The name I was taught for the War in school was "American Civil War." Nowadays, I reject that title because it was not a civil war: the south did not want to take over the US government, it wanted to be free, and I call it the "War Between the States." My wife, a Virginian by birth and a Texan by loyalty, calls it the "War of Yankee Aggression."
I'm just curious as to what other names (if any) are in current usage and how many people use the primary names (Civil War, War Between the States, War of Yankee Aggression) these days.
2007-09-14 01:31:13 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
American Civil War works for me... but I was corrected years ago by an older lady in Charleston NC who admonished me saying " Young man, we call it the War Between the States. it was by no means civil " .
2007-09-14 01:45:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its been called "The Civil War" for over 100 years. I don't need to call it anything else - I know what it was, I know what it was about, and I know that calling it "the war of Yankee Agression" is a clear misunderstanding of what was going on. It was Fort Sumpter that was fired upon by Confederate Forces FIRST. There were acts of violence and brutality committed by both sides in that war, but ultimately the war was about ending slavery as an institution in the United States, and it worked. Someone could try to bring back enslavement of another race, but I don't think they would have any luck, and I don't wish them any. If it it took a "war of Yankee aggression" to end slavery, then I say... GOOD! Slavery was brutal, cruel, and just plain WRONG - ending it was the RIGHT thing to do. Many will say the war was about the right of a state to secede the union, but the cause of the secession of the southern states was that they wanted to protect their "right" to own slaves. They were in the wrong, and they really didn't have a clue what they were up against in the war. The industrialized North against the agricultural South? Do you remember the line from "Gone With The Wind" where Rhett Butler says that the south doesn't have a single cannon factory? They didn't stand a chance. If they had fought the war as a guerrilla war it might have worked, but Lee made the "mistake" of attacking Union territory by invading it. Gettysburg showed why that wasn't a wise policy. Regardless, that was over 100 years ago - why can't the South just "get over it"? If the United States hadn't been a UNITED country, we might have lost WWII. "Yankee Aggression?" I suggest your wife look up "Jesse James" - in a REAL history book. There were acts of horrible aggression committed by BOTH sides, because as General Sherman said: "War is hell".
2007-09-14 07:23:28 · answer #2 · answered by Paul Hxyz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the then-Democratic (back then the Democrats were conservative and the Republicans were liberal) Southerners could se that they were being politically overpowered by the North and the Southerners knew they would never see another Democrat win the Presidency unless they became their own nation, so that's deep down why they seceded.
I'm a moderate conservative born and raised in Southern California and that's how the Civil War was explained to us in a college history class taught by a moderately liberal professor at a public community college in Southern California. This interpretation of the motives for the war made the most sense to me (as I mentioned, I'm a conservative in a blue state--my votes for Republican candidates are just about useless) and I prefer it over the slavery explanation rammed down my throat since elementary school.
2015-03-15 21:52:50 · answer #3 · answered by Kelsey 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a new name you want, so take your pick...
War of the Insurrection***
War of the Southern Confederacy
War of the Southern Coalition
War of the Southern Succession
The Fort Sumpter War
The Economic War
The Cotton War
The Lincoln-Davis War
The Great Interstate War
The Great Sectional War
***Brits. correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what the American Revlution is/was known as in England, I'm not sure. My British history gets very hazy after the Seven Years War.
2007-09-14 02:06:59 · answer #4 · answered by 29 characters to work with...... 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am Texan and I, and EVERYONE I know, call it the Civil War.
Calling it by any other name is foolish, the Civil War is what it is called. It should stay that way.
2007-09-14 01:41:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
War of Northern Aggression (but I'm from the south)
by very few older southern ladies: the late unpleasantness
2007-09-14 01:37:28 · answer #6 · answered by Boots 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Civil War, and it's been over for 142 years get over it already!!!. Would we have still had slavery in your alternate reality?, and would we have had two countries instead of one right now? would that have been a better alternative?. What would the world be like today if that was the case, would we be speaking German right now?, or maybe Russian, or Chinese.
Not to mention the fact that the south attacked first.
2007-09-14 01:43:37 · answer #7 · answered by booboo 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
"War of Yankee Agrression" is a bad name since it was the South that fired the first shots and started the war. "Civil War" is not a good name either since it was between 2 seperate countries (U.S.A and C.S.A). "War Between the States" seems like the most accurate.
2007-09-14 01:46:06 · answer #8 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It was "The War of Northern Agression Against the Free and Independent Southern States."
2007-09-14 01:42:21 · answer #9 · answered by John H 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
actually, more accurately described as the war AMONG the states. but you are correct, it was not a civil war in the classic sense,
2007-09-14 01:35:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋