1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
    PLEASE HELP
  1. Mick Mouse
    Well, now that the dust has settled a bit from the last topic, I think that I would like to look into the topic of the so-called "Civil" War and start a well-rounded discussion of this subject matter.

    This is a subject that, to this very day, still stirs controversy among many people-especially those who have never really studied the root causes of the conflict and the time period in which it took place, but are nonetheless absolutely certain that they know not only how, but why it occurred. I mean, come on now! EVERYONE knows that the South started the war because they did not want to give up their slaves. EVERYONE knows that "honest ol' Abe" was a poor, home-spun "self-made man" whose concern for his fellow man was the driving force behind all of his actions. EVERYONE knows that the North did not want to fight a war, but were forced into it because Ft. Sumner was brutally attacked. EVERYONE knows that the North was fighting to free the slaves. EVERYONE knows that slaves were brutalized and tortured, families were broken up because of being sold off, and that the lives of slaves were no better, and often quite worse, than animals.

    So what is the controversy? Well, there are several old, but incredibly smart, sayings that we should start off with, before we go ANY farther.

    Question Authority

    Absolutely! Do you believe everything that you are told, just because the person who happens to be telling you is authoritaritive? Do they have to be telling you the truth, just because they are a police or federal officer, judge, boss, or somebody with a shiny badge and an attitude?

    How about because they write textbooks? Has it ever occurred to you to question the so-called "facts" that are found in the books that our children use in schools? Where do these facts come from? Who is responsible for making sure that they are accurate and not just something that "everyone" knows?

    So, the first thing you have to do is to question authority. Which leads us into the second old saying!

    The Winners Write The History Books

    That is correct. You will never find a true and accurate account of history that was written by the winner of a conflict. Of course, you will also probably never find an accurate and true account written by the loser, either! But for a better understanding of history, you have to look at all sides, and not just the winning one. And in a situation such as this one, you may never find a complete answer.

    So, do your research from all angles. Primary, secondary, and tertiary. Do not confine yourself to merely the accounts given by the North and the South, but look into the accounts given by the other players in the game, as well.

    And finally, the last.

    Knowledge Is Power

    That says it all, I should think. The powerful feeling that comes from the ability to successfully defend your position or your opinion is heady stuff indeed! But better than that it the knowledge that misinformation is being corrected, that old disputes can be looked at with a fresh eye, and that troublesome and divisive issues can be looked at and discussed calmly and rationally.

    With that being said, it is also understood that people will have their opinions regardless of what "evidence" might be presented to the contrary, and that nothing that is said here is designed to make you change those opinions.

    As always, all I would like to ask for is that you think, that you open your mind as well as your eyes, that you are willing to see that there might be another answer or that the commonly-held "right" answer may not always be so. It is up to you, of course. Some opinions will not be changed no matter how many facts you throw at it, for the simple reason that truth can be distasteful. Or inconvenient. Or ugly.

    Just think about it.

    For my part, the War of Northern Aggression is an old family friend. My family is from the South, having originally been given a grant of land in what was known back then as "out west" (Kentucky) and in exchange for "services rendered and in lieu of payment" during the first American Revolution. Our land would end up being close to what would eventually become the Kentucky-Tennessee border, and we spread out west and south from there, ending up in Kansas and Missouri around 1835. Various members of the family fought on the side of the Confederacy, or sold weapons to both sides, and by the time of the Reconstruction we had spread all the way to the coast, according to the records I could find. My ancestor fought honorably, were wounded several times, captured, exchanged, wounded again, captured again, exchanged again, and finally gave his parole-although family history has it that he would not swear the oath-at which time he returned to the homestead and lived out the remainder of his life. I am very proud of my Southern heritage and of the service that not only this particular ancestor has given to this country, but of that which we have all given. To the best of my knowledge, there has been a member of my family involved in some way in every conflict that this country has ever engaged in, starting from the time of the first Revolution. Although, unlike Leutenant Dan's family (Forrest Gump), we haven't all died there! lol!

    So, now for some questions!

    Did my ancestors/family keep slaves? Yes, they did. When you are trying to farm a section of land using basically hand tools and horses, manual labor is a vital necessity.

    Did my family beat and torture their slaves? Of course not. While I am not saying that such activity did not exist, such accounts were mostly propaganda that was designed to "fire up the unwashed masses" (those who were educated knew better) or are the invention of Hollywood used to boost movie sales. Family historical records indicate that my ancestor worked side-by-side with their slaves on a daily basis, ate the same food, and occasionally, lived in the same house. To a family who were middle-class farmer/ranchers, a slave represented a considerable investment of capital and, contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, was not something that you could just run down to the corner and pick up. It was an expense that had to be calculated for a considerable amount of time before being made, as well as for the potential lifetime of the slave. So, to put it in more modern terms, if your $300,000.00 combine was out in the field and all of a sudden stopped working, would you pull out your pistol and shoot the radiator full of holes? Of course not, and neither would you severely injure a man that you paid a lot of money for and were expecting to get work out of. It's called economics, and strangely enough, is a major cause of this conflict.

    Did they rape the female slaves? Probably not. There is no record of mixed-birth children from that time period in our family. Not to mention the fact that it would not be an especially smart idea to bone some dudes wife and then hand him a shovel and turn your back on him the next day at work! Plus, a lot of these guys were originally warriors who were captured in battle by other tribes and then sold to whitey. Maybe they are a little older and slower now, but they were fucking warriors with spears and shit. Besides, given human nature and the way it operates, I would imagine that rape would not always be necessary! Did rape happen? Of course it did, and one would be a fool to say otherwise. Regardless of the time period, when you have a situation in which a powerful man has control over a woman, rape will occur. See the Crusades for a perfect example.

    Were the slaves discriminated against and treated unfairly? Well, that depends. If you are a slave, then of course the answer would be yes. If you were an abolutionist, then the answer would be yes. For everyone else, not so much. But when looked at in the context of the times, they were treated much better than in any previous time. You have to remember, up until very recently, slavery was a legal, accepted and approved of fact of life in the entire world. And it still is, in many places. There was nothing "wrong" or "evil" about it. Quite often, and in many places around the world, a mans wealth was measured in slaves, and slavery was "codified", with rules laid out concerning the rights and treatment of slaves. In fact, there were many places around the world in which to be the slave of a particular individual was accounted as a great honor, and was actively sought after.

    Do I think slavery is right? No. not now, not ever. It is not the mark of a civilized man to involuntarily deprive another man of their liberty. The key here is involuntary. Should you be able to sell yourself into slavery? Yes, if you are capable of making that decision on your own. But to sell another? That is disgusting to me.

    Do I condemn my ancestors for their acts or feel guilt because my family was involved in slavery? Absolutely not. I am not qualified to sit in judgement over the acts of someone who was acting in concert with the times. What happened, happened. Besides, it all worked out quite well for everyone involved, which is a part of the story I will get into later.

    I'll be back to work on this a little more later on, so keep coming back! OK, I'm back again! A bit longer break than I had anticipated, but better late than never, as the old saying goes. So, before I left last time, I had alluded to the fact that "the story worked out well for everyone involved", and I thought I would expand on that just a little more.

    Now, I can already tell that I will be all over the map with this topic! I had in mind a nice conversation, with point and counter-point being discussed, and I veered sharply right out of the gate and never got it back on track. So, I am just going to talk a little, make some points, start a conversation, and see where that takes us. With that in mind, let me start by telling you a story which, according to family documents, is true.

    The War of Northern Aggression had started, and men, women, and even children were answering the call to arms. At that time, the main branch of the family lived on the original homestead in Kentucky, near the Tennessee border. Now, Kentucky was pro-confederacy, but ended up remaining in the Union, so if you wanted to join the Southern cause, you had to travel to Tennessee to do so. Accordingly, the two oldest boy secured their fathers blessing, saddled up their horses and took their weapons over to Camp Boone Tennessee, whereupon they signed up on July 13th, 1861.

    Now, the army back then was a strange beast indeed! You brought your own weapons, horses, gear, and whatever else you thought you might need. Everything else was supplied by the state which raised the troops. Because my ancestor and his brother both showed up with horses, they were immediately offered a position in the cavalry. They ended up serving as mounted infantry in the Kentucky Volunteers, Confederate States Army-3rd Kentucky, 2nd Regiment, Company D. Also known as the "Orphan Brigade", they were formed when, as mentioned above, the state was expected to supply its own troops in the field, however, because Kentucky was nominally a Union state, her Confederate sons had to go without the little extras sent from home that made life in the field more bearable. Things like mail, care packages of food and toiletries, clothes appropriate to the weather, and whatnot. Because they did not get these things, they were "orphaned"-thus The Orphan Brigade. It had no effect on their fighting ability, of course. They found more than their share of glory and honor on the field of battle.

    Skipping ahead a little, it is now early 1863. The Union Army is in town and, as always, they have a call out for volunteers. And as you might imagine, they were not having a great deal of success! If there were any men of fighting age that could be spared, they surely would not be volunteering for the yanks, and after being told this on several occasions, the union officer in charge of recruitment was apparently not in the best of moods. They rode up to the house, and the "old man" met them there at the porch. The union officer explained that they were there to make sure that his sons would take advantage of this great opportunity they were being given, which was to punish the rebels. The old man said that his boys had already taken advantage of that opportunity, and that they were out killing yankees at that very moment.

    The officer promptly had the old man dragged down off of the porch and hung from the tree in the front of the house, in front of his wife, the remaining children, and, of course, the slaves, set the place on fire, and rode off. According to family records, a short time after he left, the male slaves approached the missus and requested the use of the masters weapons. They rode after the union officer and his small party, and after catching up with them, turned them into "good" yankees, and then returned home. The missus was so taken with gratitude that she gave them their freedom, along with the deed to half of the homestead.

    When I first read this, I was looking through a family history that my uncle had put together, and it traced our family all the way back to the 1600's in Ireland. I ran across this part and thought "Yeah, right! this sounds like bullshit.", so I checked it out a little more.

    It seems that, to this day, some part of our family holds title to 320 acres and the families of Franklin and Clinton hold title to the other 320 acres. When they were granted their freedom, they took for their surnames the middle names of the two brothers. Our families are buried side-by-side in the family cemetary, and to this day, it would seem, maintain close ties. In addition, records would also seem to indicate that members of their families and members of mine have repeatedly entered the military and served together, as well.

    OK, I end up leaving to take a break, and when I finally get back to this, whatever train of thought I was following is completely gone, and I basically end up starting all over again! This has gone in a direction FAR different than I had envisioned when I first started-I had absolutely no intention of discussing either myself or my family, other than as a minor side-bar, perhaps. And yet, practically the entire thread has been about that so far. I want to try and get back to the original premise, if possible, so with that in mind, lets try again!

    One of the things that everyone "knows" is that the war started at Ft Sumner South Carolina, with the Confederate bombardment being the opening shot fired in 1861. However, I submit that the war started well before that, with the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. And there are some who would argue that it began even earlier than that! In fact, here is a list of events which could be said to have been a cause of this "un-civil" war:
    * The Northwest Ordinance
    * Kentucky and Virgina Resolutions
    * Missouri Compromise
    * Tariff of 1828
    * Nullification Crisis
    * Nat Turner's slave rebellion
    * The Amistad
    * Prigg Vs Pennsylvania
    * Texas Annexation
    * Mexican-American War
    * Wilmot Provisio
    * Ostend Manifesto
    *Underground Railroad
    * Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
    * Compromise of 1850
    * Uncle Tom's Cabin
    * Kansas-Nebraska Act
    * Bleeding Kansas
    * Sumner-Brooks Affair
    * Dred Scott vs Sandford
    * The Impending Crisis of the South
    * Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry
    * 1860 Presidential Election
    * Secession of the Southern States
    * Star of the West
    * Corwin Amendment
    * Battle of Ft Sumter

    As you can see, the reasons for this war are many and varied, and they stretch back for many years and even decades, so it would be the height of foolishness to pick one out and say "THIS is the reason! THIS is why we tore ourselves apart for not only the years covered by the war itself, but for the many years afterwards, as well." And I am certain that there are other factors that I have not listed here, in addition to the ones that I have.

    So, if we have established the fact that the war did NOT, in fact, actually start in 1861, in addition to the fact that it was about matters far more complex than we have always been led to believe, what else might there be out there that everyone "knows" to be true, and yet the facts might indicate otherwise?

Comments

  1. Mick Mouse
    I WILL get back to this, I promise! I have a lot more to say on this subject, but events at home have conspired to take up time, so it may be a minute, but I will be back.
  2. Mick Mouse
    Let us start out by looking at succession in America.

    A Northern View

    "The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of that state. The people alone...hold
    the power to alter their constitution."
    William Rawle

    Secession, poke salad, and crackling bread, in modern America are viewed with the same skeptical eye. Anyone
    advocating even the study of the right of secession is viewed as an eccentric at best or a radical neo-Confederate at worst. Yet, there was a time in the early days of this republic when the right of secession of an American State was fully embraced by the vast majority of Americans. Although secession, poke salad, and crackling bread are associated with the South, only the latter two, a delight of Southern cusine, can be said to be fully Southern. In modern America secession is inextricably linked with the Southern Confederacy, yet, a study of the right of secession will show us more about what our founding fathers of 1776 wrought and less about the Confederacy and the “Civil War.”

    A causal perusal of the early constitutions of Northern States demonstrates that these early Americans viewed
    their States as sovereign entities within a federation of states. For example, consider how the State of New
    Hampshire describes her political existence: “The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right to
    governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state....”

    Four years after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, New Hampshire boldly proclaims to the world her sovereign right to rule herself. The people of New Hampshire go even further by declaring that they have the right to “establish a new government” at their own volition: “[W]henever the ends of government are perverted, or public redress are ineffectual, thepeople may, and of right ought to, reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” Thus, according to the people of New Hampshire in 1792, non-resistance to arbitrary power is “absurd.” That which was true in 1792, was equally true in 1861 and remains true today, that is, it is absurd to think that a free people would offer non-resistance to arbitrary power.

    Other Northern states were equally opposed to the arbitrary abuse of power by the central government. Twelve
    years before New Hampshire’s declaration of state sovereignty, Massachusetts proclaimed: “The people of this
    commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent
    State....”

    These are two representative samples of the people of Northern States affirming their belief in state sovereignty
    and real State’s Rights. Even after the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the people of Northern States
    maintained the view that each state was a free and independent commonwealth within the Federal Union. Thus,
    when in 1825, Mr. William Rawle of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania published his textbook on the United States
    Constitution that included information on how and under what circumstances a state could secede from the
    Union; no national outcry was heard. Mr. Rawle, a Northerner, an abolitionist, and a friend of both President
    George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, was merely restating a recognized fact in early American history.
    Lincoln and the Radical Republicans conveniently forgot this fact 35 years later.

    One year after its publication, Mr. Rawle’s textbook was reviewed by the eminent journal, North American
    Review, of Boston, Massachusetts. Surely, if secession is un-American, seditious, or treasonous, the good folks
    in Boston, Massachusetts would be more than happy to share that knowledge with the rest of the nation. Yet, in review of over 1900 words, this textbook which advocates the right of secession by a state within the Federal Union, was blessed by the North American Review with the following comment: “For those, who are desirous of studying the noblest monument to human wisdom, the Constitution of the United States, we recommend thetreatise of Mr. Rawle as a safe and intelligent guide.”

    Note that these Yankees not only failed to write one negative word about Mr. Rawle asserting the right of secession but they go further by stating that the textbook is a “safe and intelligent guide.” This textbook was the same textbook used at the United States Military Academy at West Point both as a textbook and a reference book for the study of the United States Constitution. From the first chapter to the last chapter of his textbook, Mr. Rawle advocates the view that the States were the prime movers in the formation of the Federal government. That is, the States existed before the formation of the Federal government and were the sole source of any power the Federal government possessed. Commenting upon the very first paragraph of the Constitution (Art. I, Section I), Rawle states: “The first paragraph evinces that it [Federal government] is a limited, and not a general government. The term ‘all legislative powers hereby granted,’ remind both the congress and the people of the existence of some limitation.” The very act of “granting” demonstrates the action of a superior (the people of the sovereign States) to an inferior (the Federal government). This is just one of many examples of Mr. Rawle’s defense of a strict construction view of the Constitution.

    The chapter titled ‘Of the Union,’ forms the grand finale of Mr. Rawle’s book. It is in this chapter that Mr. Rawle
    takes off his gloves and, without reservation or equivocation, states that secession is the natural right of a free
    people. As Mr. Rawle states, “To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our
    political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be
    governed.”

    Here, Mr. Rawle is directing his readers back to the Declaration of Independence. In 1776 the
    founding fathers asserted that the right of freemen to live under a government of their choice was an unalienable
    right. It is granted to man from God and therefore, no government, no king, no battle won or battle lost could
    negate that which God had granted. True, a tyrant or a tyrannical system could deny a people the right to life and free government but tyrants do not destroy those principles that are “unalienable.” Anyone in the past, present, or future, who declares his opposition to this American principle of government, that is, government by the consent of the governed, is making the ultimate un-American statement.

    The constitutions of early Northern States and the words of Mr. William Rawle of Pennsylvania stand in sharp
    contrast to the view of the Radical Republicans in 1861. Also, the Chicken Littles of today who run and hide
    anytime the issue of the right of secession is broached, should be seen for what they have become--true Southern chickens. The South was right in 1861 and, as the Declaration of Independence so clearly states, she is STILL right! To deny this right is, as Mr. Rawle so correctly noted, “inconsistent with the principle on which all our political system are founded.”

    If true American freedom is ever to be revived, we cannot play the part of Chicken Little nor keep company with
    those who insist the sky is falling every time the subject of the right of secession, i.e., “government by the
    consent of the governed” is broached. Chicken Little is fit only to live in Col. Sanders’ chicken house. A chicken
    house is not a fit place for freedom loving people. As for me, I chose freedom; REAL American freedom. The
    freedom Mr. Rawle, a Northerner, wrote about, is the same freedom that Northern States codified in their state
    constitution, the freedom won for us by our Colonial forefathers, and defended for us by our Confederate
    forefathers. I will not be afraid or ashamed of the right of secession because it is the very cornerstone of real
    American freedom.



  3. Mick Mouse
    A Southern View

    "If the bond of union be the voluntary consent of the people, the government may be pronounced to be free; where
    constraint and fear constitute that bond, the government is no longer the government of the people, and
    consequently they are enslaved."
    St. George Tucker

    As was explained in the first part of this review of the issue of secession, the right of government by the consent
    of the governed, is not just a Southern idea. As was demonstrated, the Declaration of Independence, the early
    constitutions of Northern States, and a noted Northern constitutional authority confirm the right for free men to
    alter or abolish their government. Therefore with great authority we can state that the right of secession, which is
    a function of free men acting to “alter or abolish” the government they live under, is a central theme of American
    political philosophy. As Mr. William Rawle of Pennsylvania noted, to deny this right would “be inconsistent with
    the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to
    determine how they will be governed.”

    For the first few decades of these United States the concept of state
    sovereignty bolstered the idea of secession as a right of the people of an American state. Although viewed as an
    almost exclusively Southern idea today, as has been demonstrated, the right of secession of an American state
    from the Union is very American.
    If Mr. William Rawle of Pennsylvania is viewed as the representative of Northern advocates of the right of
    secession, Mr. St. George Tucker of Virginia should be viewed as Rawle’s Southern counterpart. Tucker’s View
    of the Constitution of the United States, published as part of his edition of Blackstone’s famed Commentaries on
    the Laws of England, was released in 1803 making Tucker one of the first commentators on the Federal
    Constitution.
    Tucker’s distinguish military career during the War for Independence established him as an American patriot.
    After Independence, Tucker continued his patriotic service as a delegate to the Annapolis Convention, which was
    responsible for the calling forth of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. During this time Tucker taught
    law at William and Mary College and served as a judge on Virginia’s highest court. As a distinguished patriot,
    jurist, and author, Tucker’s advocacy of the right of secession cannot be disregarded. Tucker’s theory of state’s
    rights has given much grief to those who advance the bankrupt notion that secession was the brainchild of rabid
    Southern slaveholders. Tucker of Virginia, like Rawle of Pennsylvania, was a strong opponent of the institution
    of slavery. Tucker evens goes beyond Rawle by advocating ending discrimination against free people of color.
    One hundred and fifty years before the modern Civil Rights movement, we see a Southern abolitionist pointing
    out areas of American life that he views as restricting the liberty of Americans. Yet, this man is a proponent of
    the right of secession, i.e., government by the consent of the governed.
    According to Tucker, the glue that binds a union of free men together is the free choice, i.e., consent, of those
    people who are being governed. Free men have the right to consent to the government they live under, un-free
    men (slaves) do not have that choice. According to Tucker (see above citation), with the removal of consent,
    freedom is destroyed and slavery becomes the condition of a once free people. Now reconsider what Lincoln did
    to these (once free) United States of America. According to St. George Tucker, by destroying consent and
    replacing it with coercion (the point of a bloody bayonet), Lincoln reduced every American, regardless of color,
    from freedom to slavery. As Tucker notes, when “constraint and fear” holds a union together, the people “are
    enslaved.” This should be a sobering thought for all Americans, including the Chicken Littles who run and hide
    at the mention of the right of secession.
    By its very defining nature, free governments are bound by the will of free men. A union that tramples upon the
    will of free men cannot be said to be a “free” government any longer. In these United States the will of the people
    has been linked to and voiced by the people of the sovereign states. From the signing of the Declaration of

    Independence, the adoption of the first government under the Articles of Confederation, the secession from the
    Articles of Confederation and the accession to the Union under the Federal Constitution, all these actions of free
    men have been done by the authority of “we the people” of the sovereign states. Given the history of secession in
    early America, is it any wonder that Tucker states: “t then becomes not only the right, but the duty of the states
    respectively, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. To deny this,
    would be to deny to sovereign and independent states, the power which, as colonies, and dependent territories,
    they have mutually agreed they had a right to exercise, and did actually exercise.”


    Both Rawle and Tucker agree that free government is destroyed when and if the right of government by the
    consent of the governed is denied. Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, and
    James Madison the Father of the Constitution, agree with Mr. Rawle and Mr. Tucker’s view of state sovereignty.
    In the Kentucky Resolves of 1798 Jefferson states: “That the several states composing the United States of
    America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government....That to this
    compact [Union] each state acceded as a state....That the government created by this compact was not made the
    exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself.”

    Likewise, James Madison in the Virginia Resolves of 1798 states: “n case of a deliberate, palpable, and
    dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact [Constitution], the States, who are the parties
    thereto, have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and liberties
    appertaining to them.”

    At this point two things should become clear. First, secession is not a Southern idea or scheme and, second, the
    right of secession and secession itself is not un-American or un-Patriotic. The unalienable right to “alter or
    abolish” the government we live under is enshrined in the most basic and fundamental document of American
    history, the Declaration of Independence. Until men such as Joseph Story, Daniel Webster, and Abraham Lincoln
    came along, state sovereignty, state’s rights, and secession were viewed as an American right. Lincoln, his
    sycophants, and Appomattox changed the view of state sovereignty and as a consequence, turned these United
    States upside down
  4. Mick Mouse
    A Modern View


    "The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American Union."
    Patrick Henry


    Patrick Henry understood something many Americans today have trouble understanding, that is, form without
    substance is meaningless. “The first thing I have at heart is American liberty.” With this statement Mr. Henry
    points out that the true meaning of being an American comes from the blessings of liberty. Putting it bluntly, as
    Americans, we embrace the idea that in our system of government, “liberty trumps everything.” If liberty comes
    first, what comes second? According to Mr. Henry “the second thing is American Union.” Ah, the contrast
    between Mr. Henry’s view of the Federal Union and Mr. Lincoln’s view of the Federal Union could not be more
    pronounced. Mr. Lincoln’s view proclaims that any American liberty may be sacrificed in order to preserve the
    Union. Mr. Henry’s view places liberty first and the Federal Union second.
    Today, the United States of America reflects Lincoln’s model of union and rejects Patrick Henry’s model of
    American union. This fact is more than just an historical fact or a footnote to American political philosophy. For
    all Americans there are real and deleterious consequences as a result of the imposition of Lincoln’s view of
    government over that of Henry’s view. Today, the Federal government, unrestrained by any power other than
    itself, has become an “autocratic” government. America’s citizens cannot resist Federal orders and edicts without
    facing the dire prospects of Federal prison. This is the natural consequence of placing the American Union first
    and American liberty second.
    As an example of just how intrusive and belligerent the Federal government has become vis-à-vis a citizen’s
    private property, consider the Federal government’s “glancing geese” Wet Lands Policy. According to
    Washington bureaucrats if a flight of geese glances down upon your property and spy a body of water and think
    about landing on that property, your land then falls under the control of the Federal government. You may not
    improve, change, or otherwise use your property without first obtaining Federal permission. This author bears
    witness to the fact that the Federal government’s rules, which holds true regarding geese in flight, are also true
    for beavers and their dam projects!
    If the abuse of power by the Federal government was limited only to the use and ownership of private lands, that
    would be enough to ignite a patriotic firestorm from patriots like Henry, Jefferson, Madison and Washington. But
    as the old adage states, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Without the check and balance
    of true Federalism, that is, a system of balance between the State and Federal governments where the abuses of
    the Federal government can be challenged and defeated by We the People of the Sovereign States, all American
    liberty is in danger.
    Today, the average American worker will have to work four to six months just to earn enough money to pay his
    yearly taxes; his children are the property of the Federal government’s courts and will be bussed to and placed in
    schools as the Federal government deems necessary; common laws of decency, which protect his family from all
    forms of pornography including sodomy, are being overturned by Federal courts; and, God, the Bible, and the
    Ten Commandments are being ejected from his State by the Federal government. Is there anyone so
    simpleminded who would think that Jefferson, Madison, and Henry would agree with and submit to this type of
    Federal government? According to Jefferson, Madison, Tucker, and Rawle, among many other patriots, one of
    the prime rights of a state is the authority to judge for itself how long the state would remain in the Federal
    Union. Do the Chicken Littles, who run and hide at the mention of the right of secession, honestly believe that
    Judge Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments would have been removed from the Alabama Supreme Court Building
    if the people of these United States believed in the right of secession?
    Yet, because of the destruction of State’s Rights, that is, the right of secession, our freedom today is nothing
    more than a grant to us from the Federal government. Unlike our ancestors who believed that our freedom was a
    grant from God, today’s Americans are apt to naively accept the idea that our rights and freedom are a grant from
    the government. If the Federal government is to be the guardian of our freedom, then “who shall guard the
    guards?”
    The right of secession is the guardian of our freedom from Federal abuse. At this point every American needs to
    voice the words placed upon the Confederate Battle Flag of Co. F, 5th South Carolina Volunteer Infantry, Kings
    Mountain, S. C., “Like our Ancestors, We shall be Free.” Once real State’s Rights have been restored, like our
    ancestors, we will be free!

  5. Mick Mouse
    Who were these "band of brothers" who assisted Lincoln in overturning this Republic as given to us by our founding fathers of these United States? Lincoln did not stand alone i the effort to transform the nation into a single, indivisible and all-powerful Federal government. The agents of Federal supremacy, i.e. an all-powerful, supreme, indivisible big government-centered in Washington D.C., had been active from the very beginni9ng fo this nation.

    Until Lincoln's revolution, these big government types were kept in check by the advocates of real States Rights. A whole legion of European radical Socialists, Communists, and Marxists flocked to the cause of Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. These radical European socialists and communists were collectively known as "Forty-Eighters", and this label was given to them because many of them had been expelled from varioius European nations after their Socialist revolution was defeated in or around 1848.

    Karl Marx and Frederick Engals are two of the most notorious communists who were joined by none other than Adolph Hitler-the 20th century's most notorious fascist-in their praise of Lincoln's attack upon States Rights and the American South. The fact that America's most iconic president, who praised and virtually worshiped by both liberals and conservatives, was viewed as a firm ally by both the Communist and the Fascist establishment should raise a "red flag" in the thoughts of any open-minded American!

    Karl Marx served as the unofficial propaganda agent for the Lincoln government during the War for Southern Independence. Not only did he write articles promoting the myth that the South was fighting to "defend and extend" slavery, but he also led rallies promoting the Northern effort and also wrote the memorial celebrating Lincoln's second election victory.

    Charles A Dana was a friend of Karl Marx, Frederick Engals, and Joseph Weydemeyer. He rose to the level of assistant secretary of war in Lincolns administration. Lincoln spoke of Dana as "the eyes of the army". No other 19th century individual did more to promote communism in America than Dana.

    Frederick Engals was the co-founder of modern-day communism. In a letter to General Weydemeyer, Engals praised the efforts of building a strong "indivisible" central government as laying down the foundation for future communist expansion.
  6. Mick Mouse
    O, Southern Army
    When will we see your like again
    That fought and died for
    Your homes, your farms, your glens,
    And stood against them, Lincoln's army,
    And taught them how we defend
    The things that we believe in.

    The battlefields are bare now
    The grass is dead and still
    Like the Cause that was lost
    Which those so dearly held
    And stood against them
    The invading army
    Stood and fought them
    And kept their honor

    Those days are past now
    And past they shall remain
    But we still stand tall and proud
    And be that people again
    That stood against them
    The tyrants army
    Let us stand now and act upon it
    And show that we are men

    O, Southern Army
    Have we found your like again
    Those who rise and fight for right
    Who will stand and be men
    Who will stand against them
    The liars and deceivers
    And teach them how we defend
    The things of honor
    That we believe in.
  7. Mick Mouse
    The Confederacy was much more diverse than the "politically correct" groups would have you believe. The standard stereotypical view of the Southern Army was that it was comprised mainly of white, slave-owning racists, with other peoples occupying only an infintestimal fraction of the remaining number. This could not be further from the truth, however, it fits in quite well with the vile, hate-filled propaganda that has been leveled against our ancestors since the day that Lincoln decided that the Constitution was nothing more than a rag to be spit upon.

    Whites, blacks, hispanics, indians, and other ethnic minorities supported and were in the ranks of the military, and the Confederate States Army had various entire units made up of different nationalities, including Germans, Irish, Italians, French, Poles, Mexicans, Cubans, Hungarians, Russians, Swedes, Danes, and Chinese. Louisiana was, and is perhaps the most diverse of all Southern states, and this is clearly shown in the book entitled Lee's Tigers by Dr. Terry L. Jones. Another book, Foreigners in the Confederacy, by Ella Lonn, also takes an in-depth look at the different races and ethnic groups that made up the Confederacy.

    The Five Civilized Tribes-Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek, Seminoles, and Chickasaw served the Confederacy, but more importantly, these tribes also had representation in the Confederate States Congress, which, to this very day, the United States has not allowed. The last Confederate general to strike colors in the field was Brigadier General Stand Waite, a full-blooded Cherokee Indian, who surrendered on 15 June 1865.

    And lets not forget the Flowers of the Confederacy-the Southern woman. If it was not for the steadfastness of the ladies of the South, the war would not have lasted a year, yet women played their part in the Confederate military in addition to maintaining the home front. Sally Louisa Tomkins was the only woman commissioned as an officer in the Confederate States Army, and to my knowledge, the first ever in American history. On her military commission, she wrote "I accepted the above commission as Captain in the CSA when it was offered, but I will not allow my name to be placed upon the payroll of the Army", thus refusing any payment. Captain Tomkins moved to the Home for Confederate Woman at Confederate Memorial Park in Richmond Virginia in 1905 and was buried with full military honors at Christ Church in Mathews County, Virginia. In 1863, Mrs J. Brown formed a company of women to defend LaGrange, Georgia. The ladies, called the "Nancy Harts", used Hardee's Tactics to drill and held target practice twice a week. On 17 April 1865, the Nancy Harts engaged the enemy as they entered LaGrange, yet, as they began to fire, they realized that the Union commander was using their loved ones as a human shield. So, instead of a battle, the ladies brokered a settlement in which the prisoners would be allowed to be home for the night and the houses of the town would be spared. The South was a proponent of equal rights for women long before it became fashionable, or even legal, in the United States.

    The Confederate Armed Forces saw Protestants, Catholics, and Jews serving side by side-with no hint of religious discord. Long before the United States government ever had Catholics or Jews serving on a presidential cabinet, The Confederate States had Secretary of the Navy Stephen R. Mallory of Florida, who was a Roman Catholic, and the man known as the "Brains of the Confederacy", Judah P. Benjamin-a Jew-served as attorney general, secretary of war, and secretary of state. Interestingly enough, Benjamin, who was born in St. Croix West Indies and Mallory, who was born in Trinidad were two of the three foreign-born cabinet members serving President Davis. Christopher G. memminger, born oin Germany, was secretary of the treasury until his resignation on 18 July 1864.

    The Confederate States of America had a number of different flags-from national to regimental to naval, however, since flags of all kinds dealing with the Confederacy come under attack, it is important to know their history. However, I am only going to look into six. For a comprehensive discussion of the different flags pertaining to the Confederacy, I suggest The Flags of the Confederacy, an Illustrated History,by Devereaux D. Cannon, Jr.

    The Bonnie Blue nflag was an unofficial flag of the Confederacy, used during the swearing-in of Provisional President Jefferson Davis in Montgomery Alabama, on 18 February 1861. Harry McCarthy, a famous entertainer and comedian, was part of the crowd watching this historical moment. Caught up in the excitement, McCarthy wrote the famous song Bonnie Blue Flag to the tune of a well-known song of the day called The Irish Jaunting Car. Due to this song, the popularity of this flag spread into the hearts of the people of the new nation.

    For 25 days, The Confederate government did not have an official flag. On 4 March 1861, the Confederate Congress approved the design of the First National, also known as the Stars and Bars. Due to their haste, the Congress neglected to formally enact a flag law, but it was written onto the journal of the Congress. The Confederate Congress wanted to use a design which drew from the heraldic symbols of the flag of the United States with a political intent to show that their government truly held to the original principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as created by the Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, on the battlefield it was so similar to the Stars and Stripes that it created much confusion, so General P.G.T. Beauregard sought a better design to differentiate the two armies on the battlefield. The4 First National was not a favorite with the people, but it remained the political or governmental flag of the Confederacy until 1 May 1863.

    In order to alleviate confusion on the battlefield, the Confederate Congress adopted a second flag on 1 May 1863. The Second National was also named "The Stainless Banner", which referred to "the unspotted virtue and honor of Southerners and their fight for independence from the tyranny and aggression of the Northern States". The first use of the flag was to cover the coffin of Lt. General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, who died on 10 May 1863. Subsequently, this flag is also occasionally known as "Jackson's Flag". Like the First National, this flag was not liked by the public or in the field, since on a windless day it appears to be a flag of truce. It remained the official flag of the Confederate States until 4 March 1865.

    On 4 MArch 1865, shortly before the fall of the Confederatacy, the Confederate Congress adopted a new flag design-the Third National. While the first two flags never gained popularity in the public, this flag embodied the Confederacy. The designed was an artilleryman, Major Arthur L. Roger, who stated the white signified purity and innocence, and the red, fortitude and courage. Few of these flags were produced and fewer yet survive in museums today.

    The Confederate Congress never officially adopted the Battle Flag, or the Soldier's Flag, as an official flag of the Confederacy, therefore not making it a political flag. However, it proudly flew from every field from Manassas to Appomattox, as the soldiers in gray carried it into battle from November 1861 to the end of the Confederacy. The designer, Confederate Congressman William P. Miles, was petritioned by General Beauregard to create a flag which would prevent confusion on the battlefield. Once the design was created, it was presented to the officers, and then the War Department, with all accepting it. General Beauregard presented the first flag, made out of ladies dresses, to the troops, and the flag became so popular with the soldiers that the Confederate Congress used it as the canton of both the Second and the Third National Flags. This flaf is square, with dark navy in the St. Andrews Cross, with the infantry being 48" squared, the artillery 36", and the Cavalry being 30".

    The Naval Jack, or Southern Cross, used on Confederate ships from 1863 to 1865 was a rectangular flag that usually measured 3 ft by 5 ft. While this flag is typically recognized as the Confederate Battle Flag, that is incorrect. The Battle Flag is square and the Naval Jack is rectangular. The design by Congressman Miles weas presented to be the First National Flag, but the Confederate Congress rejected it because it looked too much like crossed suspenders.

    Currently, the Confederate War Memorial at Confederate Memorial Park in Richmond Virgina was told by the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts that the Battle Flag could no longer fly from the poles outside the Chapel because it was "political".

    Only the media and select groups make it a political flag, rather than what it truly is-a historical flag. Educate yourselves and take up the banner of truth as we struggle against those who would pervert and malign our symbols, as well as our ancestors.
  8. Diverboone
    I must admit that my knowledge of the war and the events that lead up to it are not as varied and in-depth as yours. But residing in an area rich with this history, I have gained more than the average knowledge. One comment from a Confederate soldier that sticks in my head, this Confederate soldier was asked why he was fighting for the South, he stated "because they (the Union) were here". When he was asked about the issue of slavery, he stated "that he knew nothing of that, that his family did not own any slaves"
    Another interesting story that is not well known is the story of Jack Hinson. He was the "oldman" of this house, and did not fall prey to the noose. But two of his sons were beheaded by Union soldiers, and their heads were placed upon fence post at Jack's place.
    Equipped with a rifle he had specially made for long-range accuracy, Hinson became a dreaded enemy to the occupying army. By 1865, Hinson had likely killed more than one hundred men and had single-handedly taken down an armed Union transport in his one-man war against Grant's army and navy. By the end of the War Between the States, the Union had committed infantry and cavalry from nine regiments and a specially equipped amphibious task force of marines to capture Hinson, who was by that time nearly sixty years old. They never caught him.
  9. Mick Mouse
    It is a little-known fact, and one that the Yankees would like to keep that way, that the vast majority of men (and women) fighting for the Confederacy did not own slaves, nor were they involved in the trafficking of slaves. They were fighting because the North had invaded their homes and land. They were fighting for freedom. They were fighting because they did not see why some Yankee sitting in another state should be allowed to make decisions regarding their futures.

    They were fighting to preserve the Constitution that the Founding Fathers laid down. Sadly, Lincoln and his band of socialists won that particular battle, but the war has never ended.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!