150 years of Fake History, Seems the Civil War WAS About Keeping Slaves

MYTH of the LOST CAUSE bu Edward H. Bonekemper III. Book Review
150 years of Fake History.

a legacy of slavery
150 years of Fake History, Seems the Civil War WAS About Keeping Slaves
Major Van Harl USAF Ret
Major Van Harl USAF Ret

Wisconsin –-(Ammoland.com)- The first years of my life were spent living out west in New Mexico, California, Idaho and Alaska. I sort of knew about the Civil War from watching limited TV as a small child.

At the age of eight, in the middle of my third grade school year, I was transported to the heart of the confederacy when my father, the US Navy Master Chief, received orders to Norfolk Naval Base in Norfolk, Virginia.

I was already an outsider since I did not enter this third grade classroom until half way through the school year. More importantly I was an outsider because I was not a southerner. Virginia was in the middle of the 100th year anniversary of the Civil War and there was a heightened awareness of this issue everywhere in the south. Boys came up to me on the playground and asked me if I was an Yankee or a Rebel. When I told them I did not understand the question, they wanted to know where I was from. “I am from Iowa” I would say and then I would get punched for being a Yankee.

I saw the town of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, Canada on a map and started telling anyone who asked me the Rebel or Yankee question I was from Canada. Poor little Southern boys who could not comprehend anything beyond the border of Virginia, were confused and left me alone. I still smile when I see a Canadian map with Moose Jaw on it.

This was my first introduction to what I call fake confederate history.

I learned to keep my mouth shut and figured out that gray was the color of choice over blue or black and blue.

I share with Robert E. Lee, Meriwether Lewis and George Washington the same 1610-1674 Virginia planter and politician grandfather's DNA. Augustine Warner was our ancestor, but unlike all of them I am not from Virginia and I am not a southerner. I have lived about a quarter of my life in the south due to military assignments, to include Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

On both my paternal and maternal sides of my family I had family members who fought for both sides of the Civil War. The two most decimated (shot-up) units in the Civil War when it came to casualties was the Iron Brigade on the Union side and the 24th North Carolina on the side of the Confederacy. I had family in both units and lost family in both units to combat deaths.

I can also document that some of my family owned slaves. My 1776 era grandfather John Harle owned slaves in Fairfax County, Virginia and I have seen his will. He did business with George Washington's plantation and his first cousin Sarah Harle was George and Martha Washington's housekeeper. Sarah managed the Washington slaves who worked in the Mount Vernon home.

Unless you can absolutely document that your family came to the US after 1865 and that none of the descendants in your family ever married into some “old” American family you might be uncomfortably surprised to discover slave holders in your family tree.

For over 150 years our nation has been living a deception of generated, newly minted history that has been labelled revisionist history by some and fake history by me. The confederacy was formed by southern states of the US that seceded from the Union for the sole purpose to continue the practice of owning black humans as slaves. The paperwork trail of these seceding states and why they left the Union are documented in bold writing. It was to continue slavery and all the money that slavery could continue to generate.

The problem for the south, was after Robert E. Lee lost the civil war, his failed actions forced the confederacy to capitulate and return to the Union. There was the matter of over 750,000 dead soldiers between the two conflicting armies, along with the loss of 4 billion dollars of wealth when the enslaved black human flesh was released from southern bondage. The south's economy was shattered and it took over 100 years to turn it around.

This, was all because the south wanted to keep humans in irons and build future wealth on the backs of an underclass of people. When that entire practice was destroyed and the old confederacy was a smoking ruin there had to arise a new tale, a new story, a revision of the history, a generation of fake history to save southern face. An invented cause to help create a new narrative that would turn the vision of the south from the vicious and violent antagonism in slavery and war and make the old confederate cause a misunderstood symbol of goodness and righteousness.

The south reinvented itself into the victim and fake southern history was born–the North went along with it.

MYTH of the LOST CAUSE by Edward H. Bonekemper III.

MYTH of the LOST CAUSE bu Edward H. Bonekemper III.
MYTH of the LOST CAUSE by Edward H. Bonekemper III.

The book The MYTH of the LOST CAUSE is the work and effort of Edward H. Bonekemper III.

I heard Commander Bonekemper speak at the September meeting of the Civil War Round Table of Milwaukee and in six years of being a member of that organization his book was the first one I ever bought. I came home and could not put it down.

What he was espousing I already understood and concurred with the historical facts of his book. What Commander Bonekemper's book did was lay out the specific facts, separated from the fake history and tells the reader where these true facts could be obtained that refuted the “states rights” bravo sierra (BS) of what the south alleged was the reason for secession, followed by civil war.

Commander Bonekemper makes the point that the secession of southern states and the establishment of the new Confederate States of America was accomplished for two reason. Secession was for the continuing of the practice of keeping black people in bondage for profit and the perhaps even the more important issue of maintaining white supremacy.

One of the first challenges you hear against the above two points is, only a small percent of southerners even owned slaves. If slave owner Mr. Jones, his wife and eight children, parents, in-laws and other white family members lived on a plantation that had slaves to do all the work, it did not matter that technically all the slaves were legally owned by one person, Mr. Jones. The entire Jones family benefited from the captive labors of the slaves.

The second point about white supremacy was the worst because it was carried into southern life long after the end of the Civil War. If you were a poor white trash southern man who could barely feed your family, most of the upper class whites looked down on you. Under slavery you were still always one step above the pecking order of society because southern culture perpetually sided with the white man over a black man no matter the white man's station in life.

The internationally known and easily recognizable symbol of the 150 year old fake history of the southern cause is the confederate battle flag. The flag is the cross of St. Andrew (Scottish flag) with stars to represent the southern states that left the Union to keep their slaves. The KKK, the white supremacist groups, the neo-Nazis and other racially motivated organizations have borrowed this Hollywood endorsed flag of hate and the world can easily spot a rebel flag in a crowd of protesters.

I cannot tell you how many times when I expressed my opinion about the rebel flag I am politely advised that it represents someone's heritage and I need to understand that motivation to support the 150 years of fake history that has shaped our nation. After the riots at Charlottesville, Virginia in August about the removal of confederate statues, pro-southern cause people appeared shocked that neo-Nazis and white supremacists would co-op the beloved rebel flag and use it as a banner of hate. Always remember that the revisionists of fake history have placed the blame for the Civil War at the door step of state's rights to deflect the true issue of white supremacy.

If you watch the news about North Korea you find yourself wondering aloud how a nation can blindly buy into the fake news, fake history and almost god like worship the North Korean people have for three generations of the Kim family. The Kim family lead that country to ruin. North Korea has its own version of master and slave. Do some side by side comparisons of the antebellum south with their masters and humans in bondage and North Korea with its modern day version of human bondage. Not a lot of difference.

Yes, Virginia, your rebel flag, your stars & bars, your battle flag or whatever it is called today is the primary symbol of white supremacy and all that that implies. The international community sees it that way, why can't the perpetuators of fake history not understand this?

Commander Bonekemper's The MYTH of the LOST CAUSE is going into re-print yet again. The public wants the facts not the mythical retelling of fake history that has allowed Robert E. Lee to rise to an almost “Christ-like” position in the southern Civil War revisionist manipulation of the truth.

It is time for the statues to come down. Even grandson's of Stonewall Jackson have come out in open letters to the press and public to endorse the removal of these statues. One side says the confederate flag represents their heritage and one side says it represents hate. As a field grade commission officer in the US military who swore to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic I see the rebel flag as the symbol of the worst attack on our Constitution this nation has endured and championed over.

If you are tired of the over 150 years of fake history and you want to be able to articulate your point in a conversation that is usually driven by emotions designed to shut your opinion down, read The MYTH of the LOST CAUSE. Edward H. Bonekember III will provide you with the facts that will help you understand the real history of the Civil War and how to prepare to navigate not around fake history of the lost cause, but steer right through it.

Major Van Harl USAF Ret. / [email protected]

About Major Van Harl USAF Ret.:Major Van E. Harl USAF Ret., a career Police Officer in the U.S. Air Force was born in Burlington, Iowa, USA, in 1955. He was the Deputy Chief of police at two Air Force Bases and the Commander of Law Enforcement Operations at another. He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Infantry School.  A retired Colorado Ranger and currently is an Auxiliary Police Officer with the Cudahy PD in Milwaukee County, WI.  His efforts now are directed at church campus safely and security training.  He believes “evil hates organization.”  [email protected]

  • 162 thoughts on “150 years of Fake History, Seems the Civil War WAS About Keeping Slaves

    1. Hundreds of thousands of us can claim Confederate ancestry, Major so give your condescending pretentions of elitism and superiority over southern folks a rest. Our ancestor’s weren’t perfect, but they didn’t turn on their own. Senator James Webb, a far more accomplished and literate man than you, has nothing but respect for our ancestors and their sacrifices for the Lost Cause that you and your mentor Bonekemper sneer at. Here is where I part company with Ammoland, you and Henry Arms. Go pound sand Major!

      1. @john, One hundred years ago, the US was preparing to enter World War I. Are you commenting about getting over something related to World War I? Who are you replying to? I won’t touch on “…your the problem”.

    2. BethyB ; I attempted to locate your comment that ended, “The south still has hostility towards the north. You can see it in these posts. I’ve experienced it being a northerner who moved to the south. I had no idea it still existed.” in order to respond to it.
      I couldn’t find it (you must admit this site makes it very difficult.
      Anyway, there’s a quote that should solve the mystery – “If the Civil War is more alive to the Southerner than the Northerner it is because all of the past is, and this is so because the Southerner has a sense of having been present there himself in the person of one or more of his ancestors. The war filled merely a chapter in his…[family history]…transmitted orally from father to son [as] the proverbs, prophecies, legends, laws, traditions-of-origin and tales-of-wanderings of his own tribe….It is this feeling of identity with the dead (who are past) which characterizes and explains the Southerner.” – William Humphrey

      1. Thank you for sharing the quote. That puts it in perspective. All of my grandparents were 2nd generation born in the US except for one who died way before I was born. His family literally went Back to the Mayflower. My 9th great grandfather was William Bradford who was the governor of Plymouth Colony. I found this out recently. There were no stories passed down. My mother never knew until I did the research, and I told her. The only stories passed down to me were about being happy we were in America and loving the United States.

    3. BethyB is a troll. Just ignore her post. All Obama and Soros and the libs want is to divide the country. North/South, Black/White, Gay/Straight, etc., you get the picture. Useful idiots like this person are paid to stir up any topic they come across with that goal in mind. This is what you get with our public schools pushing the crap they do. One can only hope this idiot will spend her Soros money on a bad taco and spend the rest of her life sitting on the toilet watching her brain drain out.

      1. I never said anything about Obama, nor did I vote for Obama. How can Obama divide the country? He’s not even President anymore. Why are you still bringing him up? I’m not a “Lib”. I also don’t have Soros money to spend. Your assumptions are incorrect.

    4. There seems to be a lot of BS here from the clueless about the War. There is pure and absolute BS about the UDC being a devisive organization. My wife and I ran a Civil War re-enactment and School Day in our city of Bartlett TN abd the UDC Ladies were very supportive. There was precisely zero devisivenes from them. My wife and I attend a few of their neetings each year and I am an adjunctive member of three of the four local SCV organizations. The only ones re-writing History are the elitest educator-wanna-be’s. And, by the way, my Civil War ancestor fought in the 47th Ohio Infantry for the duration of the War minus 3-months of “Southern Hospitality” at Andersonville.

    5. It seems the Major Stills carries a grudge from his childhood from being repeatedly punched in the mouth by his Southern classmates. I would suggest everyone flood Henry repeating arms email, to express your dissatisfaction of the majors disdain of white Southerners, one of Henry’s biggest customers.

    6. BetyB,

      During the entirety of the eight years of a black president in office, I didn’t see you or anybody else calling for the demolishing and removal of the Confederate statues!

      Further, I didn’t see demonstrations by black identity radicals, nor their white guilt supporters, nor the others who consider everybody to the right of Hillary Clinton to be a fascist and right-wing neo-Nazi!

      There’s only came to the fore after Trump became president!

      This whole Auntie Confederacy movement, is anti-white, anti-conservative, and anti Trump!

      All the other rationales posted for the radicalism of the black left and white left, this simply puffery, used convolute the situation, and cover up the facts!

      There is a new Civil War coming, the first one as a fact that will be a real Civil War, that is to say at least two different sides fighting for control of a single government entity!

      We conservatives did not want this war, but like the South 150 years ago, When the Northern fascists refused to obey the Constitution and allow secession the modern Marxist left in America will bring us once again to killing one another!

      You’re helping to further the Divide, congratulations

      Enjoy the ride.

      1. @JR Bailey, either she is playing dumb or she really does not understand the consequences of her words. I wonder how her royal high a$$ found this conservative site?

        1. What are the consequences of my words? What have I said that has helped further the divide? Why are you making the assumption that I’m not a conservative? I’m not sure where you’re going with this.

          1. @ Bethy B. I am going to answer you one time and not again because if you are a paid troll I do not want to make it easy for you to make money.
            Your first post was about the statues not being necessary. I guess you missed the general consensus on this site that the statues are part of our past and part of our heritage. They are important because they remind us of the times past that should not be forgotten and not be repeated. The liberal based schools are bending the minds of our children and not teaching history, as it occurred, because of offending some snow flake. We are pretty much fed up with the left and how they are trying to change this country into something it is not. All for their own gain.
            I hope my/our position is clearer to you about the statues and the status of this country.

            1. I actually never said that statues weren’t necessary, but they actually aren’t. I did say that they were put up by the UDC strategically at times of racial tension. How much time have you spent admiring these statues? My replies were in favor of the Van Harl’s column, which was spot on. If schools were bending the minds of our children because they don’t want to offend a so called “snow flake”, then they would be teaching the sugarcoated history the South has taught. Again, who in the world would pay me for sharing my opinion. Do you equate Northern Republican’s as Snowflakes?

            2. @tcat, You are a real gentlemen trying to explain it. The one you mention is only interest in her liberal tripe, and tries to cast herself in the role of victim, too. Then she finishes with a question hoping that you will come back.

        2. @ W. Bill You are correct, she is not looking for opinions on the subject of statues, she just wants to argue and be a keyboard commando. I am done with trying to present a reasonable explanation to her and will let her comments go unanswered.

    7. Statues of RE Lee, Jefferson Davis and PGT Beauregard were removed from sight in New Orleans this year, 2017, reportedly because they were public nuisances. Many people have the opinion that many parts of New Orleans are public nuisances … like strip clubs and T-Shirt shops. But, because of the First Amendment these business are allowed to prosper. The city council could not seem to see the statues as being protected by the First Amendment. Then the statues were not feeding the city coffers….

      1. It’s too bad that the Daughter’s of the Confederacy wasted so much money on these statues. Did you ever wonder why there are so many Confederate monuments? They were also strategically put up at times of racial tension.
        Here are Lee’s words regarding the statues…..“my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour.”
        The Daughter’s of the Confederacy revered Lee, but disregarded his opinion on this. Guess his opinion didn’t fit their agenda.

        1. You ignored the phrase in Lee’s quote, “present condition of the Country”. By 1865 the South had been burned, beggared, and practically destroyed. For some dozen years after that, it was occupied territory. It took several decades to recover from that destitute state. That accounts for the early part of the 20th century as a peak time for construction of Confederate monuments.
          Many Union veterans were still alive when these Confederate statues were being emplaced. Some even attended the dedications. If they didn’t bother those who had actually taken part is the War, why should they bother those who have only a marginal (at best) concept of that war?

          1. No, I did not ignore “present condition of the country”. He made that statement in 1866 and the first confederate monument went up in 1867. Of course, there was destruction in the country. It had been through a war. It needed healing so the north and the south could recover and unite. In 1869 he also said “I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.” I’m not saying that statues/monuments are totally the cause of any divide between the north and south, but it definitely hasn’t helped. He was right because there is still division over 150 years later. The south still has hostility towards the north. You can see it in these posts. I’ve experienced it being a northerner who moved to the south. I had no idea it still existed.

            1. Reconstruction was not about healing. The Northern army was used to impose strict control over the Southern states. No one even used those terms. Where does she get this stuff?

            2. Who said “Reconstruction”?

              Robert E. Lee did say this in 1869 “I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

              I would ask you where you get this “Stuff”, but you haven’t really brought anything to the table.

            3. @BB, The years after the War of Northern Aggression are referred to as Reconstruction. You reference, “It needed healing so the north and the south could recover and unite.” could only indicate what the rest of the world refers to as Reconstruction.

            4. @BB, you sure like to push the south against the north b.s. I grew up in the north, I joined the USAF and didn’t see any problems with segregation among the troops. We were taught to support each other and cover our fellow G.I.’s back. I don’t know what military you were connected to but it doesn’t sound like any in the U.S.

              I moved to the south twenty two years ago and I find absolutely no predigest against anyone moving here from the north. We bought a business and ran it for ten years and had no problems with north/south stuff. Some of the people moving here from the northeast states and california did not know how to get along here because they wanted everything done today, not tomorrow and are very demanding. Maybe you are from one of those liberal states or just have a beef with warm weather and lower taxes. Which ever it is, you are definitely off base and I’m glad you stayed north with hillary.

            5. @Tcat, I believe that she is just fishing for replies. Notice how she ends with a question hoping that you will come back and answer it. Supplementing her income with troll pay per reply.

        2. Tomcat – My husband is a MT in the US Navy on a Trident submarine, and I still live in the South. I do not live in the North, nor am I a liberal. What does Hillary have to do with any of this?

          1. @ W. Bill I know what you mean. I am tired of listening to her spout. If she still lives in the south that tells me that she, more than likely, comes from the north east states of the country and doesn’t come across with any amount of pleasant engagement with people. You reap what you sow. Maybe her hubby is out to sea and she is bored and using her keyboard to generate some back and forth arguments. Whatever, she is a waste of time and I do not think I have that time to waste..

            1. @tcat, I think that it is all a fib. What she has told us is a fake persona. The intel community calls it a legend, but it is just a background of lies. And I notice that the xx troll knows a lot more words lately. And he writes in a different style. I wonder if a different person has been assigned to take over that fake persona.
              I do know this, there is nothing to be learned from them because they are low level propagandists.

            2. You’re incorrect. I have not presented a fake persona. What would be the point of that? You seem very paranoid. What propaganda are you referring to?

            3. @ W. Bill, I agree, she picked up some info from a lib and brings it here to get into an argument with someone, then takes their replies and turns them against the poster. XX has increased his vocabulary a great deal and it is just as childish. Maybe the found an intelligent middle school student to take up the part or it is someone else’s turn to try and harass the people on this site that believes in God and the oath. A pure waste of time and brain power to even read what they post.

            4. Tomcat – Please tell me one liberal comment I’ve made. This post isn’t about politics. It’s about history. I also haven’t started an argument. I’ve shared my opinion, and I have been disrespected by everyone. Again, What liberal comment have I made? Have you read any of these comments because once again, you’re totally off point

            5. Tomcat – What is oath that everyone on this site believes in that? Also, I believe in God. I’m a Christian. It’s true. I grew up Baptist up North. How about that?

    8. Thank the Daughter’s of the Confederacy for your fake history lessons. The Daughter’s of the Union didn’t pick out my history books. They didn’t need to.

      1. BethyB is being very hateful and aggresive, not sure why this matters so much to her. I suspect she could either be a troll, or she’s upset that all of her neighbors have had to move to Texas to get a job.

            1. @Bethy B, You characterized the cost of the statues as a waste of money. That was wrong. Bety, you have established your liberal credentials. Your further attempts at thought control, or increasing your Soros/Bloomberg/Clinton troll salary or just to find someone to argue with are now at an end. Have a nice libtard day, and rejoice… because Hillary is not president!

            2. Wild Bill – It wasn’t wrong of me to say that the UDC wasted money on the statues. I think they did. This is not about politics. This is about statues and history, not politics. Also, you are totally wrong. I’m a military wife who has always voted republican. My views are not liberal. I just don’t back the UDC’s agenda to continue to divide the North and the South. I never knew how much MANY of the southerner’s hated “Yankees” until I had to move to a military base in the South. I really had no idea that the South was still holding on to the Civil War. I use to apologize and say “My family wasn’t even in the country back then. Why do you dislike me?” Since then, I found out my great great grandfather fought for the Union, so I will no longer say that. I’m proud he did. It also shocked me to see the division within my husband’s division. The Southern guys stuck together and the Northerner’s and the black guys stuck together. Try again Bill – way off base. 🙂

            3. @bethtard, apparently you don’t know the order form of a sentence. Well you are evidently not a professor of English or History. I will have a blessed day. And in return, I hope that the blessings of truth, education, and tolerance will be given you.
              PS If you really are a military wife, as you claim, we thank your husband (I presume) for his service.

            4. Oh Bill. I guess throwing insults makes you feel better about yourself rather than have an intelligent conversation. You’re right – Apparently, I don’t know the “Order form of a sentence”. I’ve never heard that term. I guess it was lacking in my northern education. God has blessed me with truth, education, and tolerance. I hope he does the same for you.

            5. @Bethy, Like you really wish me a blessed day. Hypocrite. Your form of tolerance, truth, and education are lacking substance. The order form of a sentence is also called the command form of a sentence the subject you is implied. For example: “Close the door.” is the short form for “You close the door.” or “I order you to close the door”. or “I command you to try again.” Before lecturing others on politics, finance, history, or the English language, you really should seek some education.
              Your very first sentence was an insult. Throw down the gauntlet, and you will get slapped.

          1. Bill – How am I insulting? You’re the one doing the name calling and insulting. You’ve even brought violence in it now. Uh, oh – if I don’t throw down the gauntlet, I’ll get slapped. You can’t re-write this history. It’s all right here.

            1. @BB Your moralistic preaching about the Daughters of the Confederacy is an insult. No one could be this stupid. You must be stringing me along to get responses, for which you get paid. It is an analogy. Yes, history can be re-written and many fooled by the rewriting.

            2. No paychecks for trolls. And one can not run a Bn or a ranch on delusion. I have done more for this nation, and achieved more academically, militarily, and financially than the Soros/Bloomberg/Clintoon trolls ever will.

            3. Bill – It’s great to hear that you are a contributing citizen of the US. I wish more people were. Why do you keep brining up Soros/Bloomberg/Clintoon? What do they have to do with this?

          2. Don’t mind Old Useless Bill, the prickly old ball bag is under the delusion that he is smart, or something. He lives here at the forum because he is a loser in life and he only has a few more years to try and impress on everyone that he is important–it is not working.

            1. Lol! He does seem delusional. He’s also a very angry person. He said I was going to get slapped. 🙂

            2. Yes, he is the kind of attention-seeking Pr7ck who never lets a post go by without sticking his mangy head in to squawk some platitude or other. I think it has come to the point of entitlement. Like a welfare check.

              Don’t be put off by the angry little men of this forum like Useless Old Bill who just want to shout you down and twist your words. Old Useless Bill is especially paranoid and takes it upon himself to “educate” his fellow nutbags that Soros trolls patrol this forum to make his life a misery–it’s hilarious.

              Anyway, you seem like a nice, reasonable person, don’t let these “gentlemen” grind you down. They will be crawling back under rocks very soon when elections don’t go their way.

    9. I don’t know whether to stand aghast or in grudging admiration when a gentleman practically shouts from the rooftop his direct opposition to the U.S. Constitution and utter contempt for the most sacred of founding principles, that legitimate government exists only by consent of the governed. It is an odd non sequitur that you should feel that the Union government was right in subjugating the remaining Southern population, an action definitely beyond the scope of the Constitution, Classifying the acting states as rogues, perhaps? But that’s beyond the scope of this comment.

      Definitely within the scope, however, is the the chance that bloviating a smug opinion, reeking with self-righteous attitude, might cost the site a few regular visitors — some Southerners are sensitive about that sort of thing.

      Did I skip a comment or two or is opinion running 100% against you?

    10. To: Major Van Harl

      Your premise regarding “The War of Northern Aggression” is fatally flawed for the following reasons:
      Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware.

      1.) Be advised the four states mentioned above never left the United States of America
      2.) Be further advised that it was not until 1965 that slavery ended in these four states.

      Point being that all during 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864 and most of 1965, men, women, boys and girls were bought and sold just like potatoes, or firewood ( yes, even after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued that. Hey, almost no one knows this) did not free the men, women,. boys and girls in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware.

      Is it not counter intuitive to believe the United States of America invaded the sovereign state of The Confederate States of America to end slavery, all the while having men, women, boys and girls openly bought and sold in slave markets inside the Untied States of America?

    11. As a military man, Maj. Van Harl seems to completely forget that many of the “Southern heros” were not just revered as crusaders for slavery and fighters against northern aggression. A lot of their reverence comes from their tatical abilities and great leadership skills. To carpet the argument look at the vast scholastic writings discussing these very things. Not their ideology, politic beliefs and opinions. Second, a lot of their views mirrored those of the founding fathers. In that state rights (local government) stand above the federal power, something we as a nation seemed to have forgotten. But the concept of individual and states rights over a federal collective is the major reason it took 13 separate countries 12 years (1776 til 1788) of peaceful delegations to unite as One Nation under God with the ratification of U.S. Constitution. Per a defender of the constitution Maj. Van Harl seems to also hint that he would being willing to scrub the history of the Founding Fathers because they not actually the demigods we’ve made them to be. Personally I rather remember them for the great things they achieved not their flaws. Van Harl points out my family tree have a mark of slave ownership by one relation. We treat that as a fact that it was. No more no less. The ancesteral history that my family honors and is proud to talk about is the fighting oppression since before 1745: Culloden, Highland Clearances, Battle of Cowpens, Irish uprising, raping of southern states, Nazi invasion of Poland, invasion of the Aluetians Islands, being taught by Sam Houston, and wrestling bears. If they want the stars and bars they can have it. I’ll stand for and behind the Stars and Stripes, and always fly Saltire, Irish tricolor, the Gaston, and the Bonnie Blue. And I’ll stand by any man (or woman) of any color willing to fight for their individual success and freedom in the endeavor of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    12. Three things major,

      1. I’ve never owned slaves, so I don’t give a rat’s posterior who’s still singing ‘po black me’ for something that was ended 152 years ago!

      2. Blacks are in the economic and cultural positions they are because they choose to be there! More are in prison because more commit more crimes than other races,.

      3. The number one reason for secession of the South was NOT slavery, only 3% of Southerners owned slaves! The real reason was economics, and the industrial North versus the agricultural South.

      Slavery was already on the way out and it was not necessary to fight a war to stop it! Holding slaves financially was absolutely beggaring people! Fewer and fewer people could financially own slaves! Further, advances in agricultural technology was making slaveholding untenable from an agricultural point of view.

      You didn’t bother to address these factual and historical aspects, because both would undermine your premise!

      You can sing ‘po white me’, stressing your white guilt to the proverbial nth degree, I don’t care! My undergrad BA degree is in history, with my areas of speciality being modern Russian and Soviet history, and modern African history!

      Did you get that last area of concentration major oh mighty one? African history. I specialized in the history of the modern cape and the modern horn, with subspecialties in National Liberation movements.

      I know how slaves got to the new world both in North America and South America, and it started at the hands of black Africans, including black Muslims!

      So once again, please be so kind as to take your white guilt, your whining and your very, very subjective personal narrative, and put the emblem of fake Rewritten history all over it, because that is what you have done!

      Cheers from the class of ’90 Western Washington University!

      1. maybe you should have also told the major that they were selling slaves in the colony of MASSACHUSETTS EVEN BEFORE IT WAS A STATE.
        and i had family also fight in that damn war from three STATES, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, AND ALABAMA.

    13. ” It would take any historian about 10 seconds to poke a gaping hole in Bonekemper’s and the author’s argument. And it comes directly from the mouth of the biggest mass murderer in American history…….”
      AMEN to THAT …Never read such BS EVER. While also wanting to agree with the 1st post:
      ” Keep printing this crap…I’m done.”
      I want to set Y’All straight too……
      The southern states fought valiantly & desperately for thier rights in defense of their homeland ; outnumbered, outgunned, under-equipped & starving….. as they were taxed to death ,unfairly ,improperly represented ,abused by an overbearing , oppressive federal government , suffering atrocities daily under a blockaded coastline, terrorized by an invading Union Army led by a Tyrant ,
      Most southerners didn’t own slaves. 6% did…….think all those who fought did so for 6% to keep slaves?
      Lincoln was, in fact, willing to allow slavery to continue if he could have crafted a deal which would have preserved the Union.
      The truth doesn’t move this agenda and lies make for a much better and more moving story.
      Obama, while on a trip to his home KENYA once said:
      “Recently we’ve been having a debate about the Confederate Flag,” neglecting to mention that the only reason we’ve been having that debate was because his agitators have been pushing their anti-white, black privilege agenda.
      He stirred this current push to remove CSA Flags, Statues, Memorials up, & continues to cause trouble along with puppetmaster SOROS ,with a gullible ,uneducated & ignorant minority swallowing all thier BS as if it was Gospel.
      Here are REAL facts , have a read & let this TRUTH sink in:

      Karl Marx once bragged, “Remove a nation’s heritage and they are easily persuadable.”
      THIS next one is a REAL EYEOPENER………

      FROM: A Legion of Devils: Sherman in South Carolina by KAREN STOKES (Shotwell Press, 2017).
      The naive among us actually still believe that generals like Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant fought the war to free slaves from Southern bondage. Those on the ground there knew better. In the introduction to the book, on page viii, it is noted: “…the federal soldiers frequently mistreated them (the slaves)). A newspaper correspondent for the New York Tribune reported in its issue of December 7, 1861, that ‘one enterprising and unscrupulous (Federal) officer was caught in the act of assembling a cargo of Negroes for transportation and sale in Cuba…
      …….a Northern female physician who worked for the Freedmen’s Aid Society noted in her diary how disgracefully the black people of the Beaufort area were treated by the federal soldiers. She observed that “no colored woman was safe from the brutal lusts of the soldiers’, and that they were not punished for their offenses.”
      When the city of Columbia was occupied by Sherman, the mayor and other municipal officers went to Sherman’s headquarters and officially surrendered the city and they received from Sherman the assurance that the city would be as safe as it would have been under the mayor’s administration. Suffice it to say, that was a bald-faced lie. The city was burned and Stokes goes into quite a bit of detail about how that was accomplished, again, quoting from people who were there and saw what happened. The sources for what she wrote were all primary sources.

      She noted the comments of a Mrs. S. A. Crittenden of Greenville, South Carolina, who said: “Oh! The utter desolation of a city in ashes and its people wanderers! Even the very landmarks were lost, and you stood a stranger on your own threshold. Nothing was left but the smokeless chimneys, keeping ward over the widespread ruin. Hundreds of Yankees with ramrods and bayonets, were prodding the still smoking soil in quest of buried treasure.” And let us not kid ourselves–the Yankee soldiers, from officers on down, stole everything that was not nailed down–and what was nailed down they destroyed if they couldn’t pry it up! This was as much a grand looting expedition was it was an invasion!

      And then they tried to blame the fires that destroyed the city of Wade Hampton’s retreating Confederate cavalry. On pages 40-44, Stokes provides General Hampton’s own statements about what really happened. On pages 54-56 are the comments of one Yankee soldier who disagreed with what his comrades were doing, and he pretty well laid out what they were doing. He noted: “…drunken soldiers rushing from house to house,emptying them of valuables and then firing them..Officers and men reveling on wines and liquors until the burning houses buried them in their drunken orgies.” So much for “preserving the Union and freeing the slaves!”

      Stokes gave us the commentary of an August Conrad, a native of Germany, who had come to South Carolina in 1859 and had taken over his brother’s position as the Hanoverian Counsel. He had thought it would be safer in Columbia that in Charleston, so he went to Columbia. Big mistake! He published a memoir later, when he was back (safely) in Germany, about his time in South Carolina that dealt with the burning of Columbia. It was translated into English y William H. Pleasants and published as The Destruction of Columbia, S.C. in 1879. In it he observed: “In the houses, on the streets, the infamous rabble plundered, destroyed, and raged as the Wild Hunt, just as if hell had broken loose.” Hell had broken loose–Sherman was in South Carolina with his Legion of Devils, and doing the devil’s work!
      When we encounter such BS as Bonekemper & this “author’s”work” it must be refuted by THE TRUTH , and no truce ever entered into with these liars scoundrels & leftists.

      1. Here’s a follow up & more TRUTH…….
        ” But if you insist on a short answer solution as to what caused the war I will venture one. The cause of the greatest bloodletting in American history was Yankee greed and hatred. This is infinitely documented before, during, and after the war…….”

        Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861—1865 was “about” slavery or was “caused by” slavery. I submit that this is not a historical judgment but a political slogan. What a war is about has many answers according to the varied perspectives of different participants and of those who come after. To limit so vast an event as that war to one cause is to show contempt for the complexities of history as a quest for the understanding of human action.

        Two generations ago, the most perceptive historians, much more learned than the current crop, said that the war was “about” economics and was “caused by” economic rivalry. The war has not changed one bit since then. The perspective has changed. It can change again as long as people have the freedom to think about the past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned.

        I was much struck by Barbara Marthal’s insistence in her Stone Mountain talk on the importance of stories in understanding history. I entirely concur. History is the experience of human beings. History is a story and a story is somebody’s story. It tells us about who people are. History is not a political ideological slogan like “about slavery.” Ideological slogans are accusations and instruments of conflict and domination. Stories are instruments of understanding and peace.

        Let’s consider the war and slavery. Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation and the seizure of the common government for the first time ever by a sectional party declaredly hostile to the Southern States. Were they to be a permanently exploited minority, they asked? This was significant to people who knew that their fathers and grandfathers had founded the Union for the protection and benefit of ALL the States.

        It is no surprise that they mentioned potential interference with slavery as a threat to their everyday life and their social structure. Only a few months before, John Brown and his followers had attempted just that. They murdered a number of people including a free black man who was a respected member of the Harpers Ferry community and a grand-nephew of George Washington because Brown wanted Washington’s sword as a talisman. In Brown’s baggage was a constitution making him dictator of a new black nation and a supply of pikes to be used to stab to death the slave-owner and his wife and children.

        It is significant that not one single slave joined Brown’s attempted blow against slavery. It was entirely an affair of outsiders. Significant also is that six Northern rich men financed Brown and that some elements of the North celebrated him as a saint, an agent of God, ringing the church bells at his execution. Even more significantly, Brown was merely acting out the venomous hatred of Southerners that had characterized some parts of Northern society for many years previously.

        Could this relentless barrage of hatred directed by Northerners against their Southern fellow citizens have perhaps had something to do with the secession impulse? That was the opinion of Horatio Seymour, Democratic governor of New York. In a public address he pointed to the enormity of making war on Southern fellow citizens who had always been exceptionally loyal Americans, but who had been driven to secession by New England fanaticism.

        Secessionists were well aware that slavery was under no immediate threat within the Union. Indeed, some anti-secessionists, especially those with the largest investment in slave property, argued that slavery was safer under the Union than in a new experiment in government.

        Advocates of the “slavery and nothing but slavery” interpretation also like to mention a speech in which Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens is supposed to have said that white supremacy was the “cornerstone” of the Confederacy. The speech was ad hoc and badly reported, but so what? White supremacy was also the cornerstone of the United States. A law of the first Congress established that only white people could be naturalized as citizens. Abraham Lincoln’s Illinois forbade black people to enter the State and deprived those who were there of citizenship rights.

        Instead of quoting two cherry-picked quotations, serious historians will look into more of the vast documentation of the time. For instance, in determining what the war was “about,” why not consider Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address, the resolutions of the Confederate Congress, numerous speeches by Southern spokesmen of the time as they explained their departure from the U.S. Congress and spoke to their constituents about the necessity of secession. Or for that matter look at the entire texts of the secession documents.

        Our advocates of slavery causation practice the same superficial and deceitful tactics in viewing their side of the fight. They rely mostly on a few pretty phrases from a few of Lincoln’s prettier speeches to account for the winning side in the Great Civil War. But what were Northerners really saying?

        I am going to do something radical. I am going to review what Northerners had to say about the war. Not a single Southern source, Southern opinion, or Southern accusation will I present. Just the words of Northerners (and a few foreign observers) on what the war was “about.”

        Abraham Lincoln was at pains to assure the South that he intended no threat to slavery. He said he understood Southerners and that Northerners would be exactly like them living in the same circumstances. He said that while slavery was not a good thing (which most Southerners agreed with) he had no power to interfere with slavery and would not know what to do if he had the power. He acquiesced in a proposed 13th Amendment that would have guaranteed slavery into the 20th century. Later, he famously told Horace Greeley that his purpose was to save the Union, for which he would free all the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation itself promised a continuance of slavery to States that would lay down their arms.

        All Lincoln wanted was to prevent slavery in any territories, future States, which then might become Southern and vote against Northern control of the Treasury and federal legislation. From the anti-slavery perspective this is a highly immoral position. At the time of the Missouri Compromise, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said that restricting the spread of slavery was a false, politically motivated position. The best thing for the welfare of African Americans and their eventual emancipation was to allow them to spread as thinly as possible.

        Delegation after delegation came to Lincoln in early days to beg him to do something to avoid war. Remember that 61% of the American people had voted against this great hero of democracy, which ought to have led him to a conciliatory frame of mind. He invariably replied that he could not do without “his revenue.” He said nary a word about slavery. Most of “his revenue” was collected at the Southern ports because of the tariff to protect Northern industry and most of it was spent in the North. Lincoln could not do without that revenue and vowed his determination to collect it without interruption by secession. He knew that his political backing rested largely on New England/New York money men and the rising power of the new industrialists of Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago who were aggressively demanding that the federal government sponsor and support them. The revenue also provided the patronage of offices and contracts for his hungry supporters, without which his party would dwindle away.

        Discussing the reaction to secession, the New York Times editorialized: “The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We were divided and confused until our pockets were touched.” A Manchester, N.H., paper was one of hundreds of others that agreed, saying: “It is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go.”
        Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress officially declared that the war WAS NOT AGAINST SLAVERY but to preserve the Union. (By preserving the Union, of course, they actually meant not preserving the real Union but ensuring their control of the federal machinery.)
        At the Hampton Roads peace conference a few months before Appomattox, Lincoln suggested to the Confederate representatives that if they ceased fighting then the Emancipation Proclamation could be left to the courts to survive or fall. Alexander Stephens, unlike Lincoln, really cared about the fate of the black people and asked Lincoln what was to become of them if freed in their present unlettered and propertyless condition. Lincoln’s reply: “Root, hog, or die.” A line from a minstrel song suggesting that they should survive as best they could. Lincoln routinely used the N-word all his life, as did most Northerners.

        A statement in which Lincoln is said to favour voting rights for black men who were educated or had been soldiers has been shown to be fraudulent. Within a few days of his death he was still speaking of colonization outside the U.S.
        The South, supposedly fighting for slavery, did not respond to any of these offers for the continuance of slavery. In fact, wise Southerners like Jefferson Davis realized that if war came it would likely disrupt slavery as it had during the first war of independence. That did not in the least alter his desire for the independence and self-government that was the birthright of Americans. Late in the war he sent a special emissary to offer emancipation if European powers would break the illegal blockade.

        Saying that the South was fighting only to defend the evils of slavery is a deceitful back-handed way to suggest that, therefore the North was fighting to rid America of the evils of slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, secession did not necessarily require war against the South. That was a choice. Slavery had existed for over two hundred years and there was no Northern majority in favour of emancipation. Emancipation was not the result of a moral crusade against evil but a byproduct of a ruthless war of invasion and conquest. Not one single act of Lincoln and the North in the war was motivated by moral considerations in regard to slavery.

        Even if slavery was a reason for secession, it does not explain why the North made a war of invasion and conquest on a people who only wanted to be let alone to live as they had always lived. The question of why the North made war is not even asked by our current historians. They assume without examination that the North is always right and the South is always evil. They do not look at the abundant Northern evidence that might shed light on the matter.

        When we speak about the causes of war should we not pay some attention to the motives of the attacker and not blame everything on the people who were attacked and conquered? To say that the war was “caused” by the South’s defense of slavery is logically comparable to the assertion that World War II was caused by Poland resisting attack by Germany. People who think this way harbor an unacknowledged assumption: Southerners are not fellow citizens deserving of tolerance but bad people and deserve to be conquered. The South and its people are the property of the North to do with as they wish. Therefore no other justification is needed. That Leninist attitude is very much still alive judging by the abuse I receive in print and by e-mail. The abuse never discusses evidence, only denounces what is called “Neo-Confederate” and “Lost Cause” mythology. These are both political terms of abuse that have no real meaning and are designed to silence your enemy unheard.

        Let us look at the U.S. Senate in February 1863. Senator John Sherman of Ohio, one of the most prominent of the Republican supporters of war against the South, has the floor. He is arguing in favour of a bill to establish a system of national banks and national bank currency. He declared that this bill was the most important business pending before the country. It was so important, he said, that he would see all the slaves remain slaves if it could be passed. Let me repeat this. He would rather leave all the slaves in bondage rather than lose the national bank bill. This was a few weeks after the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

        What about this bill? Don’t be deceived by the terminology. So-called National Banks were to be the property of favoured groups of private capitalists. They were to have as capital interest-bearing government bonds at a 50% discount. The bank notes that they were to issue were to be the national currency. The banks, not the government, had control of this currency. That is, these favoured capitalists had the immense power and profit of controlling the money and credit of the country. Crony capitalism that has been the main feature of the American regime up to this very moment.

        Senator Sherman’s brother, General Sherman, had recently been working his way across Mississippi, not fighting armed enemies but destroying the infrastructure and the food and housing of white women and children and black people. When the houses are burned, the livestock taken away or killed, the barns with tools and seed crops destroyed, fences torn down, stored food and standing crops destroyed, the black people will starve as well as the whites. General Sherman was heard to say: “Damn the niggers! I wish they were anywhere but here and could be kept at work.”

        General Sherman was not fighting for the emancipation of black people. He was a proto-fascist who wanted to crush citizens who had the gall to disobey the government.

        The gracious Mrs. General Sherman agreed. She wrote her husband thus:
        “I hope this may not be a war of emancipation but of extermination, & that all under the influence of the foul fiend may be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing.”
        Not a word about the slaves.

        As the war began, the famous abolitionist Theodore Weld declared that the South had to be wiped out because it is “the foe to Northern industry—to our mines, our manufactures, our commerce.” Nothing said about benefit to the slaves. The famous abolitionist Henry Ward Beecher enjoyed a European tour while the rivers of blood were flowing in America. Asked by a British audience why the North did not simply let the South go, Beecher replied, “Why not let the South go? O that the South would go! But then they must leave us their lands.”

        Then there is the Massachusetts Colonel who wrote his governor from the South in January 1862:
        “The thing we seek is permanent dominion. . . . They think we mean to take their slaves? Bah! We must take their ports, their mines, their water power, the very soil they plow . . . .”

        Seizing Southern resources was a common theme among advocates of the Union. Southerners were not fellow citizens of a nation. They were obstacles to be disposed of so Yankees could use their resources to suit themselves. The imperialist impulse was nakedly and unashamedly expressed before, during, and after the war.

        Charles Dickens, who had spent much time in the U.S. a few years before the war, told readers of his monthly magazine in 1862: “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”

        Another British observer, John Stuart Mill, hoped the war would be against slavery and was disappointed. “The North, it seems,” Mill wrote, “have no more objections to slavery than the South have.”

        Another European thinker to comment was Karl Marx. Like many later Lincoln worshippers, Marx believed that the French Revolution was a continuation of the American Revolution and Lincoln’s revolution in America a continuation of the French.

        He thought, wrongly, that Lincoln was defending the “labour of the emigrant against the aggressions of the slave driver.” The war, then, is in behalf of the German immigrants who had flooded the Midwest after the 1848 revolutions. Not a word about the slaves themselves. Indeed, it was the numbers and ardent support of these German immigrants that turned the Midwest from Democrat to Republican and elected Lincoln. It would seem that Marx, like Lincoln, wanted the land for WHITE workers.
        Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, a reluctant Democratic supporter of the war, knew what it was all about: “Slavery is no more the cause of this war than gold is the cause of robbery,” he said. Like all Northern opponents and reluctant supporters of Lincoln, he knew the war was about economic domination. As one “Copperhead” editor put it: the war was simply “a murderous crusade for plunder and party power.” “Dealing in confiscated cotton seems to be the prime activity of the army,” he added.

        Wall Street agreed and approved. Here is a private circular passed among bankers and brokers in late 1861:
        “Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and this I and my friends are all in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money.”

        It is not clear whether this is authentic or a satire, but it tells the truth whichever.

        The libertarian Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist, called the Lincoln rule “usurpation and tyranny” that had nothing to do with a moral opposition to slavery. “It has cost this country a million of lives, and the loss of everything that resembles political liberty.”

        Here is Frederick Douglass, the most prominent African American of the 19th century:
        “It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit . . . Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man’s president, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time . . . to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of his country.”

        What better testimony is needed that emancipation was a by-product, not a goal, of a war of conquest. Let me repeat: emancipation was a by-product of the war, never a goal.

        How about these curiosities from the greatest of Northern intellectuals, Emerson. He records in his journals: “But the secret, the esoteric of abolition—a secret, too, from the abolitionist—is, that the negro and the negro-holder are really of one party.” And again, “The abolitionist wishes to abolish slavery, but because he wishes to abolish the black man.” Emerson had previously predicted that African Americans were like the Dodo, incapable of surviving without care and doomed to disappear. Another abolitionist, James G. Birney, says: “The negroes are part of the enemy.”

        Indeed a staple of Northern discourse was that black people would and should disappear, leaving the field to righteous New England Anglo-Saxons. My friend Howard White remarks: “Whatever his faults regarding slavery, the Southerner never found the existence of Africans in his world per se a scandal. That particular foolishness had its roots in the regions further North.”
        In 1866, Boston had a meeting of abolitionists and strong Unionists. The speaker, a clergymen, compared the South to a sewer. It was to be drained of its present inhabitants and “to be filled up with Yankee immigration . . . and upon that foundation would be constructed a new order of things. To be reconstructed, the South must be Northernized, and until that was done, the work of reconstruction could not be accomplished.” Not a word about a role for African Americans in this program.

        One of the most important aspects of the elimination of slavery is seldom mentioned. The absence of any care or planning for the future of black Americans. The Russian Czar pointed this out to an American visitor as a flaw that invalidated the fruits of emancipation. We could fill ten books with evidence of Northern mistreatment of black people during and after the war. Emancipation as it occurred was not a happy experience. To borrow Kirkpatrick Sale’s term, it was a Hell. I recommend Kirk’s book Emancipation Hell and Paul Graham’s work When the Yankees Come, which are available here.

        I suspect many Americans imagine emancipation as soldiers in blue and freed people rushing into one another’s arms to celebrate the day of Jubilee. As may be proved from thousands of Northern sources, the Union solders’ encounter with the black people of the South was overwhelmingly hate-filled, abusive, and exploitive. This subject is just beginning to be explored seriously. Wrote one Northerner of Sherman’s men, they “are impatient of darkies, and annoyed to see them pampered, petted and spoiled.” Ambrose Bierce, a hard-fighting Union soldier for the entire war, said that the black people he saw were virtual slaves as the concubines and servants of Union officers.

        Many black people took to the roads not because of an intangible emancipation but because their homes and living had been destroyed. They collected in camps which had catastrophic rates or mortality. The army asked some Northern governors to take some of these people, at least temporarily. The governors of Massachusetts and Illinois, Lincoln’s most fervid supporters, went ballistic. This was unacceptable. The black people would be uncomfortable in the North and much happier in the South, said the longtime abolitionist Governor Andrew of Massachusetts. Happier in the South than in Massachusetts?
        What about those black soldiers in the Northern army, used mainly for labour and forlorn hopes like the Crater? A historian quotes a Northern observer of U.S. Army activities in occupied coastal Carolina in 1864. Generals declared their intention to recruit “every able-bodied male in the department.” Writes the Northern observer: “The atrocious impressments of boys of fourteen and responsible men with large dependent families, and the shooting down of negroes who resisted, were common occurrences.”

        The greater number of Southern black people remained at home. They received official notice of freedom not from the U.S. Army but from the master who, when he got home from the Confederate army, gathered the people, told them they were free, and that they must work out a new way of surviving together.

        Advocates of the war was “caused by slavery” say that the question has been settled and that any disagreement is from evil and misguided Neo-Confederates deceived by a “Lost Cause” myth.

        In fact, no great historical question can ever be closed off by a slogan as long as we are free to think. Howard White and I recently put out a book about the war. Careful, well-supported essays, by 16 serious people. Immediately it appeared on amazon, someone wrote in: “I’m so tired of the Lost Cause writing. Don’t believe the bullshit in this useless pamphlet.” He could not have had time to actually read the book. It can be dismissed unread because he has the righteous cause and we do not. This is not historical debate. It is the propaganda trick of labeling something you do not like in order to control and suppress it. Such are those who want the war to be all about slavery—hateful, disdainful, ignorant, and unwilling to engage in honest discussion.

        But if you insist on a short answer solution as to what caused the war I will venture one. The cause of the greatest bloodletting in American history was Yankee greed and hatred. This is infinitely documented before, during, and after the war.
        Glory, Glory, Halleluhah

        About Clyde WilsonClyde Wilson is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina where he was the editor of the multivolume The Papers of John C. Calhoun. He is the M.E. Bradford Distinguished Chair at the Abbeville Institute. He is the author or editor of over thirty books and published over 600 articles, essays and reviews and is co-publisher of http://www.shotwellpublishing.com, a source for unreconstructed Southern books.

    14. if this article truly reflects Major Van Harl USAF Re’s views on Mr. Lincoln’s war….I wonder how long it’ll be before Major Van Harl USAF Ret sides with the anti gunners ?

    15. “Historical memory, like all memory, is selective… and whether by design, forgetfulness, or ignorance, its history will be remembered in different ways. Our knowledge of the past is not objective but personal and participatory.” From Robert Wilken’s Introduction to his Global History of Christianity.

    16. Amazing. After over 150 years people are still confusing the reasons for secession with the reason for the war. Slavery was the main reason the South seceded, which was generally understood to be a constitutional right of the (formerly sovereign states) by legal scholars prior to the war. The Federal government instigated the war to force the Confederacy back into the Union. When the North found it was losing support for it’s unconstitutional war, Lincoln chose to use the slavery issue a recruiting tool. The majority of southerners did not own slaves, including Lee. Their battle was for States Rights, including the right to self determination. The North won and revised history to suit their narrative.

      1. Agreed. But also the north taxing the hell out of the South, then spending the money on only Northern interests. Taxaction without representation…then blockaded Southern ports…….sound familiar?

        The author of this article also seems to have forgotten that Lincoln outlawed slavery in the South while leaving 4 northern slave states alone. And he seems to keep perpetuating the lies of the North as has been done since 1865, about The War of Southern Indepence.

        The South wanted to seceed,and not fight it’s mother country, and be left ALONE. Llincoln claimed (originally) to want “to preserve the Union” without or with abolition of slavery Whatever worked.. So when the South was fed up after YEARS of abuse by the northern states, and finally seceeded on the issue of all previous reasons AND slavery, the North commenced to killing the Southerners…

        Seems the north couldn’t get enough of killing, and substituted Native Americans after 1865. And the north is STILL trying to shove crap down the throats of Southerners to this very day. (obama, pelosi, shumer etc…)

        As far as Major Van Harl USAF Ret, I thank you for your service to our country. But YOUR version of the war is wrong. And while I have never served, my ancestors fought in the American Revolution, and at least ten fought for the Confederacy in The War For Southern Indepence.

    17. Why is a topic like this even being posted on a “gun blog site”??? This is an even bigger issue than it’s one sided opinion based on the reading of one book, resulting in a gross oversimplification of a complicated issue that has been studied and commented on for many years by many people. We all suffer from “confirmation bias”, which is why history is always slanted, for history is written by the winners. One gross oversimplification is one I mentioned in an earlier reply: conflating and intermixing the causes of succession and the war itself. One obviously led to the other, but it did not have to. Lincoln decided to invade the South, which is the primary reason you get such different viewpoints about “why” from Northerners and Southerners and why, in the South, the war was referred to as the “War of Northern Aggression”. If one takes the time to read some of the books collecting the actual letters soldiers sent home will find out that many Southern soldiers called the war “the Second War for Independence”.
      So, one can easily argue this post was shallow, biased, an over simplification, and self confirmatory, but the bigger issue still exist: What is it doing on a “gun blog”? (Other than the author is also an author of the blog, son he considers it his right to push his personal political views.)




    19. A lot of very good comments… I know when I was in grade school I learned a lot of “History” and most was not in the History Books the way it is today… In fact, one of the first things I learned when I went in the Military and talked to others from different parts of the Country, was that a lot of what I was taught even back then in the sixties was not the same they were taught…. Personally, I try to find the “good” or “lessons” in all sides of the situations…. And whether I agree or disagree with the “Narrative” from any side, the point is did we learn anything ???? Not everyone is going to see any War the same, or any Historical event, either, The fact is we should all be able to have our opinions and “momentoes” as we please…

      BUT, Most of ALL, What I see is that this issue is just a “hot button” that the Socialists use to RIle everyone up …. People get “offended” over nothing these days, and use it to shove their “ideology” down everyone else’s throat !!!! What happened to “LIVE and LET LIVE” and let everyone do their own thing ?????


      SO ALL OF YOU WHO ARE LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH THIS, “REMEMBER THE ALAMO !!!!” CAUSE IT WILL BE NEXT !!!!!!! Mount Rushmore ??? Military Museums??? Presidential Monuments ????

      It is past the time to act… US Congress and State Congresses could pass a law, if there isn’t one already, to stop Destruction of Historical Statues and Monuments…. You don’t have to pick sides, do it protect everyone’s “History” …
      Because your “History” is on their list, TOOOO !!!!! Write them TODAY !!!!!

      1. Alabama has a new law on the books. It makes any tearing down of statues, changing the name of anything that has been around for at least forty years or more illegal to do away with or change the name of.

    20. Since my post was moderated out, lets try this. The north NEEDED cotton and the South had cotton. We were not selling so they came and took it. If we had had nothing they needed they would never have wasted so many lives.

    21. The yankees wanted cotton and they came and took it. I do not need an asshat from wis. trying to tell me what we know.
      If we had had nothing they needed they never would have shown up. Asshat.

    22. Okay. Let’s assume that this is all true. What do yoiu advocate? Should southerners be damned to become the new Germans; hsting themselves and their culture to the point of national suicide? Should we be stripped of our history, and labeled as “eternal villains” like the Nazis?

      This is why this country is ripping itself apart. Leftists aren’t satisfied leaving settles history alone, they’ve always got to turn every geopolitical shift into an existential battle between good and evil. And if myself and my kind are doomed to be “evil” by your American viewpoint, then I’d rather not be a part of your viewpoint anyway.

      When given the choice between viewing myself as a good ol’ rebel or an avatar of shareholding wickedness who must spend eternity making amends for crimes I didn’t commit, I think I’d rather be the rebel.

    23. i had family from THREE SOUTHERN STATES fight in that war, from Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.
      and this so called AUTHOR IS FULL OF SHIT.
      and i myself am from Alabama so WE KNOW THE TRUE HISTORY.

      1. That’s hysterical……Yankee’s wrote the history. The history books that were taught in the schools in southern states were chosen by Daughters of the Confederacy until the 1960’s, which was FAKE history. My great great grandfather fought for the 5th of ME. I’m very proud of that, and I’m a very PROUD YANKEE.

    24. It would take any historian about 10 seconds to poke a gaping hole in Bonekemper’s and the author’s argument. And it comes directly from the mouth of the biggest mass murderer in American history. I’ve included only excerpts here, the entire thing is online.

      “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so……

      I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional…..

      In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” – Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address

    Leave a Comment 162 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *