the French Indian war possibly). However I also understand the colonies side by saying they were English citizens and didn't deserved to be taxed extra when it should have been spread out among all Englishmen since it was essentially a war for England. On to the Civil War (or whatever you want to call it) I can't find any good excuses for the South other than they wanted to keep their way of life but nothing was really being forced on them.

"sking29 wrote:

Not really since I know the stories of losers. :lol:

Like I can admit that the original colonies did owe extra taxes to England for the protection they received in 7 Year War (I believe or the French Indian war possibly). However I also understand the colonies side by saying they were English citizens and didn't deserved to be taxed extra when it should have been spread out among all Englishmen since it was essentially a war for England. On to the Civil War (or whatever you want to call it) I can't find any good excuses for the South other than they wanted to keep their way of life but nothing was really being forced on them.

*psssssssst*, those are the same war. we called it french and Indian here, because thats who we fought, Brits call it 7 years war because of how long it lasted.

"Dannyg28 wrote:

theres your answer really.

On that we do agree; they get to write how they think it was!:lol:

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 will agree we would be different but why do you have to assume that different means bad or worse, for that matter? In that I think you just may very well be wrong. While I don't trust governments at all I put alot of faith in the American people to do the right thing when the chips are down, don't you? Or are you of the opinion that the Government is our savior and the answer to all our problems? This isn't a cut I really want to know your feelings, I've shared mine.

"gafinfan wrote:

On that we do agree; they get to write how they think it was!:lol:

I will agree we would be different but why do you have to assume that different means bad or worse, for that matter? In that I think you just may very well be wrong. While I don't trust governments at all I put alot of faith in the American people to do the right thing when the chips are down, don't you? Or are you of the opinion that the Government is our savior and the answer to all our problems? This isn't a cut I really want to know your feelings, I've shared mine.

when it comes to changing peoples perceptions, it takes a long time before the people are willing to do anything. if slavery wasn't end then, when would it have been ended?people at the time had been speaking out against it since the constitution was drafted and slavery had only grown until that point. when would segregation would have been ended if abolishing slavery had been pushed back another 20,30,40 years?? would it have even have been ended yet? would we even be the united states right now? or would we be separated into 50 separate(or maybe less) countries? i think if the south had been able to succeed, it would have set a president that whenever the government did something the state didn't agree with, the state could just leave whenever it wanted to. would we possibly be more of a nation that abides by the constitution? perhaps. i also think race relations in this country would be a lot worse than they are currently.

But you've not answered my question.

As for the ending of slavery let me draw on a few facts. We all know (believe) that Thomas Jefferson was against slavery, George Washington was against slavery, William Penn was against slavery, and so many others who were slave owners too yet the average person owned no slaves. Thomas Jefferson kept increasing his slave holdings all his life, he had over 200 when he died. Plus reportly had several offspring from female slaves. When George Washington died he did not free his slaves, in point of fact some of his slaves desendents were freed by RE Lee in Jan. of 1863.

The point I'm trying to make here is that we as a people have always been responsive to how our leaders lead, not by so much what they say but by what they do. If a President is truly commited to doing something it will get done; a case in point we went to the moon in the time frame that JFK wanted us to get there.

We are told that Jefferson was torn by this need to end slavery and he truly felt it was a bad thing. I'm begining to believe that our history teachers just may have pulled a few fast ones on us. George Washington was looked at as a God who could do no wrong. They wanted to make him King for life, for crying out loud! Ask anyone their feelings of William Penn.

Yet these great men of high moral fiber couldn't do the one thing they all knew was wrong (so they said). Would you like to buy the dark side of the Moon, I'll sell it cheap.:wink2:

"gafinfan wrote:

But you've not answered my question..

We are told that Jefferson was torn by this need to end slavery and he truly felt it was a bad thing. I'm begining to believe that our history teachers just may have pulled a few fast ones on us. George Washington was looked at as a God who could do no wrong. They wanted to make him King for life, for crying out loud! Ask anyone their feelings of William Penn.

Yet these great men of high moral fiber couldn't do the one thing they all knew was wrong (so they said). Would you like to buy the dark side of the Moon, I'll sell it cheap.:wink2:

I just spent an entire month listening to the Thomas Jefferson Hour, Slavery was an issue that comes up constantly, the plain fact of the matter is, Jefferson was bankrupt by the 1820's, as in broke, to stave off liquidation his slaves were encumbered to secure the debts he owned.

And there was sort of 2 Jefferson's, the early pure Enlightenment Jefferson, then the post Presidency Jefferson, later in life he lost his ambivalence and simply surrendered to the reality of slave holding as a fact of his life.

At 20, we're all idealists, at 50, we are all realists..:sad::yes:

I'm with you padre:up::up: It does seem to change things, for some, once it get personal in the pocketbook.:lol:

"sking29 wrote:

Not really since I know the stories of losers. :lol:

Like I can admit that the original colonies did owe extra taxes to England for the protection they received in 7 Year War (I believe or the French Indian war possibly). However I also understand the colonies side by saying they were English citizens and didn't deserved to be taxed extra when it should have been spread out among all Englishmen since it was essentially a war for England. On to the Civil War (or whatever you want to call it) I can't find any good excuses for the South other than they wanted to keep their way of life but nothing was really being forced on them.

Now that is not true. The Southern states in all reality did not have equal say in congress as the Northern states. Cotton had large tariffs on them mandated by the US government. The North wanted a larger more centralized Government with more power over the states, the South was not for that they wanted the individual states to hold more power of what went on in their individual state. So yes the South was about to have a great deal forced on them that they did not want to happen.

"Dannyg28 wrote:

*psssssssst*, those are the same war. we called it french and Indian here, because thats who we fought, Brits call it 7 years war because of how long it lasted.

Crap I suspected that after I got to thinking about it. :lol::pity:

Still my point remains the same.

"Ducken wrote:

Now that is not true. The Southern states in all reality did not have equal say in congress as the Northern states. Cotton had large tariffs on them mandated by the US government. The North wanted a larger more centralized Government with more power over the states, the South was not for that they wanted the individual states to hold more power of what went on in their individual state. So yes the South was about to have a great deal forced on them that they did not want to happen.

Once again I may show my ignorance on this topic but technically wasn't there only fear of losing congress to the North. Weren't they fairly divided up after the Compromise of 1850 (or possibly 1820) or was that only the Senate? Also wasn't the cotton tariffs sort of a way to keep the cotton in the country when the South was basically sending it all to places like Europe? These are honest questions.

However although I have these questions I am still fairly sure that the South had control of Congress up until they started to lose it around 1860 and fear of what was to happen made them paranoid. Also weren't the presidents over the past 3 decades or so until Lincoln from the South? I know without question that Lincoln's hotly contested presidential victory is what basically led to SC's secession out of fear of what he would do. There is nothing that I recall except maybe the cotton tariff that was levied upon them that wasn't fear of what might happen or what getting control of Congress and the presidency again would have solved.

Maybe someone can answer my questions. :wink2: