1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why was it called the war of Northern Aggression?

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Fin D, Mar 1, 2009.

  1. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    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.
     
    sking29 likes this.
  2. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    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.
     
  3. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    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.
     
  4. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    Meaning there were better ways to resolve it, not that slavery was acceptable. :huh:
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  5. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    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.
     
  6. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    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.
     
  7. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts


    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..
     
  8. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    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.
     
  9. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    with how much power republicans had following the civil war, they practically could have done nearly everything they wanted.
     
  10. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    if wyoming succeeded tomorrow, would anyone notice?
     
  11. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    And thusly the Grand Knights of the Southern Order were created.
     
  12. Ducken

    Ducken Luxury Box Luxury Box

    10,018
    5,152
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Lower Delaware

    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.
     
    cnc66 and gafinfan like this.
  13. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    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.
     
  14. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    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.
     
  15. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    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?
     
    Themole likes this.
  16. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    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".
     
    cnc66 likes this.
  17. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    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.
     
  18. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    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.
     
    gafinfan likes this.
  19. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts
    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.
     
    cnc66 likes this.
  20. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    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.
     
  21. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    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.

     
  22. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    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:
     
  23. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    Charles Sumner too ,who was beaten over the head with a metal cane for bad mouthing the south by a southern congressman
     
  24. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    theres your answer really.
     
  25. unluckyluciano

    unluckyluciano For My Hero JetsSuck

    53,333
    23,006
    0
    Dec 7, 2007
    Hmmm If I'm not mistaken both sides had small bands of guerrillas which did what would be described as war atrocities.
     
  26. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    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.
     
  27. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    *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.
     
  28. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    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.
     
  29. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    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.
     
    sking29 likes this.
  30. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

    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:
     
  31. padre31

    padre31 Premium Member Luxury Box

    99,377
    37,301
    0
    Nov 22, 2007
    inching to 100k posts

    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:
     
    cnc66 and gafinfan like this.
  32. gafinfan

    gafinfan gunner Club Member

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

    Ducken Luxury Box Luxury Box

    10,018
    5,152
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Lower Delaware

    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.
     
  34. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    Crap I suspected that after I got to thinking about it. :lol::pity:

    Still my point remains the same.
     
  35. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    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:
     
    cnc66 likes this.
  36. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    I love your point here GA. :yes:

    If I am correct I believe slavery was legal in northern states until 1807 or 1808 (either way early 19th century), so it was a part of life. There were people who knew it was wrong but they still had their prejudices. Finally though as you said people came around in the North and slavery was abolished (although the prejudices weren't), the American people prevailed. However did they really or was it something? A big difference in this shift was that the North was becoming more industrial and didn't need the slaves because they were shifting away from an agricultural lifestyle. This is basically when you start seeing the US being split apart. So it was economic advances that pushed out slavery. We all know that people can have the best intentions but when it comes to doing what is best for number one (especially in a capitalist society where what you have is king) that is who they are going to take care. To put it simply slaves were no longer valuable enough to have so slavery was abolished in the North and the old prejudices remained (it was all about economics no great morals as you were suggesting).

    Would this same thing have happened in the South? I say yes but like Danny I would say I don't know how long it would have taken, which would have set the US back light years in terms of race relations. The South certainly had a economy ripe for failure and either it would have done away with slavery or would have become light years behind the north (the Civil War sort of did that anyway for a number of years or should I say reconstruction).

    I will also say in regards to the Civil War and slavery if people can support today bringing democracy to a foreign country how could freeing people from slavery be any less noble. I know the Civil War wasn't only over slavery but if it were in the modern terms of what makes a just war the North would have definitely been justified.
     
  37. Ducken

    Ducken Luxury Box Luxury Box

    10,018
    5,152
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Lower Delaware

    This is a good site that explains the tariffs and how the Cencus of 1820 transformed Congress. http://www.tax.org/Museum/1816-1860.htm

    http://www.lanettcityschools.org/makesense/MSS/Implmnt/DONTOPEN/MSStrats/WARx/CivWrEcon.pdf
     
    gafinfan and sking29 like this.
  38. sking29

    sking29 What it takes to be cool

    7,053
    2,181
    113
    Dec 9, 2007
    East Tennessee
    Dannyg28 and Ducken like this.
  39. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    you're right. until the compromise of 1850 there were more slave holding states than non, and after it was tied, if i remember correctly.
     
  40. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    Missouri compromise of 1820 outlawed slavery passed the mason-dixon line.

    as for the reason slavery wasn't prevalent in the north, is because of 2 things. A. the rocky soil of New England made it nearly impossuble to grow large amounts of crops, and the amount of harbors made fishing and boat making the prevalent economic endeavors in early colonial life and B. the majority of immigrants to New England were families of protestants, seeking a place for their family, they weren't interested in wealth and just wanted to provide a living following the protestant work ethic, which basically means do all your own work. the south for the most part brought single men to its shores seeking wealth, and the quickest way to gain wealth was to buy property(slaves, but in early times it was indentured servants as blacks weren't being enslaved in large numbers yet), and farming large amount of crops and selling it back to the home land.
     

Share This Page