Difficult history, different views by matcrazy1
My first meeting with history of the Civil War took place just in Richmond, when I visited the Museum and the White House of the Confederacy. I noticed very fast that this difficult period in American history is still described and judged in many ways by Americans, often in different way than official historical sources. I found it very interesting. Later on I noticed that especially folks who lived for years in the South have different opinion than I could find in books.
Let me share some differences and ask some questions with no simple replies.
Was it really civil war?
Many folks, I was talking to in the South, undermined the official name of this war. They called it either the War Between the States or sometimes the War of Northern Aggression. Well, civil war is by definition a war fought by different groups of people living in THE SAME country (like the Spanish Civil War in 1936-1939). Indeed, the war 1861-1865 was a war between two independent states: old Union (the United States of America = the North) and new Confederacy (The Confederate States of America = the South) which had own government, had a foreign policy, sent ambassadors (Great Britain was one country which recognised the Confederate States of America).
Opposite opinion:
I cannot agree on the thought that the civil war was not really a civil war but a war between countries. According to the constitution of the United States the Southern States had no right for secession.
My reply:
I checked text of the US Constitution from 1860 and it didn't expressly lay out any guidelines for secession. Thus, I think, there is nothing in it to prohibit secession. A union is, by definition, always voluntary - the act of choice and a free association. Am I wrong?
