War Between the States Program This Sunday

Thanks, KenH

Not long ago I toured the Vicksburg Battleground

There's a caption there somewhere in the Rebel defences that says

The poor Yankees have us surrounded!

 

Please pardon my ignorance on this matter but I thought the correct title was the US Civil War, is there a difference of description depending where one lives in the US? I am not trying to be sarcastic but am asking a genuine question.

Kind regards to all.

Bob

 

Bob, here is my take on it.

It is officially known as the "Civil War", because by definition, that is a war internal to a single nation. Southerners who many still strongly believe the CSA was legally a separate nation, also think by definition it was a war between two sovereign nations, thus NOT a civil war. However, the victors write the history, and the CSA lost its fight to be independent. To a southern mind, it may be that the CSA was reabsorbed into the USA. To those who think it was an illegal secession from the Union, those states never legally left the USA.

Hence, many southerners prefer the term "War Between the States" over the Yankee "Civil War".

 

Bob

There is more truth to my northern colleagues assessment than I would like to admit.

Until after the Civil War - the states were under the impression that they could secede. Maybe this is where the war between the states came from.

Only Texas was ever formally granted the status of being able to secede - the laws were changed after the civil war. And no one has tested the validity of Texas' ability to legally secede.

 

Courage, pride, hope, or ignorance . . . only God knows which they were thinkin'.

 

To add to the confusion, you'll also find "The War of Northern Aggression", which is still used by some in southern states.

Unless one lives in Mexico, where the same name is applied to what is usually referred to as the "Mexican-American War."

 

OK Salty

Is that NV or NY?

 

Thank you to all those who replied to my question, these replies were helpful. However, I would have to say to the last post that a Civil War is not only when two or more sides seek to take over the govt., a Civil War can also be when one part of a country seeks to break away and form a seperate govt.

Kind regards to all.

Bob

 

You could say that the confederates and the unionists were fighting over the same government--the government of the southern states.

 

Bob, you are correct, of course. It is more a matter of pride for southerners than anything else. 141 years later, many of their descendants haven't got the word that their side lost, so instead of the Southern Revolution, we have the U.S. Civil War. :tongue3:

 

As a student of the Civil War looking at it from an outsider's point of view I am able to examine the arguments of both sides without feeling any bias. I wonder if the last poster would like to clarify something for me. You say that is was a shame "that we lost". Assuming the CSA had not lost and they had continued as the CSA that would have meant that slavery would have continued, do you think that would have been a good thing? Again, I ask, not out of contention but in order to broaden my knowledge of the conflict and its aftermath.

Kind regards to all.

Bob.

 

If the south had won slavery would have continued in the southern states for a period of time, but not forever. Every other nation was able to abolish slavery without the civil war the United States did. I am sure you are aware Robert that slavery was abolished in the British colonies in 1834. France followed suit in 1848. (There was a period of time when slavery was outlawed in France but it was reestablished under Napoleon. It is interesting that when both England and France emancipated their slaves the slave owners were financially compensated for their losses. At the time of the American war of independence all 13 colonies had slavery. Over time the northern states had abolished it, without bloodshed. (Most, but not all by 1804).

After the U. S. Civil war slavery still existed in other western nations. Puerto Rico abolished slavery in 1873, Cuba in 1880, and Brazil in 1888. I have no doubt that without the civil war the southern U. S. States would have followed the same pattern, without the bloodshed and financial ruin.

It is interesting how many nations passed laws outlawing slavery much later than those western nations. China outlawed slavery in 1910, Ethiopia in 1936. Saudi Arabia did not outlaw slavery until 1962. Slavery is still a problem in many countries including Sudan, Mauritania, and Ethiopia. But these nations and this slavery is different than the imported African slave trade of the Western world in the 19th century.

The U.S. Civil war was about a lot more than slavery.

 

If you are wondering about Saly Lake, it iss in Utah. Nevada became a state on OCt 31, 1864 just in time for Nevands to vote.
Faithgirl

 

The best way to preserve slavery would have been to remain in the USA. There was no legal threat to slavery under the United States. It was held that the constitution protected it. The Dred Scott decision effectively held that slavery was legal in ALL states. We even have ole' Abe pushing for a constitutional amendment (Corwin amendment) to protect it.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=bizarre&id=4379128


I spent a lot of time researching the matter. John Brown (and friends) had more to do with secession than is sometimes credited. It wasn't that Southerners were afraid of losing slaves but fear of a general slave uprising, such as attempted by John Brown, that finally triggered secession.

Folks in the South took note of the bloody revolution in Haiti in 1843 where the slaves killed most of the whites. They noted that John Brown wanted the slaves to rise up and kill white people as in Haiti. They noted that Northern abolitionists were sympathetic to John Brown. They also noted that Lincoln's party had collected most of the abolitionists. With the election of Lincoln as president many Southerners were of the opinion that the terrorist attacks would increase and have the sponsorship of the Republican government.

Keep in mind a few of other things:
"Honest Abe" wasn't known for being all that honest until after he died. And Lincoln's party wasn't even on the ballot in the Southern states (wouldn't that scare you?). The Republican party was completely a sectional party at the time.

Now I am not saying that "states' rights" wasn't a large factor. States' rights as an issue was well demonstrated by the "nullification crisis." That, however, is another topic.



As to the name of the war - my understanding was that "Civil War" was a term adopted in the spirit of reconciliation after "Reconstruction" (a.k.a. redestruction). The official Yankee term was "War of Rebellion."

A.F.