Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:36:06 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
From: Candy Madigan <candymadigan at mindspring.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Interesting Inventions
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

At 04:35 PM 04/02/2002 -0500, you wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 15:57:45 -0500 "Strong, Lee" <StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL>
>writes:
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ronkean at juno.com
>
> > Some go so far as to call it The War of Northern Aggression.
> >
>
> > > A common term in the South, but factually incorrect.
>
>Technically, the South agressed first, when they fired shots at a federal
>fort.  But in the larger picture, I think it may be fair to say that the
>North aggressed against the South more so than vice-versa, because the
>Southern war aim was merely to be allowed to secede, whereas the Northern
>aim was to conquer the South and re-incorporate it into the Union.  The
>question really turns on whether the Northern aggression was justified.
>Before the Civil war, it was generally agreed (so I have read) that
>states have a right to secede.  If it were not for the strong will of
>Lincoln to uphold the Union, I think it is likely that Southern secession
>could have been peacefully negotiated, and if someone else had been
>president, that might well have happened.  Connecticut, I think, actually
>passed a secession bill in protest of the War of 1812, though they did
>not apparently follow through with it.  It would be interesting to know
>whether Connecticut's act of secession was ever formally repealed.
>
>Given that secession was a right of states, the Northern war aim was
>unjustifed, on the face of it.  Also, the South was being victimized by
>unfair import and export tax policies, which had the effect of taxing the
>South disproportionately more than the North, since the South was more
>dependent on exports than the North.  Also, the import tax protected
>Northern industrial interests, enhancing their profit margins at the
>expense of domestic buyers of manufactured goods, including buyers in the
>South.  But there was also the great evil of slavery at issue, so it yet
>may be argued that right was more on the side of the North.  It is far
>from conclusive, though, that ending slavery was really a Northern war
>aim.  Slavery ended because the South was politically powerless to
>prevent its abolition, after the war.

Thank you.  I get so tired of hearing how it was a 'moral war'.  Most
everything but money is just an excuse to fight a war over money.

>Ron Kean

Candy