Learn truth behind Civil War

Allen, your description of succession didn't make sense. Did it to anyone else? "...and join fellow Southern states or send soldiers to Lincoln to kill Southerners. "

Dream on Mr. Johnson your statistics sound like the ones that would be published in the Soviet news papers. The South did in fact commit treason by trying to cause a split in our Country which is still going on today through the lies and hatred as we speak. Who fired the first rounds? Get a life its over,done,finnito, you know what I mean. At least I have figured out why most of the South is Republican, it's so they can keep on crying about how they lost again. Folks,as Lardazz Limbough would say I know we lost but lets try to convince them that we didn't. Just so you know I love the South especially South Carolina but am sick and tired of snivelling people still fighting for something they can't figure out.

Lincoln never cared about slaves. He wished to save the Union with or without it. He only freed slaves in the south with the Emancipation proclamation. Slavery helped the south not the Industrial north. Some whites were slaves and some blacks slave owners-ain't that a bit@h. I don't think you would like the truth justus-that slavery was a black industry in Africa. The spainish and british brought most over sending most to Brazil. The south just needed cheap labor-chinese, black, hispanic no difference to them.

shamrock, it's secession, not succession. Therein may lie your confusion. You, donnymack and justus4 all seem to draw all of your conclusions from hearsay and revised history taught in government schools. A lot of the bad race relations are a result of misinformation. This problem will continue as long as so many feel being educated is the same as "akin' white". The war between the states was a long time coming and was fought for a number of reasons. The slavery issue was established after the war was half over, for political reasons. Since 1865, the slavery issue has been built on and added to to make it seem much more important than it was during the time of the war. It was an interesting era with social ideas and ideals much different than today. Responding to this LTE from an intelligent perspective instead a misinformed emotional one would help you avoid embarrassing errors in your comment.

Miss Patricia has got it right!!

Mr. Johnson. Thank you for speaking the facts. I would like to read some of those books you mentioned.

Patricia has it right. Slavery was not considered immoral or unethical and most people North or South had no problem with it-different times and you can imagine people were more prejudiced than the 60's or today. Slavery still exist. African-americans seem to think they have a monopoly on it or theirs was different and worse than other enslaved peoples. Neither of which are true, but I think we can all agree that as modern people who respect the sanctity of life that slavery is an abomination and draconian=Ooops! I forgot there is no sanctity of life so we should have no problems with slavery. People are just animals. It was all those religious nuts who had a problem with slavery. I guess since many of you believe religion is bad they you obviously support slavery. My mistake. Enslave on.

Thank you Mr. Johnson for your correct view of what happen in the War Between the States. Yankee history and un-truths has been "forced fed" down the minds of our children in the South since the end of the war.

The TRUTH IS OUT THERE for people to read, but not in todays public or college history books. Victors write the history of wars, but that does not make it truthful or correct.

The thing that amazes me the most is that people will not stop and take the time to study and read up on why the real reasons the War Between the States came to be.

People on both sides of this issue, both black and white, please go back and read the truth about what happened and what lead up to this awful war. Don't go by what you have heard from pulpits, inaccurate teachers in public schools, and dumb friends and neighbors who have never studied the real truth.

Mr. Johnson. It's no use even though you are correct. You will never be able to convince them of the facts. It's just like all of the complaining about the Confederate flag and the poor treatment of slaves and atrocities against slaves under that flag. The fact is, slavery existed in this country under the American flag and other flags. Slavery existed in this country from the late 1600s until the end of the Civil War in 1865 or so. The Confederate flag flew from 1861 until 1865 as an official flag. Do not blame the Confederate flag for slavery because the vast majority of slavery existed under the British and American flag. For the reason the Confederacy and consequently the flag came into existence, see Mr. Johnson's article. Very little to do with slavery. More to do with being attacked. I am not denying the existence of slavery, both in the north and south, but the vast majority of Confederate soldiers did not have slaves and were not fighting "for slavery". They just did not like the idea of being attacked by a bunch of yankees. If we had realized how much we could charge them to visit Myrtle Beach things might have been different.

I have lived in several countries that have had a civil war at one time or another. Mostly these wars are not talked about or if so, with shame. Whatever the cause for these wars it is indeed shameful to turn brother against brother or against their own countrymen with killing in mind. Here in this country (primarily in the south) the Civil War is a revered memory or a part of history to be proud of. Battle reenactments is a cottage industry drawing thousands of visitors, mementos of that era are treasured. Small wonder that foreign countries think we are a bloodthirsty bunch. What is happening in the Sudan and many other African nations is nothing more than a civil war, yet we condemn those actions to the fullest extent while glorifying our own civil war. "The Night We Drove 'Ole Dixie Down and All The People Were Singing"

Why do the prejudiced and uneducated still insist that the Civil War or the War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression or whatever name you seek to apply was anything more than elimination of slavery. That's the reason for the war and, thankfully, it succeeded in wiping out the worse social condition our society has ever tolerated. It occurred 150 years ago. It doesn't matter anymore. Countries that have tolerated slavery are miserable failures and ugly blemishes on our planet. I'm glad Lincoln did what he had to do. Otherwise, neither the USA or the CSA would exist today.

Gcap aJustus, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Lincoln's Emancipation did NOT free slaves in the North - only South. If he (Lincoln) had really cared about slavery, don't you think he would have proclaimed ALL slaves free? Yes, the North had some slaves. What most of you whiners don't care to know is that there were white slaves in the U.S. and also black slave owners. Yes, slavery is wrong. No, that is not what the war was about. Lincoln just politicized it later on during the war. Many blacks VOLUNTARILY and VALIANTLY fought with the South against the North. Also...yes, blacks can thank their own black ancestors in Africa for trying to financially profit on them and making the slave trade what it was back then. Today, there are still slaves in the world. By the way...there are and has always been more white slaves than black slaves in the world - maybe not in the U.S. in the 1800's, but all across the world - more white than black slaves. I hear all of you talking about how slavery exists in the U.S. today...well, if it does...it is NOT because of racism, but because of the lack of father's in the black community. (Can you say 75% illegitimacy rate?)

Joe, someone with opinions like mine need only read your simple-minded post to be overwhelmingly assured that I'm right. Yes, there are white slaves even today. They are the folks like you who are slaves of racism and ignorance, if not stupidity. Go to college. Go to church. Learn the truth and practice it.

Joeuser, white slavery existed. It just wasn't counted. You can go to any courthouse in the country, North or South, and read guardianship and indentured servant papers. If a father died, and the mother couldn't support the children, they became white slaves for someone. Children were involuntarily taken from their mothers. Children who lost both parents, unless someone voluntarily took them in, were bound over to people and there wasn't anything they could do about it. It's really chilling to read guardianship cases and see how "Mr X lost guardianship of Y, 13 years of age, because of numerous beatings and mistreatment and malnourishment." You see numerous white children listed on the 1850 and 1860's censes as "apprentice" or "farm laborer" both North and South.

Well done!

Amen

mgroot, a civil war is a conflict between two factions who both want to rule the same nation. The South did not want to rule the United States, she just wanted to separate from them and to fairly rule herself. The conflict from 1861 to 1865 was a rebellion and should be referred to as the Southern Revolution. It was not, by definition, a civil war.

"Joe, someone with opinions like mine need only read your simple-minded post to be overwhelmingly assured that I'm right." What? You must be joking. If you want to know the cause of the Southern Revolution, look at the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and look at the fiscal disparity between the North and the South. Slavery had nothing to do with starting the war. Lincoln's abuse of the Constitution had everything to do with it.

It looks like donnymack and justus4 may be the same person, just trying to make it look like there are more feeling the same poor misinformed way. I guess all others should feel a little bit sorry for them. However they are more full of it than a Christmas turkey is full of dressing. Indeed, it was a war of Northern Agression, mgroothand, and actually, in some ways, the North is still fighting it. Notice most of the factories. If someone born in the south has any say so, they are usually a token. And there even used to be (I don't know if they are still are) schoos in Atlanta for people who want to really get ahead to "lose" their Southern accent. They even want the "new South". Why?

Sunday is the Lord's day, and a day of rest, but God forgive me for responding to this fool Allen Johnson. First off, I hold it to be Allen's position that Lincoln invaded the south, thus causing the Civil War..Question: How can a president invade his own country? Didn't South Carolinians fire the first shots at Fort Sumter and US Navy ships via Morris Island? I'm not sure who Mr. Allen is trying to convience, but he lacks the historical accuracy and intellectual fortitude to change hearts. History tells a different story than the story you tell Mr. Allen. The Civil War was not a flash in the skillet, it's course was set from the moment the issue of chattel slavery in the new territories was put to question. The Kansas-Nebraska Act put the issue to bloodshed. Truth be told the issue was not about northern aggression, but southern hypocrisy and southern aggression. The south was pacified by the Compromise of 1850, and the south pressed the issue after the Mexican War expanded the nation. Lastly, I find it amusing people living today try to change with conjecture and myth that which was settled over 140 years ago with the blood of thousands.

Donnymack, show us anywhere in the US Constitution as it existed then and today, which says a state may not secede from a union it vountarily joined. The actual primary cause for the southern states wanting to secede was the northern industrial states holding the heavy foot of taxation and attempt to limit the south's economy. In other words, it was the economy stupid. Try to dig up some real history books versus the modern revisionist versions found in our colleges and universites.

The arguement that slavery was considered ethical and moral is a lie, and it is a position only a closet racist like patriciathomas would take..The truth is the spirit of the nation at the time the US constitution was adopted was hostile to the principle of slavery, and toleration of the practice only out of necessity..Slavery was already woven into the fabric of American society, be it indentured servants or African slaves. Why is the word "slave" or "slavery" not mentioned in the Constitution? If patriciathomas's arguement that it was moral and okay, the founding fathers could have put the issue to rest by defining it and blessing it..But they didn't, they ran from it, and they ignored it because to address it would have killed any idea of a nation separate from England, because the southern colonies on whole would have said HELL NO to America! Just as a man with an affliction may hide it from a woman he is pursuing, the country hid the slave issue, not because they felt it was moral or okay, but because the time did not call for the cutting away to begin..For someone today to still debate the need or morality of holding man bound is a loud proclamation of that person. Sad!

donnymack and justus4 ARE NOT the same person, daddyrabbit. Epic FAIL.

I do love bursting you ignorant racists bubbles with FACTS and the TRUTH.

And I will go on to refute people like patricathomas and her legion of flukies here who seem to worship her(or him, can't be sure these days) and hang on her praise. Logic is the weapon to defeat tyrants and fools like her. Logic points out that the issue of slavery was why the expansion of the nation was crucial to the Civil War, the question of "states rights" to decide what? SLAVERY! Dred Scott, Uncle Tom's Cabin, John Brown, Nat Turner's Rebellion, The Amistad question, William & Frances Seward and the aboltionist movement, the debate between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln in 1854, all these things were "added to to make it seem much more important than it was" huh, well, to think so is foolish and blind at best...I guess you beign old as Methuselah makes you a living testament huh? Well, being old and heartless don't make you right. And mind you this, to win a person to your cause you must first reach his heart, and you are way off from reaching mine and many others..Your denunciation will be met with denunciation, sword met with sword, saber with saber..My will and moral compass is on course and steady, just as steady as you believe yours to be.

Want to travel back in time to an era long gone? Just read the AC with it's citizenry still clamoring about the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States, etc, whatever they want to call it. Folks, the battles are over with, one side surrendered, it's all in the past for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Please, try to move on to more current dilemmas and problems. Try as much as you can but you will not be able to re-write history and rationalize the belief of the majority of Americans who believe that the South was wrong. Ain't gonna happen. Instead be glad that after the war was over you don't get to see, in the esteemed Augusta Chronicle, ads in the classifieds for the sale of "Negro man, Negro Woman, etc." Spend a little money and check out the AC's archives in the 1850's and 1860's. Money well spent and see how things really were.

Joe, someone with opinions like mine need only read your simple-minded post to be overwhelmingly assured that I'm right. Yes, there are white slaves even today. They are the folks like you who are slaves of racism and ignorance, if not stupidity. Go to college. Go to church. Learn the truth and practice it.
Posted by gcap on Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:42 PM My name is Jack, I am probalby one of the most educated posting here, I do attend church, but also believe in the TRUTH and FACTS, versus misinformation and emotion. Try this on for size.
"In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4)." http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

Stupid rednecks like this letter writer are why people think southerners are intellectually behind the rest of the country.

"Why is the word "slave" or "slavery" not mentioned in the Constitution? If patriciathomas's arguement that it was moral and okay, the founding fathers could have put the issue to rest by defining it and blessing it..But they didn't, they ran from it, and they ignored it because to address it would have killed any idea of a nation separate from England, because the southern colonies on whole would have said HELL NO to America!....Motormouth, our founding fathers did not "ignore" the issue of slavery and had to reach a compromise on the counting of slaves in determining the number of House members of Coongress. "The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman." Geez, I love kicking butt with FACTS.