"Civil War" or "War of Northern Aggression"

[snapping turtle]

I wasn't completely sure on the context of this question, but I think you're asking me to show you someone who deserves the credit for ending slavery in the USA more than Lincoln does?

I don't think there is one; that's the point. As much as a single person could ever take credit for such a thing, I think the credit rightly goes to Lincoln.

John brown

 

[HoughMade]

The war of "Northern Aggression" that began with rebellious traitors seizing federal properties and firing on a federal military installation?

OK

Debate what you want to debate. In the end, we won.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

John brown

He may get an A+ for effort, but as far as actual results, it doesn't seem he accomplished that much. Unless your referring more to his influence? That's always a hard thing to judge, but I guess he'd be a strong candidate.

 

[BugI02]

If we are just discussing which of the two choices is the more correct name for the conflict, and not the underlying issues, I would agree with Hough

'War of Northern Aggression' is inaccurate because the south fired the first shots (ie:aggression)

That only leaves one other choice

 

[Emerson Dambiggins]

 

[Shadow01]

But was the war civil?

 

[Kurr]

The most powerful politician in Kentucky was Congressman John J. Crittenden, a man as old as the Constitution, he was a passionate Unionist, but pro-slavery.

The War had bitterly divided his state and his family: one son would serve as a Union general and another son would serve as a Confederate general. He understood that Unionists in his state were more than willing to fight to preserve the Union, but they were unwilling to fight against slavery. In tandem with future president Andrew Johnson, then a Senator from Tennessee, the only member of the Senate from a Confederate state to refuse to resign from Congress following the secession of his state, he crafted resolutions to be passed by the House and the Senate making clear that the purpose of the War was to preserve the Union and not to destroy slavery.

Congress duly passed the resolutions on July 25, 1861, with only two votes against in the House, but it was only a brief victory for those Unionists who were pro-slavery. Two weeks later, Abraham Lincoln signed the Confiscation Act allowing the seizure by the Federal government of slaves of rebels as contraband of war. Congressman Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania engineered the repeal of the resolutions in 1861. The war for the Union would also be a war against slavery. Here are the texts of the resolutions:

The Crittenden Resolutions

[Passed by the House of Representatives]

Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feelings of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.

The Johnson Resolutions

[Passed by the Senate]

Resolved, That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the Southern States now in revolt against the constitutional Government and in arms around the capital; that in this national emergency Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired; that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.


***************************************************************************************************************
Could some scholarly type explain why slavery was not mentioned at all in those resolutions if it were a main reason for the war? I was raised up in the South and I realize I might have had some bias in me teachings.

 

[rob63]

Could some scholarly type explain why slavery was not mentioned at all in those resolutions if it were a main reason for the war? I was raised up in the South and I realize I might have had some bias in me teachings.

The resolutions express the intentions of the Northern war aims at the beginning of the war, i.e. "preserve the Union."

Why did they need to preserve the Union? Southern secession.

Why did the South secede? Slavery.

 

[spencer rifle]

Could some scholarly type explain why slavery was not mentioned at all in those resolutions if it were a main reason for the war? I was raised up in the South and I realize I might have had some bias in me teachings.

Not necessary. Simply go to the Articles of Secession passed by the various states and see for yourself. In their own words. Slavery mentioned frequently, sometimes euphemized as "peculiar institution."
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

 

[HoughMade]

The resolutions express the intentions of the Northern war aims at the beginning of the war, i.e. "preserve the Union."

Why did they need to preserve the Union? Southern secession.

Why did the South secede? Slavery.

All we need to do is to look at the "founding" documents of the confederacy (no capital letter "c" from me) to see why they seceded. Hint....it was what we all know it was.

...not the revisionist history of the "Lost Cause" mythology of some decades later which, for some reason, people love to believe instead of primary sources from the secession era itself.

 

[jamil]

The term Civil War simply refers to an internal conflict within the nation as opposed to a conflict with another Nation. BigRed made that same response to my statement in a number of different threads but I never engaged because there is no reasoning with that kind of dispute over terminology. I blame this on Bill Clinton when he wanted to debate what the meaning of the word IS is. Ever since then we have had this redefinition of language debate in our society in which instead of debating the merits of an argument we want to debate the proper terminology. Heck, we can't even define what a woman is in the supreme court! All I'm pointing out is that Texas seems to be at the forefront of the forthcoming conflict between the (Dis)United States over not just the issue of secession but basically if we will exist as to completely different nations ideologically.

I suspect 5.5 justices on the supreme court can define what a woman is.

 

[jamil]

All we need to do is to look at the "founding" documents of the confederacy (no capital letter "c" from me) to see why they seceded. Hint....it was what we all know it was.

...not the revisionist history of the "Lost Cause" mythology of some decades later which, for some reason, people love to believe instead of primary sources from the secession era itself.

You only have to look no further than the legislative efforts in the 20 years leading up to the Civil War. Neither side gave a flying **** about states’ rights. It seems the states’ right the south cared about most was their supposed right to keep owning people as property legal.

 

[KG1]

Not ready to comment yet. My word generator ran out of gas.

 

[jamil]

Not ready to comment yet. My word generator ran out of gas.

TL;DR

 

[KG1]

TL;DR

TL;DR

 

[Leadeye]

I've always felt that if the federals had moved early to disconnect slavery from the "states rights" issue by offering economic incentives, the war could have been averted. Lots of people in the south did not own slaves or derive benefit from the institution, but those people were going to be expected to fight, die and see their livelihood destroyed. West Virginia split off from Virginia for this very issue and if the incentives hand been widely promoted, tidewater, slave holding leadership might have found itself in a real bind for soldiers.

Once people like John Calhoun connected the two issues it became a more difficult proposition.

 

[BigRed]

The South lost the war and consequently they remain a part of the country. Thus, it meets the definition of a civil war.

Absolutely incorrect.

Per the definition you quoted:

civil war
I, sivil 'Wô(e)r] 4)
NOUN
a war between citizens of the same country:



When certain States withdrew the authority they had delegated to the central government, asserted their retained sovereignty, and seceded, they were no longer members of the States United.

Citizens of the those States were no longer citizens of the United States.

Thus, the war was not between citizens of the same country. It was a war between the United States and the Confederate States. It was a war between citizens of two different countries.

By the very definition you provided, it was not a civil war.

 

[BigRed]

I wasn't completely sure on the context of this question, but I think you're asking me to show you someone who deserves the credit for ending slavery in the USA more than Lincoln does?

I don't think there is one; that's the point. As much as a single person could ever take credit for such a thing, I think the credit rightly goes to Lincoln.

By "show me one", I mean "show me (or name for me) a single slave that was freed by lincoln".

Even his so called "emancipation proclamation" did not free slaves. His "emancipation" only applied to geographical areas over which he had no authority.

Interestingly, slaves held in geographical areas where lincoln did have authority, such as Union States", were excluded!

That could be a topic for another thread. This thread is about whether or not it was a "civil war".

 

[spencer rifle]

So we'll call it the War of Southern Aggression? Since they fired the first shots.

 

[HoughMade]

By "show me one", I mean "show me (or name for me) a single slave that was freed by lincoln".

Even his so called "emancipation proclamation" did not free slaves. His "emancipation" only applied to geographical areas over which he had no authority.

Interestingly, slaves held in geographical areas where lincoln did have authority, such as Union States", were excluded!

That could be a topic for another thread. This thread is about whether or not it was a "civil war".

The states that claimed secession were, despite their protests, still part of the Union.