# "War of Northern Aggression"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 15, 2000, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752 "2000-12-15T15:48:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/21 "2000-12-15T21:51:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. – From [A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/missec.htm) > [@](#): > > We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. > > That in this free government **all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights** ; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. – From [A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/texsec.htm) > [@](#): > > From the [Constitution of the Confederate States of America:](http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csa.htm) > > No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. – Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4 > > The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired. – Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 > > The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States. – Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3 > [@](#): > > The new constitution has put at rest, _forever_, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution – African slavery as it exists amongst us – the proper _status_ of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution…The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in _principle_, socially, morally, and politically…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. – From the [“Cornerstone Speech”](http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/corner.html), delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861 ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/22 "2000-12-15T23:05:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Bredin \* > \*\* > HUH? Fort Sumter was **not** established by one country in the midst of another country, not even if you buy for argument’s sake that the post-secession South was a separate nation. And Fort Sumter wasn’t put there to suppress rebellion. Fort Sumter was built LONG before the rebellion, in or before the 1850s IIRC, to DEFEND Charleston and its harbor from naval attack and/or invasion by sea. Fort Sumter was only one of several forts up and down the East Coast – in both northern and southern port cities – designed and intended for coast defense. So your argument that Ft. Sumter was put there with the purpose of provoking the South or serving as a foreign presence is nonsense. \*\* That was not my argument. I know Ft. Sumter long preexisted the civil war and was not established to provoke the south. \*But there troops of a foreign nation on it. \* What if Russia set up camp (as I said) on US soil with its troops in the camp. Wouldn’t we ask them to desist and get out! And the Confederacy was a separate country for its short existence. Note that all the states in the Confederacy had to be re-admitted into the Union. For some states, that was not until ten years later. And, now that you bring it up, Ft. Sumter was occupied by northern troops to provoke the gunfire. Lincoln wanted one united nation, but he needed an excuse to start an invasion of the south. So he provoked the south into firing the first shots by having the troops occupy Ft. Sumter, which at that time, had no military purpose. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/23 "2000-12-15T23:29:09Z")
The Confederate States of America were never granted complete diplomatic recognition by any country in the world. Some countries accord “belligerent” status to the Confederacy, including Britain and France. The former states of the Confederacy were “readmitted” to the Union because Congress deemed their governments to be unconstitutional. Once they established governments that were in accordance with the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 AND ratified the 14th Amendment, then would Congress allow those states to send representatives to Congress. The incipient United States had much better success in getting foreign recognition back in the 1770s. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2000, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/24 "2000-12-15T23:31:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by barbitu8 \* > **What if Russia set up camp (as I said) on US soil with its troops in the camp. Wouldn’t we ask them to desist and get out!** I still fail to see any relationship between this example and the Civil War. If the South suddenly claimed Vladivostok, would they be justified in evicting the Russian troops? ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/25 "2000-12-16T00:12:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fear Itself \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by barbitu8 \* > > **What if Russia set up camp (as I said) on US soil with its troops in the camp. Wouldn’t we ask them to desist and get out!** > > I still fail to see any relationship between this example and the Civil War. If the South suddenly claimed Vladivostok, would they be justified in evicting the Russian troops? \*\* Ft. Sumter is located in the state of SC, which seceded from the Union. Ergo, Ft. Sumter became located in the Confederacy. It was not in the Union, but in the Confederacy, yet Union troops occupied it. The analogy would be if Russia suddenly claimed Washington, DC, would we be justified in evicting Russian troops. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/26 "2000-12-16T00:12:38Z")
barbitu8: If Hawaii decided to return to the United Kingdom, would they be able to include the US’s naval base in Pearl Harbor with it? How about the ships as well? The US had no obligation to surrender Fort Sumter just because the surrounding areas decided they didn’t want to be part of the US. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/27 "2000-12-16T00:12:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by labdude \* > \*\* > Now off to GD we go. > Ya didn’t think a civil war question would stay out of GD did you. \*\* Actually, I did and I do. I will cheerfully delete any further GD posts. The OP asked a fair GQ question, and by Cecil he is getting and will get a GQ answer. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/28 "2000-12-16T00:56:15Z")
Wow, manhattan’s keeping this in GQ. Next we’ll see him quoting Michael Moore to back up his arguments. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/29 "2000-12-16T01:01:31Z")
Sticking to the OP, I can’t pinpoint the first use of the term “War of Northern Aggression” but that concept was first aired almost as soon as the (Insert Name Here) War was over. In 1866, a northerner by the name of George Lunt published “The Origin of the Late War” which held that slavery was not the primary cause of the \_\_\_\_\_\_ War, but merely the manifestation of the most apparent societal difference between the North and South. Lunt believed that Lincoln precipitated the war by garrisoning Fort Sumter. Also around that time, Edward Pollard published “The Lost Cause : A new Southern History of the War of the Confederates.” From 1868-1870, Alexander Stephens, former VP of the Confederacy had a series of lectures published as “A Constutional View of the Late War Between the States.” If you can dig up any of these books at your library (some have been reprinted), you can find out the initial theories that some historians had about how the \_\_\_\_\_\_ War was caused by the North. I’m guessing that the “War of Northern Aggression” probably didn’t come in to usage until the 20th Century, probably during the Civil War Centennial. Much of my information is from a 1958 book called “Americans Interpret Their Civil War” by Thomas J. Pressly. The phrase “War of Northern Aggression” does not appear in the book, although you can find 1. War of the Rebellion 2. The War Between the States 3. The Needless War 4. The Irrepressible Conflict 5. The Second American Revolution ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/30 "2000-12-16T01:27:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by waterj2 \* > \*\*barbitu8: > > If Hawaii decided to return to the United Kingdom, would they be able to include the US’s naval base in Pearl Harbor with it? How about the ships as well? > > The US had no obligation to surrender Fort Sumter just because the surrounding areas decided they didn’t want to be part of the US. \*\* I don’t want to go off the thread, but I must respond to this. Hawaii was never in the United Kingdom, so how could they return to it? And Ft. Sumter was not surrounded by the Confederacy, it was in it. Ft. Sumter was just an unoccupied island until 1861. The Union troops stationed in Charleston realized their position was perilous and untenable in Charleston, so they moved to the offshore island, where they could better defend themselves in case of hostility. With the analogy of Hawaii, if they decided they wanted to form an independent country before troops were established in Pearl Harbor, would they be entitled to include Pearl Harbor? Of course. It’s in Hawaii. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/31 "2000-12-16T01:50:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Ft. Sumter was just an unoccupied island until 1861. Construction began on Fort Sumter in 1829. ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/32 "2000-12-16T01:53:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MEBuckner \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Ft. Sumter was just an unoccupied island until 1861. > > Construction began on Fort Sumter in 1829. \*\* Yes, but it was unoccupied until 1861. As I said, the troops were in the city of Charleston. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/33 "2000-12-16T02:12:49Z")
GD post deleted, as promised. [Edited by manhattan on 12-16-2000 at 04:24 PM] ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/34 "2000-12-16T06:21:43Z")
Barbitu8, Federal troops were not sent to South Carolina. They were already there in Charleston when South Carolina seceeded. Sixty soldiers were stationed in Fort Moultrie on the outskirts of the city. Because the commander felt that Fort Moultrie could not be defended from an possible attack by the South Carolina militia and to avoid any incidents, he moved his troops from Fort Moultrie to Fort Sumter, a more isolated and easily defended position. Again to avoid provocation, no troops were sent to reinforce the garrison already present. However both forts (along with others) where clearly the property of the United States government. Not just in the sense of nationality but in terms of actual ownership. Fort Sumter was a recognized army base. Neither South Carolina nor the Confederacy disputed that Fort Sumter was Federal property. The Southern argument was that once they announced their independance, all Federal property in the seceeding states should be turned over to the new government. The United States, which did not recognize southern independance, certainly was not going to recognize any property claims which derived from that independance. ---
**Author:** ![Montfort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Montfort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Montfort)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/35 "2000-12-16T07:12:31Z")
GD post deleted, as promised. [Edited by manhattan on 12-16-2000 at 04:24 PM] ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/36 "2000-12-16T10:45:53Z")
GD post deleted, as promised. [Edited by manhattan on 12-16-2000 at 04:25 PM] ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/37 "2000-12-16T10:47:22Z")
What is it called in other countries? I mean we refer to foreign wars by our own names, what do, say, people in Europe call the Civil War? Also, does anyone call the Revolutionary War “the British Civil War”? And if the CW had gone the other way, what do you think we’d call it now? ---
**Author:** ![barbitu8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@barbitu8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barbitu8)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/38 "2000-12-16T14:26:35Z")
GD portion of post deleted, as promised. As to another post, I know it was US property, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t in the state. For example, take a federal building in your city. You have one, don’t you? Or if not, there is one in your state somewhere. So who has jurisdiction over the building? The fedl gvt you say. Yes, but so does the city in which it is located. They have concurrent jurisdiction. And I said the troops were in Charleston at the time, or more exactly at Ft. Moultrie. It still remains the fact that Ft. Sullivan was unoccupied until April 1861. The US said it was gvmt ppty and belonged to the gvt. SC maintained it was within their jurisdiction and they were trespassing. Since SC no longer considered themselves part of the USA, it was logical they wanted the troops out. More GD stuff deleted, as promised. [Edited by manhattan on 12-16-2000 at 04:27 PM] ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/39 "2000-12-16T17:04:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RickJay \* > \*\*In a few threads and various other places I’ve seen and heard people refer to the U.S. Civil War as the “War of Northeern Aggression,” an obvious Southern-apologist spin name. > \*\* I have never heard a Southern person use this phrase, and I have spent most of my life in the South. The only people I have ever heard say “The War of Northern Aggression” were Yankees who were saying it to make fun of Southerners who they thought would say such a thing. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2000, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752/40 "2000-12-16T17:18:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Tell me, if there was no such country, and the seceding states remained in the USA, why did they have to be readmitted into the country? Implicitly, the USA recognized it by acknowledging their secession (which was implied by needing their readmission.) From their secession until their readmission, the southern states lost their rights as states. However, the United States still considered them as American territory. Thier readission as states was no different than Alaska’s admission as a state in 1959. That admission does not imply that Alaska was a foreign country in 1958. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/war-of-northern-aggression/45752.md?page=3)