If the South had won the Civil War, would slavery likely still be legal there today?

Well, many Historians believe slavery was the main cause for the civil war. It had been a dividing factor long going all the way back to the founding of the country. But thats not the question, Slavery in some from would probably still exist in some from today if the south had won. During the civil war, England had begun looking for cotton elsewhere, and it found it in Egypt. Egyptian cotton is still considered some of the finest in the world, and it is much cheaper to produce over there then it was here. So right after the war, slaves would not have been an economic necessity in the fields. But once the south industrialized, masters would have probably adapted and bought an industry, and forced the slaves to work there. In more modern times, im sure that the slaves would be working in similar jobs. But i wouldn't be surprised if they were also involved in things such as garbage collection, janitorial work, maybe even making cars. And they probably would be owned by giant corporations and thus stocked entire factories. But this is really just a guess.

Comments

Even the act of Secession itself was not the cause of the War, nor was Lincoln a dye-hard Unionist prior to the events that lead up to Secession. Lincoln and indeed, the entire country was well aware of the Right of Secession because it had been taught and espoused by just about every educational institution and politician from the time of the Ratification of the Constitution. In fact, every single Resolution for Constitutional Ratification included clauses declaring the Right of Secession if the federal government or a majority of the Several States did not adhere to the Articles of the Constitution. It was taught in every Military Institution in the country, including West Point, until after the War when the doctrine and all textbooks that expounded the Right were systematically purged by the Radical Republican Party.

So, if slavery and secession were not the real reasons behind the War, what was? It appears that money was the only reason for the War; it was the only reason behind Lincoln's actions. This fact becomes evident when reading excerpts from many of the Northern Newspapers, many expressing the view even prior to Lincoln's Inauguration. For a few years prior to 1960, many of the Northerners, including newspapers and politicians, including Lincoln expressed that the South should Secede and the sooner the better in their minds.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
So what changed? It was one of those "eureka" moments that caused a drastic change in the hearts and minds of the Northern people when they realized that without the heavy and unequal tariff income levied on the South that the North and indeed, the federal government itself would be forced into economic ruin by the disunion of the South. So, the real reason was the utter devastating prospect that if the South left the Union that the government's coffers would be bled dry with the lost of revenues and likewise, that the Northern economy would be decimated.

Lincoln himself stated that if the South was allowed to secede: "What then will become of my tariff?"

Now, it was evident that the Northern newspaper editors were well aware of the issues at hand and also aware of what was needed to secure the Tariffs for the federal government and protection of Northern manufacturers, even as far back as 1860 [you will notice that during that period slavery was never mentioned]:

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system or that of a tariff for revenue and these results would likely follow."

"In the enforcement of the revenue laws [the heavy, one-sided Tariffs] the forts [like Fort Sumter] are of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws. Those forts the United States must maintain. It is not a question of coercing South Carolina, but enforcing the revenue laws. The practical point, either way, is whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three Ports, Charleston, Beaufort and Georgetown, or whether they shall or shall not be made free ports, open to the commerce of the world, with no other restriction upon it than South Carolina shall see proper to impose. Forts are to be used to enforce the revenue laws...not to conquer a State."
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
When South Carolina seceded on December 21, 1860, the Northern newspapers were quick to suggest:

"The government cannot well avoid collecting the federal revenues at all Southern Ports, even after the passage of secession ordinances; and if this duty is discharged, any State which assumes a rebellious attitude will still be obligated to contribute revenue to support the federal government or have her foreign commerce entirely destroyed"

Now, once again concerning the reasons behind the actions of the Southern States in their urge to cuts the binding ties of the union, if you look at the actions of the Congress of the 1860 and the platform of the Radical Republican Party of 1860 then you would quickly recognize that the South had very few alternatives. By early 1861 there was one of the highest tariffs in history imposed upon the South by Congress called the Morrill Tariff. In the House, Rep. John H. Reagan of the State of Texas stated about the long list of punitive tariffs:

"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions."
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
To ensure the execution of the Tariffs imposed upon the South, Lincoln imposed a de facto blockade when the South decided to declare a tariff-free trade zone in the Southern State Ports for all Southern products imported and exported to Europe. Of course, this would circumvent the heavy Tariffs of the North on the South and thereby would deplete the coffers of the federal government and endanger the economic viability of Northern Industrialists. Why on earth would The State Republic of South Carolina dare to fire on a federal fort Sumter? Was it out of shear pleasure; was some crazy man in charge of the Battery on Charleston Harbor? Did they just want to start a War with the North? Could it be that they were protecting their Constitutional Rights as one of the Several States that voluntarily entered into the Constitutional Convention to join this federation based upon the ideals of federalism called the United States of America and that those Rights and its Sovereignty to exercise, by the Consent of the Citizens of The Republic of South Carolina, their desire to defend their economic interests against the infringement by a powerful and rich force within Congress?

Yes, Lincoln was pressured by some extremely strong special interests, to impose a blockade against the Sovereign States that made up the South. Under the guise of supplying Fort Sumter, Lincoln, in effect, ensured action by the South to begin the War he and his Industrialist patrons so desperately wanted and needed. It was the perfect ploy to demonize the South while allowing the North and the federal government to remain pure. It worked exactly as planned!

Read the archives for yourself, in newspapers like the Chicago Daily Times, in the 1860, Dec 10 edition, before the War started the editorial of that paper stated the real reason for the War:

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, WITH ALL ITS IMMENSE PROFITS. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The Philadelphia Press in their 1861 edition proposed one of the most interesting ideas that made its way to Lincoln, January 15. This also seems to be the basis for Lincoln's Inaugural Address. The paper said that: If South Carolina were to take the forts by force, this would be levying war against the United States and high treason against the Constitution" In other words, if South Carolina could be "tricked" into firing on the Forts in Charleston Harbor, that would be enough to go to War to stop the State from Seceding and thus reeking havoc on Northern and government revenues. The paper went on to say:

"In the enforcement of the revenue laws, the forts are of primary importance. THEIR GUNS COVER JUST SO MUCH GROUND AS IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE THEIR LAWS. Those forts the United States must maintain. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF COERCING SOUTH CAROLINA, BUT OF ENFORCING THE REVENUE LAWS. The practical point, EITHER WAY, is whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three ports."

YES, LINCOLN TOOK NOTE.

Like Lincoln, on March 2, 1861, The New York Evening Post headed its editorial with these words: "WHAT SHALL BE DONE FOR A REVENUE?"

"That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the "rebel states", or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things de done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply OUR TREASURY will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; THE PRESENT ORDER OF THINGS MUST COME TO A DEAD STOP."

It went on with an amazing disclosure of the real reasons why the North and why Lincoln did not want, nor could allow the South to secede from the Union:

"WHAT, THEN, IS LEFT FOR OUR GOVERNMENT? SHALL WE LET THE SECEDING STATES REPEAL THE REVENUE LAWS FOR THE WHOLE UNION IN THIS MANNER? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collections as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?"

In less than two weeks of a barrage of such editorials, Lincoln took that fateful action that would ensure the shelling of Fort Sumter; he sent reinforcements to the Fort. It was the action he needed to fulfill his deed of treachery and begin the long destructive path into un-Constitutionalism, and Treason against the duly elected government of the United States.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The War was totally about tariffs and the desire of certain Radical Republicans to create a "nation-state" and that is exactly what was created by this war, a centralized national government with the power to impose its national will over the State Republics which were Sovereign and too powerful in the eyes of certain people and special interests.

Of course, there were no illusions behind the reasons of the War in the South; they were fighting for what they saw as the original Constitutional Republic and the ideals upon which it was founded. The New Orleans Daily Crescent stated that the causes of secession were simply this:

"The know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it."

For a very interesting discourse on the reasons behind the War read Charles Dickens, yes the same author that wrote A Christmas Carol, his discourse on the subject is extremely enlightening and extremely honest in its condemnation of Lincoln, the federal government and the extremely powerful special interests that helped guide Lincoln's hand toward outright tyranny and eventual destruction of the South.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
Slavery was an evil institution in this country, both in the North and the South however, we fail to understand the real issues concerning the War Between the States. My suggestion is that you read: The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis-1881, or War of the Rebellion: Official Government Records of the Union and Confederate Armies-1884, or the Slave Chronicles (a true shocker) compiled from interviews of last living former slaves during the Great Depression. Another is: The Southern States of the American Union by J.L.M. Curry-1894. Read a booklet written by a Slave named Harrison Berry in 1861 called: Slavery and Abolitionism, as Viewed by a Georgia Slave, an amazing little book that completely contradicts and flies in the face of the accepted history of the South, the Union and Slavery. Read the 1864 report called: The Conduct of Federal Troops in Louisiana it will make you sick.

Read the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, another amazing eye-opener. I could provide you will numerous others, which tell a very different story then the one most of us, have learned in school. Books, papers and newspaper editorials of that period which would shock most Americans, but we have been so well indoctrinated into a very specific view of the Union's victory that all else is forgotten, ignored and all intelligent discourse ostracized. We fail ourselves when we avoid the truth of any issue, including the so-called "Civil War" and the real reasons for that War.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The Southern States actually voted to ban the slave trade as early as 1820 however, the Northern Slave traders continued to import and smuggle slaves into the South. The first State to pass the prohibition of the importation of slaves was Virginia. In addition, a vast majority of Southern States voted to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, but that too was voted down by a majority of Northern States. A strange fact is that no law was ever passed in the North that granted freedom to a person enslaved, that came in 1865, long after the falsely called Emancipation Proclamation which, by the way, only freed slaves within in the South, but did nothing to free those within any areas actually controlled by the Union. That should be considered one of those inconvenient truths that most histories avoid. The problem was that slave-ownership was never very profitable in the North except for those who engaged in the actual importation and trade of slaves, conducted exclusively by Northern shipping companies.

In the population of the South, only 3% were large Slave owners, which begs the question as to why so many people, non-slave owners volunteered to wage a war against the North if Slavery was the real issue. Another interesting fact is that the Union leaders were extremely shocked that the Slave uprising never materialized as they expected, instead they found just the opposite.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The Southern States actually voted to ban the slave trade as early as 1820 however, the Northern Slave traders continued to import and smuggle slaves into the South. The first State to pass the prohibition of the importation of slaves was Virginia. In addition, a vast majority of Southern States voted to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, but that too was voted down by a majority of Northern States. A strange fact is that no law was ever passed in the North that granted freedom to a person enslaved, that came in 1865, long after the falsely called Emancipation Proclamation which, by the way, only freed slaves within in the South, but did nothing to free those within any areas actually controlled by the Union. That should be considered one of those inconvenient truths that most histories avoid. The problem was that slave-ownership was never very profitable in the North except for those who engaged in the actual importation and trade of slaves, conducted exclusively by Northern shipping companies.

In the population of the South, only 3% were large Slave owners, which begs the question as to why so many people, non-slave owners volunteered to wage a war against the North if Slavery was the real issue. Another interesting fact is that the Union leaders were extremely shocked that the Slave uprising never materialized as they expected, instead they found just the opposite.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The Southern States actually voted to ban the slave trade as early as 1820 however, the Northern Slave traders continued to import and smuggle slaves into the South. The first State to pass the prohibition of the importation of slaves was Virginia. In addition, a vast majority of Southern States voted to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, but that too was voted down by a majority of Northern States. A strange fact is that no law was ever passed in the North that granted freedom to a person enslaved, that came in 1865, long after the falsely called Emancipation Proclamation which, by the way, only freed slaves within in the South, but did nothing to free those within any areas actually controlled by the Union. That should be considered one of those inconvenient truths that most histories avoid. The problem was that slave-ownership was never very profitable in the North except for those who engaged in the actual importation and trade of slaves, conducted exclusively by Northern shipping companies.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
In the population of the South, only 3% were large Slave owners, which begs the question as to why so many people, non-slave owners volunteered to wage a war against the North if Slavery was the real issue. Another interesting fact is that the Union leaders were extremely shocked that the Slave uprising never materialized as they expected, instead they found just the opposite.

The black population of the South was essential to the War effort, but contrary to Unionist propaganda, the black population was not forcefully induced to support that effort, the vast majority of them volunteered their time and labor. Yes, the slaves were even paid for their labors, at times more than their white counterparts. Slaves, by enlarge, remained on the plantations, without supervision, without compulsion and helped maintain the war effort. Had it not been for the black volunteers, the South could have never maintained its effort for freedom and liberty as long as it did. Sure, there were some blacks that ran away, but the vast majority of them did not, they remained, they helped. Read about Bill Yopp, former Slave and Confederate Veteran that was offered a permanent residence at the Confederate Soldier's Home. Even after the War, ex-Slaves chose to remain with their former masters and even helped sustain them during one of the most devastating impositions of Unionists misnomers called "reconstruction".
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
A British observer, Captain Fremantle witnessed an unusual site in a captured Northern town, he states that he saw a Confederate soldier leading a captured Union soldier down the street all alone, but the strange part of it was that the Confederate soldier was black. He went on to say: "This little episode of a Southern slave leading a white Yankee soldier through a Northern village, alone and on his own accord, would not have been gratifying to an abolitionist, nor would the sympathizers both in England and in the North feel encouraged if they could hear the language of detestation and contempt with which the numerous Negroes with Southern armies speak of their [Northern] liberators."

Another shocker is to read just how Unionist armies treated Slaves in conquered territories of the South it was, to be restrained, despicable, to say the least. Not to mention the general atrocities committed by Union armies on the general population of the South.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
Read the Census data of 1860, the North repelled the possibility of free black immigration. In that year the black population in the North was 1.7%, strange that there was so little migration allowed into the North if the North was so concerned with the plight of Slaves. Do some research and find out just how the freed Slave were treated in the North, then read the Slave Chronicles and see how they were treated, for the most part, in the South.

Another amazing fact is that Robert E. Lee and others called for the immediate emancipation of all Slaves, while there were those like Jefferson Davis who believed that it was the responsibility of Slave owners to educate and prepare them for freedom. Everyone in the South knew that the economic reality of Slavery was rapidly diminishing long before Secession and the War and would have probably been completely economically unviable by 1870 due to progress in agricultural machinery. Jefferson Davis stated that no matter who won the War, that Slavery would eventually become a defunct institution. The concern of many in the South was the method of emancipation. In the writings of Jefferson Davis you will find he was of the opinion that the slaves should be well prepared for freedom; that they should be educated and made aware of the responsibility of freedom. Instead, the War of Northern Aggression released the slaves into a life filled with generational poverty, hatred and hardship. If you read the Slave Chronicles you will see that many former slaves felt that they were recklessly thrown into a freedom that was far from free.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
In a Confederate soldier's journal was found the following words: "I was a soldier in Virginia in the campaigns of Lee and Jackson, and I declare I never met a Southern soldier who had drawn his sword to perpetuate slavery. What he had chiefly at heart was the preservation of the supreme and sacred right of self-government. It was a very small minority of men who fought in the Southern armies who were financially interested in the institution of slavery"

So many volunteered to fight for the Confederacy that thousands initially had to be forced to return home instead. Can you imagine anyone fighting a War for an institution such as Slavery when the vast majority of the Southern population had no connection with slavery and never owned a slave? They fought for something far more valiant, far more noble and that was the same cause that inspired the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The Northern States pasted exclusion laws that made it hard or impossible for freed Slaves to enter or settle in their jurisdictions. Massachusetts passed laws that allowed the flogging of blacks that remained in the State over 2 months, Indiana's constitution stated, "no negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the state. Most of the Northern States crafted similar laws and imposed harsh penalties on freed or runaway Slaves. John Sherman, William Tecumseh's brother declared in 1862 that: "We do not like the negroes. We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana said yesterday: The whole people of the Northwestern States are opposed to having many negroes among them and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all the Northwestern States." There were actually far more beatings and lynching in the North during that period then in the South during the "Jim Crow" period.

Former Slave and Legislator Richard Harris, elected to the Mississippi House of Representatives in 1890. On February 23, 1890 he delivered a speech on the floor:

"Mr. Speaker! I have arisen here in my place to offer a few words on the bill [raising funds for a Confederate Monument]. I have come from a sick bed, perhaps it was not prudent for me to come, but Sir, I could not rest quietly in my room without contributing a few remarks of my own. I was sorry the hear the speech of the young gentleman from Marshall County. I am sorry that any son of a soldier should go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of the brave dead. And, Sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines and in the Seven Days' of fighting around Richmond, the battlefield covered with the mangled forms of those who fought for their country and for their country's honor, he would not have made that speech.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments. But they died, and their virtues should be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I too, wore the Gray, the same color my master wore. We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet. I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions. When my mother died I was a boy. Who, Sir, then acted the part of a mother to the orphaned slave boy, but my "old missus"? Were she living now, or could speak to me from those high realms where are gathered the sainted dead, she would tell me to vote for this bill. And, Sir, I shall vote for it. I want it known to all the world that my vote is given in favor of the bill to erect a monument in honor of the Confederate dead."

On the day of the vote, former Slave John Harris was joined in equaled zeal by 6 other Black Representatives in the Mississippi Legislature to pass the bill for the Confederate Memorial. It is amazing how much history has been deliberately buried and suppressed.

So, what about this man called Lincoln and why have we, as a country, been collectively indoctrinated into thinking that he was not only a hero, but he has almost been deified through a well crafted history intent on doing just that: deification!
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
George Edmonds, in his Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865, written in 1904 is perhaps one of the most scathing accounts of the War, Lincoln and the Radical Republicans. He describes his work in the following way:

"The greater number of the facts herein laid before the reader was not drawn from Southern or Democratic sources, but from high Republican authorities. Part first of this work presents Abraham Lincoln to the people of this generation as his contemporaries saw and knew him. The characteristics portrayed will be a revelation to many readers. As an offset to the falsity of Republican histories of the war of the 60's, permit me to express the hope that in the near future our people will make more general use of those histories which are truthful and just to the South." ~Edmonds
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
"Even in the South the real Lincoln is lost sight of in the rush and bustle of our modern life, and many Southerners accept ¨the opinion of Lincoln that is furnished them ready made by writers who are either ignorant, or else who purposely falsify plain facts of history." ~Edmonds

Indeed, the process of indoctrination upon the People of the South by the Radical Republican Nationalists was without precedent in this country. The Northern Politicians, especially during the Reconstruction, were intent on inbreeding such a sense of shame upon the Southern People that the methods and effectiveness of their propaganda program would rival any "re-educational" program by any radical communist group such as the Khmer Rouge.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
In "American Bastile", written by John A. Marshall, originally published in 1881 and reprinted by the Crown Rights Book Co., describes (in 767 pages) the false arrests of innocent citizens during Lincoln's dictatorship, and their ordeal in the different prisons around the North."

"Were these citizens from the South? Actually, they came from the "loyal" states, and they were Democrats. These innocent citizens were judges, lawyers, doctors, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, farmers, ministers, women, editors, state legislators, merchants, colonels, captains, professors, etc. There is a high probability that those mentioned in the book are only a sampling of those falsely arrested during Lincoln's reign of terror.

As is the usual pattern, these false arrests occurred by surprise for the most part, usually in the middle of the night or the early morning hours such as 4 or 5 a.m. In two cases, a lawyer was participating in a trial when he was falsely arrested, and a minister was conducting a religious service, when he was also falsely arrested.

Most of the prisoners were never told of the charges against them, never knew who their accusers were, when asked about their authority to arrest, there was none, no trials except occasionally a prisoner would be brought in front of a "military commission" which was, of course, illegal. They were imprisoned without knowing what they had done wrong, and when they were eventually released months or years later, they still did not know.

Just voicing an objection to Lincoln's administration, supporting the Constitution of the United States, voicing an opinion against the illegal draft, refusing to pray for Lincoln, discouraging enlistments, etc. could land you in prison.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
Detectives and spies were placed by the Lincoln administration at religious services and conventions held by Democrats, reading local newspapers, which supported the Democrats' viewpoints, etc., and they reported their findings to the proper authorities. This they did, and false arrests ensued.

At one point, the whole Maryland legislature was imprisoned at Fort McHenry as well as the Mayor of Baltimore, Mr. Brown, and a Maryland U.S. Representative, Mr. May. One such Maryland legislator was Frank Key Howard, Esq., and the grandson of Francis Scott Key. He was awakened around midnight when several armed men entered his home, and searched the premises. He demanded to see the warrant and the nature of the accusation, but none was given.

Another unfortunate citizen, who was falsely arrested, was Senator James W. Wall from Burlington, New Jersey. On September 11, 1861, the Marshal informed him that he had a warrant for his arrest, and when Mr. Wall asked him "at what suit?" the Marshal responded by saying "at the suit of the government." Senator Wall, in turn, replied, "I do not owe the Government anything." He, too, demanded to see the affidavit and to know the nature of the accusation, but none was given. When Mr. Wall refused to be the Marshal's prisoner, several deputies entered the room at which point, Mr. Wall seized the Marshal by the throat and hurled him across the room. More deputies came forward, and Mr. Wall struck one of them. He was eventually assaulted by four deputies, and was taken to Belder's Hotel. Shortly thereafter, he boarded the train, which eventually took him to Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
Senator Wall's only crime was that he denounced the war and unconstitutional violations of citizens' rights. Additionally, he was never able to find out the grounds of his arrest. Upon discharge from the prison and returning home, about a thousand persons at the train depot, whereby he gave an eloquent speech regarding the cruel injustice he had experienced as well as constitutional rights, greeted him.

Furthermore, Senator Wall denounced the proposal of the Emancipation policy to "purchase" slaves from the State of Missouri by the Federal government, and also denounced the "Bill of Indemnity" which basically would protect the president and his subordinates from any legal consequences of their unconstitutional and arbitrary acts.

William Hewitt Carlin, son of Governor Carlin of Illinois, was a lawyer, post-master under President Buchanan, state senator of Illinois, and clerk of the Circuit Court of Greene County, Illinois, was also falsely arrested without ever knowing the charges against him, and additionally, he was a personal friend of Lincoln, even though they were political enemies. No charges were ever filed against him, and he died in prison.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
Robert Elliott from Freedom, Maine, who was a member of the Maine Legislator, and also a member of the Governor's Council, was falsely arrested around midnight on September 7, 1861, at his home by Marshal Charles Clark and a dozen deputies. Mr. Elliott claimed that not one of these men resided in his county. He, too, was not told of any charges other than Secretary of War Simon Cameron ordered his arrest. About two months later, he was discharged from Fort Lafayette in NY harbor without ever learning of the nature of the accusation. On August 16, 1863, his two barns were set on fire, and after building another barn, this, too, was set on fire on December 31, 1866 while he was in Boston to arrange for its sale.

Cyrus Sergeant, a merchant, originally from Yarmouth, Maine, who lived in New Orleans and in Arkansas conducting business, returned to Maine upon hearing of his wife's death. He attended a convention at Portland, Maine, sponsored by the Democrats, and he was asked the sentiment of the Southern people to which he replied "the people of the South felt that the war was forced upon them, and all they asked was that the Government should be administered according to the Constitution, and not as Abraham Lincoln said it should be...."
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
When Mr. Sergeant left Portland for Boston, he was attacked by four men on the train at the South Berwick, Maine, and junction while reading a newspaper. He demanded to know what authority attacked him, and the Marshal produced a paper, but refused to let him see it. Mr. Sergeant then asked the Marshal to read it to him, but this was refused, too. He was transferred to Fort Lafayette, and never knew the nature of the charges against him."

Another historian was Ward Hill Lamon; he too was a personal friend of Lincoln's and served as a bodyguard for Lincoln. Lamon, like many of Lincoln's friends, was abhorred by the push of the Radical Republicans to varnish the truth about Lincoln and his motives. It was this abhorrence that caused many, like Herndon and Lamon, to write an accurate history of Lincoln and the events of the period.

As Lamon put it: "the press continued to teem with pretended lives of Lincoln, not one of- which deserved one particle of respect. These pretended biographies are fostered and praised and cherished by Republicans. The falser they are, the higher the praise."
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
"Certainly no right thinking man would erect a statue or put a portrait in their legislative hall of a self-seeking, cunning, coarse-minded politician, a man scorned by his own official family and by the most powerful and prominent of his Republican contemporaries. Amid the universal din of praise that it has become the fashion to sing of Lincoln, only the student remembers the real facts, only the student knows not only that the Lincoln of the popular imagination of today bears littleâ€¨ or no resemblance to the real Lincoln, but that the deification of Lincoln was planned and carried out by the members of hisâ€¨ own party, by men who but a few short hours before Booth's bullet did its deadly work at Ford's theater, were reviling him as a buffoon, a coarse, vulgar jester"-Edmonds
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The pro-Radical Republican Newspaper Globe-Democrat Paper: "One thing is certain, Lincoln was apotheosized afterâ€¨ his death. Had he lived 4000 years ago his name would now ¨be enrolled among the gods of Greece and Rome."

"The men who bestowed that honor upon Lincoln, though of his own party, though having known him well during his Presidential life, had during that period openly disliked, despised, and distrusted him, and had persistently lavished upon him the most "venomous detractions" the English language afforded. These facts will be proved by indisputable evidence. Why the Republican leaders .who had always "venomously vituperated" the dying Lincoln, the hour after his death made frantic haste to perform the apotheosis ceremony, and hoist their dead President up to the sublime realm of the gods, it is the purpose of the writer to show.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
Its conception was a flash of genius. It was the last act' of the dreadful tragedy of war, and the prelude of political plans of deep and far-reaching importance. The apotheosis ceremony and its successful upholding during all the years (thirty-eight) since Lincoln's death, has done more to prolong the power of the Republican Party than its victories and conquest of the South. The old saying that "facts are stranger than¨fiction" is as true as it is trite. The most fertile fictionist earth ever produced has never created so unique, so incongruous, so unparalleled a character as was Abraham Lincoln, mentally, morally and physically, nor has the most inventive ever thought out so unexampled a career as was his from cradle to coffin bed.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
If you read the Salmon P. Chase Paper and his diary, you will see indisputable evidence to prove the fact that before Lincoln entered on the Presidency, certainly during the first month of his incumbency, he and Seward were determined on war, and determined to make the Northern peopleâ€¨believe the South began it.

In his book "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln", James G. Randall stated:

"Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners. Some 300 newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication was censored. Northern elections were rigged; Democratic voters were intimidated by federal soldiers; hundreds of New York City draft protesters were gunned down by federal troops; West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported. Duly elected members of the Maryland legislature were imprisoned, as was the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May. The Border States were systematically disarmed in violation of the Second Amendment and private property was confiscated. Lincoln's apologists say he had "to destroy the Constitution in order to save it."
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
A very interesting subject is what happened after Lincoln and how his Radical Republican Party dissolved the Southern States, destroyed and replaced their State Constitutions against the wishes of the Citizens of those States and then broke up the South into 5 Military Districts each with Military Administrators. New Military Governments were erected in place of the duly appointed governments of those States. These were nothing less than a continuation of the Lincolnite Policies. New Governments were set up, not voted into office, but set up under the direction of a Northern Congress under the harsh and powerful hand of the federal Military regime.

What Constitutional Right or Authority did that Northern Controlled Congress have to remove those State governments, nullify their Constitutions that were founded prior to the ratification of our own country's Constitution?

"That no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Yet, that is exactly what happened after the War, those who were victorious ignored the Law of the Land once again. There was no elected Representation of the Citizens of those States and the "dogs heeled to their master's wishes" doing the bidding of those Radicals in Washington, the People of those States, including former slaves were forced at the end of Unionist Bayonets to vote in accordance to those same hard Task-Masters. Indeed, the chains of servitude were expanded; slavery was not ended only transformed into an equally insidious form.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The period called Reconstruction was no less insidious then the actual War itself, it was just as destructive, if not more so because it drastically changed the entire structure of the government of the United States and the proper relationship between the federal and State governments.

The actions of the Radicals was almost thwarted when New Jersey, Ohio and Oregon rescinded their former ratification of the 14th Amendment, or course this was ignored and each of those States were counted as ratifying the amendment, contrary to the will of the People of those States, contrary to the Consent of the People of those States.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST DAMNING CONDEMNATIONS AND PROOFS THAT LINCOLN AND HIS FOLLOWERS SUBVERTED THIS REPUBLIC!

Now, a very interesting point concerning the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the expansion of federal control and national citizenship, is that initially the votes came in as 22 votes yes and 12 votes no and 3 not voting there were 28 votes needed to ratify the Amendment. With the defeat of the Amendment the Northern Unionist Congress members changed rules to ensure passage by declaring the Southern States remained outside the Union, to deny majority rule in the Southern States by the disfranchisement of large voting blocks of voters. Then to put the icing on the cake, they required all the Southern States to ratify the Amendment in other to be allowed back into the Union. So, in 1861 the North refused to allow the South to leave the Union and in 1867.

The most amazing, most revealing and one of the most important pieces of Legislation to ever come out of a State came from a Northern State after the War. Suddenly, it appears they realized what the goals of Lincoln and his followers had done.

The Joint Resolution, No.1 of the State of New Jersey on the Rescission of the 14th Amendment had some harsh words for those who sought to continue Lincoln's usurpation of the Constitutional government.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
In the Rescission, the Resolution states:

"The Legislature of the State of New Jersey having seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States do declare and make known:

"That it being necessary, by the Constitution, that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, the authors of the said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two Houses eighty Representatives from eleven States of the Union, upon the pretence that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of said Houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said House."

As you can see, the Radical and Totally Dishonest Policies of Lincoln were still wielding the usurping hand of good "ole honest Abe".
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
It goes on to say:

"The objective of dismembering the highest Representative Assembly in the nation, and humiliating a State of the Union, faithful at all times to all its obligations, and the object of said amendments were one to place new and unheard of powers in the hands of a faction, that it might absorb to itself all Executive, Judicial and Legislative POWER, NECESSARY TO SECURE TO ITSELF IMMUNITY FOR THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS IT HAD ALREADY COMMITTED, AND THOSE IT HAS SINCE INFLICTED ON A TOO PATIENT PEOPLE.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The subsequent usurpations of these once national assemblies in passing pretended laws for the establishment, in ten States, of martial law, which is nothing but the will of the military commander, and therefore inconsistent with the very nature of all law, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING TO SLAVERY MEN OF THEIR OWN RACE IN THOSE STATES, OR COMPELLING THEM, CONTRARY TO THEIR OWN CONVICTIONS, TO EXERCISE THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN OBEDIENCE TO THE DICTATION OF A FACTION IN THOSE ASSEMBLIES; THE ATTEMPT TO COMMIT TO ONE MAN ARBITRARY AND UNCONTROLLABLE POWER, WHICH THEY HAVE FOUND NECESSARY TO EXERCISE TO FORCE THE PEOPLE OF THOSE STATES INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR WILL; THE AUTHORITY GIVEN THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO USE THE NAME OF THE PRESIDENT TO COUNTERMAND THE PRESIDENT'S ORDERS AND TO CERTIFY MILITARY ORDERS TO BE THE DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT, WHEN THEY ARE NOTORIOUSLY KNOWN TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PRESIDENT'S DIRECTION, THUS KEEPING UP THE FORM OF THE CONSTITUTION TO WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE ACCUSTOMED, BUT PRACTICALLY DEPOSING THE PRESIDENT FROM HIS OFFICE OF COMMANDER IN CHIEF, and suppressing one of the great departments of the government that of tribunal of the nation the jurisdiction to examine and decide upon the conformity of their pretended laws to the Constitution, which was the chief function of that august tribunal as organized by the Fathers of the Republic; all are but ample explanations of the power they hoped to acquire by the adoption of the said amendment.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
TO CONCEAL FROM THE PEOPLE THE IMMENSE ALTERATIONS OF THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW THEY INTENDED TO ACCOMPLISH BY THE SAID AMENDMENT, THEY GILDED THE SAME WITH PREPOSTIONS OF JUSTICE, DRAWN FROM THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS; BUT LIKE ALL THE ESSAYS OF UNLAWFUL POWER TO COMMEND ITS DESIGNS TO POPULAR FAVOR IT IS MARKED BY THE MOST ABSURD AND INCOHERENT PROVISIONS.

It proposes to make it part of the Constitution of the United States, that naturalized citizens of the United States shall be citizens of the United States; as if they were not so without such absurd declaration. It lodges with the Legislative Branch of the government the power of pardon, which properly belongs, BY OUR SYSTEM, to the Executive.

It denounces, and inflicts punishment for past offenses, by Constitutional provision, and thus would make the whole People of this great nation, in their most Solemn and Sovereign Act, guilty of violating a cardinal principle of American Liberty: that no punishment can be inflicted for any offense, unless it is provided by law before the commission of the offense.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
It usurps the power of punishment, which, in any coherent system of government, belongs to the Judiciary, and commits it to the people in their Sovereign capacity.

It degrades the nation, by proclaiming to the world that no confidence can be placed in its honestly or morality.

It appeals to the fears of the public creditors by publishing a libel on the American People, and fixing it forever in the national Constitution, as a stigma upon the present generation, that there must be Constitutional guards against a reputation of the public debt; as if it were possible that a people who were so corrupt as to disregard such an obligation would be bound by any contract, Constitutional or otherwise.

It imposes new prohibitions upon the power of the Senate to pass laws, and interdicts the execution of such parts of the common law as the national Judiciary may esteem inconsistent with the vague provisions of the said amendment, MADE VAGUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FACILITATING ENCROACHMENTS UPON THE LIVES, LIBERTIES AND PROPERTY OF THE PEOPLE.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
It enlarges the Judicial power of the United States so as to bring every law passed by the State, and every principle of the common law relating to Life, Liberty or Property, within the jurisdiction of the federal tribunals, and charges those tribunals with duties, to the due performance of which they, from their nature and organization, and their distances from the People, are unequal.

IT MAKES A NEW APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATION IN THE NATIONAL COUNCIL, FOR NO OTHER REASON THATN THEREBY TO SECURE TO A FACTION A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF THE VOTES OF A SERVILE AND IGNORANT RACE TO OUT WEIGH THE INTELLIGENT VOICES OF THEIR OWN [IT] WAS INTENDED TO OVERTHROW THE SYSTEM OF SELF-GOVERNMENT UNDER WHICH THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE FOR EIGHTY YEARS ENJOYED THEIR LIBETIES, AND IS UNFIT, FROM ITS ORIGIN, ITS OBJECTS AND ITS MATTER, TO BE INCORPORATED WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF A FREE PEOPLE."
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The Resolution by the State of New Jersey says it all, and it is still at the heart of what has happened to this country since the War of Southern Independence. Today, we still suffer from the legislative usurpations of Unionist ideology that promoted a completely centralized national government over the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. Now that we are on the Constitution an interested read was written by William Rawle in 1825 called Views of the Constitution and another work by James Kent called Commentaries on American Law written in 1827, both are definitive works on what was considered until 1861 as the Right of the States to cede from the Union which was always considered a voluntary agreement between the States until Lincoln.

By the way, both books were used to teach Constitutional law at West Point until after the War; at that point the West Point Library was purged of any original Constitutional analysis that supported the foundation of a voluntary union between independent States. In Rawle's book he stated: "It depends on the State itself to retain or abolish the principle of representatives, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed. This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, through not express, was mutually understood.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The secession of a State from the Union depends on the will of the People of such State. The People alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their Constitution. But in any manner by which secession is to take place nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the People of a State, it must be manifested in a direct and unequivocal manner." Remember that was written in 1827. The States, all States were sovereign and independent and the Union was purely reflective of the Constitutional Authority that rest primarily within the States, reserved to the States and the People.

In my judgment, it is necessary to understand the real reasons behind the entire episode of the War, both in the decades preceding it and the decades proceeding. If we look at the subject, not from the view point of Unionist victory, but from a sober and realistic point, researching the actual history and documents of the time then an entirely different view arises from those we have been taught and are comfortable accepting.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln-----spoken before Lincoln came under the strong influences of Northern Industrial Special Interests and before he became drunk with power normally associated with autocratic tyrants.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
So, had the South won the War for their Independence, slavery may have lasted another 15 to 20 years however, when it did end, as you can read in the writings of many of the Southern Leaders of the day, the freed would have been prepared for freedom instead of "emancipated" without hope or help, especially from their "liberators". After the war the death toll among the emancipated slave population was unbelievable, they were, for the most part, homeless and starving.

If the South was victorious, I doubt if we would see decades of foreign intervention, which began in earnest in 1898. Since that time we have intervened in over 200 countries, like Iraq, which we have intervened, in one way or another, for the last 87 years. We would probably not have a massive centralized federal government, nor would we have the ills associated with it.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
For over 110 years this country has pursued a policy of intervention around the globe and if you honestly research the outcome of such intervention you will quickly see that it did very little to actually provide security for this nation. Most of the intervention was prompted by special interests, such as Sugar Magnates and Mercantilists during the Spanish-American War. This War opened the door to a massive drive toward global intervention by the United States government.

Along with the resources and markets of the Far East, Southeast Asia and Central America were also prime targets of the new expansive policies of the United States during this period of the later part of the 19th Century. The intent was to exploit our growing military might around the world while securing potential markets and natural resources.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The United States came to the rescue as the "savior" of the oppressed colonial peoples under the rule of Spain; from the Philippines to Cuba a particular brand of liberty was brandished. That liberty came at a price and usually at the end of a bayonet. Unfortunately, the liberator became the oppressor and the people of these hapless nations came under the thumb of a new colonialist power.

In Cuba, The Platt Amendment was implemented to provide a permanent restriction on the people of Cuba to determine their own destiny. As much as we would like to believe that we were liberators of the Cuban people, the crafting of the Cuban Constitution was far from a free enterprise, it was totally subject to the acceptance of the United States and provided for the future intervention of the U.S. Military at any time our government deemed necessary. Under the agreement, the "sovereignty" of Cuba was only considered legitimate through the acceptance of all acts imposed upon it by the military government of the United States. It also permitted the U.S. to purchase or lease any lands, give the U.S. special privileges and thus we have Guantanamo. The consequences of that war, the occupation and the Platt Amendment are still with us today and are embodied in the name Fidel Castro who used the state of Cuban colonial despair to his revolutionary advantage. As with other unintentional consequences of such interventions, Fidel Castro took advantage of the remnants of colonialism and the disparity between those who benefited greatly from the U.S. colonialism and those who remained in abject poverty to successfully promote his revolution.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
Now the question is why, why would we intervene in all of these countries if the actual security interests of the United States are not threatened? It is the same old story, nations feeding upon the wealth and resources of other nations. Our interventions throughout the last century have this primary factor in common, the ones who benefit from them are usually not the American People as much as those who seek huge war profits.

Threats are now fabricated, exploited and amplified beyond reality to enjoin the sentiments of the population to support intervention and war, but the costs are much higher than we realize or wish to admit to ourselves. Many of the consequences are not immediate and therein are the real danger, for the fabric of history is changed by our actions and unbeknown to us at the time, our own future is changed in ways we cannot conceive.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
World War I is a perfect example of the fabric of history being altered by our intervention into the war. At the time of the entry of the United States, both sides of the conflict we rapidly depleting their resources, drained of their ability to wage war and ready to sue for peace. The war to end all wars could have had a totally different outcome had the United States refrained from listening to our domestic war drummers and those who would eventually benefit from our entry into the conflict. Besides the actual monetary costs of the war, the social cost is hard to comprehend in our present time; whole societal influences were altered beyond recognition. Empires were broken apart, new nations were born from the despair and national influences were morphed into artificial boundaries. The war set the stage for not only the eventual break-up of the British Empire, but the generation of ethnic and religious sectarianism that had been more or less subdued under the old order. Most of the nations within the region were devastated for over a generation and such devastation helped set the stage for the massive struggle called WWII.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
We rarely think of the differences in the world had we not been pushed into war by the war propagandist, profiteers and political influence peddlers. If we had not entered the war, both sides would have settled back into a world, while scared, would have been far safer than the one our victory created. Upon our victory, the fabric of history was severely distorted, everything changed and the balance of power shifted enormously. With victory came the end of the German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman Empires; this led to the formation of entirely new countries throughout Europe and the Middle East. It also marked a great transference of colonies into the hands of other colonialist powers, just as oppressive as the former masters.

With that victory came some of the harshest war reparations visited upon a defeated nation. Germany and its allies became subjugated to the wrath of the victors and under that wrath were sown the seeds of a future dictator who exploited the humiliation of Germany into a cause of extreme nationalistic pride and a taste for revenge.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The stage that Hitler exploited would have never been set had the United States remained neutral, as it should have, during the latter part of the war. The powers involved would have been forced into a peace agreement due to each side's inability to provide resources to maintain their respective war efforts. The world that was would have slumbered back into its decaying imperialism, eventually giving way to a natural evolution of nationalities and newly formed nations. The artificial borders created in the Middle East by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire would have been less likely to have been the future cause of continual conflict and strife as it is today.

Imagine for instance, for a moment, if you will, the world without Hitler. Certainly, this is pure supposition, but when you consider the possibilities what that the one act of U.S. intervention nearing the end of WWI did and how it drastically altered the weave of history, the conclusion that the world would be a very different place is more than a flight of fancy. As stated earlier, a lonely, dejected artist named Adolf Hitler would have had no fuel for his nationalistic incitements, Germany would have gradually reentered the community of nations and WWI, as we know it, would have never happened. Think of it, the European Jews and all their culture would have continued to flourish; there would have been no concentration camps, no gas chambers and 6 million Jews would have lived to propagate their lineage. The creation of the State of Israel would have never been forcefully imposed upon the Muslim nations of the Middle East and thus the current conflict would not exist in its present form.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
The British would have never gained control over vast regions of the Middle East, and the imposition of artificial borders throughout the area would not be the cause of numerous ethnic disturbances over territories. Although the nationalistic fever began to sweep throughout the region during the late 19th Century, that fever was only amplified by the early 20th Century events of WWI.

The Soviet Union would have never had the opportunity to impose the Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe without the events of WWII. The massive arms race, the nuclear threat and cold war would have had no stage on which to form and the incredible waste in manpower and funds would have been averted into more productive avenues. There are enough examples of the unintended consequences of our actions to fill volumes on the subject.

Interventions always have consequences and we rarely have the foresight to determine if those consequences produce far more danger than if the interventions never occur in the first place. The leaders of this country must once again regain the wisdom of the Founders and refrain from the use of intervention an ideological tool. We must come to understand that such interventions have the potential of drastically changing not only the fabric of our history, but also the fabric of our future. It has been proven that we have lacked that wisdom over the decades; it is time to stop the course that leads to dangerous unintentional consequences.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
That's a lot to wade through, but it should be required reading. Where did you get that, Republicae?
- Report
by LarryH54 on March 25th, 2011

You are absolutely correct. Lincoln was the greatest traitor in American history. +5
- Report
by Ron C on July 7th, 2009
I do not like Mister Lincoln but I do not think I would call him that. He was doing what he thought right for the nation. I differ but would not call him a traitor. His is one birthday I do not celebrate
- Report
by Karen Anne Queen of AB on July 7th, 2009
What do you call a guy that suspended habeas corpus, ran a war that killed 100 thousand people, targeted non-combatants, and ruined the economy? I guess you could call him Mr. Bush.
- Report
by Ron C on July 7th, 2009
Dear Ron, on this we agree. Well said
- Report
by Karen Anne Queen of AB on July 7th, 2009
Thanks Karen Ann
- Report
by Ron C on July 7th, 2009
I thought the question was regarding the Civil War, so I'll go ahead and toss out my two-cents worth .....
The true reason the war was fought was to maintain the union.
If the southern states had been allowed to leave the union would cease to exist, and possibly have split into even more factions.
I doubt very seriously that slavery would still exist simply because dsit would no longer be an economic feasibility, and could not have expanded into newer/future states and territories.
Several of my ancestors fought in the war - for the Confederacy - but none of them - like many others - ever owned slaves. They were defending their families and homes.
- Report
by Anonymous on October 25th, 2009
Anonymous, you are correct and when the Civil war was happening, my ancestors were virtual slaves in eastern Europe.

The point of the war was to preserve the Union and was essentially a war brought by northern corporations against southern elite. Of course most of the dying was done by proxy. Very few of the corporate leaders were injured and the assets of the losers were confiscated. The net result was slavery for everybody, not just the blacks. In truth, most of the people who died did not benefit from the victory.

It is analogous with virtually every war we have fought since. Since Lincoln worked for these forces, he is no less a tyrant than Hitler. I am sure they both thought they were doing the right thing for their countries.
- Report
by Ron C on October 26th, 2009
The irony is that in 'preserving the Union', the North destroyed the spirit of the original USA. The Founding Fathers WANTED a weak Federal govt. They realized that a strong govt can steal the sovereignty of the People far more easily than a weak one can. Which is exactly what has happened.
- Report
by LarryH54 on March 25th, 2011

By 1860 slavery was already a dying institution; in fact, Jefferson Davis stated that no matter who won the war that slavery would end. While slavery was an issue of division within the country, it was not the cause of the war. To prove that point all one needs do is look at the deal that Lincoln attempted to strike with the leaders of the South when he stated that he would support a Constitutional Amendment that forever protected the institution of slavery if the South would not Secede. If it had been the cause of the war then why on earth would Lincoln suggest such an Amendment and if it was the reason the South's Secession then why didn't they simply accept Lincoln's deal and remain in the Union with slavery protected?

The causes of the war were deeply seated in the power structure that had evolved in Washington and the heavy tariffs imposed upon certain products of the South. This was a burden that had been plaguing the South for a few decades.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008

Your answer feels deliberately naive. "If the South had won, everything would have undoubtedly been much better than it is today". "What if" history is fun, but this strays into "what if" fantasy.
- Report
by go_to_hellas on December 15th, 2007
"Naive" is believing without question everything in the history textbooks. If you'll read my answer again, you'll see that I didn't say everything would have been better if the South had won. What I DID say (or at least inferred) was that everything would have been better for Southerners, and, perhaps, for the American constitution. The facts in my answer, on which I base my beliefs, are undisputed, just often (almost always) ignored. THE FORMER, my friend, is naivte'. It was an unjust, illegal, and unnecessary war. The facts support that. The history books don't. But remember, the victors get to write the history books. Their version actually portrayed "what if" fantasy as historical reality.
If Lincoln was a current day republican, a congressional committee into his crimes against habaeus corpus would surely lead to his impeachment. Can anyone doubt that?
- Report
by Darlene on December 17th, 2007
I don't doubt that things could have turned out better if the South had one. I realise that the North was not as great as the textbooks make them out to be but that doesn't make the South somehow irreproachable. Lines like "Race relations would undoubtedly be much better today" make it hard for me to take this answer seriously.
- Report
by go_to_hellas on December 18th, 2007
If you read about the actual relationships that most slaves had with their "masters" then you will see a very different picture than the one that has normally been presented by accepted history. I was once just as "indoctrinated" as everyone else and believed this history that I had been taught about Lincoln, the War and the South, but when I read the Slave Narratives and several other books by actual slaves themselves I started to question the history I was taught. When I read the accounts of black Confederates, of former slaves I saw a very different story.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
It was not uncommon to see the children of white slave masters playing with their slave counterparts, nor was it unusual to find the slave "mamies" nursing the babes of their masters upon their breast. The general interaction between the two races in the South were much more cordial than one might imagine. We also forget that there was a substantial freed black population in the South and those freed slaves were treated with a respect that was sorely lacking in the North. In fact, if you read the laws of Northern States you will find that they were extremely punitive. In the South, freed slaves were accorded far greater social liberty, were able to own businesses, live within white areas and generally conduct themselves as any other citizen would; that was not the case in the North.
So, the hands of the North are not clean by any stretch of the imagination.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
We also seem to forget that in the South, the poor white was considered to live in much harsher conditions, was much more poorly fed then the slaves were. Even the slaves in several of the Slave Narratives stated that they were much better off then the poor whites were in the South.

The following are the words of former slaves:

Elija Henry Hopkins of Little Rock, AR said "I was fed just like I was one of the [master's] children. They even done put me to bed with them. You see, this discrimination on color wasn't as bad then as it is now. They handled you as a slave but they didn't discriminate against you on account of color like they do now. In slavery times, a poor white man was worse off than a nigger."
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
Sarah and Tom Douglas of Alabama: " Slavery times wuz sho good times. We wuz fed an' clothed an' had nothin to worry about"

Issaam Morgan, AL: Anytime a slave worked overtime or cut mo' wood dan he s'pose to, Massa pay him money for it cauze when ever one of us slaves seen somp'n we lak, we did jus lak de white folks does now. Us bought it. Massa never whupped none of his slaves. No'm noe of our slaves ever tried to run away. Dey all knowed dey was well off. Dey yankees offered me a hoss iffen I would go nawth wid them, but I jus' couldn't leave de Massa even dough I did want dat hoss might bad."
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
Concerning the "liberators" in Blue, the slaves were equally as adamant in their words:
Hannah Irwin of AL: "I suppose dem yankees wus all right in dere place, but dey neber belong in de South. Why Miss, one of 'em axe me what wuz dem white flowers in de fiel?You'd think dat a gentmen wid all dem decorations on hisself woulda knowed a fiel' of cotton. An' as for dey a-settin' me free. Miss, us niggers on de Bennett place wuz free as soon as we wuz bawn. I always been free."

Cora Gillam of AR said: "I'll tell you lady, if the rough element from the North had stayed out of the South the trouble of reconstruction would not have happened. They tried to excite the colored against their white friends. The white folks was still kind to them what had been their slaves. They would have helped them get started. I know that. I always say that if the South could of been left to adjust itself both white and colored would have been better off."
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
If you read the actual accounts, not only of white slaves owners of the day, but of former slaves you will find a very different picture of the institution of slavery than that which was portrayed by the Abolitionist, in particular. Slavery was a horrible institution, of that there can be no doubt, but as I stated before, it was a much more complex institution than we have been led to believe with layers upon layers making up the society that surrounded it.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008
As to the problem "Go_to_hellas" had with my statement that race relations would undoubtedly be much better today, maybe I should have clarified that as my opinion, but I still thing it is a valid one. The "Reconstructionist" and the ill treatment of southern Americans created a climate of resentment that grew and festered. White Americans (both slave owners who made up a small percentage of white southerners and non-slave owners) and slaves had a much better relationship before the war for the most part. The "Uncle Tom" treatment of slaves as depicted in books and movies was rare, as slaves were expensive and were more profitable when kept up well physically and emotionally.
- Report
by Darlene on May 31st, 2008

As I stated above, slavery was already a dying institution and might have lasted a couple of decades had the war not taken place. Now the doctrine of "white supremacy" was not just isolated to the South, that was the general attitude of the whole country, including Mr. Lincoln. However, if you really want to see why the "Jim Crow" era evolved then you need look no further than the Radical Republican Reconstruction Act to find the answer to that question.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008

Slavery was not illegal before the War, the slave trade was illegal. The first State to make the slave trade illegal was Virginia. Also, you will find that the slave trade shipping industry was a Northern golden calf of profit.

Few people realize that there were also numerous black slave owners. In my State, South Carolina, there were over 500 by 1860 and in the city of Charleston there were more freed black women who owned slaves then there were white women slave owners. In New Orleans alone there were close to 3000 black slave owners who owned over 10,000 slaves. Now this is in no way a defense of slavery, but we must come to understand that slavery was a very complicated issue that was not simply "black and white". Also, the number of slave volunteers in the Confederate Army was also a surprise, especially to the Union Army.
- Report
by Republicae on May 30th, 2008

Question

If the South had won the Civil War, would slavery likely still be legal there today?

Answers. 14 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

If the South had won the Civil War in the US do you think slavery would have been eventually quashed anyway?

If the South had won the Civil War, what would the name of the new country likely have been?

How would it have changed our life today if the south would have won the civil war?

Was slavery legal in the District of Columbia during the Civil War?

The historical record indicates that slavery was impoverishing the U.S. South. Do you think that it would have "burned itself out" in the U.S. like it did in Europe and elsewhere had the U.S. Civil War not been fought?

Professionally Researched

Was slavery legal in the District of Columbia during the Civil War?

Who warned about Civil War if slavery wasn't abolished?

How did expansion&slavery start the civil war?

How did the civil war end slavery?

At the time of the civil war how many people were in slavery?

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Question

If the South had won the Civil War, would slavery likely still be legal there today?

Answers. 14 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!