Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 17:43:54 -0500
From: "Michael Walsh" <MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu>
To: <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Interesting Inventions
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

> candymadigan at mindspring.com 04/02/02 05:36PM
>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whether Connecticut's act of secession was ever formally repealed.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'.

Well, there were some folks who were slaves that might have a slightly =
different viewpoint.

mjw

 Most
>everything but money is just an excuse to fight a war over money.
>
>>Ron Kean
>
>Candy
>