What’s In A Name?

What comes to mind when you hear someone refer to a “civil war”? By definition, a civil war is a war between two or more factions of a country over control of that country. Yet the fighting between the Union and the Confederacy from 1861 to 1865 was not over control of the United States government. This is setting us all up to misconstrue the motivations behind the war.

The question was not whether the Confederacy wished to take control of the United States’ federal government – that has clearly never been an issue. The question was whether the individual states had a legal right to secede from the United States. The Union maintained that they did not, for reasons best left to other posts, and the matter was settled in blood.

However, if we are going to accept the outcome of the war as a legitimate answer to whether or not the Confederacy was within their rights to secede, then we must also accept that the American Revolution was a civil war too and that the colonies were in the wrong for declaring their independence. After all, the foundation of the Confederacy’s belief that they held this right was from a number of sources around the time of the Revolution including our Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Now, I know there will be some people reading this who wish to point out that slaves did not consent to their slavery. That is absolutely correct, and you may enjoy reading my post On Slavery to get a better idea of where I’m coming from. However, since there were additional issues as far as taxation and federal control that went beyond disagreements regarding slavery, and since at the onset of the war Lincoln had absolutely no intention of abolishing slavery, that doesn’t really play into this. Even if we cannot agree on this point, we should be able to agree to use the most appropriate terms in reference to the war.

So what’s in a name? Let’s look at some of the names commonly used for the war between the Union and Confederacy and what is implied by each:

American Civil War … implies the Union and Confederacy fought over who would control the United States’ federal government.
War Between the States … implies a general sense that states were at war but gives no indication of how many sides there were or what was being fought over.
War of Southern Secession … implies the war was fought over whether the South could secede.
War of Northern Aggression … implies a vague sense of wrongdoing on the part of the Union.
War of the Rebellion … implies the Confederacy was simply rebelling and conveys a sense of wrongdoing.

 

The way in which we refer to previous events matters. Most of the above terms are either inaccurate, vague, or extremely biased. I use the first two at times because that is how the war is best known, but honestly I prefer War of Southern Secession because I feel it is the most factually accurate with the least bias. During the war many of these were used, including the term Civil War, but even acknowledging that I feel that it is not the best for us to use in the modern day nor do I believe they would have expected the war to be interpreted quite as it has been. The words we choose to use mean a great deal.

Do I expect my words here to have a significant impact in what terms are used by the majority of this country? Of course not. I certainly intend to begin embracing my preferred terms on this site though now that I have had a chance to briefly explain why I favor them and I hope this is further food for thought on the debate in general.

12 thoughts on “What’s In A Name?

  1. I’m really enjoying the design and layout
    of your site. It’s a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often.
    Did you hire out a designer to create your theme?
    Great work!

    • 1.) Your criticism is that the South is “too inettraged.” There is more opposition to integration in the South than anywhere else in the country. The South is still under the thumb of the Voting Rights Act.2.) Your second criticism is that the South is too “pro-nigger.” More racially conscious Whites live in the South than anywhere else in America.3.) Your third criticism is that the South has supported the “New World Order.” What do you mean by this? There is more opposition to international organizations like the U.N. in the South than anywhere else in America. I will make a crucial point one more time that goes to the very heart of these claims:Too many, actually virtually no, Southerners travel, much less live for extended periods of time OUTSIDE the South. This has the effect of Southerners believing THEY are in the vanguard of oppostion to race mixing, that they are less inettraged and more racial aware, that they are thia and that, especially more so than Northerners whom they actually know little about and hear mostly other Southerners tell of. In other words, Southerners think, for example, that they is less race mixing in the South because they (a), hear other Southerners talk about the massive race mixing up North, and (b), think that what they see in the South is thus so much lower. Not so. You are making sweeping claims about the South being more opposed to Integration than the rest of the country, but you are doing so without authority to make such a sweeping claim. I stand solidly by my observation on the South, and flat out call you wrong. I’m not trying to be an ass or anything, I’m just telling you that you are mistaken, and I think your mistake is an honest one do to the reasons I stated above.

      • *** This was one of a number of comments that came in within a short period of time and, while definitely connected to the topic at hand, seemed to be replying to someone or something that wasn’t here. I honestly wasn’t sure if it was a serious comment, someone trying to cause drama, or just spam. Not being sure, I decided to post it after all.***

        I don’t know of anyone on this site who has stated that the South is too integrated, that the South is “pro-nigger” (a term that is really making me cringe seeing written here), or that the South has supported the NWO, etc. I’m not really sure where your comment is coming from and if someone HAD made such comments on this site I would certainly not be welcoming them. I’ve lived in Virginia and Ohio, both South and North of the Mason-Dixon line … I haven’t experienced these Southerners talking about the “massive race mixing” … Most of your comment I was just confused but I’ll at least agree that I haven’t witnessed the South being more opposed to integration.

  2. Hello there! This post couldn’t be written any better!

    Looking at this article reminds me of my previous roommate!
    He continually kept talking about this. I most certainly will send this post to him.
    Pretty sure he will have a very good read. Many thanks for sharing!

    • BrutusThere’s definitely a sorntg support base for the view of a globalist America, empire building, and Neo-Con Judeo-Christian ideas in the South. Much of it sponsored by churches who integrated into their belief system over the years a view of false equality.But, the South is the only region where there is still some resistance to the American globalist dominated system. While a majority are no doubt in full support of integrated, liberal, policies which they’ve been brainwashed to accept, there is still a solid base in the South for independence from Washington. The majority of state’s rights, anti-integration, identity, originates in the South. There are many Southern revisionist in the South who still have sorntg support like the League of the South, the Sons of Confederate veterans, and other groups who support the values of more independence from Washington. Also, the South is where Christian Identity and the Klan are sorntgest, both of which have thousands of believers and members throughout the South. White Conservative civil rights organizations like the CofCC have built solid structure in many Southern states. While the South has it’s problems it is still best place for white Americans, with it’s deep history of self-determination, resistance to the powerful fed, it’s history of culture, and also it’s history of ethnic based white politics. Can you think of any other region where supporters of an organization like the CofCC could gain support from local politicians?You have to view things in the current scope of politics, societal norms, and culture. The South is like any American region, it’s people really have very little influence over the direction our culture, media, schools, and federal government is taking us. The average person from the 1960s in the South supported segregation, but because they had very little influence over schools and the media, their sorntg held beliefs were slowly eroded by a system of subversion.Blaming one group of people with little power over their fate doesn’t solve the problem. There are sorntg forces trying to make us feel uncomfortable to feel proud, to be white, to be honest, to be ourselves, like when David Duke ran for office foreign media’s put pressure on the attitudes and thoughts of the voters.Were all slaves to a system, no different than the Russians were to the Soviet system, most people hide their real beliefs until they finally burst out.

      • *** This was one of a number of comments that came in within a short period of time and, while definitely connected to the topic at hand, seemed to be replying to someone or something that wasn’t here. I honestly wasn’t sure if it was a serious comment, someone trying to cause drama, or just spam. Not being sure, I decided to post it after all.***

  3. I like the helpful information you supply
    to your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and test again here frequently.
    I’m quite sure I’ll be informed a lot of new stuff
    right here! Best of luck for the next!

  4. I enjoy your blog site.. excellent colors & theme.
    Would you create this web site yourself or would you hire someone
    to make it happen to suit your needs? Plz respond as I’m trying to design my own, personal blog and wish to figure out where u got this from.
    many thanks

    Feel free to surf to my web-site :: SheryIKeeble

Comments are closed.