PHILLIP MERICLE reviews an Adam S. Miller book on the Civil War:

As such the expression ”Civil War” is a misnomer, as the control of the Northern government was never contested. Miller offers a few alternative titles, such as “The War for Southern Independence,” “The War of Federal Aggression” or “The War against Southern Secession” as more accurate options.

— Comments —

Anti-Globalist Expatriate writes:

The classic phrase is ‘The War of Northern Aggression.’

A once-popular alternative in the South was ‘Mr. Lincoln’s War.’

I would highly encourage anyone interested in what actually happened – as opposed to politically correct propaganda – to read Lincoln the Man by Edgar Lee Masters. It is a polemic, and can be a bit dense, but it is a thorough debunking of the Lincoln myth, and includes the revelation that the Dredd Scott imbroglio was in fact a moot case, with those on both sides of the dispute being fervent abolitionists. Masters also makes the case for Stephen A. Douglas, who has been unfairly vilified in so-called ‘mainstream’ histories:

I wish Lincoln the Man were available in an electronic edition via Amazon Kindle, but unfortunately, it is not. Again, I cannot recommend this book enough for those who wish to understand just what we lost, and how, thanks to the demonstrably unconstitutional machinations of Northern politicians, who knowingly and falsely claimed that secession was somehow illegal; it was not, as Masters demonstrates in a penetrating analysis.

One should note that Masters himself was something of a modern pagan, and actively disparages what he (rightly, in my view) views as hypocritical cant on the part of Northern evangelicals, which was key to whipping up pro-war sentiment in that part of the country. His freely acknowledged bias against those he viewed as Protestant extremists does not, however, diminish the validity and importance of this work.

Roger writes:

Lincoln the Man can be found electronically here.

Bill R. writes:

A very timely post as I happen to be in the midst of rereading The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, which I highly recommend (as well as his follow-up book, Lincoln Unmasked).  I think the phrase “War for Southern Independence” is the most apt (and my personal preference) since it tells you not only who was seeking independence, but importantly hints at its near-perfect parallel with the American Revolution, thus underscoring the truth that if the Thirteen Colonies were right to secede from the British Empire, so was the South from the Union, and for precisely the same reasons Jefferson outlined in the Declaration of Independence.  (Indeed, if anything, the Thirteen Colonies had even less justification insofar as they had never voted to voluntarily enter the British Empire but, rather, had never been anything but an extension of it.)

Lincoln Über Alles by John Avery Emison is also a very interesting critique of Lincoln and the war.  Emison notes that while some Southerners like the phrase “War of Northern Aggression,” he suggests that this is inaccurate “to the extant that the aggression came from the federal government and not the Northern states per se.”  (Emison argues that the most accurate term for it is the “Second War of Secession,” although he says “War for Southern Independence” is also accurate. )

Emison’s point about the term “War of Northern Aggression” is well taken since we should remember that there was, in fact, so much resistance in the North to not allowing the Southern states to peacefully secede that President Lincoln — this supposed great defender of the Constitution and of government “of the people, by the people, for the people” — felt it necessary to promptly turn the North into a military dictatorship, which it remained for the duration of the war, in order to stifle, muzzle, imprison and otherwise terrorize Northern opposition to it without the inconvenience of having to recognize anyone’s mere civil rights, even those of duly elected Northern members of Congress.

The “Civil War” was always a deceitful name for the war, since a civil war is a conflict between rival factions for control of the whole country.  The War for Southern Independence was never, of course, anything of the kind, anymore than the American Revolution was an English Civil War.  England had already had one of those, by the way, and it was properly named as such since both factions were indeed fighting for control of the whole country.

Anti-Globalist writes:

For those who’re interested in understanding those who actually fought on the side of the South, I highly recommend Michael Shaara’s The Killer Angels. It is centered the Battle of Gettysburg, but is much more; a character study of many of the Confederate commanders, as well as the decent ones on the Union side.

His son, Michael Shaara, wrote a prequel called Gods and Generals, and a sequel called The Last Full Measure. Both are excellent; although the reader may be tempted to read them in the chronological order of the story they recount (e.g., Gods and Generals, followed by The Killer Angels, and then The Last Full Measure), I strongly suggest reading them in their order of publication – The Killer Angels first, then Gods and Generals, followed by The Last Full Measure.

A set of all three works is available in both paper and Kindle format from Amazon.

Laura writes:

Thank you to all for the reading suggestions.

Lydia Sherman writes:

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War by Thomas DiLorenzo is another good book available on Kindle.

A quote from the book:

“Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. “

For the cost of that war, Lincoln could have bought the freedom of every slave he claimed as his excuse.  In the end, he did not free the slaves at all, as this book shows. That is simply one of the Lincoln myths that prevails today.

Paul C. writes:

As a Southerner (New Orleans) through and through, I am biased.  I love the Southeastern sporting conferences, to illustrate.

I agree the South had not only the right to secede but were forced to secede, though in hindsight the decision was made too hastily.  And the South foolishly fired first.  The South should have realized the power of the North and should have bided its time, as the Germans should have done in WWII; I abhor Hitler and his evil decision to attack for all of his reasons.  The Germans are simply an example of a powerful military that was not ready, particularly with the number of their submarines and their need to bailout Mussolini in Crete, delaying the attack on the Soviets by six critical weeks.

There are legal justifications for the right to secede, if one were to look.  The presence of counter arguments does not refute the right.  The arguments are simply rebuttal.  You decide.

Lincoln’s ruthlessness is difficult to accept, but I cannot vilify him.  I read Sandburg’s Lincoln many years ago and found it apologetic, though it was considered the definitive Lincoln biography.  I have read other sources (three volumes of Shelby) and think Lincoln was sincere in his false belief.  He surely was a tyrant during the war, but that was not his personality.  He had no hatred for Southerners as some tyrants might have had.  He acted as he thought he must, however misguided he was.

Total War is as brutal as all total wars are: Hiroshima, Dresden, Minsk (at least 300,000 Russian soldiers dead, ultimately), and Smolensk (at least 300,000 Russian soldiers dead ultimately), just a small sample of Soviet deaths of about twenty million!  (I would like to read about the treatment of Southern soldiers and citizens by the Southern leadership.)

The War is not a hot topic for most Southerners.  It is done.  Yet the leftists and establishment conservatives think cultural pride about Southern accomplishment and heritage is altogether evil and pursue oppression long after the event has become simply history.  They can’t just allow us to celebrate our culture as they allow their pet cultures.

Please follow and like us: