Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

sandmountainslim

Compatriots,
An excellent article by By Richard Lee Fulgham concerning the true
nature of the WBTS.
Deo Vindice
WP

AN EASY TO SWALLOW SYNOPSIS OF THE SO-CALLED
"CIVIL WAR"
By Richard Lee Fulgham
Author of:
("The Hogs of Cold Harbor" Smile

http://www.whitmorebooks.com/hoofcohaciwa.html
("Appalachian Genesis"):
http://www.overmountainpress.com/...ges/books/appalachiangenesis.html
February 14, 2006 - - I think it worth the time here to encapsulate
the War for Southern Independence fought against the North between
1861 and 1865. We must look at the facts clearly because revisionists
are right now at work trying to erase the memory of the Confederacy
and the ideals for which it fought.
These revisionists are helped by a Northern established school system
which has removed true American history from its curriculum, thus
denying multiple generations since World War II the truth about the
Confederate States of America.
If they knew the truth, they might realize that the country we call
America today might in fact have been cut into two countries -- the
United States and the Confederate States. The United States has, as
everyone will agree, become lost in licentiousness and well-intended
but back-firing egalitarianism. The Confederate States, had it been
allowed to grow, could well have become a modern Camelot.
In this context, we can say with certainty that virtually all citizens
of the Deep South realized in the early 19th Century that something
perverse had happened to the United States. There grew an aristocracy
in the North which enslaved its citizens, deprived them of land, bled
their wallets and banished God from their lives. This aristocracy
became malignant and grew deeper into the tissue of the state, cutting
off the blood cleansed by their founding father's vision of human
dignity. The subsequent malignancy sent its tentacles deep into the
South, sucking out vital nutrients and corrupting everyone it touched
with promises of riches. The South watched as this malignancy took
form and shape and finally spoke, saying "We shall become a world
power by taxing to death those slow-thinking hayseeds south of the
Mason/Dixon line."
The Northern aristocracy knew its survival depended on the U. S.
federal government then holding all states in bondage. In fact, the
aristocracy was the federal government-- then as now. They were one
and the same. The average Southerner lived on his own land, raised his
own sustenance, worshiped as he saw fit, and was governed as Jefferson
had intended -- by preponderance of vote. But the North would not hear
of this free life. It placed a noose around the South's neck,
tightening it every time the South lurched for freedom. The North had
no choice because it needed Southern taxes to pay off the National Debt.
The South was a separate culture, seeped in Elizabethan etiquette and
North European justice. It was elegant, where as the North was
brutish, made coarse by the dehumanization of its citizens -- who had
to survive by working daylight to nightfall in windowless factories
for starvation wages. The typical Southerner worked on the land, in
the free sun, breathing free air -- and was rewarded with a bounty
unheard of on this earth, a bounty of Cornucopias dimensions, fresh
healthy food, natural sun-warmed weather, boundless acres of rich land
for every soul. And Christ was with these Southerners, in their
mornings and in their evenings, in their comings and in their goings,
in their souls and in their hearts, in their children, in their jobs
and in their leisure . . . .
This separate culture thrived at first, until an "aristocracy of New
Money" (with roots in the North) decided to reap what it had not sown.
Cotton was the major cash crop in the South, having immense value to
countries around the world. So the Northern aristocracy/government
passed laws demanding that the South sell its cotton only to the
North, who then would sell it on the world market for a huge profit.
Thus did the North benefit more than the South f! rom slaver. Also --
to spit in the Southern faces -- these same aristocrats used the
South's rightful earnings to build Northern industry, educate Northern
children, pave Northern roads, build Northern government buildings,
and finance Northern businesses. Thus the North enslaved the South and
called it equality.
The great irony in all this is that the South also had within it a
malignant aristocracy -- and this malignant aristocracy enslaved
humans of African descent. The facts are that importing African
natives to work as slaves had been made illegal in 1838. The practice
was dying out. The North also knew that only three percent of the
Southern population practiced slavery. Most found it abominable. World
opinion was already against this Southern aristocratic dynasty of
slave holders. Each and every state in the South has already drawn up
legal procedures to free its slaves, despite the super-
rich Southern hogs who slept in bed with the Northern foe.
Meanwhile, the North's border was opened to entice cheap labor to
emigrate to the Northern United States. Millions were told they could
achieve the so-called "American Dream" through hard work -- working in
Northern factories, from which there was really no escape but disease
and death. The North also needed emigrants to stop bullets if war was
to come. And indeed, hundreds of thousands of these emigrants, few of
whom spoke English, were ultimately put in uniform and thrown at
Southern fighters for independence.
The slaves of the Southern rich were indeed deprived of their liberty.
But they could not flee to the North because the Northerners,
especially the emigrants, hated the darker skinned human beings worse
than the Southerners. It is a fact that I grew up in Manchester,
Georgia, before integration. The black folks I hung around with were
happy enough and seemed to hold no resentment toward me. This, I
believe, is because the Black population was rarely mistreated in the
South, as it certainly and horribly was in the North. I fished with
them and had huge picnics with them and worked with them and generally
had much grand fun with them -- and, I hope, they with me. I often
yearn those day down on Pigeon Creek a' fishing for catfish all night
-- the flambeau lighting things up and chasing off the skeeters --
waiting till dawn so we could fry them fish up and have us a feast!
Such friendships were rare in the North, especially in the early
1800's. The North despised its Black population, though they were
technically "free". This is historical fact and easy to prove. The
Blacks were competitors for a hard labor market. Individuals among
them were lynched and beaten much more often than in the South. We
must always remember that history -- even in the lurid magazine and
newspaper articles -- was written by Northerners, not Southerners. Of
course we come off as the villain. The facts prove otherwise.
Also, the reason the South could not issue its own Proclamation
Declaration –– thus retaking the moral high ground –– was simply fear
of violent reprisal if all the slaves were released at one time,
flooding the South with homeless, bitter freedmen. The South fear
internal chaos and mass retaliation. Ironically, when this actually
happened at the end of the war, the freed slaves in general did not
retaliate, but remained peaceful citizens, usually living on their
ex-master's estates –– as if nothing had happened. This indicates
without a doubt that the so-called "slaves" were, on the whole,
treated decently by their "owners" and considered their respective
states their homes. The South had a long history of race relations
long before the North interfered. It was the North which could not
accept integration, not the South.
The hatred so ugly in the North becomes evident when one realizes the
"Underground Railroad" did not take Southern slaves to the Northern
United States -- it took them all the way to Canada because the
Northerners despised them and feared them. They would have been
mercilessly killed by the Yankee laborers, who were known for their
lack of! compassion and culture.
The North was in no way more moral than the South for its law to call
the African-descended men and women "free". All Northern men and
women, no matter what color, were slaves if they didn't have trades or
family fortunes. Only entrepreneurs with no ethics could make money up
North because their philosophy was "Sell things for more than they're
worth." (It still is.)
Upon the declaration of independence of the Confederate States of
America -- basing its foundation on the Articles of Confederation,
written years before the Constitution -- the North reacted with
paroxysm of violent hysteria, realizing its major source of free
income would be lost if the South was incorporated into a true
Jeffersonian nation. Upon the pretext of Fort Sumter, the North
launched an invasion such as the world had never seen, mobilizing
millions of young men to trample down the South's lofty aspirations of
human dignity and self worth and independence. The North went into
convulsions at the mere suggestion that they could no longer
parasitize their southern states.
No one seriously doubts today that the War for Southern Independence
was fought so desperately by the North to preserve the union, not
"free the slaves". I have discovered for myself that the decedents of
the enslaved population now know this is true. All illusions have been
dissolved about a moral basis to the war. It was not moral; it was
economic, as with all wars.
For this reason, the North can only be said to be cynical when it
issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The North knew they had to give
its people more than they were to keep them volunteering to die for
their rich people. So they proclaimed that they were invading the
South to "free the slaves". This absurd justification is transparent
today but was quickly swallowed by the less educated and more gullible
souls of the 19th Century. It doomed the South because no sovereign!
nation on earth would back a new country which seemed to be fighting
to retain slavery in its economic scheme. The South, as I've said, was
already drawing up plans to free its slaves when Lincoln suddenly
pretended it was the only issue at stake. Without allies, the
Confederate State of America was overwhelmed by a North which put no
value on individual life or Christian morality, proving these lacks of
honor by sacrificing hundreds of thousands of lives without blinking
an eye.
I have presented this brief capsule of the origins for the War for
Southern Independence because my intention is to preserve American
history as it really happened, not as revisionists wish it had
happened. The truth is the truth and cannot be changed by words.

_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/

RFM · Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:11 am Post subject:

Articles like this only serve to demonstrate how educationally and intellectually challenged the southern United States still is. Hard to believe tripe like that still finds its way into print and readers who still take it seriously.
RFM

sandmountainslim · Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:51 am Post subject:

RBK · Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:12 pm Post subject:

I think I read somewhere that less than 5% of Dixians owned slaves. These guys certainly didn't. I think you have to judge folk against the days they lived in.

There were decisions to be made,not least the defence of hearth and home.

An excerpt from 'Born Fighting'......

''This regiment was drawn exclusively from Scott,Lee,Russell,and Washington Counties in the southwest corner of the state. The percentage of mountaineers who were slaveholders was approximately zero. Many of them were not even property owners. Few had a desire to leave the Union. But when Virginia seceded,the mountaineers followed Robert E. Lee into the Confederate Army.

The Davis Rifles were not unique in this fate. Such tragedies were played out repeatedly across the landscape of the South. To my knowledge, no modern army has exceeded the percentage of losses the Confederate Army endured,and only the Scottish regiments in World War 1 and the Germans in World War 2 come close. A generation of young men was destroyed. One is reminded of the inscription so often present on the graves of that era; ''How many dreams died here''.

The lesson regarding William John Jewell's death,plus the hundreds of thousands of others in the war,is far more complex than those who simplifiy his service into racial slogans wish to make it. He and his fellow soldiers took an oath and then honored the judgment of their leaders,often at great cost. Intellectual analyses of national policy are subject to constant re-evaluation by historians as the decades roll by,but duty is a constant,frozen in the context of the moment it is performed. Duty is action,taken after listening to one's leaders and weighing risk and fear against the powerful draw of obligation to family,community,nation, and the unknown future. We, the progeny who live in that future,were among the intended beneficiaries of those frightful decisions made so long ago. As such,we are also the caretakers of the memory and reputation,of those who performed their duty -- as they understood it --- under circumstances too difficult for us ever fully to comprehend. No one but a fool -- or a bigot in their own right --- would call on the descendants of those Confederate veterans to forget the sacrifices of those who went before them or argue that they should not be remembered with honor.''

RFM · Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:29 am Post subject:

It was closer to 3% of the southerners who owned slaves in any number, they were expensive, but it was that 3-5% that controlled all of the political resources and wealth of the south. For instance Robert E. Lee was one of the largest slave owners and plantation owners in the south a curious fact his military historians seem to overlook. It was also that 3-5% that led the south into the greatest disaster and calamity that America has ever known. The civil war not only destroyed a full generation of young men but also depleted the national resources in the south to the extent that the southern states never fully recovered until well into the second half of the 20th century. Poverty in the south was a national disgrace to the entire nation. And it was all located in the former confederate states. You might well ask yourself what was the whole point of the war, what was the hoped for gain? Well sir, it was to propagate a very small aristocracy that had no regard for or any intention of alllowing such things as universal sufferage,civil rights, public education, public health care. or participation in government. Read the papers of Jefferson Davis, the former president of the confederate states, take a look at what he had in mind. Somehow the civil war apologists never talk about that.
When the Union attempted to aid in the reconstruction of the war torn south, the political and former confederate leadership resisted, forming guerrilla movements such as the KKK, all under the guise of racial superiority. For instance the north, led by Massachusetts, had public schools in the 1660's. Also Vermont, Connecticut and New York later. The south never did, and resisted any public school system well into the early 20th century, on the brain-addled idea that they would have to include blacks if they did. The cotton planters needed cheap labor. All of the southern states passed laws after the civil war allowing local sheriffs to arrest and sentence vagrants, (white or black note) to work as convict labor for the white planters. Hired labor was required to remain at the plantation for at least one year, and received no pay except when the cotton crop was sold. Then they were charged for food, tool rental, housing and anything else the planter could get away with deducting from wages. Disputing labor conditions was also a crime. Many of the local government reports were that cotton needed a forced labor force, one that worked seven days a week from sunup to sunset, without backtalk. The overseer and the whip was the means of motivating the southern work force on the plantation, several decades after the civil war.
The greatest obscenity of all is this attempt to rewrite the history of the south, portraying it as some sort of camelot, with moonlight and southern chivalry under the magnolias. All to avoid admitting a terrible miscalculation by the white ruling classes of the south and the unmitigated disaster they led the south into.
Gorify it if you must, but be honest to at least yourself as to what it is you glorify.
RFM

johnhoward · Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:10 pm Post subject:

The War Was Not Fought Over Slavery

The lie that the War for Southern Independence (or as the U.S. Congress officially declared it to be -- The War Between the States; it was not a "civil war") was fought over slavery, with the North fighting to free Southern slaves and the South fighting to keep her slaves. This is, of course, not true.
First of all, all thirteen original states which seceded from England in 1776 and which formed the United States of America, from Maine (a part of Massachusetts at that time) to Georgia, owned slaves. Was the First American Revolution fought over slaver . If not, then neither was the Second American Revolution fought over slavery when the Southern states withdrew from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. Is the Fourth of July a racist holiday because all thirteen original colonies had slaves? If not, then neither are our Confederate holidays. Is the U.S. flag a racist flag because all thirteen original states had slaves? If not, then neither is the Confederate battle flag a racist flag -- or do these intolerant individuals and the news media advocate taking down the U.S. flag as well? If they do, then they will need to take down nearly every national flag in the world, starting with the flag of Nigeria in Africa. What blatant bigotry to call the Confederate flag racist!
During the War for Southern Independence, many in the North also had slaves, but refused to free their slaves until after the War. People in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, and even Washington, D.C., owned slaves; these states never seceded and were under the control of the United States throughout the course of the entire War. However, they were not required to free their slaves by the U.S. government. The U.S. Congress in 1862 even refused to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, when the only Senators and Representatives in Congress were from the North (all Southerners had left Congress to form their own nation). How could the North be fighting the War to free Southern slaves when they would not free their own, such as Ulysses S. Grant's personal slave or Abraham Lincoln's father-in-law's slaves? What hypocrisy! Even worse, Lincoln and the U.S. Congress offered to pass a constitutional amendment for the South, guaranteeing permanent slavery forever in the slave states, if only the Southern states would return to the Union. The South refused the offer.
Northern slaves were even exempt from Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Furthermore, captured Southern slaves on the Mississippi River were forced to work on the plantations as slaves for the United States Army, growing cotton for Northern factories, rather than being set free. Also, during the War, just as many Union soldiers owned slaves as Confederate soldiers. Is the U.S. flag a symbol of slavery because the North owned slaves during the War? If not, then neither is the Confederate battle flag a symbol of slavery. How could the War have been fought over slavery when both sides had slaves?
The War for Southern Independence was fought over local self-government by the South versus centralist government by the North; the centralist government won and the local selfgovernment lost. The Confederate battle flag is the symbol of the right of the local people and the states to govern themselves and is flown in memory and honor of our Confederate ancestors and veterans who gave their lives for less government, less taxes, and Southern independence.
In his inaugural address of March 4, 1861, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln stated, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Furthermore, Union General U.S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side."
A war over slavery? Not hardly!
The Confederate States of America even offered to free all Southern slaves in return for independence; Lincoln refused the offer. The term "free state" meant free from Blacks. Northerners did not want to live with Blacks, slave or free, and many Northern states and territories actually passed laws prohibiting free Blacks from entering into them. Lincoln himself stated the opinion of the Northern people at during a meeting with a group of Black leaders during the War, saying, "There is an unwillingness on the part of our people [Northern Whites] to live with you free colored people. Whether this is right or wrong, I am not prepared to discuss, but it is a fact with which we must deal. Therefore, I think it best for us to separate." Acting upon this sentiment, Abraham Lincoln and the United States Congress purchased land, passed laws, and started shipping free Northern Blacks out of the country down to poverty-stricken Haiti. Lincoln put together several such schemes to remove free Blacks from the United States, to send some back to Africa and some to Central and South America. At the end of the War, a few weeks before Lincoln was assassinated, Union General Benjamin Butler asked him what he was going to do with all the recently free Southern Blacks. To this Lincoln replied, "I think we should deport them all."
Meanwhile, down South, Confederate States President Jefferson Davis and his wife Varina were adopting an eight-year-old free Black orphan boy named Jim Limber. After his mother died, little Jim was placed with a free Black family as foster parents. However, this family badly mistreated him to such a degree that the news reached the ears of the President and Mrs. Davis, who, in the middle of the War, took the time and effort to intercede and rescue Jim from this child abuse. Little Jim's wounds were doctored and he was welcomed into the Confederate White House as a member of the Davis family. President Davis himself went to court in Richmond and had free papers registered on Jim Limber, so he would always be free. Even when our President was on his way to prison for trying to obtain independence and self-government for the Southern people, he made arrangements and provided for Jim Limber's future education and care. In the Old South it was not uncommon for Blacks to take in orphaned Whites or for Whites to take in orphaned Blacks. There was a relationship between Blacks and Whites that Northerners even today do not understand or appreciate.
The War for Southern Independence was fought over the right of the local people to govern themselves versus a centralist government by the few, the rich, and the powerful. The South wanted less government, less taxes, independence, and decisions made at the local level where the people have control. The North wanted more taxes, more government, and centralism, with a compulsory union at bayonet point and decisions made in Washington D.C. rather than by the local people. The South stood on the principles of the Southerner Thomas Jefferson, who in the Declaration of Independence, stated, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government." In other words, the people should control the government, not the government controlling the people. The North stood on the principles of the Northerner Alexander Hamilton, who believed that government should be ruled by an intellectual aristocracy, maintained by the enlightened self-interest of the wealthy rather than the common people, governing themselves. Northern Abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, burned the U.S. Constitution in the streets, calling it "a pact with the devil." Lincoln likewise brutally violated nearly every article and amendment to the U.S. Constitution, throwing over 35,000 Northern Citizens in prison as political prisoners, including state legislators, without cause or trial, as well as, violently closing a dozen opposition newspapers and suppressing freedom of speech.
President Jefferson Davis and the Confederate States Congress never did such things. The Southern people took the U.S. Constitution with them when they voluntarily withdrew from the voluntary Union and brought forth upon this continent, a new nation, where the right of the local people to govern themselves was protected.
Just as with the War for American Independence of 1776, the War for Southern Independence of 1861 was fought over "taxation without representation." The North was constantly trying to raise taxes on Southerners through high tariffs on imported goods, in order to protect the inefficient big businesses in the North which could not compete with manufactured goods from England and France with whom the South traded cotton. The South did not have factories and had to import most finished products.
The Industrial Revolution allowed England and France to produce and ship across the Atlantic products that were cheaper than the products Northern manufacturers, who refused to modernize, could produce with their White child labor- ten-year-old children working sixteen hours a day in "sweat shops" for mere pennies and sleeping in the streets. Slaves in the South were treated much better than child laborers in the North.
When the taxes on imports were rejected, rich big businessmen in the North were promised that, if elected, Lincoln would drastically raise the import tax. That is why the Southern states quickly began to escape from the tax net that Lincoln was spreading. Within Lincoln's first month in office, the U.S. Congress had passed the Morrill Tariff, which was the highest import tax in U.S. history, more than doubling the import tax rate from 20% to 47%, which was enough to bankrupt many Southerners. This oppressive tax was what pushed Southern states to legally withdraw from the voluntary Union, not slavery.
Since the Southerners had escaped the tax by withdrawing from the Union, the only way the North could collect this oppressive tax was to invade the Confederate States and force them at gunpoint back into the Union. It was to collect this import tax to satisfy his Northern industrialist supporters that Abraham Lincoln invaded our South and not to free any slaves. Lincoln's war cost the lives of 600,000 Americans.
When Lincoln invaded Charleston and then Virginia, all Southerners- Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Indians, Orientals, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, rich and poor, male and female almost to a person rose up and volunteered their services in defense of the Confederate States of America because all were going to suffer from this horrible federal tax. Nowhere in the history of movements of independence and self-government have a people been so united in purpose and dedicated to the cause of Independence. No, not even in 1776 did the thirteen colonies receive such support and sacrifice by the people, and that war was fought over a 3% tax on tea!
My fellow Americans, the South was right! The Confederate battle flag represents all Southerners and even Northern Confederates from states such as Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, and others, who supported the South and who even tried to secede from the Union and form their own nation but whose efforts for freedom were crushed by Lincoln's troops. Confederate Indians, Hispanics, Blacks, and Whites all received Confederate pensions after the War and attended Confederate veterans' reunions together, year after year, just as they had suffered and fought together during the War. The Confederate battle flag represents all Confederates, regardless of race or religion, and is the symbol of less government, less taxes, and the right of a people to govern themselves. It is flown in memory and honor of our Confederate ancestors and veterans who willingly shed their blood for Southern independence.

RFM · Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:48 am Post subject:

Say Chief,
I don't know what you have been smoking or what sort of comic books you get your history from, but maybe you ought to read what the confederate leadership. like Jefferson Davis had to say about why he went to war. He is real clear about it. You could probably find it in the public library if you have ever been in one. I must say that I never thought I would ever live to see the day that some person would say with a straight face that the civil war was not about 'that peculiar institution" as Charles Dickens put it so politely.
If your tastes don't run to the writings of the confederate leadership, try reading any one of a number of books on the history of the reconstruction of the southern states after the war. You might be surprised- or maybe you just don't read anything that interferes with your cooked up version of history.
RFM

sandmountainslim · Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:57 am Post subject:

This is a free forum friend, Very Happy

Feel free to start an "I Love Yankees" or "Bush Is God" thread if you like, I am GLAD that someone likes the federal system, means my tax dollars are going to making someone happy huh? I am sorry that it makes you angry when others don't buy the excuses the Yankee Empire uses for attempted genocide and illegal wars, I am sure you will grow out of it someday.
Wouldn't starting a Pro-Union thread be more fun than spreading propaganda in mine? Wink

_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/

redlak · Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject:

Ah Sandmountainslim,

Can you tell me would a state like Alabama be allowed to declare itself independent from the rest of the Union or are there mechanisms in place to stop any one leaving the American Empire.
_________________
Onwards to a Republic

sandmountainslim · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:11 am Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:11 am Post subject:

Well we can probably agree that George W. Bush is the biggest dud ever to hold high political office in the United States, but he calls himself a southerner so I kind of thought that went with the territory. I notice that you like to argue like a fundamentalist preacher, just making up facts as you go along. I don't think people like you are remotely interested in things like facts or truth, but you might take the time to look them up before you spin them out.
For instance, Texas v, White, 74 US 700 (1868) was not at all about the issue of succession. That was a case brought during reconstruction, to recover certain US government bonds that the state of Texas had assigned to White and others during the civil war to buy war materiale.. White raised the defense that Texas had seceeded from the Union during the war and as a separate soveriegn nation the Supreme Court of the United States had no jurisdiction. The Court ruled for Texas by holding that as it never had any legal right to secede in the first place, it was still a state of the Union at the time and White had to return the bonds.
It may also interest you to know that the Morrill Act of 1854 was a tariff on imports of iron and steel, basically to protect the steel industry in Pennsylvania. There was no steel or iron manufacturing in the south before the war. There was never a federal tax code until 1939 either, so I really don't think you have the vaguest notion of what you are talking about. There was an income tax levied on the northern states for one year and some months during the civil war, but it wa struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
For your information the second largest, if not the largest slave owner in the south was Jefferson Davis. If you really believe he went around adopting black children for any reason other than to add to his stock of human chattel, you ought to check out some ocean-front property in Arizona.
There were also 15 not 13 colonies which England settled in North American, the two you so conveniently overlook ( or maybe you simply just don't know) were Quebec and Arcadia (now Nova Scotia). Sorry Charlie, but no slaves there. If I remember correctly two of the northern states also outlawed slavery outright, Massachusetts and Delaware, I beleive and states like Illinois passed laws providing that a slave brought into Illinois was entitled to his freedom once he crossed the state line.You are right however that slave ownership was widespread in the south, but the problem was that they were expensive. That meant anybody who wanted to own slaves in any number needed a lot of capital. That left it to the planters, who needed cheap labor in order to profit from cotton. In the north it was much cheaper and easier to simply pay wages. Facts are such troblesome things as Mark Twain once said.
As to where you get this number of thousands of political prisoners sounds like pure moonshine to me, but I suspect you are talking about southern sympathizers and prisoners of war. Why don't you give us the the names of these political prisoners or where tthey were incarcerated so we can all see? And verify.
Personally I don't understand why you just don't pack up and move to some other country that still allows slavery if you think it is such a wonderful thing; I have in mind Darfur, Somalia, maybe Uganda or places like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait . They could certainly use a good public relations person who thinks playing fast and loose with the truth is a great thing. Why stay here and moan about the great days of moonlight and magnolia when the black man knew his place as they like to say down south. You could carry on your lost cause and be appreciated.
RFM

sandmountainslim · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:23 am Post subject:

sandmountainslim · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:35 am Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject:

Yes, blacks and whites get along just wonderfully down in dixie. For instance Greensboro, North Carolina, November 3, 1979, when the KKK opened fire on a civil rights march before network television cameras. Or Senator Trent Lott's famous remark in 2002 at the birthaday party for Sen. Strom Thurmond, that the Dixiecrat Party should have won the presidential election back in 1948. Who were the Dixiecrats you might well ask; the party who advocated racial segregration, denial of voting rights to blacks and other wonderful things. Yes things are just peachy and would remain that way if the Yankees would just mind their own business.
Now you probably would not know, or perhaps wouldn't even care to know that Cabrini-Green as well as several other federally subsidized housing projects was based on income as the entrance ticket. That happened to include several white families as well. Nobody forced them to live there, in fact every month the Housing Authority would evict several who did not feel any obligation to abide the rules and regulations of the project, like no guns or drugs. On the other hand Hurricane Katrina showed the world exactly how wonderfully the blacks and whites are provided for in the south. It is now going on to the sixth month since the hurricane struck Louisiana with homeless low income people still trying to return to their homes or what is left of them.
But you are right about the fact that racism is an American problem. For instance when Martin Luther King marched in Chicago in 1968, he was met with violence by the white community, no question of it. People turned out in South Holland, an upscale all white community of Chicago to burn school buses to prevent integrated schools as late as 1972. The whole point is that it is a national disgrace to a nation that runs around the world touting freedom and democracy while denying it to its own citizens at the same time. Look for instance at the Ohio and Forida elections in 2002. What exactly do we have to teach the Iraqi's and the Afghans ? And so Mr. Vindice, let me suggest to you that rewriting history is a form of intellectual vandalism that deprives both the heros of their rightful due and provides cover for the miscreants and evil doers. The confederate cause is exactly one of the latter.
As to Mr. Edgerton, well one can only say he was born about 150 years too late. It was also a fact that during the civil war Blackmen by the hundreds and thousands escaped to the North to join the Union cause; there were in fact several black regiments in the Union army. I would be willing to bet you a ten dollar bill that neither you nor Mr. Edgerton can name a single black regiment that fought for the confederacy.
RFM

RFM · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject:

Mr. RBK;
First let me apologize in the delay for responding to you. You are quite right that most of the confederate soldiers were simply men who responded to what they understood was the defense of their country. Should they be demonized because they fought for an unscrupulous bunch of white plantation owners and slave owners? Absolutely not! Consider for instance Germany and the National Socialist cause or as more commonly known, the Nazi government. Most of the men who served in the German army were ordinary citizens who responded to the call to arms. Does that make them any less a hero and fallen soldier because of the criminal nature of the leadership? Absolutely not! The Germans have managed to honor their war dead without parading around in Nazi uniforms and waving Nazi flags, and righfully so. You may recall for instance that President Ronald Reagan made an official visit to Bitburg, a war cemetary which also was a cemetary for the SS. Rightfully so for these were soldiers who had made the ultimate sacrifice of laying down their lives for their country. The same is also true of the confederate war dead. They too are entitled to the respect, the memory and thanks of their countrymen for paying with their lives in their country's defense.
Unfortunately however, their memory is always besmirched and exploited by the unscrupulous and the cheap political hacks who want to attach themselves and their miserably failed cause to that respect and memory. They do it by displaying the confederate flag and marching around in confederate uniforms. Or trying to fly the confederate flag from their state capitol just "in memory of the dead". The Germans certainly don't and they wouldn't put up with it; neither should we.
RFM

RFM · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject:

To Sandmountainslim;
No the Supreme Court in Texas v White did not rule on the issue of the legal right of a state to secede from the Union. Read the opinion of Mr. Justice Chase pages 754-757. The court held that Texas never left the Union although its state government was taken over and in the hands of rebels. He notes correctly that the then sitting governor and secretary of state, lawfully elected, refused to take the oath of allegiance to the confederacy and as a result were dismissed from office by the rebels. Lawful status was restored at the conclusion of hostilities.
RFM

Abieuan · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject:

RFM wrote:

sandmountainslim · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:17 pm Post subject:

sandmountainslim · Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:45 am Post subject:

http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/theblackconfederatesoldier.htm

Confederate Groups Honor Black Soldiers

The United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans and Confederate

re-enactors give Creed Holland and two of his compatriots from Franklin County

the recognition due them

Rebel re-enactor with a cause

Spotsylvania resident Willie Levi Casey Jr. is an African-American member of the

Sons of Confederate Veterans and proud to be Southern.

By LAURA MOYER
The Free Lance-Star

Black Historian
Documents Lincoln's Racism

Abraham Lincoln "was a racist who opposed equal rights for black people, who loved minstrel

shows, who used the N-word, who wanted to deport all blacks," a veteran journalist and historian

says. "There has been a systematic attempt to keep the American public from knowing the real

Lincoln and the depth of his commitment to white supremacy," says Lerone Bennett Jr., whose

new book, "Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream," examines Lincoln's record.

A True Black History Moment

In Mississippi on Feb. 1, 1890 an appropriation for a monument to the Confederate dead was being

considered. A delegate had just spoken against the bill, when John F. Harris, A Negro Republican

delegate from Washington, County, rose to speak:

THE BLACK CONFEDERATE SOLDIER

How many Black soldiers served for the Confederacy in the War Between the States? Perhaps no

one will ever know. Estimates run anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000. However, because the victors

- the north - needed to give the world the impression the War was fought over slavery, a concerted

scheme was put into motion to suppress the figures by destroying records, thus giving credence to

their 'the war was fought over slavery' mantra. While a large number of government records were

distorted or destroyed, thousands of 'other' records in the form of letters and photos remain.

History Lessons From the Slaves of New York

A team of biological anthropologists at Howard University in Washington are intensely focused on

a most grisly aspect of New York City's past. Led by Dr. Michael Blakey, the team has spent several

years examining the skeletal remains of more than 400 African slaves whose graves were accidentally

uncovered during the construction of a federal office tower in lower Manhattan nine years ago.

By Steve Fry

The Topeka Capital-Journal

September 27, 2001

Before William Clarke Quantrill and hundreds of his Missouri guerrillas raided Lawrence in 1863, John Noland rode ahead to scout out the town.

Noland, Quantrill's primary scout, is just one of many blacks who served in Confederate units during the Civil War, said historian Ed Kennedy, who will speak at 6:30 p.m. today to the Civil War Roundtable of Eastern Kansas at the Koch Education Center at the Kansas History Center, 6425 S.W. 6th. Admission is free and the event is open to the public.

Noland joined Quantrill because his family in Missouri had been abused by Jayhawkers, Kansas guerrillas who raided Missouri and later were mustered into the Union forces, Kennedy said. Photographs of Quantrill's raiders as they attended reunions after the Civil War show Noland sitting prominently with white members of the group.

In the 1999 movie "Ride With the Devil," Noland is the basis for the character Daniel Holt, the freed black who along with his former owner rides with Quantrill's bushwhackers, Kennedy said.

It is difficult to determine how many blacks fought in the Confederate forces, in part because many Confederate records were destroyed. Kennedy estimates seven percent to eight percent of the Confederate forces might have been black.

Kennedy cites a number of sources, including diaries, letters, private publications, the "Official Records of the War of the Rebellion" and writings of black scholars.

For instance:

.. A Union sanitary commission officer saw 3,000 black armed combatants in the Confederate Army moving through Fredricksburg, Va., in 1862.

.. An 1862 letter from Frederick Douglass to President Abraham Lincoln in which Douglass writes that many blacks serve in the Confederate Army as "real soldiers having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government."

.. Pensions were paid to black Confederate soldiers.

.. And photographs showed black veterans, who "wore their veterans badges as proudly as any whites."

Blacks served in the Confederate Army "for the same reason they defended the United States colonies in the Revolutionary War," Kennedy said. "They were patriots," who thought their homes were being invaded by the Union. They felt like this was their home, that this was their country. They weren't fighting for slavery."

The black Confederates were a combination of free blacks and slaves who were house servants accompanying white masters, Kennedy said. Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest freed 44 of his slaves after they served Forrest's cavalry forces, Kennedy said. Unlike blacks in the Union Army who served in all-black regiments, blacks in the Confederate Army fought in mixed units, he said.

The topic of black Confederate soldiers is rarely talked about because "it's not politically correct," Kennedy said. Some people who hear about black soldiers fighting in the Confederate Army "just go ballistic," Kennedy said. He likens their reaction to people who didn't know blacks served in the Union Army before release of the 1989 movie "Glory," the film about the 54th Massachusetts, an all-black unit Union regiment. (The first black regiment to fight in the Civil War was the 1st Kansas Colored Infantry.)

Civil War Historian Ed Kennedy is a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army and a former instructor of history at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. He teaches Army Reserve Officer Training Corps classes at Leavenworth High School and is co-owner of Historical Leadership Seminars, a private company that takes corporate executives to battlefields to teach leadership and decision-making skills.

Copyright 2001 Topeka Capital-Journal

[Black Confederates]
It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks, with some estimates being considerably higher. National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, "I don't want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910". Enter here to discover what the victors wanted no one to know - that the Civil War was not about slavery.
_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/

sandmountainslim · Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:07 am Post subject:

RFM,
Are you going to offer to pay the ten US Dollars which you owe me or are you all talk and propaganda?
Deo Vindice
WP
_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/