America's War Between the States

[George Ackley]

As I have grown older (and hopefully wiser) and I actually look at what is going on around me, I have determined that the Civil War was actually fought over "slavery"..... but NOT in the context that most seem to argue and debate. No, "slavery" as in power and control irregardless of race and ethnicity....

It has been determined and postulated that one man cannot enslave another. Yet, the Federal Government has enslaved the ENTIRE country.
The Federal Government can do anything it wants because it has the POWER. They proved that when they killed 600,000 of their own citizens to preserve the Union and prevent Southern citizens from exercising their God given right to self determination.

thats your theory / interpretation of what went on not historical fact. and your thoughts are welcome

[FOsteology]

The Federal Government of America was never intended by the founders to be a central, supreme power over the collection of States which made it up.

It was intended to be a governing body with a few limited, "enumerated" powers.

Sadly, we no longer live in America. We live in what the American Revolution was fought to escape from.....

Following is a link to one of my favorite essays. People need to read it until they understand....
Read and be freed....

http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml

[Bopeye]

Good Lord Fos!!! I didn't realize we thought so much alike. Your last two responses said exactly what I was trying to do, but wasn't able to capture my thoughts as you did. Nice job. 

[George Ackley]

looky hre you johnny rebs youall copy and past to fast for me!
i am working on my reply

[FOsteology]

Take your time "Yankee" George! 

I'm personally rooting for you to overcome and put aside the preconceived and erroneous notions planted in your melon by liberal educational brainwashing!

[George Ackley]

fos,  first i like to say that  you are a funny reb! me and education HA,HA,HA
  every thing i think i know is of my own doing
i read lots about history and interpert and work thing out on my own.
other words i dont run and copy and past others thoughts

now i told yea i was working on my reply and here it is



The first post by RICH aka CCP

Where did this misconception of slavery being the cause of the war come from? The answer is from the President's attempt to end the war prematurely through the emancipation proclamation.


In November of 1862,President Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary emancipation proclamation. In this speech, Lincoln stated that any seceded state that does not return to the Union by the first of the year 1863 would lose its constitutional right to own slaves. Up until this point, the federal government was unable to legally abolish slavery because the southern states rights to slaves were protected under the constitution. But now the southerners were rebels. If the seceded states did not return to the Union, the government would have every right to reposes the southerner's slaves because it was now considered relieving property from outlaws who would now have no rights at all.


On January 1, 1863, after no state returned to the Union, Lincoln presented the Emancipation Proclamation which stated that once the Union won the war, all slaves would be freed in the entire country. It is at this point that the war becomes a fight to free the slaves, not before. At this point the war had been burning strong for over a year. So it is obvious that this could not be the cause, because the threat of abolition did not come until long after the conflict began.

Now i was with rich aka ccp
except for  the part about the slaves being freed IF we won the slaves were freed at the reading of it by Lincoln to the public no if's .

now AL enters the conversation with his link
   http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html
witch I think he misinterpret.
I read it as the presidents report and explanation to the people as to why he will be using military forces to up hold the freedoms of slaves mentioned in the Emancipation Proclamation .
now I also interpret this link as a explanation to congress why he will be doing this with out there ok first, thus the 100 day order.

then Al post the ""letter to Horace Greeley "" now go back and read it , Again I think AL interprets it different from me.
what i read is the most important thing to Lincoln was to save the union first i don't see anything that tells me Lincoln was for slavery ,all I see is the  presidents first thoughts was to save the union .

THE LETTER

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

now for Lincoln knowing about Sherman burning of Atlanta,

I don't know what to say! history tells me Lincoln new nothing of it . so in my eye he is free from blame till proven other wise .............

why do I feel this way because of my readings on  Lincoln I don't see this act being done by man with his honor, and this is only my interpation of Mr. Lincoln,,, not because I am from the north or a friend of the union I to also live my live a certain way and this isn't something that I would have allowed and as i stated from the first post I try and see  thing to the there simplest manner.

now you dam johnny rebs can have at me

and lets get this out the way

bite me popeye you johhny red  lol

[FOsteology]

every thing i think i know is of my own doing
i read lots about history and interpert and work thing out on my own.other words i dont run and copy and past others thoughts

Who's thoughts are being copied and pasted George?


Here is a copy and paste to placate you:

"The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general - not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both white and black.

And yet these impostors now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man - although that was not the motive of the war - as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference in principle - but only one of degree - between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.

If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: "All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace." Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day occur among all men, the world over, if the several "nations," so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, masquerading as "governments," that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them."

Lysander Spooner

[George Ackley]

fos i am going to look up placate first to see then meaning then reply.
there was no aim at you about the coping and pasting you have been telling me your thought through out  so i thought you would have none it wasn't aimed at yea , that's why i said your thought were welcome 

[George Ackley]

ok i am  appeased

but it isn't factual  history, it just someone interpretation of  and I can appreciated it i don't see what or how or if this  changes anything, this guys thought are just that thoughts

[George Ackley]

my final rebuttal on this subject ,

we talk about why the war started , i likr to say why i think the south lost

I have read a lot about this and at the end this is why i think the war was lost by the south.

the South really didn't have what was needed to run a war.
and many things needed to go to war were over looked,
little things like the sale of cotton and it not because the slave wouldn't be there, it because the buyers and factory's of the north wouldn't be there along with many other things.and troops by the way cant eat cotton.  they even ended up in Gettysburg not to fight the northerners, but to try and cloth and shoe there troops. and if your a fighting man the last place you wont to attack is Gettysburg nothing but one big killbox in the city and feild.
Gen Lee was a top noch leader and  fighter but most of his leadership wasn't.  if you know anything about the battle of little round top or read about you will see that battle was lost only do to the negligence of 1 officer was told to get his troops there and take the hill and any cost, but that was lees thought the negligent officer thought better to do other wiz and rest his troop after the long days walk , doing so he aloud the north to reinforce and in that sealing the fate of the battle . then Sherman burnt down Atlanta.... both these things ended the war in my eyes

with that said and what I think from reading battle story's is this America would be in trouble if not for the fighting capabilities of the southern man, the south can put a fearless soldier into a battle, and I am talking from then till this day. so they didn't loose do to the fact of bad soldiering more to the fact of bad fighting leadership .

they fought tuff  for a long time again's a larger force and better supplied force.

well iam a good old rable and that just what i am i hate the yank......
.........................
you know the song you johnny rebs

peace i am out like a trout

[FOsteology]

I hear you George. I'm just looking at the BIGGER picture and the end results.

As I stated earlier, the North won and we gained an "Empire", but we lost our souls and our freedom. 
What is important to remember and keep at the forefront is the fact that the Southern States attempted to exercise their Constitutional right of secession, and were wrongly prevented from seceding.

I suppose we could have avoided the first American revolution too...if the colonists had just accepted the authority of King George III over them!

Government is government. 

Occasionally, the people don't like the form it takes and attempt to break free.
Sometimes it works...sometimes it doesn't.

What's happening to America today is a direct extension of Lincoln's consolidation of power under a central authority.
You don't like Obamacare??
You don't like having 50%+ of your earnings stripped away from you through all the various taxes?
You don't like Socialism?

Blame Lincoln for you not having a voice in the matter!

Since Lee met Grant at Appomattox in 1865, our asses have been "owned".

Tyrants can be real bastards when secession comes along...whether their name is King George or Abe Lincoln. 

[THO Game Calls]

George, I did not misinterpret the Emancipation Proclamation, I just copied it word for word, showing that Lincoln did not free all the slaves.   It was a counter argument to what CCP had posted.

As for the letter to Horace Greeley, what you state, that Lincoln wanted to save the union is exactly my opinion.   It had little to do with slavery.   That is why I posted that.   

I think, in many ways, we are on the same page.   

I also think anyone who has spent a few years, and by that I mean 15 or 20 or more, in the military will tell you that not everything is written down.   Not everything is a direct order.  Some things are implied, some are assumed, and some are disavowed to protect those at the top.   Not everything is as it seems on face value George.   Somethings are shades of gray, and some are just outright black, if you know what I mean.




Hey Fos,

You wrote

The Federal Government of America was never intended by the founders to be a central, supreme power over the collection of States which made it up.

It was intended to be a governing body with a few limited, "enumerated" powers.

Doesn't history show that there were two sides?  One wanted a large central government, the other a small government that would let states rule themselves?

Isn't that why we have a House of Representatives and a Senate?   Isn't that why the Bill Of Rights was introduced?  To give back the power to the people, or to at least keep the central government from taking it?

I don't think all of our founding fathers were on the same page.   I think they were split between a strong central government and a limited one.   

What are your thoughts on that?

Good read you posted by the way.   I enjoyed it.  Thank you.

[FOsteology]

THO,

Yeah, you're right. Whenever a group of people are brought together, there's obviously going to be dissenting views, debate, disagreements, and contention!

Hamilton was a big central government guy, no doubt, and it cost him later. Madison and Jay strongly supported the power of the central federal government over the states too.

Obviously the Founders weren't perfect, but they were a lot closer to a history of real oppression and tyranny than anyone is now, so they were very concerned with safeguarding against it.

The mentality of the Founders can easily be gleaned from the Federalist Papers, the letters of John Adams, the writing of Thomas Jefferson on the nation and the state of Virginia, and a ton of other sources. Read any, some or all, and you'll see "reasonable man test" thinking a pervasive theme to be quite common. But I wager you've already read much of the above and given it a thunk! 

The Federalist Papers give us very detailed insight into the arguments about federal versus state governments in the hierarchy, individual rights versus collectivism at the expense of liberty, etc etc etc. And if a generalized statement is to be made about how the Founders would want the Constitution interpreted, it would clearly be to favor first the individual, then the state, and finally the federal government.

[Bopeye]

We can copy and paste all kinds of things to support our arguments, so I have tried to refrain from that.

Our founding father, George Washington, was a slave holder from a very early age.
The North was more industrial, while the south was more agrarian.
There were many matters into which the North and South disagreed.
Finally, the south decided to separate from the north. The reasons were very similar to why America left England.
The South was forcibly held in place. Am I glad? I am glad that I call a great majority of you yanks my countrymen. You are my brothers.
Did I like the way it was done? Not one bit.

AS far as Gettysburg goes, that was Lee's blunder. Cost the South the war. He should have marched around it and on to D.C., but pride cometh before the fall and it did. The south was out manned, out gunned, and far less prepared. Even won most the battles, but in a war of attrition which is exactly what it was, the side with the most men, guns, powder and bullets wins. Everytime. Read the battles and how many were killed and/or wounded on each side. Both numbers will be staggering, but look who killed more of who in most battles. It was a sad day in our history for sure.

NOW WE GOT OBAMA!!! Talk about another one that could cause a split, but it won't be between North and South. More like East/West Coasts against the Heartland of America. Heartland would probably take a beating, since they really could use the Anaconda method like they did during the Civil war. Surround and conquer.

[slagmaker]

the war was the second American Revolution.....

and America lost. 

You are correct SIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed whole heartedly

[bigben]

AS far as Gettysburg goes, that was Lee's blunder. Cost the South the war. He should have marched around it and on to D.C., but pride cometh before the fall and it did. The south was out manned, out gunned, and far less prepared. Even won most the battles, but in a war of attrition which is exactly what it was, the side with the most men, guns, powder and bullets wins. Everytime. Read the battles and how many were killed and/or wounded on each side. Both numbers will be staggering, but look who killed more of who in most battles. It was a sad day in our history for sure.

exactly.  if ewell would have pushed hard enough on the first day gettysburg would have had a different tune to it.  lee had plenty of skilled commanders on his side.  longstreet was one of lees commanders that wanted to move to the southeast get between the union army and dc and force the union army to do something.  lee was prideful and wanted to fight the enemy at that time.  along with the fact that picketts charge was a failure.  even with as many that got killed they almost broke the line.  gettysburg was lees biggest mistake in his command. 

I plan on visiting gettysburg again this summer.  I was at antitam last year and that was pretty neat. 

[KySongDog]

I have to agree with CCP, Sherman was a domestic terrorist.   

While I will agree with you that "war is hell" even today, we are taught not to follow what General Sherman did, for today, more than 150 years later, he is still reviled as one of the most evil men to have ever walked the earth by those who live in the South.   And maybe rightly so.

I disagree.  Sherman knew how to win.   His victory at Atlanta and his march across Georgia was the key to the Union's winning of the war that claimed over 600,000 dead on both sides. 

Now we have "rules of engagement" imposed by politicians that ham string our troops.   I think the Romans, and probably Sherman, would have found these rules laughable.  Today our wars last for many years with many dead and wounded.   And in the end, the politicians give away what blood bought.   

[Bopeye]

Today our wars last for many years with many dead and wounded.   And in the end, the politicians give away what blood bought.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. There isn't a country in the world, except maybe China, that we couldn't annihilate in a matter of days, a few weeks at most, but will we? Heck no. Why? Politics. It just plain sucks.

[George Ackley]

I, at no time in any of my post denied slavery and hatred wasn't prevalent in the north .
Gettysburg had to happen southern troops were at the point if they didn't get what they needed from Gettysburg the war was over anyhow . they would have move in and took what they needed if they could without a fight .

if you look at a map of the city of Gettysburg at the time it was one big pin wheel , with the northern forces held fast at the hub of the wheel. much like the story of the 300 each street could only allow so many southern fights down them and like I said before  one big kill box. and with us holding the high ground above the fields of Gettysburg it was a loose loose situation for the south. if not for the need for food ,clothing and boots they may have headed to Washington.

as U2 sings , IT'S ALL OVER MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY .

"So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."

[FOsteology]

At least them southern boys were fighting for self determination.

Those poor deluded Yankee carpetbaggers were fighting and dying in order to establish their own servitude...under the guise of "preserving the Union".

What a crock of.....!!