The War Between The States Discussions

Help Support Muzzle Loading Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Carbon 6

75 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
5,411
Reaction score
2,290
I am growing weary of your insults and aspersions,
If you click on my avatar a pop up will appear, at the bottom is the word "ignore", click it and I will disappear and you never have to listen to me again.
 

TNGhost

40 Cal.
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
421
You are right, it was not contemporaneous to the civil war It was invented in the 20th century like I said.
McClernand used the term "war of aggression" in his speech when he was referring to the south. I assume that's why you didn't quote him.

Here is his quote from the speech.

"I [???] the charge upon our enemies. This is a war of aggression -- a causeless and gratuitous war on their part."

The term "War of Northern Aggression" is a modern revisionism use by apologists..
Do you ever tire of being wrong? First, as you are well aware my position all along has been the phrase is contemporaneous.

Second this is what the general said in his speech, and I will again attach it again for those who care to seek the truth.

Quote:

"You have been told, gentlemen, that this is a war of Northern aggression. I deny it. It is no war of aggression. It is a war of defence, of defence "


Third, there is no such thing as a Southern "apologist". That term itself is made up by today's liberal progressive revisionists who try to make the events of the war line up with the alternative reality created by the today's media and academia. In actuality they are the "apologists", apologizing for something that occurred 160 years ago that none of us living today were party to.

.
 

nkbj

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
6,958
Reaction score
296
Some of the late posts here had a certain ring of familiarity to me, so I went and dug a little and low and behold...

""...Marx also followed the progress of the Civil War closely because so many of his fellow exiled European revolutionaries fought in the ranks of the Union Army....

...Revolutionary socialists were thus one of the many groups that won the Civil War. For them, it was a decisive victory in an even larger struggle between democracy and private property.


Just another reason I have never been a fan of Marx or his philosophies.

Another interesting article concerning Marx's thoughts on the war, and coincidentally, another contemporaneous notation of the use of the terminology "The War Of Northern Aggression", much in the same context as McClernand's.


Quoting the above:

"Karl Marx viewed the war, not as Southern apologists saw it (“a war of Northern aggression”), but rather one of Southern aggression through which the planter class hoped to preserve its political dominance.

Also very interesting are these comments:

"Karl Marx the “ardent abolitionist” considered it obvious that the Civil War was fought over slavery. He thought “state’s rights” and “tariffs” were pretexts for what the “slavocrats” saw as the necessary expansion of the Slave Power, ...

...Clearly Marx was a partisan of the “great republic” of the North, a position sometimes hard to hold in Britain, where support for the South was strong in the governing classes until the Emancipation Proclamation and Gettysburg. "


Found here:


And is the one I found sounded the most familiar.

Marx and Engles actually wrote extensively on the war in their roles as journalists in London(where they had been exiled to from Germany following their failed socialist putsch), and a collection of articles, written from October 1861 — December 1862 can be found in Writings On The American Civil War, by Karl Marx and edited by James Caulfield which can be found on Amazon for those interested. Fascinating reading from an interesting perspective penned while it was happening.

It is also worthy to note that Lincoln, and Marx were friends and exchanged correspondence and it is widely known that the above mentioned German Revolutionaries exiled to the U.S after their failure to bring Socialism to their homeland, were part of the push that got Lincoln elected to office.
Yep, there were lots of European crazies involved. Authors that honestly examine and discuss some such tread through a literary minefield, putting their careers at risk.
 

arcticap

54 Cal.
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
515
Location
Central Connecticut
Do you ever tire of being wrong? First, as you are well aware my position all along has been the phrase is contemporaneous.

Second this is what the general said in his speech, and I will again attach it again for those who care to seek the truth.

Quote:

"You have been told, gentlemen, that this is a war of Northern aggression. I deny it. It is no war of aggression. It is a war of defence, of defence "


Third, there is no such thing as a Southern "apologist". That term itself is made up by today's liberal progressive revisionists who try to make the events of the war line up with the alternative reality created by the today's media and academia. In actuality they are the "apologists", apologizing for something that occurred 160 years ago that none of us living today were party to.

.
There is a difference which promotes confusion between using the descriptive phrase of the war as "a war of northern aggression" and naming the war as a proper noun as "the war of northern aggression",

One source states that a search of the phrase "a war of northern aggression" could only be found to have been used once in 100 years which was during McClernand's speech.
However the context in which it was used in the speech was quite clear in that he vehemently denied that it was a war of northern aggression at all.

In his speech McClernand cautioned Tennesseans that “you have been told, gentlemen, that this is a war of Northern aggression. I deny it. It is no war of aggression. It is a war of defence, of defence of our common Constitution and Union.”

This was the one and only instance that Google News could locate the use of a published phrase similar to "the war of northern aggression" during the time period of the war.

"As a proper noun, “the War of Northern Aggression” doesn’t even date back to what may be termed the “golden years” of the Lost Cause, around the turn of the 20th century. " --->>> “The War of Northern Aggression” as Modern, Segregationist Revisionism

googletrendswarofnorthernagression.png


This graph shows that the similar proper noun phraseology didn't come into use for nearly 100 years after the war, and even though McClernand didn't ever use it as a proper noun it wasn't found to be used descriptively either. This may be technical point but is worthy of mention in order to understand why it's considered to be a modern phrase popularized by southern revisionists [or apologists]. While the concept of McClernand's denial may have been well understood during the war, the proper noun wasn't used according to the published records.
Since the south hadn't yet been defeated during the time of the war when it was being fought, perhaps they didn't see a need to coin such a phrase because the southerners had indeed already knew that the reason why they had started the war was due to their secession, and didn't have a need or logical reason to accuse and characterize the north for being the aggressor yet. That didn't occur until much later when defending the lost cause became necessary again as a deflection from gov't. attacks on white supremacy and segregation, i.e. - the result of the desegregation of the army in 1948, followed by the desegregation of southern schools in 1954 in Brown Vs. Board of Education.
If the use of the proper noun phraseology can't be found to have been in published use prior to the 20th century, then that's a clear indication that southern revisionists did indeed coin the phrase in order to claim the concept in their continuing attempt to defend the lost cause by softening its association with civil war era slavery and white supremacy. The lost cause is an evolutionary process of historical revision. The further away that the civil war becomes, the more that the revisionists try to rewrite and cover up the true historical reasons for the war. That's proven by the state declarations of secession that continue to be deflected by sympathizers.
 
Last edited:

Carbon 6

75 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
5,411
Reaction score
2,290
Third, there is no such thing as a Southern "apologist". That term itself is made up by today's liberal progressive revisionists who try to make the events of the war line up with the alternative reality created by the today's media and academia. In actuality they are the "apologists", apologizing for something that occurred 160 years ago that none of us living today were party to.
I can see now why you don't like being called a "southern apologist".
You don't know what an apologist is.
It has nothing to do with apologizing.

1586437855344.png
 
Last edited:

arcticap

54 Cal.
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
515
Location
Central Connecticut
I would like to add that revisionists can't have it both ways.
To claim that McClernand's use of the descriptive term as proof that it was a comtemporaneous one, and then to ignore the facts surrounding his subsequent denial which prove it was a war to defend the Union and not one of aggression at all.
If the revisionists are going to use "northern aggression" as a justification and reason for the war, then that's ignoring the state declarations as a reason for their own secession and hostilities against the Union that started the war.
And there were all of those Federal properties that the south confiscated in its attempt to overthrow the Federal Gov't. in the southern states which constituted southern aggression.
The shipyards, the arsenals, the mints, the forts, and for all I know the post offices and whatever other Federal properties there that were confiscated at the time.
IMO it becomes a contradiction to then claim that it was the Union that was the aggressor.
And all of it was done while southern states and its elected representatives quit or withdrew from Congress, without Lincoln attempting to end or change slavery, or take any military action or request states to furnish troops.
Or should I say before Lincoln could even take his oath of office since he inherited an ongoing rebellion.
7 secessions occurred before Lincoln even took office all of which should be considered as being hostile acts of rebellion and attempts to overthrow the sovereign Federal Gov't, of the United States.
The fact of the matter is that to claim that there was any war of northern aggression is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.
And that's why the lost cause and southern revisionism is viewed as being all about, intellectual dishonesty and a waste of people's time for those who want to learn facts and not discuss fiction.
And the same people try to blame Lincoln for starting the war.
Treason is treason and civil war is civil war.
Just because the south miscalculated how the north would react to their aggression doesn't mean that they can then turn around and blame the north as if they attacked the south when they didn't.
And I don't really care who first believed, stated or denied that the war was one of northern aggression because it was as false then as it is now.
IMO using the term is an immature way to refer to the civil war and smacks of revisionism.
The more that people use it the more immature and revisionist that they appear to be.
I doubt that the same people refer to the Revolutionary War as the War of British Aggression.
Any school child would know that to declare independence means to break away and divide from another country, and that virtually always means that war and its hostilities will ensue.

Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861.


unnamed.jpg
 
Last edited:

nkbj

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
6,958
Reaction score
296
What makes anyone think that a war of northern aggression was not the same as a war of common defense?
Simply put, that is not an either/or proposition.
Obviously it was a war of defense in that a house divided cannot stand. The division was skillfully created and if perpetuated it would not have been long in being exploited by some of the most scabrous of humanity, the great houses of Europe.
Just as obviously the greed of the northeastern establishment was driving national politics to benefit their gaining control of the wealth produced in the south and if war was what it took then war it would be. And, only an actively aggressive war waged by the "Union" armies could force the country back together and prevent the breach from being exploited by those who engineered it.
In the middle was President Lincoln with as many enemies in the northeastern establishment as in the south. If he had not taken the actions needed our country would have died right then, first butchered by the those who wished to loot the south and then by those who wished to loot the continent.
 

HistoryNut100

32 Cal
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
Oh I have no doubt whatsoever that a member of academia or the media would "polish the apple" on the subject of Marxism. It was not my intent to try to convey that what was said was entirely correct.

The reason I posted that and some of the other stuff relating to Marx's role in the civil war, was for the two reasons that have been a point of contention over the last several pages here, and those are :

One, that the term "War of Northern Aggression" was not contemporaneous to the war. The McClernand speech I linked to undoubtedly demonstrates that, and I simply posted reference to Marx's writing of 1862 to corroborate that fact. It becomes obvious through these two windows that a War of Northern Aggression was the feeling of those in the South, it had also been vocalized just as that, and indeed published., so it was not invented by Southern "apologists" ( a term I find contemptible) in 1969, but indeed the precise term, used in the same way, existed one hundred years earlier.

Second is concerning the the reason for the start of the war, and it was definitely not slavery, but economic control, as demonstrated in McClernand's speech. Again I used Marx's publishing, concerning his, Engels and the efforts of others including Horace Greeley, the founder of the NY Tribune, and Charles Dana, the managing editor to persuade Lincoln to make the war about slavery, which he refused to do until later in the war. Had the war been about slavery, they wouldn't have been driven to try to persuade Lincoln to make it about slavery, which would have suited their agenda.

While we cannot take the "close relationship of Marx and Lincoln at face value, there are certain facts that looked at logically are unavoidably concerning. Some of those are that Horace Greeley indisputably, openly touted redistribution of wealth and land in the South and the West from those who owned it, to slaves and "workers". (Socialism at a minimum under the nicest of terms)

As well,, Charles Dana, Greeley's managing editor hired Marx for the NY Tribune. A short time later, Lincoln hired Dana and posted him to the War Department. Power and influence, power and control, and thus information such as this provides us insight as to the feelings and atmosphere of the day and what strings were being pulled during the politics of the era.
A good article on the cause of the war.

 

Carbon 6

75 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
5,411
Reaction score
2,290
What makes anyone think that a war of northern aggression was not the same as a war of common defense?
Because of the the language. Calling it "The War of Northern Aggression" or a war of common defense, takes a partisan view . It looks at the war from only one viewpoint.

The war is called the "Civil War", because the English word “civil” also has the definition of “of or relating to the state or its citizenry.” A civil war is a war in which one group of citizens seeks to overthrow and/or replace the government over them.
This relates to the the south seceding from the Union, a non-partisan fact of the war.

Simply put, that is not an either/or proposition.
I guess that depends on what you mean by, and who you refer to when you say "common defense". If what you refer to is the defense of the south then it is not an "either/or proposition". The two are the same. They are both partisan.
 

Carbon 6

75 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
5,411
Reaction score
2,290
A good article on the cause of the war.


Historical negationism is applied to cultivate a specific political myth – sometimes with official consent from the government – whereby self-taught, amateur, and dissident academic historians either manipulate or misrepresent historical accounts to achieve political ends.

The first sentence of that article tells me all I need to know, he said; "Although I’m no scholar of American history, there are a few seminole events that I’ve always felt confident in having a basic understanding of."
He also used the wrong word "seminole" instead of seminal.
I stopped reading after that.

The leaders of the Confederacy professed that the main reason for secession and war was slavery. What more does one need than that ?
 

TNGhost

40 Cal.
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
421
Historical negationism is applied to cultivate a specific political myth – sometimes with official consent from the government – whereby self-taught, amateur, and dissident academic historians either manipulate or misrepresent historical accounts to achieve political ends.

The first sentence of that article tells me all I need to know, he said; "Although I’m no scholar of American history, there are a few seminole events that I’ve always felt confident in having a basic understanding of."
He also used the wrong word "seminole" instead of seminal.
I stopped reading after that.

The leaders of the Confederacy professed that the main reason for secession and war was slavery. What more does one need than that ?
Once again there is an article with evidence that counters your argument, and you attack it, attack the author personally and dismiss it out of hand, failing to acknowledge or refute any of the FACTS therein. Why not provide evidence to the contrary of what it postulated? Because you cannot.

A typical action these days of those who want to censor and control the dialogue.

Why is it that your stance completely parallels that of the present day media and liberal academia?
 

TNGhost

40 Cal.
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
421
I would like to add that revisionists can't have it both ways.
To claim that McClernand's use of the descriptive term as proof that it was a comtemporaneous one, and then to ignore the facts surrounding his subsequent denial which prove it was a war to defend the Union and not one of aggression at all.
If the revisionists are going to use "northern aggression" as a justification and reason for the war, then that's ignoring the state declarations as a reason for their own secession and hostilities against the Union that started the war.
And there were all of those Federal properties that the south confiscated in its attempt to overthrow the Federal Gov't. in the southern states which constituted southern aggression.
The shipyards, the arsenals, the mints, the forts, and for all I know the post offices and whatever other Federal properties there that were confiscated at the time.
IMO it becomes a contradiction to then claim that it was the Union that was the aggressor.
And all of it was done while southern states and its elected representatives quit or withdrew from Congress, without Lincoln attempting to end or change slavery, or take any military action or request states to furnish troops.
Or should I say before Lincoln could even take his oath of office since he inherited an ongoing rebellion.
7 secessions occurred before Lincoln even took office all of which should be considered as being hostile acts of rebellion and attempts to overthrow the sovereign Federal Gov't, of the United States.
The fact of the matter is that to claim that there was any war of northern aggression is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.
And that's why the lost cause and southern revisionism is viewed as being all about, intellectual dishonesty and a waste of people's time for those who want to learn facts and not discuss fiction.
And the same people try to blame Lincoln for starting the war.
Treason is treason and civil war is civil war.
Just because the south miscalculated how the north would react to their aggression doesn't mean that they can then turn around and blame the north as if they attacked the south when they didn't.
And I don't really care who first believed, stated or denied that the war was one of northern aggression because it was as false then as it is now.
IMO using the term is an immature way to refer to the civil war and smacks of revisionism.
The more that people use it the more immature and revisionist that they appear to be.

I doubt that the same people refer to the Revolutionary War as the War of British Aggression.
Any school child would know that to declare independence means to break away and divide from another country, and that virtually always means that war and its hostilities will ensue.

Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861.


View attachment 28150
You do realize that your position on t he War of Northern Aggression, is the same as that which the Tories held on the American Revolution?
 

JamesT

36 Cl.
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
94
Reaction score
25
I would like to add that revisionists can't have it both ways.
To claim that McClernand's use of the descriptive term as proof that it was a comtemporaneous one, and then to ignore the facts surrounding his subsequent denial which prove it was a war to defend the Union and not one of aggression at all.
If the revisionists are going to use "northern aggression" as a justification and reason for the war, then that's ignoring the state declarations as a reason for their own secession and hostilities against the Union that started the war.
And there were all of those Federal properties that the south confiscated in its attempt to overthrow the Federal Gov't. in the southern states which constituted southern aggression.
The shipyards, the arsenals, the mints, the forts, and for all I know the post offices and whatever other Federal properties there that were confiscated at the time.
IMO it becomes a contradiction to then claim that it was the Union that was the aggressor.
And all of it was done while southern states and its elected representatives quit or withdrew from Congress, without Lincoln attempting to end or change slavery, or take any military action or request states to furnish troops.
Or should I say before Lincoln could even take his oath of office since he inherited an ongoing rebellion.
7 secessions occurred before Lincoln even took office all of which should be considered as being hostile acts of rebellion and attempts to overthrow the sovereign Federal Gov't, of the United States.
The fact of the matter is that to claim that there was any war of northern aggression is hypocritical and intellectually dishonest.
And that's why the lost cause and southern revisionism is viewed as being all about, intellectual dishonesty and a waste of people's time for those who want to learn facts and not discuss fiction.
And the same people try to blame Lincoln for starting the war.
Treason is treason and civil war is civil war.
Just because the south miscalculated how the north would react to their aggression doesn't mean that they can then turn around and blame the north as if they attacked the south when they didn't.
And I don't really care who first believed, stated or denied that the war was one of northern aggression because it was as false then as it is now.
IMO using the term is an immature way to refer to the civil war and smacks of revisionism.
The more that people use it the more immature and revisionist that they appear to be.
I doubt that the same people refer to the Revolutionary War as the War of British Aggression.
Any school child would know that to declare independence means to break away and divide from another country, and that virtually always means that war and its hostilities will ensue.

Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861.


View attachment 28150
Would it not be reasonable to believe the contemporary thought was not one of rebellion or aggression toward the Union as there was no law preventing a state from leaving it? As to my understanding anyhow. Therefore aggression would have to be demonstrated by the Northern Strates to preserve the Union.
 

Carbon 6

75 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
5,411
Reaction score
2,290
Why not provide evidence to the contrary of what it postulated?
I have, dozens of pages over the course of this topic. You just choose to ignore them or haven't read them.
Why don't you sum it up for me in one sentence how taxes were the sole and primary cause of the civil war?
I'm really interested in your perspective on it.
 

Carbon 6

75 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
5,411
Reaction score
2,290
Would it not be reasonable to believe the contemporary thought was not one of rebellion or aggression toward the Union as there was no law preventing a state from leaving it?
No, it would not.
The perpetual union clause of the articles of confederation prevented the states from leaving the Union.

In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln stated:
"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union."

This was later affirmed by the supreme court in Texas v. White.
 

nkbj

Cannon
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
6,958
Reaction score
296
"To the victors go the myths and monuments" is certainly applicable to this sad subject.
Probably goes a long ways towards explaining why a CSA general has a statue in DC.
 

Carbon 6

75 Cal.
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
5,411
Reaction score
2,290
Therefore aggression would have to be demonstrated by the Northern Strates to preserve the Union.
Where's the logic in that statement ?

Leaders of the Confederacy stated their cause and intent before the war, and many before Lincoln even ran for the presidency. They stated that slavery was the issue and it it would be protected by force.

In 1858, the eventual president of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis threatened secession should a Republican be elected to the presidency:

"I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted to the destruction of our rights so that we shall have the mere right as a feeble minority unprotected by the barrier of the Constitution to give an ineffectual negative vote in the Halls of Congress, we shall then bear to the federal government the relation our colonial fathers did to the British crown, and if we are worthy of our lineage we will in that event redeem our rights even if it be through the process of revolution."

Henry L. Benning, Georgia politician and future Confederate general, writing in the summer of 1849 to his fellow Georgian, Howell Cobb:
"First then, it is apparent, horribly apparent, that the slavery question rides insolently over every other everywhere -- in fact that is the only question which in the least affects the results of the elections." [Allan Nevins, The Fruits of Manifest Destiny pages 240-241.] Later in the same letter Benning says, "I think then, 1st, that the only safety of the South from abolition universal is to be found in an early dissolution of the Union."


There are dozens more such quotes.
 
Last edited:

arcticap

54 Cal.
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,523
Reaction score
515
Location
Central Connecticut
Would it not be reasonable to believe the contemporary thought was not one of rebellion or aggression toward the Union as there was no law preventing a state from leaving it? As to my understanding anyhow. Therefore aggression would have to be demonstrated by the Northern Strates to preserve the Union.
No, the Constitution very clearly contained the Militia Clauses and the Suspension Clause to help prevent rebellion by using military force if necessary. The clauses would not have been included if the states were intended to have a legal right to leave the Union. That means that secession itself is an act of war or treason. Lincoln provided time for the south to change its mind and give up the Federal properties that they confiscated but they wanted war instead.

Also important to note is that the founding fathers expressly included these clauses in the Constitution because they did not believe that secession and revolution should ever be attempted over relatively trivial sectional and/or partisan issues.
In this case there were no Federal actions taken that were legitimate enough to justify a revolution.
How to deal with runaway slaves was basically their only legitimate complaint which could have been settled peacefully.

The Militia Clauses:

Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

The Suspension Clause

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
 
Last edited:

TNGhost

40 Cal.
MLF Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2014
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
421
No, it would not.
The perpetual union clause of the articles of confederation prevented the states from leaving the Union.

In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln stated:
"The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union."

This was later affirmed by the supreme court in Texas v. White.
In any place and at any time past or present,, when one group of people decide to go their own way and determine their own future, and another group from the outside moves to stop them for whatever reasons, power, control wealth, or "social justice" or other altruistic reason, the group forcing its position on the others would be considered the aggressor. Except apparently in the War of Northern Aggression....Riiight.🤣
 
2
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top