How can you call it the War of Northern Aggression if the first shots were fired by southerners at a northern fort and after the south forcibly took numerous armories?
How can you call it the War of Northern Aggression if the first shots were fired by southerners at a northern fort and after the south forcibly took numerous armories?
Sounds like revisionism to me.
I did not personally call it "the war of Northern Aggression". In the title, I chose the titles preferred by BOTH "sides", so as to be fair.
Technically, however, it was not a 'civil' war, since several Southern states had legally (Constitutionally) voted to secede previously.
And so, when the South told the Union troops to leave South Carolina, they felt they were within their legal rights, since SC was technically not part of the Union any longer.
The South had no desire to take over the North; they only wanted to secede from the Union and from then on, "do their own thing". They had the Constitutional right to do this.
From their point of view, Lincoln invaded them to force them back into the Union which they had no desire to be part of any longer.
I was actually just in Charleston. Until you are actually there its hard to visualize what the real start of the war was like.
Ft. Sumter is a little rock in the middle of Charleston harbor. Charleston has amazing architecture and essentially wealthy rice plantation owners built the grand houses for coming to town for the "social season" and to hide out from mosiquitos in the peak of malaria season. There is a placard outside the house where the Jefferson Davis and others cooked up the plan for Secession, in this same neighborhood of grand mansions. When the Confederacy decided to launch the war by attacking Fort Sumter, the Confederate generals watched the seige from the second story porches (called piazzas in Charleston traditionally) of supportive plantation owners from some of the grandest homes along the Battery (the area of grandest homes along the tip of the peninsula Charleston sits on) no doubt sipping lemonade and enjoying snacks. Ladies with umbrellas watched the fight with their opera glasses from the Battery wall. Its amazing in reflection how out of touch with the perilousness of their social order the leadership of the Confederacy were when they decided to launch this unbelievably bloody, bloody war.
The Battery in Charleston, directly across from Ft. Sumter.
FWIW, Charleston is today a great tourist town. Amazing achitecture. Tons of history. Great food, which is a distinct reflection of the town's history, heavily influenced by African Gullah cooking and also that many of the plantation owners and merchant sailors had moved there from other plantations in the West Indies, so that a Carribean influence is big part of the cuisine.
I was actually just in Charleston. Until you are actually there its hard to visualize what the real start of the war was like.
Ft. Sumter is a little rock in the middle of Charleston harbor. Charleston has amazing architecture and essentially wealthy rice plantation owners built the grand houses for coming to town for the "social season" and to hide out from mosiquitos in the peak of malaria season. There is a placard outside the house where the Jefferson Davis and others cooked up the plan for Secession, in this same neighborhood of grand mansions. When the Confederacy decided to launch the war by attacking Fort Sumter, the Confederate generals watched the seige from the second story porches (called piazzas in Charleston traditionally) of supportive plantation owners from some of the grandest homes along the Battery (the area of grandest homes along the tip of the peninsula Charleston sits on) no doubt sipping lemonade and enjoying snacks. Ladies with umbrellas watched the fight with their opera glasses from the Battery wall. Its amazing in reflection how out of touch with the perilousness of their social order the leadership of the Confederacy were when they decided to launch this unbelievably bloody, bloody war.
The Battery in Charleston, directly across from Ft. Sumter.
FWIW, Charleston is today a great tourist town. Amazing achitecture. Tons of history. Great food, which is a distinct reflection of the town's history, heavily influenced by African Gullah cooking and also that many of the plantation owners and merchant sailors had moved there from other plantations in the West Indies, so that a Carribean influence is big part of the cuisine.
How did you get to Charleston? When I drive to or from Florida, I try to make it my stopping off point - I truly enjoy the town. When I came home last February after picking up a truck I decided to stop in Savannah for a change, and I really enjoyed that, too, much moreso than my previous stop in Savannah. I get the feeling that the rebirth in Savannah is less far along than that in Charleston, so that the hiatus of a few years in my trips to Savannah allowed some catching up. They both have great art schools, and they both reinforce the value to me of having a good art school in your town. It is why I am bullish on Lancaster, and it certainly helps me be bullish on Philly.
How did you get to Charleston? When I drive to or from Florida, I try to make it my stopping off point - I truly enjoy the town. When I came home last February after picking up a truck I decided to stop in Savannah for a change, and I really enjoyed that, too, much moreso than my previous stop in Savannah. I get the feeling that the rebirth in Savannah is less far along than that in Charleston, so that the hiatus of a few years in my trips to Savannah allowed some catching up. They both have great art schools, and they both reinforce the value to me of having a good art school in your town. It is why I am bullish on Lancaster, and it certainly helps me be bullish on Philly.
I drove, partially to get out of my house while the the floors in my hall were refinished and partially to visit relatives along the way.
I would say that they seem well along their way to finding their way as an art-tourism-college-and-meds town and cashing in on their rich history, cuisine, etc. For a much smaller city, much smaller metro region than Philly their whole dining scene in particular seems pretty impressive. Great restaurants from relatively modest to very high end. For example, we stayed near this amazing little bakery called Sugar that was out of this world. Awesome place to stop for coffee and a pastry in the morning. So good. Sugar Bakeshop: Charleston, SC
I also kind of love that crazy bridge over to Patriot Point and Isle of Palms.
I drove, partially to get out of my house while the the floors in my hall were refinished and partially to visit relatives along the way.
I would say that they seem well along their way to finding their way as an art-tourism-college-and-meds town and cashing in on their rich history, cuisine, etc. For a much smaller city, much smaller metro region than Philly their whole dining scene in particular seems pretty impressive. Great restaurants from relatively modest to very high end. For example, we stayed near this amazing little bakery called Sugar that was out of this world. Awesome place to stop for coffee and a pastry in the morning. So good. Sugar Bakeshop: Charleston, SC
I also kind of love that crazy bridge over to Patriot Point and Isle of Palms.
The Sunshine Skyway Bridge over the Tampa Bay is a much larger version of that bridge. It is pretty dramatic to cross it - scary, even.
I am heartened that Charleston has done so well. It has experienced a phenomenon that New York has also experienced and that I believe that Philly is just now starting to experience. Out of towners buy up prime pieces of real estate as pieds a terre, and they leave them empty the vast majority of the time. This doesn't affect New York much, since an empty apartment on the 52nd floor doesn't affect street life much. However, in a city of houses like Charleston it creates darkened streets, which isn't good. Still, it's nice to collect taxes from people who use very few services. This is what Rendell meant when he embarked upon creating a tourist economy in Philly, and it is instructive to see it in place in what I consider to be a Southern yet strangely doppelganger city.
Last edited by billy ross; 02-08-2010 at 08:45 AM.
During the American War of Independence large numbers of Americans (Native, black and white) fought on the British side. Does that mean there was no American War of Independence? No, of course not. We choose to look at the bigger historical picture.
In the beginning of the Civil War a group of New Orleans creoles formed a home guard unit that was briefly part of the Confederate Louisiana State Militia. Does that mean there was no slavery/racial element to the Civil War? Only if we choose not to look at the bigger picture.
When the southern legislatures voted to secede they explicitly said it was in defence of slavery and the domination of the "superior" white race.
The slavers had not just wanted to be left in peace. In the years prior to the war the southern states had repeatedly tried to force the rest of the country to support slavery. Censorship of the mail, deprivations of freedom of speech, fugative slave laws, etc.
Was there racism in the north? Of course. History is complicated. But saying slavery/race had nothing to do with the Civil War is like saying Hitler and Nazism had nothing to with World War Two.
During the American War of Independence large numbers of Americans (Native, black and white) fought on the British side. Does that mean there was no American War of Independence? No, of course not. We choose to look at the bigger historical picture.
In the beginning of the Civil War a group of New Orleans creoles formed a home guard unit that was briefly part of the Confederate Louisiana State Militia. Does that mean there was no slavery/racial element to the Civil War? Only if we choose not to look at the bigger picture.
When the southern legislatures voted to secede they explicitly said it was in defence of slavery and the domination of the "superior" white race.
The slavers had not just wanted to be left in peace. In the years prior to the war the southern states had repeatedly tried to force the rest of the country to support slavery. Censorship of the mail, deprivations of freedom of speech, fugative slave laws, etc.
Was there racism in the north? Of course. History is complicated. But saying slavery/race had nothing to do with the Civil War is like saying Hitler and Nazism had nothing to with World War Two.
I never said slavery had NOTHING to do with that war. I said it was not the primary cause of the war.
Lincoln himself even admitted that he used the slavery issue as a tool to try to preserve the Union. He said that if he felt he could force the South back into the Union by NOT freeing slaves, he would have done that.
I never said slavery had NOTHING to do with that war. I said it was not the primary cause of the war.
Lincoln himself even admitted that he used the slavery issue as a tool to try to preserve the Union. He said that if he felt he could force the South back into the Union by NOT freeing slaves, he would have done that.
But it was the proximate cause, and none of the other ancillary issues would have led to a violent rupture of the sort we saw. So to say that the Civil War was not about slavery is at best tendentious because it ignores the fact that there would have been no Civil War, at least not in the way we saw it occur, without the existence of Slavery in one part of the country but not another.
__________________
Owl looked at Rabbit and wondered whether to push him off the tree, but feeling that he could always do it afterward, he tried once more to find out what they were talking about.
But it was the proximate cause, and none of the other ancillary issues would have led to a violent rupture of the sort we saw. So to say that the Civil War was not about slavery is at best tendentious because it ignores the fact that there would have been no Civil War, at least not in the way we saw it occur, without the existence of Slavery in one part of the country but not another.
Why did Lincoln admit, time and time again then, that the war was not about slavery?
Lincoln said that if he could have preserved the Union by freeing OR NOT freeing the slaves, he would do whichever would preserve the Union.
Why did Lincoln admit, time and time again then, that the war was not about slavery?
Lincoln said that if he could have preserved the Union by freeing OR NOT freeing the slaves, he would do whichever would preserve the Union.
For Lincoln the war was not about slavery. For the South it was:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition." Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This philosophy was put into the 2nd National Flag of the CSA known as the "Stainless Banner" because the white field represented the purity of the White race.
__________________ Goodnight Rossana Arquette whereever you are.
Why did Lincoln admit, time and time again then, that the war was not about slavery?
Lincoln said that if he could have preserved the Union by freeing OR NOT freeing the slaves, he would do whichever would preserve the Union.
But there would have been no Civil War except for slavery. He would have had no need to preserve the Union except for slavery.
What you can say accurately (and this is what Lincoln was saying) was that the war aim of the North, at least at first, was not explicitly to free the slaves.
__________________
Owl looked at Rabbit and wondered whether to push him off the tree, but feeling that he could always do it afterward, he tried once more to find out what they were talking about.
Technically, however, it was not a 'civil' war, since several Southern states had legally (Constitutionally) voted to secede previously.
From the vantage point of 2010, secession was not legal. Whatever arguments might have been mounted at the time, they were overruled in the course of subsequent events. Ergo, it was a civil war.
Why did Lincoln admit, time and time again then, that the war was not about slavery? Lincoln said that if he could have preserved the Union by freeing OR NOT freeing the slaves, he would do whichever would preserve the Union.
Because Lincoln was a politician. He hated slavery and he intended to preserve the union. Two different goals whose simultaneous pursuit would have meant that he got neither.
Put simply, at the start of the war, most northerners would not have gone to war to free the slaves. Most didn't care about the slaves. But they did care about dissolution of the union. So, Lincoln was able to move public opinion toward abolition as long as it was part of the larger goal of ending the rebellion.
From the vantage point of 2010, secession was not legal. Whatever arguments might have been mounted at the time, they were overruled in the course of subsequent events. Ergo, it was a civil war.
A quote from the Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
Southerners based their secession upon the above statement in the Declaration of Independence.
This is why I think of the Southerners of that time as the authentic Americans. They understood our founding documents in a way Lincoln obviously never did, since he chose to violate it in many ways.
The Civil War/War of Northern Aggression
