Friday, Oct. 21, 2016    Login | Register        

Was the Civil War about slavery?

Terry Garlock's picture

This year marks the 150th anniversary of America’s Civil War, and the occasion is raising the perennial argument over whether that war was about slavery or state’s rights. While the history and politics of slavery in America would fill a long bookshelf, the debate is an occasion to look past the simplicity of pop history to a few highlights that illuminate some warts and wrinkles in our country’s beginnings.

Long before slavery spread to North America, the practice had taken deep root in the Caribbean and what we now call Central and South America, brought by European colonists along with their more advanced civilization, Christianity and a few virulent diseases.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting by comparison the natives were pure. All over the world, humans have been killing and enslaving each other since long before any written history, with the spoils going to the strongest. Our own native Americans practiced a rich variety of brutality and slavery, though a few tribes like the Cherokee Nation were extraordinarily civilized, making our lousy treatment of them particularly egregious.

As colonies in North America became established, the British soon recognized the profit potential in slavery for labor-intensive agriculture. It seems the smell of gold can nudge our susceptible minds to rationalize almost anything, and the crop-intensive southern colonies soon built a slave-based economy. A lot of that money found its way back to England, and some would use the moral excuse that the system of slavery was forced on them by the king.

In 1776 when the colonies were struggling against the chokehold of the British, they finally broached the subject of independence. While they debated in the Philadelphia Continental Congress meetings, the elephant in the room nobody wished to mention was slavery.

The colonies had never before acted in concert on anything, and leading spokesmen knew they had a chance to unite to fight for independence, or they could fight each other over slavery, but that either choice precluded the other. Southern colonies would tolerate no intrusion into the slavery base of their economy. Northern colonies held a rather convenient morally dim view on slavery since their pocketbook was not affected, but they soon learned they had to postpone dealing with the abomination of slavery in order to gain the cooperation of southern colonies.

The first meetings did not even consider the treasonous idea of independence. When John Adams of Massachusetts sensed the Congress shifting towards his notion of independence, he made a strategic offer to form a committee to draft a declaration while negotiations continued. Adams persuaded Thomas Jefferson to draft the statement since Jefferson was a persuasive writer.

Jefferson was from Virginia, one of the southern slave colonies and the most populous by far. Jefferson’s paradox was that he owned hundreds of slaves to work his plantation while he was philosophically opposed to the slavery system, and in his list of grievances against the king he inserted the following language into his draft, surely knowing the firestorm of division it would create:.

“... Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms against us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, thus paying off former crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another ...”

The drafting committee, perhaps Adams or Franklin, struck this slavery language out of the Declaration of Independence, replacing it with the following vague reference to the King’s promise of freedom to slaves in the colonies who would join the British to fight their masters: “... He has excited domestic Insurrections among us; ...”

And thus began what I would call a conspiracy of silence on the subject of slavery in America. Those deeply involved in politics kept this festering division under wraps, America’s version of a crazy aunt locked in an attic, not to be discussed openly, the subject of whispers in dark corners to preserve a fragile union.

Thomas Jefferson may have been bold in drafting his indictment of the British on the subject of slavery, possibly thinking that would absolve him and other slave owners, but the truth is not quite so tidy. While Jefferson accomplished many notable things in his life, the subject of slavery was not one to give him any cause of pride.

For such a powerful and influential writer, he was remarkably silent on slavery even while others railed against the inhumanity and injustice of the system. In the decades following the Revolution, the population of freed slaves in Virginia grew rapidly as one after another slave owner freed their slaves as a matter of conscience, or included such freedom at their death by their will. But while some of his fellow Virginians were setting their slaves free, Jefferson never did.

When the war ended with America’s independence in 1781, the country operated under Articles of Confederation until the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 to shape the form of our government. At last, America’s great thinkers were gathering to decide how we would govern ourselves, and surely the slavery issue would be finally settled, wouldn’t it?

In the Pennsylvania State House, over three months the representatives of the former colonies, now states, worked and argued, forming factions to support this or oppose that. The southern states were most interested in preserving their status quo on slavery while large and small states were at each others’ throats over the issue of apportionment and how votes in Congress would be counted.

As a prime example of Congress’ noxious deal-making specialty, northern states struck a bargain with southern states to extend the slave trade for 20 years in exchange for making federal regulation of commerce a mere majority vote in Congress instead of requiring a two-thirds majority. It seems that northern morality, just as southern morality, had its price.

The infamous Constitutional clause (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3) counting slaves as three-fifths of a person is often derided as a gross example of racism, but that over-simplified view is mistaken even though the truth is not much better.

The fraction was a negotiated deal on enumeration to determine how taxes were distributed and how many representatives a state would have. Northern states didn’t want slaves counted at all, while southern slave states wanted slaves counted as a full person. Three-fifths was the compromise, the best deal either side could strike.

And so America’s Constitution was formed with nary an honorable attempt to get rid of slavery. While the new federal government kicked the slavery can down the road, the issue was bubbling at the state level and some states passed their own abolition laws.

By the time the first shot of the Civil War was fired in 1861, there had been ongoing struggles over slavery and compromises on the spread of slavery to western territories. Maybe the war and its bloodbath were inevitable, made necessary by deep, unresolved differences that grew into resentment, suspicion and suppressed anger just below the surface and ready to blow at the slightest provocation.

Does President Abraham Lincoln deserve the accolades he still receives for freeing the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation? He said, “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. ...”

Lincoln held the proclamation in abeyance as he waited impatiently for a Union victory on the battlefield to make the announcement, apparently to maximize political effect.

Furthermore, it was announced in September 1862, as a provision that would go into effect only for those Confederate states who had not returned to the Union by the following January. No Confederate state complied, and when Emancipation was announced on Jan. 1, 1863, it was an order to free 3 million slaves in the Confederate states where the Union held no power to enforce it, and it did not free the nearly 1 million slaves in Union states.

Secretary of State William Seward said of this absurdity, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

Lincoln, a Republican, angered northern Democrats with this proclamation as they favored ending the war by accepting slavery. Both parties have committed far too many offenses since that time for either to claim any virtue on the matter.

Personally, I think Lincoln was a great man and a fine President, albeit with many flaws, illustrating our tendency to overlook facts to simplify history and beatify our favorite historical figures.

Was the Civil War about slavery? Well, sure it was, but it was also about the absolute unwillingness of some states to bend to the will of outsiders, and it was about the cowardice of Congress to deal with tough issues, to sweep problems under the rug, to postpone controversy so someone else might handle it in the future, to trade away the most profound principles for a little mutual back-scratching.

Sound familiar?

[Terry Garlock lives in Peachtree City and occasionally contributes a column to The Citizen. His email is]


G35 Dude's picture

DM I'm not defending slavery. I'm just tired of history being slanted by some to give credit where credit is not due. Those that say the civil war was all about slavery ignore the fact that Lincoln even stated in his campaign speeches that he had no intention of freeing the slaves. He did not attempt to free any slaves until the war was almost 3 years old. Then the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the confederate states. It's interesting to me that the great emancipator only freed the slaves of his enemy while allowing the union to keep theirs. And yes there were states on the union side that had slaves. Lincoln used slavery as a pawn in the war to keep the union in tact.

I was exposed to all the facts as you have stated. We were never taught that Lincoln wanted to free all slaves. It was made very clear from his own writings and creditable historians that the south was angry that they could no longer go into the north to recover their property and that new states would not be allowed to become 'slave states'. He still started my family on the road to full citizenship - and for this, I give him credit. He remains a hero in many eyes.

The book I spoke of has looked extensively at the "Confiscation Act" which was very much a part of Lincoln's plan if he had lived long enough. You seem to have read many of the same history books I have. Indeed the "Emancipation Proclamation" only freed the slaves in the south it did not free the slaves in the north.

Forced into Glory Abraham Lincoln's White Dream by Lerone Bennett looks at Lincoln's plan to use government funds to buy slaves and send them back to Africa. Congress stopped him from using gov. funds for his plan. Mr. Lincoln seemed to overlook the fact that he was proposing to do the very thing he criticized others of doing, the buying and selling of people.

Our schools have really dropped the ball by watering down history to what amounts to a cute little fantasy.

[quote=G35 Dude]General Ulysses Grant is quoted as saying "If I thought this war would free the negro I would put my sword in its scabbard and go home."

It amazes me how little we as a people know about the Civil War.[/quote]

I did a little digging on that quote that G35 Dude attributed to U.S. Grant, as my spidey sense was tingling.

It would appear that the first instance of that quote appeared over 14 years AFTER Grant's death in a little-regarded revisionist history of the Civil War entitled "The Unwritten South" by an author named J. Clarence Stonebraker (page 66). There is NO attribution for that quote. There's also an amusing quote attributed to General Sherman in this book: "War is cruelty ! This year we will take your property, and next year your lives!" which is also unattributed. Neither of these quotes are found in any other biography of Grant or Sherman.

The Grant "quote" does get a prominent display in a number of White Supremacist websites, though, and now the Citizen as well.

Grain of salt, y'all. Grain of salt.

G35 Dude's picture

I actually found the quote on page 64 of the unwritten south. As well as several other places none of which that I recognize as white supremacy sites. Can you please provide your source of reference that the quote is false?

I have no "source of reference that the quote is false".

I stated that I have serious doubts that the quote attributed to Grant was actually said by Grant because A) the only source is an unreferenced claim made in a book published 14 years after Grant's death, B) it is not noted in any scholarly reference work about Grant, and C) it is not listed in any compendium of notable quotations such as Bartlett's.

I believe this quote to be an apocryphal story (not unlike "George Washington chopping down the cherry tree: 'I cannot tell a lie' "), a work of fiction. I am of the opinion that this was a complete fabrication intended solely to promote the author's preconceived position (kinda like the stuff observerofu routinely posts here).

G35 Dude's picture

Since you don't like that quote let me give you another one from Grant. From "Facts and falsehoods concerning the war on the South, 1861-1865″ by Elizabeth Avery Meriwether page 219.

“The sole object of this war,” said Grant, “is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.”

In a letter to Horace Greeley Lincoln is quoted as saying "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."

[quote=G35 Dude]Since you don't like that quote let me give you another one from Grant. From "Facts and falsehoods concerning the war on the South, 1861-1865″ by Elizabeth Avery Meriwether page 219.

“The sole object of this war,” said Grant, “is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.”[/quote]

Another dubious quote! First of all, the book in question was authored by George Edmonds. The entire text is available on Google Books. <a href="">LINK</a> The quote you listed (which your initial quote above seems to be a paraphrase of) actually contains a REFERENCE! Unfortunately, the reference is to an 1868 pamphlet called "the Democratic Speakers Handbook", which was a collection of anecdotes for Democrats to use against U.S. Grant's presidential election bid. The sourcing for your quote in THAT book is an unnamed person who overheard Grant say that once in a place called "ringo's banking house". Dubious at best! <a href="">LINK (page 33)</a> Also on that same page, right below that "quote", is the story of US Grant chopping down a pear tree and telling his father he cannot NOT tell a lie! Lotsa credibility!

Interestingly, both of your Grant quotes were tagged as "disputed" and removed by the wikischolars at wikiquote! <a href="">LINK</a>

[quote=G35 Dude]In a letter to Horace Greeley Lincoln is quoted as saying "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."[/quote]

Now THIS is more like it! A properly sourced and verifiable quote....I'm actually familiar with this one! Lincoln's motivation was documented from the start!

Observerofu's picture

you can give him the absolute proof that the Sun exist backed by the most researched links and he would still say you lied and nothing you say will dent that thick skull.

I know it's your time to waste but why bother.

Bacon is wrapped up in the flag of ideology and nothing can penetrate it.

He's right and you are wrong just go ahead and admit it that his vaunted secondary education is so much greater than yours that you could not possibly argue in the arena of ideas with him.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

G35 Dude's picture

LOL Yes I've figured that out now. He kind of reminds me of my ex wife!

I saw that film. It was fantastic! I was pleased to see that the South was not vilified and the North was not beatified. Slavery was never mentioned in the film but that makes sense. The prosecution of Mary Surratt had nothing to do with slavery; it had to do with treason. I highly recommend the film.

suggarfoot's picture

The Yankee asked the Rebel, “Why are you fightin?” The answer, “Cause you are.. here.. Yank”

That quote has never left me, and the more I dig, the more I find it to be true.

Most Southerners didn’t own slaves. That is a fact.

The winners get to write the history, and that is what was done with the war.

I love genealogy and there is where you get the facts. Or at least the way the people who were alive then saw it. It is much more honest than what historians today say.

Dead men don’t lie. And so it is. I’ve found things in wills and letters that are both touching and funny. In many respects, the average white slave owner and his black slave, were closer than you would ever think.

Some of the proof of that is that and the undeniable cruelty of the north in the fact that they not only burned out the whites, they burned the homes, food, and poisoned the wells of the blacks and whites alike. The idea was that if they left anything for the blacks, they would share it with the whites.

I’m a deep rooted rebel, with roots back to the 1730s . I have one ggreat that didn’t own slaves and went to war to protect his little family of a wife and a new born after the Yanks burned his little farm. I have another gg that was wealthy and hired someone to fight in his place. When the hired man came to him after the war to show him he was gg wanted his money back because he didn’t die in ‘the cause’!
What happened with slavery was there was no good guys in white hats coming down from the north. The dirty truth is deeper.

The American colonies were designed to be a money maker for the English. We (the whites) were never intended to be anything more than slaves, or at best an extension to the British Empire.

The money making scheme of the British started with over a half million Irish, men, women, and children, being shipped to the US as white slaves. No trial, just picked up and sold for profit. That was the 1st wave, there were many many more. Sold for life. The North as well as the south were buyers.

If you read some of the early records of Jamestown, Va. They are on line and easily accessible, you will find that whites were the 1st slaves (Irish, or Scottish people who fought the English crown, or some just kidnapped off the streets). Once here, they kept running away. They went to another settlement and no one knew the difference. There were one or two totaly POed ones, that made it all the way back to Great Britain. They wrote articles that were published in the English papers about what was going on, to the great embarrassment of the establishment!

To fight the running away and blending in with another settlement, they started to brand them on the face, both cheeks. Those with burns on both cheeks then ran away to the Indians. In a last ditch effort to keep their colonies afloat, the English brought in blacks. After all, they could then tell the difference. And so it was.

There has been no defeated foreign country treated as bad as the south after the war. We have rebuilt Germany and Japan, but no money was ever given to repay for the burned out homes and poisoned wells. Again, you have to dig. There was something called the ‘Southern claims commissions’. If you care to read it, Southerner after southerner came forward with claims and they were denied. The North made a joke of the whole deal. They gleefully send the carpetbaggers and other assorted trash south to pick the bones of the southerners. As a final gesture of hope the whites and the blacks would kill each other, they for a short time put the blacks in charge of running the government in the south. Race riots broke out after whites were murdered. The whites rose up in riots that lasted weeks. That was the justice the north gave the south, the rebuilding.

Again, the question, and the simple answer sums it up. The yank asked the rebel why are you fighting, and again the answer is so clear…’cause you’re here Yank!’

' get over it', would you understand why those words are so painful?
If history had been taught correctly, we wouldn't be in this hurtful, divisive situation regarding 'race'. I too have researched the genealogical files-and we're all related-not just spiritually, but materially. Many families are acknowledging kinship ( not just the Jeffersons). Most records show the callousness of the black slave trade. Blacks were regarded as 'animals' and better survived the harsh plantation work than the Irish . with less illness. And they didn't have to be paid - and could be bred and produce more 'slaves' - like cattle. Records
also show that corrupt traders brought quadroons from Louisiana to Georgia and passed them off to 'white' men as 'white ladies' for marriage. So much for the 'pure' white race in Georgia. I started participating in this blog six years ago to explore the topic 'race' when I noted so much glee in denigrating 'black'. I compliment the southern white woman who so artfully welcomed the defeated Confederate soldier home and supported him in feeling like a hero. She saved the south and is responsible for it's endurance. It's correct, the 'north' did little to rebuild the south. You see, we all have our own perspective of history. Today I see so many mixed race people in Fayette County and so many proud grandparents of racially mixed children. We are moving on- but it is incorrect to change the truth of history in order to feel good. I have met my Irish cousins in Ireland. I was welcomed with love. Love breaks the wall of color. . . and the history helps us to 'overcome' and not repeat the ignorant acts of the past.

Cain after slaying Able, went into the Land of Nod and had a son by his wife in Nod and the son was named Enoch. Have no idea of wife's name. Don't know who Enoch married--nor who "married" them. Jumped the broom I suppose.

I'm not sure if the Land of Nod was made up of various races or not, nor am I sure if Adam and Eve had a bunch more children.

But if Adam and Eve were the first people, and had more kids after Cain and Able, who were grown men, I think, and unless they inbred quite soon, there must have been more people in Nod!

Maybe also there was a Land of Dreams where the Chinese lived, and a Land of Neatness where the Arabs lived, and a Land of the Jews, where...well you understand?

I guess also that evolution somewhere along the track from Enoch, various races evolved!

In any case, we all are related. Even to the Great Apes who I have never seen mentioned about being on the Ark!

. . and that's the truth! LOL

suggarfoot's picture

what you are really dealing with is not the 'get over it', it is the fact that historians have lied and painted a very misleading picture.

Slavery was one issue, there were others. Both Southerners and Blacks feel they have unfinished business with the aftermath of the war. The difference is that white southerners are a little ahead because they have long accepted they were lied to and ridiculed by the north. They learned early, the "Southern Claims Commission", Reconstruction, etc. were all a bitter joke. Never meant to do anything but ridicule and exploit.

Blacks have trouble wrapping the mind around the joke. Yours has a different twist. The painful truth for you is that the Blacks were a pawn. Yes, many on both sides were against slavery. But the north freed ..only.. the southern slaves during the war to help themselves win the war. They kept theirs up north. Very little of what was eluded to for black or white in the south ever came to pass. You were used.

What you will find in stories after the war of black helping white and vis a versa in the south. For every family black or white in the south after the war, there is a different story, just as I had one ggg that never owned slaves, and another that hired someone else to fight for him. Everyone was different. I had another, that would work his for several years and then set them free. No doubt he, himself, had come here as an indenture. There were free blacks all around the area I came from and can be found on the 1850-1860 census. They all took his name, Smith. They did I'm sure cause they liked him. His only request was never leave the area, because he couldn't make sure they would stay free, or be sold back into slavery.

Accept that the war had more issues than one and it goes a long way toward understanding the aftermath. They never invaded the south out of the kindness in their hearts toward blacks, it was all about money. The southern taxes paid for a lot of things that the north felt they ..HAD.. to have up north. The southerners couldn't understand that and thought them frivolous and helpless, as they were more self sufficient. The north and the south were indeed two separate people with two separate ideas about how to do things. They didn't have much use for each other. The south wanted to end the marriage and the north wanted to stay married because they liked being 'kept up' so to speak.

After the war we were exploited, black and white alike. And, have had to live with the rosy lies they stated as fact in the history books. We lost, to the vi tor goes the spoils, (and the history)

Thanks for taking the time to share that. What you don't seem to realize is that I was taught the truth about American history - and these facts are not new to me. The aftermath of the Civil War for me was Jim Crow. . . and this may be the difference in our perspective of 'history of the Civil War'. That is the issue which affected me directly until just a few years ago. My living here peacefully in Fayette County with no fear of going out after dark, or traveling through and being caught here after dark would not have been a reality 30 years ago. The Civil War was over in 1865. As I stated before, I was not taught the fantasy of facts that surround Lincoln. Many 'blacks' have been reading Lerone Bennet's historical and accurate account of American history since I was a teenager. His articles were in Ebony magazine - and used in many schools where 'Blacks' were in attendance. I shared before that we were made aware of leaders who were pragmatists - and made decisions based on the 'bigger goal'. I had relatives who marched with Susan B. Anthony for sufferage - but were told that it was not time for the 'black' woman to get the vote because of the 'south'. This reality has been no 'joke' for blacks. . . .believe me.

suggarfoot's picture

Because the north had done with their 'Reconstruction, aka explotation, it may have been a good idea to seperate the races for a while. I don't know. There had been race riots etc. and even Carver thought it was right at the time. Maybe if they had put them together they would have gotten along, maybe not.

If it had been 'seperate but equal', it would have probably been ok, but we know it wasn't equal.

When I was growing I can remember my father teaching me both races are the same, that everyone wants the same things.

Very wise father. Where I was raised, we did get along, attended the same schools and formed political alliances that had very little to do with race. ( all races were represented in both the young republicans and democrats) We just had our high school 50 year reunion three years ago. We worked hard at ignoring ignorant practices based on race. Our parents and members of our respective communities made sure that we were aware of history beyond what was found in most textbooks. We had no illusions about the real story and we were taught that all of our ancestors contributed to Americsn history. Now there is an attempt to take what little has been included out of the Texas textbooks . Sad. Americans working together is beneficial. There are many examples of this in Fayette County today. I'm glad you realize that both races were 'used'.

suggarfoot's picture

Texas texbooks? What are they trying to say the war was over?



Here are some articles involving Texas textbooks. There are others. The reason I mentioned this is because there have always been some who want 'history' taught to represent their ideology or point of view. It was rewarding to see that one of the contributors to this discussion referred us to Lerone Bennet's book and stated that he found it historically accurate. Someone else also agreed that the 'winner' of a conflict often has a different point of view. My issue with the Civil War is the impact it had on Negros in the US. ( and not just the north and south ). Others certainly have different issues and perspectives. I hope that with the availability of a variety of resources, students can do their own research in their quest for historical 'truth'.

Cyclist's picture

The Japanese seemed to have the same problem accounting for the years 1931 through 1945. Author/historian Stephen Ambrose was noted that "The Japanese presentation of the war to its children runs something like this: 'One day, for no reason we ever understood, the Americans started dropping atomic bombs on us.'" (Google).

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

This is why we should allow students to use all of the resources available for research and not exclude perspectives that do not agree with ours. Many Germans in my mothers generation declared they didn't know what was going on regarding Jews and Gypsies - yet they were aware of them disappearing from their communities. In my research, I've noticed that it is important to get as much information as possible in order to get a clue as to what is 'true'.

suggarfoot's picture

No reason?

"cause you're here".

War of Northern Aggression is the proper name.

Did the Yankees ask the rebels in Pennsylvania why they were there?

The answer might have been, you want our slaves!

G35 Dude's picture

The first battle of the Civil War that was north of the Mason Dixon line was fought on June 30, 1863 between George Armstrong Custer and JEB Stuart in Hanover Pa. The war was over 2 years old by this time. There was only one more fought in the north. So once again you speak of which you know nothing about.

What matters when the PA wars occured?

I guess the Indians got Custer later than 1862? 1876 wasn't it by a young Indian they think. May have been an officer frag death?
He was an Ollie North type.
You are a pretty good confuser for some people.

G35 Dude's picture

Wow, thanks for proving my point better than I ever could.

[quote=G35 Dude]Wow, thanks for proving my point better than I ever could.[/quote]

Proving WHAT point?

First two battles in a state don't count?

This may clarify the locations of Civil War battles. Maybe 'history' textbooks need to be augmented with further information.

G35 Dude's picture

Thanks for the link DM.

Did you note Maine, Vermont, New York, Minnesota, etc.? We took our sons to visit Civil War battlegrounds to give them a picture of how this war was truly a war between the 'states'.

suggarfoot's picture

in some of those states! I almost lost my cookies when I saw that map. VERY BAD AND MISLEADING SITE.

per DM..."This may clarify the locations of Civil War battles. Maybe 'history' textbooks need to be augmented with further information."

VERMONT - St Albans Raid- that was southern POWs from that escaped an Ohio POW camp and wound up in in Canada and attempted to be bank robbers.

Washington Territory - Battle of Bear River (Bear River Massacre)aka Battle of Bear River and the Massacre at Boa Ogoi, The United States Army attacked Shoshone? The Shoshone were NOT CONFEDERATES.

Siege of Tubac was a siege of the Apache Wars, between settlers and militia of Confederate Arizona and Chiricahua Apaches.

COLORADO- Sand Creek Massacre- Massacre of Cheyenne Indians) was an incident in the Indian Wars of the United States that occurred on November 29, 1864, when a 700-man force of Colorado Territory militia attacked and destroyed a village of friendly Cheyenne and Arapaho encamped in southeastern Colorado Territory,[2] killing and mutilating an estimated 70–163 Indians, about two-thirds of whom were women and children. ..THOSE WERE NOT CONFEDERATES, tHAT WAS THE US ARMY AGAINST THE INDIANS

The Battle of Big Mound
US Army victory over the combined Santee and Teton Sioux...AGAIN WE GAVE A REBEL YELL BUT WE DIDN'T WEAR WAR PAINT!!

Battle of Dead Buffalo Lake- between United States forces and Sioux Indians of the Dakota Territory.

ALL THE DAKTOA 'CIVIL WAR' BATTLES...ALL FIGHTING THE INDIANS. (man were these guys confused) If they couldn't tell an Indian from a Rebel..well I don't know what to say.. And if you took your kids to these sites as Civil War battle grounds, I'm equally appalled!


NEW YORK IS A JEWEL... their Civil War Battles were the draft got to love those New Yorkers..always exaggerating!!!

I would look deeper...but honestly, this site is a SHAM.. no one is that ignorant!

I encourage those who may be interested to do your own research. The Civil War battles were not only fought in the South.
There were Confederates who even hoped to involve California. The point is, until you read more information, you and others had a limited view of the ramifications of the war between the states -and it looks like some of those divisive sympathies are alive and well. We have terrorists who want to annihilate us - and we're still fighting each other. Sad. There are many references to the Civil War Battles - you'll enjoy the learning experience. You don't have to rely on the information gained from one source.

Cyclist's picture

Drum Barracks - Willmington, California (near San Pedro)

Source: Drum Barracks web page

The Civil War is a pivotal event in the history of the United States. Unfortunately, few people realize that California played an important role in that conflict. Although the major engagements took place in the East, troops from Drum Barracks, kept California in the Union, protected much of the Southwest and secured the territory which is now Arizona and New Mexico for the Union.

The Drum Barracks Civil War Museum is housed in the last remaining wooden building of Drum Barracks, named after Adjutant General Richard Coulter Drum, head of the Department of the Pacific. This facility served as the Union Army headquarters in the Southwest (Southern California and the Arizona Territory) from 1861 - 1871. Drum Barracks, which was first called Camp Drum, served as the main staging, training and supply base for military operations in the Southwest, and occupied approximately sixty acres of land with an additional thirty-seven acres near the harbor. The land was sold to the Army by Phineas Banning, and B. D. Wilson, who each received one dollar, with the agreement that the land would revert back to them after the camp was closed.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

If you want to visit sites:

Yes, slaves and their masters were very close! Just like hostages are CLOSE to their captors! Check out the endearing letter from a former slave to the close friend that used to own him!

Go Braves. St. Louis is in town!

There would have been no American Civil War had there been no slavery!

You know that, I know that, and historians know that.

Therefore, the war was caused by slavery in the south, primarily.

I suppose some Americans will never admit that slavery was very wrong and could have been avoided if rich plantation owners had not bought slaves. Yes, crops would have been higher in price due to paid labor but the price paid to get rid of it was enormous!

Using illegals for labor by companies is almost the same thing--they hire them. Yet the companies claim they want a big fence--they do not.

We are born selfish, obviously and without many laws would stay that way!

Why don't ya'll take a look at the South Carolina secession document if you want to know what caused the Palmetto State to up and leave the Union!

Seems to me it was ALL about slavery! Can anyone read this document and NOT conclude that South Carolina seceded because of slavery?

Go Hawks! Magic gone, Bulls next!

Falcon's draft move last night. At first, I thought the Birds paid way too high a price for moving up from 27th to 6th, costing them a No. 2 and a No.l 4 this year and a No. 1 and a No. 4 next year!

Now that I have a day to think about it, the deal was probably a good move! Jones will contribute right away, whereas there is no guarantee that the players that would have been taken in the slots given away would have EVER don anything on the level that Julio is likely to.

So, I say.

Way to go Falcons!

G35 Dude's picture

The Falcons are trying to win a Superbowl quickly. The DE that they might have taken at pick #27 probably would have needed a year or 2 to develop. As you said Jones will help right away. It was a good move in my opinion. Now we get a DE in free agency and we're ready to go.

Frankly, I hope the lockout continues through the whole season!

This bandit infested group of gladiators who give night clubs a bad name and waste millions on themselves every year need to go!

This used to be honorable game, where people weren't maimed every game, has deteriorated into coliseum blood-letting!

I suppose some of the debauchery comes from rattled heads!

NUK_1's picture

I would have been more thrilled with Jones or AJ Green if they had returned for their senior years as both are similar WR's: lot of natural talent, occasional mental lapses, and inconsistency at times against the better corners in college. All that said, both will probably be #1 Wr's in the NFL in 2-3 years. Jones is a very good blocking WR which is not a given with these kind of players.

Falcons gave up a LOT to move up and grab Jones, but it's like an arms race in the NFC these days with offenses like GB and NO that can really put points on the board.
This is a bold move and something that up until recent times you'd never see the Atlanta Falcons attempt. I like it!

Great find, Ninja Guy!

That document is the most pathetic attempt to rationalize slavery I've ever read. "Gosh, we really don't WANT to secede but our hand is forced because America elected a poopyhead we don't approve of, and there's a good chance he'll violate the sacred Constitution by giving THOSE people some of the rights we good and proper White folks enjoy, a concept never intended by our beloved Founding Fathers, so we HAVE to secede!"

This "States Rights" revisionist derp promulgated by <strong>Brave Terry Garlock, Hero of Vietnamâ„¢</strong> is simply a smokescreen.

Our mission is to defoliate the dense and twisted canopies of lies, half-truths, and distortions some erect to mask the wickedness of their beliefs and the sins of their forefathers!

Now, about that Falcon's draft move last night....

Go Hawks!

Mike King's picture

As a seventh generation South Carolinian I simply have to call BULL to your assertion of my home state being the birthplace of treason. While Ninja's little cut and paste attempt to make a point does substantiate the fact that slavery was a substantial reason for secession, but anyone of Roundabout's mental acumen would know it was simply not the sole reason. I would offer that the great majority of those who gave their lives while fighting for the Confederacy never owned slaves. The fact is the Civil War began just like many others whereby fat assed politicians placed their greed above the welfare of the populace and were unwilling to compromise.

I fully realize that your astute liberal mind makes it quite difficult for you to rationalize that there simply are reasons men elect to fight. Sure the reasons may well not be worth the heartache in the long run, but fight they will. I would offer that those who like Terry Garlock chose to fight because he felt an obligation just as his parents did a generation earlier, and when committed his survival instinct took over.

To me it's funny that those who most promote and villify war never seem to be the ones who fight it.

Who did own all of those thousands of slaves, and by own do you mean that only the master counts as an owner--none of the rest of the family who went along and even did a lot of the ordering around and whipping.

Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Washington, and etc.,owned a bunch. Tom rode his horse around through them in the fields whenever he had any time, saw Sally otherwise.

Strom Thurmond found little bad about a few of them but they weren't good enough to vote or have all of the rights he had, just kids.

I am insulted by you saying something about my mental acumen, knowing there was more than one reason for the Civil War!

There was: SC seceded instead of freeing their slaves and finding something to do other than dirt farming with negroes.


Ad space area 4 internal