Free Republic

One's life does not have to be boring or unrewarding to resent an injustice that took place to one's people. If you are not aware of this, simply speak to a descendant of a Holocaust victim. That hurt will probably be remembered at least as long as the Holocaust that Sherman visited upon the defenseless citizenry of the South. It is easy to sit back and mock those whose hurts have not healed, but I wonder where you have trashed your humanity.

Although the article faults Lincoln for his actions in destroying the US Constitution by invalidating the sovereignty of the states, it is not "Anti-Lincoln." We do not want to fight the War Between the States again; we have learned that going up against the American Empire is a losing proposition. However, in the same way that Holocaust victims and their descendants will continue to broadcast the sins of Adolf Hitler and his henchmen, Southerners will continue to point out the ACTIONS of Lincoln which were contrary to the US Constitution and the Bible upon which this country was founded.

Neo-Nazis are rising again and preaching their anti-Semitism. Anti-Southernism is state policy promulgated by deceptive history books. It is sad to see conservatives so rigid in their defense of the destroyers of the US Constitution.

Sir,

With all due respect for your attempt at civility, I am compelled to broaden your view of the War by a few facts to which you are apparently oblivious.

First, the vast majority of Southerners (94% as of the 1860 census) did not own slaves. To drink the Kool-Aid of the liberal media that these 94% would risk life and limb to defend the sins of the wealthy is to demonstrate extreme illogic and gullibility. This is excusable when you are in elementary school and have no experience with the deception of the media. To fail to acquire intellectual curiosity about such illogic is deplorable in an adult.

Second, Lincoln himself announced that he had no intention of interfering with slavery if he could preserve the union (read: Empire). He announced that the abolition or preservation of slavery had no influence on his pursuit of the war. He announced at his first inauguration that he had no intent to interfere with it.

Third, the Emancipation Proclamation freed absolutely no slaves. It specifically exempted the northern states and the portions of the South that were under military control of Federal forces. Lincoln himself remarked that it had absolutely no legal validity.

Fourth, Gen. Fremont, in charge of the military district of Missouri, declared all slaves in the district to be free only to have Lincoln castigate him for his pronouncement and force him to rescind his announcement. Lincoln repeated this action in the case of virtually every other Federal general who freed slaves, and he actually relieved at least one of command.

Fifth, the Federal government continued to employ slaves to build the Capitol and White House during the War. Does this seem a contradiction? Those slaves were not freed until years AFTER the War.

Sixth, General Grant allowed his wife to bring her slave into the Army camp during the War. Moreover, he is quoted as saying, "If I had any inkling that this war was being fought over slavery, I would throw down my sword and join the other side." He is also reported to have regretted the abolition of slavery and to have explained his opposition to this act with the words, "Good help is hard to find."

Seventh, (and I will stop here) when Lincoln was asked by his cabinet officers, "Why not simply let the South secede in peace?" Lincoln answered, "Where would I get the money to run the country?" You see, the South was providing at the time 85% of the Federal budget which was financed by tariffs which the north imposed on the South through the north's numerical superiority in Congress. The South, powerless to determine its own fate, had the choice of being compelled to continue with the unfair arrangement or to secede and go it on her own.

The north's inability to live under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution rendered the contract invalid. At the time, virtually everyone (on BOTH sides) knew secession to be legal. Forcing sovereign states to remain in the union at bayonet was a further violation of that contract. But the history books conveniently overlook these facts.

Rush Limbaugh says that we should smile with satisfaction when opponents display their intellectual vacuity by resorting to calling names when they have no facts or valid arguments with which to rebut our statements. In this spirit, Mr. Holland owes you a grand THANK YOU to you for having thus conceded defeat.

I would also suggest that you run your postings through a grammar checker before going public with them. You used the word "their" where the word "there" was proper. Although both are correct spellings, the words are homonyms with entirely different meanings.