The Spiritual War between North and South

Many a historian has written a book about the actual physical battles of the Civil War in which they have theorized the political, cultural, and ideological reasons for that dreaded conflict. But very few, if any, have ever pointed out the spiritual battle which lead to that confrontation.  But without understanding the spiritual aspect of what lead to that bloody hostility, one can never truly understand what that national political feud was all about.

The truth is the North and the South had to very different religions and two different methods of interpreting the scriptures. Even Abe Lincoln asked, "How could such a travesty ensue when both sides read the same Bible?"  (I paraphrase, so this is not a direct quote).  The answer is that they did not read it the same way.  The South took a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, while the North "spiritualized" the Bible, and believed it was metaphorical, not literal.  This eventually lead to division not only in the country, but first in the Churches within the nation itself.

The North had a majority of Churches which were either Universalist, Unitarian, or Catholic.  The Southern majority of Churches were either Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Episcopalian.

To understand the views of the Northerners vs. the Southerners, one must understand the teachings of these various sects.  For it was quite often the Ministers on both sides which preached either against or in favor of slavery, state's rights, and secession.

Preachers on either side were fervent in their preaching, and passionate about what they believed.  Even to the point of becoming rabid, indignant, and even willing to fight and die for their cause.  And both sides truly believed God was on their side. But which side was right? 
The answer is easy to find by looking at their doctrine and their fruit. Unitarians believed that Jesus was not God.  (Clearly an anti-biblical teaching).  They further believed that man was inherently good and not evil, and thus had no reason for a Saviour.  They finally taught then when a man did sin, that self-sacrifice and good works were the only way to appease the wrath of God, and secure pardon of their sins.  Catholics also taught this doctrine of "working one's way to heaven."  Finally, Universalists believed in the unifying nature of their cause, and desired others to join their ranks for the purpose of championing a cause in which people could rally together.  They believed in preaching "issues" to support, rather than preaching doctrine from the Bible.

These three main Northern religions worked together in harmony to form radical groups of anti-slavery minions who eventually called themselves "Abolitionists."  However, they not only didn't believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, they further refused to accept and follow his teachings.  They were, therefore, not truly Christians, accepting only the term Christian while denying the person who started Christianity.   

The focus, then, of these radical religionists was on building an earthly kingdom, rather than focusing on the eternal destiny of man's soul.  And because of this, many of them turned towards politics, rather than the preaching of the Gospel.  And many of them turned towards physical means to right what they viewed as a great wrong in the eyes of God--Slavery!

Yet, their methods proved they were not Christians.  One of their biggest supporters, John Brown, was a "Minister."  (I use the term lightly, as a true minister would never be a murderer as he was).  Yet he used physical force and even death to forward his kingdom, something Jesus would never condone!  The well-known saying eloquently portrays such religious zealots, when it states: "Kingdom builders are bloody killers!"

Contrast this with the Southern people and their religious and doctrinal views, many of which were either Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Episcopalian.   Although these denominations differ greatly, they all had one thing in common.  They believed all men were Sinners who were inherently evil, and they needed a Saviour to forgive them their sins, as they could not save themselves.  And although some of them had been snared into unbelief by the teachings of German Rationalism, the majority of them and their ministers believed in a literal reading and teachings of scripture.  They further believed in the deity of Jesus Christ, and viewed Northern religious instruction to the contrary as not only apostate and dangerous but outright blasphemous and satanic in origin.  Thus, they viewed the North as a great breeding ground for Satan's ever-increasing kingdom of evil, deception, mistrust, and even hatred and hostility.

Southern Ministers viewed slavery as not only acceptable, but Biblical.  And they had verses to prove it.  Some would run to Leviticus 25:44-46, which states:

 

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.  45  Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.  46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

 

But these verses spoke to Israel, and did not apply to them.  Thus, others read the words of the Apostle Paul (that do apply to CHRISTIANS in the Church age), dogmatically stressing the LITERAL application of that passage to them, their servants, and to the Northerners who had no business trying to tell them how to live their lives.  From 1 Timothy 6:1-5 we read:

 

1 Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.  2  And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.  3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

  

Taking this passage literally, most Southerners believed that the abolitionists were "blasphemers," and "apostates" preaching a doctrine contrary to the scriptures, and were "perverse" and "corrupt" and "evil" in their attempts at causing "strife."  Thus, to a Southerner, a war against slavery was a war against God himself and what he taught in the scriptures.

Although God didn't institute slavery, it cannot be denied that he did allow it and wrote verses in the Bible of how Christian masters should treat their slaves.  (Ephesians 6:5 and Colossians 4:1 are other examples of Biblical passages addressed to slaves and their masters).

Northerners, therefore, turned their attention from the scriptures towards tales of "mistreatment" by Slave owners against their slaves and tried to demonize Southerners, claiming they were all evil men who beat and whipped their slaves and raped their women servants on a regular basis.  But as Christian gentlemen the majority of Southerners never practiced such horrible atrocities.  Many even went to Church with their slaves and treated them with honor and respect.  And even though some atrocities did happen by bad Slave owners (who most of the time weren't even Christians themselves), they were very few and far between.  And they were often dealt with by the law and/or Christian Ministers who preached against such conduct. 

Yet the North succeeded in their propaganda and demonization of the South, and books like "Uncle Tom's Cabin" fueled the fires of outrage in the North. 

Satan loved the division he had spawned with the liberal mindset in the North and their hatred toward Southern Bible-believing and Bible-practicing Christians.  And he continued to preach hate toward the Southern people, stereotyping them, and lumping them all into the same basket as inhumane mongrels who abused their fellow human beings.

Because of such constant belittlement and disdain from the North toward the South, many Southerners sought succession, yearning to be free from those who lived only to deride, slander, and attack their character, beliefs, and culture.  But the North would not let up.  Believing they were righteous and the South was evil, Northern politicians began to justify their hatred and disdain against the South.  This eventually lead to their unanimous belief that God himself had called them to punish the South for what they viewed as wrong doing.  And far before an army was called physically for that intended purpose, the Northern Politicians sought to debilitate the South economically.  For this end they instituted the Morrill Tariff, which was nothing more than a TAX upon the South of up to 47% of their revenue. 

Outraged, by such an action, Southerners despised the Yankees in the North even more, and rightfully so, for not even a generation before, they had fought a War for Independence over that very same issue.  That is what gave birth to the United States.  It was all because of a nationwide contempt towards "Taxation without Representation." 

Eventually, the South seceded from the Union, and it was mostly because Abraham Lincoln said if elected his priority in office would be to COLLECT the Morrill Tariff from the South.  And that's exactly what he tried to do when he sent Federal ships to Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor.  These ships were full of not only soldiers but Federal Tax Collectors who were to collect the Morrill Tariff with the help of the soldiers. (What?  You never heard this story?  Could it be because the radical abolitionists rewrote history?)

We all know what happened.  War ensued.  But what the war was about depends upon what you know, (or better stated what you've been taught) about history.  If you believe the modern teaching, then you believe the war was started by the South when they fired upon Ft. Sumter.  But if you look at it from the viewpoint of a Southerner, you see it for what it really was -- A second War of Independence.

Some call it to this very day by the deceptive term of the "Civil War."  But it was anything but civil.  In fact, it was atrocious!  It was not about slavery, even though that played a key in justifying the war in Northern propaganda.  Nay, it was rather about Southerners being left alone and being free from Northern taxation, Northern religious hatred, and Federal occupation.  In short, the best way to label that war would be to call it what it really was -- A War of Northern Aggression.

But way before it was a physical war, it was a spiritual battle.  The North began their crusade against Southern Christians and Southern Biblical doctrines many years before by attacking the deity of Christ, man's need for a Saviour, the Biblical mandates of God towards slaves and their masters, and much more.  

Oh how Satan must have savoured the widespread hatred he instilled in Northern hearts and gloried in the savage bloodshed it produced as the ground was littered with the dead bodies of Christian soldiers from each side! (And yes, there were some true Christians in the North.  And they fought without malice, rather only doing what they felt was their duty in the Northern Army).  

But the joke was on the Devil, for during the Civil War something happened, that is very seldom mentioned to this very day.  During the physical skirmish and amidst the ghastly slaughter and bloodshed, God upon his throne in heaven smiled as a spiritual fight took place in the hearts of men.  And during the Civil War (better called the "Un-Civil War") in which the depravity of man was unleashed on a tremendous scale, God, the Holy Spirit, went forth convicting the souls of men with a mighty power.  For during that war there was probably the greatest revival the United States has ever known, greater than even the first and second "Great Awakening" in the 1700's.  And during that conflict the Gospel of Jesus Christ was preached everywhere by godly ministers, Honorable Generals, lowly privates, and even starving slaves.  Spiritual campaigns and revivals broke out in towns, cities, villages, and even within the armies themselves on both sides.  Men like D.L. Moody preached with such a furor that men cried and accepted Jesus as their Saviour by the thousands. The Gospel drenched the land deeper than the stain of the blood of the fallen.  There are countless stories of men laying bleeding and dying on the battlefield, where one soldier begins singing "Amazing Grace" and then soldiers on both sides joined in.  Witnesses tell us the singing of hymns were so loud by dying soldiers that it sounded like an angelic host of heaven had descended upon the earth.

It was the Christianity of the SOUTH which spread abroad and blessed the hearts of men, pointing them to Christ crucified, and not the religion of the North which sought only destruction, ruin,  devastation, recompense, and chastizement. 

Even to this very day the fruit of Southern Christianity is known world-wide, and has been given a term which endures to this very day -- "Southern Hospitality."

Yes, even though the battle was won by the North politically.   And they are remembered as the physical Victors, the truth is a spiritual battle brewed for the souls of men, and many were turned to the grace and knowledge of God's wonderful salvation during such a terrible and dismal time.

Only heaven will reveal how many people came to Jesus during that dreadful and appalling awful conflict.  But the war did not end there.  After the forced re-union of the Southern states with the North, the Gospel was carried up into the land of the "apostate yankees" by countless soldiers, and even many chaplains and ministers who journeyed there after the war.   They preached the Gospel message in the army of the Lord using the sword of the scripture with as much courage and determination as they fought with a rifle in their respective national armies.  They were true soldiers of the cross! 

Not only that, many went westward with the Gospel, preaching to Sinners in saloons, ranches, mining towns, cattle prairies, coastal towns, and schools.  And their ranks swelled by leaps and bounds, as the true Gospel of Jesus Christ spread throughout the country, emboldened by the great revivals of the Civil War, and more people converted to true Christianity. 

Today seldom is heard of a "universalist" or a "unitarian."  But the entire country has heard of the words: Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian.   These denominations have endured to this very day, while the hateful Northern religions have proven themselves spiritually fruitless.  (*Note:  Many of these denominations today are now in complete apostasy.  Truly we are in the last days as the Bible prophesied.  But the fact that they still exist prove that after that great and awful Federal war against the South, God himself fought and won a spiritual battle and his truth prevailed and covered the country from sea to shining sea).   

Let us therefore always remember the cost of War.  Many died, and sadly many went to Hell because they were unsaved.  But thankfully amidst a horrible, bloody, and ghastly war, a spiritual seed was planted in the hearts of men and even in the entire country.  Those saved went to a much better place, and are there today.  Many of their descendents preached to others of the same hope they had in Jesus.  And the Gospel spread to every corner of the nation. 

Many today remember only the PHYSICAL War of 1861-1865.  I hope this small article will help to illustrate the SPIRITUAL battle that took place at the same time.  It was not to build a kingdom on earth, rather to fill a kingdom in heaven with the souls of men.   

THE ISSUE OF SLAVERY IN THE CIVIL WAR

If you have studied anything about the Civil War, chances are that you have been indoctrinated to believe that the Civil War was only about one thing and one thing only:  SLAVERY.

But this is not entirely true.  In fact, it's not true at all.  That is of course unless you define the term sightly diferently than most people do and and who the term is is applied to.  For there is more than one kind of slavery.

Many today believe the South was the bad guy in the Civil War, and they were "evil" for owning slaves.  But is that true?  Was that really all there was to it?  Or was there more?  If you will study history, you will see there was a whole lot more to it than just the slavery issue.  In fact, the Civil War, like almost every war ever fought in the history of man, had a lot to do with money, land, and power.

Before going any further on the topic of slavery, let me briefly state what I believe personally about Slavery.  I don't like it.  The way I look at it, I would not want to be a slave to anyone, and for that reason, I wouldn't want to own a slave myself.  In other words, because I wouldn't want to be "enslaved," I would not want to partake in enslaving others to myself.  It's that simple to me.  It's so clear cut and to the point.

With this stated, let us get back to our topic at hand:  Slavery and the Civil War.  And we must first ask ourselves why Southerners had slaves.  The reason they had slaves was three fold:

1.  BECAUSE THEY WERE SOLD TO THEM BY ENGLAND AND THE NORTHERN STATES.

1.  BECAUSE IT WAS LEGAL.

2.  BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE BIBLE.

If you know your history, you know that it was the British who first brought slaves to America (or the Portuguese, depending upon which version of history you choose to believe).  And if you have done your homework, you also know that it was the Northern states and their Northern Ships which sold slaves to the South.  So Southerners owned slaves because they were taught by the British and the Northerners that it was okay to have them.   In fact, they encouraged it.  They wanted $, and their practice of capturing and selling negroes brought them a pretty penny.  It was all about money, and the North got rich off of their business of selling slaves.  It was the NORTH who started the slave trade!  Southerners just bought them.  Why?  Because they assumed the Northerners thought it was okay!

The second reason that Southerners had slaves was because it was legal.  The laws at the time allowed it.  And as you probably know, when the Constitution of the United States of America was set up, slavery was written into the document and allowed.  This is important to know, as Southerners were labeled "rebels" by the Northern hordes, and "immoral" for owning slaves.  But they were simply following the laws of the land, laws which were set up in the Northern colonies, in New England.

The third reason that the South owned slaves was because they read that it was allowed in the Bible.  As you probably know, the South was as a whole a very religious and God-fearing people.  They believed the word of God (the King James Bible).  So when they read in the book of Genesis that Canaan was to be "cursed" and to be a "servant of servants" they believed it was to be so.  (For those who don't know, Canaan, was the son of Ham, a black man).

Almost all Southerners read the scriptures, and because of this they believe slavery was not wrong.  For it was clearly something that God allowed in the Bible.  Many Southerners took 1 Timothy 6:1-5 as a very clear passage that the owning of slaves was indeed a Biblical ideal.  There we read: 

6:1  Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

2  And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

4  He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

5  Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

And many Southerners even took verse 3-5 as applying to the North, when they tried to outlaw slavery, even taking the last four words "from such withdraw thyself" as a scriptural passage in favor of sucession from the union.

Southerners, therefore, viewed slavery as something not only that was legal but also something that was Biblical.  And they practiced it not only because it was allowed in the Constitution of the United States, but because it was clearly found in the Bible.

Now whether or not they were right is subject to debate.  Many people today hate slavery, and for this reason they want to demonize the South and uplift the North, and their noble cause to free the slaves.  But to do so is quite hypocritical.  For history clearly teaches us that the North was those who sold the slaves to the South to begin with, and it was the Northern New England States as well as the Southern ones who wrote the Constitution, allowing slavery. 

Thus, wouldn't it stand to reason, that to be against slavery and the South demands that a person be against the Constitution, the North, and the Bible?  (I'll let you answer that one for yourself).

But here, we will not delve into the moral issue of slavery, and whether it is right or wrong to own slaves.  We will leave that to others.  What we need to examine now is whether or not the cause of the Civil War was about "slavery" or not. 

My own personal belief is as follows:  The Civil War was not about slavery, although the Civil War was indeed about slavery.

Kinda sounds like a conflicting statement, doesn't it?  But please let me explain.  The truth is that in the eye of the beholder, something can look completely different to one person than to another, especially when people don't see eye to eye.  Thus, the issue of Slavery and the Civil War all depends upon the eye of the beholder. 

To the North, many abolitionists believed they were fighting an immoral foe who owned slaves, something they deplored.  So they thought they were fighting a just war, because they were helping to free a certain race of people.  (Note:  Not all Union soldiers thought this way.  In fact, very few did.  The truth is most of the Northern soldiers were drafted and had to fight.  And they didn't really care about black people.  Other Northerners actually owned slaves themselves!  In fact, General Grant owned slaves even after the Emancipation Proclamation and even had them in the White House when he was president!)

To the South, the war was not about slavery at all, rather about "States Rights" or their God-given and Constitutional right to govern themselves.  They did not look at the North as people who were trying to steal their slaves, rather as invaders on their own soverign soil, who were trying to take them over and enslave them to a tyrannical government, who would not even abide by its own laws.  (It's common to hear many stories of black slaves who fought along side their masters.  They too looked at the North as invading their land and trying to take away their soverign right to govern themselves).

So if you look at it from a Southern perspective, the Civil War was not about the slavery of black people, but free Southern Citizens who were fighting for their liberty, desiring not to be enslaved by a tyrannical government in Washington who wished to take away their rights.

Who was right is often a subject of debate, with people forming all sorts of opinions.  Some think the North was right, and are glad the North won.  But such people conviently overlook the horrible atrocities of the Northern occupation, and the many rapes (often on young black girls) and plunder and burning down of whole towns by Sherman's troops.  Nor do they desire to talk about the corrupt rule of the Carpet baggers, or the mass starvation of the South after the war. 

On the other hand, those who think the South was right don't take into consideration the Northern belief of "union" above all, and the desire to have a strong Centeralized big government in Washington under the rule of Lincoln.

One could argue either side.  But let's not argue at all.  Let's look not at the cause of the war, nor the actual war itself.  Instead, let's focus on the fruit of the war.  What did it produce?

The answer is not that simple.  For after the war, the United United States became a very big, powerful, and rich superpower.  It grew by leaps and bounds and eventually became the greatest country on earth!  

But what is it now.  It is better off than before?  The facts are that America today is almost exactly what it was in Lincoln's day.  It is a country divided.  Part of the country wants its freedoms back and wants to separate from a tyrannical government that wants to tax it to death.  The other part of the country likes the idea of communism and socialism, which is nothing sort of trading one's liberty for security, of which Benjamin Franklin aptly put it that if you do, you'll have neither liberty nor security.

In our day, our nation is in debt up to it's eyeballs.  There is more racial tension and terrorism today then ever before in the history of the nation. 

It's hard to find a job.  It's harder to make ends meet.  It's even harder to suceed.  It's almost like we are living just like those Southerners did in the South during the time of Reconstruction.  No one has any money, and for this reason the economy is so bad.

It's almost like the government is once again trying to make slaves out of us all by taking away our rights, our property, our freedom.  No, that couldn't be, could it???

However you look at it, the issue of Slavery is indeed interwined with the Civil War.  But was it really a war to FREE slaves, or was it rather a war to ENSLAVE the populace.  This is something that you must decide for yourself.  Remember, history is always written by the conquering force.  And historically, they always seem to embellish the facts, and try to make themselves look better than they actually were. 

Pensacola Florida the Start of the Civil War?

Recently, the news brought out the fact that we are nearing the 150th anniversary of the start of "The War of Northern Agression" (What some call the "Civil War).   And, they brought up the fact that I've heard very seldom mentioned, that the Civil War might have started in Pensacola, and not in South Carolina.

Growing up just across the bay from Pensacola, Florida, I feel privileged to be so close to such a historical place. Pensacola (once called Panzacola by the Spaniards) is the oldest city in America, being the first colony of Spain on American soil.  In fact, I was raised very close to the first Spanish Mission on American Soil over here on what is now known as Garcon Point.

The Spanish History in this area is amazing, as the Spanish sailed all throughout this area. In fact, just about three miles across the bay from where I live on Bayou Chico I believe it is (maybe it’s Bayou Texar), they discovered a 1600 century Spanish sailing ship. You can see a replica of it today at the T. T. Wentworth museum downtown.

And, if you were to go downtown, you would see a small fort on a hill which represents the battle fought there between the British and the Spanish. There is a small bust there to a man named Galvez, of whom Escambia Bay was once named. It was called “La Bahia de Santa Maria de Galvez.” I’m with you. It’s just much easier to say Escambia Bay!

The rich Spanish heritage of the Pensacola area is everywhere. But after the Americans took over Florida, that heritage quickly faded. But they are still discovering Spanish artifacts today.

http://uwf.edu/jworth/escambe.htm

Pensacola is known as “The City of Five Flags,” for the five countries that once ruled this area. They include: Spanish, French, British, American, and Confederate.

So the Pensacola area in rich in culture and diverse in its heritage.

This brings us to the Civil War. Not only does Pensacola hold claim to being the first founded colony in the new World, but it also holds claim to being the site of where the Civil War started. Many believe it started in South Carolina and Fort Sumter. But they conveniently omit what really happened down here in Pensacola several months earlier.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/so-where-did-the-civil-war-start-move-over-sc-one-town-says-florida/

With the 150^th anniversary of the start of the Civil War, it’s about time we look at what really happened. Hopefully, Pensacola will receive it’s rightful honor and place in history as the site of the start of this dreadful and bloody war.

150th ANNIVERSARY OF THE "UN"CIVIL WAR

Last week was the the 150th anniversary of the start of what some call the "Civil War."  (There was nothing civil about it!)  I remember being taught the truth about that war in a public school in the South.  They rightly gave me the facts about the engagement and not the feelings.  Simply put, the war was another war of Independence against a tyrannical government in which state's rights was the determining factor.  Slavery had very little to do with the war.  However, it would be wrong to say it didn't play a role.  It did.  The North hated slavery, but the constitution (and even the Bible) allowed it.  Northerners didn't seem to care about the Constitution, and because they had a higher population, they passed laws against the South, especially the collection of high tarrifs (ever heard of the Morrill Tarrif? You should really look that up.  What an injustice!).  The South only wanted to be left alone.  Just as the colonies separated from England crying, "No taxation without representation!" So to, the South desired relief from economic slavery to the North which they found in leaving the Union.  But the American colonies were praised for their Independence from England, while the South was villified for it's secession from the North.  How can this be?  So much for being consistent.

Many say the South started the war.  This is a fallacy.  It was Mr. Lincoln who sent warships to South Carolina.  This is an act of agression, which justifies self-defense.  And, most people won't even look at the fact that the Southern General cordially gave those in Ft. Sumter 30 days to leave.  When he learned they had no food left, every morning Southerners took a boat full of food for the Union troops to eat.  Just a little thing called, "Southern Hospitality!"  But that's conviently forgotten by modern historians who vehemently villify and ridicule the South, making them out to be the evil rebels, while exalting the North as the great emancipator.

The truth is, when you study history (which most people don't do), the greatest injustices were those of the North against the South.  Sherman burned, raped, and plundered the South in actions that were not only immoral but against the rules of war.  Lincoln did away with the writ of habeus corpus and many other legal rights of the individual, often times locking citizens up indefinetly without trial only upon suspicion with no evidence whatsoever.  Soldiers were drafted by the North and forced to fight against their will, which caused riots in the streets in New York.  (What you never heard about that?  You should really study your history).

But probably the saddest thing about the "Un" Civil war was the bloody carnage.  Hundreds of thousands of people died butcherous deaths from huge led bullets which ripped through their bodies.  Those who survived had to have limbs cut off, the modern medical practice of the day to save lives. 

But have you ever stopped to ask, "Why did all this happen?" 

The Victors claim it was all because of slavery and they were only protecting a certain group of people, fighting for their freedom.  But what about the freedom of others?  Is it right to take away one man's freedom to give it to another?  It is right to kill your neighbor so you can free his neighbor? 

Even though the Civil War ended in 1865, for a lot of people in the South, it's still not over.  They view the war differently than the North.  They feel their rights were trampled upon.  For the constititution gave them the right to seceed from the union when they so desired.  When they did so, they were attacked by an invading force.  Their goods were then stolen by invaders and their homes burned and their women ravished.  And, if that wasn't bad enough, their good names were tarnished by those who claimed they were rebellious.  (Most of the South were moral, erect, God-fearing, Bible Believing Christians).  And, after the war, they were subjugated in the most cruel manner as carpet baggers entered their land and kept them under subjection to a government that went against it's own constitiution in order to subjugate its populace.

Was the South right?  That's for you to decide.  But don't decide based on feeling, rather on the facts.  For it's easy to villify a people you know nothing about and label them something because they practice something you feel is wrong.  But whether slavery was right or wrong is not the issue.  In fact, slavery is still practiced today all throughout the world (it's still around in Muslim communities).  Why then isn't their a Civil War to stamp that out?  Where's the consistency?

As we look at the fruit of the Civil War, we see that it got rid of slavery, and it eventually unified the country once more.  But at what cost?  There is still no writ of habeus corpus.  If fact, most people don't even know what this is!  It's only a fundamental right of a freely governed society in which citizens are viewed as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law!  Sadly, in our day and age, it's the exact opposite.  You are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent in a court of law.

We have only Lincoln and the corrupt politicians of the North to thank for our loss of freedoms in America.  In fact, if you really want to place blame on someone, then why not blame the North for everything, as it was NORTHERN and BRITISH ships that brought slaves to America in the first place and sold them to the South!  How are they held innocent for this, but the South villified for owning slaves?

The Civil War was a horrible, bloody event.  One that we would do well to forget.  But it's hard to let it go.  Three groups still remember that war, and they all remember it differently.  

Northerners love to look at themselves as the great emancipators.  Blacks still look back at their years of slavery, and demand recompense for it, even though they've been freed.  And Southerners look at themselves as the victims who were attacked by an invading force which stripped them of their freedoms.

Which was right?  Political Scholars state that Constitutionally it was the South.  Moral Historians agree it was the North, which did man a favor in abolishing slavery. 

In short, there is still much debate over the issue, and much mistrust and anger still found in the hearts of men.  Northerners still look at Southerners as dumb hicks and rednecks who should never have owned blacks.  Southerners still view Northerners as city slickers who don't have a clue and shouldn't stick their noses into other people's business.  And many blacks still look at whites as the evil Master bent only upon subdueing them and keeping down.

In short, one has to wonder if the Civil War really is over.  For anger still lingers in the hearts of men.  Racial, political, and moral tension abound now probably more than ever, dividing America rather than healing it.

So happy 150th anniversary America!  You started a war years ago that might have led to the union of the nation of states, but it hasn't healed the hearts of men.  And it is seldom forgotten by many.

I only pray that there are no more Civil Wars, as it would destroy our country even more, as the hatred in men's hearts would lead to unfathomable travesties, and unwanted destruction. 

As we commemorate 150 years ago the beginning of this war, and we ponder what caused it, and what the fruit of it is today, let's also make it a point to forgive one another.  I'm a Southerner.  I was born in the South.  I forgive the North.  Are you a Northerner?  Can you forgive me? 
I'm also white.  I never owned slaves.  If you are black, can you forgive my ancestors that might of owned slaves and not hold it against me?

The Bible says, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."  If America continues to be divided, it will eventually fall.  It's time it unites, but not on a false premise and not under a corrupt system of government.  What America needs is FREEDOM FOR ALL, and JUSTICE TO EVERY CITIZEN ALIKE.  Only this will erase the memory of the horrible and bloody Civil War.

Sherman and His Total War Policy

I'm reading through "The Un-Civil War" by Mike Scruggs, a very scholarly work which I strongly recommend everyone obtain and read, and I'm finding things I never new before.  I'm also finding things I did know, but that I never pieced together.  Mr. Scruggs does a great job presenting historical facts that it appears have been rather "convienently" left out by most historical sources, or else distorted in order to present history slightly differently than it actually was.

For example, today most people would call General Sherman a "war hero" who helped bring an end to the bloody Civil War.  But during his lifetime, he was not viewed that way.  Instead, because he trampled upon the rules of war, he was looked upon as a "war criminal" in the eyes of many.  

Let us look at Gen. Sherman here, and what his "Total War Policy" produced.  For his taking the war to the citizens instead of just the soldiers was not only a travesty, but it also led to much injustice and suffering to countless millions thereafter in many other wars.

WHAT IS TOTAL WAR

For those who don't know what "Total War" means, Mr. Scruggs defines it nicely:  "Total War is war on an entire society, often escalating by degree according to military or political expediency or desire for vengeance on a demonized enemy.  Total War pursues victory and dominance by whatever means without regard to moral or humanitarian considerations."

Total war then, is immoral and seeks to win at any cost, even sacrificing goodness, morality, and justice.  In other words, it's unleashing the basest of human desires upon the enemy and doing anything to win at any cost.

This is not only immoral, but also illegal, according to the Geneva Convention, which was set up to put rules upon war so that innocent people would be spared. 

War, then, is supposed to be between two nations and fought only between soldiers of those nations, and not upon the innocent citizens of those nations. 

SHERMAN'S BELIEFS THAT CHANGED THE CIVILITY OF WAR

Even in the 1860's, soldiers were still taught the importance of "Civil War" or better stated "Civility" in war.

But General William Tecumseh Sherman changed all that.  Sherman believed, and I quote him, "The government of the U.S. has any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war--to take their lives, their homes, their land, their everything--war is simply unrestrained by the Constitution...to the persistent secessionist, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better."

He further stated to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton:  "There is a class of people, men, women and children, who must be killed or banished before you can can hope for peace and order."

Such statements remind us of Hitler and his "final solution" against the Jews.  Yet Hitler's atrocities are horribly remembered and even preached against, while Sherman's go unmentioned.  Why is this?  Especially since the policy of "Total War" which Sherman practiced eventually led to Hitler's actions.  (We'll get to that in a minute.)

When most people think of Sherman, they automatically think of his burning of Atlanta, a criminal act if ever there was one.  Sherman attacked the South, and his armies burned, pillaged, and robbed as he went, taking everything he could from the citizens so they would be helpless to retaliate or help Southern soldiers do the same.

This was him putting his belief of "Total War" into practice, and practiced it he did on many ocassions.  As he marched farther South he destroyed livestock, agriculture, homes, and more, leaving citizens to starve in the cold.  His exact orders to his troops were to "make Georgia howl" as Southerners suffered countless atrocities and feared his swift hand.  Rapes of Southern women were commonplace, so were looting and executions.  In most towns all lumber from homes, factories, and churches were gathered together and torched until all that was left was a huge pile of ash.  The South was left destitute.

THE RELIGION OF WAR

Even though war is horrible, it does happen.  So to keep it from being too horrid and to get too far out of hand, rules were set up to protect the citizens.  Christian ideals, then, are what lead to the "rules of war," as Christian morals dictated that there were some things that you just can't do during war. 

But Sherman cared not for Christianity or Christian rules of war.  Morality mattered little to Sherman.  And his lack of following the rules led to his soldiers becoming not only irreligious, but sacreligious.

Soldiers under Sherman were some of the wickedest and most debauched men.  As they pillaged the South, they would often sing, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," as they carried out their atrocities. 

On one ocassion, soldiers of Sherman taunted nuns, and blew cigar smoke in their faces, yelling, "Oh, holy! Yes, Holy! We're just as holy as you are!  Now, what do you think of God?  Ain't Sherman greater?"

Of Sherman and his soldier's atrocities towards the Southern people, there is not time to write here.  Death, destruction, dearth, devilment, and depravity followed him wherever he went as countless thousands of Southern people suffered unimaginable terror at his hand.  Morals were thrown out the window, and for his soldiers, war became an excuse to unleash their basest depravations upon others.

SHERMAN'S LACK OF CONCERN

That Sherman was unmoved by what his soldiers did is clearly seen in his letter to Major R.M. Sawyer, in which he says, "We of the North are beyond question, right in our lawful cause...Next year your lands will be taken; for in war we can take them, and rightfully too; and in another year they may beg in vain for their lives."

Captain Daniel Oakley fo the 2nd Mass. commented: "It was sad to see the wanton destruction of property...[as they committed] every sort of outrage."

I could go on and one with the horrendous evil that Sherman and his hordes unleashed against the Southern People.  And if that was all Sherman was guilty of, he would be rightfully convicted of his crimes.  But that's not the worst of it.  What Sherman did had not been done before in modern warfare.  It was not only unlawful and immoral, but it was the first time someone did such a thing.  For hundreds and thousands of years a moral conduct in war was followed, in which armies met each other face to face upon battlefields and fought only each other, not the populace. There was even "honor" in war which kept men from criminal activicty, and soldiers who engaged in misconduct were "court martialed" for their crimes.

But Sherman somehow got away with what he did.  And he not only practiced "Total War" by burning, pillaging, and raping the innocent citizens of the South, but he also did things that had not been done before, and were not only unlawful but unheard of, such as: executing random civilians, using prisoners of war to clear minefields, and illegally seizing private property at his whem.  And Sherman didn't seem to care that what he was doing was immoral, much less illegal.

So widespread was the terror under Sherman that many Southerners left the South for Texas.  Finding and empty homes with the letters GTT (standing for "Gone to Texas") painted on the door was commonplace throughout the South, as people fled for their lives.  There was no law, not even martial law.  It was pandimonium and anarchy.  It was terror in its evilest form.  And there was no justice.

THE FRUIT OF SHERMAN'S EVIL

Because of Sherman's actions, and his not being prosecuted for his war crimes, a precedent was set, which lead to much more atrocities later.  Seeing no reprucussions for what Sherman did, many of Sherman's cohorts accepted his method of total warfare and practiced it as well. 

Gen. Philip Sheridan was one of those who believed in the absolute correctness of the state (known as "Statism"), and how that gave soldiers a license to do whatever they desired in war to bring the opposition to subjection or demise. 

Sheridan used Sherman's methods in war agains the Indians by destroying Indians food supplies and even massacring Indians at his will.  Many other soldiers bought into this method and cruelly massacred Indians without feeling.  (Later we see others following this form of war in Vietnam, Korea, etc.)

THE NAZI CONNECTION

Eventually, Sheridan was invited in 1870 to the European nation of Prussia to speak with Prussian Army Officers.  There he advised the Total War Policy by saying, "First, deal as hard blows to the enemy's soldiers as possible, and then cause so much suffering to the inhabitants of the country that they will long for peace adn press their government to make it...  Nothing should be left to the people but eyes to lament the war."

This sadistic advice not only sounds like Sherman, but it is also immoral and unlawful.  But because Sherman did it and got away with it, it became the standard operation procedure from there on, eventually even being adopted by Adolf Hitler and his military actions.   

Nazis were cruel and unfeeling in their means of warfare.  From their first action in the revolution in Spain, to their attacking Poland, they thought nothing of firing upon the unarmed refugees with their dive bombers.  And as they grew in pride and dominion, they eventually heartlessly murded Jews in concentration camps.  But how could they do such things and not feel they are wrong?  How could they go against the Geneva Convention?  How could they be so immoral? 

It all goes back to Sherman.  He did it, others saw it, and then they followed suit.  Sherman's attitude was "My government is right and you are wrong, that gives me the right to do wrong towards you and kill you!"

This led to others believing the same and serving their governments in the same fashion.

SUMMARY

So why is Sherman not preached against today?  Why wasn't he tried for war crimes?  How did he get away with his "Total War" policy which produced injustice upon countless numbers of people not only in the "Civil War" (Better stated the "Un-Civil War), but in following wars as well?

The answer is that the victors are the ones who write the history books.  And they chose to honor Sherman who they believe helped to bring the "Civil War" (It's hard to call it that anymore, isn't it) to a more timely end.  

But knowing what you now know about Sherman, do you think he was a hero?  Or was he a villian?

Whatever he was, we still see Sherman's policy at work today as our Governement bombs Afghanistan and Iraq and countless innocent civilians are injured and even killed.  Is that right? 

You'll have to decide all this for yourself. 

So how did Sherman feel about all this in his later years.  That we don't know.  It's been said, time and again, that Sherman drank a lot, probably to forget what he and his soldiers did. 

There was also a push to make Sherman President, but refused, with the famous words: "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."

Was this because he didn't feel worthy to be President because of his war crimes?  Who knows.

All we know was that what Sherman did was both immoral and illegal.  And his "Total War" approach led to America and even Nazi Germany to practicing the same thing.  (America against Indians and Germany against Jews).  And it is still being practiced today with every new war, as citizens are slaughtered and massacred by evil regimes who believe in wiping out entirely all opposition. 

All because of Sherman.

The Real Lincoln

It's interesting how history can remember someone so differently then they actually were.  Even more interesting how historians can omit certain facts, or twist them ever so slightly to make a man seem like he was a hero, when he was actually a tyrant. 

Today when we hear about Abraham Lincoln, we are told he is a great man, a defender of the union, and an unwavering President who did the best he could to try to keep the union together amidst a nation divided.  We are further told he is the great "emancipator" of the slaves who cared about the freedom of others while he defended the liberties of all of those under the constitution.  And after his death, he has been almost exalted to sainthood in most history books, while modern rhetoric uplifts him to the throne of one of the greatest leaders of all time.

But history books do very little to portray the man as he actually was.  (Maybe there is a reason that his bust is on the penny - the smallest denomination of any american coin.)

The real Lincoln was anything but what modern propogandizers try to make him out to be.  The facts of history prove who he really was.  And as I try to present just a few facts that history overlooks, maybe you'll see Lincoln as he really was.  And, maybe this will stir you on to read more about the man.  What we really need are more history books written with "facts" and not with "feelings."  For as we see the man as he was in his context, we find a greatly different picture than what we are given in school, in newspapers, in history books, and in stone.  Yes, it's true that he might have done much good.  But he also is responsible for much pain and anguish to countless millions as well.

LINCOLN'S REAL LINEAGE

According to Fritz Springmeyer, in his book "Bloodlines of the Illuminati," Abraham Lincoln was really a bastard child of the Rothschilds.  The story, if true, (and who really knows), is that Lincoln's mother was a mistress to the Rothschilds and for this reason history finds no information about any Mr. "Lincoln" who was supposedly Abraham's father.  Now this story is of course up for debate.  And, I'm not saying I swallow it at all!  But it is worthy of note.   And, it is interesting that as we study history, we find there have been many men in power who were like Mr. Lincoln allegedly, children of the Rothschild clan, who were born of illegitimate means and were given favor by their fathers and eventually put into places of power in order to complete the agenda of the power elite.  This then, could explain Lincoln's quick rise from lawyer, to Illinois state legislator, then to President, and is worthy of further study.

LINCOLN'S REAL BELIEF ABOUT SLAVERY AND COLORED PEOPLE

Whether Lincoln was a Rothschild by blood or not is really not important.  What is important is the man himself and what he believed.  For we are told he was a God-fearing man who believed in the constitution and hated slavery with a passion, and this is why he freed the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation.

Nothing could be further than the truth, however, for as we read the words of Lincoln himself, we find that abolishing slavery was not important to him at all.  On August 22, 1861, we read Lincoln's words to a Mr. Horace Greely, an abolitionist editor of the New York Tribune:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.  What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps save the Union."

That Lincoln didn't like colored people is no secret.  In fact, he didn't even think they were "equal" with the whites at all.  In 1862 Lincoln met with free blacks in the White House where he addressed them in the following manner:

"You and we are of different races.  Your race suffers very greatly by living among us while ours suffers from your presence.  Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being on equality with the white man...  Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.  I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as fact.  It is better for us, therefore, to be separated."

Even way back in 1858 in a debate with Stephen Douglas in Ottawa, Illinois, Lincoln stated:

"I will say that I am not...in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people...  Anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the Negro is but a specious and fantastic arragment of words, by which a man can prove a horse chestnut to be a chestnut horse."

The idea that Lincoln freed the slaves out of a heart-felt love and desire to see them freed from bondage is outrageous.  The truth is Lincoln issued the "emancipation proclamation" for two reasons:

1.  In the hopes that slaves freed in the South would revolt against their masters, thus bringing the war to a quicker end.

2.  To eventually send all colored people back to colonize Africa.

Lincoln's plan to send slaves back to Africa was seen in his message to Congress on December 1, 1862, when he states, "I cannot make it better known that it already is, that I strongly favor colonization."

The cost would have been eight million dollars to send all the freed slaves back to their mother country.  But before Lincoln could complete his plan, he was assassinated.

LINCOLN'S REAL REASON FOR STARTING WAR

Many people today believe (because history books have so erroneously repeated it so often) that the "Civil War" (otherwise known as the war of Northern Agression, or the war for Southern Independence) was only about the issue of Slavery and nothing else.  But this is avery askewed view of history.  As we've seen Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist, nor did he care for the colored people (was he "racist?"  I'll let you decide as you study him more and his own words about colored people).  So even though slavery might have been an issue, it was not the THE ISSUE which started the war.

Others have said the cause of the war was the battle over "states rights" or the constitutional right for a state to secede from the Union any time they so desired.  (Note: several NORTHERN states threatened secession from the Union on various ocassions since 1776.  So it wasn't just the South who started the idea).  But even though "states rights" was a part of what led to war, it was not the main cause of war.

The main cause of the "Civil War" was the very same reason for the great war of Independence against Britan not seventy years before.  It was over taxation.  (Remember the cry of the colonies against England, "No taxation without equal representation!")  The highly populated Northern Industrialized society gained more power in the senate and they used that power to tax the agricultural South. This taxation was almost to the point of outright extortion, as the Northern tariffs took more and more from Southern farmers.

The straw that broke the Camel's back was the "Morrill Tariff," (which interestingly enough sounds like a "moral tariff"), which raised the tariffs the South had to pay to the North from 15% to an eventual 47%. 

When Lincoln was elected he endorsed the Morrill Tariff in his inaugural adress and determined to collect it.  This lead to the South's much mistrust of the man, and eventually to the South's leaving the Union.

In April 4, 1861 Colonel John baldwin, a delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention secretly met with Lincoln to persuade him to avert war at all costs and call off his blockade of Charleston.  Lincoln's response was, "And open Charleston as ports of entry with their ten percent tariff?  What then would become of my tariff?"

Without devling too deeply into the taxation issue, a famous quote will suffice to prove the main cause of war was the Northern heavy taxation on the South:  "Had there been no Morill Tariff there might never have been a war!"

But taxation was not the only reason for war. There was also a spiritual aspect towards the animosity between North and South.  The North was full of Unitarians and Universalists who took a liberal view of the Bible and the constitution, while the majority of Southerners took a literal view of the scriptures and the founding documents of the country.  This led to the South looking at the North not only as extortioners who through taxes tried to steal their fruits of their hard earned labor, but as apostates as well who sought to liberalize the South with their humanistic teachings, and take away their God-given constitutional rights.

Where did Lincoln fit in of this?  Lincoln did not take a literal view of the constitution.  Nor did he agree with the portion that allowed secession of states.  For Lincoln, UNITY and UNION were to be preserved at all costs, as his later writings proved. 

However, Lincoln did not always believe this.  In 1848 he stated the following:  "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better.  This is a most valuable and most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

Notice, no where does he mention it is a "constitutional right" rather just a "sacred" right which is to be determined not by law, rather by "power" and "inclination."

Had Lincoln followed the constitution, he would have no choice to let the South go, for the constitution allowed secession.  However, Lincoln instead chose to let war decide whether or not the South would be able to "shake off" the existing governement.

LINCOLN'S WAR

Even Northern Newspapers time and again wrote of the right to secede from the Union.  Historian Howard Cecil Perkins compiled 495 Norther newspaper editorials from 1860 to 1861 which spoke of the right of sucession.  The Bangor Maine Daily Union newspaper even stated the obvious on Nov. 12, 1860, "Union depends upon the free consent and will of the sovereign people of each state, and when that consent and will is withdrawn on either part, their Union is gone.  A state coerced to remain in the Union is 'a subject providence' and can never be a co-equal member of the American Union."

You would have thought, since the South wanted a peaceable separation that Lincoln would have desired the same.  War is a terrible thing full of atrocities, murders, destruction, and the base desires of men unleashed on others.  Surely the "Great Mr. Lincoln" would have done all he could to avoid such a horrible thing!

Clearly he did not, as history proves otherwise. 

History written after the war places the blame for starting the war on the South as they fired the first shot.  But even law during the time stated that the first to show a force of agression or a desire to use force on others was the guilty party.  And, it was Lincoln who sent a blockade to Charleston Harbor to reinforce Ft. Sumter.  The South did all they could for the Union troops in the Fort, even giving them the priviledge of setting the date they would leave.  They even gave them food daily as their rations had run out.  But being that the Ft. was the sovereign territory of the state of South Carolina, the South believed it belonged to them and they did all they could to obtain it peaceably.  Lincoln saw otherwise, and sent his fleet to Ft. Sumter with the intention of keeping the fort and pressuring the South to shoot first, so he could blame them for starting the war.

President Jefferson Davis of the South saw this as an act of war and said to his cabinet: "The order for the sending of the fleet was a declaration of war.  The responsiblity is on their shoulders, not on ours.  The juggle for position as to who shall fire the first shot in such an hour is unworthy of a great people and their cause.  A deadly wapon has been aimed at our heart.  Only a fool would wait until the first shot has been fired."

The South's firing upon Ft. Sumter was then an act of self-defense so that the fort could be occupied by the South in order to defend themselves from the invading North.  However, Lincoln did not view it this way, and Northern newspapers spun the story to vilify the South as the "attackers" who started the war by firing first upon Union troops.  (This is quite reminescient of the beginning of the War against Britian for the Independence of the Colonies.  It was the British that shot first in Boston, and they were blamed for starting the war, even though the Colonies wanted to seceed and actually egged on the violence).  (This also would be like someone sending troops to your house to shoot you, and as you shoot at them in self-defense as they are entering your house, they claim, "You are the bad guy, cause you shot the first bullet!"  No, they were there to shoot you!)

Lincoln's response to the firing upon Ft. Sumter was to start a draft into which he ordered 75,000 troops be assembled.  He further suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, a fundamental right in which no one could be jailed without cause.  And he ordered Newspapers which were friendly to the Southern cause immediately closed.  Only papers which favored the Northern War effort were allowed to remain in business.  If that weren't bad enough, he also arrested people at his will under nothing more than "suspicion" of being sympathetic to the Southern Cause.

Although history never mentions it, (because the North won the war and then they wrote the history books about it), it was nothing short of a coup de etat, in which Lincoln through martial law became the chief ruler of the entire Union.

Lincoln firther sent cables to the state governors of Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland, ordering them to send troops for his cause of subduing what he called the "rebel South."  The responses of these governors are worthy of note.

Governor Jackson of Missouri replied, "Your requistion is illegal, unconstitutional, revolutionary, inhuman, diabolical, and cannot be complied with!"

Governor Magoffin of Kentucky stated, "I say emphatically Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern states!"

What was Lincoln's response?  He immediately sent Federal troops to occuppy Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland.  An interesting note, that gives us insight into how people in the time view Lincoln's actions is the state song of Maryland written by James Ryder Randall in 1861.  It was written against Lincoln and his tyrannical occupation of the state.  The first line says it all:  "The Despot's hell in on they shore, Maryland, My Maryland."

The London Saturday Review in England commented on Lincoln's actions in the following way: "It was as perfect an act of despotism as can be conceived.  It was a coup de etat in every essential feature."

All civil liberties were lost in America by Lincoln's actions.  Lincoln's Secretary of State, William seward even bragged to a British ambassador, "I can touch a bell on my right hand, and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio.  I can touch the bell again, and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York: and no power on earth except that of the President, can release them.  Can the Queen of England do so much?"

All who criticized Lincoln's actions were immediately arrested and thrown in jail.  Preachers who lamblasted Lincoln's villany were immediately taken prisoners from their own pulpits.  And martial law ruled the land.  Lincoln was nothing short of a "Dictator" of the United States of America.

Because of Lincoln's actions he found that the South was not his only enemy.  There were Riots in the North as well.  Especially in New York where 50,000 men revolted against being "drafted" against their will to serve the Northern cause.  Lincoln called Federal troops to quell the rebellion and it took four days to supress the revolt.  Thousands died and an estimated 14,000 to 38,000 were arrested.

Yes, Lincoln was no "saint."  He seated himself nicely in power as President and not only gained to himself  "dictatorial" powers throughout the conflict, but he also absolved the write of habeus corpus, went against the constitution, and forced through a national draft thousands to enlist in his army.  If that weren't bad enough, he further gave his Federal soldiers the right to vote in elections (even though they were from different states), which lead to Maryland's vote to seceed from the Union being voted down.  (So much for free elections).

Further, Lincoln started a heavy income tax, as well as a strong central bank, as the North went into massive debt with the war.  (Ever heard of the saying, "It ain't worth a Greenback?"  That's came from all this).

Probably the worst part of "Lincoln's War" was the consignment of the basest of men into his army, and the enlistment of convicted criminals into the ranks.  Because of this, many a Northern Soldier became nothing more than a mercenary who had nothing to lose by everything to gain from his conquest of the South.  This lead to unspeakable atrocities which would make even the most austere of men to blush.  

I quote one source:

"The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed.  Foreign mercenaries and the scum of the cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on the women..."

This of course was "raping" and "stealing" from Southern women who were left at home as their husbands were fighting to defend their homelands from invasion. 

Further, General Sherman's crusades into the deep South are full of atrocities as his philosophy of "total war" devestated the South as he burned everything in his path and stole all the food, clothing, and goods he could get a hold of for his soldiers leaving civilians without food, shelter, or even their own dignity. 

History tells us that thousands of freed blacks followed Sherman's army, but rather than finding relief and acceptance, they were given the cold shoulder and history further records thousands dying of starvation as they followed Sherman's death machine toward Atlanta.

Lincoln's war was one of the bloodiest of all time.  Even Europeans were appauled at the outrageous figures of the number of dead who died in battle.  Yet, Lincoln could have stopped the war at anytime.  Especially since the Supreme Court declared the actions of the South in suceeding as clearly "Constitutional" in nature.

But Lincoln did not stop the war.

THE LEGACY OF LINCOLN

Clearly the war was not about the slavery of blacks, rather about the enslaving of whites in the South and subjugating them for their heinous "sin" of not paying their tariffs to the North.

I could go on and on with more historical facts.  Even the Bible tells us, "The love of money is the root of all evil."  If you want to study history and find the real truth, everyone knows you simply, "Follow the money trail."

There is much more that we could say about Lincoln, but this should be enough to show you the real man.  Sure, it's easy to argue he didn't know what he was doing, or that he did the best he could in the situation he inherited.  I'm not attacking the man's character.  However, I do believe it's important to see him as he really was, and to realize the way he is portrayed today is not the man that history records.  His legacy as we know it was written by his followers who looked at the good he did, not the bad.

Because Lincoln was eventually assassinated, he became an instant Martyr for the North, and was exalted after the war as a great "Uniter" and "Emancipator" for his actions.  But with all we've looked at above one must ask, "Was he indeed a true hero, or was he rather a Dictator bent on the subjugation of the South?  Or was he a guy that didn't know what he was doing, as he took away many constitutional liberties and freedoms?"

This is for you to decide for yourself.  The old saying is that History is always written by the victor.  Thus, the voice of the conquered is drowned out. 

But as you look at the life of old "Honest Abe" and the facts of History, it's hard to line up the modern teachings about him with what the real Lincoln was like.  He was a tall, austere man who viewed the Constitution as outdated and in need of change.  And instead of going about that change through constitutional means of voting, he chose war to decide the outcome, and His actions led to the deaths of over one million people.  (Conservative estimates I've read were the outcome of the war was the deaths of 700,000 Union troops and 300,000 Southern soldiers.) 

Lincoln does redeem himself, however, with his desire for "reconstruction."  He had a plan to rebuild the South after he destroyed it.  But his assassination led instead to a great "raping" of the South by "Carpet Baggers" who flocked to the South in droves to glean anything they could from the conquered and downtrodden masses.  History tells us of even more injustice which followed, of which we will not go into here.  What he started lead to the death of so many and great injustices against the Southern People, who are even now looked at as "racists" by the ignorant and unlearned who still don't know what the Civil War was about.  Had the South won, they would have been looked upon as "Freedom Fighters" who sought their Independece from a Tyrannical Government who sought to tax them and put them in bondage (just as we look at the Founding Fathers today in their struggle against King George).  But they lost, and instead were proclaimed as "rebels" and "troublemakers" who attacked the North and started the war.  Slavery later became a reason to make the North look just in their cause, as they "liberated" the slaves.  And instead of a "despot" Lincoln was made into a hero.  Was he?  I'll let you decide.

I only hope this article will show you the real Lincoln and the fruit of his policies, one which you might never have known existed, and it will help you to take a closer look at history.  For the only thing men never learn from history, is that men never learn from history.