My name is Bo and this is my grandbrother, Luke.

The Bush administration is a perfect example of why Connecticut-born faux-Texans who appeal to the inbred Confederate states should not be allowed to run this country.

Maybe the United States, the winner of the Civil War, should not let anyone from the former Confederate States of America run for President.

I mean, after we win the war on terror, it would be like electing Osama Bin Laden’s son to the White House. What’s the point of war if you’re going to let Ivy League faux-Texans run the country with a Confederate agenda?

Blue State Power!

You need to read history rather than revise it. Try for starters, “The Real Lincoln” by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo (Loyola U) “Lincoln Unmasked’ by Dr. DiLorenzo “When in the Course of Human Events” by Charles Adams “From Union to Empire” by Dr. Clyde Wilson (U.S.C.) “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men” by Jeffery Rogers Hummel.

If slavery were so central, why didn’t lincoln free slaves in DC, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri? Good reading:

http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/right.htm

IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE SOUTH, DON’T COME HERE.

DAMN YANKEES.

Civil War was about more than slavery - Darrell Huckaby

So now we have a full-blown brouhaha brewing in the General Assembly over a proposal by Georgia state Sen. Jeff Mullis to set the month of April aside as Confederate History and Heritage Month.

Holy 1950s, Batman!

Now when I first heard about Senator Mullis' proposal my very first thought was, "Good luck with that." Honesty compels me to admit that I thought — and said aloud — that O.J. would have more luck finding the "real killer" on the golf courses of America than Jeff Mullis would have getting the Georgia Legislature to admit that there had ever even been a Confederate States of America — much less set aside an entire month to honor its heroes.

That is just so out of date, don't you know — not to mention politically incorrect. The trend, in fact, has been heading in the exact opposite direction for a long time now, and any mention of the recent unpleasantness between the North and South can have only one connotation in the 21st Century. We all know what that connotation is and it has nothing to do with courage or valor or honor or any other high-sounding, idealistic descriptive words that my generation was taught to associate with the men who wore the gray and butternut.

No. The words more likely to be associated with those people in today's politically and, dare I say, racially-charged climate, are misguided and unenlightened, to those who are trying to walk a tightrope stretched high above a chasm of misplaced sensitivity.

Those who don't know any better or simply don't care about truth and accuracy and history, in fact, call them much worse names — like misfits and traitors.

You see, at some point over the past 40 years or so we have allowed society to rewrite history and make the entire War Between the States about slavery — pure and simple. If you believe what people want you to believe, the only reason the South declared her independence from the North was to maintain the peculiar institution of slavery. The only reason Lincoln resisted was so he could free the slaves. Every southern soldier who fought and died was fighting and dying so that he could continue to own other human beings. Every Union soldier who fought and died fought and died to free slaves.

The people who espouse these views generally campaign for the removal of the names Lee and Jackson and Stuart and Davis from all streets and boulevards and would probably favor legislation to remove all Confederate monuments from public display. I have known people who refuse to attend Stone Mountain Park because of the carving displayed there.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is based on historic inaccuracies. The people who preach this gospel don't know, or choose to ignore, the facts of history, and either can't or won't allow themselves to examine the myriad of very complex issues that surrounded the tragic period in our nation's past that historians call the Civil War.

And politicians and business leaders and other public figures — scared to death of offending someone — just cower and back down and avoid having any dialogue about the issue whatsoever, in fear of being painted with the same brush previously reserved for Ku Kluxers and other hate mongers who hijacked the Confederate battle flag and made it their own 50 years ago.

Well, the fact of the matter is that a lot of Georgians and a lot of Southerners are proud of the fact that their forefathers had enough courage to follow the advice of Thomas Jefferson who wrote, "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve their political bands which have connected them with another … they should declare the causes which impel them to separation."

Slavery was one of the issues that impelled them to separate — but it was only one. A full 90 percent of the men who served in the Confederate Army never owned slaves. Union commander U.S. Grant, on the other hand, did.

To say that we should ignore the efforts of the brave sons of the South because slavery existed in the Southern states is as ludicrous as refusing to honor Washington or Jefferson or even Grant because they owned slaves.

Really, y'all. Everything isn't about slavery — and it hasn't existed in Georgia for 142 years. So while I still don't think there is enough political courage left in our state Legislature for Senator Mullis' bill to pass, at least perhaps it will open some healthy dialogue — and perhaps a few eyes along the way.

And by the way, it has made it out of committee, which is a start.

Maybe there is hope after all — and maybe my son, Jackson Lee, won't be forced to undergo a name change, at least not for another decade or so, anyway.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods62.html

Things You’re Not Supposed To Know About the South by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Clint Johnson, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South (and Why It Will Rise Again) (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2006).

From The Simpsons, “Much Apu About Nothing,” episode 151, May 5, 1996:

Citizenship Test Administrator: What was the cause of the Civil War?

Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, economic factors both domestic and international….

Administrator: (Interrupting) Hey, hey.

Apu: Yeah?

Administrator: Just say slavery.

Apu: Slavery it is, sir.

Over the past couple of years the Politically Incorrect Guide series has released numerous successor volumes to my Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, covering topics ranging from English and American literature to climate change — the latter subject treated in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism), the third New York Times bestseller in the series.

The beginning of this year saw the release of still another entry in the series: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South, by Clint Johnson. The professional haters and emotional hypochondriacs who pounce on anyone with anything favorable to say about the South will have a hard time digging up much dirt on Johnson, the respected author of seven books on the misnamed Civil War, ranging from volumes on the conduct of the war to guides for visiting Civil War sites today.

This enjoyable and wide-ranging book is arranged into two parts. The first is a quick introduction to Southern culture, including discussions of manners, music, food, and pastimes, and a useful overview of historic Southern homes, events, and locations. The second part is trip through American history, from the colonial period through Reconstruction, from a Southern point of view. This makes the book a valuable primer — and an enjoyable, easy-to-read one at that — for friends who are curious to know why you hold an interpretation of American history that doesn't exactly conform to what everyone was taught in fourth grade.

As with Clyde Wilson's recent book, I am struck by a central point in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South: the demonization of all things Southern, a recent phenomenon, would have struck most Americans even half a century ago as grossly unfair, even bizarre. “If you watch films from the golden era of Hollywood (and the golden era of television),” Johnson writes, “you'll find plenty of sympathetic portrayals of Southerners and the Confederacy. Political correctness — and the virtual banning and sometimes actual banning of pro-South portrayals (like the disappearance of the classic Disney film Song of the South) — didn't happen until Hollywood decided to focus on bad language, brutal violence, pornography, and liberal preaching.”

Johnson later refers to an incident that occurred in December 1898, when President William McKinley traveled to Atlanta to deliver a speech: “After a rousing round of 'Dixie,' during which McKinley jumped up and waved his hat, the president announced that 'every soldier's grave during our unfortunate civil war is a tribute to American valor. He then announced that the United States would take responsibility for caring for more than four thousand Confederate graves scattered around several national cemeteries in the North.”

I mention this incident not because I am particularly interested in the opinions of politicians, but rather to show that there was a time in American history when it was not considered completely crazy to honor the sacrifices of Southerners who had fought to protect their homes against invaders. And that, of course, was exactly what the typical Southern soldier was doing: not defending slavery, but defending his home and family.

This respect for Southern valor continued even into the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, who loathed Jefferson Davis and the very idea of secession. Nevertheless, in 1905 Roosevelt asked Congress to pass a law authorizing the return of 440 Confederate battle flags in the possession of the War Department. “We think it will be a graceful act of the Congress to return these flags,” he said. (That, of course, was before we found out that those flags were something to be ashamed of — and, in classic Jacobin, totalitarian style, to be systematically expunged from the popular consciousness.)

In a speaking tour of the Southern states, Roosevelt declared, “Only a heroic people could have battled successfully against the conditions with which the people of the South found themselves face to face at the end of the Civil War.” “All Americans,” he later said, “must ever show high honor to the men of the War Between the States, whether they wore the blue or the gray, as long as they did their duty as the light was given them to see their duty with all the strength that was in them.”

Now again, the point is not that TR is an especially lovable fellow whose opinions we are obliged to respect; my contribution to the book Reassessing the Presidency makes my own appraisal of the man clear enough. Rather, the point is that even TR, who — like the neoconservatives and left-liberals who adore him — despised the Confederacy and its blasphemous sundering of the sacred American Union, was able to summon some kind words for the sacrifices made by men defending their homes. Not for a moment did he think he was thereby defending slavery.

Particularly interesting is the example of Moses Jacob Ezekiel: born to a middle-class Jewish family in Richmond in 1844, Ezekiel went on to become one of the most sought-after sculptors in the world. As a young cadet Ezekiel had fought at the Battle of New Market, Virginia, where his roommate died; Ezekiel held his hand until the moment the young man passed away.

When approached by the design committee of the United Daughters of the Confederacy to sculpt a Confederate monument, Ezekiel was delighted, waiving his usual commission and offering to sculpt the monument for the cost of materials. “I have been waiting for forty years to have my love for the South recognized,” he explained.

Ezekiel's “Virginia Mourning Her Dead” depicts the classical female figure from the Virginia state seal sitting with her head in her hands, grieving over the deaths of young Southern men at New Market. Ezekiel went on to sculpt several other Confederate statues.

These are the kinds of facts and anecdotes that can be found throughout Johnson's brisk narrative.

To be sure, there were a few little things that grated on me here and there; I don't think it is particularly helpful to call the antiwar Federalists of the War of 1812 “liberals,” for example, or to argue that their embrace of “isolationism” was obviously something to be deplored. Still, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South is an excellent and welcome defense of all that is good and valuable in the Southern tradition. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, Patrick Henry, St. George Tucker, John Taylor, John Randolph, Abel Upshur, and Spencer Roane, to mention only the tip of the iceberg, constitute not exactly the most shameful philosophical lineage in human history. When combined with the South's literary heritage — Poe, Twain, and Faulkner, for starters, are not exactly to be sniffed at — and her contributions to countless other aspects of American life and culture, the result is not, as Johnson reminds us in this light-hearted and useful book, a package to be ashamed of after all.

March 22, 2007

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. is senior fellow in American history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. His books include How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (first-place winner in the 2006 Templeton Enterprise Awards), and the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

Copyright

“he Civil War remains the bloodiest war in American history, and its effects reverberate to this day.”

Maybe some reparations from those who benefited would be in order?

There should be no problem with allowing Confederate History Month. Southern Pride is something that should be allowed. The War of Northern Aggression was a war that the South should have won. It is a part of our history and should be remembered. Slavery has been a part of history of thousands of years and therefore should not be a blight on America now. The South will rise again.

Dear Mr Wagner,

Wisconsin… A very cheesy state. Place where they lower the National Colors for dead football players, where they would rather pay homage to a naked aluminum stick than celebrate the Birth of Christ during Christmas (see Festivus). Ironically enough, the leading manufacturer of Festivus Poles in the world is the Wagner Company… Must be a family thing?

Regardless, You said “While it might be worthy to remember the citizens who labored to do this, it is also important to remember what they were fighting for and how it runs against the very foundations of the United States of America.”

The very foundations of America are plainly laid out in the United States Constitution that was ratified in the 1780s. It was that document that the Confederate States withdrew over and fought on behalf of.

Seems Union States were blatantly shirking their obligations under the US Constitution and numerous legal agreements. That plus the small fact the North was taxing the snot out of the South - and throw in some super heavy duty tariffs, and yes, the South left to fight for the Founding Father’s ideals and principles.

Ever wonder why Lincoln said “with the south gone, who will pay for the Government?”

You say “the South was fighting to preserve a system that enshrined oppression and restrictions.”

You will agree that slavery in America had begun and flourished for over 225 years, that 89 of those years were under the US Constitution, and that slavery was not ended until the 2nd version of the 13th Amendment in December 1865. You will also agree that since the institution of slavery was not under attack, there was nothing to preserve.

Simply put, some states thought it was a right of a people to decide for themselves exacly how they will live their beliefs in their various states. (see Declaration of Independence) New Jersey went for Gambling. Utah went for Poligamy. Nevada went for Prostitution. Massachusetts went for no Death Penalty. A small minority decided that people should not decide for themselves, but have their lives and beliefs dictated to them by Washington. That is tyranny and unAmerican according to the founding legal documents. Yes I would go to war over such oppression.

Please show me a legal document, a Congressional ruling, a public statement by Lincoln or his 1st few dozen Generals where they say the war was begun and initiated and fought over slavery…

In fact, had the Southern States simply remained in the Union, the Corwin Amendment - already ratified by Ohio and Illinois, and being considered in numerous other northern states - would have been the real 13th Amendment, and guarenteed slavery forever.

This was the law Lincoln was pushing, sending letters to each Governor to ratify it. http://www.wbbm780.com/pages/115931.php?contentType=4&contentId=231105

Finally, the famous Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Confederate held territory, but kept slaves in bondage in United States controlled locations, and allowed West Virginia to enter the Union as a slave state.

As for what the Sons of Confederate Veterans say, it is true. Ever wonder what the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War say? They say the war was fought to restore the Union. They also support the flying of the Confederate Battle Flag.

Ever wonder why you do not know or understand history, are not very tolerant, and are on the verge of being hugely egotistical?

I didn’t think so….

I am perpetually amused by the historical revisionists who would claim that the South seceded over matters other than slavery. Because at the time of secession, that’s precisely what the Confederate founders cited as their cause.

Jefferson Davis offered a Congressional compromise in December 1860 to avert secession. It consisted entirely of a Constitutional Amendment to protect slavery forever. In his first message to the Confederate congress, shortly after Fort Sumter, he reflected upon the circumstances that led to secession, and identified only slavery as motivation.

On December 7, 1860, Georgia Governor Joseph E. Brown delivered an open letter to the people of Georgia, endorsing secession solely because of the threat of abolition. He said that Georgians "can never again live in peace with the Northern abolitionists, unless we can have new constitutional guarantees, which will…effectively stop the discussion of slavery in Congress." Since slavery was widely seen as benefiting only the rich, fully half of the letter was devoted to persuading poor non-slaveholding whites to support secession. "May our kind Heavenly Father avert the evil, and deliver the poor from such a fate," he prayed, after warning of the various consequences if blacks were made their equals.

Upon their secession, four Confederate states issued declarations of causes, formally explaining their reasons for leaving the Union. Each identified slavery as its motivation. Georgia's began "The people of Georgia [present] the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." Mississippi was more blunt: "[i]t is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world."

UGA graduate William L. Harris, acting as Mississippi’s commmissioner to Georgia, addressed the Georgia General Assembly on December 17, 1860, saying “Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political, or social equality. This new administration comes into power, under the solemn pledge to overturn and strike down this great feature of our Union, without which it would never have been formed, and to substitute in its stead their new theory of the universal equality of the black and white races. [Mississippi] had rather see the last of her race, men, women and children, immolated in one common funeral pile [pyre], than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race.”

Henry Benning was Georgia's Commissioner to the Virginia Secession Convention, and he addressed them on Feb. 18, 1861, encouraging Virginia to follow Georgia's lead: "What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause."

Georgia's Robert Toombs resigned from the U.S. Senate on January 7, 1861, and gave a farewell speech in which he answered the question "What do the rebels demand?" He identified four Southern demands. The first was that Southerners should be allowed to take their slaves with them, and keep them as property, if they immigrated westward. The second was "that property in slaves shall be entitled to the same protection from the government of the United States, in all of its departments, everywhere, which the Constitution confers the power upon it to extend to any other property." The third and fourth demands were that fugitive slave laws be vigorously enforced, and that persons helping slaves escape captivity be extradited for their "crimes." No demands were identified that did not directly relate to slavery. The month prior, Toombs had proposed a similar seven-point Constitutional compromise to avoid secession; all seven points were about slavery.

In his Corner-Stone Speech of March 21, 1861, Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens told his Savannah audience, "[O]ur peculiar institution - African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our civilization,…was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." He further explained that the Confederacy's "foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon this great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Toombs and Stephens, incidentally, are specifically named in the State Senate bill as two of "Georgia's greatest statesmen" who served the Confederate cause, as its Secretary of State and Vice-President.

@ 8:56am,

So mr. smartypants, explain to me where NASCAR fits into this?

Yes. The south will rise again and we will call it NASCAR

Civil War? When did the CSA try to take over the federal gov’t? Did not the god Lincoln say it was the state’s right to leave the union? Where did god Lincoln free any slaves? Certainly not in the northland.He knew the South was it’s own country and his little proclamation stood for nothing. Did Lee not give his slaves their freedom before the war? What did the yankee Grant do with his? And why did so many poor Southerner’s join up? To fight for the slaveowner? I think not, to fight for their soveign state, for state’s rights, to get out from under the taxation of the federal gov’t. Read a few books from other place’s than your college library. Might a I suggest a good one to start with; “The Coming of the Glory,” by John S. Tilley. He starts with the yankee shippers and their cargo. Long may my beloved flag wave. linda Lee

Blue state secession now! It’s our turn to leave.

Check this out:

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/

“If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side.”

General Ulysses S. Grant

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”

Charles Dickens

When asked “Why not let the South go in peace?” President Abraham Lincoln replied: “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?”

By the way, don’t write about something that doesn’t concern you. Keep your nose out of the South’s business. That is what started the War in the first place.

I do believe we’ve been mislead by our public school indoctrination. I wonder what else they tricked us into believing?

In defense of my argument, I offered up multiple quotes from Confederate leaders in 1860 and 1861, many in formal settings, all with dates and sources as to when they were said.

In rebuttal, Anonymous has provided three quotes attributed to non-Confederates (including one non-American who was hugely critical of America’s tolerance of slavery, http://www.readbookonline.net/read/2388/11512/ ), and without providing dates or sources or citations for any of them. A little bit of online research suggests that all three are unsourced and of doubtable origin. If citations can be provided for any of them, I would be most interested.

And for the record, it does concern me. I’m a seventh-generation Georgian, and at least three of my ancestors were Confederate soldiers. The South’s business, and Georgia’s business, is most definitely my business.

Of course the filthy liberals have to find a way to bring the Bush administration into any Op Ed discussion.

At the brink of the U.S. Civil War, this country was divided along a line now known as Mason-Dixon. The southern side assumed the role of Confederates, embracing valued customs deemed unnacceptable in the north, including NASCAR, gun racks in pick-up trucks, and slavery. Wisconsin was, and remains, the South’s lone cultual link to the outside world. Due to their unfortunate geographical position, Wisconsin was left behind with no other choice but to join the Union and sit silently by in secret hopes that the Confederate States of America would acheive victory over their “human rights” embracing neighbors, and one day be reuniting with their Confederate flag waving counterparts to the south. This club seeks to reveal this hidden, closely guarded truth about Wisconsin.

My work here is done. - Germain E. Stemme

“Of course the filthy liberals have to find a way to bring the Bush administration into any Op Ed discussion.”

HEY!!! I’m a filthy liberal and I am offended by what you wrote. Please apologize immediately or I will hold my breath. I’m warning you! You’ll be sorry! Don’t make me do it!

You can offer up as many quotes as you wis, Loren. We’ll offer quotes & historical texts that contradict you. In other words, your myopic approach only makes you look like the very revisionist you accuse others of being. Not very tolerant, is it?

Most knowledgeable persons are aware that Lincoln was motivated only to “preserve the union” (read forcibly retain the section which had 30% of the population but paid 80% of the federal revenue) and by his own admission, it was immaterial whether he freed “some of the slaves, all of the slaves, or none of the slaves.” Emancipation was a political expedient only; in fact, the Proclamation itself pretended to free only those slaves in states “currently in rebellion.” Slaves in border states loyal to the Union were to remain enslaved. Hardly a friend of the Negro, Lincoln had declared in the Lincoln-Douglas debates that he had no intention of granting such privileges of citizenship to freedmen as making them lawyers or jurors, since he considered them racially inferior.

Just like a yank…”do as I say not as I do”. Hypocrites.

http://www.slavenorth.com/wisconsin.htm

Wisconsin was one of the first states to establish black suffrage, but this was accomplished only through a Supreme Court decision after suffrage had been defeated repeatedly at the polls. Like many in the North, Wisconsin residents disliked slavery, but they also felt no desire to integrate with blacks, whom they felt were inferior.

A committee of the 1846 statehood convention proposed an article granting suffrage to “white citizens of the United States,” foreign residents who intended to become citizens and certain Indians. A few idealists urged that the word “white” be deleted, but they were opposed by the majority. The convention ultimately agreed to submit to the voters a separate article allowing black suffrage. The 1846 constitution was voted down for various reasons unrelated to suffrage; but the suffrage article also was defeated decisively, with only 34 percent in favor.

The 1847-48 constitutional convention resolved the suffrage issue by agreeing that the Legislature could allow black suffrage at any time, provided that the law was “submitted to the vote of the people at a general election, and approved by a majority of all the votes cast at such election.” The compromise appealed to the delegates because a vote for it could be defended as a vote for popular sovereignty rather than black equality or abolitionism.

The first state Legislature promptly passed a black suffrage law and authorized a referendum, which took place in 1849. The law was approved by a vote of 5,265 to 4,075. However, fewer than half of all voters casting ballots at the election voted on the suffrage issue; therefore, the law had failed. The Legislature passed new suffrage laws in 1857 and again in 1865. The voters rejected both laws, although the pro-suffrage vote increased to 41 percent in 1857 and 46 percent in 1865.[1]

Ezekiel Gillespie, one of the leaders of Milwaukee’s black community, tried to register to vote in the 1865 election. He did so partly to publicize the suffrage issue and partly at the suggestion of his attorney, Byron Paine, who wanted to test the 1849 referendum. “To almost everyone’s surprise, in Gillespie v. Palmer (1866) the supreme court accepted Paine’s argument and ruled that because suffrage had received a majority in 1849, blacks had been entitled to vote in Wisconsin since that time.”[2]

“The pattern of weak racial liberalism which Wisconsin established between 1846 and 1866 continued for the next century,” historian Joseph Ranney writes. “Wisconsin never countenanced de jure discrimination, but de facto segregation and discrimination were common.”

When the Civil War ended, nineteen of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere could they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states, and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of “high misdemeanor.” Even those that didn’t, debated it and had discriminatory ordinances on the local level

There is a flag flown in the South which represents what was a slave nation before, during, and after the Civil War - the last slave nation in North America. A nation which had a racially segregated military.

A nation which at times offered to permanently protect slavery or extend slavery until 1900. A nation which had the stain of having the only person tried and convicted of war crimes during the war - pardoned and promoted by its leader. A nation whose forces destroyed Free Black settlements in South Carolina for their "attitude." A nation whose military hunted down, kidnapped, and sometimes tortured Southern Blacks to get them to "volunteer" as cannon fodder for its military.

That flag represents the United States.

The unsegregated military forces of the CSA had in their combat ranks 13,000 Indians (one of them a Brigadier General); 6,500 Hispanics (19% of them officers with nine Colonels); 5,500 Jews (one of them Secretary of State); many thousands of immigrants; a handful of Filipinos from Louisiana; two Amerasian sons of Chang and Eng (the first "Siamese Twins"); and an unknown (but well-documented) number of Free and slave Blacks who willingly fought for their states, following a 50-year established Southern tradition.

Emotion may offer those who believe that "ignorance is bliss" all they need, but the facts of history provide the basis for sound decisions.

First of all, the Constitution does not contradict itself. Secession is not an insurrection. It was taught at one time at West Point from the textbook of a Federal Judge, William P. Rawle from Pennsylvania. It explains in its entirety how a State goes about seceding. Believe me, this military academy would in no way teach treason to its cadets. Also, see Article IV, Section 4. How can the United States guarantee each State a Republican form of government by coercion? It also says that the United States can protect them from domestic violence only by application of their respective State Legislatures or the Executive Branch of said government. I doubt seriously a State would secede and then turn around and ask for it to be invaded. To put it bluntly, the Constitution forbids the President to make war and Congress to invade a State. The right of secession is reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment. It plainly states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,or to the people.” Power is delegated down, not up. In other words, the Federal Government only has the powers that the States let them have or by the enumerated powers in the Constitution, period. If there was a law against secession, the Constitution would be very plain on this matter, as it was on every thing else. The right of secession was also worded into various State Constitutions, both North and South upon ratification of the U.S. Constitution. I don’t recall any of those states being invaded for having documented this right reserved to them. Here are some worthy quotes from this Nation’s founders and other statesmen which reinforce State Sovereignty and secession.” “The thirteen States are thirteen sovereignties.” James Wilson of Pennsylvania “Each State enjoys sovereign power.” Governor Morris “The thirteen States are thirteen sovereign bodies.” Oliver Ellsworth “The States are Nations.” Daniel Webster “If the Constitution is a compact, then the States have a right to secede.” Justice Joseph Story “If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States.” Daniel Webster “If it were a consolidated government the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient to establish it, but it is to be binding on the people of each state, and only by their own separate consent.” Alexander Hamilton “I the Constitution is adopted (and it was) the Union will be in fact and in theory an association of States or a Confederacy.” Alexander Hamilton

I’m aware that many Southern leaders took the position that slavery was a “positive good.” However, many Southerners didn’t buy it, including Robert E. Lee. There are many things that American leaders espouse today that the average citizen rejects as hype or as outright PR spin. One only has to read Southern journals from the era to see that there were many Southern citizens who did not like slavery and who certainly didn’t view it as a positive good.

When push came to shove, even Jefferson Davis was prepared to abolish slavery to save Southern independence. Two years earlier, Duncan Kenner, one of the richest planters in the South and a leader in the Confederate Congress, urged that slavery be abolished in order to gain European recognition and to rob the abolitionists of a propaganda tool. Davis and Kenner and several other CSA leaders were more interested in independence than they were in the continuation of slavery.

I believe that with the lower CSA tariff, the South would have had an even stronger economy and a much more diverse economy, and that slavery would have died off in three to four decades.

We should bear in mind that when most Northern states “abolished” slavery, they did so with huge grandfather clauses (some of which encompassed four to five decades) and with various back-door compensation programs that combined to allow Northern slaveholders to more than recover the cost of their slaves.

Wisconsin is still paying for black suffrage right now. Look how they contribute to society, oh that’s right they don’t. They just bleed us dry from welfare, prisons, gangs. Good think we were on the cutting edge of letting the blacks have something.

“Seems Union States were blatantly shirking their obligations under the US Constitution and numerous legal agreements.”

Legal agreements, you say? You mean, like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850? The one that Wisconsin’s Supreme Court declared unconstitutional? The one that our state legislature nullified and that our governor prepared Wisconsin for war - with the Union if necessary - in order to stop?

The law that made it a federal crime to aid in the escape of a fugitive from slavery? That law? You racist bastards.

Darn straight the Civil War was about slavery. And if the Slave states had not seceded, it was only a matter of time before the Free states would have done so for them. And won the war, despite British and French aid for the Slave Power.

The struggle continues. End the racist war on drugs. End the racist immigration war. Full reparations for slavery. Full reparations for genocide. And stamp out the Klan wherever it raises its pointy head, here, in Virginia, anywhere.

“You racist bastards”. Brilliant repose.

“You can offer up as many quotes as you wis, Loren. We’ll offer quotes & historical texts that contradict you.”

Care to start? Because so far, the only person in this thread to offer any quotes from Confederate persons has been me. To be specific, I cited the President, Vice-President, and Secretary of State of the Confederacy, along with the official state declarations of cause, which are pretty authoritative as to what the Confederacy was seceding over.

So if you have some rebuttal quotes from some Confederate leaders, share ‘em.

“Most knowledgeable persons are aware that Lincoln was motivated only to “preserve the union” (read forcibly retain the section which had 30% of the population but paid 80% of the federal revenue) and by his own admission, it was immaterial whether he freed “some of the slaves, all of the slaves, or none of the slaves.” Emancipation was a political expedient only; in fact, the Proclamation itself pretended to free only those slaves in states “currently in rebellion.” Slaves in border states loyal to the Union were to remain enslaved. Hardly a friend of the Negro, Lincoln had declared in the Lincoln-Douglas debates that he had no intention of granting such privileges of citizenship to freedmen as making them lawyers or jurors, since he considered them racially inferior.”

Three things.

First, why is Lincoln’s motivation relevant to why the South wanted to secede? The South wanted to protect slavery, and did so by seceding. Lincoln didn’t want them to secede. Just because Lincoln wasn’t motivated by slavery doesn’t mean the South wasn’t. And the Confederacy’s President, VP, and Secretary of State said they were motivated by slavery.

Second, can you give a source for Lincoln ever saying “some of the slaves, all of the slaves, or none of the slaves”? Because neither a Google nor an Amazon search turns up any results on that quote.

Third, a Google Groups search did turn up this: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/browse_thread/thread/1962492751603db2/5ceda72faa141609?lnk=st&q=%22some+of+the+slaves%2C+all+of+the+slaves%2C+or+none+of+the+slaves%22&rnum=3# This paragraph of yours matches a 1999 Usenet post word-for-word. I can’t readily accuse you of plagiarism, Anonymous, since you may be the same guy who wrote the material in that post. But then, if you are the guy who wrote that post, then you should easily be able to provide a source for that quote I asked about above.

The Fugitive Slave Law was brought forth to the House by a northern speaker of the House. It was voted for by northerners representing districts in New Hampshire, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Massachusettes, Delware, California, and yes, your very own Wisconsin (one Charles Durkee of Southport).

Representatives from free states numbered 141 and from slave states, 91. It could easily have been killed. But it wasn’t, now was it?

Mike Columbus, Ohio

The Civil War, as I’m aware, was not about slavery per se, but the right to own property. Similar parallels can be drawn today with the abortion issue. Does a woman own her life, the embryo’s life, or does the embryo have some sort of intrinsic “right” to be born?

If there is a “right” to be born, then why do miscarriages occur naturally?

“When push came to shove, even Jefferson Davis was prepared to abolish slavery to save Southern independence.”

Now here’s a good rebuttal. It certainly paints a slightly better picture of Davis and the Confederacy.

Unfortunately, that picture is from late 1864, and it shows a Confederacy that was foundering and just months away from surrendering. Davis likely knew what was in store if the Union was reunited (Davis was charged with treason and imprisoned for two years; the South suffered through Reconstruction; and of course slavery was outlawed), and wanted to avoid that at whatever cost necessary. It shows that even though the Confederacy was birthed in order to protect slavery, it eventually viewed self-defense as even more important.

On the other hand, this example doesn’t rehabilitate the Confederacy as much as it first appears. Even if the CSA was willing to sacrifice slavery near the end, the fact that slavery was still seen and used as the pivotal issue that could sway foreign powers suggests that it was the central political issue of the day.

Still, best rebuttal yet.

My God! I thought the civil war or whatever name you prefer was over. We cannot change history. Discussion and debate is Ok but move on to multiple current critical issues… . Please…

First of all, the War was not (repeat NOT) about slavery and only slavery. That myth is ridiculous upon any reasonable examination of the historical record. Therefore, it follows that the basis for the sarcasm and ignorant hyperbole in your editorial lies in tatters at your feet. Let’s review a few pieces of the historical record.

President Lincoln, in his first inaugural address (March 4, 1861) said:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Lincoln went on to add that he supported the Corwin Amendment which was a proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit Congressional interference with slavery in the states where it already existed. You see, Lincoln made it clear that enforcing the tariff laws (gotta have that revenue!!) was his primary objective. At 1860, Southern states paid 75-90% of the total tariffs collected by the U.S. government. Slavery was not the issue….unless, you’re saying that Lincoln was a liar?

If so, he was an habitual one. Here he goes again. On August 22, 1862, after the Confederate States had declared their independence and after Lincoln declared his intention to invade and subjugate those states, and after the Yankee army moved into Virginia for the first major battle (July 21, 1861 —- First Manassas aka Bull Run) and was repelled by the Confederate defenders, Abe Lincoln wrote a letter to Horace Greeley, a noted abolitionist, of the New York Tribune in which he said:

“If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” —Abraham Lincoln, Aug. 22, 1862 letter

If you count Fort Sumter as the beginning of the war (April 12, 1861), then the war has been going on for one year and four months, and still Lincoln is writing his penpals emphatically that slavery is not the issue. Hmmm.

As you point out, Confederate Heritage Month would afford us many opportunities to address questions about why so many “educated” people in Georgia, the South and across the country know so little about the true history of the War Between the States, or the War for Southern Independence, or the War to Preserve Federal Revenues. Why are there people like Eric Foner writing commentaries putting forth Abraham Lincoln as anti-war constitutionalists? Author Thomas J. DiLorenzo, in his essay entitled “The Unknown Lincoln,” explains the prevailing Lincoln Mythology this way:

“It is a testament to the effectiveness of 140 years of government propaganda that a 308 page book filled with true facts about Lincoln could be entitled “The Lincoln No One Knows.” It is not a matter of a poorly-performing government education system but quite the opposite: The government schools have performed superbly in indoctrinating generations of American school children with a pack of lies, myths, omissions, and falsehoods about Lincoln and his war of conquest. As Richard Bensel wrote in Yankee Leviathan, any study of the American state should begin in 1865. The power of any state ultimately rests upon a series of government-sponsored myths, and there is none more prominent than the Lincoln Myth.”

Certainly an educated person such as yourself should know that MLK day is to celebrate all his best qualities. Only a media racist would try to educate people only on his adultery, his plagiarism, his woman beating, and his communist ties—- right? Why then can’t the media racists allow us to honor the positives about our Confederate ancestors? Especially since we are dedicated to teaching the truth without exaggeration and without omission—-why not? Care to answer?

And the “funny” thing about all these sudden calls for slavery apologies —- they are centered in the South.

Wonder why Hillary Clinton doesn’t demand one from New York, or Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts? Citizens of the New England states built enormous fortunes on the slave trade. Brown University (Rhode Island) issued a report about their founders’ involvement in the Atlantic Slave Trade. It was profitable, and that’s why it was the New England states that opposed any limitation on the Atlantic Slave Trade in the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits any legislation on the subject before the year 1808. Note that none was ever enacted in the U.S. until 1865.

Syndicated columnist Joseph Sobran, in his essay entitled “Slavery in Perspective,” writes:

All this puts something of a damper on the assumption that slavery was a sin specific or "peculiar" to the American South. The slaves had been Africans who were sold to European merchants by other Africans who had enslaved them in the first place. Several of Africa's proudest empires were built on the sale of slaves. For centuries Africa's chief export was human beings. When Congresswoman Maxine Waters speaks of "my African ancestors' struggle for freedom," she doesn't know what she's talking about. Slavery was an African institution long before it spread to the South, and there was no abolition movement to trouble it. When Europe banned the slave trade, African economies reeled.

So it's rather comical for American blacks to sentimentalize Africa and stress that they are "African Americans" while cursing the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery. Africa has a much better claim to be such a symbol. Slavery still exists there, in Sudan and Mauritania and probably elsewhere. All the African slaves brought across the Atlantic to what would become the United States were brought on ships flying the British Union Jack or the U.S. stars and stripes (New England slave traders). It’s rather hypocritical that these flags get a free pass, while all the invective and venom and anger about slavery are heaped upon the flags and symbols of the Confederate soldiers. Why do you think there’s such widespread ignornance of American history and world history?

Yes, we really are in dire need of furthering the education of those who hold sway over us. Mullis is heading in the right direction. My vote is to get the Confederate History Month and ditch the apology.

http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/bearden-mcnaughton-nonsense032107.phtml

Son, you need educated before opening mouth.

Welcome to the Wisconsin Division Sons of Confederate Veterans Home Page! http://www.geocities.com/ad4os/WIDIVSCV/

CIVIL WAR!?…Civil war is, a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.

The Southern Confederacy was a nation. As a nation She had a President, Vice President, a congress, past laws, collected tax’s, voted and maintained a standing army and “small” navy. That army did not fight to overthrow the U.S. government, it fought to preserve it’s new sovereignty, and stop a U.S. invasion. The war was a war between “Two Nations” The Confederate States of America and The United States of America,

That great war may be called by many names, Civil War is not one of them!

“The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole…we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.” - Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860

“They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the people’s pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest…. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They (the North) are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it.” ~ New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861

“What were the causes of the Southern independence movement in 1860?” “Northern commercial and manufacturing interests had forced through Congress taxes that oppressed Southern planters and made Northern manufacturers rich.”…”… the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North.” - Charles Adams, “For Good and Evil. The impact of taxes on the course of civilization,” 1993, Madison Books, Lanham, USA, pp. 325-327

Antebellum history often seems dominated by scenes of plantations worked by slaves. Although thousands of large plantations “many owned by northern bankers” employed slave labor and produced most of the South’s cotton, numerically there were more small farmers, mostly whites, who cultivated the upland areas with their own hands. Many of these yeomen were subsistence farmers and produced only a surplus of cotton for market. Southern farmers who did not grow cotton sold some of their foodstuff to the planters. Cotton could bring prosperity or depression, according to changes in the market, and these fluctuations meant very differing experiences for whites, slaves, and antebellum free blacks of each different region of the South.

The first three years of war, exchange of prisoners was common practice. Early 1864, Lincoln stopped this practice”Grant’s advice” This new policy was crafted to keep C.S. exchanges from returning to their units. The South had no replacements to call on. The North, on the other hand had a million troops around Washington that had never seen the elephant!…Lincoln had not a care for his soldiers in Southern prisons, he was pleased it a burden for The Confederates!

The worst prison camp during the War For Southern Independence was NOT Andersonville but Rock Island, Illinois. This Union camp had an estimated 72% death rate as compared to Andersonville’s 27% !! The South also suffered more deaths in union prisons than union in Southern prisons. The Confederate prisoner’s were starved and deprived of the essentials to survive the harsh winters of the north. This done by a nation that had ample means to provide for the prisoners. The South could not even provide for it’s own troops!

In the beginning of these horrors the Confederate government renewed the efforts for exchange of prisoners. These efforts fell on deaf ears, Lincoln would sacrifice his own to handicap the South!….PoP

It has been said that history is created by those who write it rather than those who live it. This is hyperbole, of course, but each historian does indeed write from a particular perspective. So Americans, depending on what schools they attend and which historians they rely on, may have differing views of the same event.

Also, many Americans rely on public libraries for their knowledge of history. But, contrary to what many think, the purpose of public libraries is not to present balanced views but to make available to their patrons the most sought after books. Public libraries, unlike libraries affiliated with universities, stock their shelves with best sellers or books receiving favorable reviews in mass market journals.

Quite a few people derive their knowledge of history from fictional accounts; novels, plays, films, and TV. This is especially true of depictions of the War Between the States. This unparalleled event in our history has continued to inspire fictional works for 140 years….more on this HERE. http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis46.html

Northern historians have traditionally laid the blame for the War of 1861 at the feet of the Confederates at Charleston, South Carolina for their allegedly unprovoked attack upon the helpless United States garrison besieged in Fort Sumter. The Official Records , published by the U.S. War Department in the 1880s, tell a completely different story one in which the South was deliberately and treacherously maneuvered by the Lincoln Administration into firing the first shot.

The Chief Surgeon of camp Elmira was overheard to boast, before resigning to avoid court martial, he had killed more rebels than any Union soldier. Bottom line & there was 3,866 more Confederate soldiers who died in Union prisons than Union soldiers in Confederate prisons… Gore Vidal

According to Rhodes, in his “History of the United States,” Vol. IV., page 344, he says; “Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was not issued from a humane standpoint. Lincoln hoped it would incite the Negroes to rise against the women and children. “His Emancipation Proclamation was intended only as a punishment for the seceding states. It was with no thought of freeing the slaves of more than 300,000 slaveholders then in the North.” His Emancipation Proclamation was issued for a fourfold purpose and it was issued with fear and trepidation lest he should offend his Northern constituents.

He did it: “First: Because of an oath - that if Lee should be driven from Maryland he would free the slaves.” “Second: The time of enlistment had expired for many men in the army and he hoped this would encourage their re-enlistment.” “Third: Trusting that Southern men would be forced to return home to protect their wives and children from Negro insurrection.” “Fourth: Above all he issued it to prevent foreign nations from recognizing the Confederacy.”

Lincoln admitted that he thought that the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation would “result in the massacre of women and children in the South.” No mass insurrection ever took place. The violence that did occur as result of Lincoln’s document took place in the North.

In New York, the most violent riot ever in the United States took place as citizens protested against Lincoln’s political maneuver coupled with his initiation of the draft. On July 13, 1863, in New York City, a riot broke out and raged for 3 days in what historian Burke Davis called “the nearest approach to revolution” during the entire war.

Mobs surged through the streets, burned buildings, and destroyed the drum from which the names of 1,200 New Yorkers had been drawn for military service. There were no soldiers to check the violence, due to the concentration of all available troops at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, so policemen and militia units had to face the rioters alone.

The angry mob burned fine homes, business buildings, the draft office, a Methodist church, a Negro orphanage, and many other buildings. A Negro was hung, then burned as people danced around the burning body. More than thirty Negroes were killed - shot, hung, or trampled to death. It had been reported that Negroes were hung from the lamp posts along the streets. The mobs grew to an estimated strength of between 50,000 and 70,000. For three days they swarmed through the streets, setting up barricades on First, Second, and Eighth Avenues, where sometimes a force of only 300 policemen would have to face 10,000 attackers at a time. Some troops filtered into town, and the crowds took to alleys and rooftops where they killed soldiers with bricks and guns. The gangs caught the colonel of a militia unit, stomping and beating him to death. After dragging him to his home, men, women, and children danced around his body. Eventually, enough troops arrived to put an end to the rioting. Casualties were heavy -nearly 2,000 people were dead from the melee.

Chaotic conditions in the North were in sharp contrast to those in the beleaguered Southland where one might have expected that the exigencies of war would necessitate curtailment of basic privileges, yet never was the writ of habeas corpus suspended during the lifetime of the Confederate States of America. Many soldiers in the U.S. Army, especially in the Western theater, laid down their arms due to Lincoln’s issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation. They refused to fight after finding that the federal government had implied that the war was, from that point, to be fought over the issue of slavery.

The Constitution protected slavery in peace, but in war, Lincoln came to believe, the commander in chief could abolish slavery as a military necessity. The preliminary Emancipation Proclamation of Sept. 22, 1862, bore this military justification “This only freed salves in the States of Secession” , as did all of Lincoln’s racial measures, including especially his decision in the final proclamation of Jan. 1, 1863, to accept blacks in the army. By 1864, Democrats and Republicans differed clearly in their platforms on the race issue: Lincoln’s endorsed the 13TH Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery, whereas McClellan’s pledged to return to the South the rights it had in 1860.

Gen. Donn Piatt re: Lincoln

I hear of him and read of him in eulogies and biographies, and fail to recognize the man I encountered for the first time in the canvass that called him from private life to be President of the United States. Piatt then goes on to describe a conference that he and General Schenck had with Lincoln in his home in Springfield. “I soon discovered that this strange and strangely gifted man, while not at all cynical, was a skeptic; his view of human nature was low; … he unconsciously accepted for himself and his party the same low line that he awarded the South. Expressing no sympathy for the slave, he laughed at the Abolitionists as a disturbing element easily controlled, without showing any dislike to the slave-holders… . We were not at a loss to get at the fact and the reason for it, in the man before us. Descended from the poor-whites of a slave State, through many generations, he inherited the contempt, if not the hatred, held by that class for the negroes. A self-made man, … his strong nature was built on what he inherited, and he could no more feel a sympathy with the abolition of slavery, but held fanatics, as Abolitionists were called, in utter abhorrence. While it seemed a cheap philanthropy, and therefore popular, to free another man’s slave, the unrequited toil of the slave was more valuable to the North than to the South.

Lincoln, great emancipator and savior of the Blacks?

We didn’t go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back, and to act differ at this moment, would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause but smack of bad faith. The Price of Freedom: Slavery and the Civil War, Volume I, p. 319 (Hans L. Trefousse, “Lincoln and Race Relations”).

I have no purpose to introduce political or social equality between the white and negro race. There is a physical difference between the two which probably will forever forbid their living together on the same footing of equality. I, as well as any other man, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary. A.Lincoln

I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes,or of qualifying them to hold office…. A.L…9/15/1858

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery… A.L 3/4/1861

If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, letter to Horace Greeley, A.L….” 8/22/1862

“What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races.” Abe Lincoln: From a speech in Springfield; 17 July 1858

Tommy Aaron

Nice to see that confederate racists have nothing better to do than troll a college newspapers’ website on a Friday

Interesting, the further away one gets from the actual war itself, the more revisionists insert their politically correct interpretation of the facts (making them no longer facts).

I wonder, has anyone at the UW ever heard the name Anthony Johnson? He is the first person who actually brought a case to court (the U.S. was merely a colony of England at the time… I believe the case was in what is now Virginia) where it was determined a man could own another.

The interesting thing about Anthony Johnson being a slave owner was the fact HE WAS OF AFRICAN HERITAGE and black. Had Anthony lost his court case, there quite probably would have never been slavery in the US and the Civil war would not be in the history books at all.

anti shoutout to cutting and pasting others’ opinions

Anonymous (March 23, 2007 @ 6:25pm): Nice to see that confederate racists have nothing better to do than troll a college newspapers’ website on a Friday

Anonymous (March 23, 2007 @ 6:34pm): anti shoutout to cutting and pasting others’ opinions

Copied from my research and my website: http://www.thesouthernamerican.org/

Tommy Aaron

Slaves were involved in the building of the u.S. Capitol between 1790 and 1863. The slaves worked in the quarries of Virginia, digging and transporting the stone. At the building site the slaves performed the truly backbreaking work required to place the cut stones on the walls of the Capitol building. They dug trenches and ditches, hauled lumber and performed other tasks requiring great strength and stamina. About half the workforce at the Capitol building site were such slaves. Many were leased to the u.S. government by local farmers and lumber mills…. Them me ol’ yankees and we are the bad, bad Southerners!

You children do not even know what racism is.

Almost any view of history can be “proved,” depending on what facts are selected (or fabricated) and how they are interpreted. It is easy to argue that slavery was a pretext for secession. Secession hurt rather than helped the interests of the slaveowners — for example, secession dramatically reduced the slave states’ influence in Congress in regard to the issues of fugitive slaves (I don’t even know why this was an issue because usually once they were gone, they were gone for good) and the territorial expansion of slavery. The secessionists could argue that the Republicans and Northern Democrats, by opposing unlimited expansion of slavery, were violating the Dred Scott decision’s interpretation of the Constitution — in contrast, the secessionists could not make a constitutional argument against high tariffs. It is noteworthy that the secessionists ignored a major Northern concession on slavery, a proposed irrevocable constitutional amendment that would have forever barred the federal government from interfering with slavery in the states. Also, the issues of states’ rights and home-defense cannot be ignored. Also, fights over censorship of Confederate mementos impairs objectivity in the interpretation of history.

Walter If The War of 1861-1865 Was Really About Slavery…

* Why didn't Lincoln just arm the slaves?

* Why didn't Lincoln simply buy the slaves off?

* Why didn't Lincoln order his troops NOT to fire on slaves during General Sherman's infamous march?

* Why did over 97,000 blacks fight on the side of the Confederacy?

* Why did Northern States outlaw slavery AFTER the war was over? Delaware rejected the 13th Amendment and did not ratify it (free the slaves) until 1901!

* Why did Union troops destroy what was knowingly part of the Underground Railroad during key campaigns?

* Why do we still condone slavery in other countries (such as China)?

* How did burning Atlanta help the free blacks in that city? How many were killed?

* If the South wanted Slavery and the North didn't, then why didn't the Northern States secede from the Southern States and offered free passage north to blacks? Wouldn't that have been much simpler?

* Why are there numerous articles from those days about the war being fought over money and federal rule vs state sovereignty?

* And finally... Why won't ANY member of the NAACP debate Southern Heritage Supporters publicly on these matters?

For all you “seceded over slavery” people. Keep in mind that Va, NC, Tenn, and Ark all agreed to remain in the Union untill Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to go South and kill people so they would remain loyal.Kinda like beating the wife so she won’t leave. And everyone saying how great you are for saving the marriage!

I know there are those who will twist everything I say into meaningless garbage, those are the ones who have no concept of history, only revisionist history.

It is horrible that those in the south would dare celebrate the heroes of the Confederacy. I mean, they all stood for bad things. Of course, it is ok to celebrate the African heritage, I mean, those poor people did not know that they were selling their own into slavery (yes, it was the Africans who were capturing and selling other Africans to the Europeans). Perhaps, for that very reason, we should ban Black History Month. I mean, if bad things in one's heritage are grounds to condemn the whole, then so be it.

I do not know whether Lincoln was a racist, nor do I really care for that matter. I can also tell you, not one person here know either (even though some speak extensively through the wrong orifice trying to convince others they know the true Lincoln). The one thing I do know, the actions of the Union resulted in it being illegal to own another human being (thus slavery was ended).

There is not one person alive today in the United States who ever owned another human while on U.S. soil, why we have to bring up reparations and all this other garbage is beyond me. It is a dark time in history and that is why it is so important to know about it so the past does not repeat itself. It is wrong to revise history, yet there are so many hell bent on doing so.

Hi Loren Collins. You sure have become an expert in copy and paste. You just posted the very same stuff you copied and pasted in the Red and Black columns. You just have a grand old time with copy and paste over and over on all the boards.

As we all know (and it must be true, right?), the Union army swept through the evil South freeing grateful slaves and defeating the Confederate trolls and ogres who make up the minions of darkness. And if you look closely enough, you’ll see angels flying above the armies of goodness and light, singing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” And right about now would be a good time to add a vomiting emoticon.

Son, get an education. Just like the vast majority of the American sheeple, you’ve been brainwashed with myths about the Confederacy by the imperial federal propaganda machine.

“Anonymous (March 23, 2007 @ 12:02pm):

My work here is done. - Germain E. Stemme” Mac?

Hey cajie,

Yes, I used the same quotes and my citations for them in my first post. Should I rephrase the brief introductions to each quote? I can’t very well rephrase the quotes themselves.

Every other post I’ve made in this thread, though, has been original to this thread, and directly responsive to other posts.

Heck, your post at the Red & Black from 3/20 @ 1:45 PM beginning “Diversity and The Confederate States of America!” was copied word-for-word from http://www.rense.com/general56/theforgottenblackconfed.htm . And, even assuming that you wrote the original piece you copied, most of that isn’t quotes.

Am I the only person who finds it ironic that some people copy entire published works here in violation of copyright law, but they post the copyright notice?

Morons!

one thing i will say here is a quote from two people: Uganda President Yoweri Museveni states he blames “black traitors” more than white Europeans for the 17th and 18th century slave trade. “African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them,” he said. “If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today.” - March 1998

it is fascinating to me that WE should be made to apologize for slavery , when it was African tribal leaders who sold those who were conquered during tribal wars to the muslim slavers, and no that is not some sort of “racist rhetoric” that is cold hard historical FACT.

“They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people’s pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest… These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They [the North] are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it.” ~ New Orleans Daily Crescent, 21 January 1861

the “revisionist history” you scream about so loudly is what has been forced down our throats by the empire for 144 years. After the conquest of the confederacy was complete, yankee spin doctors wanted to make it look good for future generations.

and lastly: “Send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit this.” - Abraham Lincoln, as cited in “The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,” Roy Basler oh yeah, he wanted to free the slaves, but only so that he could send them off of his white continent, some savior of the blacks

Does it make me a redneck if I root for Matt Kenseth? He’s union and not confederate.

There was a time when I was much of the same opinion of the author. I started reading books about the Civil War a few years ago. However, I read enough books that it became obvious to me that something was missing. I just had this gut feeling that there was missing information in regards to the southern perspective. Having heard that the victors write the history and about the politics of getting a book published I decided to dig deeper.

I discovered just to name a few things like the south with 30% of the population was paying 70% of the federal taxes with only about 10% being returned. The south had an eye on ending slavery without going bankrupted. Brazil was the last county to end slavery in the 1880's. Northerners did not free their slaves(mostly) but sold them to the rural south or were compensated by various means by the federal government. All of the ports that were responsible for the importation of slaves were northern ports. Lincoln offered to prolong slavery forever if the south would just come back. Slavery was legal in the United States even after the emancipation proclamation (read it carefully).

It was primarily northern politicians that voted for the 3/5 of a man (if you will) clause. Most people of the day including Lincoln considered themselves superior to blacks. This includes many white abolitionist. The frictions between white and black abolitionist is well recorded.

In 1866 just after the war the new regular army formed regiments of segregated black troops. These buffalo soldiers help clear out the western Plains Indians with genocidal tactics in the name of manifest destiny. It seems ironic that the north would supposedly fight a war to end slavery and then embark on genocide.

I'm glade I no longer think like the author. This is why we need a Confederate History month.

Confederates were not Americans. I am an American that would love to forget that treasonous blight on our history. Confederates may as well have been commies as far as Im concerned. They were stupid, un-American and probably pro-abortion. The sooner we forget about those traitors; the better.

How many stars and stripes are on the confederate flag? They should outlaw that Un-American, pro-NASCAR flag.

So in your opinion there were NO SlAVES in the Northern States during The War for Southern Independence? That’s TOTAL B.S.!!! Your Hero Gen. U.S. Grant OWNED SALVES untill 18DEC1865, over 8 months after the Cofederate Army Surrendered. Mr. Lincon, HELD SLAVES in the White House during the war, but excuse me Sir’ they were not called slave they were servants. Gen Sherman’s men during thier march to the sea, AFTER BURNING ATLANTA, destroyed the homes and burned crops and stole livestock ,of OLD MEN,WOMEN AND CHILDREN!! Upon Sherman’s arrival on Coulmbia SC, there are numerous reports of THE RAPING of the Black women, beacuase The Yankees felt that the BLACKS were unsuperior to the white men. You Sir before you put the FULL BLAME of Slavery on the CSA, need a history lesson. GEN grant was also qouted to say”If I knew that this war would free the slaves, I would not be fightng it.” Yes Sir, I AM a SCV member, I had 10 ancestors that fought in the Army of Tennessee, AND NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM OWNED SLAVES!!! Only 4% of the Southern population OWNED SLAVES. Where it was nearly 10% above the Mason-Dixon. Slavery was wrong, but it’s far from being the Main reason the war was fought. It was about money. It was about unfair taxes. It was about taxation without represination. Where have you heard that Before? 100 years from now in the history books it will be written, teh Iraq War was beacuase Sadam had Weapons of mass destruction!! 4 years later, theres yes to be the FIRST ONE FOUND. WE ARE IN THAT MESS BEACUSE OF MONEY!! YOU CAN”T racist beacuse, I am married to a Black woman. One more thing, THERE WAS NEVER A SLAVE BROUGHT INTO THIS COUNTRY, ON A SHIP THAT FLEW THE CONFEDERATE FLAG, THEY ALL CAME HERE ON SHIPS THAT FLEW THE STARS AND STRIPES!! Prove me Wrong,IF YOU CAN!!! DEO VINDICE!!!

You say the War Between the States was over Slavery but it was not. Lincoln said he had no intention of interfering in slavery. Only 6% of Southerns had slaves - and there is no way 94% of any population is going to fight for 6% to keep slaves!!

Learn some real truth - if you have the courage - read “Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War,” Eric Foner, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 84 - “..By 1860, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Oregon had all prohibited Negroes from entering their boundaries. Congressman David Wilmot, the Pennsylvanian, whose name lives on with the Wilmot Proviso to bar slavery in any territories taken from Mexico, made no bones about white-supremacist motivations: Far from any ‘squeamish sensitiveness on the subject of slavery, (or) morbid sympathy…I plead the cause of the free white man.’ He urged that the West must be reserved for whites because ‘the negro race already occupies enough of this fair continent.’”

The Northern States did not fight to free the slaves, Grant said if he thought that was the case, he would take his troops and go home. You need to read the REAL history.

On a related note, if you’re really interested in proving that the North’s primary agenda in fighting was not to free the slaves, I have a better quote for you:

“If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

• Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862

Take note of two things here. One, Lincoln, being President of the US, is in a very qualified position to say what the US’s cause was in fighting a war. Plus, he made this statement during the war, not years before it or years after. This makes it a most persuasive quote.

Second, while it’s good evidence of the Union’s reason for going to war and fighting after the South seceded, it doesn’t speak at all to the question of why the Southern states chose to secede in the first place. For the answer to that question, you need to look to those persons in qualified positions to elucidate that motive. And as I’ve demonstrated above with a dozen examples, multiple such persons stated that they seceded over slavery.

I would just go with the blue-state secession idea. We blue states pay 2/3 of the federal the Treasury collects every year. The red states (most of which were Confederate states) are actually welfare-client states of the federal government. It is THEIR elected representatives that control the spending.

If we blue states were to suddenly leave and take our money with us, the red states would starve. They’d have to raise their taxes astronomically and they still couldn’t pay off the deficit. We blue state, however, would have a windfall and better-than-balanced state budgets, enough money to improve our schools, our health care, our homeless, our roads. We’d have international support for secession. we’d be the single most powerful economy in this hemisphere. Most red-staters don’t care if we secede. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says we can’t secede-it wouldn’t be our Constitution anymore anyway. What’s stopping us?

“Lincoln, being President of the US, is in a very qualified position to say what the US’s cause was in fighting a war.”

Oh, like Bush is in a qualified position to say that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs. Oh, wait, no it’s about spreading freedom in the Middle East.

There’s an eerie number of parallels between Lincoln and Bush as well as their manipulation to engage the US in illegal and unjustified wars.

Being born, raised, & educated in Ohio I took the “free the slaves” stuff hook, line, and sinker. After years of independent research I’ve concluded that the South was right. Many parallels between words of Jefferson, Confederate leaders, and in the modern Libertarian movement. The crux of which is “leave me alone, don’t take my earnings, and leave me alone”.

Mike Columbus, OH

“Oh, like Bush is in a qualified position to say that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs. Oh, wait, no it’s about spreading freedom in the Middle East.”

Did you read my Lincoln quote? He’s saying that the Union was NOT fighting to free the slaves. In fact, somebody else earlier in the thread already used the same quote to defend the Confederacy.

My point is that whether the North was fighting to free slaves is not at all the same as whether the South seceded to protect slavery.

“Being born, raised, & educated in Ohio I took the “free the slaves” stuff hook, line, and sinker. After years of independent research I’ve concluded that the South was right.”

It’s funny, I’m the exact opposite. I’ve lived my whole life in Georgia, and I was raised to think that the South seceded for good and noble reasons. My independent research produced such evidence as I’ve shared above, and convinced me that the Confederacy most definitely seceded over the issue of slavery.

On the other hand, as I distinguished the issues above, I still hold that the North did not go to war over slavery. But that in no way rehabilitates the South’s reason for seceding in the first place.

“But that in no way rehabilitates the South’s reason for seceding in the first place.”

Regardless of reasons, do you believe states have the right to secede? (I do for the record).

All the wars ever fought on this earth have been fought over one of the following - money or women. If you examine every conflict in every nation, you will find one of those - sometimes, both.

The war you have referred to was fought over money, not slavery. Lincoln made slavery an issue to keep Britian from joining the fight - I am not sure he needed to do that as the Union would have probaly still won the war but it would have definately have drug on for much longer.

It seems we’re still fighting over money - look at the Middle East conflicts (oil is money). I’m not sure we start wars over women anymore but money - oh yeah!

“All the wars ever fought on this earth have been fought over one of the following - money or women.”

I beg to differ…The majority of wars were fought in the name of religion….Ya know, that man made thing. No such thing as religion, only the word of God and faith.

I am all for Blue State Secession. Then the Red States will invade them, shred their governments to pieces in the holy name of Union, rape their women, kill their men, steal and burn their property and keep them as a economic colony for 100 years. The Blue States are a harbor for abortion—the worst genocide in the history of man and no compromise can be made with them. Peace cannot be had until the Blue State power is crushed permanently. Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!

I think I sound like Horace Greeley or maybe Ralph Waldo Emerson or any number of fanatic Yankees from 150 years ago now. All irony aside, I think secession is perfectly good thing for all concerned. Of course, my people, the people of the South, will not lift a finger to stop you. We are better than your ancestors were on that issue.

To the “gentleman” advocating stripping the vote from Southern voters I would simply say this: I think there is plenty of Zyklon B left in the world. Why don’t you try to exterminate us instead? God knows that had the technology been invented in the 1860s, people like James Lane and Thad Stevens would have tried it.

One more thing: Loren Collins, please transfer to Wisconsin. You undoubtedly hate your native state and probably even secretly pulled for the Badgers when the Dawgs beat their butt in the recent bowl games.

lol @ one of the first comments bashing Bush and stating that southerners shouldn’t be allowed to become President. Yet, the poster’s recent demi-Gods have been Carter, Clinton, and Gore. I suppose they’re the exceptions to the rule. lol

As for the post about Confederates being pro-abortion I must agree 100%, but only with respect to your mother.

As for the article, the author should also recognize the entire history of the United States, including the unjust system of slavery that ruled there.

ALRIGHT ANDREW YOUNG MAN: YOU’VE CHALLENGED A GENTLEMAN FROM THE GREAT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TO DEFEND HIS HONOR. AND MY HONOR AND HERITAGE I SHALL PROTECT! FIRST OF ALL THE FIRST THING THAT HAPPENS IN A SCV MEETING IS THE “I PLEDGE ALLIEGENCE TO THE (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)” AND WE USE UNDER GOD. SO YOU HAVE BEEN MOST INFORMED. THE SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS ARE JUST THAT. WE ARE DECENDANTS OF CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS. IN MY CASE A CONFEDERATE CAVALERY OFFICER. WE WERE NOT PLANTATION OWNERS. WE WERE MISSOURIANS. YES WE LIVED IN THE TWELFTH STAR ON THE SAINT ANDREWS CROSS. HAVE YOU STUDIED THE ORGIN OF THE ST. ANDREWWS CROSS? HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHY THE CONFEDERATE STATES TOOK MISSOURI AND KENTUCKY IN AS THE 12th AND 13th STARS ON THE BATTLE FLAG OR ST. ANDREWS CROSS? WHY DID LINCOLN CALL THEM BORDER STATES? THESE ARE SOME OF THE RESEARCH YOU MUST DO TO CONDUCT AN INTELLGENT CONVERSATION ABOUT THE CONFEDERACY YOUNG MAN. THERE WERE ONLY 20% OF THE NATIONS SLAVED EVEN IN THE SOUTH. THE NORTHERN STATES (AND THE PROFF IS HERE TODAY TO PROVE IT) WERE THE BIG INDUSTRIAL STATES. THEY TOOK 70% OF THEIR TAX MONIES FROM THE POOR AGGRECULTURAL STATES IN THE SOUTH. “GONE WITH THE WIND” IS A FICTIONAL MOVIE OKAY? THE SOUTH ONLY RECIEVED 10% BACK FROM THE 70% IT GAVE TO WASHINGTON. IF THEY WERE ALIVE I DARE SAY GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THOMAS JEFFERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THEIR OWN SUCEDED STATES OF VIRGINIA, THE CAPITAL OF THE CONFEDERACY. YOU CANNOT PUT A PERSON DOWN AND MAKE THEM POOR DIRT FARMERS WHILE TAXING THEM TO DEATH TO BUILD BIG FACTORIES AND BIG CITIES. ANDREW, ASK YOURSELF, WHERE ARE ALL THE BIG FACTORIES AND BIG CITIES. ARE THEY NOT IN THE NORTHEASTERN PART OF THIS COUNTRY? WELL THEN I REST MY CASE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BRING UP THE CASE OF GENERAL SHERMAN. THIS UNION GENERAL; DID HE FIGHT LIKE A MAN SOLDIER TO SOLDIER. “NO” HE BURNED ATLANTA TO THE SEA WITH A 100 MILE SWATH OF MURDEROUS, RAPING DESTRUCTION. HE AND HIS TROOPS RAPED WOMEN BOTH BLACK AND WHITE, CHILDREN. THEN KILLED THEM. THE INNOCENT PEOPLE LEFT BEHIND WHO JUST HAPPENED TO BE IN THE WRONG GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCATED PART OF THIS COUNTRY. WAS THAT ENOUGHT FOR HIS CRUEL AN MURDEROUS RAMPAGE ON INNOCENT PEOPLE? HE WAS EVEN HONORED BY THE U.S. GOVT. WITH HIS NAME ON A U.S. MADE TANK. “THE SHERMAN TANK” SIR, WE SOUTHERNERS OR “BIBLE BELT AS WE ARE CALLED ARE CHRISTIANS.” WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO RESPOND TO THE SHERMANS FROM THE NORTH. HERE IS THE FACTS.
THE NORTH SIMPLY STOLE FROM THE SOUTH AND DID NOT INVEST ANY MONEY FOR BACK INTO IT. NOW FOR YOUR INFORMATION. ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS THE MOST VILE, LYING, CRUELEST THING “EVER” TO ENTER THE DOORS OF THE WHITE HOUSE OF THESE UNITED STATES. I WILL LEAVE YOU WITH A LITTLE HISTORY ON THIS MAN AND THEN MAKE YOUR OWN MIND UP.
In 1861 President-Elect Lincoln lobbied and pushed through a proposed Consitutional amendment to protect slavery forever (Corwin Amendment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_amendment). Two State legislatures ratified it: Ohio on May 13, 1861; followed by Maryland on January 10, 1862. Illinois bungled its ratification by holding a convention.

In his December, 1862, State of the Union Address Lincoln offered the South gradual compensated emancipation with slavery lasting until 1900. Lincoln issued his hypocrtical "Emancipation Proclamation" only after this offer failed.

The "Emancipaton Proclamation" did not free a single slave nor was it intended to do so. Union slave states remained unaffected as did areas of the South controlled by Union forces and even the entire Confederate state of Tennessee. Because of the language in the proclamation approximately 800,000 slaves remained in bondage in the North and South until December, 1865, almost eight months after Lee surrendered - meaning that the United States was the last slave nation in North America.

European nations saw clearly what was happening.

“…So Englishmen saw it. Lincoln’s insincerity was regarded as proven by two things: his earlier denial of any lawful right or wish to free the slaves; and, especially, his not freeing the slaves in ‘loyal’ Kentucky and other United States areas or even in Confederate areas occupied by United States troops, such as New Orleans.” - The Glittering Illusion: English Sympathy for the Southern Confederacy, Sheldon Vanauken, 1989, Washington, DC: Regnery/Gateway

How did Lincoln feel about Blacks?

“Negro equality, Fudge!! How long in the Government of a God great enough to make and maintain this Universe, shall there continue to be knaves to vend and fools to gulp, so low a piece of demagoguism as this?” - Abraham Lincoln 1859 [Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol III, pp 399, Basler, ed.]

“A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together… Such separation, if ever affected at all, must be effected by colonization… The enterprise is a difficult one, but ‘where there is a will there is a way:’ and what colonization needs now is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and at the same time, favorable to, or at least not against our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be.” - An address by Abraham Lincoln at Springfield, Illinois, on June 26, 1857 [Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol II, pp 408-9, Basler, ed.]

“I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” - Abraham Lincoln, as cited in “The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,” Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press

“Send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit this.” - Abraham Lincoln, as cited in “The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,” Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.,: Rutgers University Press

Protector of the Constitution?

“Among the unconstitutional and dictatorial acts performed by Lincoln were initiating and conducting a war by decree for months without the consent or advice of Congress; declaring martial law; confiscating private property; suspending habeas corpus; conscripting the railroads and censoring telegraph lines; imprisoning as many as 30,000 Northern citizens without trial; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, after Vallandigham - a fierce opponent of the Morrill tariff — protested imposition of an income tax at a Democratic Party meeting in Ohio; and shutting down hundreds of Northern newspapers.” - “Constitutional Problems under Lincoln,” James G. Randall, 1951, Urbana: University of Illinois Press

Gimme a break!

Having been born in the North (Michigan) and schooled in the North and having lived in Florida for over five years and then returning to the North, I have to say that Northern (Michigan) history taught the Northern version of the Civil War. I am not saying the Southern version was right.

What I discovered in the South, some 25 years ago, was Whites and Blacks talking and laughing with each other, something I did not see in the North (Michigan).

I soon learned that many Southerners said it was about taxes on their raw goods more than slavery that caused them to secede. And it was not illegal for a state to do so. They broke no law doing that.

It was Lincoln’s cruel order to go war and kill over half a million young men.

When I left the North, black men swept floors and cooked meals, they did this for a wage, and probably a small one.

In the South, blacks operated heavy machinery, worked with whites and then went home to their segregated neighborhoods.

No, it wasn’t an integrated lifestyle in the South back in the late 1970’s and 1980’s. But it wasn’t an integrated lifestyle in the North either!

Unfortunately the slaves that the African chiefs sold to the slave traders were slow.

That is the gene pool of the Afro American. That is why they lag behind academically