US

So Where Did the Civil War Start? Move Over SC, One Town Says ‘Florida’

GULF ISLANDS NATIONAL SEASHORE, Fla. (AP) — A raid 150 years ago by Confederate sympathizers on a Union fort at what is now Pensacola Naval Air Station was likely little more than an ill-planned and drunken misadventure, perhaps ended by one soldier’s warning shot — and a blank one, at that.

But don’t tell Pensacola residents that the Jan. 8, 1861, skirmish meant nothing — the event is the stuff of legend in this military town. Some even claim the clash was the Civil War’s first, three months before the battle on April 12, 1861, at South Carolina’s Fort Sumter, which is widely recognized as the start of the war.

So Where Did the Civil War Start? Move Over SC, One Town Says Florida

Dale Cox, the unofficial historian for the Florida Panhandle chapter of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, wrote on his blog that he considers the Pensacola shot the first of the Civil War, saying in an interview that it marked the first time federal troops fired toward Confederate agitators.

“It is an interesting bit of history and I’d like to see Pensacola get more recognition for all of its Civil War history,” he told The Associated Press.

As 1861 dawned, the Union was falling apart. Abraham Lincoln’s election as president the previous November had many Southerners convinced he would ban slavery after taking office that March. South Carolina had seceded on Dec. 20 and other states were about to, including Florida.

Amid the turmoil, about 50 federal troops under the command of Lt. Adam J. Slemmer encamped at Fort Barrancas, at what is now Pensacola Naval Air Station in a fort of the arched brick passageways and tunnels overlooking the turquoise waters and white-sand beaches of Pensacola Bay.

On the night of Jan. 8, the men had raised a drawbridge around the fort, which dated to when Spain controlled Florida, because of growing tensions in the surrounding Naval yard, said historian David Ogden, a ranger at Gulf Islands National Seashore.

According to Slemmer’s report, just after midnight, guards heard footsteps outside and challenged the intruders and heard no response, Ogden said. Slemmer made no mention of shots being fired.

It wasn’t until after the war ended in 1865 that one of the would-be intruders, R.L. Sweetman, wrote to Slemmer and later to Slemmer‘s widow and made reference to the blank shot fired at Fort Barrancas as the war’s beginning.

“In his letter, Sweetman said something like ‘Your husband can claim that he commanded the post where the first shot was fired,’” Ogden said.

So Where Did the Civil War Start? Move Over SC, One Town Says Florida

The letter sparked the local legend that continues to this day — and plays into Pensacolans’ belief that their city has been cheated by history. Then again, they also claim Pensacola and not St. Augustine in the state is the oldest city in North America, based on Pensacola’s original founding in 1559 by the Spanish, compared to 1565 for its Atlantic coast rival. But Pensacola was destroyed by a hurricane two years after its initial founding and the Spanish didn’t return until 1698 — St. Augustine never went out of existence.

“We Americans like to be the first and the biggest and the tallest, and Pensacola has this perennially underdog status,” Ogden said with a laugh.

Ogden and others said it’s a stretch to say what happened at Fort Barrancas started the Civil War — the would-be attackers, a small group of drunken and rowdy locals, left as soon as the warning shot sounded — if there ever was one. The National Park Service has marked some anniversaries of the incident with candlelight tours of the fort.

“I’ve gotten in trouble with locals before who have wanted to make a bigger deal out of this,” Ogden said.

Hours after the Pensacola incident, another pre-war clash took place in South Carolina — cadets from The Citadel military academy manning a battery on Morris Island fired on the steamship Star of the West as it tried to resupply 200 federal troops at Fort Sumter. The cadets forced the steamship to turn back and others consider that action the first shots of the war, not the larger fight that happened at Fort Sumter three months later.

“You can get real far down in the weeds about all of this,” said Winfred B. Moore Jr., The Citadel’s dean of humanities and social studies. “The truth is that what happened on April 12, 1861, at Fort Sumter had far, far greater significance than all of these events that came before.”

On Tuesday, booming cannons marked the 150th anniversary of the war’s outbreak as hundreds of people watched a reenactment of the Confederate bombardment of Union-held Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor — the engagement widely credited with plunging the young nation into a war that dragged on four years and claimed more than 600,000 lives. Union troops surrendered after about 34 hours of bombardment, Lincoln and the Confederates issued calls to arms, and fighting soon commenced.

Moore said it was almost inevitable that the war would begin in South Carolina despite efforts — outlined in documents — of attempts in Florida and elsewhere to avert hostilities.

“But there are a lot of Civil War stories to be told and a lot that have never been adequately told and it’s understandable why people who live close to the history want to give it proper recognition,” he added.

And Civil War history did happen in Pensacola.

Across the bay from Fort Barrancas lies Fort Pickens, where Union troops fended off Confederate attacks for four years and kept Pensacola Bay open to federal ships throughout the war.

On a recent afternoon, Rudy Ynostrosa of Pensacola and his 12-year-old son Nicolas made their way through the maze brick tunnels and stairways that comprise Fort Pickens. Ynostrosa said he has long heard that the war’s first shots were fired in his home town.

“It always amazes me that this was a Union fort and it was out here in the heart of the South,” he said.

Comments (110)

1 2
  • pap pap
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 3:02pm

    Wow !!!

    Very interesting discourse.

    This is a History lesson.

    Report Post »  
  • littleoldme
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 2:48pm

    The Civil War like our Revolutionary War did not start when historians said they did. The civil war started on October 16, 1859, does John Browns raid on Harpers Ferry refresh any memories. The purpose of the raid was to secure arms for the southern uprising. The Revolutionary War on the other hand, the seeds are sown starting in April 14, 1775. The sown seeds of war are actually when wars begin. Yes sometimes when shots fired and then other times when unjust conditions reach a breaking point and bring about organization against those conditions.

    Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 3:16pm

      er…(pssst) John Brown was an abolitionist! He wanted to arm the slaves of WV to rebel AGAINST the south.

      Do you know the name of the US Marine colonel who led US forces against him? There was also a certain young Army Lieutenant there also.

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 3:20pm

      BTW, Bleeding Kansas was before Harper’s Ferry and John Brown led the Pottawatomie Massacre there in 1856.

      You will not pinpoint a specific instance that led to war. It is best to look to the firing on Ft. Sumter as the catalyst that caused Lincoln to declare war.

      Report Post »  
    • momsense
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 11:10pm

      Anteceedents of the Revolutionary War—try Writs of Assistance 1761 Brits claim the right to be able to not only search a mansbusiness for contraband, but also his private property and that of his friends and associates—without a specific warrant.

      Report Post »  
  • april 12 1861
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 2:41pm

    I can see there are a few who have been reading their history.

    In my analysis, the Civil War came down to states rights and the ability of an individual state to secede from the union of states.

    Before it is all over, we all maybe asked a similar question.

    Report Post » april 12 1861  
  • Ronko
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 2:18pm

    I would rather the full history of the Civil War be taught then say that Pensicola was the start of the civil war and not Fort Sumter. I’m glad the Confederates lost.

    Report Post »  
    • Ghostrider
      Posted on April 14, 2011 at 8:03am

      You’re glad the Confederates lost? What the. Why. When states signed on to the Constitution, they also had the RIGHT to sign out of it. Why would you be glad. Is it just because the darkies got free? Or did they. They now have the democratic party to keep them. They provide food, clothing, shelter, free medical. They got whitey giving them money. They are just as much in slavery, as they were when they actually worked. Now we have to fall all over ourselves because of something the liberals came up with called white guilt. I got no guilt, I got no I feel bad for them. I feel bad for the Indians who were treated worse than any ethnic group, including the Irish. So in conclusion, we still have slavery, brought to you by the democratic party of slave holders, the South was still right, the north still aggressors. The War of Northern Aggression still goes on but without shots being fired.

      Report Post »  
  • wipinitboss
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 2:09pm

    Civil War is defined as one side wanting to take over an entire country. Not one abandoning an already broken and breeched contract.
    If the compact known as the Constitution were to have been followed, we might have about three or four countries of several states each, even some not contiguous with each other. When a government’s treacherous behavior is never corrected, it leads to ever increasing encroachment on an idea Lincoln had no knowledge of; LIBERTY.

    Report Post »  
  • hrandym
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 1:26pm

    Is it really important where the War started? I think not. I will accept any location and that location may well be the exact spot. I don’t care.

    The North didn’t give a dam% about slavery: it was money. The North imposed excessive taxation on trade with Europe, a primary source of Southern income. The North wanted to force a better deal for themselves on Southern raw materials (cotton, etc.) and used taxation to achieve that. It was also about the cost of labor in new states, still a matter of money. It is ALWAYS money.The different opinions are interesting. The War started long before 1861 and the record can be traced in the Congressional Record of the time. Slavery was used as a “cause” to rally the North against an unpopular war. The Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until 1863 after the War was well underway. It only freed slaves of States in rebellion. Hence if a State ceased to be in rebellion, it could retain its slaves. Lincoln seemed to be playing both side to bring the War to a close.

    The whole affair is too complex to nail it down to any specific action. It happened and that’s that. Everyone is free to believe what they wish. That is one of the beauties of this Nation. I intend to continue to study the various records of our history. History books need to be read with an understanding of the author. The War Between the States was an ugly period in our history. We would be wise to thoroughly investigate the way the conflict developed so we could learn from that.

    Report Post » hrandym  
  • reckless
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 1:22pm

    Nevermind the last Civil War.
    Any bets as to where the first shots will be fired in the one upcoming?

    Report Post »  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 1:55pm

      hopefully in your kitchen

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
    • monroecounty
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 2:34pm

      I say the first state to cut off welfare checks….either Texas, Alabama or South Carolina………
      We are stocking up on #3 buckshot…41 pellets, just aim and shoot!!!!! You can’t miss!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 3:28pm

      monroecounty:

      “I say the first state to cut off welfare checks….either Texas, Alabama or South Carolina………
      We are stocking up on #3 buckshot…41 pellets, just aim and shoot!!!!! You can’t miss!!!!”

      ————————————————————–

      YeeeHaw, you get’em boy! I sure do hope you is loaded and rarin. to go. Boy, I say, boy, who ya gonna shoot first? You gonna’ get you a yeller bellied yankee or you gonna get you some colored folk (sorry, I cannot use a defamatory expression even in jest).

      I sure hope you do not get your wish. I do not want you to have to watch everyone you know and love killed in a senseless war simply because of a political disagreement. We do not need our country ripped apart that way again. You just use your gun for game and show up at the polling place when it is time to vote.

      Report Post »  
  • elosogrande
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 12:55pm

    There’s some facts regarding the cause of The Civil War that are seldom brought up.
    The southern states were growing massive amounts of cotton, for sale to the highest bidder.
    The English wanted the cotton, and they were willing to pay the price.
    New Englanders wanted the cotton as well, but at their price. (Lower, of course)
    The Southerners continued to sell their cotton to the English.
    The northern industrialists didn’t give a damn about slavery, but they did give a damn about the cotton.
    Sure, slavery might have been a part of the reason for going to war, but cotton was the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

    Report Post »  
    • EP46
      Posted on April 15, 2011 at 6:10am

      Thanks, the entire ‘Civil” war has been high jacked. First..there was no “CIVIL” war, it was the War Between the State. Progressives in their ‘word change’ re-named the war to fill their needs.

      Taxes, State’s Rights, and King Cotton were the reasons for the war. After 2 years into the war when England and France were threatening to give military help to the south, the advisers around President convinced him that if they made the war about slavery the other countries would not help the south. So they did…2 years in..it changed to being about slaves. The south provided almost all cotton to England and France and their economies were suffering greatly from loss of imports. They were ready to stand with the south. Progressives have twisted the War Between the States to a total tale of fiction, If you are young and do not know the true history, find some old history books that tell the true story of the war. It was the War that broke America’s heart, but you might be surprised by the True Story.

      Report Post »  
  • ImFromTexas
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 12:37pm

    The results of the civil.

    1. Union Preserved
    2. Slavery ended
    3. 600,000 dead.
    4. All states (even union) will have reduced state rights.
    5. The constitution can be ignored for the greater good. (implied powers..men above laws)

    So was the civil war important in today’s modern society? YES – its how we got to the point where following the constitution is almost laughable.

    Dave D.

    Report Post »  
  • monroecounty
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 12:12pm

    Add your comments

    Report Post »  
    • monroecounty
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 12:21pm

      If anyone with any sense at all believes that the “War Between the States” was fought over Slavery you are too far indoctrinated by the progressive mindset to understand true and real history. Slavery was not an issue until years later when it suited the northern, liberal, progressive agenda..

      Report Post »  
  • monroecounty
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 12:11pm

    The North waged war on Southern civilians for four long years, murdering at least 50,000 civilians and at least 300,0000 soldiers, according to historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. It bombed cities like Atlanta for days at a time when they were occupied by no one but civilians, and U.S. Army soldiers looted, ransacked, and raped their way all throughout the South. The “arts of peace” indeed.

    As for the war being a victory of “manners,” as yankee historians say, consider this: When the women of New Orleans refused to genuflect to U.S. Army troops who were occupying their city and killing their husbands, sons and brothers, General Benjamin “Beast” Butler issued an order that all the women of that city were to henceforth be treated as prostitutes. “As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women . . . of New Orleans,” Butler wrote in his General Order Number 28 on May 15, 1862, “it is ordered that thereafter when any female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.” Butler’s order was widely construed as a license for rape, and he was condemned by the whole world. Ah, those Yankee “manners.”

    The victory of “a democratic nation” (the North) by the historians of the victors. But during the war the North was anything but “democratic”: Lincoln illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political critics without any due process; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers; deported Congressman Clement Vallandigham of Ohio for criticizing him; threatened to imprison Chief Justice Roger B. Taney for issuing the (correct) opinion that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional; censored all telegraphs; rigged elections; imprisoned duly elected members of the Maryland legislature along with Congressman Henry May of Baltimore and the mayor of Baltimore; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia to give the Republican Party two more U.S. senators; confiscated firearms in the border states in violation of the Second Amendment; and committed a grand act of treason by invading the sovereign states of the South (Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as “only” levying war against the states, or giving aid and comfort to their enemies).

    Northern liberals are right about democracy in a sense: Democracy is essentially one big organized act of bullying whereby a larger group bullies a smaller group in order to plunder it with taxes. The “Civil War” proved that whenever a smaller group has finally had enough, and attempts to leave the game, the larger group will resort to anything – even the mass murder of hundreds of thousands and the bombing and burning of entire cities – to get its way. After all, in his first inaugural address Lincoln literally threatened “force,“ ”invasion“ and ”bloodshed” (his exact words) in any state that refused to pay the federal tariff, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier. He followed through with his threat. This is “the kind of nation We believe in,” say the ignorant, liberal elitist class of the North and the Democratic Party…..

    Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 12:57pm

      Lincoln’s executive usurpations to the contrary notwithstanding, I have always believed that the Civil War was the one great historical exception to the general rule that “democracies do not make war on one another.” The North held a largely free and open presidential election at the height of the struggle, while the South was at least a sort of “Herrenvolk democracy” where white men enoyed equal rights.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
  • American_Alliance_for_the_Support_of_Sarcasm
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 12:07pm

    Nope sorry, South Carolina owns this one.

    Report Post » American_Alliance_for_the_Support_of_Sarcasm  
  • aaronkcmo
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 11:41am

    The Civil War started in 1850 in Missouri and the Kanzas Territory by a political insurgency directed by the terrorist group ‘Massachusetts Emmigrant Aid Society’. Missourians had been fighting and dying for the Union against the terrorists in KT for a decade before any shots were fired in South Carolina or Florida. Being a Missourian I am personally offended that either state takes claim to being the birthplace of the conflict.

    Report Post »  
  • BacktotheFounders
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 11:29am

    Sorry, stifroc. Your spin is at odds with the facts. Have you heard of the Corwin Amendment?

    “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

    On February 28, 1861, the House of Representatives approved the resolution by a vote of 133–65. On March 2, the United States Senate also adopted it, 24–12. Since proposed constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority, 132 votes were required in the House and 24 in the Senate. As seven slave states had already decided to secede from the Union, those states chose not to vote on the Corwin Amendment.

    Outgoing President James Buchanan endorsed the Corwin Amendment by taking the unusual step of signing it. Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, supported the Corwin Amendment: “Holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln penned a letter to each governor asking for them to support the Corwin Amendment. However, Presidents play no formal role in the amendment process.

    Express and irrevocable = forever and permanently.

    So, even though a president had no part in the passage of amendments, Lincoln went out of his way to support it.

    Sounds like a great deal for the South. Why would they not jump at a chance to have a Permanent Slavery Amendment? Because they would still have to pay the exhorbitant tariffs that the Northern states were imposing on them, and that is why they seceded.

    Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 12:53pm

      How many states North or South actually ratified the Corwin Amendment?

      Did it even matter, since the Lower South had already seceded and was resolved not to rejoin the US unless forced back in?

      The tariff was a red herring from the outset, it was barely brought up at the various southern secession conventions and hardly mentioned in the secession ordinances.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 6:17pm

      About everything you’d want to know about the Corwin Amendment, including the fact its still on the books and could be ratified at any moment.
      http://ghostamendment.com/

      The timeline is significant. Only Maryland, Ohio, and Illinois officially ratified it, but the actual members of the US congress and their respective states who adopted it – I have not be able to find (I‘m sure they don’t want to be found out). By the time it went out to states to be ratified, Sumter had occured and 5 more states left the Union. By this time it was evident, things were beyond repair.

      Its actually irrelevant. What is relevent is that the Unionists had become so delusional that the slavery issue was of so much importance, they came up with this last ditch effort to appease. When in reality, the division was much deeper and diverse than this single issue. This is not to confuse the importance of the role of slavery in pushing the other issues to the point of no return, but to southerners – this amendment was useless. Their nothern adversaries had shown no previous respect for the Constitution nor its founding principles. One could argue that by this time, even if the prospect of the Corwin amendment was genuine on the part of the Congress to preserve the Union, the South had no faith in the Congress to uphold any of its bargains.

      Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. That’s where this was. Whether anyone likes this or not, had slavery been the single issue of the war – this would have averted it. It didn’t.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
  • OkiePatriot
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 11:27am

    TSUNAMI-22

    I’m preparing for it myself!

    Report Post »  
  • thegreatcarnac
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 11:12am

    The true question is:…. ‘when will the next one start so we can get our country back?’

    Report Post »  
    • SimpleTruths
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 1:50pm

      You really just want to fight somebody don’t you? This “get our country back” BS is just getting old.

      Report Post » SimpleTruths  
    • Patrick Henry II
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 6:10pm

      I only have a bout 80K rounds left. Neighbors all have me outdone. So be it.
      Just kidding. of course.

      Report Post » Patrick Henry II  
  • BacktotheFounders
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 11:12am

    If the War was “about” slavery, then Lincoln would have made a speech in which he explained to the citizens of the North that he was sending their sons to fight a war to free the slaves. Can anyone provide a reference so that we can read this speech? No. Because it doesn’t exist.

    Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 12:27pm

      You are being silly! Lincoln had no intention to free the slaves! We all know that. Lincoln declared war because the south fired on Ft. Sumter. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union. Why did the south want to succeed? To preserve slavery. Look at any of the southern state’s succession documents. We can argue this all day but let’s just go right to the words of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens:

      “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the ***** is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

      The whole speech is very enlightening, it defeats many myths that have cropped up concerning slavery and the Civil War, such as showing that the men of the day fully believed the founding fathers wanted to eliminate slavery from the time of the Constitution.

      http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=76

      Report Post »  
  • vermindust
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 11:08am

    The American Civil War started at Oxford University in 2068, in a mishap involving three intoxicated historians, a box of fire crackers and a time machine. We appologize in advance for the confusion.

    Report Post » vermindust  
  • Bamabelle
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 10:10am

    Swampy, Vicksburg is still upset about that war with good reason. They wouldn’t even celebrate July 4th for many years. I believe they had just started celebrating it when I moved there in 1982. State offices did not close for the holiday but they did for Lee’s birthday.

    Report Post » Bamabelle  
    • SCHEXbp
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 4:43pm

      R U sure that the non-celebration was not because Vicksburg surrendered right around July 4th, 1863 (the same few days Gettysburg occurred)? It was all defensive & downhill for the CSA after that.

      Report Post »  
  • sWampy
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:45am

    It clearly started in vicksburg, MS on Jan. 31, 1861. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VCZpfCI034

    People should really learn their history before they make uninformed claims.

    Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 10:02am

      Swampy says:

      “People should really learn their history before they make uninformed claims.”

      ———————————————————————-

      Why is it that people always do this to try and strengthen their own claims? Like YOU are the only one here who knows history? Really?

      Maybe, as CaptGregg suggests above, the war REALLY started during Bleeding Kansas? It is a suggestive question, there can be more than a single answer.

      Ft. Sumter is recognized as the beginning of the war (not hostilities) and that is fine for the history books. We all know the story is much bigger and more complicated.

      Report Post »  
  • mrsmileyface
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:23am

    I dont subscribe to revisionist history. Fort Sumpter was the start of the Civil War. End of the history lesson.

    Report Post » mrsmileyface  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:55am

      Swampy says:

      “People should really learn their history before they make uninformed claims.”

      ———————————————————————-

      Why is it that people always do this to try and strengthen their own claims? Like YOU are the only one here who knows history? Really?

      Maybe, as CaptGregg suggests above, the war REALLY started during Bleeding Kansas? It is a suggestive question, there can be more than a single answer.

      Ft. Sumter is recognized as the beginning of the war (not hostilities) and that is fine for the history books. We all know the story is much bigger and more complicated.

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 10:03am

      oops, sorry mrssmileyface…

      I hit the wrong reply button…

      Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 10:13am

      Saying that the Civil War “really” began in Kansas is like saying World War II “really” began in Manchuria in 1931 or Spain in 1936.

      The Pensacola and Star of the West incidents occurred before the CSA formally came into existence, and it was only after Fort Sumter that Lincoln called for troops to suppress what he now formally proclaimed to be a “rebellion” too widespread to be suppressed by ordinary law enforcement.

      I conclude that Mrssmileyface is right here. The Civil War began April 12,1861, not before. Poor Pensacola–all this and Joe Scarborough too.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 10:18am

      lloyd,

      I agree. I replied to the wrong post. It should be obvious who I was talking to and what I was saying.

      I said the same thing you did.

      Report Post »  
    • BacktotheFounders
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 10:50am

      Revisionist? Read the FACTS about Barrancas by googling militaryhistoryonline and barrancas.

      Report Post »  
  • Obama Snake Oil Co
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:15am

    Interresting enough, all say this war was over slavery however, google Black Confederate Soldiers….Most of the sites claim they were slaves and servants, however, many adorned uniforms and rifles and fired up on the union…..

    Report Post » Obama Snake Oil Co  
    • Deutscher
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:41am

      Some Jews worked for the nazis. That does not change the facts.

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:47am

      The war was about different things to different people. To some southern blacks the yankee was an enemy coming in to take away their homes, eat their babies and destroy their lives. Slavery was bad but this would be worse. But most knew better, look how many followed Sherman on his march to the sea.

      Likewise, the average southerner fighting in the war probably didn’t much care about slavery. They fought to protect their homeland. Moreso, look at the generals the south had that had graduated, or were attending, West Point; Lee, Jackson, Beauregard, Longstreet, Pickett, J.E.B. Stewart…There are actually many more. These guys fought for their state, not slavery.

      Even many northern generals did not so much mind slavery. Many had even lived in the south, like Sherman. Many were good friends with their southern West Point classmates. They were fighting to preserve the union. Most northern soldiers fought because it was the thing to do. It was adventure, and it would be shameful for them not to go to war. Whole communities signed up. It can be safe to assume that most of these folks did not much care about slavery or the black man.

      However…To say the Civil War was not about slavery is very disingenuous! The southern excuse to this day is state’s rights. But what right were they fighting over?…Yeah…Slavery. Slavery is the biggest grievance listed in the succession treaty of every state that succeeded. The Constitution of the Confederate States makes it a NECESSITY for any state joining the Confederacy TO BE A SLAVE STATE! What was that about state’s RIGHTS? The war was started over and driven by slavery. If it were not for slavery the war would not have happened. You can certainly consider other factors, such as the aversion to Lincoln, the right for a state to succeed, the south’s feeling of inadequate representation in Congress, and economic sanctions placed on the south by the north…But every single one of these issues stems from the question of slavery.

      I try not to look at this war with any subjective influences. There was some good and much bad on both sides. I think the biggest effect this war had on us as a people was that the states lost many rights during and after this war while the Federal government gained power. Beck looks back to Woodrow Wilson as the beginning of progressivism and the crumbling of the “constitutional” American way of life. Beck is wrong. It was the Civil War that changed our way of life. This war was the beginning of the end of this country. If you want to know how the founding fathers envisioned their form of government you have to go back to the time before this war.

      Report Post »  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:48am

      Since Frederick Douglass is Beck & Barton’s favorite source of period african-american perspective, what does he say?

      “It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of the traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas, and they are probably there still. There is a ***** in the army as well as in the fence, and our Government is likely to find it out before the war comes to an end. That the Negroes are numerous in the rebel army, and do for that army its heaviest work, is beyond question. They have been the chief laborers upon those temporary defences in which the rebels have been able to mow down our men. Negroes helped to build the batteries at Charleston. They relieve their gentlemanly and military masters from the stiffening drudgery of the camp, and devote them to the nimble and dexterous use of arms. Rising above vulgar prejudice, the slaveholding rebel accepts the aid of the black man as readily as that of any other. If a bad cause can do this, why should a good cause be less wisely conducted?”

      Published in Douglass’ “Monthly”, September, 1861.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • sWampy
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:59am

      Troll, it’s not disingenuous, less than 2% of southern families owned slaves, thinking 98% of the population would allow their homes burned, property stolen, women and children raped, husbands captures and imprisoned in tents on lake Erie without food for the winter by animals from the north is insane. The civil war was about the south producing all the wealth and the north coming to take it by any means necessary. Almost exactly like today, the middle of the nation produces everything, and all the wealth is migrating there, the coasts are doing anything they can to pass laws that screw the center, they don’t care if they have to throw out the constitution, like Lincoln did, don’t care if they have to use lies and fraud like Lincoln did. Just like the north used the useful idiots saying it was about slavery and used class warfare claiming all southern whites owned slaves and abused them, now they use the useful idiots to destroy the nation with the same class warfare techniques, calling the red states racists, and crying that we need to take from the rich white men, when in all actuality, it’s the rich white men that control the democrat party.

      Report Post »  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 10:13am

      Swampy,

      Let me guess…You live in the south?

      Lol, no one was coming to take anything until the south succeeded.

      What you say is not wrong, only your timeline.

      “less than 2% of southern families owned slaves, thinking 98% of the population would allow their homes burned, property stolen, women and children raped, husbands captures and imprisoned in tents on lake Erie without food for the winter by animals from the north is insane.”

      That is indeed exactly how the south saw it during the war. I am sure you have heard of Andersonville though? ;-) There are two sides to every story and atrocities were committed by both sides. Life was simply cheaper back then.

      “Just like the north used the useful idiots saying it was about slavery and used class warfare claiming all southern whites owned slaves and abused them…”

      So it is okay to own slaves as long as you don’t abuse them? Never mind any of the other questions involved in the war, do you think it would have been a good thing had the south won and slavery was still with us?

      You are mixing and matching today with 1860. They were two different times. I am not interested in looking at the war emotionally. I am saying that the war stemmed from the question of slavery. You can beat around that bush all you like, but bottom line: No slavery, no war.

      Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 10:37am

      Many many many many more blacks took up arms for the Union than for the Confederacy.

      The war was clearly about slavery for the South even before it became about ending slavery for the North. As far back as the nullification crisis of 1832-1833, South Carolinians understood the tariff as a pretext and defense of slavery as the real underlying motivation for their defiance of Federal authority–check statements by Calhoun, Hamilton and McDuffie for confirmation of this.

      Trolltrainer mentions Andersonville. While many prisoners died in both northern and southern prison camps, what happened there was a special case. More and more prisoners were shipped there as the territory controlled by the CSA shrank, leading to more-than-normal overcrowding and, a breakdown of even rudimentary feeding and sanitary discipline in the closing months of the war. It was not the result of a deliberate policy of cruelty any more than deaths at Elmira and elsewhere in the North; Union victory, scapegoating and photographic testimony combined to give it a unique reputation.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 12:16pm

      Trolltrainer,

      I’ve spent alot of time looking at both the US and CS Constitutions. I guarantee that I’m equally skeptical of each in the matter of slavery. I have to respectfully disagree on your assertion that each territory or state was required to be a slave holding state before entry into the CS. Glenn Beck proclaimed this same thing, then backed off and recanted once the actual text was presented in full. Which is:

      CSA Constitution Article IV, Section 3 (3)
      “…In all such territory the institution of ***** slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

      The new states and/or territories could be themselves “free”, but were bound to acknowlege the lawful institutions of the other states at the time of the Constitution. This is ironicly, a clarification of the US Constitution.
      Article IV, Section 2
      “…No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

      Compared to the CSA Constitution on the same matter:
      Article IV Section 2 (3)
      “No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.”

      CSA Article IV, Section 3 (3) is a redundant clarification of Article IV, Section 2 (3). I doubt that the language in Article IV Section 2 (3) is an accident, because no such Constitutional provision would even be necessary if a CSA state could not be free in terms of its own rightful citizens. You’ll notice that the language not only relates to “escaping”, but also “lawfully” transported slaves.

      Such was the rub that turned into a blister that burst. It was the CSA’s contention that the US Constitution had not been upheld. Unfortunately for the US Constitution, the CSA was correct in its criticisms. Modern revisionists overlook the fact that the “fugitives from labor” provision of the US Constitution did not give any of the states the right thereof. The 10th Amendment did not apply, because it was a power ceded by the states to the Constitution.

      Abraham Lincoln himself made this very argument before the Illinois Supreme Court in 1847, in defense of a Kentucky slave owner who also owned land in Illinois.

      Yes, I agree that any discussion of the conflict that does not include the issue of slavery, is disingenuous. Its also disingenuous to lay the entire institution upon the south alone. I’m sure the 5 slave states remaining in the Union were resting their case upon the US Constitution and codified law in protection of slavery during and after the war. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation did just that.

      The CSA inherited it from thier parent country in the exact same way the USA inherited it from Britain. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, all 13 colonies/states lawfully sanctioned the holding of slaves. Jefferson was unanimously prevented from entering slavery as one of the official charges of the colonies against the King.

      I wish Jefferson had been successful in his charge, as the whole conflict in 1861 would possibly be defined by the other charges the CSA Constitution made against the USA, which were actually relevent and correct today.

      We should be objective enough to understand that the war did bring about the end of a long-standing evil in our land, but spawned many more governmental evils that we now suffer the weight of. I am hoping that we can all be honest enough to call all these things by their rightful names and finally get it correct. Neither side was wholly right, nor wholly wrong, but we have the advantage of historical perspective in taking those things that were right from both sides and applying them today.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 12:47pm

      URL,

      I probably should not have mentioned that. It is a bit cloudy. Beck got his information from Wallbuilders founder David Barton. You quoted some of Article 4 section 3, here it is in its entirety:

      “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. ***In all such territory the institution of ***** slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government;*** and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States. ”

      Any new territories will be slave states. Of course all of the existing states were slave states already.

      But I admit this is a gray area and probably should not be argued. I agree with the rest of your post, I do not lay the entire blame on either side. In retrospect, had it NOT been for the issue of slavery the South would have been fighting the good fight. Lincoln did usurp power from not only the states but also the other branches of government. He created unconstitutional precedents that are plaguing us today. The fact still remains that the institution of slavery HAD to end at this point. There was no other way. It is a sad chapter in our history but it is one we should not forget. It is also one we should all try to understand better.

      Report Post »  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 1:43pm

      Trolltrainer,

      The War was coming, whether slavery existed or not.

      Slavery was absolutely the Consitutional issue of explicit charge, because it was explicitly Constitutional. You cannot find documentation, nor quotation, by Lincoln or any other person to prove otherwise. In fact, even the abolishonist’s own writings lament and denote its consitutional intrenchment. That is perhaps the most troubling realization my modern perspective has regarding the issue, that it was sanctioned by the US Constitution. Additionally, it was never addressed as a singular issue in and of itself prior to the war. Rather, it was always used as the vehicle to another issue. Those issues almost always being a transfer of wealth from the South to the North, by taxation.

      Why would the war have occurred in the absence of slavery? There were entirely too many differences of opinion regarding the function of the Federal Government. These are not expressed as explicit Constitutional difference, but stem from Hamilton’s assertion of “implied” powers and interpretation of the US Constitution that the South saw as dangerous to the original intent of the Constitution. Most of the differences in the administrative sections of the CSA Constitution clarify what they felt was the original intent of the Founders. It is hard to separate one’s modern understanding from these clarifications, because they would have prevented many of the situations the USA finds itself in now. In fact, when reviewing the founding documents, we find these “new” provisions to be exactly in line with the original intents of the Constitution.

      These differences were not revealed in the “Declarations” of the original 7 states that seceeded, who drafted and adopted the CSA Constitution. These Declarations concentrated on the explicit issue of slavery, and even though my modern sensitivities cannot agree with the institution, their assertions on the basis of the US Constitution – are correct. However, the vast differences in Governmental philosophy and fiscal responsibility are revealed in the actual CSA Constitution itself. These are alluded to in the Declarations as “well known political heresies”, but are not within the US Constitution.

      So, lets just have a look at them. I’m going to list them and omit language identical to the US Constitution, if discussion follows – we’ll hash them out appropriately.

      Article 2
      Section 1
      (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall be citizens of the Confederate States, and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.

      (5) The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.

      Section 6
      (1)…But Congress may, by law, grant to the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments a seat upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his department.

      (7)…The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.

      The Congress shall have the Power…
      Section 8
      (1) To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States.

      (3) To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

      (7) To establish post offices and post routes; but the expenses of the Post Office Department, after the Ist day of March in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own revenues.

      Section 9
      (10) All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

      (20) Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

      Article 5 Constitutional Amendment
      Section 1
      (1) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention — voting by States — and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof — as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention — they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • trolltrainer
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 2:01pm

      That was certainly a well thought out post but I fear you may be putting the cart before the horse. We do not know what “might” have been, that is anyone’s best guess. We can only examine what was, and even then nothing is ever certain.

      Slavery was certainly not the only issue of the day…But it was the big one. It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Would things had exploded if the founding fathers eliminated slavery from the beginning? That is impossible to answer because most of the circumstances surrounding all the other factors leading to war would have been changed.

      You also have to wonder why the post has not boiled over since. Today is not the first “time of crises” the American people have faced since the Civil War. Heck, if you look back you will see it has almost been a perpetual “time of crises” for America. Many of the same questions and factors we are facing today can be seen in the late 60s-early 70s. Everything changes yet everything stays the same. The federal government just usurps more power…Nixon would be proud…

      Will it boil over in the future? Will there be a second Civil War in this country? I hope not…War is not the answer. Revival is. Succession is simply turning away from the problems.

      Report Post »  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 3:32pm

      Trolltrainer,

      I don‘t think I’m putting the cart before the horse at all.

      If one looks at all the discourse involving the matters of taxation and division leading up to 1861, slavery is ancillary. The answers are actually in the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. Most of the issues clarified in the CSA Constitution have their bearing in the history of the Constitution itself. While much has been made of the slavery issue, it is actually discussed more vehemently in the anti-Federalist papers. If you measure by volume the discussion of slavery in those papers, they aren’t a fraction of the weight given to the avoidance of an overbearing central government.

      In other words, the Constitutional divisions that erupted in 1861, had they been known in 1787 – would have prevented the adoption of the Constitution in the beginning. There would have been no Union to preserve. Many of the issues apart from slavery were asked and answered by the Federalist paper writers. Unfortunately, we know many of the Federalists went on to immediately contradict their arguments in support of the Constitution. Particularly, Mr. Hamilton.

      We forget that the generation that fought the war, was only 3 generations from the formation of the Union under the Constitution. I’m pretty sure they had an even more intimate knowlege and understanding of the exact reasons the Revolution was fought for and the bill of sale regarding the Constitution than we do. By 1861, the two views of what the Constitution and the nation stood for would have been even more stark in contrast than we even see today. Mainly, because the Founder’s vision has been so dimmed to us by the result of the Civil War.

      Numerous times prior, the young country almost came apart over committing Federal usurpations. Just a few: Shay’s rebellion, Northern secession over the war of 1812, the Tarriff of Abominations. All these things, absent any slave narrative, built upon what happened in 1861. It was pretty clear by 1861 that no lasting moderation of the Federal Government could be secured and most of the arguments in favor of the Constitution, as laid out in the Federalist papers, were literally laid in the dust.

      Slavery was the match that lit the fire, but the US government tried in vain to put it out. It must have really seemed rediculous to the rest of the world that a war over slavery was being touted 2 years after it began, yet both sides protected it for themselves. It still seems absurd in the proper context, but we’ve been trained not to see it that way. Somehow the 13th amendment gets applied to the Emancipation Proclamation in retro-spect. Why? Because its the only remotely justifiable reason. If you look at the two sides like a mathematical equation, cancelling out what’s common on each side of the = sign, you have the real problem. As you say, looking at the “other” reasons, the CSA had the good fight on their side.

      What has kept the pot from boiling over since? We haven‘t had to face up to what we’ve done to ourselves. Not until now. It has been the pepetual creation of “crisis” that has taken our focus away from what should have been important – our liberty. We’re living in a time where the creation of so many crises at once has finally broken the smoky glass the Government has kept us behind. We’re looking around and finally asking pertinent questions again. The civil war being one of those things we’d better be looking deeper into than just the approved reading list.

      If we really want to avoid another Civil War, we’d better get honest about the situation and get our house in order. To keep going down the road we’re on, we’re going to repeat history.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • Confederate
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 4:45pm

      Finally someone who has done some research. Yes there were black confederates much to the sagrin of the damm yankee‘s who couldn’t believe the Negros would fight for the South. For those interested you should check the Slave Narratives which were written in the 1920‘s and 30’s. Former slaves were interviewed and almost to a “T” stated that they were better off in the South than with the yankee’s. So much for revisionist history. http://www.confederatepowflag.com

      Report Post » Confederate  
  • 13th Imam
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 8:15am

    Dear Rudy

    “This War is Lost”, Harry Reid. The fort was an American fort before the war began, not a Union fort. And Florida is not considered the heart of the south.

    Report Post » 13th Imam  
  • kickagrandma
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 8:08am

    Oh, boy! Something else to fight over!!!! I can hardly wait!

    NOT!

    Grow up, AMERICA!!!!

    Report Post »  
    • sleazyhippo
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:28am

      At least let us make a few grand from the issue

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • Buck Bagaw
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:49am

      The truth be told, it was about food, the North was trying to capture the Carolina Barbeque Sauce receipe( and yes I spelled it the old way. I’m old!).

      Report Post »  
    • BetterDays
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 10:01am

      Morning Gma : )
      And all this time I though it was because the north stole the “mint julip” recipe.

      Report Post »  
  • ALAN DEBOSKY
    Posted on April 13, 2011 at 8:05am

    civil war started in a bar,,probably a bunch of yank’s,,sittin around jaw jackin about ,,ohh,,lazy southerners,,one being a friend of lincolns,,went back and said,,”hey,,mr lincoln,,these slave owner are cruel,lazy,,no good elitist..we should kick they’re ass,,lincoln said,,yea!! and free those poor folks,,send ‘em on home to they’re culture and loved ones,,,yea,,ok,,,,well,,didnt happen!

    Report Post » ALAN DEBOSKY  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 8:08am

      Another common story that goes around in Pensacola is there were two forts, one held during the war by the union for the duration and the other by the confederates; both sides would fire cannon at the other, yet the range was such the shot will land inside the mudflats just short of the walls or buildings.

      Supposedly each side then at low tide would go out and collect the iron balls to return via cannon the next day to the neighbouring fort.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Breaker 19
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 8:28am

      The cival war started when Loretta Sanchez mocked the southern accent. She’s really that old look at the wrinkles. Plus she’s the one with the accent! I hear tell that something wassup between her and Sherman…

      Report Post » DIOS BENDIGA AMERICA ... JESUCRISTO ES EL SEÑOR!  
    • sleazyhippo
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:27am

      Lets get all wee wee’d up about who became a traitor first! Time to make some noise, boys! Bring on the debate and haul in the Taxed Enough Already patriots to fill our hotels and restaurants while we work this issue to death.

      Unless there is some kind of profit to be made from the bragging rights, no one would care aside from some obscure historians and locals. This marketing campaign would make Donald Trump proud.

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • BetterDays
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:45am

      MR KOTTER, MR KOTTER, I KNOW…I KNOW
      2012 after the Obama machine invalidated the election in which he and his political allies the DemonRats and RINOs were trounced at the ballot box. Obama refused to step down, declared Marshall law, for “the peoples safety” of course, and the rest as they say is history. May I sit down again comrade teacher?

      Report Post »  
    • stifroc
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:48am

      Alan… so you’re saying the Civil War was not to free the slaves? Okay, fair enough I guess. The war was to “preserve the union” because the southern states wanted to secede from the union and become their own country, “The Confederate States of America”.
      Why did they want to secede? The southern states felt the federal Govt. was over reaching in their power and trampling on states rights. They felt this way because there was enormous pressure in congress from the Northern states to pass legislation that would abolish slavery in the USA. The southern states felt that slavery was a states rights issue. So over this primary reason the south walked out of congress and tried to secede from the union.
      So yes, technically the Civil War was not to free the slaves, but to restore and preserve the union. However to remove the issue of slavery as being a major factor behind the cause of the civil war is error.

      Report Post » stifroc  
    • sWampy
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:49am

      The north started the war, when they tried to tax the southern cotton cause like today, they are a bunch of immature babies that contribute nothing to society and want a silver spoon in their mouths from birth till death, and don’t care how many suffer so they can get their way.

      Report Post »  
    • BetterDays
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 9:52am

      One thing I do know, Lincoln was the first President to circumvent the constitution without authority to do so. War powers Act, and Many of his quotes are being hijacked by Progressives to be used to support their “takers talking points.”.

      Report Post »  
    • TSUNAMI-22
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 10:14am

      We need to be asking when the “next” civil war will begin, and where. We know why, and how it can be avoided.

      Just think Louis F, Sharptongue, Jackson, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Piven as the instigating parties………….etc.

      We can either deny it or prepare for it.

      Report Post »  
    • grover75
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 10:27am

      No first battles stared in Kansas

      http://cjonline.com/news/state/2011-04-09/speaker-kansas-battle-first-civil-war

      Report Post »  
    • snidley-whiplash
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 1:11pm

      Guess it does not matter at this point. I would worry about the coming civil war, probably
      starting with Bible thumpin, gun carryin hillbillies. Ya all know what I mean.

      Report Post » snidley-whiplash  
    • sleazyhippo
      Posted on April 13, 2011 at 1:16pm

      The war was about 2% of rich folks, slaveholders and merchants making up enough lies to get 98% middle class and poor folks to fight and die for mythical causes. To make it work the rich had to form “grass roots” paramilitary groups whose hurt and hate were so strong they still persist today. Luckily we learn from our history and do not condone grass roots groups who are secretly funded and covertly controlled by the rich and corporate interests anymore. You don’t see modern folks going around representing fabulously wealthy interests that are inherently anti-worker or anti-quality of life! (Except possibly; for paid TV actors.)

      Report Post » MONICNE  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love