The term “War of Northern Aggression”

The reality of actual history is that we have evidence of when it appears in actual publications and how it as used. Please try not to divert this thread.

The original poster asked if it was a Lost Cause term and the poster I replied to used the term.

How can one link a term used in the 1950's to a term supposedly used after the War. It seems to be thrown around very loosely.
 
How far of a time period the Lost Cause extend? Are you taking it all the way to the late 1950's? Or is it just everything that casts the North in a negative light equals the Lost Cause?
You are welcome to quote and discuss any of its uses to dispute what you believe is a mischaracterization or abuse.
 
The original poster asked if it was a Lost Cause term and the poster I replied to used the term.

How can one link a term used in the 1950's to a term supposedly used after the War. It seems to be thrown around very loosely.
Start a new thread for this facinating subject please.
 
Interesting, but I find this useless.

"War of Northern Aggression"
One essential element of the Lost Cause movement was that the act of secession itself had been legitimate; otherwise, all of the Confederacy's leading figures would have become traitors to the U.S. In order to legitimize the Confederacy's rebellion, Lost Cause intellectuals challenged the legitimacy of the federal government and the actions of Abraham Lincoln as President. This is exemplified in "Force or Consent as the Basis of American Government" by Mary Scrugham, in which she presents frivolous arguments against the legality of Lincoln's presidency.[59] These include his receiving a minority (and unmentioned plurality) of the popular vote in the 1860 election and the false assertion that he made his position on slavery ambiguous. These accusations, though thoroughly refuted, gave rise to the belief that the North initiated the Civil War, making a designation of "The War of Northern Aggression" possible as one of the names of the American Civil War.[citation needed]​
 
The War of Northern Aggression
Interesting that the term does not appear in the article.

However, one view of what a Northern Aggression would look like appears in the article. Cut off subsidies to slavery, restrict it to the existing States, Subsidize the elimination of slavery, pick off a State to become a Free State or if the Slave Owners chose war, conquer them. I'd call it aggressive.

Coming out of the 1860 election, Republicans declared that there were two possible policies. The first was to make freedom national and restrict slavery to the states where it already existed. Republican policymakers would seal off the South: they would no longer enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause; slavery would be suppressed on the high seas; it would be abolished in Washington DC, banned from all the Western territories, and no new slave states would be admitted to the Union. A “cordon of freedom” would surround the slave states. Then Republicans would offer a series of incentives to the border states where slavery was weakest: compensation, subsidies for voluntary emigration of freed slaves, a gradual timetable for complete abolition.​
Slavery was intrinsically weak, Republicans said. By denationalizing it, they could put it on a course of ultimate extinction. Surrounded on all sides, deprived of life-giving federal support, the slave states would one by one abolish slavery on their own, beginning with the border states. Each new defection would further diminish the strength of the remaining slave states, further accelerating the process of abolition. Yet because the decision to abolish slavery remained with the states, Republican policies would not violate the constitutional ban on direct federal interference in slavery.​
The South would simply have to accept this. And if it couldn’t tolerate such a federal policy, it could leave the Union. But once it seceded, all bets would be off — it would lose the Constitutional protections that it had previously enjoyed. The Republicans would then implement the second policy: direct military emancipation, immediate and uncompensated.​
 
How far of a time period the Lost Cause extend? Are you taking it all the way to the late 1950's? Or is it just everything that casts the North in a negative light equals the Lost Cause?

The Lost Cause remains a persistent problem to this day. And it has nothing to do with casting the North in a negative light. It has everything to do with sanctifying the Confederate cause, trying to downplay the inhumanity of slavery, and promoting secession and other similar doctrines.
 
The Lost Cause remains a persistent problem to this day. And it has nothing to do with casting the North in a negative light. It has everything to do with sanctifying the Confederate cause, trying to downplay the inhumanity of slavery, and promoting secession and other similar doctrines.
Casting the North negatively as an aggressor seems to be part of the Lost Cause no matter the time. The term seems to arise as a reaction to Civil Rights for blacks activities. **** seems to be part of the Lost Cause also even if it is expressed in the 1960s.
 
The Lost Cause remains a persistent problem to this day. And it has nothing to do with casting the North in a negative light. It has everything to do with sanctifying the Confederate cause, trying to downplay the inhumanity of slavery, and promoting secession and other similar doctrines.

I mistyped, I meant the South not North.

Your definition is not how I have seen the Lost Cause portrayed generally on this forum when it is used. I mostly agree with your definition of it here.
 
Like so many other things I learn here, this discussion contains a lot of new information for me. It had never occurred to me that this might not be an older term. We've previously discussed whether the term was a legitimate label for the CW, but I don't recall anyone ever asking about its origin. I have understood for quite some time that it's a controversial label and that it tends to provoke heated exchanges.
 
Like so many other things I learn here, this discussion contains a lot of new information for me. It had never occurred to me that this might not be an older term. We've previously discussed whether the term was a legitimate label for the CW, but I don't recall anyone ever asking about its origin. I have understood for quite some time that it's a controversial label and that it tends to provoke heated exchanges.
I was surprised at how modern it is. It is like a lot of things, folks project their views on instead of letting the evidence talk. Treasury of Virtue, Great Alibi and the War of the Northern Aggression are of the Civil Rights Era.
 
I know . I need a translator if'n I go North of that Mason-Dixon Line, ya'll talk funny up thar.

Speaking of which...

When I first joined the Army, I was 18 years old and from the Midwest, Columbus, Ohio. After Basic Training at Ft. Dix, NJ, I was assigned to Ft. Devens, MA, where I was immediately identified by the locals there as coming from the Deep South, because of my "southern" accent.

I was then assigned to San Antonio, TX, where I was immediately identified by the locals there as coming from Boston, MA, because of my 'strong' New England accent. When I was reassigned to Ft. Devens, MA, many years later, it was commented on by my fellow workers what a pleasant southern drawl I had and I must hail from Georgia or Alabama with that 'southern' accent.

It was at this point I declared I was from Columbus, Ohio, the middle of the United States and that we Ohioians set the standard for correct accent as it was the rest of ya' all that had the weird accents. :wink:

Ya' all take care now, ya' here?
Unionblue
 
Speaking of which...

When I first joined the Army, I was 18 years old and from the Midwest, Columbus, Ohio. After Basic Training at Ft. Dix, NJ, I was assigned to Ft. Devens, MA, where I was immediately identified by the locals there as coming from the Deep South, because of my "southern" accent.

I was then assigned to San Antonio, TX, where I was immediately identified by the locals there as coming from Boston, MA, because of my 'strong' New England accent. When I was reassigned to Ft. Devens, MA, many years later, it was commented on by my fellow workers what a pleasant southern drawl I had and I must hail from Georgia or Alabama with that 'southern' accent.

It was at this point I declared I was from Columbus, Ohio, the middle of the United States and that we Ohioians set the standard for correct accent as it was the rest of ya' all that had the weird accents. :wink:

Ya' all take care now, ya' here?
Unionblue

Being from Pittsburgh, it is clear to me that “yinz” is the proper form of addressment.
 
Back
Top