In Arkansas, the majority of the locals DO call it the war of Northern
Aggression.  They are not being facetious.  Almost none of them owned
slaves.  They were too poor.  The ONLY reason that many people fought
against the Union was State Rights and because the northern troops
were here. They were NOT fighting to defend slavery. The textbooks
call it the Civil War but the people still call it the War of Northern
Aggression (currently some now call it the war of Northern
Occupation). The terms Civil War and War Between the States are
sanitized terms that no not adequately describe the horror, brutality
and destruction. Anyone who objects to the term "War of Northern
Aggression" does not know history or contemporary south easterners
(my idea of "The South" is still New Mexico and Arizona).  Yes, the
term is divisive but it is historically correct for the people who
fought it and their descendant's today.

Until I moved to Arkansas from the Northern Rockies, I had no idea how
important that war was to American history. It was glossed over in
grade school, a college prep school and two Universities. Just some
rote memorization of battles and generals and that the only reason for
the war was slavery.  I just thought of it as a bunch of easterners
killing each other off and wished it would have lasted a few more
years. How is that for ignorant, brutal and shallow?  The hate
generated by both the war and Reconstruction is still there to this
day. I was amazed.   An historical archaeologist can even see it in
the pattern of the roads and transportation systems up to post WWII.


On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Jim <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It isn't calling attention to the event that I object to, although it could hardly come as news to the subscribers of this listserv...it is the choice of words and the lack of balance inherent in those words. I don't mind Civil War/War Between the States, although I think it flies in the face of most historiography, but the original posting calling the event aggression followed by the sequel claiming occupation strikes me as political, and that seems inappropriate for this venue. I would much rather hear about some new archaeological insights into the conflict and its aftermath than the long string of postings that likely will follow this exchange and distract participants from their research while clogging everybody's inbox.
> James G. Gibb
>
> Gibb Archaeological Consulting
>
> 2554 Carrollton Road
>
> Annapolis, Maryland USA    21403
>
> 443.482.9593
>
> www.gibbarchaeology.org    www.porttobacco.blogspot.com
>


-- 
Smoke Pfeiffer

Laws do not represent either reason or justice.
They represent force.