Unlike the US Army, the CS Army was not segregated. And, unlike the US Army, the CS Army ensured equal pay and rations for _all_ troops. It's a history that's been deliberately distorted by the imperial federal government and their dog washers in academia, the naacp, etc.

The history you won't hear, for instance, is that of the union army torturing a free black in the Tennessee River for refusing to give up the location of his compatriots. Nor will you hear the case of the Indiana invaders taking slaves to build earthworks...then returning them to the slaveowners. In the world of hypocrisy about the 'civil war', the cause of the black Confederates is probably the worst example.

Lots of good scholarly work done by the SCV and LOS on the subject. For a good primer, read the appropriately titled "Black Confederates" by Charles Barrow.


****************

http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-...liams57.1.html

Virginia's Black Confederates

by Walter E. Williams

One tragedy of war is that its victors write its history and often do so with bias and dishonesty. That's true about our War of 1861, erroneously called a civil war. Civil wars, by the way, are when two or more parties attempt to take over the central government. Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington, in 1776, wanted to take over London. Both wars were wars of independence.

Kevin Sieff, staff writer for The Washington Post, penned an article "Virginia 4th-grade textbook criticized over claims on black Confederate soldiers," (Oct. 20, 2010). The textbook says that blacks fought on the side of the Confederacy. Sieff claims that "Scholars are nearly unanimous in calling these accounts of black Confederate soldiers a misrepresentation of history." William & Mary historian Carol Sheriff said, "It is disconcerting that the next generation is being taught history based on an unfounded claim instead of accepted scholarship." Let's examine that accepted scholarship.

In April 1861, a Petersburg, Va., newspaper proposed "three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg" after 70 blacks offered "to act in whatever capacity may be assigned to them" in defense of Virginia. Ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, "There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but 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."


Charles H. Wesley, a distinguished black historian who lived from 1891 to 1987, wrote "The Employment of Negroes as Soldiers in the Confederate Army," in the Journal of Negro History (1919). He says, "Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia. Sixteen companies (1,600) of free men of color marched through Augusta, Georgia on their way to fight in Virginia."

Wesley cites Horace Greeley's American Conflict (1866) saying, "For more than two years, Negroes had been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They had been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union."

Wesley goes on to say, "An observer in Charleston at the outbreak of the war noted the preparation for war, and called particular attention to the thousand Negroes who, so far from inclining to insurrections, were grinning from ear to ear at the prospect of shooting the Yankees."

One would have to be stupid to think that blacks were fighting in order to preserve slavery. What's untaught in most history classes is that it is relatively recent that we Americans think of ourselves as citizens of United States. For most of our history, we thought of ourselves as citizens of Virginia, citizens of New York and citizens of whatever state in which we resided. Wesley says, "To the majority of the Negroes, as to all the South, the invading armies of the Union seemed to be ruthlessly attacking independent States, invading the beloved homeland and trampling upon all that these men held dear." Blacks have fought in all of our wars both before and after slavery, in hopes of better treatment afterwards.

Denying the role, and thereby cheapening the memory, of the Confederacy's slaves and freemen who fought in a failed war of independence is part of the agenda to cover up Abraham Lincoln's unconstitutional acts to prevent Southern secession. Did states have a right to secede? At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, James Madison rejected a proposal that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. He said, "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."


November 2, 2010
Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page.

I bought a magazine in TN about 2 years ago called the uncivil war. It told of many horrors unleashed on the southern Black folks by the union army. Many great article , I lend it out here often to the folks who spout forth accepted history. I dont know how many actually read it or how many agree but I shove it on the ones I think smart enough.

Since we are all debt and tax slaves, this story provides an appropriate, and truthful perspective for any fence sitters, who think that team Republican will now step in and "change America."

Free-America was usurped by the evil empire sometime between birth and weaning.

I believe that central banking is the cornerstone of slavery, and therefore, only the re-transformation to a Constitutionally lawful and honest monetary system, based upon copper, silver and gold, will provide solid footing from which the slave revolt can demolish the plantation, and severely punish the tyrannical slave owners: those we refer to as banksters.

Some slaves are awakening to their burdensome role, but ALL slaves need to realize that this has nothing to do with skin color or country of origin.

Slavery must be finally, swiftly and mercilessly abolished!

I knew a 94 year old black man who's grandfather was one of those Black Confederates. He remembered well the stories about the "old days" told to him by his Grandfather. He had them memorized; so it was almost like hearing his grandfather tell it.

One day we discussed the sad condition the US has fallen into. He told me that the same people who destroyed the country in 1865 were still in control today. Who? I asked. "Those damn yankees", he replied, "Those nawthern bankers and industialists. They want all us folks to be their slaves"

First let me say I love you boys from below the mason-dixon. Due my time spent in the Carolinas I know what I'm about to step into, so I won't take any offense to those who will inevitably call for my death in a slow immolation without honor but here it goes.

The founders understood that slavery was completely incompatible with the Constitution. Even in the original draft of the Declaration of Independance James Madison tried to blame George III for the slave trade, and it was later taken out when it was decided that the declaration was stronger without it. (fn. 1)

George Washington: "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery]."

Benjamin Franklin: "Slavery is an atrocious debasement of human nature."

John Adams: "Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the total extirpation of slavery from the United States....I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in abhorrence."

James Madison: "Great as the evil [of slavery] is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse." (fn 2)

These quotes demonstrate the ideology of our founders at the writing of the Constitution. They understood the fact that abolition of slavery would mean the document would not be ratified, thereby aborting the greatest experiment in human history before it got started. They also understood that slavery was not compatible with the Constitution.

In light of this, they instituted two very important things into the Constitution that they believed would cause the phasing out and eventual death of slavery in America.


Firstly the infamous "3/5ths Clause", found in article 1 section 2.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons."

This clause has been used (wrongly and completely out of context) by pinko's of all colors to denounce the founders and call them racists. This is the main point also of many marxist's claims that Blacks where only thought of little more than half a person.

Here's reality. Forget slavery for one second and think of the purpose of this clause. Our Congress is bicameral made up of two parts. The senate and house of representatives. Section two of Article one in the constitution sets up this legeslature and denotes where representatives come from. Each state was to have two senators. But the House would be full of representaives and each state would get a different number based on population. More populaion in your state, more representatives. More representatives more political POWER for THAT state.

Slave states wanted slaves to count. Why? Did they think it was a good idea to let them vote? They wouldn't be alowed to anyway. Equal under the law? Definately not. For example the 1790 census shows that the slave population in South Carolina was 77% of the white population! A huge number. In fact in 1820 the slaves outnumbered free whites. Similar numbers could be seen in both Virginia and Georgia. (fn. 3)

The founders could not let slaves be counted in the census because they feared that slavery would never be abolished. The slave state's would have too much voting power. It was hard enough, (and still is) to amend the Constitution and rightfully so. The founders made it so to try and prevent things like the Patriot Act or Obamacare.

The slave states of course insisted that slaves be counted. So the two sides, in the intrest of ratifying the constitution agreeed on a comprimise to allow every slave to count as 3/5ths of a unit instead of one.

The 3/5ths clause was an effort by the founders to limit the voting power of slave states to allow a window by which slavery could eventually be abolished through the Amendment process.


Secondly, the "Twenty Year Clause" found in Article 1 but Section 9.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Okay so let's see. This says that any person importation "may" be taxed by Congress. What slave was going to be paying ten dollars for his "admission" to a state? None. This clause is not about taxing immigration like my hippie father suggests. It's a tax on importers of the "Persons being admitted", or in laymens terms it was a tax that could be levied on each slave brought over, not to exceed ten bucks.

So what? Well Ten dollars don't sound like much to you and me but in 1787 that was alot of money. Especially for a wealthy slave trader. And that was the idea, to make it less and less profitable and eventually end the slave trade.

(I guess this also shows that it IS Constitutional for congress to put high taxes on things it dosn't like.)

So next time some asshole tells you the Constitution was racist slap hip with truth.

But here's where Dixie rises up, rolls right across Gettysburg and you southern boys crush my little sanctuary on the reservation.

THE POINT: This Constitution, as ratified, was the FIRST attempt by the federal government to peacefully and over time end slavery. Join or Die right? The founders believed that if the union were to fall apart we would all succumb to a foreign power. And considering the climate of the time, I think they were spot on. There was France to fuck us. (French and Indian War) Spain was around too. It took the Red Coats how long to leave AFTER the revoulution. And of course that little matter of the War of 1812 I surely think that Britan was still a threat.

This is just the founders and our Constitution trying to abolish slavery while keeping our great nation in tact at it's argueably most vulnerable moment.

There has been many, many examples since of slave states making efforts to not only continue slavery, but to expand it to new territories to ensure "the Paculiar Institution's" survival. The founders clearly meant for it to die.

Fever pitch had risen in this country in the late 1850's leading up to the War of Northern Aggression. The anti-slavery movement was incredible. The Dred-Scott case, John Brown at Harpers Ferry, and most damningly the Wanderer issue, which is just one of many examples that southern courts were unwilling to enforce laws involving slavery.

And when the founders design to eliminate slavery finally became a reality in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln. The writing was on the wall and Slavery knew it. The founders INTENDED for this to happen. But what they had not intended was this:

The deep South suceeded, but went on the offensive. By March 1861 state troops nabbed an enormity of Union property that should have been handed over. Federal post offices, custom houses,arsenals and especially the Mint in New Orleans with about half a million worth of silver and gold. Fort Johnson on James Island had fallen to the South Carolinians, and Fort Sumter was next. In light of this of what he was facing, I applaud Lincolns decision. War was brought to him anyway.

My Opinion:

Regardless of a pitiful 1600 blacks putting on a grey uniform, bottom line is this. If the boys in blue won slavery would end, and if the boys in grey did it would have continued. How many German-Americans left these shores to answer Hitler's call to arms? I should reaserch the numbers but it was alot. It dosn't validate the cause they fought for.

I doubt any southerners here would have liked to see slavery continue, but may I know personally would have liked a victory for the Confederacy. At least they did until I handed out a copy of the Confereate constitution.

Did the outcome trash states rights? You bet it did. And we've been paying the price for the past century. We are truly slaves through taxation.

In what manner does the Constitution best preserve individual rights? How is it strongest? Allowing slavery, empowering state governments enough power to continue it? Or freeing an entire race by slapping down state's right to sucession? I don't know, I'm torn. I do know that if a man is allowed to be enslaved due to his race that you can use any reason to take his liberty. I'm sure that was a thought that a few white guys in blue had. Shit from that perspective it wasn't just Rebs that were fighting for Constitutional principles or their OWN freedom, Yanks fought for thiers too.

Despite our founders best efforts to do so peacefully, through legislation, the United States (as a whole)ended up solving the slavery issue with war. Will we now solve the state's rights issue with another?

Good Luck Montana with your new fire-arms legislation, and to Arizona and Texas on their legislative assault on the federal government. We all need it.

And if not, well i suppose history will again repeat itself, for better or worse...

This is not a personal attack, just another viewpoint. There a few more famous quotes concerning slavery that should be presented:

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone."-ABRAHAM LINCOLN

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."-ABRAHAM LINCOLN

'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 of said State. "-ABRAHAM LINCOLN

"Do the people of the South really entertain fear 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 that once, as a friend, and still I hope not as an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington."-ABRAHAM LINCOLN(The Repubs were the liberals back then.)

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement. "- ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Every time I hear the old tired rhetoric about the "Civil War" being about slavery, I want to puke. Lincoln cared no more about the plight of slaves than he did the dog crap he scraped off his shoes. Only when he realized that he could use slavery as a political volleyball did he adopt an abolitionist stance. For someone who claimed to abhor slavery he could have found a better family to marry into. Yes, the Todds were slave owners.(GASP!) Many of the "Founding Fathers" were slave owners.

The "Civil War" was no more about slave freedom than Operation Iraqi Freedom was about Iraqi freedom. Like the Iraqis, enslaved blacks were mere pawns in a much larger scheme.

The South was not waging a war of aggression, it was a war of secession. A right that Lincoln paid lip service to(see above quotes).

Before everyone gets out their flame throwers for the McMedic flambe, this is not a defense of the institution of slavery. No more than the war was about slavery. The war was about economic dominance and states rights.

If we must make the war about a color issue, it would be about something white. Cotton. Cotton was king and made the South an economic powerhouse and that didn't set well with the central government.

To reinforce this, Robert E. Lee(Lincolns FIRST choice to lead the Union Army), turned down Lincolns offer to command the union army stating "loyalty to Virginia ought to take precedence over that which is due the Federal Government." He further proclaimed that he had "no greater duty than to his native Virginia." Lee also was anti-secession. In a letter to his son he wrote:

"I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution. ... Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none."-Robert E. Lee

The point I'm trying to make with my diatribe is that revisionist history has portrayed an illusion of the South being composed of brutal, sadistic flesh mongers and the North, led by a messianic Lincoln, conducting a crusade to free the poor, oppressed slaves. If only it were that simple.

Slavery existed in ALL of the original 13 States and was explicitly recognized by the US Constitution. The Confederate constitution specifically forbade the importation of negroes. The first state to legalize slavery was Mass in 1654. The first state to oppose slavery was Virginia.


The first slaves were native-Americans, then both black and white indentured servants. White indentured servants were poor working people who could not afford to pay for their passage to America. They were required to work for their masters for 7 years to pay their debts. In many cases their owners cheated them and required them to continue working after the original contract had expired.

The Georgia Colony began as a white penal colony where the exiles were little more than slaves. These white exiles were sent to Georgia for the crime of being poor and were forced to work in the first chain gangs on government plantations.

When the agricultural colonies proved unable to supply the quota of products demanded by the Federal Government (England); negroes were imported by the English Crown.

Originally the blacks were indentured servants who were allowed to work out a contract or buy their freedom after a certain period of time. The first slave-owner to demand that slaves be held for life was a black man; himself a former slave who had bought his freedom and had later become a prosperous slave owning planter.

American slave ships were based out of Mass., New York, and Rhode Island. The South owned no slave ships, nor did it import negroes directly through it's ports. Even though the Constitution banned importation in 1808, New England continued to import slaves illegally right up until 1860 That year, 15,000 were smuggled in thru New York harbor.

Many Southern slaveowners saw slavery as a necessary evil that they hoped could be phased out of existence over time.

The radical abolitionists did more to bring about the war than any other cause. Their open and deliberate action to incite murder and rebellion caused both sides to hate each other and brought about the end of any hope for a peaceful resolution.

Prior to their meddling in the internal affairs of the Southern States there were more anti-slavery societies in the South than the north. These societies worked with their state legislatures to secure more rights and protections for the Negroes and were working towards the gradual, peaceful end of slavery. The first abolitionist newspaper was printed in the South shortly after the war of 1812. By 1840 there were more free blacks in the South than in the north.

Dwight L. Dumond - considered the leading historian of the antislavery movement of his era- traced northern abolition efforts to the pioneering efforts of three Southern abolitionists: Charles Osborn, John Rankin, and Elihu Embree.

The first integrated army in the continental U.S. was the Confederate Army. Approximately 65-90,000 Blacks served in the field. By law they received the same rations, clothing and pay as their white counterparts. As of Feb. 1865 there were 1,150 Black seamen in the Confederate Navy. 15,000 Hispanics and 3,500 Jews also served in the Confederate military.

The first military monument in the U.S. Capitol that honors a Black soldier is the Confederate monument at Arlington National Cemetery, which was designed by Moses Ezekial, a Jewish-Confederate, in 1914. He wanted to correctly portray the racial makeup of the Confederate Army. A black Confederate soldier is depicted marching in step alongside the white troops. There is also a depiction of a white soldier giving his child to a back woman for safe-keeping.

The Confederacy was the first to officially free the slaves. In 1863, Confederate general Patrick Clebourne advocated officially enlisting Negroes into the Southern army and granting them their freedom. Numerous other generals approved of the plan including Robert E. Lee. By 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of slaves, in return for the official recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and France. Although Blacks hadn't been officially enrolled as soldiers, thousands had been voluntarily serving since the beginning of the war. This changed when the South took progressive measures to rebuild it's depleted ranks with the creation of the Confederate States Colored Troops. The law called for the enlistment of 300,000 blacks. Had the South been successful, it would have created the worlds largest army of of black soldiers. This would have given the Confederacy a much different appearance than what modern day racist, anti-Confederate liberals conjecture. Jefferson Davis proposed that Black - Confederates receive bounty lands for their service. In March 1865, Confederate Secretary of State, Judah P. Benjamin promised freedom for blacks who served, and $100 bounty was offered for their enlistment. Benjamin said Let us say to every negro who wants to go into the ranks, go and fight, and you are free. Fight for your masters and you shall have your freedom. Confederate officers were ordered to treat them humanely and protect them from injustice and oppression. In Richmond alone, 83% of the black male population volunteered. Southern slavery was over.

The U.S didn't officially free it's slaves until AFTER the war, in 1866.

HIGH TAXES...THE REAL CAUSE OF SECESSION:

The South paid an undue proportion (87%) of all Federal taxes in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England and paid $35 millon to northern shipping interests which had an iron-fisted monoply on all Southern shipping. The South was paying tribute to the north

The 1860 Republican platform called for much higher tariffs and was adopted by the new congress as the Morill tariff act of March 1861. It imposed the highest tariffs in U.S.. history; over 50% duty on iron products, and 25% on clothing, all tax rates averaged 47%.

The first amendment in U.S. history to be signed by a president was the original Thirteenth Amendment, signed by A. Lincoln. The Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States, approved March 2, 1861. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution, viz.: Article Thirteen.
... No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorise or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

NOTE: If the reason the South fought the War For Southern Independence was to protect slavery, as modern historians allege; then, why didn't the Southern States just stay in the Union and ratify the amendment which had been passed by the Northern controlled Congress OVER A MONTH BEFORE THE FIRING ON FORT SUMPTER???

Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue. Virginia, the two Carolina's, and Georgia, may be said to defray 3/4 of the annual expense of supporting the Federal government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction-- it flows north, in one uniform, uninterrupted and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the north. Federal legislatation does this. ...Senator Thomas Hart Benton

When asked by Horace Greely why he didn't just let the Southern States go in peace ; A. Lincoln replied, I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?

The northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal it's desire for economic control of the Southern States. ...Charles Dickens 1862

Honest Abe ON SECESSION:
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 that suits them better. This is a most valuable a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit. from an 1848 speech given by Abe Lincioln in support of the Marxist Revolt in Europe.

In 1861, Lincoln the consummate politician said that secession was illegal and rebellious. Then without Congressional approval, he ordered the States to supply him with troops to invade the newly formed Confederate States of America; which was recognized as an independent defacto nation by England and France.

Honest Abe The Great Emancipator?
Suspended habeas corpus, ordered the arrest of Chief Justice Taney after his ruling that Lincon's act was unconstitutional, replaced civilian courts with military courts martial and imprisoned 14,000 of his own people because they opposed the war. He also shut down 300 northern newspapers for their opposition to Lincolns war.

Probably the most honest thing the charlatan ever said.

I have read many of your posts in my time on this forum. I hold the utmost respect for the intelectual stalwarts such as yourself and ConSigCor. Furthermore I do not become insulted at the slightest indication that one does not completely agree with me.

I hold no illusions as to who Lincoln was. While I stated that I agreed with his decision, even evil people find themselves on the right side of a fight, just as good men can find themselves on the wrong side.

I use myself as an example. While no one thinks the war in Iraq was about free Iraqis, it was purportedly about WMD's. For my own part, it was totally different. Since 9/11 I could not forget the horrible images burned into my mind. Not those of people leaping from the towers or the mounting body count. What horrified me the most was streets filling in middle eastern cities, Baghdad in a near riot of celebration at the world media showcase of death. I fought for vengeance pure and simple. Does that make me a good man on the wrong side of a wrong war? Or just evil. I suppose I'll have to wait until those pearly gates come into view.

I see the Confederate Armies the same way as myself. Just good men maybe on the wrong side.

To say the war was about slavery is to say that combined arms is about indirect fire. Both statements are grossly inadequate, and misleading to the point of nearly being false.

I agree that American history has been buried in commie lies and half-truths. In my previous post I was only trying to present the case as to the founders intent, which honestly was at odds with slavery. I simply see any attempt, anywhere, anytime to undermine what the founders did as intolerable.

I do not believe that the 13th Amendment would have come any sooner than December 6, 1865 without a Union victory through the war. Nor do I believe that slavery would have been abolished in the south if the CSA were allowed to stand. I have yet to find, or be presented with evidence to the contratry. In fact the so called "Jim Crow" laws, as written seem to indicate that it would have indeed endured for some time.

A country that tolerates slavery kills freedom with a blade across the throat.

A country that tolerates centralized government kills freedom like a cancer.

The latter gives us more time, hopefully enough time to find a cure.

With a hearty hand shake and a sharp salute...

On these two points we agree wholeheartedly!

If wars were fought strictly for their stated purpose I'm sure there would be fewer of them.

And the same to you sir!