Monday, February 21, 2011

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.


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. 


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.


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.


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.


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.)


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.


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.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

A Living Historian

I've lately come in contact with a young man named Bryce Chandler, who is very knowledgable in the Civil War, as he has written several books about it.  He is also a "living historian" who gives history lessons to others as he dresses up in period uniforms and talks about historical facts.  His website/blog is:

I thoroughly enjoyed reading about him and his blog.  He is an amazing young man.

His information is worth a read.