I have always found this controversy to be somewhat ironic.

Suppose we agree that Lincoln was correct, and that secession was an illegal and unconstitutional act.  If that is the case, then Lincoln's approach to reconstruction was correct, and Southern grievances over the military occupation of the South have some legitimacy.  But it also means that the official title for the war, the "War of the Rebellion," is constitutionally descriptive and accurate.  

On the other hand, we might imagine that secession was legal, and that as a consequence, the South in fact left the Union.  If that is the case, however, then the Northern victory in the war was decisive, and the military occupation of the South was legal and appropriate. The South was a conquered country, and suffered the normal fate of conquered countries--occupation, and reconstruction.

So it seems to me that logically and consistently, you can either term the civil war as "the war of Northern aggression," and accept the legitimacy of the military occupation and reconstruction that followed Southern defeat, or you can decry reconstruction, but accept that the South was in illegal rebellion against the lawful government of the Union.  But it does seem hard to me to hold both beliefs at the same time.

All best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html