Facts and Myths - an examination of McPherson's "Causes of the Civil War" essay

The " 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' " rule does have exceptions; mastering the exceptions to the rule is one of the tests that separates the intelligent from the great unwashed stupid masses. You didn't make the cut Walt.

Thanks for the correction.

I take it you have no problem with the facts as presented then.

Walt

Term it any way you want, but in the end it was a rebellion. And the dogs of war were loosed by Davis at Charleston, not by Lincoln through blockade or any other action.

Preident Lincoln's message to Pickens put the ball squarely in the secessionist court. Jefferson Davis made a lot of maladroit decisions, but firing on Old Glory at Fort Sumter was maybe the worst.

Walt

And Hitler was never cruel to a dog.

If you check the record, you'll see that Hitler tested the cyanide he planned to take on one of his dogs.

You can look it up.

Walt

That's another debate entirely and completely ignores my correction of your erronious allegation that the whole of arizona and new mexico was part of the confederate territory. I will note however for the record that the right of self government supersedes statutory matters.

Say what? Where did I so allegate? I merely stated that wishes of the citizens of Albuquerque and Santa Fe were totally ignored by Baylor and the citizens of Tucson and Mesilla. I also use "New Mexico" to describe the entire territory, since the Arizona territory wasn't created until 1863 - and then looked considerably different from the Confederate vision. Only by twisting my words can one construe I meant differently. Although after the fall of Santa Fe and Albuquerque, most of the territory was in Confederate hands for a short time.

Yeah - before secession when the federals were ignoring them. But the second they secede Lincoln's men suddenly find a need to be there and set up camp outside Mesilla to prepare for taking the town. It's funny how things work out like that.

Bull. Get your facts straight. Ft. Fillmore already had Union troops in it. Col. Canby sent more troops to strengthen it when Baylor siezed Ft. Bliss in El Paso.

Sure there was. The only major military force in the region was a union command occupying a fort outside of Mesilla to counter the southern half of the region's confederate government. The leaders of Mesilla sent message to El Paso for relief. Baylor split his army in two, left half there to garrison it, and took the other half to relieve Mesilla in direct response to that request. Shortly after his arrival the larger yankee army attacked Mesilla and was repulsed by Baylor. Your complete ignorance of this event is laughable considering that you purport to know what you are talking about. As for Baylor's expedition, if that does not qualify as a relief expedition, I don't see what else could.

Yes, Lynde did attack Baylor - after Baylor invaded New Mexico. And I will concede that Baylor knew of the Confederate sympathies of Mesilla. But he went against Ft. Fillmore because it was a dangerous threat to him. From www.civilwarhome.com/confederatearizona.htm we have the following:

Baylor quickly assessed the situation in nearby Arizona and determined that Federally-held Fort Fillmore, forty miles upriver, constituted a grave threat to his position. Rather than wait for an attack, Baylor chose to be the aggressor, after digesting reports of Confederate sympathy in the area, especially in nearby Mesilla. On July 23, with 258 men, Baylor moved upriver and camped within 600 yards of the Federal fort. He had planned a surprise attack next morning, but fort commander Major Isaac Lynde was warned of Baylor's presence by a deserter. Learning of this, Baylor moved instead into Mesilla, where the Texans were greeted enthusiastically. On July 25, Lynde advanced his force of 380 from Fort Fillmore to demand Baylor's surrender. Baylor's response was, "If you wish the town and my forces, come and take them!" Lynde resolved to do just that, ordering his infantrymen into line while his two mountain howitzers began to shell the town and his mounted troops prepared to charge. As the Federal horsemen approached, carefully aimed shots and volleys from the barricaded Texans and their Mesilla allies began to create confusion. One Yankee horseman was killed and four others were wounded as rifle and shotgun fire ripped into their ranks. As the survivors began to withdraw, the Federal cannoneers came under rebel fire and were soon forced back as well, followed by the Union infantry. The brief battle had resulted in Lynde's loss of three killed and nine wounded, while six Texans were wounded and twenty rebel horses died in the bombardment. Baylor's men carefully followed the Yankees to the fort and began preparations to attack. During the next day, as the Federals feverishly dug defensive trenches and prepared obstructions, Baylor sent riders to Fort Bliss for reinforcements and replacement horses. That evening, the Arizona Guards, a local militia unit that had assisted in Baylor's defense, infiltrated Fort Fillmore and made off with 85 cavalry horses and 26 mules. This loss so discouraged Lynde that he decided, instead of trying to defend the fort, to evacuate his command to the nearest concentration point, Fort Stanton, some 80 miles to the northeast.

The narrative goes on to talk about the disastrous retreat of Lynde, but the point is that Ft. Fillmore was attacked by the Texans from the direction of Mesilla. The federals didn't attack Mesilla and apparently had no plans to do so. Baylor attacked Ft. Fillmore because he saw it as a military threat and because he was assured that he wouldn't get any civilian opposition.

The yankees approached it on July 24, 1861 and demanded the town's surrender. Baylor, who had been welcomed there by the openly confederate town, refused and the yankees opened fire. Baylor repulsed them. Read about it here http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/MM/qfm4.html

Yeah, but you were saying that Baylor went to help Mesilla because it was being threatened by Lynde at Ft. Baylor. Lynde didn't threaten to attack the town until Baylor was already in it. Furthermore Lynde didn't demand the town's surrender. He demanded Baylor's surrender. Please get your facts straight. Your link says that Baylor invaded New Mexico and seized Ft. Fillmore. That's it. It doesn't support your contention that Mesilla was under threat of Union forces prior to Baylor's arrival. But then that's typical.

It was a bold move, but by all indications Baylor's presence was welcomed with open arms by the people of Mesilla. They celebrated his arrival and added troops to his ranks to pursue the yankees after the city was saved.

So you condone that in Baylor which you would condemn in Lincoln. Interesting. And also, what did he save Mesilla from? Until Baylor entered Mesilla, the town was in no danger from Union troops.

Nonsense. Baylor did see Fillmore's presence as a threat to his command at Bliss, which was one of the reasons he responded to Mesilla's calls. But his plans to attack it did not come through and he went to Mesilla to prepare it for a defense. Shortly after the federals arrived and demanded the city's surrender. Baylor said no and the yankees attacked the city, not the other way around as you suggest.

True. This is a my bad. This is what happens when my fingers outrun my brain, and for this I apologize. The true order of events was that Baylor camped about 600 yards from Ft. Fillmore planning to attack it, but surprise was denied him due to a deserter. So he occupied Mesilla instead. Lynde called on him to surrender, which he refused. Lynde then commenced a disastrous attack. After failing in his attack, Lynde then ordered an evacuation in the night. Baylor caught up with Lynde later and slaughtered his rather inebriated group of soldiers. Satisfied?

The document expresses an intended neutrality, but it was not broken for the reason you allege and quite to the contrary. The Cherokees specifically listed a lengthy string of grievances against the North that had happened in the wake of secession.

That's my point. Initially, the Five Civilized Tribes were nervous about situation and expressed a desire for strict neutrality. Other tribal documents also express this desire (and no I don't have the links to them). As the federal troop were withdrawn to the east and southern troops entered Indian territory, sentiment changed to favor the south - quite understandable, given the conditions. When Captain Pike (a southerner) was sent to Oklahoma in may of 1861 to negotiate treaties with the 5 civilized tribes, the Choctaws, Chickasaws and Seminoles readily agreed, but only a fraction of the Creeks agreed (they were very much pro-Union) and Chief John Ross managed to keep the Cherokees officially neutral, only reluctantly signing on to the confederate cause October. But during the war, the tension between Stand Watie (pro confederate) and Ross (pro union) was very much in evidence and culminated in the destruction of Ross' house by Stand Watie and in the death of several relatives of Stand Watie by Ross supporters. As a matter of fact, many of the Indians fought on both sides at one time or another.

While I grant you that the North's Col. Phillips did not win any friends amongst the Indians by his tactics, neither did the south's Col. Cooper glorify his cause by his tactics against the Upper Creeks. In fact, Col. Cooper's actions probably lead directly to the downfall of Confederate efforts much sooner than would have been otherwise due to the fact that Kansas and Wisconsins were so inflamed that they raised 6 Kansas regiments, 1 Wisconsin Regiment and 2 Indian Regiments to retake the Indian territory. OTOH, If Col. Phillips had the sense that G-d gave an ant, the territory would have fallen much sooner.

And I responded that your claim of this was based almost entirely on Andy Jackson, the same man who put down the earliest beginnings of the drive for southern independence. As far as I'm concerned (and I believe many southerners would back me on this) you can have all of Jackson you want cause we certainly don't want him.

He was still a southerner.

Yeah, and the northerner's openly admitted among themselves at the time to intentionally framing the compromise debates around that issue for political reasons to their own advantage. Read their eyewitness histories and letters if you doubt me.

The south admitted that the basic problem was about extending slavery to the territories. If northern politicians framed this to their advantage, it still doesn't change the fact that this was the biggest sticking point in north-south relations. Lincoln framed the entire Lincoln-Douglas series of debates around slavery. Certainly it was to his advantage. And most assuredly it was the biggest hot-button issue by far in the entire country at the time.

No they didn't. Louis Wigfall, one of the first southern senators to take up the secessionist cause, identified the problem in a December 6 speech as strictly economics. He said that, despite their protests otherwise, the almighty dollar was driving the yankee cause at southern expense and that if it could be worked out there would be no problem. He then concluded that the yankees had made the situation unworkable and therefore secession had become the only course of action for the south. Then he issued one of the first serious calls for his colleagues to secede.

If you are talking of his "Cotton is King" speech, that has got to be one of the more delusional and arrogant pieces of work of the period. Basically, he is saying that cotton is far more important than food. In fact, he goes so far as to say that if England has a famine in corn but plenty of cotton, there are few problems. However, if the situation is reversed, there are riots. Apparently, this guy never heard of the corn riots in England.

But to get to the text of the speech: He mentions that the strength of the government is the military chest and the almighty dollar. He even talks a bit about one specific tariff (totally ignoring any others). He also talks a bit about slavery and shows (indirectly) southern economics is based on it. He never talks about yankees at all (although I grant you that it could be reasonably inferred that he was talking of northern interests in his speech). His remarks are directed at the government - of which he is a member. If economics were the overriding reason, the south would have split in the 1830s when taxes and tariffs were more onerous. He also ignores the tariffs which were designed to help the south (such as the tariff on imported sugar - which was a boon to Louisiana). Now contrast that with the comments of Lincoln and Alexander Stephens (vice-president of the Confederacy). They both felt strongly that the entire issue hung on expansion of slavery to the territories (although Stephens also mentions other southern slavery-related greviences such as northern ordinances against slavery).

Show how any truncation of that quote changed Lincoln's meaning.

From your post #442 you say:

Also it was a southern fort insofar as it was in southern territory hundreds of miles away from any defensive interest of the north. Sumter was created as a federal fort by an act of South Carolina several years earlier but that act was rescinded during secession when South Carolina revoked all previous committments and ties to the northern government.

By this, I understand you to be saying that Ft. Sumter was no longer Federal territory. Truncating the quote supports you supposition. If, however, we read the entire text, we see that Lincoln feels that S.C. is invading federal land.

If you can substantiate your allegation of a fib on my part, please do so. Otherwise you shouldn't shoot your mouth off like that.

Well for one thing, you have contended that for purposes of secession, Ft. Sumter is a southern fort. However, for purposes of invasion, it is not. You can't have it both ways. Please make up your mind. For another very few of your references actually support many of your allegations.

Exactly what's to say about them? They don't change Lincoln's definition of invasion in any way not do they change the fact that by waging the war he met that definition of invasion.

Sure it does. If Ft. Sumter was southern territory, then Lincoln was invading southern territory to keep it. OTOH, if it was Union territory, then in order to maintain it, Lincoln was still invading southern territory, since he had to cross S.C. waters to get to it. So by your definition, either way he was invading. However, it is obvious that he felt (from the entire text) that it was S.C. doing the invading. If we just read your posted text, a good case could be made that Lincoln was invading S.C. by trying to maintain Ft. Sumter - using his own words. The fact is that Lincoln was accusing S.C. of invading federal territory. By attacking and taking Ft. Sumter, S.C. declared war against the Union. The south and north were officially (if uneasily) at peace at the time of the speech. When the south declared war, the situation changed. To call Lincoln a liar for doing in war what he refused to do in peace is a bit over the top.

Uh, no. I don't believe I have. Show where if you think otherwise. I did say he invaded Virginia, and I did say he instigated hostility at Fort Sumter, but I don't believe I ever said he invaded Fort Sumter in the context of his own definition of invasion.

See my reference to your post 442 above. If, as you assert, Ft. Sumter was no longer federal property when S.C. seceded, then Lincoln did indeed invade southern territory by trying to send troops to relieve it. And how did he instigate hostility at Ft. Sumter - by being elected?

It was no more a _legitimate_ federal property than a british fort in Boston Harbor was legitimate English property circa 1777.

Lessee, S.C. cedes this property to the U.S. government, thus losing all rights to it. It is not S.C. property any more. Both the U.S. and S.C. agree. Later, S.C. decides that it wants the fort back. However, the U.S. doesn't agree. It is still U.S. property. Similarly, what if Mexico gives up a good chunk of its territory in the treaty of Hildago-Guadalupe then later claims it back? The answer: "tough noogies bub." Also the "British Fort in Boston Harbor" theory that you put forward doesn't help your argument one bit, because the U.K. had every right to do so at that time (their Carribean fleet was stationed out of New Orleans for years after the Napoleanic wars ended). By the time of the treaty of Ghent, they had ceded such a right.

I will admit confusion by your comments. OTOH it is not federal property, and OTOH it is.

A full scale hostile of invasion of the entire south is a bit drastic as a response to a zero-casualty siezure of a single fort, don't you think?

Lessee, the south declared war on the north when Lincoln tried to reinforce the fort. The full-scale invasion was in response to that situation. The fort was just the catalyst.

So you think invading 13 states and 2 territories with one of the largest armies ever assembled on the continent is "tit" for the "tat" of a single fort being siezed in a battle with no casualties and no prisoners?

No, S.C. refused to give up federal property - as did the other southern states. A war was declared - in which the south thought that they would win. The tit-for-tat comes in when the south strikes at Union interests, the Union strikes at southern interests.

You have yet to explain how anything he said about the forts was "critical" to his definition of invasion, which was my matter of concern. Care explaining yourself?

I would have thought it was rather obvious. He basically tells S.C. that they have no fear of invasion, but then asks them why they are invading Ft. Sumter. Remember that they are officially still at peace, even though S.C. has initiated hostilities.

Back off? Where? I firmly believe it is a people's right to remove a hostile garrison from their presence when they are no longer subject to that garrison and when that garrison has no business being there other than for hostile motives.

What hostile motives? Were they planning on attacking S.C. with less than a hundred soldiers? From a military standpoint, the fort was negligible (although from a political standpoint, it was quite a firebrand). It was federal territory. It did not belong to the state of S.C. What right did S.C. have to attack territory which was not even theirs? If S.C. can attack and remove a federal garrison from federal territory in S.C., then why can't they just as ethically attack and remove a federal garrison from N.Y. For that matter, why can't they just attack any state?

If you don't want to be called a liar, don't fib about Lincoln's quotes by throwing out false allegations that I somehow denied their meaning by only quoting the sentence on the matter I was making a point about.

Lessee, you purposely exclude Lincoln's slamming of S.C. for attacking Ft. Sumter. You claim that Ft. Sumter belongs to S.C., because S.C. seceded from the Union, therefore they can revoke all prior commitments to the Union. As such, the Union, by retaining the fort and trying to resupply it is invading S.C. But wait, you say that the Union is not invading S.C. by retaining the Island. Sheesh, at least you could try for some consistency.

Since when did the US Government have the right to collect taxes for itself on the goods going into another political entity that has clearly indicated the termination of its political affiliation with that government? Lincoln had no more business collecting taxes there than King George did in Philadelphia circa 1780.

So, if I start a political entity (of two or more people), then if I clearly indicate our termination of our political affiliation with the government, does that mean that said government has any right to collect taxes on us? I don't believe that your argument will get you very far as there was no constitutional right for any state to secede.

Nice try at evading that one. Too bad for you that you got it wrong again. Texas' admission to the confederacy was already addressed in Montgomery, which accepted the state contingent upon the referendum's passage and permitted for its delegation, which preceded the may 5th measure. Even then, your analogy fails you as the may 5th measure was enacted as a statutory response to the confirmation of Texas' seating in the confederate government just as the referendum itself was called for by a statutory measure passed by the convention.

Forgive me for thinking that Montgomery was in Alabama, not Texas. I had no idea that the decisions in Montgomery were binding on the citizens of Texas. FYI, all three documents were approved by the convention, only the secession document was approved by the voters.

Both these items were matters of legislative statute. The declaration of causes was not. It had no statutory effect, no legally binding qualifications, no requirement of a course of action to be taken, and no enaction of anything. It was a non-binding resolution that simply stated the arguments of delegates after the fact of secession had already been called for in a vote.

All three documents were passed by the convention. All three documents were legislative acts. Only the ordinance of secession was put to the voters. The Declaration of Causes gives the reasons that Texas seceded. It is a supporting document to the ordninance of separation. Together, both documents are equivalent to the "Declaration of Independence." It has legal status and was binding on the people of Texas as to the reasons concerning their secession.

And that has to be one of the most ignorant statements you've made yet on this matter. Have you no familiarity with legitlative processes? Have you no knowledge of the difference between a statute and a resolution? Your above statement indicates this to be the case.

So are you saying that the joint resolution of Congress admitting Texas into the Union on March 1, 1845 wasn't a statute or at least didn't have the force of law?

So Texas needed a popular referendum to leave the Union, but not one to join another one. Interesting. Even so noted an authority as Sam Houston felt that while secession was legal, confederation was not, because it had not been put to a popular referendum. And BTW, where does it mention that it is a non-binding resolution?

A bill of statute enacts things into law - it mandates that a certain measure be executed, enforced, or implemented. An example would be for Congress to pass a bill overhauling the IRS and implementing a retail sales tax instead of the income tax.

Every state that has joined the U.S. has done so by congressional resolutions. A resolution, by itself, is not necessarily non-binding.

Comparatively, a legislative resolution is little more than an expression of opinion on behalf of the legislative body. It does not make anything into law, it does not enact any measures, it doesn't do anything other than formally state a position of the legislature. An example would be for Congress to pass a resolution stating, as an opinion that "we as a body believe the IRS should be overhauled and the income tax replaced."

See above. I presume that you don't know the difference between insider trading and illegal insider trading either.

The first is a binding statutory measure. The second is a non-binding resolution. In the case of Texas' secession, the ordinance requiring a secession vote and the may 5th measure were both statutory measures enacting various items contained within them. Comparatively the declaration of causes did nothing but state the opinion of the delegates who signed it in a non-binding, non-statutory form. They even say this in the resolution itself. It concludes stating basically 'these are some of the reasons we want to secede, we already support secession as a body, and we urge everyone to do the same when they vote.'

Even I, in my ignorance, know that there is a difference between binding and non-binding resolutions. The Declaration of Causes was a resolution. So were the secession ordinance and the confederate ordinance. Under your rather selective interpretation, neither the secession ordinance nor the confederation ordinance needed to be submitted to a popular referendum. However, even if the Declaration of Causes had been submitted to a referendum, it would have been non-binding (according to your logic).

By voting for the Ordinance of Secession, Texans accepted the Declaration of Causes as the reasons for seceding. Both the causes and the ordinance were widely disseminated, so I hardly think that the reasoning contained in the Declaration of Causes was unpopular as you implied when this subject was originally broached.

That is the only reasonable interpretation that could be given to the matter in a plain text strict constructionist reading of the Constitution. It is also the interpretation established by the supreme court in a decision written by John Marshall himself that was the precedent at the time Lincoln violated it. Further it was the interpretation clearly expressed by the sitting Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had reaffirmed Marshall's earlier decision in response to an act by Lincoln's men with a ruling he made while sitting on the federal circuit.

Considering the fact that quite a lot is in the first, I would have to disagree with you. Furthermore Taney was sitting on the Supreme Court prior to Lincoln, not on an inferior court as you imply. I would also be careful about refering to Taney as an authority, since he had a bad habit of "cherry-picking" his sources. But as usual, I ask for your sources, since you have a habit of reading volumes between the lines that is little better than fiction.

Not so. Any direct reading of the Constitution cannot escape Article I's opening statement: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"

It also talks of states and the president.

Nowhere does it say that the powers granted herein are vested in the President. Nowhere does it say they are vested in the court. Nowhere does it say they are vested in the King of England. It says they are vested in the Congress. Moving on to section 9 of article I it is easily observed that every single one of those clauses pertains to the legislative power and a direct extension of that power. It says things like no ex post facto law can be passed, no direct tax can be imposed. Every one of them is a matter of congress, unless you subscribe to some wierd "living breathing" loose constructionist theory of the constitution that permits the president to enact new tax codes on his own. Same goes for habeas corpus - the only way you can get around the clear meaning that is found in the document itself, asserted by John Marshall writing for a the US Supreme Court majority opinion, and affirmed as a precedent by the circuit court in direct response to Lincoln's men's violation of it is to engage in a tortured and historically oblivious reading of the document.

You forget that legislative power does not reside exclusively with the houses of Congress. In point of fact, the president also has legislative powers.

Article 1, sections 1 - 6 and 8 deal exclusively with congressional powers and limitations. Sections 7 and 9 deal with congressional and executive powers. Article 10 deals with state limitations. While the president cannot enact new tax codes on his own, neither can congress (generally). It takes both the executive and legislative branches to do this. Every one of the examples that you mentioned (taxes, ex-post facto, etc.) is a matter of both congress and the president. A law cannot come into being without both of them agreeing (or congress overriding a veto). As such, section 9 does apply to the president as well as to congress.

However, given all this, I am still neutral about Habeus Corpus. Your arguments reserving the suspension of Habeus Corpus are not convincing. OTOH, I've not found arguments extending it to the president overly-persuasive either.

No, that isn't what Lincoln was doing. What Lincoln was doing, was preparing to levy civil war. The facilities he retained in the East, all had value if one were waging war -- or provoking one. The facilities that had no value in waging a war in the East, were stripped.

Ah now your are comparing apples and oranges. His trying to maintain Ft. Sumter was from before the Civil War. After the war started, he gathered all the troops he could to put down the rebellion.

I don't agree with you that GOPcapitalist has no case for deception on Lincoln's part. To talk about ensuring revenue collection and the integrity of the mails, while you are preparing a vast civil war to destroy slavery and recast the Union, could be construed by reasonable people as a Machiavellian exercise in expedience....and misdirection.

Lincoln had no intention of destroying slavery in the south - in fact, Alexander Stephens (the vice president of the confederacy) agreed. The sticking point was on whether slavery was to be allowed in the territories or not.

The fact was that it was the south which forced the issue of war when Lincoln did all he could to avoid the issue. The line beyond which Lincoln would not go was disunion and extension of slavery to the territories.

I don't agree with you that GOPcapitalist has no case for deception on Lincoln's part. To talk about ensuring revenue collection and the integrity of the mails, while you are preparing a vast civil war to destroy slavery and recast the Union, could be construed by reasonable people as a Machiavellian exercise in expedience....and misdirection.

Lincoln had no intention of destroying slavery in the south - in fact, Alexander Stephens (the vice president of the confederacy) agreed. The sticking point was on whether slavery was to be allowed in the territories or not. The fact that Stepens was a friend of Lincoln and knew him quite well kinda refutes your assertion of Lincoln as a Machiavellian schemer.

while i know BOTH Kennedys, i would not class them as serious scholars, as NEITHER has an earned doctorate and/or credentials as a researcher, recognised by academic peers. BOTH are talented AMATUERS!

this is NOT to say that they are not CORRECT in their beliefs and/or research.

free dixie,sw

walt has NO case. he is at his best when "cut & pasteing" long,boring, frequently off-point,irrelevant rants against southrons, our flags, heroes,martyrs,culture, etc.

mostly we southrons LAUGH AT him.

for the TRUE CAUSE,sw

and the fact that the HATEFILLED,SELF-RIGHTEOUS,INTOLERENT,RACIST,ANTI-SEMITIC,IGNORANT,STATIST damnyankees said there was only a rebellion, rather than a war made their CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY & CRIMES AGAINST PEACE correct/excusable?

damnyankees fascinate me with their ARROGANCE & stupidity.

free the south,sw

Are you even remotely aware of how ridiculous you sound?

the best policy for the damnyankees would have been to say, "we celebrate your FREEDOM, southerners. and we look forward to trading with your new republic."

of course, that assumes that the damnyankees HAVE BRAINS & can THINK!

southrons KNOW BETTER than that!

free dixie,sw

nobody can discredit lincoln, the tyrant & spiller of innocents blood, no more than you can make sewage clean by saying it is so.

free dixie,sw

NOPE, lincoln was STUPID, so stupid as to try and perserve the union at the cost of war, which was to cost the lives of >1,000,000 citizens, many of them INNOCENTS. had he been smart, he would have traded with our new small, mostly agricultural republic, as we would have needed US-made goods for decades, if not permanently.

lincoln was JUST a cheap politician, nothing more, nothing less. and a DAMNFOOL as well.

free the southland NOW,sw

are you remotely aware of how HATEFILLED you are against all things southron? especially against our hero-martyrs,flags, culture, mores, and seperate identity.

free dixie,sw

Certainly less HATEFILLED than you are towards all things Northern.

i hate NO ONE in the north except the damnyankees.

being northernborn no more makes you a damnyankee than it makes you a plumber!

damnyankees are HATERS, creeps,liars, statists, bigots and damnfools. the TRUE CAUSE will triumph!

free dixie,sw