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
How and Why Abraham Lincoln Started the War of Northern Aggression by Frank Connor
HOW AND WHY ABRAHAM LINCOLN STARTED THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION TO PROTECT HIS OWN POLITICAL CAREER
by Frank Conner
The North's Republican party came out of nowhere in 1854, formed from the wreckage of the Whig party (the Northern Conscience-Whigs), and from the Free-Soilers and the Know-Nothings. It opposed slavery, and it demanded a powerful national-government which would subsidize Northern industrialization. The new Republican party grew very rapidly. Not surprisingly, its key bankrollers were Northern capitalists--financiers, shippers, industrialists, etc. Two of its founders and strongest political-leaders were Salmon P. Chase (first a senator and then a governor); and William H. Seward (also a governor and a senator).
At the 1860 Republican convention in Chicago, Chase and Seward were the favored candidates. Lincoln was a dark horse. In national politics, he had served only in the House, and only for one two-year term--1847-49: he had left Congress 11 years earlier! Lincoln had only three things going for him: he was considered a political lightweight, who could easily be manipulated by the powerbrokers; he himself was from Illinois, so the convention hall was located on his own stomping-grounds; and both he and his campaign manager--David E. Davis--were extraordinarily-adroit politicians.
In 1860 the vast majority of the Republicans did not want war. But the relatively-mild Seward had earlier coined several phrases which led many to believe mistakenly that he was a warmonger. And if Seward might possibly lead the country into war, the hot-head Chase would probably do so. Lincoln the unknown murmured soothing words of peace--which went down well. Meanwhile, he and Davis manipulated that convention behind the scenes in ways that would make today's dirty-tricks advocates turn green with envy.
Consequently, Lincoln won the Republican nomination.
There were two factors about the Republican campaign in the election of 1860 which disturbed the Southerners so badly that Southern states subsequently seceded. First was the Republican-party platform for 1860.
Basically, the Northern capitalists wanted the U.S. government to tax (only) the South deeply, to finance the industrialization of the North, and the necessary transportation-net to support that. In those days, there was no income tax. The federal government received most of its revenue from tariffs (taxes) on imported goods. The Southern states imported from England most of the manufactured goods they used, thus paid most of the taxes to support the federal government. (The Northerners imported very little.)
Second, the Republican party--unlike any of the other big political-parties that had come along--was purely a regional (Northern) party, not a national party. if the Republicans somehow managed to gain control of Congress AND the White House, they would then be able to use the federal government to enact and enforce their party platform--and thus convert the prosperous Southern-states into the dirt-poor agricultural colonies of the Northern capitalists. And given the 19th-century trends in demographics, the Southern states would never be able to reverse that process. The intent of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would then have been subverted completely: the Southern states would no longer be governed with the consent of the governed--but instead bullied mercilessly by the Northern majority. Why, then, remain in the Union?
Meanwhile, the numerically-far-stronger national Democratic-party was busy self-destructing over the issue of slavery.
So when the 1860 election-returns came in, it turned out that the Republicans had won the White House, and substantial majorities in the House and the Senate. When that message sank in, Southern states began seceding from the Union--beginning with South Carolina on 20 December 1860.
Several of them said that the main issue was the protection of slavery, but that was strictly for local consumption by people who did their thinking solely in terms of simple slogans. The Southern legislators could do their math; thus they knew full well that the only truly-safe way to protect the institution of slavery would be for the Southern states to remain in the Union and simply refuse to ratify any proposed constitutional-amendment to emancipate the slaves. For slavery was specifically protected by the Constitution, and that protection could be removed only by an amendment ratified by three-quarters of the states. In 1860 there were 15 slave states and 18 free states. Had the number of slave states remained constant, 27 more free states would have had to be admitted into the Union--for a total of 60 states--before an abolition amendment could be ratified. That was not likely to occur anytime soon. But with the Southern states seceding, the issue of slavery could then be settled by force of arms at an time.
After the Republicans gained control of the presidency and the Congress following the 1860 elections, eleven Southern states eventually seceded from the Union--specifically to avoid becoming the helpless agricultural-colonies of the Northern capitalists.
This move took the Northern capitalists completely by surprise. The South was like the little boy who was forever crying "wolf." Southern states had been threatening to secede ever since the Tariff of Abominations and the days of Calhoun; the North no longer took those threats seriously. But with the South now gone, there would be no federal funding to industrialize the North--because the Northern citizenry would certainly never agree to be taxed to pay for it. And far worse than that, the many, many Northern-capitalists who had been earning fortunes factoring the Southern cotton-crop, transporting the cotton, and buying the cotton for New England textile-mills now faced financial ruin. The South normally bought its manufactured goods from Britain, anyway. Now, as a sovereign nation, the South could easily cut far better deals with the British financiers, shipowners, and textile mills to supply the South with all of the necessary support-services--leaving the Northern capitalists out in the cold.
This was all Lincoln's fault! If he hadn't been elected, the South wouldn't have seceded; and the Northern capitalists would not now be in this mess.
So as President-elect Lincoln prepared to take over the presidency, he was in a world of hurt. He had the trappings of office--but not the powerbase to support him safely in office against the slings and arrows of his outrageous political-enemies. Both Seward and Chase had well-established powerbases (financial backers, newspapers, magazines, personal political-organizations, friends in Congress, etc.). Both of them badly wanted Lincoln's job. Both of them merely awaited the first opportunity to spring a political trap on him; then subject him to deadly public-ridicule; and thereafter cut him off at the knees.
Given time, Lincoln--who would, after all, occupy the presidency--could weld together a formidable powerbase of his own; but right at the beginning of his term he was perilously vulnerable. He MUST now have the support of the Northern capitalists.
Lincoln was a Whig masquerading as a Republican, because that was now the only game in town. He didn't care anything about the slavery issue; he preferred to temporize with the abolitionists. But he couldn't temporize with the Northern capitalists. He would have to drag the South back into the Union immediately, or he'd (figuratively) be shot out of the saddle and discredited very quickly; then Seward or Chase would really be running the country; and Lincoln could forget all about being reelected in 1864. That was unthinkable. But there was no way Lincoln or anyone else in the Republican party could possibly talk the Southern states back into the Union at this stage of the game; so he would have to conquer them in war.
(He assumed it would be a 90-day war, which the Union Army would win in one battle.)
If you read Lincoln's first inaugural-address with any care at all, you'll see that it was simply a declaration of war against the South. It was also filled with lies and specious reasoning. In 1861, the official government-charter for the U.S. was the U.S. Constitution. In writing it, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (some of the most-canny politicians in the country) had pointedly omitted from it the "perpetual union" clause which had been a main feature of the unworkable Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union--the U.S.-government charter which had preceded the Constitution.
Under the Articles, no state could secede lawfully unless all states seceded simultaneously. But the Constitution--which Lincoln had just taken an oath to uphold--did not contain that clause (or any other like it); so any state could secede lawfully at any time. And the Southern states did secede lawfully. Honest Abe flat-out lied when he said that was not so in his inaugural address; and he subsequently used his blatant lie to slaughter 623,000 Americans and Confederates--primarily in order to perpetuate himself in political office.
Lincoln had said he would go to war to "preserve the Union." But in order to start the war, he would somehow have to maneuver the South into firing the first shots, because Congress did not want war and would not declare war of its own volition.
The most-likely hot-spot in which Lincoln could start his war was Charleston Harbor, where shots had already been fired in anger under the Buchanan administration. But the newly-elected governor of South Carolina, Francis Pickens, saw the danger--that Lincoln might, as an excuse, send a force of U.S. Navy warships to Charleston Harbor supposedly to bring food to Maj Anderson's Union force holed up in Fort Sumter. So Gov Pickens opened negotiations with Maj Anderson, and concluded a deal permitting Anderson to send boats safely to the market in Charleston once a week, where Anderson's men would be allowed to buy whatever victuals they wished.
(This arrangement remained in effect until a day or so before the U.S. Navy warships arrived at Charleston). Maj Anderson wrote privately to friends, saying that he hoped Lincoln would not use Fort Sumter as the excuse to start a war, by sending the U.S. Navy to resupply it.
Before his inauguration, Lincoln sent a secret message to Gen Winfield Scott, the U.S. general-in-chief, asking him to make preparations to relieve the Union forts in the South soon after Lincoln took office. Lincoln knew all along what he was going to do.
President Jefferson Davis sent peace commissioners to Washington to negotiate a treaty with the Lincoln administration. Lincoln refused to meet with them; and he refused to permit Secretary of State Seward to meet with them.
After Lincoln assumed the presidency, his principal generals recommended the immediate evacuation of Maj Anderson's men from Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor--which was now located on foreign soil. To resupply it by force at this point would be a deliberate act-of-war against the C.S.A.
It turned out that Lincoln's postmaster general, Montgomery Blair, had a brother-in law, Gustavus V. Fox, who was a retired Navy-captain and wanted to get back into action. Fox had come up with a plan for resupplying Fort Sumter which would force the Confederates to fire the first shots--under circumstances which would make them take the blame for the war. Lincoln sent Fox down to Fort Sumter to talk with Maj Anderson about the plan; but Anderson wanted no part of it.
Lincoln had Fox pitch the plan to his Cabinet twice. The first time, the majority said that Fox's plan would start a war and were unenthusiastic about it. But the second time, the Cabinet members got Lincoln's pointed message, and capitulated.
Meanwhile, Congress got wind of the plan. Horrified, they called Gen Scott and others to testify about it; Scott and the other witnesses said they wanted no part of the move against the Confederacy in Charleston; and nor did Congress. Congress demanded from Lincoln--as was Congress's right--Fox's report on Maj Anderson's reaction to the plan. Lincoln flatly and unconstitutionally refused to hand it over to them.
Lincoln sent to Secretary Cameron (for transmittal to Secretary Welles) orders in his own handwriting (!) to make the warships Pocahantas and Pawnee and the armed-cutter Harriet Lane ready for sailing, along with the passenger ship Baltic--which would be used as a troop ship, and two ocean-going tugboats to aid the ships in traversing the tricky shallow harbor-entrance at Charleston. This naval force was to transport 500 extra Union-soldiers to reinforce Maj Anderson's approximately-86-man force at Fort Sumter--along with huge quantities of munitions, food, and other supplies.
The Confederacy would, of course, resist this invasion--in the process firing upon the U.S. flag. The unarmed tugs would, of necessity, enter the harbor first, whereupon they would likely be fired upon by the C.S.A., giving Lincoln the best-possible propaganda to feed to the Northern newspapers, which would then rally the North to his "cause."
Lincoln sent orders for the Union naval-force to time its sailing so as to enter Charleston Harbor on 11 or 12 April. Next, Lincoln sent a courier to deliver an ultimatum to Gov Pickens on 8 April, saying that Lincoln intended to resupply Fort Sumter peaceably or by force. There was no mistaking the intent of that message.
Lincoln had set the perfect trap. He had given President Davis just enough time to amass his forces and fire upon the U.S. Navy. But if Davis acquiesced instead, Lincoln need merely begin sending expeditionary forces to recapture all of the former Union-forts in the South now occupied by Confederate forces; sooner or later Davis would have to fight; and the more forts he allowed Lincoln to recapture in the interim, the weaker would be the military position of the C.S.A. As a practical matter, Davis was left with no choice.
Accordingly, the C.S.A., when informed that the U.S. Navy was en route, demanded that Maj Anderson surrender the fort forthwith. Anderson refused; Beauregard's artillery bombarded Fort Sumter into junk (miraculously without loss of life during the bombardment); and Anderson then surrendered with honor intact. The U.S. Navy arrived during the bombardment--but because elements of the force had been delayed for various reasons, did not join in the fight. The Navy was allowed to transport Anderson's men back to the U.S.
Thereafter Lincoln wrote to Fox, pronouncing the mission a great success. Lincoln ended his letter by saying, "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
Folks, that ought to be plain enough for anybody to understand.
Now Lincoln had his excuse for a war (assuming that he continued to lie his head off about it--which he did); but there was still no reason for him to believe that Congress would declare war against the South on his say-so.
In fact, there was every indication that they would not. So instead of obeying the Constitution and calling Congress into emergency session and asking them to declare war and to call up an army (which only Congress could do, under the Constitution), Lincoln simply declared war and called up an army himself--by naming the C.S.A.'s defense of its sovereignty in Charleston Harbor an "insurrection" against the U.S. government.
Lincoln did not call Congress into session until several months later--when his war had progressed so far that Congress could not then call it off, but as a practical matter would have to rubberstamp it.
So Lincoln started the War of Northern Aggression virtually single-handed.
Without vulnerable dark-horse Abraham Lincoln assuming the presidency in 1861, I do not believe we would have had a war. Nobody wanted one except Lincoln and a few rabid-abolitionists and some Northern-capitalists whose fortunes were threatened. I consider Lincoln a megalomaniacal sociopath whose like we have not yet seen--and I pray we never will see.
For anyone who wishes confirmation of what I have said--and to learn the important details, please read John S. Tilley's "Lincoln Takes Command," and Ludwell Johnson's "North Against South/An American Iliad." Both books are available new from Confederate booksellers. For those who (for shame!) do not at presently patronize Confederate booksellers, Tilley's book is currently published by Bill Coats, Ltd. in Nashville (in 1991); and Johnson's by The Foundation for American Education, P.O. Box 11851, Columbia, SC 29211 (in 1995). Your local bookseller should be able to order a copy for you.
END
by Frank Conner
The North's Republican party came out of nowhere in 1854, formed from the wreckage of the Whig party (the Northern Conscience-Whigs), and from the Free-Soilers and the Know-Nothings. It opposed slavery, and it demanded a powerful national-government which would subsidize Northern industrialization. The new Republican party grew very rapidly. Not surprisingly, its key bankrollers were Northern capitalists--financiers, shippers, industrialists, etc. Two of its founders and strongest political-leaders were Salmon P. Chase (first a senator and then a governor); and William H. Seward (also a governor and a senator).
At the 1860 Republican convention in Chicago, Chase and Seward were the favored candidates. Lincoln was a dark horse. In national politics, he had served only in the House, and only for one two-year term--1847-49: he had left Congress 11 years earlier! Lincoln had only three things going for him: he was considered a political lightweight, who could easily be manipulated by the powerbrokers; he himself was from Illinois, so the convention hall was located on his own stomping-grounds; and both he and his campaign manager--David E. Davis--were extraordinarily-adroit politicians.
In 1860 the vast majority of the Republicans did not want war. But the relatively-mild Seward had earlier coined several phrases which led many to believe mistakenly that he was a warmonger. And if Seward might possibly lead the country into war, the hot-head Chase would probably do so. Lincoln the unknown murmured soothing words of peace--which went down well. Meanwhile, he and Davis manipulated that convention behind the scenes in ways that would make today's dirty-tricks advocates turn green with envy.
Consequently, Lincoln won the Republican nomination.
There were two factors about the Republican campaign in the election of 1860 which disturbed the Southerners so badly that Southern states subsequently seceded. First was the Republican-party platform for 1860.
Basically, the Northern capitalists wanted the U.S. government to tax (only) the South deeply, to finance the industrialization of the North, and the necessary transportation-net to support that. In those days, there was no income tax. The federal government received most of its revenue from tariffs (taxes) on imported goods. The Southern states imported from England most of the manufactured goods they used, thus paid most of the taxes to support the federal government. (The Northerners imported very little.)
Second, the Republican party--unlike any of the other big political-parties that had come along--was purely a regional (Northern) party, not a national party. if the Republicans somehow managed to gain control of Congress AND the White House, they would then be able to use the federal government to enact and enforce their party platform--and thus convert the prosperous Southern-states into the dirt-poor agricultural colonies of the Northern capitalists. And given the 19th-century trends in demographics, the Southern states would never be able to reverse that process. The intent of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would then have been subverted completely: the Southern states would no longer be governed with the consent of the governed--but instead bullied mercilessly by the Northern majority. Why, then, remain in the Union?
Meanwhile, the numerically-far-stronger national Democratic-party was busy self-destructing over the issue of slavery.
So when the 1860 election-returns came in, it turned out that the Republicans had won the White House, and substantial majorities in the House and the Senate. When that message sank in, Southern states began seceding from the Union--beginning with South Carolina on 20 December 1860.
Several of them said that the main issue was the protection of slavery, but that was strictly for local consumption by people who did their thinking solely in terms of simple slogans. The Southern legislators could do their math; thus they knew full well that the only truly-safe way to protect the institution of slavery would be for the Southern states to remain in the Union and simply refuse to ratify any proposed constitutional-amendment to emancipate the slaves. For slavery was specifically protected by the Constitution, and that protection could be removed only by an amendment ratified by three-quarters of the states. In 1860 there were 15 slave states and 18 free states. Had the number of slave states remained constant, 27 more free states would have had to be admitted into the Union--for a total of 60 states--before an abolition amendment could be ratified. That was not likely to occur anytime soon. But with the Southern states seceding, the issue of slavery could then be settled by force of arms at an time.
After the Republicans gained control of the presidency and the Congress following the 1860 elections, eleven Southern states eventually seceded from the Union--specifically to avoid becoming the helpless agricultural-colonies of the Northern capitalists.
This move took the Northern capitalists completely by surprise. The South was like the little boy who was forever crying "wolf." Southern states had been threatening to secede ever since the Tariff of Abominations and the days of Calhoun; the North no longer took those threats seriously. But with the South now gone, there would be no federal funding to industrialize the North--because the Northern citizenry would certainly never agree to be taxed to pay for it. And far worse than that, the many, many Northern-capitalists who had been earning fortunes factoring the Southern cotton-crop, transporting the cotton, and buying the cotton for New England textile-mills now faced financial ruin. The South normally bought its manufactured goods from Britain, anyway. Now, as a sovereign nation, the South could easily cut far better deals with the British financiers, shipowners, and textile mills to supply the South with all of the necessary support-services--leaving the Northern capitalists out in the cold.
This was all Lincoln's fault! If he hadn't been elected, the South wouldn't have seceded; and the Northern capitalists would not now be in this mess.
So as President-elect Lincoln prepared to take over the presidency, he was in a world of hurt. He had the trappings of office--but not the powerbase to support him safely in office against the slings and arrows of his outrageous political-enemies. Both Seward and Chase had well-established powerbases (financial backers, newspapers, magazines, personal political-organizations, friends in Congress, etc.). Both of them badly wanted Lincoln's job. Both of them merely awaited the first opportunity to spring a political trap on him; then subject him to deadly public-ridicule; and thereafter cut him off at the knees.
Given time, Lincoln--who would, after all, occupy the presidency--could weld together a formidable powerbase of his own; but right at the beginning of his term he was perilously vulnerable. He MUST now have the support of the Northern capitalists.
Lincoln was a Whig masquerading as a Republican, because that was now the only game in town. He didn't care anything about the slavery issue; he preferred to temporize with the abolitionists. But he couldn't temporize with the Northern capitalists. He would have to drag the South back into the Union immediately, or he'd (figuratively) be shot out of the saddle and discredited very quickly; then Seward or Chase would really be running the country; and Lincoln could forget all about being reelected in 1864. That was unthinkable. But there was no way Lincoln or anyone else in the Republican party could possibly talk the Southern states back into the Union at this stage of the game; so he would have to conquer them in war.
(He assumed it would be a 90-day war, which the Union Army would win in one battle.)
If you read Lincoln's first inaugural-address with any care at all, you'll see that it was simply a declaration of war against the South. It was also filled with lies and specious reasoning. In 1861, the official government-charter for the U.S. was the U.S. Constitution. In writing it, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (some of the most-canny politicians in the country) had pointedly omitted from it the "perpetual union" clause which had been a main feature of the unworkable Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union--the U.S.-government charter which had preceded the Constitution.
Under the Articles, no state could secede lawfully unless all states seceded simultaneously. But the Constitution--which Lincoln had just taken an oath to uphold--did not contain that clause (or any other like it); so any state could secede lawfully at any time. And the Southern states did secede lawfully. Honest Abe flat-out lied when he said that was not so in his inaugural address; and he subsequently used his blatant lie to slaughter 623,000 Americans and Confederates--primarily in order to perpetuate himself in political office.
Lincoln had said he would go to war to "preserve the Union." But in order to start the war, he would somehow have to maneuver the South into firing the first shots, because Congress did not want war and would not declare war of its own volition.
The most-likely hot-spot in which Lincoln could start his war was Charleston Harbor, where shots had already been fired in anger under the Buchanan administration. But the newly-elected governor of South Carolina, Francis Pickens, saw the danger--that Lincoln might, as an excuse, send a force of U.S. Navy warships to Charleston Harbor supposedly to bring food to Maj Anderson's Union force holed up in Fort Sumter. So Gov Pickens opened negotiations with Maj Anderson, and concluded a deal permitting Anderson to send boats safely to the market in Charleston once a week, where Anderson's men would be allowed to buy whatever victuals they wished.
(This arrangement remained in effect until a day or so before the U.S. Navy warships arrived at Charleston). Maj Anderson wrote privately to friends, saying that he hoped Lincoln would not use Fort Sumter as the excuse to start a war, by sending the U.S. Navy to resupply it.
Before his inauguration, Lincoln sent a secret message to Gen Winfield Scott, the U.S. general-in-chief, asking him to make preparations to relieve the Union forts in the South soon after Lincoln took office. Lincoln knew all along what he was going to do.
President Jefferson Davis sent peace commissioners to Washington to negotiate a treaty with the Lincoln administration. Lincoln refused to meet with them; and he refused to permit Secretary of State Seward to meet with them.
After Lincoln assumed the presidency, his principal generals recommended the immediate evacuation of Maj Anderson's men from Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor--which was now located on foreign soil. To resupply it by force at this point would be a deliberate act-of-war against the C.S.A.
It turned out that Lincoln's postmaster general, Montgomery Blair, had a brother-in law, Gustavus V. Fox, who was a retired Navy-captain and wanted to get back into action. Fox had come up with a plan for resupplying Fort Sumter which would force the Confederates to fire the first shots--under circumstances which would make them take the blame for the war. Lincoln sent Fox down to Fort Sumter to talk with Maj Anderson about the plan; but Anderson wanted no part of it.
Lincoln had Fox pitch the plan to his Cabinet twice. The first time, the majority said that Fox's plan would start a war and were unenthusiastic about it. But the second time, the Cabinet members got Lincoln's pointed message, and capitulated.
Meanwhile, Congress got wind of the plan. Horrified, they called Gen Scott and others to testify about it; Scott and the other witnesses said they wanted no part of the move against the Confederacy in Charleston; and nor did Congress. Congress demanded from Lincoln--as was Congress's right--Fox's report on Maj Anderson's reaction to the plan. Lincoln flatly and unconstitutionally refused to hand it over to them.
Lincoln sent to Secretary Cameron (for transmittal to Secretary Welles) orders in his own handwriting (!) to make the warships Pocahantas and Pawnee and the armed-cutter Harriet Lane ready for sailing, along with the passenger ship Baltic--which would be used as a troop ship, and two ocean-going tugboats to aid the ships in traversing the tricky shallow harbor-entrance at Charleston. This naval force was to transport 500 extra Union-soldiers to reinforce Maj Anderson's approximately-86-man force at Fort Sumter--along with huge quantities of munitions, food, and other supplies.
The Confederacy would, of course, resist this invasion--in the process firing upon the U.S. flag. The unarmed tugs would, of necessity, enter the harbor first, whereupon they would likely be fired upon by the C.S.A., giving Lincoln the best-possible propaganda to feed to the Northern newspapers, which would then rally the North to his "cause."
Lincoln sent orders for the Union naval-force to time its sailing so as to enter Charleston Harbor on 11 or 12 April. Next, Lincoln sent a courier to deliver an ultimatum to Gov Pickens on 8 April, saying that Lincoln intended to resupply Fort Sumter peaceably or by force. There was no mistaking the intent of that message.
Lincoln had set the perfect trap. He had given President Davis just enough time to amass his forces and fire upon the U.S. Navy. But if Davis acquiesced instead, Lincoln need merely begin sending expeditionary forces to recapture all of the former Union-forts in the South now occupied by Confederate forces; sooner or later Davis would have to fight; and the more forts he allowed Lincoln to recapture in the interim, the weaker would be the military position of the C.S.A. As a practical matter, Davis was left with no choice.
Accordingly, the C.S.A., when informed that the U.S. Navy was en route, demanded that Maj Anderson surrender the fort forthwith. Anderson refused; Beauregard's artillery bombarded Fort Sumter into junk (miraculously without loss of life during the bombardment); and Anderson then surrendered with honor intact. The U.S. Navy arrived during the bombardment--but because elements of the force had been delayed for various reasons, did not join in the fight. The Navy was allowed to transport Anderson's men back to the U.S.
Thereafter Lincoln wrote to Fox, pronouncing the mission a great success. Lincoln ended his letter by saying, "You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."
Folks, that ought to be plain enough for anybody to understand.
Now Lincoln had his excuse for a war (assuming that he continued to lie his head off about it--which he did); but there was still no reason for him to believe that Congress would declare war against the South on his say-so.
In fact, there was every indication that they would not. So instead of obeying the Constitution and calling Congress into emergency session and asking them to declare war and to call up an army (which only Congress could do, under the Constitution), Lincoln simply declared war and called up an army himself--by naming the C.S.A.'s defense of its sovereignty in Charleston Harbor an "insurrection" against the U.S. government.
Lincoln did not call Congress into session until several months later--when his war had progressed so far that Congress could not then call it off, but as a practical matter would have to rubberstamp it.
So Lincoln started the War of Northern Aggression virtually single-handed.
Without vulnerable dark-horse Abraham Lincoln assuming the presidency in 1861, I do not believe we would have had a war. Nobody wanted one except Lincoln and a few rabid-abolitionists and some Northern-capitalists whose fortunes were threatened. I consider Lincoln a megalomaniacal sociopath whose like we have not yet seen--and I pray we never will see.
For anyone who wishes confirmation of what I have said--and to learn the important details, please read John S. Tilley's "Lincoln Takes Command," and Ludwell Johnson's "North Against South/An American Iliad." Both books are available new from Confederate booksellers. For those who (for shame!) do not at presently patronize Confederate booksellers, Tilley's book is currently published by Bill Coats, Ltd. in Nashville (in 1991); and Johnson's by The Foundation for American Education, P.O. Box 11851, Columbia, SC 29211 (in 1995). Your local bookseller should be able to order a copy for you.
END
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)