Something that breaks my heart


Is that some Conservatives, whom I agree with on issue after issue, have a lack of understanding about the War Between the States, the causes of it, and the history of it. frankly, I expect historical ignorance from Liberals, but from Conservatives? No, I do not expect that, not at all. Here is a video you should watch that will challenge many of the pre-conceived notions you may have about the War Between the States. After you watch it, check out the new blog that Stogie has started Confederate Gray

As I said, it breaks my heart that so many, including some Conservatives look at the war as nothing more than a fight against, or for slavery. It breaks my heart that so many view the common Confederate soldier as nothing more than the enemy of freedom somehow. It breaks my heart that the history has been taught in such an atrocious manner in many cases. It breaks my heart that my ancestors, who fought for their homes and freedom are often demonized. And yes, it breaks my heart that Lincoln is lionized as a hero who “saved” America, and that his violations of the Constitution are heralded as wonderful and necessary by the same folks who are today, struggling beside me to preserve our beloved Constitution.


14 thoughts on “Something that breaks my heart”

  1. I was fortunate to have moved to Texas when I was about 17. My first husband (who was quite a bit older than me) was a Texan and a Civil War expert. Didn’t take long to bring moi up to speed on the truth.

    Since I believe that all wars are fought primarily for economic reasons, slavery was not the real issue in the war between the states. You know that, Stogie knows that, I know that, but our schools have successfully dumbed the people down to the point where they can’t even think coherently or question what they are told.

  2. So if it wasn’t slavery, what was it? What was so utterly offensive in the 1860 Republican Party platform that South Carolina couldn’t even wait for Lincoln to take office?

    I think a discussion of state sovereignty and the unfortunate Ceaserification of federal power in the years since 1865 is long overdue. But that’s never going to happen until its advocates deal with the issues that led to its demise. The notion that secession occurred spontaneously for reasons that had nothing to do with the Fugitive Slave Act, Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas, and John Brown may sound entirely obvious to you, but it sounds utterly laughable to me.

    You can’t kill the Beast if you don’t address why it lives. We can’t restore state sovereignty if people don’t trust the states to not commit the petty democratic tyrannies that they did in the past. Pretending that the Civil War arose out of something abstract and obscure, and not the issue on everyone’s lips for decades prior, does not lend credibility to our goal.

    Assail at will.

    1. Well, certainly several states that intended to remain loyal to the old union, namely Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina only seceded AFTER Lincoln’s call for troops to force the Confederate state back into the union. Read the ordinances of secession of those states, slavery was never the issue. Yet, we are supposed to believe that without slavery, there would have been no war? They left the union for one basic reason, they wanted no part of a union that was maintained at the point of bayonet. Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland all came very close to leaving over the same concerns.

      Read the letters Confederate officers and soldiers wrote home, they talk of many things, fighting for slavery? That is conspicuous by its absence. Consider Jefferson Davis’s speeches, both his inaugural speech, and his resignation speech from the Senate. Davis was a brutally honest man, he does not talk of seceding to preserve slavery in those speeches. You might consider the large number of prominent Confederates that loved the union, but sided with their states.

      You could also look at the tariff issue, and how the South was being harmed, and the North benefiting from the various tariffs, especially the “tariff of abominations, passed in 1828. Now, to be very clear, I never said slavery was not an issue, I said it was not the issue that caused the war.

      Much of the spin about the war omits key facts about the disputes over slavery. Many Abolitionists wanted the slaves freed, and then wanted them shipped out of the country. States in the North forbid free Blacks from residing in them. Many in the North feared Blacks as a labor force. they wished to “contain” slavery to protect themselves, not out of genuine concern.

      It is also key to understand much of the debate over slavery. Again,take Jefferson Davis’ position on the expansion of slavery. He felt that expanding it would benefit Slaves because they would be freed one day. He felt it the duty of Whites to prepare them for freedom by educating them. Davis’s view and opinion of Blacks was very Liberal for his day, but that is really beside the point here. The real issue is this. Davis supported slavery being allowed in territories, as they were Federal lands, and not yet states. But he fully supported the right of any State, which he saw as sovereign, to ban or allow slavery once they reached statehood. This whole conflict came about over the Constitution frankly. Davis, and the South felt that the Constitution could only be changed by amending it. The North felt the Constitution was subject to be changed by “higher law”, As one author put it, Davis was willing to sacrifice the union to save the Constitution, Lincoln was willing to sacrifice the Constitution to save the union. I think that sums up both men quite well.

      As to actual war, Davis, and many in the South tried repeatedly to avoid conflict. Many in the North wanted to let the South go too. This was suggested to Lincoln, and his reply was “where will we get our revenues?” Here is another Lincoln quote that I love this was made in 1848.
      “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one. This is a most valuable and sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.” Funny, he did not practice this in 1861.

      As I stated earlier, this was a war that came about over the Constitution. Were States sovereign or not? Were they bound to a union they joined voluntarily? Could the Constitution be changed by amending it? Or could “Higher Law” change it? Could one section of the country, through majorities in Congress, pass tariffs that helped their part of the nation, at the expense of another part? As I said, many of the same principles we are still fighting over. Different issues yes, but the principles are the same.

      1. Just because Confederate officers did not write paeans to the “peculiar institution” does not mean that the debate over slavery, and the constitutional issues that it aroused, was not central to the out break of the war. The arguments over the limits of federal authority were quickened by an issue which struck at the very heart of our self-conception as a free people.

        That Davis was a humane slavemaster is, given the times, to his credit, but beside the point. That a vast array of Southern leaders wished slavery did not exist is also beside the point. It is actions that matter, and the actions of Southern leaders from the First Congress forward was stonewall, stonewall, stonewall, and occasionally take a gutta-percha cane to the head of a Yankee Senator if you did not care for the flow of his rhetoric. For decades, the South refused to discuss the inherent hypocrisy of a nation framed in liberty keeping men in bondage. Any myriad of solutions to the issue could have been reached, if any in the South wanted to (look at how Brazil set their slaves free). They did not want to.

        So, rather than any imaginary federal tyranny imposed at bayonet point (am I to assume that anyone in the South had a problem with the Utah Expedition?), I submit that it was the South, that was pre-disposed to reach for the sword to cut the Gordian Knot of a problem they did not want to have to argue the merits of.

        To be sure, one can find other factors which led towards the break. Sectionalism and tarriffs played their part. And I’ll concede that abolitionists’ rhetoric did nothing to make a peaceful emancipation an actual workable solution. But the liberty that Davis praised so highly was the liberty to violate the liberty of others. It is of a peace with claiming the right to free health care.

        Without slavery, political disputes over the extent of federal authority would have been an argument amid Americans, and adherents to either viewpoint could be found in any state. With slavery, we had a house divided, us vs. them.

        I most earnestly wish that war could have been avoided. The bad effects of it live on to this day. But I’m tired of hearing Southerners pretend that no blame for it falls on them. No nation, in the history of humanity, has ever permitted a portion of it to spontaneously secede. The signers of the Declaration of Indendence had no expectation that the British would read it and then stop fighting. And Davis didn’t either. When you deny the authority of the government, any fool expects a response. When you plan to defend your action with the sword, you take the sword’s chance.

      2. Thanks for the response. It is nice to debate someone without being called a name every third word. This usually happens when I try to debate Liberals, but, I am sure you are well aware of that.

        My point about Confederate soldiers/officers not mentioning slavery in letters, or in autobiographies later is because they DID often, and repeatedly list reasons for fighting. These were not men given to spin or men concerned with the perception of others. That is important in understanding WHY they fought. It is also crucial to understand that many Southern generals wanted to enlist the slaves in exchange for their freedom. Among others Generals Cleburne, Ewell, Longstreet, Lee, and Forrest who actually took his slaves with him to war, and promised them freedom, which he gave. I suppose these generals cared more about “other” issues, and were willing to sacrifice slavery in order to win the war. Just as it is important to understand that much of the abolition movement, was not about equality, but about protecting the interests of workers in the North. Again, freeing, then sending slaves out of America was a big part of that movement in the North.

        Now, you make an interesting assertion that the South ignored, or refused to discuss the ” inherent hypocrisy of a nation framed in liberty keeping men in bondage”. You are aware, I would hope that it was in the South that abolition groups first showed up, not in the North. You are also aware that many Northerners were aghast at the notion that they might be fighting to free slaves? Certainly Grant whose wife still owned slaves at the war’s close, and Sherman were highly displeased. Certainly Delaware, a slave state, and Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri had slavery, and did not secede. Although, to be fair the state governments of Missouri and Kentucky split over whether to secede or not and many soldiers from those states fought on both sides.

        I also note that you completely ignore that several states left with NO mention of slavery as the cause. Again, men of that time were not into spinning or reading public opinion polls. In fact Virginia voted NOT to secede at first. It was, again, Lincoln’s call for volunteers that drove those states out. Yet, you choose to ignore this fact. I would also hope that you note that the slave trade, bringing in new slaves, was prohibited in the Confederate Constitution.

        as to your point about no nation ever “allowing a portion of it to secede” Perhaps, but many nations have seceded, think about the old USSR for example, including a certain 13 colonies in the late 18th Century. But, maybe a better argument is that at the time the several states joined the union most chose to proclaim their right to leave that same union. Thomas Jefferson had a great quote. In a letter to William H. Crawford, Secretary of War under President James Madison, on June 20, 1816: “In your letter to Fisk, you have fairly stated the alternatives between which we are to choose : 1, licentious commerce and gambling speculations for a few, with eternal war for the many ; or, 2, restricted commerce, peace, and steady occupations for all. If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate’. I would rather the States should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.”

        Again, it is important to remember that many American held that same view in 1860. Really it comes down to one question. Was secession constitutional? This is why Davis wanted so badly to stand trial, so his principles, which certainly would never have supported “free” or government run healthcare by the way, could have stood the test. Interesting that he was never afforded that chance. As the ordinances of secession of the several states show, there was no “one” reason for their desire to depart from the old union.

        Again, thanks for the respectful responses sir

  3. If you put the civil war in today’s vernacular and situations:
    Lets use the Illegal immigration issue: AZ has tried to control it’s borders with Mexico to curtail the cost/destruction that illegal’s have brought to that state. The FED GOV sends troops to AZ to keep the state from enforcing the LAWS of their state. AZ citizens form up and attack the feds in Phoenix. Several states back AZ and civil war starts and spreads based on illegal Immigration and state rights views. The war is bloody and the Feds win after they institute blanket amnesty for all illegals and ask for them to enlist to fight for the federal government.

    Now the history books would record the war as being fought for the rights of poor immigrants rather than the facts. WHY? Because the victor gets to write the history books.

  4. Thanks for posting this. I wasn’t born in the South, but I got there as quickly as I could, and I’m happy to say it’s where my children were born. I’d like to recommend a great book on this subject. It’s entitled “The Real Lincoln,” by Thomas DiLorenzo, with an excellent forward by Walter E. Williams.

    The summary below is from

    A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
    Most Americans consider Abraham Lincoln to be the greatest president in history. His legend as the Great Emancipator has grown to mythic proportions as hundreds of books, a national holiday, and a monument in Washington, D.C., extol his heroism and martyrdom. But what if most everything you knew about Lincoln were false? What if, instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln were in fact a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in american history in order to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain’s? In The Real Lincoln, author Thomas J. DiLorenzo uncovers a side of Lincoln not told in many history books and overshadowed by the immense Lincoln legend.

    Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and highly decentralized—as the Founding Fathers intended—to a highly centralized, activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South, with its independent states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the Constitution, trampled states’ rights, and launched a devastating Civil War, whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provacative book, 600,000 American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on our republic to this very day.

    You will discover a side of Lincoln that you were probably never taught in school—a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and helps explain the true origins of a bloody, and perhaps, unnecessary war.

    “A devastating critique of America’s most famous president.”
    —Joseph Sobran, commentator and nationally syndicated columnist

    “Today’s federal government is considerably at odds with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Thomas J. DiLorenzo gives an account of How this come about in The Real Lincoln.”
    —Walter E. Williams, from the foreword

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s