,...and life up there has been good ever since,....Yankee heaven on display.

https://leakedreality.com/video/6824/gibs-me-dat-minneapolisl

Fuggin animals.

Just NBN. Burning and Looting Minnysoda. Just the new “Norm” there.
And coming to a city near you all, soon !

Reckon the White Folks there will receive Reparations for all that the “slave” Tribes destroy? 😜

Its their own fault for luring them up there so they could cut wages in the big industrial areas.


Like using conscripts in Vietnam?

It's got a way to go before it gets here. A black tried to hijack a car here 3 days ago,...pulled a gun,..cops shot him,..TV station did a little report.

Everybody went on about their day.

As it should be, stupid should hurt. If they did the same to the rioters and looters, it would all end very quickly.

See sig line....
It says it all......

For you that are the Praying type, please remember the Law Enforcement in this area.

Who has dat Omar meme?

Your Southern Democrat Slick Willy put them there!

“Southern” DemoRat’s are just as bad as Northern DemoRat’s
Although they are probably better at lying. See LBJ
Crooked POS needs to be dug up and hanged.

Been saying all my life the wrong side won that war.

And Lincoln set the US on a Bolshevik economic system of taxation that, if left as designed, would ensure our economic demise as designed on the ponzi scheme.

Yep. We’d of damn sure been a whole lot better off !

Or workers in Planet of the...., uh, Grapes.

Bristle, the "North" wanted virile blood for their wives. The war took a lot of their guys.

Amen!!!

Welcome to the Great Society..... Thank you, LBJ...

In 1943 the Bristol VA high school had a debate, "should the slave have been freed?"

The parents got mad.

The school administration intervened. They announced:
1) The debate is over.
2) The slaves should not have been freed.
3) No more school debates about anything.

Amen! Too much common sense to ever come to pass.

Damn straight. It was really the Constitution that lost.

The emerging administrative state needs a minority population or a class to blame things on. Think Hitler and Jews, think of many others. The majority has to have reason to hate this minority, a history to hate it.

Think what happens if the constitution is eliminated and we become an administrative state in the open? Then they flip the script and make blacks the chosen target.

The Union won the war with one hand tied behind its back.

The Confederacy never had a chance.

Present day estimates are that 300,000 Southern soldiers died.

All for "Southern rights."

In actual fact 300,000 died in a futile attempt to perpetuate slavery for the benefit of rich land owners, and owned no slaves at all, and had nothing whatsoever to gain or lose.

almost like certain demographics today fighting for the democrats that oppress them.......... naw... couldn't be.....

,...and the Union forces were fighting for the ability to fill the north with Negroes.

Detroit and Chicago are the greatest examples of their victory,....with Minneapolis rapidly approaching honorable mention status.

The reasons for joining the fight on either side are varied. In a lot of cases it probably came down to which group of azzholes were marching through your cornfield and killing your hogs.

In my family's case, the KY side of the family joined local Union cavalry units because the azzholes from TN were stealing their cattle. The TN branch of the family joined local Confederate infantry units because the azzholes from KY were stealing their cattle.

There was more to it than just "states rights" or "freeing the slaves." I doubt if any of my family gave a damn about either concept. Things became very localized on the border.

This is only true to a limited extent due to oversimplification.

It’s also true that many of those men with so much to lose and little to defend in the way of land fought for the self determination and local governance the FFs are celebrated for winning them less than a century previous.

Oversimplification is often appealing but life isn’t simple.

The north gladly enslaved those freedmen in a different form of plantation, and the powers of over reaching govt now have them trapped in yet another form of dependence so the moral high ground was not owned by either party as relates the African Americans.

I would say that the vast majority fought because someone told them to do so.

My great grandfather fought in the Civil War because he could not afford the $300 to buy his way out.His brother fought for the South as he lived in Virginia.Neither one of them wanted to be there.

My mother did a family tree research a few years ago. It broke my heart and made me cry when I realized how many of my ancestors died needlessly in the Civil War. So many of my family were cut off from bearing children (my relatives), and they never existed. Tragic beyond words

The only reason we started the civil war was because we thought y’all wanted our women. Once we found out y’all just wanted the niqqers we surrendered. 😜. They’re just like hogs, once you get em you can’t get rid of them . Happy Hunting

One of my Great Grandfathers fought with Forrest. He was raised in Nothern Tennessee. They were Netural until the Union Army confisticated their Horses. Horses were their livlihood, so they joined the South. There was a lot more to it than Slavery, but no-one wants to believe that. miles

Bristoe is an idiot.

You always hear about the North being to blame for freeing them, what about the South being blamed for bringing them over?
Jokes aside, the seperation between "North" and "South" is making it a little bit too easy. There's a very interesting book called "Albion's seed" which goes into how four core groups of settlers influenced the politics in early America and, to an extent, still today. You have to take into account that the group with the most influence over the US for a very long time was made up of (former) puritans whose worldviews valued freedom from slavery over most, if not all, other things. Same thing happened with the prohibition movement, which also was driven forward significantly by former puritans. Heck, you even see it today in the large fun-hating parts of the New England population. The core problem with the black population, in my eyes, still wasn't the freeing of them, but rather the abolition of widespread religion in the lower social classes. You don't see very many unstable families in highly religious societies. Say about middle eastern folk what you will, at least they stay with their wives and raise their kids in their image.

Of course there was more to it than slavery................but the North won the war, and therefore got to write the history.

Hindsight is always better than foresight, but the very best thing that could have happened after the war was for the Negroes to have been rounded up and sent back to Africa. Even the Great Emancipator himself, ole Honest Abe (aka as Bolshevik Abe) said that they weren't the equal of the White man.

And if Andy Jackson would have been sent to Canada to fight the Brits in 1812, all you Canucks would be speaking english now!

😁😁😁😁😁😁😁

Does that mean they wouldn't all be saying "eh"?

Bingo! 🤣

.....but....but it ain’t over!!

Winner winner chicken dinner!!

I blame the South for much of our troubles. Things would be so much better if - - -


You lazy MFers would have just picked your own damn cotton

Lincoln simply took the plantation nationwide. Musta been tired of them boys down south collecting all the loot. Now most all you-uns be workin for the mastas. Just think, without Lincoln, there would have been no Obama. Coupl of folks in history should have been national heroes, but got a bad rap. Aaron Burr and John Wilkes Booth, both did this country a great service, albeit somewhat late in both instances.

Slavery was big business in the North for 200 years. Google it.

We would of if your own ancestors wouldn't have brought the slaves over and sold them to us.

It sure was. It was not the Southern good ole boys, who got in their boats and sailed over to Africa in order to capture some wild natives, so they could get them some more cotton pickers. The New England shipping magnates were the ones responsible for bringing the slaves here.

But.....after the War Between the States, the North got to wrote the history books, and conveniently left that part out.

We've got kinfolk that live about 50 miles west of the big city in Minnesota and they tell us the curfews have not been ordered on them yet. What good curfews do is beyond me as nothing is being done to curb any of this stealing. It reminds me of that wench politician in Texas suggesting this is just another form of redistribution of wealth. I suppose these people doing the stealing feel the same way. If this goes far enough the whites are going to start killing the blacks wholesale.

Didn't see any work boots going out the door?

Hahahaha!

Your didn't have to buy them!



20 years ago some indian offered me some meth.


I said no thanks.

LOL

"The North won the Civil War,..."

Is the 'North' now enjoying the spoils of victory?

I don't think either side, "won".

Lincoln got killed before he could deport them. He was writing about that as early as the early 1850s.

White people lost that war.

Agree .
I'm no Civil War historian but anybody who believes tens of thousands of men fought and died to free blacks ? --> NO WAY - life was way too hard back then , no one is going to walk away from what little they had plus leave your family with no one to provide for them . The cause of the war - FEDERAL GOVERNMENT power hungry GOVERNMENT same problem today power hungry greedy FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

My take is that John Wilkes Booth managed to screw up the reconstruction exponentially. Lincoln would've managed a much less painful reconstruction. America has evolved through a lot of growing pains. The North was not particularly all in for the War as many in the South were not. Most fought for their home states where their loyalties lay.

The north had much more industrialization and was better financed than the South. The Southern plantation owners were an arrogant lot and managed to start a war they had no chance of winning. Most Northern Generals didn't believe the negro was the equal of the white which was ignorant. The entire war was fought from one stupid encounter to another. Tactics of the day were abysmal and many lost their lives to stupid decisions. That's war and we had many more replays after that. The South lost to attrition. Sherman was a bigot and an arrogant ass that was one half step away from the nut house. Before the war he was friends with Braxton Bragg and was the president of LSU. The only reason he entered the war is because he was incensed that the South had attacked Fort Sumpter. It took him till 1862 to find his feet and he almost got institutionalized for insanity before he managed to get hold of himself.

America lost much on account of the war that never should've been fought over a sin that never should've been committed. Our Constitution never sanctioned slavery. It was ratified by ignoring the elephant in the room that all knew would have to be eventually dealt with. Blacks did indeed suffer much during reconstruction as did the South as a hole. It took America until 1940 to admit that blacks were anywhere near the equal of whites and grudgingly so at that. The fate of black Americans has been corrupted by democrats and continues to be corrupted by them. Democrats founded the KKK and fathered just about every ill we suffer today.

We're loosing our culture. Our values are compromised. Our institutions are corrupted. Our government is corrupted and all by liberal leftists. Put the past behind and recognize that all those gallant, compromised generals that fought against one another in that great conflict were once classmates at West Point; another institution that has been corrupted by liberal think. They chose sides because of where their loyalties lay. Lee was from Virginia and fought for his home state. Although not perfect Lincoln was a great man and should be revered for his accomplishments against great odds. We should cherish all those monuments to the war from both sides. It's our heritage and without honoring our past we cannot expect to have a future devoid of mistakes made in that past.

Sure the North won but at what cost to the nation? It never should've been allowed to come to that. Lincoln tried everything he could think of to avoid the conflict but it was something that had to be to satisfy the ignorance and arrogance of those that couldn't let go of their prejudice. We're going through much of the same [bleep] today with a little different flavor to it. My view of it all is that stupidity is where you find it and knows no color or creed nor has any particular region to abide in. We're all just people and prone to sin.

You are definitely correct!

Good post, Sir!

Yep!

They won the presidency too. With Biteme. And Zero. They and women and the MSM also got Slick in. Thank God the south kept them from getting Hillbiotch in.

They also got the traitor Ulysses Grant in the presidency and he sold our Constitution For The United States out to the Rothschilds RC Church in the illegal Act of 1871 and now (illegally) we are the Corporation known as THE UNITED STATES and now we are under the Constitution Of (vs For) The United States and most cant figure out why they call us a democracy all tbe time while most unwoke conservatives think the US is still a Republic. We were a Republic until Grant got that undone.

Piglosi knows. Thats why they have the 12 sq miles of W, DC under their control and protected from the army with the National Guard, thinking that legally that land is owned by the Vatican.

She forgets, Fraud Vitiates All.

Some prefer to label it as the "War of Northern Aggression.

Just fer giggles n grins.......


Why Jefferson Davis Was Never Tried
Posted on July 13, 2015 by Yvonne Mason Sewell

Have you ever wondered why President Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason? He was imprisoned for 2 years without a trial.

The post-war Jefferson Davis: The famous trial that never was

By Bill Ward

When the War Between the States ended, the victorious Northerners viewed Jefferson Davis, as the former President of the Confederate States of America, much differently than others who had served the Confederacy.

For example, when Robert E. Lee surrendered to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, the meeting between the two generals was amicable. Lee was received and treated with courtesy as a senior officer. The terms were so apparently lenient, with Grant conceding to Lee’s requests on behalf of his soldiers, the surrender was referred to as “a gentleman’s agreement.”

However, even after signing a loyalty oath, Lee and other former Confederate Army officers and members of the CSA government were later disenfranchised and treated as second-class citizens. But in the eyes of the northern public, Jefferson Davis was set apart for still a different kind of treatment.

On May 10, 1865, about a mile from the town of Irwinville, Georgia, Federal troops captured Davis. With his arrest on that spring morning, his government ceased to exist. His wife, Varina, and their children were sent to Savannah, where she was kept under virtual house arrest and forbidden to leave the city. Because the soldiers, carpetbaggers and Union supporters treated the Davis children so badly, Varina arranged for them to go to Canada along with her mother.

Davis had been taken back to Virginia and imprisoned in Fort Monroe, where he would stay for the next two years. At first, he was bound in leg irons. Guards watched him around the clock but were not permitted to speak to him. He was allowed no visitors; a light burned in his cell day and night; and his only reading material was a Bible. His treatment was a clear violation of the Bill of Rights.

Many Northern Congressmen and newspapers were nothing short of vicious in their public attacks of Davis. They wanted to see him tried for treason and hanged. In one article, and in one very long sentence, the New York Times referred to Davis by every insulting comment and offensive name that was fit to print. Rhetoric far outran legal reasoning.

But if Davis was in an unusual legal predicament, so was the United States government. The dilemma faced by Washington was how to handle the Davis case. The government under Lincoln had created its own major obstacles by spending four years proclaiming that secessionists were “traitors and conspirators.” The U.S. military had silenced opposition to the administration by closing down newspapers that dared challenge the party line or to make the slightest suggestion that secession might be legal. Thousands of Northerners had been jailed for exercising their First Amendment rights, and those thousands had friends with long memories in the Northern bar.

Northern lawyers were angry for having their clients locked in prison with no civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution; having civilians tried by military courts for non-existent crimes; having a government that ignored the Supreme Court, setting itself above the constitutional plan of checks and balances. They didn’t like having to beg the president for justice for clients convicted by phony courts-martial or locked up for long periods without any trial. Under Lincoln, the U.S. government had become tyrannical, and certainly anything but a free and constitutional society.

The best lawyers of the day were willing to volunteer to defend Jefferson Davis, because they were angry at the way Lincoln’s government had trampled the Bill of Rights and the Constitution for four years. Even those who didn’t believe in secession were repulsed by the conduct of the Republican administration and the U.S. military.

Charles O’Connor of New York, one of the most famous trial lawyers of the era and a man of great stature in the legal profession, volunteered to be Davis’s counsel. Salmon P. Chase, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, would be the trial judge.

But interesting things began to happen, and the government’s dilemma became even worse. University of Virginia Law Professor, Albert Bledsoe, published a book, “Is Davis a Traitor?” Bledsoe methodically took apart the case against secession, delivering a solid blow to the prosecutors and dampening their zeal to try Davis. Prosecutors actually began to look for a way to avoid trying him without vindicating the South.

Then another method was decided on for prosecution. The attorney general would bring in outside, independent counsel, as we have seen in modern times, such as in Watergate or the Clinton scandals. The government needed someone of great standing in the legal community to be the lead prosecutor. It chose John J. Clifford. But after reviewing the case, Clifford withdrew citing “grave doubts” about the validity of the case. The government could “end up having fought a successful war, only to have it declared unlawful by a Virginia jury,” where Davis’s “crime” was alleged to have been committed.

President Johnson, Lincoln’s successor, thought the easiest way out would be to pardon Davis, as he had pardoned many other Confederates. But Davis refused, saying, “To ask for a pardon would be a confession of guilt.” He wanted a trial to have the issue of secession decided by a court of law — where it should have been decided to begin with — instead of on battlefields. Most Southerners wanted the same.

Northerners either forgot or were unaware of a great secessionist tradition in America. Southerners were not alone in their view that each state had the right to determine its own destiny in the Union. The procedure for joining the Union also applied to withdrawing from the Union.

That thought harkens back to an editorial by the Cincinnati (Ohio) Daily Inquirer, in the summer of 1861, after the “traitor” label was let loose by the North: “The Republican papers are great on treason. . . . It is treason to circulate petitions for a compromise or peaceful readjustment of our national troubles . . . to question the constitutional powers of the President to increase the standing army without authority of law . . . to object to squads of military visiting private houses, and to make search and seizures. . . to question the infallibility of the President, and treason not to concur with him. . . It is treason to talk of hard times; to say that the war might have been avoided. It is treason to be truthful and faithful to the Constitution.”

A year after John Clifford withdrew, the government appointed another special counsel, Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the novel, “Two Years Before the Mast.” But after reviewing the evidence, he agreed with Clifford; the case was a loser. Dana argued that “a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled…as a rule of law by war.” Dana observed that the right to secede from the Union had not been settled by civilized means but by military power and the destruction of much life and property in the South. The North should accept its uncivilized victory, however dirty its hands might be, and not expose the fruits of its carnage to scrutiny by a peaceful court of law.

Now, over two years after Davis’s imprisonment and grand jury indictments for treason, the stage was set for the great public trial of the century. Davis had been released from prison on a $100,000 bond, supported by none other than Horace Greeley, the leading abolitionist writer in the North and a former Lincoln supporter. Greeley and a host of others were outraged at the treatment Davis had received, being locked up in a dungeon for more than two years with no speedy trial.

Since two famous special counsels had told the government its case was a loser, finally, none other than the Chief Justice, in a quirk of Constitutional manipulation, devised an idea to avoid a trial without vindicating the South. His amazing solution was little short of genius.

The Fourteenth Amendment had been adopted, which provided that anyone who had engaged in insurrection against the United States and had at one time taken an oath of allegiance (which Davis had done as a U.S. Senator) could not hold public office. The Bill of Rights prevents double jeopardy, so Davis, who had already been punished once by the Fourteenth Amendment in not being permitted to hold public office, couldn’t be tried and punished again for treason.

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase secretly passed along his clever argument to Davis’s counsel, Charles O’Connor, who then made the motion to dismiss. The Court took the motion under consideration, passing the matter on to the Supreme Court for determination.

In late December 1867 while the motion was pending, President Johnson granted amnesty to everyone in the South, including Davis. But the Davis case was still on the docket. In February 1868, at a dinner party attended by the Chief Justice and a government attorney, they agreed that on the following day a motion for non-prosecution would be made that would dismiss the case. A guest overheard the conversation and reported what was on the minds of most Southerners: “I did not consider that he [Davis] was any more guilty of treason than I was, and that a trial should be insisted upon, which could properly only result in a complete vindication of our cause, and of the action of the many thousands who had fought and of the many thousands who had died for what they felt to be right.”
And so, the case of United States versus Jefferson Davis came to its end — a case that was to be the trial of the century, a great state trial, perhaps the most significant trial in the history of the nation — that never was.


https://mysouthernheritage.wordpress.com/2015/07/13/why-jefferson-davis-was-never-tried/

ya!

GWB

PS: also, in some other tome I read that the chief Justice also inquired of JD's council if JD was a "Citizen of the United States"? His council said no, he was a citizen of Virginia. Consequently he could not be tried for treason against the US.

Why do you think all the big pet stores facilitate "rescue animals"?

You gotta feed 'em, right?

Yep, states were joining the union with the Express written requirements that they would be allowed to secede if they didnt like the way things were going.

We never had the Cowboys and Afreakins War.

GM

Freaking Yankee couldnt get anything done right.

The American Civil War wasn't even a civil war.

A Civil War is when two factions fight over the control of a country.

The South didn't want to control the country. It just wanted to be left alone.

,...and for the most part, it still does.

The CORRECT term for the war is either War Between the States, or the War of Northern Aggression.

The reason the Democrats, as you put it, but it was the Southern people in reality, formed the KKK was to protect them and their families against the Republican led ex slaves who were trying to "get even" with White Southerners.

Old south, elite master class plantation owners live high, peasants fight and die to preserve their way of life.

How is it the only folks you bring this with boring regularity are from the South? Still butt hurt down there? Lost Cause crap!

Man...you dum.

Great post, gw.

Like most wars, that one was fought over money.

1 Timothy 6:10 reads "For the love of money, is the root of all evil".

Lots of wisdom there.

And you are both ignorant and stupid. Plantation owners were a ruling class only interested in maintaining their way of life. Average Joe was made less because of it. Contrary to the current damning of capitalism due to slavery, voluntary exchange and wage labor is an essential part.

In jr high school they taught us about France, and Germany fighting over Alsace, and Lorraine.

Coal, and iron ore. Money.

Yankee fairy tale, told to try and justify their war against the South.

Yep a southern piece of schitt!

Once again, for grins n' giggles........

bearing in mind.......... Opinions vary!

an excerpt.........

ya!

GWB



What we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience. A reason to be alarmed.

A Confederate General, Patrick Cleburne, warned of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for Independence. General Cleburne said if the South lost, “it means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teaches, they will learn from Northern school books their version of this war. They will be impressed by all of the influences of history and education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects of derision. No truer words were ever spoken by a Southern General, or any General.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with the Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States. Characterizing those as racists, extremists, radicals, hate mongers, and traitors. You know this technique, it’s used today by the current administration in Washington D.C. It’s the same way that people today in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, Patriots, War Veterans, Constitutionalists and Conservative points of view.

Please to understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that the southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from England. On this issue, one cannot be right on one and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How could this nation celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Is this not hypocrisy of the highest order?

In fact, the southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September 1861 Lincoln sent federal troops to the Maryland State Capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed that Maryland should secede. A special furlough was granted to Maryland Troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. All that activity in Maryland was carried out from the direct orders of the Northern Great “Emancipator”.

Now before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had all threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the state of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threaten secession during the first half of the nineteenth century, long before the southern states even considered doing such a thing.

It is commonly said that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln did not save the Union; Lincoln subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or force a woman to stay married with him? In this eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. Now if God recognized the right of husbands and wives to separate,( and He does) to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under natural and divine right) to separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had no authority in the southern states, as they had already separated into another county. Imagine the President today signing a proclamation to free folks in say, China or Saudi Arabia, or even North Korea. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America. No one knew this more than Lincoln.

Most do not know that Lincoln’s proclamation did not free a single slave in the United States, the only country in which he did have authority. Yep, you read that right, the Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Very few realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union Army. Now if you think I’m making this stuff up, check it out for yourself. Then you’ll find I’m right.

One such northern slaveholder was General, and later to be US President, Ulysses S. Grant. In fact Grant maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Here is should be noted that the Confederate General Robert E Lee, freed his slaves before hostilities between the north and south broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant replied “Good help is hard to find these days”

Slavery in this nation did not end until the 13th Amendment to t he Constitution was ratified on December 6, 1865

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It’s the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is the Lincoln proposed 13th amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws or said State.”

You heard that right, Abraham Lincoln himself proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution preserving the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March 1861, a month before shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

Now the State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and again in 1832. The Tafiff of 1828 was disdainfully called “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. And so the South Carolina legislature declared that tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized the constitution of the United States”.

Think about this for a minute here. Why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the preservation of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern, and also northern, states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? It’s true nonsense to even think the War Between The States was fought over slavery.

It was money. Only money. The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered that outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the south was paying up to and perhaps exceeding 70% of the nation’s taxes. Prior to the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. Much more prosperous and productive than the North. So Washington, D.C. kept raising the taxes and tariffs on the south. I’m sure you know that game, the same way that the government keeps raising the taxes on prosperous Americans to this day.

This was much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pat the demanded tariff of the British Crown, albeit the tariffs of the Crown were much lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO.

The Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the State over slavery. Read for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861: “The War is waged by the government of the United States no in the spirit of conquest of subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the right or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

The preserved record could not be more clearer. The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was not an attempt to overthrow on interfere with the “institutions” of the states, bu to keep the Union intact (by force). The institutions referred to most certainly included the institution of slavery. Hear it loud and clear, Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery. So said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was never his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens, who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this: “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican Administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, ant an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in on more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.

Again, what could be more clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

On another occasion Lincoln said: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do s and I have no inclination to do so.

Like I said at the front, some will not believe, some will be enlightened and some will say I know that all the time. Then some will become enraged that I would even dare say such things about President Lincoln. Keep in mind Lincoln, himself, spoke the words and made the record. Should you choose not to believe, maybe, just maybe, you’ve succumbed to the spin doctors of 1865.

From The EastWing, The Real Reason For The War Between The States

I Wish You Well,

BobbyRay

https://wkvi.com/columnists/the-real-reason-for-the-war-between-the-states/

This country would be far better off had the south won.

I dont have a rebel flag.


I do however have a Mississippi flag.

When idiots collide.

LOL

You rebel, you.

I dont know if I like grits or not.

Probably not.

We think we might do our Christmas card in front of it next year.

Really piss the relatives off.

Touché. Ya got me there...

Trust me, you haven't missed a thing. But, they do make good dog food.

Salt and Pepper, but hold da' butter.

ya!

GWB

I've read that book twice.

Never tried the grits though

Exactly true.
And in the end they died for nothing.

I have a can of those too.


Been meaning to try them.

I will look for the book. Not interested in the grits. I’ve tried them and didn’t care for them.

To the victor goes the spoils.

Is it okay to call them that?

Seems like all the trouble is caused by the people the South brought in to pick their cotton.

Spot on. Died for NOTHING! The outcome of the bloodbath of the Civil War was already pre-determined by evil politicians. I actually came to tears when I learned my family tree history, and I realized that I had potential relatives that never existed, but would have, had my ancestors not been killed in that evil war. I served 2 tours in Afghanistan, and nothing has changed; the dead soldiers I witnessed died for nothing also. Tragic, and heartbreaking

Add cheese, a little butter, shrimp and either bacon or sausage with a fried egg on top. It will become your favorite breakfast. Took my wife, born and bred in Bozeman 28 years to give them a try. Now it's her favorite. C'mon Jim, come over to the south side.

True, if you consider Plymouth Rock to be the South.

War has no winners, only survivors.

A war was inevitable. Just as it is now. Look to the past. There are ample examples of secessionist movements all of the then US of A! And not all in the south!!!! Lots of fine loyal Americans in New England around 1812.


So how did the alleged “ruling class” plantation owners convince the poor, non slave owning, Ulster scot majority all thru the south to take up their cause and fight????


It basically boiled down to one comment by a confederate prisoner when asked;

“Because you are here, sir!"

Not slavery, not states rights, but occupation by a belligerent/ invading army.

Oh btw, I suppose the north had no such economic ruling class.

Sarcasm icon off

(The war made MANY millionaires!!! 😉)

The vast majority of northerners could have cared less about a black slave in Alabama.

But!!!

The northern industrialist had their desires on owning the south for decades! Unlike the untamed west, there was a necessary infrastructure in place already in the south. Slavery was the tool to justify their means. And that Lincoln proclamation sanctified the cause. Internal colonialism thru reconstruction.

Preserve the Union!

Both sides have ample blame to share! No monopoly there.

I will say no more.

"It basically boiled down to one comment by a confederate prisoner when asked;

“Because you are here, sir!""

Right, some poor slob too dumb to figure out how to have his own slaves fights so his betters can keep theirs.
He's your authority on the war?

KW, you don't have to say more, because you nailed it.

I will repeat this once again, and I'll type it slowly because it appears that some of our Northern brethren must read slowly..............The North won the war, and the winners always get to tell the history and what happened. The North had to find a means to justify their denying the South the right to secede, so they created the fairy tale that they were going to fight a war to free the slaves, because the South had seceded in order to keep those slaves.

The REAL reason the North fought to keep the South from seceding had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. It was because as KW said.........the North wanted to keep the South under it's thumb, and deny them the right to compete with the North. The South was growing rich, and was branching out and trading with Europe, something that the North thought it should have a monopoly on.

At any rate, those of us who have actually took the time to study up on the time period leading up to the war, know what was really going on. Those who got their history by being told what happened, instead of seeking the truth out, only know what someone wanted them to know. It's really that simple.