THE REAL CIVIL WAR – Not The Yankee Conqueror’s Version

18 Mar




Posted by on March 18, 2008 in Civil War, South, True History


Tags: , , , , , , ,

44 responses to “THE REAL CIVIL WAR – Not The Yankee Conqueror’s Version

  1. billyank1864

    April 1, 2008 at 5:22 PM

    Neo-Confederate perfection…LOL

  2. Tommy

    September 13, 2009 at 11:00 PM

    geez that’s screwed up, “not the yankee conquerors version”, umm I hate to break it to you mr. authorman, but you’re a yank too…That being said, I am from MN, and I do believe that the states of the south DID have the right to secession, and I not believe that the only reason to southern secession was because of slavery like we’re all taught, but I do KNOW that it was the main aspect…So you can tell yourself that “the war for southern independence was not because of slavery all you want”, but it’s not true…I’m a scholar, I’ve spent the last 15 years researching and writing about the civil war(32 papers, 2 books), and I’ve spent 4 years bounding around the south discovering the southern spirit, and I’ve LOVED it! I only mentioned that so you can’t say: “you don’t know nuthin”…because I do, probably more than 99% of southerners

    • southern kind'a gurl

      August 31, 2010 at 5:27 PM

      You are a very uneducated citysliker. Not to be rude or anything thou.

    • Johnny Reb

      March 26, 2011 at 10:53 AM

      Actually, slavery was not the main issue for secession. If the Southern states were absolute in protecting the institution, they would have stayed in the union. Even Lincoln, the “Great Centralizer,” stated that he had no Constitutional power to interfere with slavery at the outset of his administration (though he would prove through his actions that the Constitution was largely meaningless); furthermore, the Republican party in their platform stated their support of the institution and reiterated that in proposing a Constitutional amendment to preserve it perpetually. Even Alexander Stevens, Confederate Vice President, stated that slavery was best protected by remaining in the union. This all begs an important question: Why did they leave the union? That is easy, though brushed under the rug of history (the victors always write the histories), the issue of secession was based in Constitutional arguments going back to the birth of the republic. That argument centered on the Hamiltonian (big government centralizer) forces versus the Jeffersonian (small, limited government individual freedom) forces. High tariffs, protectionist trade policies, internal improvements (corporate welfare), and an open-ended interpretation of the Constitution and central government led to that war. The Southern states were sick of it and left the union as they had every right to do. Unfortunately, the historiography of the conflict is dominated today by Marxist historians who place everything historical within the confines of “class struggle”, thus centering and muddling a true Constitutional battle into an emotional context.

      • Ollie

        October 31, 2012 at 11:42 AM

        I couldn’t have said it any better Johnny Reb. From what I have found out slvery was not the reason but that evil lincoln used it for his own purposes. And also from srudies I found that most of those slaves that were freed by the yankees were put on the front lines of the union and became the first to die while charging the rebs.

    • seminole13

      March 28, 2011 at 9:02 PM

      As Mr Donnie Kennedy observed:
      “if the South was right in 1776…then certainly it was right in 1861.

      There is simply no arguing with that fact. Deo Vindice.

    • Cam

      April 22, 2011 at 9:15 AM

      Those who refer to themselves as “scholars”, usually are not. That would be You sir! Go back and read Lincoln’s 1860 inauguration speech and you will find the reason. I’m sure the 1860 era republicans would love to be remembered as liberators, but their cause was not one of humanitarianism, but one of greed and control of the less populated south that enjoyed a robust trade with Europe.

  3. Rebel Mom

    September 20, 2009 at 10:21 PM


    You have certainly proven that you are not a scholar; I can call myself a brain surgeon all I want, but it doesn’t mean I will be performing surgery any time soon. I am sorry you have spent the last 15 years in research and somehow missed the whole point of the war; and of your search.

    “I only mentioned that so you can’t say: “you don’t know nuthin”…because I do, probably more than 99% of southerners”

    Your statement says all anyone has to know; you are all talk and much less understanding. Ninety-nine percent of Southron citizens know what you don’t, that the War of Northern Aggression was instigated by the glutinous and envious North. They subjected the South to oppressive tax burdens out of discrimination towards the Conservative and Godly culture of the Southron people. The wealth of the South vastly out shined the progressiveness of the North and the South was made a political then a military target for it.

    We all know that Lincoln had no real problem with slavery and even made statements to that effect. He used slavery as the driving motivation (propaganda) to rile up Northern citizens into a frenzy vicious enough to support the slaughter of their own countrymen, women, and children (including thousands of slaves).

    If this is the result of all your knowledge and research then you might want to consider a different past time; this one does not suit you.

    I am certainly not the Yank here; I am a proud Southron woman.

  4. Rebel Mom

    September 20, 2009 at 10:25 PM


    “Neo-Confederate perfection…LOL”

    Ahhhh, Yank ignorance. LOL

  5. Rebel Pride

    September 21, 2009 at 12:32 PM

    Heck, I’m from the north, but I completely agree with the South. They tried to secede peacefully, but no they couldn’t. When there is another uprising of the South I’m moving there. The Liberals are always trying to take away from the Conservatives and good Christian people.

    • Rebel Dad

      September 28, 2009 at 8:15 PM

      I truly believe that Southron is a way of life. I welcome anyone from the North who shares our values.

  6. Rebel Mom

    September 28, 2009 at 8:08 PM

    I love how liberals are the first preach tolerance, but are the last to follow it. Conservatives are the truly peaceful and tolerant of this Republic and are horribly persecuted for it.

    God will bless us all for being faithful to the principles we were founded upon.

  7. Kentucky Truth

    November 13, 2009 at 11:03 PM

    Wow it is a joy to see a site that truly knows what it was all about. And not that crud they try to shove down us in school. Thanks for posting the truth rebelmom and reble dad

    • Rebel Dad

      November 19, 2009 at 1:46 PM

      Thank you very much for the compliment. I hope you will continue to stop by and visit. Sorry for the delay in response; I have only had time to throw up quick posts lately.

  8. unpopular tax

    April 2, 2010 at 2:25 PM

    An unpopular socialist/communist tax leading to civil unrest, dehumanizing and vilifying the group against the new legislation, only to allow for the forced redistribution of their hard earned wealth. No I am not talking about the Tarriff supported by Karl Marx & Abraham Lincoln fashioned by Morrill.

    I am talking about Obama Care.

    History repeating itself. In one hundred years will the future generations hear of the Second Civil War being about American’s vs. American Terrorists? When really it was individuals fighting against the imposing of other illegal taxation.

    I fear for my children. I am from Oregon, born in Hawaii, I have thought I was a liberal my entire life. I realize it is not about the labels, they are false and made by the current powers to put them in the position of righteousness. Regardless of what really happened.

    God bless us all.

  9. Chad Mcdonough

    April 5, 2010 at 10:11 AM

    It’s nice to find a place where Southerners are not being called racists. It would be nice if they actually taught the truth in schools. The war would have happened whether slavery existed in the States or not. Even Grant said if he had thought it was about slavery that he would have handed his sword to the other side. My state couldn’t even seceed due to Lincoln posing martial law on Maryland and arresting the Government there and holding them without a trial. I do believe that there will be another war for Independence, perhaps even, within this century.

    • Rebel Dad

      April 18, 2010 at 11:27 PM


      Thanks for the compliment. I hope you will continue to stop by. The only way the truth will ever be taught in the schools is if we get our own people elected to the schoolboards.

  10. NCReb

    April 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

    Here are a few interesting quotes:

    New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 edition:
    “That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

    “What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?”

    “The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.” Karl Marx

    “Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.” Charles Dickens

    “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?” Abraham Lincoln

    • Rebel Dad

      April 18, 2010 at 11:28 PM


      Great quotes. If you have any more, feel free to leave them.

  11. Anthony

    April 10, 2010 at 3:07 PM

    Growing up in the north, that’s what they taught us all throughout school. Now that I have been shown the truth, it gets me upset the propaganda being used to brainwash all us Yankees into believing the South fought only for slave rights.. What a complete falsehood.

    • Rebel Dad

      April 18, 2010 at 11:30 PM


      Unfortunately, it is not only the Northern schools that teach that. If it was not for my grandmother teaching me the truth, I probably would have grown up ignorant of the true reason behind the War of Northern Aggression. Even with all that my grandmother taught me, I am continuing to learn on almost a daily basis.

  12. southern kind'a gurl

    August 31, 2010 at 5:22 PM

    this website is nuttin but the truth. I dont know why schools dont teach us this stuff…oh yeah cause they want to keep us Dumb.

    • Rebel Dad

      October 22, 2010 at 12:40 PM

      Our public schools are a disgrace and you are absolutely right, a dumb population is easy to control.

  13. MOreb

    September 28, 2010 at 9:02 PM

    I had to learn all of this and the true history of the war through personal research I have read well over 100 or more books on the subject and from the information and collective memories of my ancestors. I am thankful for all of those resources and for my relatives who kept it straight for me, so I could keep it straight for my own children. The guy who said he was a scholar is just in a word sad… For someone to portend intelligence, knowledge and education on the matter of the WBTS sure dosent seem as though he “learned” anything. I know alot of folks (esp. Northerners) who when faced with actual hard facts data and reference /resource info. of the time (see NC rebs post) fall back to the slavery argument because they feel it puts them in a place of moral superiority and thus forces those of us from the South to sit the everlasting “stool” of atonement for our ancestors daring to rise against the U.S.govt. all the while painting us with a racist coat of varnish. Convienent for them… but truely an act of the ignorant..

    I end my prayers every nite with… ” God save Missouri and God save the South”

    Deo Vindece and Si Vis Pacum Parabellum

    • Rebel Dad

      October 22, 2010 at 12:46 PM

      I was stationed in Missouri for a while and I absolutely love its history and culture. I learned the same way as you, through a lot of self education and I am continuing to do so daily. It is hard work to educate one’s self; that is why the left never does it. I end my prayers with a very similar theme. Thanks for the great comment.

  14. NotYanknotRebeljustAmerican

    April 5, 2011 at 10:20 PM

    The southern economy prospered because of very cheap labor. The Union wanted to take advantage of the prosperity of the south. The wealthiest southerners were the slave owners who took advantage of their cheap labor to line their pockets. Not only did the relatively few rich slaveowners convince the poor and average southerner that the war was fought over something other than their right to own another human being to make themselves wealthy, the wealthy slaveowners even got the average southerner to fight the war for them. How many of those wealthy slaveowners do you think actually fought in the war? So, while people vilify the union for its aggression, why don’t we remember the rich slaveowners who not only oppressed slaves, but also duped the average southerner into fighting a war so they(wealthy slaveowners) could remain wealthy. Y’alls problem should be with the wealthy slaveowners who oppressed the average southerner. All your southern ancestors who fought on the Confederate side, fought to try to keep the rich southerners wealthy. Thank God for the abolition of slavery in these United States of America. Now maybe we can see, this is truly the “Land of the Free” for all people regardless of the color of their skin.

    • Rebel Dad

      April 9, 2011 at 1:24 PM

      They fought to be free and because the North gave them no other choice. There was a war because Lincoln would not respect the South’s right to succeed. Hundreds of thousands died so that Lincoln could have an Empire; there is no way you can get around that.

  15. SouthernAndProud

    April 6, 2011 at 1:12 AM

    I am born and raised in MS. I fortunately attended a school where I was taught from both southern history and us history textbooks. I can tell you from comparing both books and going by what my ancestors and other accounts that the propaganda that was added in the US history books are very easy to spot. Being from one of the few states that still fly the confederate flag, I am proud to live here and will support the effort to inform people of the real history of the civil war.

  16. KDUB

    May 17, 2011 at 2:01 PM

    Southern ports had free labor. Result – cheaper exports. Big-time profits. Southern plantations had free labor. Result – cheaper cotton, sugarcane and tobacco. Big-time profits. The Morrill Tariff was to establish an equilibrium. Northern ports and factorys had to pay for their labor. Result – more expensive exports and products. Nowhere near the profit. Final result – The financial destruction of an entire working-class nation while very, very few Southern elite opportunists raked in handsome profits with many rakes.

    I keep hearing “propoganda”. The only real “propoganda” that I see is these Southern opportunists selling the idea to fight the war to lower/middle class whites who owned no slaves, saw no profits from the ports, would never be affected by the tariff and would certainly, in no way, benefit even if there was a positive outcome for the CSA. i doubt that many of those Southern “Elitists” got very dirty during the war.

    Of course they wanted to secede. I’d like to “secede” everytime I look at my paystub and see what Uncle Sam is taking but it does not work that way. Since i live in the United States I certainly would not consider Uncle Sam a “foreign invader” either….another cop out.

    In the end, the only propoganda was almost a million dead Southern working class who were convinced to fight because a very few needed to keep their slave-hand.

  17. Bama Brian

    June 3, 2011 at 9:21 PM

    Funny how the northerners fail to mention all the immigrant child labor used in the industries. Cheap labor and huge profits for the north’s rich . There is a lot of past quotes that most slaves had it better than the little kids did .

  18. Confederate Papist

    June 7, 2011 at 4:16 PM

    Right on Bama Brian.

    And Southern and Proud – Florida and Georgia both fly the battle flag, both near I-75.

    KDUB – keep drinking the Soviet Kool Aid

  19. mark

    December 14, 2011 at 2:28 AM

    i believe that… and i seriously believe that history “repeats”. so take a good look at the government corruption that has overtaken us since the civil war. the northern elitist pig f**kers have taxed us into oblivion until we are all slaves to their corporate greed and debt. so if history repeats, with the passing of these latest bills, they will once again slay the south with the word “homegrown terrorist” who wants small government “federal” and relief from their taxes. like it or leave it, truth is truth. the north is only about one thing, and allways have been.

  20. Ernie Singer

    February 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM

    I came here today to this site to learn something, and I am glad I did. There were many touching stories here and truths I was unaware of .Maybe in a lot of ways it might be a better countrynow if the South had won the war.

  21. Tom

    April 30, 2012 at 11:47 PM

    So if Jefferson Davis had a black son, how did he come by the lad? Because he sure as hell wasn’t married to a black woman. And many wealthy Southern planters (as well as Northern ones, to be sure) raped their servant women and had children by them. So not exactly a selling point, I’d imagine.

    • rebelmomcsa

      June 17, 2012 at 6:14 PM

      Tom, If you knew your true history you would know that Jim Limber Davis was adopted by the Davis’ when he was rescued from abuse. I’d imagine there aren’t too many better selling points.

    • Republicae

      September 24, 2012 at 1:15 PM

      Jefferson Davis adopted his Black son, there was no blood connection there.

  22. Bleh

    August 14, 2012 at 1:25 PM

    The first shots in the civil war were fired at Fort Sumter by confederates. So why do these videos all claim that the North started the war? Even if you buy the argument that the south was independent, it would be like Iraq’s government attacking one of the US bases in that country today. It’s an act of war no? So the south started the war, not the north.

    • rebelmomcsa

      August 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM

      Thank you for asking questions instead of just attacking, which is what we normally receive. I don’t really agree with your Iraq analogy, but moving on from that I would like to point out that Lincoln had already stated his intent to forcefully keep the South in the Union and collect the Morrill Tariff. He also sent reinforcements, armaments, and supplies towards Fort Sumter forcing the South’s hand.

      The fort was sovereign territory that could be used to blockade the South’s harbor and forcefully collect tariffs. Do you think the North would have allowed the South to control a strategic fort in their territory? To avoid war, all Lincoln had to do was acknowledge the South’s sovereignty, as our founding fathers had, and let them peacefully leave the Union; as was their right.

      Once an army is raised and a threat to use it to enforce tariffs upon a sovereign nation is made, that becomes the act of war; justifying that sovereign nation to defend itself. The Union was a voluntary joining of the states and what is voluntarily joined can be voluntarily unjoined.

      The South was already a free and sovereign nation; even though Lincoln, and the North, refused to accept that fact. I strongly encourage that you read more on the subject; I believe you would be shocked at how inaccurate the history taught by the public school system really is. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D, and H. W. Crocker III both have excellent books on the subjects of American and Civil War history.

    • Republicae

      September 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM

      It is a commonly held view that the “Civil War” began when the State of South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, and why not, that is what is taught in the history books. However, when delving into the records, we find that it did not begin on that fateful day of April 10, 1861.

      In December, 1864, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech before Congress and made a statement, that on the surface appears to be completely veracious in content: “I simply mean to say that the war will cease, on the part of the Government, whenever it shall cease on the part of those who began it.” That is the accepted view of history and in many minds it is completely true, but when viewed from actually historical facts the veracity of the statement becomes very questionable.

      This next statement flies directly in the face of accepted history and yet the facts clearly and irrefutably support the statement: The United States and Abraham Lincoln started the war by committing at least four acts of war against two of the most strategically vital points in the South. These acts of war were perpetrated, on the orders of Lincoln, weeks prior to the South’s defensive attack on Fort Sumter. In fact, had the secret orders of Lincoln actually been obeyed, the war would have begun almost 500 miles away from Charleston and Fort Sumter.

      On December 6th, 1860, in recognition of the Sovereignty of the States of the South, the United States Government entered into a solemn Armistice with the officials of the State of South Carolina and on January 29th, 1861, the United States Government then entered into yet another solemn Armistice with the officials of the State of Florida. Both of these agreements were officially filed with the United States War and Navy Departments. In these agreements, the United States agreed not to attempt any reinforcement of Fort Sumter, Fort Pickens, the entire State of South Carolina and Florida. In return, the Confederate authorities agreed that there would be no attack on the Forts occupied by Union Forces as long as the agreements were observed to the letter. It was also understood by these agreements that any violation would be considered an act of war between the Confederacy and the United States. Additionally, it was understood by these agreements that any person visiting these fortifications, or areas covered by these agreements, with the intent to advise, plans, supply, reinforce or strengthen the fortifications that it too would be considered an act of war under the officially recognized and signed agreements.

      It is indeed unfortunate that history doesn’t always tell the truth but ofttimes struggles against it and falsehoods are usually enlarged by accepted opinion.

      Within eight days of the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, the United States Government, upon Lincoln’s orders violated the Armistices by attempting to reinforce Fort Pickens, thus from that point a state of war existed between the Confederate States of America and the United States. In January 1861, on the U.S.S. Brooklyn, Captain Vogdes, along with an armed force, was sent to reinforce Fort Pickens. However, Vogdes remained on the U.S.S. Brooklyn temporarily estoppeled by the Armistice. However, according to the terms of the Armistice, from that moment of preparation, a legal state of war existed between The Confederate States of America and the United States of America.

      On March 12th, 1861, by the order of the President, Lieutenant General Scott the following message was addressed to “Captain I. Vogdes, First Artillery, and U.S. Army, on board Ship of War Brooklyn, off Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.”:

      “At the first favorable opportunity, you will land your company, reinforce Fort Pickens, and hold the same till further orders”

      On March 31st, 1861, the orders were received by Captain Vogdes and sent the following message to Captain H.A. Adams:

      “Hereby I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my company at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order. I. Vogdes”

      The interesting thing is that Captain Adams refused to obey the orders, later in his report to the Secretary of the Navy he stated: “It would be considered not only a declaration, but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost. Both sides are faithfully observing the Armistice entered into by the United States Government…, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless we shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it.”

      On April 6th, 1861, Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy sent the following to Captain Adams:

      “Your dispatch of April 1st is received. The Department regrets that you did not comply with the request of Capt. Vogdes. You will immediately on the first favorable opportunity after receipt of this order, afford every facility to Capt. Vogdes to enable him to land the t, troops under his command, it being the wish and intention of the Navy Department to co-operate with the War Department, in that object.”

      Now, an interesting fact is that the order was sent by special messenger, Lieutenant J. L. Worden by rail via Richmond through Augusta to Atlanta. When Worden arrived in Atlanta, he committed his orders to memory and destroyed the orders. On April 11, 1861, Worden met with General Bragg and stated that he only had a verbal message of a peaceful nature to deliver to Captain Adams. Worden’s actions and behavior aroused suspicions and he was arrested in Montgomery.

      Captain Adams landed Vogdes and reinforcements around 9p.m. on the night of April 11th, 1861. The next day, under similar circumstances, the Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter without knowledge of the events that occurred the night before at Fort Pickens. During this time, the Confederate Peace Commission had been kept waiting by Lincoln and Seward. After the attack, Seward continues to reassure the Confederate Peace Commission by stating that Sumter would be evacuated in ten days and there would be no further attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter. Seward also assured the Commission that he would give them notice if there were “any design to alter the existing status there.” Of course, Seward was well aware that all of this had already taken place.

      Thus the Confederacy had sent the Commission openly with peaceful intent and good faith, all the while Lincoln has not only secretly conspired to avert peace, but start a war. Again, to give evidence at the treachery of Lincoln we find that on March 29th, 1861, Lincoln sent a memorandum to the Secretary of the Navy that ordered three ships of war, The Pocahontas, The Pawnee and The Harriet Lane, along with 300 seamen with a month’s stores.

      On April 1st, 1861, Winfield Scott sent the following order of the President to the Head Quarters of the Army: “ You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed to New York when steam transportation for four companies will be engaged; and putting on board such supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known.” This order was accompanied by this following codicil the next day:

      “To Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U. S. Army. Approved April 2, 1861.” Signed: Abraham Lincoln.

      Also on April 1, 1861, Lincoln sent the following order: “ All officers of the Army and Navy, to whom this order may be exhibited will aid by every means in their power the expedition under the command of Colonel Brown; supply him with men and material, and co-operating with him as he may desire.” Abraham Lincoln.

      Yet, on that same day, Seward had given his solemn assurances to the official envoys of the Confederacy that there would be no changes to the status of Fort Pickens and there was no design to reinforce Fort Sumter. So, while Lincoln’s Secretary of State was giving assurances to the Confederate Peace Commission that the Armistices would be honored, the secret war conspiracy was in the works.

      Prior to these devious events and conspiratorial actions, Senator Stephen Douglas had introduced a bill in the U. S. Senate on December 20th, 1860. The bill would protect the States in their Constitutional rights by proposing to punish anyone guilty of inter-State insurrection or invasions. In a speech at Cooper Union, Lincoln denounced the bill and called it seditious. It is interesting, that an elected President would object to such a bill prior to his inauguration, particularly since the bill appeared to be protective both in intent and execution, as well as Constitutional. Of course, such a bill would have prohibited Lincoln’s actions; therefore the question is when did Lincoln actually decide to invade the South?

      It is also interesting that five days prior to Lincoln’s inauguration, Congress passed the bill introduced by Douglas; to avoid any obstruction that the bill might cause, Lincoln did not convene Congress until after the war was assured by his actions at Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter. Thus while the Confederacy extended her hand in peace openly, Lincoln secretly extended the sword of war.

      Had Lincoln truly desired peace and indeed union, why did he refuse to discuss peace with the Confederate Peace Commission, instead he set on a deliberate course of deception and subterfuge. Why would he not convene Congress to take up the issues of war as demanded by the Constitution?

      On February 13th, 1861, The State of Virginia, in Convention voted down every resolution calling for Secession waiting for President Lincoln to make his words of “peace and union” good. Yet, a mere two weeks later, on April 2, 1861, Lincoln approved the secret act of war against the South.

      Lincoln, fearful of the decision of the Virginia Convention sought to dissolve the Convention and sent Allan B. Magruder to Richmond in an attempt to convince members of the Convention to delay any action and inviting, at Lincoln’s behest, the leading union member of the Virginia Convention, Judge George Summers, to Washington to confer with Lincoln. Summers, unable to attend the meeting, sent John Baldwin in his stead. On April 4, 1861, Baldwin met with Lincoln and urged the President to call for a Conference of States to issue a “Peaceful Union Proclamation”. Remember, two days earlier, Lincoln has already sent orders to violate the Armistice, yet he played the role of a peace-maker despite the deception of his secret conspiracy. Lincoln responded to Baldwin’s plea with the words: “I fear you are too late”, of course he was, Lincoln has already committed an act of war against the South by breaking the articles of agreement found within the officially signed Armistice.

      While Lincoln was meeting with Baldwin, the following order was issued on April 4, 1861:

      “This will be handed to you by Capital G. V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter. To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter” Winfield Scott.

      Based on the legal requirements of the official Armistice agreements, each of Lincoln’s expeditions were acts of war. With the three illegal expeditions being executed, Lincoln directly ordered yet another, this expedition would be headed by Lieutenant D. D. Porter of the Navy.

      “Executive Mansion, April 1, 1861
      Sir: You will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available. Proceed to Pensacola Harbor, and, at any cost or risk, prevent any expedition (Confederate) from the main land reaching Fort Pickens, or Santa Rosa. You will exhibit this order to any Naval Officer at Pensacola if you deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor. This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever, until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.” Abraham Lincoln.

      Another secret and extremely interesting order Lincoln issued, again on April 1, 1861:

      “You will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will receive Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.” Abraham Lincoln.

      Lieutenant Porter, in his official Report on the expedition states:

      “I had disguised the ship, so that she deceived those who had known her, and was standing in unnoticed, when the Wyandotte (a steamer) commenced making signals, which I did not answer, but stood on. The steamer then put herself in my way and Captain Meigs, who was aboard, hailed me and I stopped. In twenty minutes more I should have been inside Pensacola harbor or sunk.”

      There had been a special report issued by Captain Barron, U.S. Navy, on the good faith that was being observed by both parties to the Armistice, in this report, he stated that the Powhatan had attempted, by force, to enter Pensacola harbor in disguise and flying English Colors, in other words the British Union Jack.

      Honest Abe has used every possible deceptive practice to subvert the Armistice agreements and force war on the South.

      With the above order in mind, yet another interesting order was issued by Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, in apparent ignorance of Lincoln’s order issued that the Powhatan sail to Charleston instead. However, Lieutenant Porter sailed to Pensacola on orders of the President. Seward; sent a dispatch boat to intercept the Powhatan ordering Lieutenant Porter to give the Powhatan up to Captain Mercer. On April 6, Porter sent the following message to Seward: “I received my orders from the President, and shall proceed and execute them.”

      During the conference with Baldwin, Lincoln demanded: “Why don’t you adjourn the Convention…It is a standing menace to me”. Baldwin refused Lincoln’s demands and warned Lincoln that: “If a gun is fired, Virginia will secede in 48 hours.” Of course, President Lincoln insured that war was inevitable and was perfectly aware of what he was doing prior to the meeting.

      The Confederacy, officially recognized, though not publicly, by the United States Government as a Sovereign country entered into an Armistice agreement and extended every possible means to both establish and maintain peace with the United States. The fact that the Confederacy was so recognized raises extremely serious questions regarding the commonly held view that the Southern States were in rebellion or that the war was a Civil War, neither of which is the case.

      The facts point to the mentality of a man, the ideology of a very Radical Republican Party and the desire for power. The United States Government, under the orders of Abraham Lincoln used treachery and deception, not only with the Confederate leadership, but with the American People, and Congress in order to ensure Lincoln’s secret scheme would succeed and war would be forced upon the South.

      Shortly after the election of Lincoln, the Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens stated, unbelievably, that the election of 1860 empowered Lincoln’s Party to enforce their political theories over the entire country regardless of the Constitutional validity of those theories, the rights of the Sovereign States or even the decisions of the Supreme Court.

      On July 10, 1861, Congress, in a Joint Resolution was introduced in the Senate to legalize all of Lincoln’s Un-Constitutional acts. Congress had bought Lincoln’s ruse that the South had declared war on the United States of America. Though under the guise of Constitutional acceptability, there was, from that moment, no Government of the United States that was Constitutionally administered, and since that time the guise of Constitutionality continues to allow the government to operate completely outside the delegated authority of the Constitution.

      Here is the absolution of Lincoln’s crimes as presented in the Joint Resolution, it is evident by the words themselves that both the House and Senate were well aware that Lincoln’s actions were Un-Constitutional, yet they proceeded to “legalize’ those actions: “Be it resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That all the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and orders hereinbefore mentioned be and the same are hereby approved, and DECLARED TO BE IN ALL RESPECTS LEGAL AND VALID, to the same, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority, and direction, of the Congress of the United States.”

      It should be relatively easy to discern that by enacting such a resolution, Congress, in fact admitted that all of Lincoln’s actions, orders and proclamations were Un-Constitutional, illegal and utterly invalid!

  23. Bleh

    August 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM

    I dunno man, I buy the argument that the south had the right to succeed, no question. But as for who started the war and why, we disagree. Tensions were building but there really is no argument as to who the first shots were fired by, justified or not. As for the reasons for the war, according to South Carolina’s Succession Document, they are pretty clear that they think that slavery is their right and the Union isn’t preserving that right and that’s the reason they exercise their right to succeed. See “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.”

    At the end of the day, regardless of why the war started, the common soldier was fighting to preserve their way of life. For the South, they were fighting to keep their traditions, homes and ways of lives from being threatened by a war started by someone else. In the North, same difference. They were fighting to preserve the Union which they thought was worth giving their lives for. Both sides should be proud they fought for noble causes because regardless of what started the war, the common soldier fought for much different and more personal reasons.

  24. forloveofgodandcountry

    November 28, 2012 at 2:43 PM

    The Civil War was brought about by the outward hostility of the Northern states towards the Southern states and the tension it created. The South could not justify being part of a Union (a social compact) that did not respect and treat the interests of all states equally. The issues that fueled the hostility were slavery and the oppressive tariffs. I wrote a long article on Secession (“SECESSION: Does a State Have the Right to Secede from the Union”) and also an article on the Republican Party and its history of fighting for the abolition of slavery and civil rights (“Why Have African-Americans Abandoned the Republican Party When the Republican Party Never Abandoned Them?”) — http://forloveofgodandcountry,

    Here is an excerpt from my Secession article.

    As Lincoln’s election became evident, secessionists made clear their intent to leave the Union before he took office the following March. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina took the lead by adopting an ordinance of secession. By February 1, 1861, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed. Six of these states then adopted a constitution and declared themselves to be a sovereign nation, the Confederate States of America. Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky soon followed. President Buchanan and President-elect Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy, declaring secession illegal. Lincoln, committed to the ideal of republicanism, saw secession as an act of anarchy and was committed to restoring the republic (the Union). In his first inaugural address, on March 4, 1861, Lincoln said: “Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. In rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.” In that same inaugural address, he also said: “I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.”
    In a message to Congress later that year, on July 4, he wrote: “The distinct issue, ‘Immediate dissolution or blood’…embraces more than the fate of these United States. It presents to the whole family of man the question of whether a constitutional republic or democracy — a government of the people, by the same people — can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. It presents the question whether the discontented individuals — too few in numbers to control the administration, according to organic law, in any case — can always, upon the pretenses made in this case or on any other pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up the government and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. It forces us to ask: ‘Is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?’”
    In a letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862, Lincoln wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving the others alone, I would also do that.”
    And in his annual message to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862, he said: “Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We — even we here — hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free – honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”
    Lincoln justified the war based on legal terms. (And certainly in moral terms as well). He believed the Constitution was a contract (and for one party to get out of a contract all the other parties had to agree); in fact, he believed the original states joined together with the intent of forming a perpetual union. He believed they memorialized that intent expressly
    in the Articles of Confederation. The Articles stated both in the Preamble and in the body that the union “thus created” is “perpetual.” Article XII stated: “The Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state.” (The term “perpetual” was actually used five times in the Articles). According to Lincoln, the Constitution, drafted to address the limitation of the Articles, merely created a more perfect ‘perpetual’ union.
    So strongly did Lincoln believe this that he stated as such in his first inaugural address: “I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.”
    Apparently, this was not the position that Lincoln always held. On the floor of the 30th Congress on January 13, 1848, Lincoln delivered this message: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.”
    With respect to the sovereign powers “retained by the States,” (10th Amendment), Lincoln believed that the power or right to secede was not one of them. According to Lincoln, secession was not such a power since it is “a power to destroy the government itself.” To leave the Union would be to destroy the government.
    Lincoln also cited two other constitutional sources for his belief that secession is illegal – The Supremacy Clause and the Guarantee Clause. The Supremacy Clause, in Article VI, states: “The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Perhaps Lincoln saw secession as violating federal law, particularly the law against acts of treason.
    Article IV, Section 4, clause 1 (The Guarantee Clause), states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” This clause was cited by President Lincoln to justify a war to prevent secession.
    So, those were Lincoln’s reasons to ignore the fact that the Southern states had seceded from the Union and formed a new sovereign nation – the Confederate States of America – and then to wage war to bring those states back into the Union. I had always been told that Lincoln was a brilliant man, a brilliant attorney, and a brilliant thinker. I think perhaps I will just think of Abraham Lincoln, our 16th President, as one of the finest speechwriters and orators in history. His Gettysburg Address, his letter to the grieving mother who lost five sons, his First Inaugural Address, and his Second Inaugural Address will always be among the most eloquent in our history. But I have serious problems in his legal and Constitutional justifications for the Civil War. A list of some challenges includes the following:
    1). Lincoln believed the Constitution to be a contract that and that for one party (one State) to get out of that contract, all the other parties (States) had to agree. Lincoln represents contract law incorrectly. Parties are only concerned about mutual consent to dissolve the contract when they wish to be relieved of any remaining obligations. (That is, when they don’t wish to be liable for breach of contract damages). There is absolutely no principle or tenet in contract law which says that a party is required to remain committed to an agreement it no longer wishes to be. In contract law, there are such plausible defenses such as “frustration of contract” where the goal of the contract have been rendered no longer necessary by some act unrelated to the conduct of one of the contracting parties. Furthermore, a party is relieved of the contract when one of the contracting parties does something intentional to devalue the value of that contract. There is nothing requiring a state to remain loyal to a constitution that has become destructive of the ends for which it was created. (Who wouldn’t argue that the conduct of government today is out of control and bears like resemblance to the one that was created by compact in 1787-1790?
    2). Lincoln asserted that secession amounts to anarchy or even despotism. Anarchy is defined as “without government or laws; lawlessness. The South quickly established a new Constitution and laws. There was no period of lawlessness or a lack of government, either for the United States of America or for the Confederate States of America. Anarchy is what we have now with the federal government refusing to enforce the laws it was entrusted by the American people to enforce. It is what we have in Arizona and in every sanctuary city for illegal immigrants. It is what is responsible for the killing and slaughter of citizens at the hands of illegal drug traffickers and illegal immigrants, who have no business being here. [This alone is ample grounds for the sovereign people or even the States to dissolve their compact with the federal government today].
    3). Lincoln asserted that the Union as established under the Articles of Confederation was perpetual. He noted that the full title of the Articles read – “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States.” But the country was no longer organized under the Articles. It was organized under the Constitution, in order to “form a more perfect union” (and not a “perpetual union”). Was that merely an inconvenient detail? Did he assume that the US Constitution was an extension of the Articles and that if the states belonged to a perpetual union then they must no longer be sovereign? But the very organization under the Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government. Most of the power remained with the state governments and in fact, the reason our Founders tended towards a new constitution was because the Articles was a weak document – it lacked enforcement ability. The government under the Articles could not raise tax revenue to pay the war debts or regulate commerce among the States. But the real failure on Lincoln’s part was in failing to appreciate the significance of the word “perpetual” in an 18th century compact. For an agreement, or compact, to be “perpetual,” it simply meant that it had no built-in sunset provision.
    4). Lincoln asserted that the states could never leave the Union because the Union is ‘perpetual.’ He went even further to say that “Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.” (1861). I question whether Lincoln never read the Founding Fathers or read about our founding history. We know his position on ‘immortality’ is both incorrect and illogical because our Founders, in fact, wrote plenty on the topic of dissolving one’s bonds with government. Our founding colonists understood their fundamental right to sever bonds with a government that becomes tyrannical and abusive. In explaining the reasons for our formal separation from Great Britain in the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson first made a grand statement of individual liberties, one being “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 a new Government.” We all understand that the Declaration explicitly supports the right of a people to alter or abolish government. John Locke, the English philosopher who wrote extensively on the design and role of government, and on whose works our Founders most relied, also acknowledged the right of a people to abolish a government that becomes illegitimate. Locke wrote: “The people “are absolved from obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties” because “self-defense is a part of the law of Nature.”
    5). Furthermore, William Rawle, the author of the leading constitutional-law treatise of the early-nineteenth century, entitled A View of the Constitution, wrote: “To deny this right [of secession] would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they are governed.” [Note that William Rawle, a lawyer from Philadelphia, taught classes on the Constitution at West Point, including the topic of secession. He taught from this book. Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee were two of his students].
    6). None of our Founders believed governments were intended to be perpetual. If Lincoln had been around during the American Revolution, and if his logic prevailed, then we would all still be Englishmen.
    7). If governments were intended to be perpetual, then how could Lincoln have even justified the Constitution? Wouldn’t he have considered the “perpetual” Articles of Confederation to be the one true instrument and government? Furthermore, if governments were meant to be never-ending, as Lincoln reasoned, then it would follow that our current Union is illegitimate, and we must revert to the arrangement under the Articles of Confederation? (I think most states and even the People might like that idea !!)
    8). If compacts are perpetual, how were the States able to withdraw from the Articles of Confederation? In adopting the Articles of Confederation, the States had withdrew from the Articles of Confederation. Surely Lincoln noticed that all of the states, over a period of three years, did so despite clearly stated wording that their Union was perpetual. (North Carolina and Rhode Island were the last to ratify, in Nov. 1789 and May 1790, respectively). After all, the Articles clearly stated that “the Union shall be perpetual.” Why didn’t Lincoln suggest the Articles to be, in fact, the legitimate compact? How was Lincoln able to rationalize the fact that states withdrew from the Articles (without an agreement or firm assurances from all states that they would re-form under the US Constitution)? Didn’t they, in fact, destroy the government in doing so? The Founders required unanimous consent by the thirteen States before making any changes to the Articles of Confederation. Yet in spite of this requirement, and just seven years after its ratification, nine of the thirteen States tacitly this ‘perpetual’ Union when they ratified the Constitution.
    9). Lincoln cites the fact that the Articles of Confederation uses the word “perpetual” several times in describing the Union. Article II of the Articles apparently contrasted the phrase “perpetual union.” It stated: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” [Article II of the Articles was the equivalent of and precursor to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution].
    10). Just because parties aspire to a ‘perpetual’ union doesn’t mean that it will in fact happen. Men and women take a vow of marriage with the expectation that their union will be perpetual, and we know how that plays out in many cases.
    11). While many elements of the Articles made it into the final Constitution, the word “perpetual” was noticeably not included. Lincoln rationalized that the phrase “a more perfect union” referred to the “perpetual union” created by the Articles. However, there was absolutely no evidence to support his claim. The Founders never offered any definition for their words “to form a more perfect Union.” The fact is that Gouverneur Morris wrote the Preamble on his own, almost as an afterthought. It was not debated in the Convention. He wanted a statement setting forth the reasons why the Constitution was drafted for the People. The better conclusion is that the word was intentionally disregarded and that it was given no thought whatsoever. Obviously, the Founders felt “a more perfect” Union was the better expression of their intentions and expectations in creating the Constitution. Perhaps the Founders felt it was more likely than not that a government would eventually outlive its usefulness and would be replaced by one better suited to the needs of the people.
    12). The recurrent fatal flaw in Lincoln’s logic is that the withdrawal of a State would destroy the Union. It was upon this premise that he was so determined to preserve the “perpetual union.” It was for this reason that he was not willing to read the power or right of secession in the 10th Amendment (“it is a power to destroy the government itself”) He made this assertion often. .. that it would destroy the government. Lincoln repeatedly made this assertion that the withdrawal of a State would destroy the Union. This argument was flawed for two reasons: (i) there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the number of states to remain constant; and (ii) secession of even 13 states did not dissolve the Union. (How useless or ineffective could it have been rendered if it won the war?)
    13). Even if we fully accept Lincoln’s theory of a perpetual Union, allowing States to secede does not change the perpetual nature of the Union—unless of course, ALL the States dissolve the compact. The only way that would happen if there was uniform frustration with that compact. . As long as the withdrawal of States did not dissolve the Union, the number of States remaining in the Union would not change its perpetual nature. New States could join the Union and other States could secede from that Union. A perpetual Union would not demand that the same number of states remain the same. If that were the case, then wouldn’t we be limited to only thirteen states today?
    14). Lincoln believed that the power or right to secede was not one of the rights left to the States in the 10th Amendment. According to Lincoln, secession was not such a power since it is “a power to destroy the government itself.” To leave the Union would be to destroy the government. Was the government destroyed even after 13 states seceded from the Union? Lincoln’s reasoning was therefore proved flawed. If the government was destroyed, as Lincoln contended it would be with the secession of even one state, then what institution – what sovereign – ordered a million troops to fight the South? Which one issued the Emancipation Proclamation? Lincoln made his frequently repeated assertion that the withdrawal of a State would destroy the Union. This was his fatally-flawed argument because there is States could leave and the Union would still remain viable.
    15). Lincoln claimed to have power to preserve the Union (wage war) under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. However, the supremacy of the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof is only a valid argument if the Constitution actually requires a state to remain part of the Union or if the state is in the Union. If the Constitution doesn’t (our Constitution is in fact silent on the subject), or if a state has separated from the Union, then the seceding state has no allegiance to the US Constitution.
    16). Lincoln also claimed legal authority to invade the South based on the Guarantee Clause. As with the Supremacy Clause, the Guarantee Clause only applied to a state that isin the Union.
    17). Lincoln asserted that the power to secede was not a power the Founders intended for the States (for, according to Lincoln, that would be the power to destroy the government). If the Founders didn’t intend the right of the People or States to abolish their bonds with government, then why was the Second Amendment included in our Bill of Rights? The Second Amendment was designed to guarantee the right of the people to have “their private arms” to prevent tyranny and to overpower an abusive standing army or select militia.
    18). Lincoln apparently liked to cherry-pick which Constitutional provisions he liked and which he just intended to ignore (like the fundamental rights to writs of habeas corpus !!). He cited Article IV, Section 4, clause 1 to support the war against the South (Guarantee Clause – “TheUnited States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”), yet in the same breath, he was willing to violate the very next clause, which states: “TheUnited States shall protect each of them (the States) against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.” (Article IV, Section 4, clause 2).
    19). Actually, I’m having a very hard time understanding at all how Lincoln could justify invasion with the Guarantee Clause. By invading the South, the federal government, acting under the Supreme law of the land, breached its obligation to “guarantee to each state a republican form of government” by destroying those very governments. If Lincoln believed that the states were merely in rebellion and engaging in anarchy rather than having seceded (because according to him, states don’t have that power or right), then as President, didn’t he have a duty to protect them from any violence, not to engage them in violence?
    20). It was disingenuous for Lincoln to try justifying the Civil War under Article IV, Section 4 because that would have implied that the southern states under the Confederacy would be denied a republican form of government. Yet nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, Article IV of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America almost exactly mirrored Article IV of the US Constitution and read: “The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive (when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.”
    21). It is my opinion that Lincoln’s very act of war against the Confederate states is an acknowledgment under Article IV, Section 4 that the states had legally left the Union. The decision to invade rather than “protect from invasion” would seem to me an act of war. War is waged on an aggressor (which the South clearly wasn’t) or on another sovereign under a manifest destiny type mentality (or moral crusade).
    22). Slavery was doomed to fail. It was a matter of time. Just like communism in Soviet Russia. Compare the actions of two Presidents, Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan didn’t just believe that the Soviet Union and communism could fail, he believed it was inevitably destined to fail. Rather than wage war on a debilitated and economically fragile Soviet Union and endure human casualties, he helped accelerate that process through peaceful means and sound economic policies. Couldn’t Lincoln have pursued the same path and spared the lives of 600,000 Americans and the ravaging of the South? Why didn’t the government purchase the freedom of the slaves and then pursue policies to help modernize southern agriculture (to end the dependence on human servitude)?
    23). Lincoln claimed the Supremacy Clause of Article VI justified his position that secession was impermissible. Again Lincoln uses selective justification for the War. He used the Supremacy Clause as grounds to save the Union but ignored it while the government was growing hostile to southern interests by disregarding the Fugitive Slave Clause [Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 – ” No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”] In other words, he ignored the Supremacy Clause when it was obvious that the government’s position on the Fugitive Slave Clause was putting the Union on a course for division, but yet invoked it to invade the South to save the Union. All of a sudden, Lincoln decided to claim the supremacy of the Constitution.
    24). Questions of constitutional law cannot be settled on a battlefield: “If indeed secession was a state and a people’s right, all the Union’s victory proved was that the stronger party in a constitutional conflict may violate the law with impunity.” (Jim Ostrowski) In the case of the Civil War, the Union’s victory not only violated the Constitution, but it violated natural law as well. Remember, the right to “negate secession” is not a power delegated to the federal government and the right secession is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution. Therefore, secession is a right retained by the States. In the alternative, the issue of secession is a political question and political questions are outside the jurisdiction of federal courts.
    25). We Americans generally believe that the Gettysburg Address is the greatest and most stirring speech given by a US President. But did Lincoln get his facts right? Those who understand the causes of the Civil War and have read the Declarations of Secession know that it was the South, not the North, that was fighting for a government of the people, by the people and for the people. As American journalist, H. L. Menchen (1880-1956), commented on Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: “The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”
    26). Lastly, I criticize once again Lincoln’s ability to cherry-pick the fundamental principles he wished the government to recognize. On the one hand, he read the Declaration’s promise that “All Men are Created Equal” as a mandate to end slavery, yet on the other hand, he chose to ignore the equally important principle 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.”

    Looking at things from a state sovereignty point of view, saying that Lincoln saved the Union by winning the Civil War is like saying a man saved his marriage by beating his wife into submission.

  25. Bob Tambo

    January 1, 2013 at 4:48 AM

    I just watched “Gods and Generals” for the first time and it prompted me to do a little research on the history of the war. Growing up I got the mainstream “slavery” version of history, but after watching the film I was curious as to why the war started. Parts of the story were taken from Thomas Jackson’s journal, along with Joshua Chamberlain’s journal, so the accounts were historically accurate.

    The opening scene was one of Lincoln’s cabinet members offering then Major Colonel Robert E. Lee of the US Army a promotion to General and to raise and lead an army in an invasion of Virginia. He refused, we know what happens.

    The reason I started looking up information of the “untold” history of the civil war, was because I heard words like “tyrannical” and “oppression” describing the Northern Government.

    I came upon this blog, because I also Googled the word “catholic” in my search. I know the South has always had a “Christian” culture and I have read essays by Flannery O’ Conner and admired what she has to say about the South, it’s culture and heritage.

    Bottom line, like the media, their is a mainstream version that you get on TV, newspapers and radio or the kind you find on your own. History is the same, the main stream and the kind that is untold.

    Thanks, rebel mom and all the other comments for sharing a different history of the Civil War.

  26. BULL DOG

    March 24, 2013 at 10:34 PM

    I am happy to see people that know and are willing to tell the whole truth about the civil war, I am a proud Mississippian that has been searching for truth, and not what the schools try to teach the students a corrupt school system indeed how can southern schools teach falsely about their own ancestors.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: