# Causes for the War Between the States



## Milkman (Oct 6, 2010)

Lets have a discussion about the various causes for the War Between the States. 620,000 people died during this 4 year period and countless millions of lives were changed for many years afterward. 

Was it legal for the Southern states to secede ?

Why did US President Lincoln order troops to invade the south ?

What is your understanding of reasons the typical Union or Confederate fighting man or officer went to war?

And any other related topics you may want to discuss.


----------



## fishfryer (Oct 6, 2010)

It was commonly believed,even in northern states that states had a constitutional right of succession. The United States were individual political divisions,held together for mutual benefit.People did not so much think of themselves as Americans,as they did as Georgians,South Carolinians,or Virginians. The war between the states expresses that thought clearly.There are letters from various confederates to their home people,expressing their reluctance to leave their state, to fight in another state or country as some thought of it.The war settled the question,the winners made the rules.The United States was born then, as we now know it.The southern people were believers in the ideas of some of our nations founders,that once the government became the master and not the servant,they had the right to withdraw.Brute force, attrition, superior industry,and warring on civilians,changed things to a nation state,instead of a state of nations.


----------



## Mako22 (Oct 6, 2010)

Godless Yankees came down here to shove their big Government down our throats and we have been choking on it ever since!


----------



## fishfryer (Oct 7, 2010)

Make that secession,I guess I was thinking of a successful secession,which alas didn't happen.


----------



## Milkman (Oct 7, 2010)

What about Abraham Lincoln ??   

 Was he really interested in preserving the Union as it existed before 1860 or was his invasion just a power trip?


----------



## fishfryer (Oct 7, 2010)

Putting emotions aside is very hard to do.If you believe victor history,he was a great man with an incredibly hard task.If you believe some of the other sides thoughts,he was the devil incarnate.He surely put aside the constitution and established law to achieve his ends.Of course his talk of either preserving slavery,or of abolishing it,just to preserve the union was propaganda.It took 2/3 of the war before he had enough battlefield success to issue the emancipation proclamation.After that he was getting a little more confident of reelection,and had used slavery as a moral banner for his administration.You asked a specific question,I believe it was a combination of ego,his view of a strong federal government,subdued arrogance,and patriotism as he saw it.War which had been looming for several years,was realized at Ft.Sumpter and he jumped hard,without being too concerned about legality.


----------



## slightly grayling (Oct 7, 2010)

Lets have a discussion about the various causes for the War Between the States. 620,000 people died during this 4 year period and countless millions of lives were changed for many years afterward. 

Was it legal for the Southern states to secede ? Yes, and I believe it technically still is legal.

Why did US President Lincoln order troops to invade the south ? Wow, it's been a long time since "US History before 1965"....here is a foggy stab at it....Among other reasons, pressure from industrialist producing cotton textiles.  Southern States had a good market in France and Europe for cotton and prices were good.  Northern industrialist had the government place high export tarrifs unfinished cotton to force cheaper pricing for the mills in the north.  The mills, in turn would sell finished products here and abroad relatively tarrif-free.  This initiated the States Rights Issues upon much of the division was based.     

What is your understanding of reasons the typical Union or Confederate fighting man or officer went to war?  Northerners were initially professional Soldiers....Southerners were just like you and I if someone invaded our home.

And any other related topics you may want to discuss


----------



## shakey gizzard (Oct 7, 2010)

slightly grayling said:


> Lets have a discussion about the various causes for the War Between the States. 620,000 people died during this 4 year period and countless millions of lives were changed for many years afterward.
> 
> Was it legal for the Southern states to secede ? Yes, and I believe it technically still is legal.
> 
> ...



Does it have to be related?


----------



## Backcountry (Oct 7, 2010)

its was all about money...just like most wars


----------



## fishfryer (Oct 7, 2010)

I believe people in those days thought they had the power to change things they perceived to be wrong.Those people didn't have the many types of communication that we have.People lived a simpler life,with a stronger religious beliefs.When a respected member of a community spoke effectively,even persuasively with regard to a wrong against a community or region,ordinary folks believed they could help change things.Most everyone lived a life of subsistence,not in a mansion on a hill,with magnolia trees surrounding it.When the people who lived in places like Twelve Oaks talked war,poor farmers listened.The big towns with newspapers were far away. The everyday existence of many people was not gamorous,but filled with nonending labor.We're talking white and black here. When events like high tariffs threatened the deep south's economic future,hot heads on both sides, whipped up their people to right these wrongs. Sincere southern patriots didn,t know the true extent of northern industry as well as population advantage. Many young men saw a chance for adventure and glory.If you read some of Sam Watkins "Company Aytch", you'll find out about the glory.The rich men of course didn't want to lose the status quo.These were many times the organizers of military units at home. The churches sent the men off with their blessings.Towns had parades and pretty girls seeing them off.Duty was a word of very big consequence to them,duels and wars were fought for honor. Politicians fought with words,walking canes,and acts of law.After being in a period of relative peace for a couple of generations, the horrors of war did not dampen tempers as it would in few months. Farm boys,north and south,became weary old men in a short time. I used to wonder,how did an officer motivate men to attack a position which almost certainly offered a sure horrible death, or terrible injury. The same Pvt. Sam Watkins of Tennessee described battles such as I've just mentioned,with 10% of the army in reserve,behind the troops,to shoot them down if they started a retreat. That's one way to make sure your orders are carried out.


----------



## Musket (Oct 12, 2010)

*The reason I read in an old history book*

The slaves were originally brought to the northern states but were not suited for the climate or to work in the mills and factories.  So, the nortehern industrialists decided to sell them to the south were they could stand the climate and they better understood agricultural work.  Bear in mind, this started in the late 1600's and early 1700's.

So, the north said, "Here, buy these slaves to work your fields."  The Southerners said, "We can't afford to buy those slaves."  So, the industrialists were the same people that owned the banks and the south was loaned the money to buy slave labor.

This loan, buy, increase crop size, pay back the money and then borrow more money to buy more labor cycle went on for decades.  It's understandable why some plantations grew so large.  As a side note, the largest slave owner in Hattiesburg, Miss. was a black man.

Jump forward to 1840-1850.  The abolitionists decided it was immoral to hold humans in slavery (which I agree), and they wanted the slaves to be freed.  The slave owners told their northern banks that if they were forced to get rid of their workforce, they couldn't make the payments on the loans.  To which the bankers said, "Tough. Pay the money."

This argument went on for 10-20 years.  The plantation owners believed the abolitionists would never succeed in freeing the slaves and continued to get loans to buy farming equipment, build slave quarters, clothing, farm animals and sometimes slaves at auction.  This was especially true of the younger growers needing help to get started.  Not all small to medium plantation owners were sons of the rich, long established growers.  Then, the money would be repayed after harvest.

Worried about a rebellion, the northern and even the southern banks almost stopped making loans.  This put the farmers backs against the wall and secession was coming to a boil.  In order to get the states to agree to seceed, the Confederacy agreed to protect it's citizens against forclosure and forgive or "nationalize" the debt.

In 1861 Lincoln asked for some 75,000 volunteers for a period of 180 days to quell a rebellion, IF there was one.  Meanwhile, the South had massed 20,000-30,000 troops near Manassas Junction, Va. to show Washington they were serious about fighting if need be.

The 180 days for the Federal volunteers was soon to expire and Lincoln was about to have at least 60,000 troops discharged. The northern industrialist bankers got nervous and practically made Lincoln attack while he still had the forces.  The result was "The Great Skedaddle" as the blue bellies dropped their weapons and ran 32 miles back to Washington.

So, there, in a fairly large nutshell, is how the Civil War "started".  As Backcountry posted, "It was the money."

This info came from a Georgia school history book from around 1910 that belonged to a Civil War reenactor/book collector buddy of mine.  He also had a very old arithmetic book that had math problems that went something like, "If 3 rebs could whip 4 yankees each, how many yankees could 9 rebs whip?"  It was some rather humorous reading.


----------



## Milkman (Oct 12, 2010)

interesting info Musket.............. do you still have that book ?


----------



## Musket (Oct 12, 2010)

It wasn't my book. It belonged to a reenactor friend whom I've lost contact with. I believe there is a copy in the Ga. Archives. I don't remember the name of the book, just that it was a grade school history book for Ga. schools. 

It was so old the front cover and many pages were missing. He said he bought it at the yearly book sale that is help at North Lake Mall each year. And, it came from a private individual. 

Sorry I don't have better info. 

Musket


----------



## Milkman (Oct 12, 2010)

Many history books that were influenced by the victor of that terrible war lead you to believe that the desire by Southerners to continue African slavery was the issue that started the war. 

From what I have read the despicable practice of African slavery was practiced in almost every state of the Union prior to 1860. Some Northern states even had rules that disallowed freed slaves from moving there.
 From what I have read there were some politicians in southern states who were planters and slave owners who made African slavery an issue in the seccession documents. These politicians were also influenced by others who owned slaves. This is evident if you read these articles of seccession from some states, including Georgia. 

http://www.georgiascv.com/georgiaordinance.htm

There were many of the powerful in the north who had business ventures that profited by some method from slavery in some method as mentioned in some posts above.

If the information I  have read is accurate, there was a slave auction in Washington DC on the same day the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. Also note that the EP only freed slaves in the states rebelling against the US Govt. not the US states. Before being elected President Abraham Lincoln was part of a group that was working to establish a colony somewhere on the African continent to deport African descendants from the U.S. to for permanent residence. 

If this and other similar incident reports are accurate it isnt love for their fellow man and freeing the African slave that stimulated the average Northern enisted man, at least not at the beginning of the war.

From most of what I have read the Southern enlisted man was stimulated to fight due to the homeland being invaded by the US Army.

The Southern States seceded as independent  State governments from the Union. They  did that as a legal action by an independent state. The Confederacy didnt really exist until after these states had individually pulled out.  They seceded for various reasons... states rights, African slavery, dislike for the Republican party, new taxes imposed by the Federal government, etc.  The new union of states known now as the CSA didnt exist at the beginning. 

This isnt a definative answer to my own question above just a ramble of thoughts that may have been biased by reading pro-southern literature and being an SCV member.


----------



## Musket (Oct 12, 2010)

Milkman, you are correct about the CSA not existing in the beginning, however, groundwork had been laid as to the responsibilities of the new government. 

My version above was a quick attempt to show how the war was begun and I felt the need to show some background as to why the bankers forced Lincoln to attack when he did. 

Please don't misinterpret slavery as the main issue as to why the states seceeded in the first place. There were many reasons. The slavery issue was merely used to tug at the heart strings of the socially concerned of the day. 

I heard someone say that if you could get the Yankee socialite women to think there was injustice in the south, they would demand the men do something about it. That idea could hold a lot of truth. Don't forget that the newspapers tried to control people's thoughts, just like today's media. And they had a large hand in fanning the flames started by the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin". 

Even Gen. Sherman hated politicians and journalists, in that order. I often wonder what would have happened if Sherman fought for the south. 

Musket


----------



## Milkman (Oct 12, 2010)

Musket said:


> Milkman, you are correct about the CSA not existing in the beginning, however, groundwork had been laid as to the responsibilities of the new government.
> 
> My version above was a quick attempt to show how the war was begun and I felt the need to show some background as to why the bankers forced Lincoln to attack when he did.
> 
> ...



Musket,

I thought your post was very good and informative, Your very mention of WT Sherman as a Confederate officer just caused thousands of Confederate veterans to shutter in the grave  

Good food for thought though.

Here is a similar thread we had going earlier.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=459935


----------



## Musket (Oct 13, 2010)

Milkman, I was an SCV and MOS&B member and I have enraged several members by mentioning Sherman in a positive light. But, think about it. Anyone that can come into this state and give Joseph E. Johnston such a hard time, was one heck of a general. 

Musket


----------



## Milkman (Oct 13, 2010)

Musket,

What some folks loose sight of is that many of these men were friends,and fellow officers before 1860. Many of them were able to predict the opposing forces actions based on their intimate knowledge of the opponents commanding officers.


----------



## Musket (Oct 13, 2010)

Very true and those predictions of the other side's tactics was partly because many if them were in classes together at West Point.

I hope some other people will join in and give their take on some of the political and social reasons for the war.


----------



## JustUs4All (Oct 14, 2010)

Musket said:


> Even Gen. Sherman hated politicians and journalists, in that order. I often wonder what would have happened if Sherman fought for the south.
> 
> Musket



Eventually he would have had his rear handed to him just like all the other Southern Generals for the want of men to refill the ranks and the lack of adequate stores.


----------



## daisy102998 (Oct 14, 2010)

If the war was only about slavery then Sherman would have been on the south's side and lee on the northern side as Sherman owned slaves and Lee did not.  No one ever mentions Lincoln's wife brothers that were Rebels.


----------



## rongohio (Oct 17, 2010)

Milkman said:


> This isnt a definative answer to my own question above just a ramble of thoughts that may have been biased by reading pro-southern literature and being an SCV member.



Well, I'm not an SCV member, but I pretty much agree with most of your "ramble of thoughts", Marvin.   I think the _political issues_ that led to the war were pretty clearly stated in the Declaration of Causes.  Three other states besides Georgia also issued these declarations.  The University of Tennessee has collected them all together here:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

But I think the political issues are just part of the story.  In every society there are always divisive political issues.  Fortunately most of them don't lead to war.  But they did in 1861 and I think there are many other reasons for it.

The Northern and Southern economies, societies and cultures were moving in different directions.  The North was becoming industrialized, commercialized and capitalized, while the South for the most part remained an economy based on family-owned farms and plantations.  This led to a growing misunderstanding and mistrust of each other.  Most Americans at the time had no direct contact with anyone on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line, which couldn't have helped either.

Politicians, journalists and religious leaders, both North and South, were willing to exploit and exagerate these misunderstandings for their own self-interest.  There were also a handful of politicians who truly did strive for peace, but most of them were unable to "think outside the box" or make their voices heard.

The U.S. Constitution says not a word about secession, leading millions of Americans to believe that secession was legal and millions to believe it wasn't.  The Constitution does provide the means for peacefully resolving these disputes, but they were not used.

There were thousands of young men, North and South, who were eager for glory and adventure.  Many of them also felt a commitment to a cause.  They didn't know the horrors of war and when the politicians beat the drum they came running.  They found out all too quickly what they had gotten into, but by then it didn't matter.  They were brave and honorable men and once they started fighting they weren't about to quit.

But if the politicians had done the fighting, and the soldiers had done the "politicking", I think there would have been no war.


----------



## shea900 (Oct 18, 2010)

That's right rongohio, the people led very different lives and for that reason kinda didn't care for each other's conpany. The north was all hustle and bustle of cities , while southern folk were, as we are now, "laid back". The north thought of the south as backward, (few schools down here) the south couldn't understand the concept of hurrying off to work in a factory every mornin'. Even though farming was hard work , there was still time for some hunting and fishing. also the northerners were having to learn to get along with other ethnic groups as Eurorean immagrants were coming over and working in the factorys. The people learned some racial tolerance, and that helped to turn alot of  people against slavery. But still, alot of people up north still felt the south had the right to seccede. Just a few thoughts, but ultimatly ya' gotta follow the money........


----------



## Milkman (Oct 20, 2010)

The war was the fault of the lowlife Yankee dogs in Washington and the slimey nogood Politicians in Montgomery !!!














The above isnt neccesarily the opinion of the author but  a shameless attempt to keep this thread alive


----------



## Crubear (Nov 8, 2010)

The causes were as varied as the people....

Lincoln believed that Union should be preserved above all else. Yes, he violated the Constitution to do it.

The South was primarilly concerned with States Rights over Federal, as stated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Slavery was an issue, but didn't become a major issue until after the war started and the North tried to find a way to build support.

Lincoln wasn't even in office when things started to fall apart and the path to war was set (by the South) before he ever had a chance to do anything else.

The North did not start the actual combat, a small group in SC did that firing on Fort Sumter. 

It's also interesting to think about what would have happened if the North had lost or not resisted Southern secession. 

Westward Expansion would probably have led to confilct, which side would have owned what?

No Spanish American War, which helped establish the US as a power in the world.

No Panama Canal

WWI would have been a loss for France and England, probably Germany too. All sides pretty much bled themselves dry and it was only the influx of fresh American Troops that turned the tide to the Allies.

If WWII had occurred, well, there's no way a divided US/Confederacy is powerful enough to support/win the war. We would in all likelyhood be slaves in a Japanese/German occupied country. Those that were still alive.


----------



## campinnurse (Nov 8, 2010)

The historian Shelby Foote made an interesting observation about the civil war. He said (and I am papaphrasing from memory): before the war the United States as a country was referred to as a plural as in "the United States are". After the war it was "the United States is". That kind of says it all. As to causes, as someone has already posted, they were as diverse as the soldiers themselves. I think most significantly the difference in an industrialized society and an agrarian society was at the core. Later the north tried to take the high road and make it be about slavery but it didn't really start out that way. It did give the north the moral high ground, though. The north was a united nation and the south was just a loosely connected group of states and as such were destined to loose from the outset.


----------



## redneck_billcollector (Nov 8, 2010)

As most have stated slavery was a small issue, if not, why was in legal in states (and DC) that stayed in the union and was only abolished in those states after the war with the 13th amendment.

I like the agricultural vs industrial arguments to an extent, but there are flaws with those, the midwest that stayed in the union was largely agricultural even though there was a good bit of copperhead sentiment out there they stayed in the union.  

I wonder sometimes if it just wasn't blatant regionalism and the south was affraid of losing what power it had in DC due to the demographic changes that were occurring because of industrialization in the northeast and an influx of immigrants from Ireland and central europe (I have read that by the end of the war there were a number of union regiments that only the officers could speak english).  I have read all kind of reasons for the war and everyone of them has some level of flaws.  In the end the one that makes most sense is the states rights issue combined with regionalizm.  The nonslave folks in the south were largely of english/scotts decent with mainstream protestant leanings, the north was changing even then from that and you throw in the quaker and puritan abolishonist leanings of a small number of the northerners you have a conflict waiting to happen. Basically what we have kinda playing out today with the red state/ blue state divide in this country.  Demographics drive most social activity and it weren't no different with the war between the states.

The above was my long answer take, here is my short answer ....THEM D**NED YANKEES!!!!!


----------



## polkhunt (Nov 9, 2010)

This below is a quote from Lincolns letter to Horace Greeley and can be found easily on the internet. I think Lincoln new as do most people with any intelligence that slavery was and is wrong (I don't know how any man could sleep at night who owned another human) but that was not his main objective in waging war against the south. 


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.


----------



## ADB (Dec 16, 2010)

Ya'll be serious. Them yankees just wanted some biscuits & gravy!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 4, 2011)

"Slavery was a small issue"

Give me a BREAK.

Though the North retconned the war to be ABOUT slavery (really, they wanted the tariff money from King Cotton, and to deal with the fact that the South, as a low-tax area, could undercut Northern mills and ports) the South VERY much was about slavery.

From South Carolina's declaration of secession:

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of *slavery*, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. "

The FIRST TWO LINES of GA's secession

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African *slavery*."

Mississippi: this is the first sentence of the second paragraph of THEIR secession document

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of *slavery *- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun."

I could go on - but they all gave as reasons for secession to be that the North was interfering with their right to own people.

"Slavery was a minor issue". RUBBISH. It was front and center in EVERY. SINGLE. DECLARATION. OF. SECESSION.

I realise I might be unpopular for saying this: I mean, after all most people in the South DIDN'T own slaves, etc. And there were a LOT of more complex issues out there. Lincoln wanted a mercantilist system and to basically take over the South, and to suppress secessionist movements in the North. 

But you cannot say that slavery was a "minor issue". 

And of interest historically - the plantation class that ran the South thought slavery was such a wonderful idea it should be extended to poor and middle class WHITES as well.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 4, 2011)

Of course, the North doesn't get off easy in my book, neither. Their sacking and burning of the South was at the time and still is war crimes.

They were only interested in "keeping the Union together" - and of course, behind the scenes, in offloading Illinois' debt onto the Southern states and eliminating competition to Northern business interests. The average man on the street really didn't care about the state of the African American. All of that has been a complete ret-con.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 4, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> "Slavery was a small issue"
> 
> Give me a BREAK.
> 
> ...





Good informative posts Greaser !!! 

Your quotation from seccession documents re-affirms the information I posted above in reply # 14.
The defense of African slavery was really more of an issue with Southern politicians than northern politicians before the start of the war for many years, IMO. 
But I feel that the average Southern man was fighting for personal reasons and because the south was invaded by Mr. Lincolns army. The average Joe didnt own slaves. Many of the aristocratic slave owners were exempted from military service by hiring a surrogate to join instead.

Keep this thread going, reply even if you strongly disagree with other posters.  Hopefully we wont end up fighting about it.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 5, 2011)

Milkman said:


> Good informative posts Greaser !!!
> 
> But I feel that the average Southern man was fighting for personal reasons and because the south was invaded by Mr. Lincolns army. The average Joe didnt own slaves. Many of the aristocratic slave owners were exempted from military service by hiring a surrogate to join instead.
> 
> Keep this thread going, reply even if you strongly disagree with other posters.  Hopefully we wont end up fighting about it.




That's why I think the Civil War thing is just too complex to reduce to "these were the good guys and these were the bad guys".  Romanticising either side can't be done. "Lost Causers" are simply trying to ignore history. 

Most of the people who fought in the Civil War, as you correctly said, were common folk more than a little ticked off that Sherman was coming south, burning, pillaging and raping in his wake. However, they were fighting for a system and society that wanted to own people, and that's absolutely abhorrent and cannot be "whitewashed" away. I used to argue about this with certain and several people of color who were sickened by the neo-Confederate flag because it was a symbol to them of a system that wanted them in chains, working for no money in the hot sun, subject to whippings and worse. And they're right.

However, though there were a LOT of people who wanted slavery gone: the Episcopal church in the deep south for example, and people who were here and abolitionist were run out of town or worse. The world ran on cheap cotton, and it didn't matter too much to too many people how it got there. Same with us and oil today - I've never PERSONALLY beaten a Vietnamese 12 year old with a belt til she couldn't stand cause she didn't stitch Nikes fast enough - but - will future generations call us evil and barbarian because we had no problem with our society, which exploits the Chinese for cheap and in some cases beaten slave labor to produce inexpensive junk?

The North however cannot sit on its high horse. Their motives were nowhere NEAR noble. 

Northern ports and business interests were angry that goods could come in to the USA through Savannah or elsewhere almost tax-free, while New York wasn't quite so cheap. They were losing business. Then as now, the Northern states were "Empire states" and the South simply got on with business, taxing little.  Gripe #1.

Lincoln had wanted to make Illinois "the Empire State" and had built a series of canals therein to make it the go-to place for industry. The railroad's invention partway through the construction (over time, over budget, government, natch) made them OBSOLETE, they became a very expensive white elephant. Lincoln wanted to offload the costs onto other states, but those pesky Southerners kept wanting the country to be run the way it was intended - as a union of individual states, not a federal country with the states in thrall to the federation. If only something were done about these strict constitutional sticklers, we could have a much bigger federal government/rug under which to shove these losses, complete with an income tax and much more and larger and progressive government programs. Gripe #2.

The third state to move to secede, believe it or not, was New York. Even Northern interests didn't like the way this new bunch of empire builders was going. New England had its own and nontrivial secession movement. Just as Lincoln was wanting to move towards all the manner of things people weren't liking, here comes New York and places like Boston, wanting another tea party. Gripe #3.

So Lincoln basically spoiled for a fight with the South. It would unify all the states he really cared about against a common enemy, and hey, when the war was over, he could hand over the businesses and farms to his cronies, friends and carpetbaggers. He could also quite quickly take care of gripes #1, #2, and #3, and argue for a much stronger union, emphasis on Federal, emphasis on union. It could be established that states belonged to the government, and that there was no right to secession, the complete opposite of what was believed before the war. Keep in mind one check on the federal government was that if it got too big for its britches the states belonging thereto could just say "never mind. I'm walking".  EVERYONE understood they could leave having VOLUNTARILY signed in. "The South were traitors with no right to secession" was a ret-con.

Next time you hear a Northerner crowing about the good saintly job of freeing the slaves - point out that absolutely, they did. And it was the ONE good thing that the war did. However, ask them this - what did the North do after? You see, they thought that freeing slaves meant they'd have to pay the field hands, therefore reducing the profitability of the cotton trade and thereby reducing the economic power of the South. They didn't count on freed slaves refusing to work in the fields at any price. So, reneging on their "40 acres and a mule" promise, they simply press-ganged any person of colour without a job and had them working, on pain of whip, in the fields. Welcome to the new boss, same as the old boss. 

The Northerners sure as heck didn't consider the Africans as PEOPLE: they made laws prohibiting former slaves from moving out of slave states, and the African Americans had to fight to get the vote and against all manner of other obstacles and hurdles that the "so wonderful" North maintained. 

Remember the North fought to keep the tax revenues flowing in and to hold the Union together (read: to conquer and control territory/it's about the money) - nothing to do with any noble sentiment that All Men Are Created Equal. There was some rioting when Lincoln made his statements about it being about ending slavery.  "We thought it was about preserving the Union!" 

That's what makes the Civil War a mess. Who do you cheer for, the whip-holding plantation owners who wanted that "Lost Cause" genteel society where people of color were subject to whippings and worse? Or a gang of war criminals who committed all manner of atrocity to steal the land, resources and more that generations had worked for?

Even though it might get me fired or punched out, I can kind of agree with how some people are flying the Neo-Confederate flag - as a "states' rights/heritage" thing - as opposed to Lester Maddox's "this flag is about segregation today, segregation forever!" although there are racists today who fly that flag that way. But to me, given that for the South as you said above, it was a rich man's war but a poor man's fight, I can sympathise with the battle flag.  In fact, I'm more aghastly offended that the new state flag here replaces the battle flag, under which people of color fought together side by side with poor and middle class whites defending their homes - with a very slightly adorned CSA flag, a government which called for both of the above groups to be chattel.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Feb 5, 2011)

fishfryer said:


> .He surely put aside the constitution and established law to achieve his ends..


 
Oh and how history has recently repeated itself.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 5, 2011)

Greaser......

While I wont try to change any of your opinions about history. 

I do respectively take issue with your description of the confederate flag.  It is not now, nor has it ever been anyone else's flag other than those who fought to defend the South or those who use it to remember and honor them.    The hate groups never had any right to use that symbol for their groups.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 5, 2011)

Milkman said:


> Greaser......
> 
> While I wont try to change any of your opinions about history.
> 
> I do respectively take issue with your description of the confederate flag.  It is not now, nor has it ever been anyone else's flag other than those who fought to defend the South or those who use it to remember and honor them.    The hate groups never had any right to use that symbol for their groups.



I'm extremely sympathetic to your view, and don't mean to imply that the Confederate flag's modern use is a de facto declaration of racism. I know MANY people who disagree with you and I on this subject, though.

However, the truth of the matter is that Lester Maddox and his ilk did use it while screaming "Segregation now, segregation forever!" 

Montana skinheads wear it as a symbol of racism.

Many people consider it hate literature. Heck, they've petitioned for its removal from just about everywhere.

It's not my description: it's just what it is.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 5, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> I'm extremely sympathetic to your view, and don't mean to imply that the Confederate flag's modern use is a de facto declaration of racism. I know MANY people who disagree with me, here.
> 
> However, the truth of the matter is that Lester Maddox and his ilk did use it while screaming "Segregation now, segregation forever!"
> 
> ...



We are in agreement that the Confederate flag has been mis-used and abused by many. When heritage and history groups like the SCV use the flag properly some inevitably may be offended needlessly.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Feb 5, 2011)

Back to topic. The civil war was started over States rights, plain and simple. The Confederate Constitution already included wording forbidding the importation to any state of slaves from a foreign country. The wording became less clear on ownership of slaves, or their rights and was worded as "persons", not slaves. Many states in the confederacy were in disagreement over this issue, however it wasn't the cause of the Civil War. The right to keep and maintain individual State rights to govern themselves was.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 8, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Back to topic. The civil war was started over States rights, plain and simple. The Confederate Constitution already included wording forbidding the importation to any state of slaves from a foreign country. The wording became less clear on ownership of slaves, or their rights and was worded as "persons", not slaves. Many states in the confederacy were in disagreement over this issue, however it wasn't the cause of the Civil War. The right to keep and maintain individual State rights to govern themselves was.



The "right" in question being the right to own slaves.

"Foreign importation" was a moot point given that there was a thriving domestic slave trade anyway. It was basically protectionist.

Sorry, I sympathize about the Confederates about a lot of things, but "states rights" is a ret-con. They wanted to own people, pure and simple. 

Most places that abolished slavery did so by compensating former slave owners for loss of property, and did something to make the lot of the former slaves more equitable. The North did neither. They invaded under that pretext but not for that reason, burned the place to the ground, divvied up the spoils, disenfranchised a few generations, caused racial divides that still exist to this day, heaped a ton of scorn on the descendants of said people - and think themselves morally superior for it.

"The war wasn't about slavery" - well, for the North it wasn't. It was about securing the South for itself under its own terms and establishing precedent to use force to make wayward States realise they belonged to the Union and not vice versa. 

But for the slave-holding Confederate states, heck yeah, it was about slavery. Absolutely. They said first and foremost it irked them the North wanted to take away their "states rights" to own people, and they were therefore done with the Union.

Generations of apologists, "Lost Cause"rs and so on and so forth cannot argue away that very very obnoxious (to modern ears) clause set front and center as the primal reason for secession.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 8, 2011)

Milkman said:


> We are in agreement that the Confederate flag has been mis-used and abused by many. When heritage and history groups like the SCV use the flag properly some inevitably may be offended needlessly.



You now see why I don't get along with liberals much either: as far as I'm concerned, it's entirely possible to be sympathetic to some aspects of the Confederacy, its struggles and aims, without being sympathetic to them all.

General Lee thought slavery was abhorrent. He simply rushed to the defense of his state, and his loyalty to it was greater than the loyalty to the US. The Confederates were brave to fight such a one-sided fight. 

SCV - I don't know much about them or their politics, but I think it interesting that if you are a Victorian re-enactor, noone suggests you're supporting the idea of overtaking entire continents, pillaging them, and kicking their faces in with a colonial jackboot. But people have to keep interest and pride in the Civil War in a closet. Such a double standard.


----------



## rongohio (Feb 9, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> I think it interesting that if you are a Victorian re-enactor, noone suggests you're supporting the idea of overtaking entire continents, pillaging them, and kicking their faces in with a colonial jackboot. But people have to keep interest and pride in the Civil War in a closet. Such a double standard.



I won't presume to speak for anywhere else, but up here in Ohio folks honor and respect the Civil War soldiers, whether they wore blue or gray.  I'd like to see people take more interest in it, but still there are numerous reenactments and commemmorative events going on every year.  In fact I have some friends in a Civil War reenactment company, which I just joined myself.  Here's their website if anyone's interested:

http://7thtenncav.webs.com/


----------



## MudDucker (Feb 9, 2011)

The cause of the tension between the North and the South was MONEY and POWER!

Slavery was a side issue.  Those who say otherwise are ignorant of the practice of indentured servitude that was widely practiced in the North.

The bottom line is that the North was jealous of the wealth of the South and wanted more taxes to be paid by the South, although the South used very little government services.  The North also refused to respect the property rights of the South, which is where slavery was an issue.

The other was that the Southern states did not recognize the power that the Northern interests in the federal government were trying to seize and manipulate.  The United States of America was formed via a contract between the States or a voluntary association if you will.  No State believed that this Union made them give up their own individual identities and no State believed that it wasn't a free association where a State was free to leave the Union.  Only yankees in control of the federal government believed that.

Ultimately, the war was started when the federals illegally invaded the Southern States.  For this heinous act, Lincoln is fully responsible.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 9, 2011)

MudDucker said:


> The cause of the tension between the North and the South was MONEY and POWER!
> 
> Slavery was a side issue.  Those who say otherwise are ignorant of the practice of indentured servitude that was widely practiced in the North.



Slavery was not a "side issue", and I am not ignorant. I can and will quote you chapter and verse from every secession document that usually begins, to the effect, of "THEY WANT US TO GIVE UP OUR SLAVES, NO NO HECK NO." It could easily be argued that the North invaded to keep the union together, with the core issue of the secession as the whole slavery thing. 

Slavery was a significant social issue of the day, but not why the North fought. Heck, there were riots in Boston when Lincoln started to talk about slavery as a reason for the war. If slavery was REALLY the core issue for the North AS such, they could have paid the plantation owners compensation, emancipated the former slaves properly,  at MUCH less cost. But as you say, just like as how we're in Iraq to "spread democracy" and "topple an evil tyrant" as opposed to, hey, all this oil that happens to be under their soil - the war was and was not about slavery at the same time.

You cannot minimise the importance of slavery's role in the war. It WAS a big issue. It was a HUGE part of the way of life here. Of course people can become fantastically rich if they can get people to work from before sunup to just after sundown without paying them a cent and hitting them brutally with a whip if they don't. The opening scene to "Gone with the Wind" is absolute FICTION and a disgusting ret-con at that. 

The kind of people who raise the neo-Confederate flag NOW are probably NOT derived from the plantation class, who mostly sat out the war while dancing in balls and hoping the subsistence farming class - the ones whose farms were being burned etc. would pull off a military victory and keep them in power. They were almost an aristocracy and the hill people didn't like em much before the war, neither. In fact, as I previously mentioned the slave owning plantation class thought it'd be a great idea to extend it so that it could own all the poor and middle class whites the same way. I mean, if you're not paying the field labourer, why pay your blacksmith? Why not just provide him with his tools, three meals a day and a hut, and the occasional whipping if he doesn't work hard enough?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 9, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> You now see why I don't get along with liberals much either: as far as I'm concerned, it's entirely possible to be sympathetic to some aspects of the Confederacy, its struggles and aims, without being sympathetic to them all.
> 
> General Lee thought slavery was abhorrent. He simply rushed to the defense of his state, and his loyalty to it was greater than the loyalty to the US. The Confederates were brave to fight such a one-sided fight.
> 
> SCV - I don't know much about them or their politics, but I think it interesting that if you are a Victorian re-enactor, noone suggests you're supporting the idea of overtaking entire continents, pillaging them, and kicking their faces in with a colonial jackboot. But people have to keep interest and pride in the Civil War in a closet. Such a double standard.



I dont understand some of what you wrote in the last paragraph. But I will emphasize again the the SCV is NOT a political group, it is a heritage and history group that exists to commemorate the struggle and sacrifice of the Southern soldier. 
 I for one am proud to be a member of the SCV and have never been in the closet about it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 9, 2011)

Milkman said:


> Many history books that were influenced by the victor of that terrible war lead you to believe that the desire by Southerners to continue African slavery was the issue that started the war.
> 
> From what I have read the despicable practice of African slavery was practiced in almost every state of the Union prior to 1860. Some Northern states even had rules that disallowed freed slaves from moving there.
> From what I have read there were some politicians in southern states who were planters and slave owners who made African slavery an issue in the seccession documents. These politicians were also influenced by others who owned slaves. This is evident if you read these articles of seccession from some states, including Georgia.
> ...



The post above is what I stated a few months ago as my rambling opinion about the causes for the war.  I think now as I did then that the right to own slaves was an issue for both sides.  
Many people today think it was the only issue, or at least the major issue. Perhaps it was with some people, who knows??

I want to make it clear to all reading here that even though I dont think it was the only issue our Southern ancestors fought for, I think it was a dispicable practice that should have never been allowed anywhere.


----------



## rongohio (Feb 9, 2011)

Milkman said:


> The post above is what I stated a few months ago as my rambling opinion about the causes for the war.  I think now as I did then that the right to own slaves was an issue for both sides.
> Many people today think it was the only issue, or at least the major issue. Perhaps it was with some people, who knows??
> 
> I want to make it clear to all reading here that even though I dont think it was the only issue our Southern ancestors fought for, I think it was a dispicable practice that should have never been allowed anywhere.



I think some of the confusion about this war, like many wars, comes from the dual meaning of the word "cause".  The political issues that "caused" the war were often different than the "causes" the soldiers fought for.  The soldiers didn't "cause" the war, but the "causes" they bled and died for were important too and shouldn't be overlooked.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 9, 2011)

rongohio said:


> I think some of the confusion about this war, like many wars, comes from the dual meaning of the word "cause".  The political issues that "caused" the war were often different than the "causes" the soldiers fought for.  The soldiers didn't "cause" the war, but the "causes" they bled and died for were important too and shouldn't be overlooked.





Great points Ron !!!   
 The politicians/planters/business owners/ rich people in general both north and south had the infuence and ability to create the events that led to Southern seccession and the Northern reaction that ultimately caused war.

The majority of men who either volunteered or were drafted to fight for both sides in many cases held different views of the "cause" and different dreams for what the outcome might be IMO.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Feb 9, 2011)

Milkman said:


> The post above is what I stated a few months ago as my rambling opinion about the causes for the war. I think now as I did then that the right to own slaves was an issue for both sides.
> Many people today think it was the only issue, or at least the major issue. Perhaps it was with some people, who knows??
> 
> I want to make it clear to all reading here that even though I dont think it was the only issue our Southern ancestors fought for, I think it was a dispicable practice that should have never been allowed anywhere.


 

As revolting as this post is about to sound, it is documented fact.

Please do not confuse indentured servants with forced slavery. Indentured servants were able to work their way to freedom via contracted agreement. Forced slaves were under the tyrant rule of abusive ownership, and this is the objectable conditions that brought the house down. 

There are way more instances of indentured servant's and their families not only working their way to freedom, but also to land ownership and a self sustaining lifestyle. Many indentured servants, even after earning their freedom and assets chose, as a personal conviction, to stay on their employers plantation as a means of continued cash flow, and in the nature of continuing a very comfortable friendly relationship they had with their employers / friends.

Forces slaves were bought and sold, traded, beaten and killed. The absolute worst of inhumane conditions that should never occur anywhere.

The bare facts of the matter are this, both situations still exist today all over the world. Both situations have existed since the beginning of time as evidenced, if nothing else, by stories in the bible.

There are advantages for indentured servants that should separate that term from forced slavery, but the way we have liberalized history and allowed the entitlement attitude to evolve both have been clumped into one smelly heap. What we are left with in our present day and time is a class of uneducated, or lower educated citizens that are a burden on society and resources and contribute absolutely nothing back in return, except to further denegrate a segment of history that should be very important to our learning and moving forward as a nation.

Instead what has happened is that forced slavery was the appellation granted for an umbrella term to cover all servitude, whether forced or indentured, and we are now left facing the downfall of one of the fairest most balanced Constitutions ever written in world history, in favor of a more Socialistic, entitlement class dependant way of living.

Servitude has always been part of world history, and was primarily an education / class based system. Those willing to work hard enough to earn their way out of servitude could gain in class and stature and apprise their self to all of the opportunities the world had to offer. The system we have now is actually counter productive to the free choice that otherwise indentured servants would have, and is rapidly changing all but a few elites status to that of slaves to the government. Even those of us that have known and experienced the freedom to work and gain in our efforts are becoming forced slaves to a corrupt government intent on taking away our freedom's. We are indentured through our Constitution, to have the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms that we work so hard to earn, but instead the tyrant's in charge are shredding our contracts with them and forcing us into a very ugly form of slavery.

The very Union that supposedly claimed to be against slavery of any kind is now forcing it upon all. History, if ignored, altered or buried does indeed come full circle to repeat itself. The attempts to highlight slavery as the primary cause for the civil war, and not present a fair account of all types of servitude, and the effects that came from them is one of the major factors that has allowed the Socialization of our government, and the retraction of many of our freedoms, and will be the very tool of blind ignorance that will facilitate the eventual destruction of our Constitution and society as a free people.


----------



## MudDucker (Feb 10, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> Slavery was not a "side issue", and I am not ignorant. I can and will quote you chapter and verse from every secession document that usually begins, to the effect, of "THEY WANT US TO GIVE UP OUR SLAVES, NO NO HECK NO." It could easily be argued that the North invaded to keep the union together, with the core issue of the secession as the whole slavery thing.
> 
> Slavery was a significant social issue of the day, but not why the North fought. Heck, there were riots in Boston when Lincoln started to talk about slavery as a reason for the war. If slavery was REALLY the core issue for the North AS such, they could have paid the plantation owners compensation, emancipated the former slaves properly,  at MUCH less cost. But as you say, just like as how we're in Iraq to "spread democracy" and "topple an evil tyrant" as opposed to, hey, all this oil that happens to be under their soil - the war was and was not about slavery at the same time.
> 
> ...



You miss the point.  Slavery was only mentioned because that was one of the areas where the North wanted to exert power over the South and over the new territories.  If the North was truly against slavery, the North would have outlawed indentured servitude.  You do realize that the North's shipping delivered much of the South's slaves from Africa.

I have seen no historical document to back up your claim that plantation owners wanted to extend slavery to anything other than Africans who were imported or home raised for that purpose.  While despicable now, they believed, as did much of the world at that time, that the Africans were not truly human. The North believed the same, hence the Constitutional limitation of not counting a slave as one person for census purposes when determining the population of the House of Representatives.  

The Plantation owners trained Africans in many of the skills you mentioned and had not need.

You are obviously a yankee union sympathizer who is attempting to rewrite history.  It is not going to fly here.


----------



## MudDucker (Feb 10, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> As revolting as this post is about to sound, it is documented fact.
> 
> Please do not confuse indentured servants with forced slavery. Indentured servants were able to work their way to freedom via contracted agreement. Forced slaves were under the tyrant rule of abusive ownership, and this is the objectable conditions that brought the house down. /quote]
> 
> You are reading the yankee version.  A Majority of Indentured Servants lived out their lives as little more than slaves.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Feb 10, 2011)

MudDucker said:


> You miss the point. Slavery was only mentioned because that was one of the areas where the North wanted to exert power over the South and over the new territories. If the North was truly against slavery, the North would have outlawed indentured servitude. You do realize that the North's shipping delivered much of the South's slaves from Africa.
> 
> I have seen no historical document to back up your claim that plantation owners wanted to extend slavery to anything other than Africans who were imported or home raised for that purpose. While despicable now, they believed, as did much of the world at that time, that the Africans were not truly human. The North believed the same, hence the Constitutional limitation of not counting a slave as one person for census purposes when determining the population of the House of Representatives.
> 
> ...


 
Laura's and Duparc's plantations, outside of New Orleans are shining examples of exactly what happened when where and how. They have highly documented memoirs of daily life, and as with most plantations, when slavery was deemed no longer acceptable all slaves were free to go. Ironically, most chose of their own free will to stay and work, and were rewarded accordingly. The relationships between the plantation owners and their slaves were nothing like what has been brought to front and center of the history books. I would dare venture to guess this was more the norm, over the few bad apples that have caused the current entitlement mindsets of modern day.

Those that are willing to work for a keep are empowering their self worth, self esteem and value as a human being. Those that relegate their life to hand outs and placing their well being in the hands of others, without the self motivation or desire to earn a decent days wages, are condemned to forever be a slave.


----------



## shea900 (Feb 10, 2011)

Wow. All good posts y'all. Very thought provoking discussion.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 10, 2011)

I am NOT a Yankee sympathizer.
I take great objection to that.

HONESTY in these kinds of debates/discussions is important.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 10, 2011)

I find it invigorating that we get excited about events that occured 150 years ago.  

However, we must agree that there is much room for differing opinion and stance on this subject matter.

Lets keep our discussion going and dont let it be spoiled by name calling, excessive bickering,  etc.  I hope some others who are reading here will chime in with additional information or even post a disagreement with what someone else has posted.


----------



## JustUs4All (Feb 10, 2011)

The War was about money and resources.  All wars are about money and resources.  No one ever admits that when they try to whip up the public support for a war, but that is always what it is about.  

There are loud calls for patriotic fervor in support of some cause or another or to right some wrong or another.   This is done because the common man will generally willingly fight a war and risk death for money and resources.

In the South the cry was for independence and repelling the invader.  Exactly what their grandfathers had done two generations earlier with England.  In the North the call was for saving the Union and later for freeing the slaves.  To find the true causes of the War we must pay less attention to the political rhetoric of both sides and look for the money and the resources.

As to slavery, there was undoubtedly plenty of both good and bad.  I do not condone it as a system but, in one form or another it has been with man throughout history.  In this country since Emancipation it could be argued that in the agrarian areas the share cropping system amounted to slavery and in the industrial adn mining areas the company store system did as well.

Here are a couple of my family stories:

My great grandfather and two of his brothers joined the 16th Ga.  One of the brothers kept a notebook during part of the War.  A slave named Wash went off to war with the boys.  Wash attended to them by setting up camp, hunting and scrounging for food, cooking, washing clothes, fatigue duty, etc.   One of the interesting entries in the diary is an accounting of what is owed to Wash from others in the regiment for similar services rendered.  The diary does not say that the money is owed to the slave owners, but to the slave himself.  Wash came home in 1864 when the last brother left the regiment having been wounded at the Battle of the Wilderness.  

It should be noted that Wash probably had access to a gun while hunting for food.  He could have easily gone over to the Yankees at any time since the 16th Ga served in the front lines on the Peninsula under Magruder and Johnston and then with the Army of Northern Virginia under Lee.  

As a child, mother was acquainted  with a former female slave who had not left the plantation of her mother's father.  In the 1920s This person was aged, and incapable of meaningful work around the farm.  She lived in a room attached to the "plantation house".  She was called the goose lady.  Her sole chore was to care for the geese and gather the feathers and the down for use on the farm.  She was lovingly cared for until she passed away.


----------



## JustUs4All (Feb 10, 2011)

Musket said:


> .... He also had a very old arithmetic book that had math problems that went something like, "If 3 rebs could whip 4 yankees each, how many yankees could 9 rebs whip?"  It was some rather humorous reading.





Milkman said:


> interesting info Musket.............. do you still have that book ?



The book is _Elements of Algebra_ (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1859) by the future General Daniel Harvey Hill.  It was published while he was an instructor at Davidson College in North Carolina.  Among the  problems he posed are:

1.   Milk sells in the City of New York at 4 cents per quart. A milkman mixed some water with 50 gallons of milk, and sold the mixture at 3 cents per quart without sustaining any loss by the sale. How much water did he put in the milk?

2.   In the year 1692, the people of Massachusetts executed, imprisoned, or privately persecuted 469 persons, of both sexes, and all ages, for the alleged crime of witchcraft. Of these, twice as many were privately persecuted as were imprisoned, and 7 and 17/19 as many more were imprisoned than were executed. Required the number of sufferers of each kind.

3.   The year in which Decatur published his official letter from New London, stating that the traitors of New England burned blue lights on both points of the harbor to give notice to the British of his attempt to go to sea, is expressed by four digits. The sum of the first and fourth is equal to half the second; the first and third are equal to each other; the sum of the first and second is equal to three times the fourth, and the product of the first and second is equal to 8. Required the year.

4.   The year in which the Governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut sent treasonable messages to their respective Legislatures, is expressed by four digits. The square root of the sum of the first and second is equal to 3; the square root of the product of the second and fourth is equal to 4; the first is equal to the third, and is one-half of the fourth. Required the year.

5.   Some of the New England States were fully, and some partially, represented in the Hartford Convention, which, in the year 1814, gave aid and comfort to the British during the progress of the war. If 4 be added to the number of States fully and partially represented, and the square root of the sum be taken, the result will be the number of States fully represented; but if 11 be added to the sum of the States fully and partially represented, and the square root of the sum be taken, the result will be equal to the square root of 8 times the number of States partially represented. Required the number of States fully and partially represented.

6.   In the year 1637, all the Pequod Indians that survived the slaughter on the Mystic River were either banished from Connecticut or sold into slavery. The square root of twice the number of survivors is equal to 1/10th that number. What was that number?

7.   In the year 1853, a number of persons in New England and New York, were sent to lunatic asylums in consequence of the Spiritual Rapping delusion. If 14 be added to the number of those who became insane, and the square root of the sum be taken, the root will be less than the number by 42. Required the number of victims.

8.   A man in Cincinnati purchased 10,000 pounds of bad pork, at 1 cent per pound, and paid so much per pound to put it through a chemical process, by which it would appear sound, and then sold it at an advanced price, clearing $450 by the fraud. The price at which he sold the pork per pound, multiplied by the cost per pound of the chemical process, was 3 cents. Required the price which he sold it and the cost of the chemical process.

9.   In the year 1853 there were a certain number of Women’s Rights conventions held in the State of New York. If 6 be added to the number and the square root of the sum be taken, the result will be exactly equal to the number. Required the number.

10.The field of battle at Buena Vista is 6 1/2 miles from Saltillo. Two Indiana volunteers ran away from the field of battle at the same time; one ran half a mile per hour faster than the other, and reached Saltillo 5 minutes and 54 6/11 seconds sooner than the other. Required their respective rates of travel.

11.A northern railroad company is assessed $120,000 damages for the contusions and broken limbs, caused by a collision of cars. They pay $5000 for each contusion, and $6000 for each broken limb; and the entire amount paid for bruises and fractures is the same. How many persons received contusions, and how many had their limbs broken?

12.A Yankee mixes a certain quantity of wooden nutmegs, which cost him 1/4 cent apiece, with a quantity of real nutmegs, worth 4 cents apiece, and sells the whole assortment for $44; and gains $3.75 by the fraud. How many wooden nutmegs were there?

13.At the Women’s Rights Convention, held at Syracuse, New York, composed of 150 delegates, the old maids, childless-wives, and bedlamites were to each other as the numbers 5, 7, and 3. How many were there in each class?

14.A gentlemen in Richmond expressed a willingness to liberate his slave, valued at $1000, upon the receipt of that sum from charitable persons. He received contributions from 24 persons; and of these there were 14/19ths fewer from the North than from the South, and the average donations of the former was 4/5ths smaller than that of the latter. What was the entire amount given by the latter?


----------



## Resica (Feb 10, 2011)

Old Harvey didn't hold back did he?


----------



## JustUs4All (Feb 10, 2011)

Not much, but back then one could get away with murder pretty much by moving out of the county.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 10, 2011)

MudDucker said:


> You miss the point.  Slavery was only mentioned because that was one of the areas where the North wanted to exert power over the South and over the new territories.  If the North was truly against slavery, the North would have outlawed indentured servitude.  You do realize that the North's shipping delivered much of the South's slaves from Africa.
> 
> I have seen no historical document to back up your claim that plantation owners wanted to extend slavery to anything other than Africans who were imported or home raised for that purpose.  /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## rongohio (Feb 11, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> http://open.salon.com/blog/mischling/2010/07/28/white_slaves_in_the_antebellum_south
> 
> Have a look at the Republican, pictured in the article.



The Fugitive Slave Law did more to turn the Northern people against slavery than anything else.  The fact is that most Northerners weren't all that concerned about the plight of the slaves themselves.  But the injustices of the Fugitive Slave Law angered Northerners and made them fear that the issue of slavery was turning the country into a police state.  Not only did the FSL allow people, white and black, to be taken into slavery without a fair hearing, it also allowed federal marshalls to _*force*_ private citizens to assist in the capture of fugitive slaves, even if it went against their conscience.  It was entirely un-American and an invasion of Northern states rights.

I live 15 miles away from Oberlin, Ohio, which was a major hub on the underground railroad.  Before the FSL, folks in these parts referred to Oberlin as "N***** Town", and even the local newspapers were constantly railing against the activities there.  But after the FSL passed, Oberlin became a center of defiance to it, and the town earned a grudging respect from the locals.  One 1858 incident in particular, known as the "Oberlin-Wellington slave rescue", rallied northern Ohio around the town as it stood up to the federal government.


----------



## MudDucker (Feb 11, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Laura's and Duparc's plantations, outside of New Orleans are shining examples of exactly what happened when where and how. They have highly documented memoirs of daily life, and as with most plantations, when slavery was deemed no longer acceptable all slaves were free to go. Ironically, most chose of their own free will to stay and work, and were rewarded accordingly. The relationships between the plantation owners and their slaves were nothing like what has been brought to front and center of the history books. I would dare venture to guess this was more the norm, over the few bad apples that have caused the current entitlement mindsets of modern day.
> 
> Those that are willing to work for a keep are empowering their self worth, self esteem and value as a human being. Those that relegate their life to hand outs and placing their well being in the hands of others, without the self motivation or desire to earn a decent days wages, are condemned to forever be a slave.



According to old documents, most plantations experienced much of the same.  Only idiots mistreated slaves.  But while we are on the topic of mistreatment of workers, how could any one up north even have the audacity to talk about conditions in the South.  Workers up north were abused far worse than most slaves back in those days.


----------



## MudDucker (Feb 11, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> MudDucker said:
> 
> 
> > You miss the point.  Slavery was only mentioned because that was one of the areas where the North wanted to exert power over the South and over the new territories.  If the North was truly against slavery, the North would have outlawed indentured servitude.  You do realize that the North's shipping delivered much of the South's slaves from Africa.
> ...


----------



## MudDucker (Feb 11, 2011)

rongohio said:


> The Fugitive Slave Law did more to turn the Northern people against slavery than anything else.  The fact is that most Northerners weren't all that concerned about the plight of the slaves themselves.  But the injustices of the Fugitive Slave Law angered Northerners and made them fear that the issue of slavery was turning the country into a police state.  Not only did the FSL allow people, white and black, to be taken into slavery without a fair hearing, it also allowed federal marshalls to _*force*_ private citizens to assist in the capture of fugitive slaves, even if it went against their conscience.  It was entirely un-American and an invasion of Northern states rights.
> 
> I live 15 miles away from Oberlin, Ohio, which was a major hub on the underground railroad.  Before the FSL, folks in these parts referred to Oberlin as "N***** Town", and even the local newspapers were constantly railing against the activities there.  But after the FSL passed, Oberlin became a center of defiance to it, and the town earned a grudging respect from the locals.  One 1858 incident in particular, known as the "Oberlin-Wellington slave rescue", rallied northern Ohio around the town as it stood up to the federal government.



This is true.  People rail against the patriot act, but the fugitive slave law provided for warrant-less searches based upon information and belief.  Many were seized for bounty.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 13, 2011)

MudDucker said:


> Greaserbilly said:
> 
> 
> > This article is not about "white" slaves, it is about mulattoes.  It uses the term "white" slave for sensationalism, not historical fact.  The man who wrote this is not a known Civil War historian.
> ...


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Feb 13, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> MudDucker said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still looking for an interesting document revealed to me by an antiracist that pointed out (it wasn't someone's Geocities web site, it was an original document, historical etc) that some in the Confederacy actually wanted to extend slavery to whites, believing it a better lot for some of them.
> ...


----------



## Milkman (Feb 13, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> MudDucker said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still looking for an interesting document revealed to me by an antiracist.
> ...


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 13, 2011)

MudDucker said:


> This is true.  People rail against the patriot act, but the fugitive slave law provided for warrant-less searches based upon information and belief.  Many were seized for bounty.



And that's why looking for "white hat/black hat" retellings of history always fail.

Southerners who try to whitewash over the whole slavery thing or suggest that the issue was "state's rights" - can't escape actual wording in secession documents and the "Cornerstone speech".
The South may very well have had other grievances, but to suggest that slavery wasn't a huge part of it - that's revisionism. Of course, to the man on the street, that wasn't any kind of huge deal. In some parts of the Confederacy (South Carolina) one half of families didn't own slaves (the other half did) and in other places it was like 20%. For most involved IN the war it was because there were Union thugs sacking and pillaging the place.

Northerners who try to whitewash the whole armed takeover by force thing can't. The states had the right to secede, the invasion of them to take over their lands and monies by force was occupation and theft pure and simple. And when they decided to rape, sack and pillage, they sure did. I'd love to show you antebellum Atlanta, but I can't - most of it was burned to the ground. And the net result of all these efforts was a very very dangerous disregarding of the original intent of the Constitution, that persists today. For the average Northerner, realistically, it was to "keep the Union together". As far as they knew the South attacked the US at Fort Sumter. It was a Gulf of Tonkin moment. It was retconned later to be about slavery. And that's THEIR revisionism.

A poster above is right. It was all about power and money. The CSA people wanted the states to keep their powers, the Lincolnites wanted to institute higher powers in the federal government and to distort the balance of power. They also did not want to lose King Cotton, any more than the government would stand today for losing oil fields.  The Southerners who ran the place wanted to continue to make enormous profit by having next-to-free labor.

Therefore I grate my teeth when I hear someone from the North look down his nose and suggest the gallant Northern liberators did this wonderful and moral thing. They certainly did nothing of the sort. And of course, if you want to look at "chutzpah", it's rich that the North imported the slaves, sold them to the South, and then told them to give up ownership once the checks had cleared.

Anyone who slings you that line about the "wonderful liberators", ask them if it would have been easier, simpler, far less costly, etc. to just BUY all existing slaves, free them, and have as part of the deal a change in the law? There were voices in South Carolina saying "yes, but here's the deal - you just can't free people - without setting up some kind of system to deal with them. No education, no access to credit, etc. I mean, you can't just open the cell door and expect people to reintegrate into society!" Fell on deaf ears. Part of the gigantic cluster-(word not allowed here) that reverberates to this day is the fact that the former slaves never got a decent shot at improving their lot, and the North decided to steal from and revile the South at the same time.

And if it was (insert stereotype of racist inbred Southerner) vs (hippy liberal Northern antiracist) why was it that the very first act Northern states took was to bar people of color moving into Northern States, hm? I mean, one of the great shocks on both sides of the color divide was after the emancipation, slaves had the AUDACITY to think they were considered full citizens, people, human beings. And there were some words when it was like "when do we get to vote?" "You want to vote?" "Well, yes, we're full and equal citizens now, right?" "Um. well. no. We just didn't want him owning you. Good luck finding a job. If you don't have one, we'll capture you and put you to work in the fields, but the guy holding the whip will be wearing a BLUE uniform."

The grey area greys out even more. People who were raised in slaveholding times at slaveholding periods of history wouldn't be evil as such - they'd have been raised to accept this as The Way Things Are. Whereas I don't know anyone who wouldn't be familiar with the Rules of War at the time, and would in good conscience break every one of them.

And, very very quietly, Lincoln found powers in the Constitution that weren't there. The states became thralls to the federal government. Mercantilism took hold. Big federal programs followed. The losses in Illinois were quietly put on the shoulders of the other states. It was the beginning of the End.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Feb 13, 2011)

Greaserbilly said:


> And, very very quietly, Lincoln found powers in the Constitution that weren't there. The states became thralls to the federal government. Mercantilism took hold. Big federal programs followed. The losses in Illinois were quietly put on the shoulders of the other states. It was the beginning of the End.


 
And again I state; We HAVE come full circle.


----------



## Greaserbilly (Feb 13, 2011)

Milkman said:


> Greaserbilly said:
> 
> 
> > Even though I commemorate those who's fight was partly to defend their right to have slaves I consider myself an anti-racist. The fact is that almost ALL anglo-saxon folks in North America were racists at some level 150 years ago.  If we dont learn from our mistakes we may repeat them.
> ...


----------



## JustUs4All (Feb 13, 2011)

MudDucker said:


> Whether blacks were treated abysmally (and some were) or given cream tea and crumpets three times a day, they were still OWNED by other people. I'd rather live free than live in bondage, no matter WHAT the conditions.
> 
> "Give me liberty or give me death?"



It is a shame that all do not feel as you do.  There have always been those willing to exchange freedom for little more than subsistence.  As a class they exist among us today, enslaved to the government handout.  Sadly, it is a growing class.


----------



## coyotebgone (Mar 4, 2011)

Southerner "Fighting Terrorist Since 1861"


----------



## Resica (Mar 4, 2011)

coyotebgone said:


> Southerner "Fighting Terrorist Since 1861"



How?


----------



## G20 (Mar 5, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Laura's and Duparc's plantations, outside of New Orleans are shining examples of exactly what happened when where and how. They have highly documented memoirs of daily life, and as with most plantations, when slavery was deemed no longer acceptable all slaves were free to go. Ironically, most chose of their own free will to stay and work, and were rewarded accordingly. The relationships between the plantation owners and their slaves were nothing like what has been brought to front and center of the history books. I would dare venture to guess this was more the norm, over the few bad apples that have caused the current entitlement mindsets of modern day.
> 
> Those that are willing to work for a keep are empowering their self worth, self esteem and value as a human being. Those that relegate their life to hand outs and placing their well being in the hands of others, without the self motivation or desire to earn a decent days wages, are condemned to forever be a slave.



Yes, that is my understanding, too.  I don't want to be misunderstood as being for any form of slavery - I most certainly am not.

But for the most part, would a reasonably intelligent plantation owner injure or kill someone he paid $1,000 for?  $1,000 was a whole lot of money back then.  I think they probably took pretty good care of their investments.  "Investment" being a purchase for the intent of making someone a profit.  Yes, very morally wrong, in terms of human beings, but I think the majority of slave owners were smart enough to want their investments to keep making them more money.

Yes, slavery was a factor in the war.  But just _a factor_ - not the primary reason.

And has been mentioned many times, money is almost always the _real_ reason for any war.  Modern times, included.


----------



## coyotebgone (Mar 5, 2011)

*War of Aggression*



Resica said:


> How?



My view points on this  would be considered way out there. Hence, its probably not worth mentioning.  

I will say that if it were the modern day; Lincoln would be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.  He is no hero of mine.


----------



## G20 (Mar 5, 2011)

coyotebgone said:


> My view points on this  would be considered way out there. Hence, its probably not worth mentioning.
> 
> I will say that if it were the modern day; Lincoln would be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.  He is no hero of mine.



Yes, he was a piece of garbage, morally.  Honest (yeah, right) Abe.

As was Andrew Jackson (double-crossing genocidist, if you know his real record).

But both are school textbook American heroes.


----------



## coyotebgone (Mar 5, 2011)

*i agree*



G20 said:


> Yes, he was a piece of garbage, morally.  Honest (yeah, right) Abe.
> 
> As was Andrew Jackson (double-crossing genocidist, if you know his real record).
> 
> But both are school textbook American heroes.




Jackson was a Psychopath.  I will give him one cudo.  Atleast he was willing to step up and defend what he thought was right, albeit misplaced.  

Since Abe we have had too many presidents that have no issue with sending our boys and our jobs over seas., while stripping the right and taxing the "blank" out of our citizens.  I believe my taxation rate exceeds 65%. 

States need to step up to the plate, each state does have rights. This will never happen until the states start to refuse federal money for pet projects.  Its really no different than bribery or a harlot in a seedy bar. If a state takes the money, then they must comply.  

If our elected officials can't protect our Inalienable Rights, (this means god given, not government given).  Then they need to be taken out of office. 

Stepping down off the soap box.  Sorry.


----------



## jason4445 (Mar 6, 2011)

he war was fought on the North to protect the Union and trade, and on the South to protect the lifestyle of the Southern Gentry.  It was commonly called n both sides the rich man's war - poor man's fight.

Underlying all of this was the issue of slavery.  Slavery was the one and biggest issue facing our government since the Constitution was written in 1789.  The reason it took so long to ratify - the issue of slavery.  Then from that date to the start of the Civil War slavery was the number one issue facing all Americans.  You take every issue we have today - abortions, guns, prayers in school, everything and combine all of those and it still does not reach the concerns the US had over slavery.

Lincoln was against slavery - he was a highly Christian man who thought that not outlawing slavery in our US Constitution was the Original Sin of the United States and he was correct.  He knew the Union would not survive if slavery was not outlawed, and knew we would not survive as a country if the south removed itself from the Union.

And our Original Sin cost us as a country dearly with the deaths of over 600,000 of our men and over 2 million living, but to disabled to work.  Then we have been paying for this sin as a country ever since in one way or the other, and I feel we will one day pay yet again with lives and injuries.

Another thing the war and Lincoln re-established was what our Constitution required - a strong Federal Government and weak State Governments that have to submit, in kind, to the Federal government wishes.  If not for that we would to this day have wars between different States like we did before the Civil War over things like who owned an island in the middle of a river, exactly where borders set, and what water belongs to whom.

Also to those not familiar our US Constitution, the set of laws that rule the country, never mentions any Inalienable Rights. Our rights as citizens are given to us only by our Constitution and government.  The Constitution never once mentions God in any  name or form.


----------



## Nicodemus (Mar 6, 2011)

G20 said:


> Yes, he was a piece of garbage, morally.  Honest (yeah, right) Abe.
> 
> As was Andrew Jackson (double-crossing genocidist, if you know his real record).
> 
> But both are school textbook American heroes.





It is too bad that Simon Kenton didn`t finish what he started, and beat Jacksons brains out, scalp him, and leave his scrawny remains on the dirt floor of that tavern.


----------



## Milkman (Mar 6, 2011)

Back to the war...........................


This is a link to an article that appeared in the Sept/Oct edition of the "Confederate Veteran". This is a magazine published by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and distributed to SCV members.

This is one of the better articles I have read on the subject. The writer is on staff at Emory University. Its long, but interesting. Note, the article is a scan of the actual magazine print. It will be easier to read if you print it out.

http://www.carolannwilson.net/Livingston.pdf


----------



## coyotebgone (Mar 6, 2011)

jason4445 said:


> he war was fought on the North to protect the Union and trade, and on the South to protect the lifestyle of the Southern Gentry.  It was commonly called n both sides the rich man's war - poor man's fight.
> 
> Underlying all of this was the issue of slavery.  Slavery was the one and biggest issue facing our government since the Constitution was written in 1789.  The reason it took so long to ratify - the issue of slavery.  Then from that date to the start of the Civil War slavery was the number one issue facing all Americans.  You take every issue we have today - abortions, guns, prayers in school, everything and combine all of those and it still does not reach the concerns the US had over slavery.
> 
> ...


----------



## WestGaJohn (Mar 8, 2011)

Musket:  "The slaves were originally brought to the northern states but were not suited for the climate or to work in the mills and factories. So, the nortehern industrialists decided to sell them to the south were they could stand the climate and they better understood agricultural work. Bear in mind, this started in the late 1600's and early 1700's."                                  WRONG.


The first slaves were brought onto this continent as early as the 1560's.  The industrial revolution did not begin to take place in this country until around 1820's-1870's.  So the assertion that these people were brought here, didn't fit the work or climate, then shipped down south to is crazy.  Slaves weren't meant for factory work, ever, they were meant for hard, hot, sometimes dangerous work.  The reason the majority of them ended up in the south is because that's where the most fertile soil was, thus cash crops drove the slavery boom in the south, not some idea that they weren't wanted up north.


----------



## rongohio (Mar 9, 2011)

WestGaJohn said:


> The first slaves were brought onto this continent as early as the 1560's.  The industrial revolution did not begin to take place in this country until around 1820's-1870's.  So the assertion that these people were brought here, didn't fit the work or climate, then shipped down south to is crazy.  Slaves weren't meant for factory work, ever, they were meant for hard, hot, sometimes dangerous work.  The reason the majority of them ended up in the south is because that's where the most fertile soil was, thus cash crops drove the slavery boom in the south, not some idea that they weren't wanted up north.



This is true.  And I think it stands to reason that if cash crops had grown in the North instead of the South, slavery would have flourished in the North, and not the South.  You play the hand that's dealt you.  These people, North and South, were Americans, and like the Americans of today they weren't perfect, but they weren't evil either.  We've learned from their mistakes just like hopefully our descendants will learn from ours.  But on the battlefield they were brave and heroic beyond our ability to comprehend in our comfortable, 21st century world.


----------



## Milkman (Mar 9, 2011)

rongohio said:


> But on the battlefield they were brave and heroic beyond our ability to comprehend in our comfortable, 21st century world.



Such a true statement Ron !!!  It is hard for us to understand the level of devotion to a cause that the men for both sides had.


----------



## Kendallbearden (Mar 9, 2011)

If anyone ever finds themselves in a book store, buy the PIG (politically incorrect guide) to the civil war. It is a very well cited, well researched book that will tell you facts that schools won't teach. It has just about everything you want to know. Everything from the legality of the war, causes, tactics used, information regarding lincon. The list goes on and on.


----------



## rongohio (Apr 23, 2011)

Milkman said:


> We are in agreement that the Confederate flag has been mis-used and abused by many. When heritage and history groups like the SCV use the flag properly some inevitably may be offended needlessly.



A friend of mine found some graves in southern Ohio of Confederate soldiers killed in action during Morgan's raid (the only CW action to take place on Ohio soil).  She contacted the Ohio chapter of the SCV, and one of their officers came out and placed flags and Southern Crosses of Honor on their graves:

http://civilwartalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2478&d=1303519031

I'm planning on heading down there in a couple weeks to pay my respects and follow Morgan's trail.


----------



## Milkman (Apr 23, 2011)

rongohio said:


> A friend of mine found some graves in southern Ohio of Confederate soldiers killed in action during Morgan's raid (the only CW action to take place on Ohio soil).  She contacted the Ohio chapter of the SCV, and one of their officers came out and placed flags and Southern Crosses of Honor on their graves:
> 
> http://civilwartalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2478&d=1303519031
> 
> I'm planning on heading down there in a couple weeks to pay my respects and follow Morgan's trail.



Thanks for posting Ron 

Our SCV camp will be putting a few hundred flags out for Confederate Memorial Day next week. We will also have service at Gen TRR Cobb's grave on Tuesday PM.


----------



## Fletch_W (Apr 23, 2011)

It's been said that some teenage Citadel cadets in Charleston thought they would be real tough guys by firing cannons off into Charleston Harbor, and then 100,000 people died in a war that could have been prevented by negotiation.


----------



## Milkman (Apr 24, 2011)

Fletch_W said:


> It's been said that some teenage Citadel cadets in Charleston thought they would be real tough guys by firing cannons off into Charleston Harbor, and then 100,000 people died in a war that could have been prevented by negotiation.



Im not sure who said that but they were off base on the facts.
this link gives a short account of the happenings in the hours prior to the first shots fired that morning.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/sumter.htm


----------



## MudDucker (Apr 25, 2011)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Laura's and Duparc's plantations, outside of New Orleans are shining examples of exactly what happened when where and how. They have highly documented memoirs of daily life, and as with most plantations, when slavery was deemed no longer acceptable all slaves were free to go. Ironically, most chose of their own free will to stay and work, and were rewarded accordingly. The relationships between the plantation owners and their slaves were nothing like what has been brought to front and center of the history books. I would dare venture to guess this was more the norm, over the few bad apples that have caused the current entitlement mindsets of modern day.
> 
> Those that are willing to work for a keep are empowering their self worth, self esteem and value as a human being. Those that relegate their life to hand outs and placing their well being in the hands of others, without the self motivation or desire to earn a decent days wages, are condemned to forever be a slave.



Even if we look at slavery in a cold economic light, it made no sense to abuse slaves as the abolitionist portrayed slavery.  Slaves were considered as both valuable property and a labor resource.  To abuse them degraded them on both accounts.

I am not defending slavery.  It was and is an abomination.  However, much of what the Northern Historians did in the way of historical revision is both wrong and a disservice to the South.


----------



## Milkman (May 1, 2011)

Milkman said:


> The war was the fault of the lowlife Yankee dogs in Washington and the slimey nogood Politicians in Montgomery !!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ttt


----------

