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.

"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.

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.

"sking29 wrote:

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.

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.

"padre31 wrote:

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.

"Dannyg28 wrote:

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..:knucks:

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.

"padre31 wrote:

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.

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.

"sking29 wrote:

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:

When President Lincoln planned to send supplies to Fort Sumter, he alerted the state in advance, in an attempt to avoid hostilities. South Carolina, however, feared a trick. On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.

The Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 p.m., April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day

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.

"padre31 wrote:

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. :up:

"sking29 wrote:

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. :up:

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.

"padre31 wrote:

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).

"padre31 wrote:

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.

Now I know that slavery wasn't the main reason for the war, but it was the major cause for it to end (in the form that it was in, slavery still exists today). Isn't that more than "precious little reason"?

"sking29 wrote:

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.

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.

"Finascious D wrote:

Now I know that slavery wasn't the main reason for the war, but it was the major cause for it to end (in the form that it was in, slavery still exists today). Isn't that more than "precious little reason"?

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.

"charlestonphan wrote:

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.

As I said, I understand that slavery wasn't the main cause of the war, it did however, help end it. That was the point i was making, since it ultimately ended slavery, the war wasn't "pointless".

"Finascious D wrote:

As I said, I understand that slavery wasn't the main cause of the war, it did however, help end it. That was the point i was making, since it ultimately ended slavery, the war wasn't "pointless".

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.

"padre31 wrote:

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.

You really think that would have ended it though? As stubborn as people are?

People cling really hard to traditions and "ways of life".

I still say, trying to secede is an act of aggression. Reasons being wrong or right isn't the point.

"Finascious D wrote:

You really think that would have ended it though? As stubborn as people are?

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

People cling really hard to traditions and "ways of life".

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

I still say, trying to secede is an act of aggression. Reasons being wrong or right isn't the point.

Secession was a Constitutional Right granted to the Several States.

"charlestonphan wrote:

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.

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.

"charlestonphan wrote:

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.

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.