Monday, May 10, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
6 May in History
1536--King Henry VII Tudor of England orders English language Bibles to be placed in every church.
1861--The State of Arkansas secedes from the Union and joins the Confederacy.
1861--Richmond, Virginia is declared the capital of the Confederacy.
1863--Confederate forces defeat the Union at the Battle of Chancellorsville.
1877--Chief Crazy Horse of the Oglala Sioux surrenders in Nebraska.
1935--The first flight of the Curtiss P-36 Hawk.
1937--The German Zeppelin Hindenburg is destroyed by fire at Lakehurst, New Jersey.
1941--The first flight of the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt.
1942--The last American forces surrender to the Japanese at Corregidor, the Philippines.
1981--Maya Ling Yin's design for the Vietnamese Memorial in Washington, D.C. is selected by a team of architects.
1861--The State of Arkansas secedes from the Union and joins the Confederacy.
1861--Richmond, Virginia is declared the capital of the Confederacy.
1863--Confederate forces defeat the Union at the Battle of Chancellorsville.
1877--Chief Crazy Horse of the Oglala Sioux surrenders in Nebraska.
1935--The first flight of the Curtiss P-36 Hawk.
1937--The German Zeppelin Hindenburg is destroyed by fire at Lakehurst, New Jersey.
1941--The first flight of the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt.
1942--The last American forces surrender to the Japanese at Corregidor, the Philippines.
1981--Maya Ling Yin's design for the Vietnamese Memorial in Washington, D.C. is selected by a team of architects.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
U.S. Marines Discharged for Confederate Tattoos
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Marines boot recruits with Confederate tattoos
You won't believe what military thinks of historic Southern symbol
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 04, 2010
8:23 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
U.S. Marine hoists Confederate flag during World War II (photo: WWII in Color)
A widely regarded Southern symbol of pride and states' rights is standing in the way of would-be Marines in their quest to serve their country – a Confederate battle flag.
Straight out of high school, one 18-year-old Tennessee man was determined to serve his country as a Marine. His friend said he passed the pre-enlistment tests and physical exams and looked forward with excitement to the day he would ship out to boot camp.
But there would be no shouting drill instructors, no rigorous physical training and no action-packed stories for the aspiring Marine to share with his family.
Your favorate flag, whether it's the Stars and Stripes, the Gadsden, the Navy Jack or another, is at the WND Superstore's flag store!
Shortly before he was scheduled to leave Nashville for boot camp, the Marine Corps rejected him.
Now, the young man, who wishes to remain unnamed and declined to be interviewed, has chosen to return to school and is no longer an aspiring Marine.
"I think he just wants to let it go," said former Marine 1st Lt. Gene Andrews, a friend of the man and patriotic Southerner who served in Vietnam from 1968 through 1971. Andrews is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group of male descendents of Confederate soldiers. He counseled the young man when he decided to become a Marine.
"He had been talking to me, and he was all fired up about joining," he told WND. "He asked my opinion of it, and I just tried to tell him the truth, good points and bad points."
When the young recruit didn't go to boot camp, Andrews learned of his rejection based on his tattoo of the Confederate battle flag on his shoulder.
'Right now, it's a flat-out denial'
Current Marine Corps tattoo policy states, "Tattoos/brands that are sexist (express nudity), racist, eccentric or offensive in nature, express an association with conduct or substances prohibited by the Marine Corps drug policy and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to include tattoos associated with illegal drugs, drug usage or paraphernalia, are prohibited. Tattoos/brands that depict vulgar or anti-American content, bring possible discredit to the Marine Corps, or associate the applicant/Marine with any extremist group or organization are prohibited."
WND contacted the Tennessee recruiting station, and a Marine sergeant explained, "The policy is if a tattoo can be construed by anyone as being gang-related or racially biased, then we can't accept them."
VIetnam war heroes hoist Confederate flag (photo: Tears of 'Nam)
While some extremist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations have embraced the Confederate flag in the past, the KKK has also adopted the U.S. flag and Christian crosses as symbols. However, many Southerners do not consider the flag an expression of racism or indicator of membership in extremist groups. They regard the Confederate flag as a symbol of state sovereignty and an honorable tribute to the men who fought and died to protect their homeland from invasion by the federalist North.
Asked whether an exception might be made for a Marine recruit who could provide a full explanation on the meaning of his tattoo as an expression of Southern pride, the recruiter explained, "At this point in time, no. If it can be construed by anyone as being racially biased, then right now it's a flat-out denial."
He acknowledged that the tattoo is quite popular in the South and that recruitment has been impacted by the ban on Confederate-flag tattoos, but he explained that the policy has been set by Headquarters Marine Corps.
Headquarters Marine Corps has not responded to WND's requests for clarification of the policy.
However, the U.S. Marine Corps "Guidebook for Tattoo Screening, Volume VII," a manual that outlines procedures for enlisted recruiting and officer procurement operations, explains, "Users of this guidebook should keep in mind, however, that few symbols ever just represent one idea or are used exclusively by one group. For example, the confederate flag is a symbol that is frequently used by white supremacists but which also has been used by people and groups that are not racist. To some it may signify pride in one's heritage, but to others it suggests slavery or white supremacy."
Opening statement in Marine Corps 'Guidebook for Tattoo Screening, Vol. VII'
'We've seen this before'
Other service members and recruits have dealt with similar issues concerning Confederate flag tattoos and military policy.
(Photo: The Florida Patriot)
The Southern Legal Resource Center, or SLRC, is a nonprofit legal foundation that has handled a number of legal cases involving the Confederate battle flag.
"We've seen this before," SLRC Chief Trial Counsel Kirk Lyons told WND. "This is not a unique situation. We have had instances where people have called who were hassled by Marine military police for having a small Confederate battle flag sticker on their vehicle. We had a Navy recruit who was turned away for having a Confederate battle flag tattoo on his forearm. There was one more incident a couple of years ago where another Marine recruit was refused enlistment because of a battle flag tattoo."
Lyons said the case of the Marine with a Confederate flag bumper sticker was resolved without legal action because the base commander decided to leave it alone. However, he said most enlistees and recruits don't pursue legal action or complaints, so the policy is never challenged.
"If a family is not willing to make an issue of it and push it, there's really nothing we can do because we have to have standing," he explained.
On the other hand, enlistees often cooperate so their careers don't suffer, Lyons said.
"They've got to keep their mouths shut because they're very career-oriented," he said. "You either get with the program, or you're going to destroy your career. The military is going to fight it tooth and nail. In a lot of cases like this, there's nobody to support these guys. They're on their own."
He added, "Somebody's got to stand up and say, 'I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.' If people surrender their rights and just go on, there's not much we can do."
(Story continues below)
'This is an insult to us'
As for Andrews, he walked into the local Marine recruiting station in Madison, Tenn., that had turned the recruit away. He met a staff sergeant and informed him of his family's defense of Tennessee during the Civil War and his own service in Vietnam.
"I had thought about it, and the more I thought about it, the more I felt like this is just not right," he said. "I thought, if we just sit here, we're going to be slapped around and stepped on forever."
In a recent commentary posted on numerous blogs, Andrews recounted his experience:
"I informed the young sergeant that my family had defended the state of Tennessee (also his home state) against a sadistic invasion under that flag and to call our sacred flag of honor a 'hate symbol' was an insult to all southerners, but especially to those southerners who had risked or even given their lives in service to the Marine Corps. Southerners had served at Belleau Woods, at Tarawa and Iwo Jima, at Inchon and the Chosin Reservoir, and at Khe Sanh and Hue City, but now we are no longer wanted in the politically correct, don't-offend-any-minorities military?"
(Photo: The Florida Patriot)
The sergeant politely explained that the policy was handed down by headquarters.
Andrews continued, "I asked the sergeant if he had taken out the trash yet. He replied that he hadn't.
"I then said, 'Please add these to the day's garbage,' and returned my lieutenant's bars, my gold and silver Marine Corps emblem from my dress blues, my shooting badges and my Vietnam ribbons.
"I, like many of you, have always been told, 'Once a Marine, always a Marine,' and 'There are no ex-Marines, only former Marines,' but for me that is no longer true."
Andrews told WND he was born in the South, raised in the South and will always be a Southerner.
"This is an insult to us," he said. "We've laid our lives on the line in the Marine Corps since there was a Marine Corps. We fought in every campaign that the Marine Corps has been involved in. When I was in Vietnam, there were Confederate flags at every base, every fire-support base over there. Nobody said anything about it. There were state flags, Confederate flags, and it was no big deal."
Andrews said he is not angry. Rather, he is disappointed in the Marine Corps.
"I thought if it had been a bunch of political hacks or a school board or a local government or some municipality that was pretty spineless anyway, I really wouldn't have been surprised," he said. "That happens all the time. But I felt that the Marine Corps had a little more backbone and a little more character than that."
Asked what he would say to people who believe the Confederate flag represents racism and slavery, he responded, "I'd say they don't know much about history. Slavery existed under the United States flag much longer than it ever did under the Confederate flag."
He added, "It's pitiful to bring up historical topics to some of our young people today. They just stare at you like you're from outer space. If you're going to be led around by the nose in this country by the government, if you can't figure out what's true and what's not and what kind of propaganda they're giving you, that's a sad situation."
Cemetery in Lewisburg, Pa., with graves of Union soldiers marked with U.S. flag and grave of Confederate soldier with Confederate flag. (photo: Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs)
Confederate flag: Symbol of 'terrorism' or independence?
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, recently fought to ban the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Statehouse. NAACP leaders have said the Confederate flag "supports the evils of slavery" and "represents terrorism."
However, in his 1999 commentary, columnist Walter Williams argued, "It must be ignorance, an ignorance I once shared. The NAACP crowd sees the Confederate battle flag as a flag of slavery. If that's so, the United States flag is even more so. Slavery thrived under the United States flag from 1776 to 1865, while under the Confederate flag a mere four years."
(Re-enactment photo. Source: Politics and Culture)
He explained, "The birth of both flags had little or nothing to do with slavery. Both flags saw their birth in a violent and proud struggle for independence and self-governance."
Williams noted that the flag naturally symbolizes resentment for those individuals who see the War for Southern Independence solely or chiefly as a struggle for slavery.
"The idea that President Abraham Lincoln waged war against the South to abolish slavery is fiction created by the victors," he explained. "Here's an oft-repeated sentiment by President Lincoln: '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.' Slavery simply emerged as a moral front for northern aggression."
Williams explained that significant factors that led to the war included states' rights and tariffs Congress enacted to protect Northern manufacturing interests. He also cited professor Edward Smith, director of American studies at American University, who has calculated that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy.
"These black Confederate soldiers no more fought to preserve slavery than their successors fought in WWI and WWII to preserve Jim Crow and segregation," Williams wrote. "They fought because their homeland was attacked and fought in the hope that the future would be better and they'd be rewarded for their patriotism."
Williams then suggested the NAACP make an effort to memorialize and honor black Confederate soldiers.
Meanwhile, a May 9, 2000, survey by Gallup Poll News Service posed this question to Americans, "Do you, yourself, see the Confederate flag more as a symbol of Southern pride, or more as a symbol of racism?"
A full 59 percent of all respondents said they believe it is a symbol of Southern pride, while only 28 percent saw it as a symbol of racism.
"It's kind of a hot topic for us right now," the Tennessee Marine recruiter said of the Marine Corps policy on Confederate flag tattoos. "Personally, I don't have any problems with it. I have friends, both white and black, who don't have any problems with it. But there are also those out there who do see it as being racially biased."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Marines boot recruits with Confederate tattoos
You won't believe what military thinks of historic Southern symbol
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 04, 2010
8:23 pm Eastern
By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
U.S. Marine hoists Confederate flag during World War II (photo: WWII in Color)
A widely regarded Southern symbol of pride and states' rights is standing in the way of would-be Marines in their quest to serve their country – a Confederate battle flag.
Straight out of high school, one 18-year-old Tennessee man was determined to serve his country as a Marine. His friend said he passed the pre-enlistment tests and physical exams and looked forward with excitement to the day he would ship out to boot camp.
But there would be no shouting drill instructors, no rigorous physical training and no action-packed stories for the aspiring Marine to share with his family.
Your favorate flag, whether it's the Stars and Stripes, the Gadsden, the Navy Jack or another, is at the WND Superstore's flag store!
Shortly before he was scheduled to leave Nashville for boot camp, the Marine Corps rejected him.
Now, the young man, who wishes to remain unnamed and declined to be interviewed, has chosen to return to school and is no longer an aspiring Marine.
"I think he just wants to let it go," said former Marine 1st Lt. Gene Andrews, a friend of the man and patriotic Southerner who served in Vietnam from 1968 through 1971. Andrews is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group of male descendents of Confederate soldiers. He counseled the young man when he decided to become a Marine.
"He had been talking to me, and he was all fired up about joining," he told WND. "He asked my opinion of it, and I just tried to tell him the truth, good points and bad points."
When the young recruit didn't go to boot camp, Andrews learned of his rejection based on his tattoo of the Confederate battle flag on his shoulder.
'Right now, it's a flat-out denial'
Current Marine Corps tattoo policy states, "Tattoos/brands that are sexist (express nudity), racist, eccentric or offensive in nature, express an association with conduct or substances prohibited by the Marine Corps drug policy and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to include tattoos associated with illegal drugs, drug usage or paraphernalia, are prohibited. Tattoos/brands that depict vulgar or anti-American content, bring possible discredit to the Marine Corps, or associate the applicant/Marine with any extremist group or organization are prohibited."
WND contacted the Tennessee recruiting station, and a Marine sergeant explained, "The policy is if a tattoo can be construed by anyone as being gang-related or racially biased, then we can't accept them."
VIetnam war heroes hoist Confederate flag (photo: Tears of 'Nam)
While some extremist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations have embraced the Confederate flag in the past, the KKK has also adopted the U.S. flag and Christian crosses as symbols. However, many Southerners do not consider the flag an expression of racism or indicator of membership in extremist groups. They regard the Confederate flag as a symbol of state sovereignty and an honorable tribute to the men who fought and died to protect their homeland from invasion by the federalist North.
Asked whether an exception might be made for a Marine recruit who could provide a full explanation on the meaning of his tattoo as an expression of Southern pride, the recruiter explained, "At this point in time, no. If it can be construed by anyone as being racially biased, then right now it's a flat-out denial."
He acknowledged that the tattoo is quite popular in the South and that recruitment has been impacted by the ban on Confederate-flag tattoos, but he explained that the policy has been set by Headquarters Marine Corps.
Headquarters Marine Corps has not responded to WND's requests for clarification of the policy.
However, the U.S. Marine Corps "Guidebook for Tattoo Screening, Volume VII," a manual that outlines procedures for enlisted recruiting and officer procurement operations, explains, "Users of this guidebook should keep in mind, however, that few symbols ever just represent one idea or are used exclusively by one group. For example, the confederate flag is a symbol that is frequently used by white supremacists but which also has been used by people and groups that are not racist. To some it may signify pride in one's heritage, but to others it suggests slavery or white supremacy."
Opening statement in Marine Corps 'Guidebook for Tattoo Screening, Vol. VII'
'We've seen this before'
Other service members and recruits have dealt with similar issues concerning Confederate flag tattoos and military policy.
(Photo: The Florida Patriot)
The Southern Legal Resource Center, or SLRC, is a nonprofit legal foundation that has handled a number of legal cases involving the Confederate battle flag.
"We've seen this before," SLRC Chief Trial Counsel Kirk Lyons told WND. "This is not a unique situation. We have had instances where people have called who were hassled by Marine military police for having a small Confederate battle flag sticker on their vehicle. We had a Navy recruit who was turned away for having a Confederate battle flag tattoo on his forearm. There was one more incident a couple of years ago where another Marine recruit was refused enlistment because of a battle flag tattoo."
Lyons said the case of the Marine with a Confederate flag bumper sticker was resolved without legal action because the base commander decided to leave it alone. However, he said most enlistees and recruits don't pursue legal action or complaints, so the policy is never challenged.
"If a family is not willing to make an issue of it and push it, there's really nothing we can do because we have to have standing," he explained.
On the other hand, enlistees often cooperate so their careers don't suffer, Lyons said.
"They've got to keep their mouths shut because they're very career-oriented," he said. "You either get with the program, or you're going to destroy your career. The military is going to fight it tooth and nail. In a lot of cases like this, there's nobody to support these guys. They're on their own."
He added, "Somebody's got to stand up and say, 'I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.' If people surrender their rights and just go on, there's not much we can do."
(Story continues below)
'This is an insult to us'
As for Andrews, he walked into the local Marine recruiting station in Madison, Tenn., that had turned the recruit away. He met a staff sergeant and informed him of his family's defense of Tennessee during the Civil War and his own service in Vietnam.
"I had thought about it, and the more I thought about it, the more I felt like this is just not right," he said. "I thought, if we just sit here, we're going to be slapped around and stepped on forever."
In a recent commentary posted on numerous blogs, Andrews recounted his experience:
"I informed the young sergeant that my family had defended the state of Tennessee (also his home state) against a sadistic invasion under that flag and to call our sacred flag of honor a 'hate symbol' was an insult to all southerners, but especially to those southerners who had risked or even given their lives in service to the Marine Corps. Southerners had served at Belleau Woods, at Tarawa and Iwo Jima, at Inchon and the Chosin Reservoir, and at Khe Sanh and Hue City, but now we are no longer wanted in the politically correct, don't-offend-any-minorities military?"
(Photo: The Florida Patriot)
The sergeant politely explained that the policy was handed down by headquarters.
Andrews continued, "I asked the sergeant if he had taken out the trash yet. He replied that he hadn't.
"I then said, 'Please add these to the day's garbage,' and returned my lieutenant's bars, my gold and silver Marine Corps emblem from my dress blues, my shooting badges and my Vietnam ribbons.
"I, like many of you, have always been told, 'Once a Marine, always a Marine,' and 'There are no ex-Marines, only former Marines,' but for me that is no longer true."
Andrews told WND he was born in the South, raised in the South and will always be a Southerner.
"This is an insult to us," he said. "We've laid our lives on the line in the Marine Corps since there was a Marine Corps. We fought in every campaign that the Marine Corps has been involved in. When I was in Vietnam, there were Confederate flags at every base, every fire-support base over there. Nobody said anything about it. There were state flags, Confederate flags, and it was no big deal."
Andrews said he is not angry. Rather, he is disappointed in the Marine Corps.
"I thought if it had been a bunch of political hacks or a school board or a local government or some municipality that was pretty spineless anyway, I really wouldn't have been surprised," he said. "That happens all the time. But I felt that the Marine Corps had a little more backbone and a little more character than that."
Asked what he would say to people who believe the Confederate flag represents racism and slavery, he responded, "I'd say they don't know much about history. Slavery existed under the United States flag much longer than it ever did under the Confederate flag."
He added, "It's pitiful to bring up historical topics to some of our young people today. They just stare at you like you're from outer space. If you're going to be led around by the nose in this country by the government, if you can't figure out what's true and what's not and what kind of propaganda they're giving you, that's a sad situation."
Cemetery in Lewisburg, Pa., with graves of Union soldiers marked with U.S. flag and grave of Confederate soldier with Confederate flag. (photo: Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veterans Affairs)
Confederate flag: Symbol of 'terrorism' or independence?
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, recently fought to ban the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Statehouse. NAACP leaders have said the Confederate flag "supports the evils of slavery" and "represents terrorism."
However, in his 1999 commentary, columnist Walter Williams argued, "It must be ignorance, an ignorance I once shared. The NAACP crowd sees the Confederate battle flag as a flag of slavery. If that's so, the United States flag is even more so. Slavery thrived under the United States flag from 1776 to 1865, while under the Confederate flag a mere four years."
(Re-enactment photo. Source: Politics and Culture)
He explained, "The birth of both flags had little or nothing to do with slavery. Both flags saw their birth in a violent and proud struggle for independence and self-governance."
Williams noted that the flag naturally symbolizes resentment for those individuals who see the War for Southern Independence solely or chiefly as a struggle for slavery.
"The idea that President Abraham Lincoln waged war against the South to abolish slavery is fiction created by the victors," he explained. "Here's an oft-repeated sentiment by President Lincoln: '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.' Slavery simply emerged as a moral front for northern aggression."
Williams explained that significant factors that led to the war included states' rights and tariffs Congress enacted to protect Northern manufacturing interests. He also cited professor Edward Smith, director of American studies at American University, who has calculated that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy.
"These black Confederate soldiers no more fought to preserve slavery than their successors fought in WWI and WWII to preserve Jim Crow and segregation," Williams wrote. "They fought because their homeland was attacked and fought in the hope that the future would be better and they'd be rewarded for their patriotism."
Williams then suggested the NAACP make an effort to memorialize and honor black Confederate soldiers.
Meanwhile, a May 9, 2000, survey by Gallup Poll News Service posed this question to Americans, "Do you, yourself, see the Confederate flag more as a symbol of Southern pride, or more as a symbol of racism?"
A full 59 percent of all respondents said they believe it is a symbol of Southern pride, while only 28 percent saw it as a symbol of racism.
"It's kind of a hot topic for us right now," the Tennessee Marine recruiter said of the Marine Corps policy on Confederate flag tattoos. "Personally, I don't have any problems with it. I have friends, both white and black, who don't have any problems with it. But there are also those out there who do see it as being racially biased."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
5 May in History
1215--Rebel barons renounce allegiance to King John, a prelude to the Magna Carta
1640--King Charles I dissolves the Short Parliament, a prelude to the English Civil War.
1789--In France, the Estates-Generale convenes for the first time since 1614.
1821--Emperor Napoleon I Bonaparte dies in exile on the island of Elba.
1862--The French invasion of Mexico is repulsed at the Battle of Puebla.
1945--the Netherlands and Denmark are liberated--Liberation Day in both countries.
1961--Alan Sheperd, in Mercury-Redstone 3, makes a sub-orbital flight.
1992--Alabama ratifies the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, bringing it into effect.
1640--King Charles I dissolves the Short Parliament, a prelude to the English Civil War.
1789--In France, the Estates-Generale convenes for the first time since 1614.
1821--Emperor Napoleon I Bonaparte dies in exile on the island of Elba.
1862--The French invasion of Mexico is repulsed at the Battle of Puebla.
1945--the Netherlands and Denmark are liberated--Liberation Day in both countries.
1961--Alan Sheperd, in Mercury-Redstone 3, makes a sub-orbital flight.
1992--Alabama ratifies the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, bringing it into effect.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
The War of Northern Aggression from a Confederate Viewpoint
The War of Northern Aggression Analyzed from the Confederate Viewpoint:
Length: 2176 words (6.2 double-spaced pages)
Rating: Red (FREE)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The War of Northern Aggression Analyzed from the Confederate Viewpoint
Thesis: The world today is blinded from the truth about the "Civil War" just like they are the truth of the creation vs. evolution debate. They're blinded in the same way as well, misleading text books. The truth is that the North, Lincoln, etc. weren't as great as they claimed to be, and that they went to illegal measures for an unjust cause.
The public school system was used as a tool of the government and still is to skew the American mind into believing whatever it wants. For example: at the present time the school child has evolution drilled into their head as fact, even though it has already been accounted for as false. The C.S.A. (Confederate States of America) President Jefferson Davis actually predicted this. He taught that if the South lost, then the North would write it's history. Therefore, the generations to come wouldn't understand the Confederate call for independence (Kennedy 17).
The public school system was put into effect after the North won the war. It's plan was to appeal with a free education, which it did. Then it used it's captives in it's scheme of confusing them about their parents cause. They were fed by such lies as the Confederates were prejudice slave-holders who beat black people for fun. This, of course, was very successful. Now a people who once believed in the federal government was here to help the states reach common goals, believe it's their supreme authority.
One of the lies that has already been mentioned is that the "Civil War" is over slavery. This is one of the most dead wrong statements that one could think of. First of all, 70 to 80 percent of Southern soldiers didn't even own slaves (Kennedy 34). People just don't get motivated enough to give up their life over whether their neighbor is going to be able to continue having something. One soldier in the Confederate army claimed, "I declare I never met a Southern soldier who had drawn his sword to perpetuate slavery." Secondly, even for the few slaveholders in the war, C.S.A. President Jefferson Davis, their leader, predicted that all slave property "will eventually be lost" no matter what the outcome (Kennedy 35). Why would a slaveholder risk his life to keep a slave that his leader already told him he'll lose in the future?
The next popular belief to destroy is that only white Southerners owned slaves. This one isn't even close to accurate. First things first, white men weren't the only slave holders. In fact, black men started slavery by enslaving their own people in Africa, but that's beside the point. In the 1830 American census, over 10,000 slaves were owned by other African-Americans (Kennedy 64, 65). This would also have to mean that there were free blacks in the South. Actually when a member of the 12th Connecticut came down, he said that he saw as many free blacks South as he did in larger cities North (Kennedy 134).
Another surprise will be that the North legalized slavery first in America. Believe it or not, Massachusetts legalized in 1641 while still a colony (Kennedy 71). Also, New Jersey still had slavery going on at the start of the war. In New Jersey to become a free black, you must be born after 1804 and be older than 21 years of age. So this means that everyone not born after 1804 is a slave for life and everyone else is until over 21. In the 1851 census, New Jersey still had 236 slaves for life (Kennedy 75). This was only ten years before the war! Here's the last one on slavery for now, Major General Ulysses S. Grant's wife owned slaves during the war (Kennedy 27). This is even more evidence that no one was fighting about slavery.
Everyone had their own views on whites and blacks or blacks and whites at this time, including the President Abraham Lincoln. Everyone loves him, yet no one knows him. It's really easy to appreciate what you don't know much about. In 1858, Lincoln was in a debate with Douglas in which he spoke on the relationship between whites and blacks. Listen for yourself:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway 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...I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race (Kennedy 27).
Go figure, Abraham Lincoln a white supremacist! Now that is something you won't here in the history books and neither is the next point about him. But if he was a white supremacist, then why would he be against slavery? It's because he wants separation from the black people. In another debate with Douglas, he says, and I quote, "Let us be brought to believe that it is morally right, and at the same time favorable to, or at least not against, our interests to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be" (Kennedy 28). It sounds like everyone will rejoice at Lincoln picking the splinter out of the South's eye, but they all miss the plank in his.
The Northern hypocrites were found more racist than their leader. In the North, the white carpenters, bricklayers, and painters refused to do work with the black people, but the whites in the South worked side-by-side with blacks on a regular basis (Kennedy 53,54). Then as well as Lincoln had his ideas with abolition, the Northern states had racist laws working with abolition in their states to keep Africans out. You see, the Northerners became abolitionist when they no longer felt a need for slaves or the black race at all. For example, Connecticut refused to educate blacks because they claimed it would bring them closer to equal with whites. New Jersey prohibited blacks from settling there (with the exception of the slaves we already mentioned). In Massachusetts the punishment of blacks staying there longer than two months required a public flogging. Then in Indiana, Illinois, and Oregon they just weren't allowed to enter the states at all (Kennedy 55). What does this tell you about what you've been taught?
The truth is that the average African-American was treated better as a slave than as a free man in the North. The famous William Lloyd Garrison stated that, "The free colored people were looked upon as an inferior caste to whom their liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than of the slaves..." (Kennedy 54). Now that is something that wasn't in my history books, any of them. Here's more proof: the people with a disability ratio, for whites it was 1 out of every 1000, for slaves it was 1 out of every 1464, but for freed blacks it was 1 out of every 506 (Kennedy 78). The freed slaves had almost 3 times as many ratio-wise!
It's hard to believe it was these people in the North controlling the government, but it makes it easier to understand the South's secession. Secession was a right given to the states back with our forefathers. Daniel Webster said in 1833, "If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States" (Kennedy 313). This was something that Thomas Jefferson & James Madison also stated in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions or 1798 (Kennedy 165). This is a right that was given to all states since the forming of the Constitution. The South seceded from the Union just like Norway from Sweden, but the North didn't accept the right and invaded the South anyway (Kennedy 199, 200).
This forced the South to fight a battle or liberty and independence (McPherson 9). In the Creation of Confederate Nationalism, Faust writes that, "...the ideology of Southern independence made it clear that a military victory would not be achieved without a significant moral and society change" (9). A reply to this is that if the Confederates had anything, they had moral character. An aspect that the yankees showed next to nothing.
U.S. Captain N. Lyon and his men forced the surrender of Camp Jackson which was holding a picnic, unarmed. General Frost was there and tells of how the unarmed people were fired upon, killing innocent men, women, and children. Later a crowd of citizens formed, to which the troops fired at, killing 10 and wounding 20 non-combatants, mostly women and children (Davis 357). This is the one of thousands of ruthless attacks by Northern oppressors on unarmed civilians.
U.S. General Benjamin Butler had a 21 year-old young man hung for lowering the American flag. While in Louisiana, he told his officers that they were to treat the ladies of the invaded cities as prostitutes (Kennedy 129). Later U.S. General Palmer wrote him a surprising letter on the forced "saving" of slaves by Union troops. He wrote, "The negroes will not go voluntarily...The matter of collecting the colored men for laborers has been one of some difficulty...They must be forced to go...this may be considered harsh measure, but...we must not stop at trifles" (Kennedy 102).
How can this be that blacks would rather stay than go with yankee troops? Maybe slaves weren't so eager to escape as they were thought to be. The majority of slaves actually stayed and kept watch for their master's and supervisors while they were at war (Kennedy 89). Another interesting fact is that over 70% of slave narratives only had positive things to say about their relationship with their masters (Kennedy 85, 86).
Major General William Tecumseh Sherman was a famous, but evil man. He sent his army to Marietta, Roswell, and New Manchester, Georgia. His troops were assigned to take or burn everything which sent the civilians of the area into starvation, except for over 2000 women and children that were shipped North as "workers", or white slaves (Kennedy 123, 124). He wrote once, "...[I] fight...to sustain a Government...independent of niggers, cotton, money, or any earthly interest" (Kennedy 291). He wasn't the only racist general though. General John Pope wrote, "It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux." Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant was also in on the havoc & chaos. He wrote in 1864, "In pushing up the Shenandoah Valley...it is desirable that nothing should be left...such as cannot be consumed destroy..." (Kennedy 283).
Even the U.S. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton was a partner in these awful crimes of terror. In the summer of 1864, the Union Captain Harry Truman was convicted of murder, arson, and larceny, and sentenced to be hanged. Stanton had him released and reassigned to D.C. even though he was caught "plundering" men, abusing women, killing unarmed civilians, etc. No one saw Truman again until he returned to Missouri with the same war crimes (Kennedy 284).
In September or 1861, General James H. Lane reported a skirmish that required him to reduce Osceola, Missouri to "ashes". On Lane's conduct, Major General Henry W. Halleck wrote to Major General George B. McClellan, "The conduct of the forces under Lane...I receive almost daily complaints of outrages committed by these men...the evidence is so conclusive as to leave no doubt of their correctness. It is rumored that Lane has been mad a Brigadier General. I cannot conceive a more injudicious appointment...its effect...is offering a premium for rascality and robbing generally." So McClellan took the letter to the President, Abraham Lincoln. After reading it, he turned it over and wrote, "An excellent letter, though I am sorry General Halleck is so unfavorably impressed with General Lane" (Kennedy 285).
The conclusion will be some yankee prisons statistics. Approximately 26,500 Confederate POWs died due to bad living conditions and murder while being held by the Union (Lang 350). The Union controlled prison in Elmira, New York had a 24% death rate. The Surgeon-in-Chief E. L. Sanger boasted he had, "killed more Rebs than any other soldier at the front" (Lang 334, 336). On the contrary, the Confederates offered complete Bibles and New Testaments as reading materials to their prisoners.
Works Cited
Davis, Jefferson. The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume I. New York: Da Capo Press, 1881.
Faust, Drew Gilpin. The Creation of Confederate Nationalism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Press, 1988.
Kennedy, James Ronald and Walter Donald Kennedy. The South was Right! Second ed. Gretna: Pelican Publishing Company, 1994.
Lang, J. Stephen. The Complete Book of Confederate Trivia. Shippensburg, PA: The Burd Street Press publication, 1996.
McPherson, James M. What They Fought For, 1861-1865. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1994.
How to Cite this Page
MLA Citation:
"The War of Northern Aggression Analyzed from the Confederate Viewpoint." 123HelpMe.com. 03 May 2010
.
Length: 2176 words (6.2 double-spaced pages)
Rating: Red (FREE)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The War of Northern Aggression Analyzed from the Confederate Viewpoint
Thesis: The world today is blinded from the truth about the "Civil War" just like they are the truth of the creation vs. evolution debate. They're blinded in the same way as well, misleading text books. The truth is that the North, Lincoln, etc. weren't as great as they claimed to be, and that they went to illegal measures for an unjust cause.
The public school system was used as a tool of the government and still is to skew the American mind into believing whatever it wants. For example: at the present time the school child has evolution drilled into their head as fact, even though it has already been accounted for as false. The C.S.A. (Confederate States of America) President Jefferson Davis actually predicted this. He taught that if the South lost, then the North would write it's history. Therefore, the generations to come wouldn't understand the Confederate call for independence (Kennedy 17).
The public school system was put into effect after the North won the war. It's plan was to appeal with a free education, which it did. Then it used it's captives in it's scheme of confusing them about their parents cause. They were fed by such lies as the Confederates were prejudice slave-holders who beat black people for fun. This, of course, was very successful. Now a people who once believed in the federal government was here to help the states reach common goals, believe it's their supreme authority.
One of the lies that has already been mentioned is that the "Civil War" is over slavery. This is one of the most dead wrong statements that one could think of. First of all, 70 to 80 percent of Southern soldiers didn't even own slaves (Kennedy 34). People just don't get motivated enough to give up their life over whether their neighbor is going to be able to continue having something. One soldier in the Confederate army claimed, "I declare I never met a Southern soldier who had drawn his sword to perpetuate slavery." Secondly, even for the few slaveholders in the war, C.S.A. President Jefferson Davis, their leader, predicted that all slave property "will eventually be lost" no matter what the outcome (Kennedy 35). Why would a slaveholder risk his life to keep a slave that his leader already told him he'll lose in the future?
The next popular belief to destroy is that only white Southerners owned slaves. This one isn't even close to accurate. First things first, white men weren't the only slave holders. In fact, black men started slavery by enslaving their own people in Africa, but that's beside the point. In the 1830 American census, over 10,000 slaves were owned by other African-Americans (Kennedy 64, 65). This would also have to mean that there were free blacks in the South. Actually when a member of the 12th Connecticut came down, he said that he saw as many free blacks South as he did in larger cities North (Kennedy 134).
Another surprise will be that the North legalized slavery first in America. Believe it or not, Massachusetts legalized in 1641 while still a colony (Kennedy 71). Also, New Jersey still had slavery going on at the start of the war. In New Jersey to become a free black, you must be born after 1804 and be older than 21 years of age. So this means that everyone not born after 1804 is a slave for life and everyone else is until over 21. In the 1851 census, New Jersey still had 236 slaves for life (Kennedy 75). This was only ten years before the war! Here's the last one on slavery for now, Major General Ulysses S. Grant's wife owned slaves during the war (Kennedy 27). This is even more evidence that no one was fighting about slavery.
Everyone had their own views on whites and blacks or blacks and whites at this time, including the President Abraham Lincoln. Everyone loves him, yet no one knows him. It's really easy to appreciate what you don't know much about. In 1858, Lincoln was in a debate with Douglas in which he spoke on the relationship between whites and blacks. Listen for yourself:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway 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...I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race (Kennedy 27).
Go figure, Abraham Lincoln a white supremacist! Now that is something you won't here in the history books and neither is the next point about him. But if he was a white supremacist, then why would he be against slavery? It's because he wants separation from the black people. In another debate with Douglas, he says, and I quote, "Let us be brought to believe that it is morally right, and at the same time favorable to, or at least not against, our interests to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be" (Kennedy 28). It sounds like everyone will rejoice at Lincoln picking the splinter out of the South's eye, but they all miss the plank in his.
The Northern hypocrites were found more racist than their leader. In the North, the white carpenters, bricklayers, and painters refused to do work with the black people, but the whites in the South worked side-by-side with blacks on a regular basis (Kennedy 53,54). Then as well as Lincoln had his ideas with abolition, the Northern states had racist laws working with abolition in their states to keep Africans out. You see, the Northerners became abolitionist when they no longer felt a need for slaves or the black race at all. For example, Connecticut refused to educate blacks because they claimed it would bring them closer to equal with whites. New Jersey prohibited blacks from settling there (with the exception of the slaves we already mentioned). In Massachusetts the punishment of blacks staying there longer than two months required a public flogging. Then in Indiana, Illinois, and Oregon they just weren't allowed to enter the states at all (Kennedy 55). What does this tell you about what you've been taught?
The truth is that the average African-American was treated better as a slave than as a free man in the North. The famous William Lloyd Garrison stated that, "The free colored people were looked upon as an inferior caste to whom their liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than of the slaves..." (Kennedy 54). Now that is something that wasn't in my history books, any of them. Here's more proof: the people with a disability ratio, for whites it was 1 out of every 1000, for slaves it was 1 out of every 1464, but for freed blacks it was 1 out of every 506 (Kennedy 78). The freed slaves had almost 3 times as many ratio-wise!
It's hard to believe it was these people in the North controlling the government, but it makes it easier to understand the South's secession. Secession was a right given to the states back with our forefathers. Daniel Webster said in 1833, "If the Union was formed by the accession of States, then the Union may be dissolved by the secession of States" (Kennedy 313). This was something that Thomas Jefferson & James Madison also stated in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions or 1798 (Kennedy 165). This is a right that was given to all states since the forming of the Constitution. The South seceded from the Union just like Norway from Sweden, but the North didn't accept the right and invaded the South anyway (Kennedy 199, 200).
This forced the South to fight a battle or liberty and independence (McPherson 9). In the Creation of Confederate Nationalism, Faust writes that, "...the ideology of Southern independence made it clear that a military victory would not be achieved without a significant moral and society change" (9). A reply to this is that if the Confederates had anything, they had moral character. An aspect that the yankees showed next to nothing.
U.S. Captain N. Lyon and his men forced the surrender of Camp Jackson which was holding a picnic, unarmed. General Frost was there and tells of how the unarmed people were fired upon, killing innocent men, women, and children. Later a crowd of citizens formed, to which the troops fired at, killing 10 and wounding 20 non-combatants, mostly women and children (Davis 357). This is the one of thousands of ruthless attacks by Northern oppressors on unarmed civilians.
U.S. General Benjamin Butler had a 21 year-old young man hung for lowering the American flag. While in Louisiana, he told his officers that they were to treat the ladies of the invaded cities as prostitutes (Kennedy 129). Later U.S. General Palmer wrote him a surprising letter on the forced "saving" of slaves by Union troops. He wrote, "The negroes will not go voluntarily...The matter of collecting the colored men for laborers has been one of some difficulty...They must be forced to go...this may be considered harsh measure, but...we must not stop at trifles" (Kennedy 102).
How can this be that blacks would rather stay than go with yankee troops? Maybe slaves weren't so eager to escape as they were thought to be. The majority of slaves actually stayed and kept watch for their master's and supervisors while they were at war (Kennedy 89). Another interesting fact is that over 70% of slave narratives only had positive things to say about their relationship with their masters (Kennedy 85, 86).
Major General William Tecumseh Sherman was a famous, but evil man. He sent his army to Marietta, Roswell, and New Manchester, Georgia. His troops were assigned to take or burn everything which sent the civilians of the area into starvation, except for over 2000 women and children that were shipped North as "workers", or white slaves (Kennedy 123, 124). He wrote once, "...[I] fight...to sustain a Government...independent of niggers, cotton, money, or any earthly interest" (Kennedy 291). He wasn't the only racist general though. General John Pope wrote, "It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux." Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant was also in on the havoc & chaos. He wrote in 1864, "In pushing up the Shenandoah Valley...it is desirable that nothing should be left...such as cannot be consumed destroy..." (Kennedy 283).
Even the U.S. Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton was a partner in these awful crimes of terror. In the summer of 1864, the Union Captain Harry Truman was convicted of murder, arson, and larceny, and sentenced to be hanged. Stanton had him released and reassigned to D.C. even though he was caught "plundering" men, abusing women, killing unarmed civilians, etc. No one saw Truman again until he returned to Missouri with the same war crimes (Kennedy 284).
In September or 1861, General James H. Lane reported a skirmish that required him to reduce Osceola, Missouri to "ashes". On Lane's conduct, Major General Henry W. Halleck wrote to Major General George B. McClellan, "The conduct of the forces under Lane...I receive almost daily complaints of outrages committed by these men...the evidence is so conclusive as to leave no doubt of their correctness. It is rumored that Lane has been mad a Brigadier General. I cannot conceive a more injudicious appointment...its effect...is offering a premium for rascality and robbing generally." So McClellan took the letter to the President, Abraham Lincoln. After reading it, he turned it over and wrote, "An excellent letter, though I am sorry General Halleck is so unfavorably impressed with General Lane" (Kennedy 285).
The conclusion will be some yankee prisons statistics. Approximately 26,500 Confederate POWs died due to bad living conditions and murder while being held by the Union (Lang 350). The Union controlled prison in Elmira, New York had a 24% death rate. The Surgeon-in-Chief E. L. Sanger boasted he had, "killed more Rebs than any other soldier at the front" (Lang 334, 336). On the contrary, the Confederates offered complete Bibles and New Testaments as reading materials to their prisoners.
Works Cited
Davis, Jefferson. The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume I. New York: Da Capo Press, 1881.
Faust, Drew Gilpin. The Creation of Confederate Nationalism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Press, 1988.
Kennedy, James Ronald and Walter Donald Kennedy. The South was Right! Second ed. Gretna: Pelican Publishing Company, 1994.
Lang, J. Stephen. The Complete Book of Confederate Trivia. Shippensburg, PA: The Burd Street Press publication, 1996.
McPherson, James M. What They Fought For, 1861-1865. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1994.
How to Cite this Page
MLA Citation:
"The War of Northern Aggression Analyzed from the Confederate Viewpoint." 123HelpMe.com. 03 May 2010
Some Real reasons for the War of Northern Aggression
This first appeared on the Anti-Establishment History Blog:
Some Real Reasons For The War Of Northern Aggression
By Al Benson Jr. On March 8 at 12:34 AM
By Al Benson Jr.
For much longer than I have been alive we have been getting phony “history” and, therefore, much erroneous comment about what the War of Northern Aggression was all about. I’ve read reams of screed by so-called “newspaper columnists” who rant and rave that “The South seceded so she could keep her slaves.” Hogwash! The South could have kept her slaves had she stayed in the Union. No one was trying to outlaw slavery in Dixie, so that’s not what the war was about.
Others have claimed the South committed treason when the Southern states seceded. More hogwash. After keeping Jeff Davis in jail as a political prisoner for two years the North could not come up with enough credible evidence to try him for treason. Even the Yankee politicians admitted among themselves that secession was not treason. And it was not a “civil war” either. A civil war is two opposing factions fighting for the control of one country. The South did not wish to take over Washington--they just wanted to leave in peace and go their own way.
Rev. Steve Wilkins of Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana has noted that: “There were numerous causes of the War (least of all was slavery). The theological declension that occurred during the first half of the 19th century laid the foundation.” The North and South had basic theological differences as the South tended toward a revival of the Reformation faith that this country was established on while the North seemed bent on pursuing the rampant apostasy of the Unitarians, spiritualists, feminists, and, yes, Marxists. The theological differences are something that are almost never discussed in “historical circles.” Several years ago C. Gregg Singer, who received his PhD. From the University of Pennsylvania wrote an excellent book called A Theological Interpretation of American History in which he documented the growing theological differences between the two regions. This is probably the reason least mentioned for the cause of the War. Politically correct “historians” are uncomfortable discussing religion unless it is their own (humanism).
Pastor Wilkins also noted the problem with tariffs--something else the historians would rather not mention, although they will deal with it grudgingly if forced to. We need to force them to. In his book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 author Frank Conner noted that Northern manufacturers wanted to overprice their goods “…in the firm knowledge that the competing low-priced British goods--with the tariffs added--would then be more expensive than theirs…Second, the Southerners bought most of the manufactured goods imported from Britain, largely because they sold most of their cotton to Britain; thus--by paying the tariff--the Southerners paid most of the costs of running the US government…and all of the Southern states were paying about 85% of the cost of running the federal government. By increasing the tariff rates, the North could force the South to pay most of the costs of the US government’s industrialization program--a program which would benefit the North tremendously, and the South not at all.” Talking about a little “redistribution of the wealth here? Such a deal! The Yankee Marxist mindset in action!
The North wanted to use Federal funds for their “internal improvements” program, and for subsidies for private businesses. Does this sound familiar? And you thought it started with Bush. These efforts at the corporate adultery of government and big Northern business were often stymied by Southerners in Congress, aided by conservative Northern Democrats, because they were, blatantly unconstitutional. They still are but that doesn’t matter anymore.
The Northern view of the country, with Unitarian and socialist influence, was that the central government in Washington should be increasingly more powerful while the states should be satisfied to become mere vassals to the collectivist leviathan. This didn’t set well with most Southerners, who held to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution--meaning that the Federal government should deal only with those areas delegated (not surrendered) to it and should stay out of everything else. Such an anachronistic position simply had to be dealt with because the South was holding up the “progress” (which they had paid for) of the rest of the country.
Pastor Wilkins has also noted that: “The more radical element (in the North) were desirous of removing the one barrier to the progressive consolidation of power with the central State authority. The destruction of the South would give them the liberty they needed to establish this change in the structure and philosophy of the national government.”
They wanted Lincoln in office then just as they want Obama in office today, because both of these men were (and are) willing to take the leftist position of what government should be doing. Both share the same collectivist mindset and both have sought to take the federal government far to the left of where it ought to be. The Marxist-influenced Lincoln was the same as the Marxist Obama is. Had Lincoln not been successful in his day we probably would not have Obama to deal with today.
Pastor Wilkins summed up by saying that: “Perhaps no war changed out nation like this war--especially in the size, reach, and role of the Federal Government. Behind the army and this massive bureaucracy stood a vastly transformed office of President with authoritarian power over almost every aspect of life in this Union.”
I hate to disappoint the court “historians” (not really) but on a list of ten reasons the War was fought, slavery might have been #9 on a good day.
Linking to This EntryTo put a link to this entry in your blog, in an email, or in another document, simply copy the web address below and paste it where you want it.
http://www.cakewalkblogs.com/antiestablishmenthistory/some-real-reasons-war-northern-aggression.aspx
Some Real Reasons For The War Of Northern Aggression
By Al Benson Jr. On March 8 at 12:34 AM
By Al Benson Jr.
For much longer than I have been alive we have been getting phony “history” and, therefore, much erroneous comment about what the War of Northern Aggression was all about. I’ve read reams of screed by so-called “newspaper columnists” who rant and rave that “The South seceded so she could keep her slaves.” Hogwash! The South could have kept her slaves had she stayed in the Union. No one was trying to outlaw slavery in Dixie, so that’s not what the war was about.
Others have claimed the South committed treason when the Southern states seceded. More hogwash. After keeping Jeff Davis in jail as a political prisoner for two years the North could not come up with enough credible evidence to try him for treason. Even the Yankee politicians admitted among themselves that secession was not treason. And it was not a “civil war” either. A civil war is two opposing factions fighting for the control of one country. The South did not wish to take over Washington--they just wanted to leave in peace and go their own way.
Rev. Steve Wilkins of Auburn Ave. Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana has noted that: “There were numerous causes of the War (least of all was slavery). The theological declension that occurred during the first half of the 19th century laid the foundation.” The North and South had basic theological differences as the South tended toward a revival of the Reformation faith that this country was established on while the North seemed bent on pursuing the rampant apostasy of the Unitarians, spiritualists, feminists, and, yes, Marxists. The theological differences are something that are almost never discussed in “historical circles.” Several years ago C. Gregg Singer, who received his PhD. From the University of Pennsylvania wrote an excellent book called A Theological Interpretation of American History in which he documented the growing theological differences between the two regions. This is probably the reason least mentioned for the cause of the War. Politically correct “historians” are uncomfortable discussing religion unless it is their own (humanism).
Pastor Wilkins also noted the problem with tariffs--something else the historians would rather not mention, although they will deal with it grudgingly if forced to. We need to force them to. In his book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 author Frank Conner noted that Northern manufacturers wanted to overprice their goods “…in the firm knowledge that the competing low-priced British goods--with the tariffs added--would then be more expensive than theirs…Second, the Southerners bought most of the manufactured goods imported from Britain, largely because they sold most of their cotton to Britain; thus--by paying the tariff--the Southerners paid most of the costs of running the US government…and all of the Southern states were paying about 85% of the cost of running the federal government. By increasing the tariff rates, the North could force the South to pay most of the costs of the US government’s industrialization program--a program which would benefit the North tremendously, and the South not at all.” Talking about a little “redistribution of the wealth here? Such a deal! The Yankee Marxist mindset in action!
The North wanted to use Federal funds for their “internal improvements” program, and for subsidies for private businesses. Does this sound familiar? And you thought it started with Bush. These efforts at the corporate adultery of government and big Northern business were often stymied by Southerners in Congress, aided by conservative Northern Democrats, because they were, blatantly unconstitutional. They still are but that doesn’t matter anymore.
The Northern view of the country, with Unitarian and socialist influence, was that the central government in Washington should be increasingly more powerful while the states should be satisfied to become mere vassals to the collectivist leviathan. This didn’t set well with most Southerners, who held to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution--meaning that the Federal government should deal only with those areas delegated (not surrendered) to it and should stay out of everything else. Such an anachronistic position simply had to be dealt with because the South was holding up the “progress” (which they had paid for) of the rest of the country.
Pastor Wilkins has also noted that: “The more radical element (in the North) were desirous of removing the one barrier to the progressive consolidation of power with the central State authority. The destruction of the South would give them the liberty they needed to establish this change in the structure and philosophy of the national government.”
They wanted Lincoln in office then just as they want Obama in office today, because both of these men were (and are) willing to take the leftist position of what government should be doing. Both share the same collectivist mindset and both have sought to take the federal government far to the left of where it ought to be. The Marxist-influenced Lincoln was the same as the Marxist Obama is. Had Lincoln not been successful in his day we probably would not have Obama to deal with today.
Pastor Wilkins summed up by saying that: “Perhaps no war changed out nation like this war--especially in the size, reach, and role of the Federal Government. Behind the army and this massive bureaucracy stood a vastly transformed office of President with authoritarian power over almost every aspect of life in this Union.”
I hate to disappoint the court “historians” (not really) but on a list of ten reasons the War was fought, slavery might have been #9 on a good day.
Linking to This EntryTo put a link to this entry in your blog, in an email, or in another document, simply copy the web address below and paste it where you want it.
http://www.cakewalkblogs.com/antiestablishmenthistory/some-real-reasons-war-northern-aggression.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)