Civil War Resources


“Searching For Lincoln” – by Al Benson, Jr.

“Searching For Lincoln” by Al Benson Jr. A lady back east sent me a copy of an excellent documentary DVD on the Abraham Lincoln the “history” book don’t tell us about. It arrived here yesterday. Last evening (Aug 31) I watched it. Usually I don’t spend lots of time watching DVDs. I am busy enough that I never seem to quite get around to them. Maybe once every six months or so I get to one, but no more often than that. This one, though, was worth taking the time to watch, and for those that would like to be aware of the Lincoln the “history” books don’t bother to inform us about I would recommend it. It goes into Lincoln’s entire life, his views on race (which were “racist”), his views on secession (he was right in 1848 but not in 1860) and that was only because he put forth those views just before the start of the 1848 socialist revolts in Europe. He had odd views on the Constitution and states’ rights (he thought the Union was formed before the States). He wasn’t even close to accurate and his far out views cost the country over 600,000 lives. But he changed the system of government (and that’s what it was really all about). Obviously the folks that put all this together did lots of homework. It should be required viewing in every history class in the country. If you would like more information you can go to the website www.searchingforlincoln.com  and check it out. The information I received said folks “…can rent it for a few dollars (to be sure they want it, obviously) and then download it for about $20. After that they can burn it to a DVD if they wish to have a hard copy….

Inconvenient History 1

An Inconvenient History-War for Southern Independence-Part 1 by Republicae (Libertarian) Wednesday, April 16, 2008 "If I have a superstition, sir, which governs my mind and holds it captive, it is a superstitious reverence for the Union. If one can inherit a sentiment, I may be said to have inherited this from my revolutionary father." Jeff Davis I am quite sure that this article may stir the hornets to flight nevertheless; it is a subject that is gradually coming to light in this country after decades of revisionist history promoted by the victor of the conflict. 1850 Speech by the Honorable Jefferson Davis on the Floor of the United States Senate. "If I have a superstition, sir, which governs my mind and holds it captive, it is a superstitious reverence for the Union. If one can inherit a sentiment, I may be said to have inherited this from my revolutionary father. And if education can develop a sentiment in the heart and mind of man, surely mine has been such as would most develop feelings of attachment for the Union. But, sir, I have an allegiance to the State, which I represent here. I have an allegiance to those who have entrusted their interests to me, which every consideration of faith and of duty, which every feeling of honor, tells me is above all other political considerations. I trust I shall never find my allegiance there and here in conflict. God forbid that the day should ever come when to be true to my constituents is to be hostile to the Union. If, sir, we have reached that hour in the progress of our institutions, it is past the age to which the Union should have lived. If we have got to the point when it is treason to the United…

Lawrence Raid Revisited

Quantrill’s Lawrence Raid Revisited August 21’st , 1863 By: Clint E. Lacy Historian James McPherson in his book "Battle Cry of Freedom" described William Quantrill and the Partisan Rangers he commanded as: "some of the most pyschopathic killers in American history". McPherson goes on to describe Quantrill’s Raid on Lawrence , Kansas on August 21’st, 1863 as follows: "450 men under Quantrill (including the Younger brothers and Frank James) headed for Lawrence, Kansas, the hated center of free soilism since Bleeding Kansas days. After crossing the Kansas line they kidnapped ten farmers to guide them toward Lawrence and murdered each on after his usefulness was over. Approaching the town at dawn on August 21, Quantrill ordered his followers: Kill every male and burn every house. They almost did. The first to die was a United Brethren clergyman, shot through the head while he sat milking his cow. During the next three hours Quantrill’s band murdered another 182 men and boys and burned 185 buildings in Lawrence. They rode out of town ahead of pursuing the Union cavalry and after a harrowing chase made it back to their Missouri sanctuary, where they scattered to the woods"1 Unfortunately, this account by McPherson is widely accepted as fact by many of his contemporaries and the public by and large. When the facts are reviewed however; one learns that Quantrill was no psychopath, nor were the men who followed him. Quantrill and the men who rode with him, and in similar guerilla units were officially given the term Partisan Rangers. Historian Paul R. Peterson gives a more accurate account about Missouri during the War of Northern Aggression, the formation of Missouri’s Partisan Ranger organization and a detailed history of Quantrill in his book, "Quantrill of Missouri" {(C) 2003 Cumberland House Publishing}. Peterson writes that…

Black Slaveowners

DIXIE’S CENSORED SUBJECT – BLACK SLAVEOWNERS Author: Robert M. Grooms In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically. The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states. The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves). In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2). According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were…

Lincoln’s Reply

August 22, 1862 – Lincoln replies to Horace Greeley President Lincoln writes a carefully worded letter in response to Horace Greeley’s abolitionist editorial, and hints at a change in his policy concerning slavery. From the outset of the Civil War, Lincoln proclaimed the war’s goal to be the reunion of the nation. He said little about slavery for fear of alienating key constituencies such as the Border States of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and, to a lesser extent, Delaware. Each of these states allowed slavery but had not seceded from the Union. Lincoln was also concerned about Northern Democrats, who generally opposed fighting the war to free the slaves but whose support Lincoln needed. Tugging him in the other direction were abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass and Horace Greeley. In his editorial, "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," Greeley assailed Lincoln for his soft treatment of slaveholders and for his unwillingness to enforce the Confiscation Acts, which called for the property, including slaves, of Confederates to be taken when their homes were captured by Union forces. Abolitionists saw the acts as a wedge to drive into the institution of slavery. Lincoln had been toying with the idea of emancipation for some time. He discussed it with his cabinet but decided that some military success was needed to give the measure credibility. In his response to Greeley’s editorial, Lincoln hinted at a change. In a rare public response to criticism, he articulated his policy by stating, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Although this sounded noncommittal, Lincoln closed by stating, "I intend…

Lincoln Fable

The Lincoln Fable Wednesday, February 07, 2007 Alas! it is delusion all; The future cheats us from afar, Nor can we be what we recall, Nor dare we think on what we are. —Lord Byron “The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords.” —Psalm 56:21 In our time M.E. Bradford was the pioneer who blazed a new trail into the wilderness of the Lincoln legacy where lurk so many of the evil demons of our public life. Several years ago, when I began to explore the dark and bloody ground on my own, I used the label “The Lincoln Myth” to describe the yawning gap between Lincoln the historical person and the Lincoln icon that is the commanding symbol of America. ——————————————————————————– I knew that “myth” was not quite the correct term, but I was consciously setting up a counter to the fashionable history-mongering then and now underway in regard to the so-called “Myth of the Lost Cause.” According to Establishment historians, everything favorable that Southerners (or anybody) believe about the Confederates—their courage, skill, dedication, sacrifice, principle—amounts to nothing but a deceitful “Lost Cause Myth” that was invented after the fact by Southerners to put a pretty face on their evil deeds and disastrous failure. This now mainstream characterization of the central event of American history is an ideological reassertion of the old Radical Republican stance, with a bit of Marxism thrown in, masquerading as expert knowledge. Among its many flaws, it abuses the term “myth,” misappropriating an intellectual-sounding word as a substitute for falsehood. Properly considered, a myth is neither true nor false—it is art. It is a story rising out of the collective unconscious to give a meaningful pattern to…

Battle Of Chustenahlah

The Battle of Chustenahlah was fought in Osage County, Oklahoma, (then Indian Territory) on December 26, 1861, during the American Civil War. A band of 9,000 pro-Union Native Americans was forced to flee to Kansas in bitter cold and snow in what became known as the Trail of Blood on the Ice. Confederate troops had undertaken a campaign to subdue the Native American Union sympathizers in Indian Territory and consolidate control. They had attacked Chief Opothleyahola’s band of Creeks and Seminoles (led by Chief Halek Tustenuggee) earlier at Round Mountain and Chusto-Talasah. Now, they wanted to finish them off by assaulting them in their camp at Chustenahlah (Cherokee for "a shoal in a stream") in a well-protected cove on Bird Creek.[1] Colonel James M. McIntosh and Col.. Douglas H.. Cooper, commanding the Indian Department, planned a combined attack with each of their columns moving on the camp from different directions. McIntosh left Fort Gibson on December 22, with 1,380 men. On December 25, he was informed that Cooper’s force could not join him for a while, but he decided to attack the next day, despite being outnumbered and severe cold weather conditions. McIntosh assaulted the camp at noon. The 1,700 pro-Union defenders were secluded in the underbrush along the slope of a rugged hill. McIntosh devised a plan to converge on the crest, with the South Kansas-Texas Cavalry (also known as the 3rd Texas) ordered to charge directly up the steep bluff on foot. The 11th Texas advanced to their left using a defile for concealment, while the 6th Texas circled to the right. As the Confederate attack progressed, the Native Americans began to fall back, taking cover for a while and then moving back. The retreat became a rout as the Federals reached their camp. The Indians attempted to…

Slavery/Abolition

SLAVERY AND ABOLITIONISM, AS VIEWED BY A GEORGIA SLAVE. BY HARRISON BERRY, THE PROPERTY OF S. W. PRICE, COVINGTON, GEORGIA. ATLANTA, GEORGIA: M. LYNCH & CO., PUBLISHERS. PRINTED AT THE CRUSADER OFFICE. 1861 Page verso Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1861, By A. M. EDDLEMAN & BROTHER, For the use of Harrison Berry, (a slave, the property of S. W. Price, of Covington, Georgia,) in the Clerk’s office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Page iii PREFACE TO COMMENT ON MR. LINCOLN’S INAUGURAL.         I could not hope for the acquiescence of my Southern masters in this my views on Mr. Lincoln’s Inaugural, were it not from the fact, that his party is a mixed up affair of colored and white, all equally bent and determined to carry out their views, regardless of the affecting consequences whatever; and when we read the speech of a colored man by the name of Charles L. Redmond, delivered in Boston at an Anti-slavery Convention, held in May, 1856; when we hear him say, "remembering Washington as a Slaveholder, he (Redmond) could spit upon him;" and when we hear him applauded in the highest degree of mirth, by his factional party, while the conservative men groan under the sound of that blasphemous language, may be an excuse for one poor Slave whom that party pretends to be helping, (but is actually doing him harm;) and when my Southern masters take into consideration the many tricks fixed up to deceive the poor Europeans, who are constantly immigrating to their States, by telling them that if they vote for the pro-slavery candidate, it will be the means of enslaving them, I am in hopes will be a pleader for their sympathies with this my presumption.         The Anarchy predicted by…

Lincoln – Chapter 2

A True Estimate of Abraham Lincoln and Vindication of the South by Mildred Lewis Rutherford Chapter Two           When the Virginia Convention pleaded for peace, Lincoln sent word by Colonel Baldwin to say, "It is too late for peace." He did not send word why it was too late, for at that time four expeditions were on the way to Sumter and Pickens to force war. He refused to see the Peace Commissioners sent by the Confederate government to plead for peace — but through Seward and Judge Campbell he kept them deceived until war had been declared.           Abraham Lincoln did not want peace for he had promised coercion, which meant war. He knew, too, that the South would never stand for his administration.           What were those four expeditions he had already sent? Mr. Johnstone’s Truth of the War Conspiracy of 1861(1) will tell you all about it. Read it.           An armistice had been entered into between South Carolina and the United States government on 6 December 1860. A similar armistice had been entered into between Florida and the United States government on 29 January 1861. These armistices agreed that the forts, Sumter and Pickens, should neither be garrisoned nor provisioned so long as these armistices continued in force. Papers to this effect had been filed in the United States Army and Navy Departments and Abraham Lincoln knew this — hence his secret orders.           To violate an armistice is a treacherous act of war. This is acknowledged by all nations. Before his inauguration Lincoln had sent a confidential message to General Winfield Scott to be ready, when his inauguration on 4 March 1861 should take place, to hold or retake the forts.(2) He had in mind then to break this armistice.           One of the agreements…

Crimes Of Yankee Invaders

War Crimes Of The Yankee Invaders Dear All, Below is a letter which was published the two Volume Book the Rise & Fall of the Confederate Gov’t papers of Pres. Jefferson Davis. The letter was from a Rev. Dr. John Bachman who was an aging Lutheran Pastor who witness and was himself a victim a Yankee War Crimes. This letter shows how the Yankees systamatic plundered there victims. There are eyewitness acounts that the Boys in Blue abused, lynched, raped the African Americans that they claimed to liberate. .It is amazing with all this evidence that many Americans deny this and call this behavior just. The attached words by Dr. Bachman speak real honest truth that most Americans sadly deny. Deo Vindice, John B. Waring Ignored History That Should be Taught: from the Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government; by Jefferson Davis A letter dated Charleston September 14, 1865, written by Rev. Dr. John Bachman, then pastor of the Lutheran Church in that city, presents many facts respecting the devastation and robberies by the enemy in South Carolina. So much relates to the march of Sherman’s army through part of the state is here presented: When Sherman’s army came sweeping through Carolina, leaving a broad track of desolation for hundreds of miles, whose steps were accompanied with fire, and sword, and blood, reminding us to the tender mercies of the Duke of Alva, I happened to be at Cash’s Depot six miles from Cheraw. The owner was a widow, Mrs. Ellerbe, seventy-one years of age. Her son, Colonel Cash, was absent. I witness the barbarities inflicted on the aged widow, and young and delicate females. Officers, high in command, were engaged in tearing from the ladies their watches, their ear and wedding rings, the daguerreotypes of those they loved…

Slavery Myths

Slavery Myths by Laurence M. Vance “No subject has been more generally misunderstood or more persistently misrepresented.” ~ Jefferson Davis Much of what we hear today about slavery from the Black community, the news media, the pulpit, the high school classroom, and the university lectern is a myth. This does not mean that slavery was anything but a great evil. It just means many things commonly accepted as slavery facts are actually slavery myths. This is not an attempt at a scholarly discourse on slavery. It is merely a presentation of some myth-refuting facts that I have assembled from a few books in my own library. Myth number one: Slavery was a distinctively Southern institution. From Ira Berlin’s Generations of Captivity (Harvard University Press, 2003), we read: On the eve of American independence, nearly three-fourths of Boston’s wealthiest quartile of property-holders held slaves. A like proportion could be found in New York, Philadelphia, Providence, and Newport. From a position at the top of colonial society, one visitor noted that there was "not a house in Boston" that "has not one or two" slaves – an observation that might be applied to every northern city with but slight exaggeration. The expansion of slavery followed a similar trajectory in the countryside. Indeed, the rapid growth of rural slavery eclipsed its development in the cities of the North. Throughout the grain-producing areas of Pennsylvania, northern New Jersey, the Hudson Valley, and Long Island – the North’s bread basket – bondage spread swiftly during the eighteenth century, as farmers turned from white indentured servants to black slaves. By mid-century slavery’s tentacles reached into parts of southern New England, especially the area around Narragansett Bay, where large slaveholders – many of whom had originated in Barbados – took on the airs of a planter class….

Forrest & KKK a MYTH

Forrest’s ties to KKK a trumped-up myth By BILL WARD For The Times GUEST COLUMNIST I’ve grown to become amused at things that are based on bad history, especially when they are written with such obvious political intent. Such was the recent Times article by Rick Lavender, "Portrait of Forrest sparks campaign spat." The misinformation in the article, which appears to have been fed to The Times by Greg Bautista, began with the statement referring to "a portrait of Civil War general and Ku Klux Klan founder Nathan Bedford Forrest." Certainly Forrest was a general in the Confederate Army, and according to his old nemesis, Union Gen. William T. Sherman, possibly the best cavalry officer produced by the Civil War. His prowess as a cavalry leader and battlefield general earned him the envy of even his adversaries and the title, "Wizard of the Saddle," early on in the war. But there the truth ends and Hollywood legend begins. Bedford Forrest had absolutely nothing to do with the founding of the Ku Klux Klan. And even within the history of the Klan, differences must be noted between the Klan of the 1860s and the Klan of today. The KKK that was reorganized in 1915 enjoyed a well-deserved reputation as a bigoted and sometimes violent organization, fueled by hate and ignorance and thriving on fear and intimidation. But that wasn’t always the case. The original KKK of the 1860s was organized as a fun club, or social club, for Confederate veterans. Many historians agree that if a YMCA had been available in the town of Pulaski, Tenn., the KKK might never have existed. On Dec. 24, 1865, six young Confederate veterans met in the law office of Judge Thomas M. Jones, near the courthouse square in Pulaski. Their names were James R….

NB Forrest -A Leader

General Nathan Bedford Forrest – the first true civil rights leader The subject of the Mississippi State Flag has dominated current news headlines for several weeks and will likely continue to do so until a decision is reached concerning the Confederate standard and what role it plays in our modern day Mississippi society. Much, if not all of the related controversy surrounds the misinterpretation of historical facts, altered facts, deleted facts, half-truths, and genuine lies. One of the greatest Confederate heroes, a man who was raised in our own Tippah County, just two miles from where I am writing this article, is the victim of a modern day massive misinformation program designed with but one goal in mind – to find a villain upon whom to pile all the blames of racism. The great man of whom I am referring too is none other than Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, our Bedford Forrest. Did I note a look of consternation on your face as you read that name? Did I see a smirk of disgust, a raised eyebrow, a sigh of… you gotta be kidding? Well, feel right at home with that initial reaction because that is what most of us have been "taught" to believe. Even some of my supposedly learned colleagues in the newspaper industry have been found guilty of this prevaricated viewpoint. When writing my novel on General Forrest, "Fame’s Eternal Camping Ground," I spent almost two years researching information. My sources were documents from the Civil War era, military dispatches, old diaries, old newspaper articles and official government publications, just about as factual as you can get. Not only did I want to get the history of the battle of Brice’s Crossroads "correct" I wanted to learn more about the man who has come down to…

Marching Home

When Joannie comes marching home again . . . BY GLENN GARVIN ggarvin@MiamiHerald.com Four decades ago, Peter, Paul and Mary had a minor hit with an old folk song called Cruel War, sung by a young woman to her sweetheart as he prepared to leave with the army: I’ll tie back my hair, men’s clothing I’ll put on I’ll pass as your comrade, as we march along I’ll pass as your comrade, no one will ever know Won’t you let me go with you? — No, my love, no. Turns out it was more than just a song. Full Metal Corset, an absorbing History Channel documentary debuting tonight, reveals that the Civil War was not just brother against brother, but sister against sister: “From Bull Run to Gettysburg, hundreds of women disguised themselves as men to fight for the North and South. They are the secret soldiers of the Civil War.” Female combatants go back at least to the time of Joan of Arc, and a handful of American women found their way into the fighting during both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, as Full Metal Corset notes. But the confused internecine passions of a nation turning against itself in the Civil War truly aroused something fierce in women: Thousands volunteered for the armies of both sides — and many refused to take no for an answer. Full Metal Corset tells its story largely through the eyes of a pair of women who may actually have shot at each other during the battle of Bull Run in 1861. Sarah Emma Edmonds served as nurse — that was still a male-only profession — and courier in the Union army, while Loretta Velazquez was an officer in a Confederate infantry unit that she raised herself. Like so many citizens…

Battle Flag Truth

The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag By Pastor John Weaver Open your Bibles to the Book of Numbers Chapter 1. Numbers Chapter 1 and we will read some verses there and then in Chapter 2 as well. Numbers Chapter 1:52 ? ?And the children of Israel shall pitch their tents every man by his own camp and every man by his own standard throughout their hosts.? Note that phrase, ?Every man by his own standard throughout their hosts.? Now look in Chapter 2:2. ?Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch his own standard or banner or flag with the ensign, banner or flag, of their fathers house far off about the Tabernacle of the Congregation shall they pitch. And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies; and Nahshon, the son of Amminadab shall be Captain of the Children of Judah.? Notice if you would please, in verse 10, ?On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben according to their armies: and the captain of the children of Reuben shall be Elizur the son of Shedeur.? Note on the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben. Look in verse 17, ?Then the tabernacle of the congregation shall set forward with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camp: as they encamp, so shall they set forward, every man in his place by their standards. On the west side shall be the standard of the camp of Ephraim according to their armies: and the captain of the sons of Ephraim shall be Elishama the son of Ammihud.? Then verse 25, ?The standard of the camp of Dan shall be on…

Lincoln – Chapter 3

 True Estimate of Abraham Lincoln and Vindication of the South by Mildred Lewis Rutherford Chapter Three           Abraham Lincoln was not humane in his treatment of the Andersonville prisoners. He refused medicine, making it contraband of war — medicine that was necessary to relieve their sufferings — and even refused to relieve them from their horrid congested condition when the Southern authorities were willing to send them home without exchange. As Commander-in-Chief of the Army, by a word he could have done this:     Abraham Lincoln indicted for cruelty to our soldiers in Southern prisons. He is held responsible for it all.               Abraham Lincoln could be indicted and arraigned for the crime against justice and humanity. There is not an impartial jury in the land that would hesitate to pronounce him guilty of murder in the first degree. He now stands before the great court of the Nation for that crime and other offenses against the laws and liberties of the country. The people will soon render against him the verdict of guilty, and the sentence of banishment and indelible disgrace will be passed and executed upon him.(1)           Percy Gregg said:     Lincoln’s order that Confederate commissions or letters of marque granted to private or public ships should be disregarded and their crews treated as pirates, and all medicines declared contraband of war, violated every rule of civilized war and outraged the conscience of Christendom.           Lincoln never hesitated to violate the Constitution when he so desired. The Chief Justice testified to this. Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861; he allowed West Virginia to be formed from Virginia contrary to the Constitution; he issued his Emancipation Proclamation without consulting his Cabinet and in violation of the Constitution.           He did not interfere when Seward refused…

Right to Secede

The Right to Secede There are many different views of whether the South’s secession in 1860 and 1861 was legal or not. Yet, in the Constitution, no article says that a state cannot secede from the Union. It does say, however, that each state is free and independent, and retains it’s sovereignty. The states that did withdraw themselves from the Union were independent and had the legal right to do what they felt was necessary to preserve their homes. In 1828, Congress imposed a series of high and unfair tariffs, which were taxes placed on products imported from foreign countries, on the South. Because the South’s economy depended mostly on farming and trade, these tariffs were very unfair. The tax caused more money to leave the South than to be brought in because their imports cost more than their exports. When this tariff, known as the Tariff of Abominations, was put into effect, the South spend a total of $331 million on their imports while the North paid only $31 million. This great difference existed because the South did more trade with Europeans than the North. Since the tariffs could not be abolished, Southern states passed Nullification Laws, and threatened secession to protect their economy. Northerners would argue that secession is not the proper way to deal with unfair tariffs, and believed that the Nullification Acts were unfair to the North. Yet, as part of the country, Congress had to have known the effects that the tariffs would have on the Southern economy, and never did they show sympathy or offer any exceptions to the tariffs. Also, no one in Congress, or in the North offered any different solutions so they could not argue with the South’s means of dealing with the tariffs. By the early 1800s, the North and…

Lincoln Cartel Fault

More Trouble for the Lincoln Cartel by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The majority of academic historians have as their first and foremost goal remaining a member in good standing of their profession. This means never seriously challenging the template of ideas that is closely guarded by the gatekeepers of the profession – the "senior scholars" who edit the journals, make recommendations for jobs and research grants, sit on editorial boards of university presses, review books in the New York Times and other prominent newspapers, and even appear frequently on cable television documentaries. These are people who have built reputations and careers on perpetuating their view of history, and they do all they can to protect their "human capital." "Academic freedom" is not all that it’s cracked up to be. Consequently, some of the most interesting and worthwhile works of history increasingly come from outside of academe, where researchers and writers are much more free to pursue the truth as they see it without having to kowtow to the petty academic "gatekeepers." The work of Paul Johnson would be a good example, or Gore Vidal, John Steele Gordon, and others. Indeed, when Charles Adams proposed to his former publisher, Simon and Schuster, that he turn the chapter on the "Civil War" from his book, For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization into a book, the publisher loved the idea but told him that the "gatekeepers" would not give it a fair hearing, and so they declined. (The book was subsequently published as When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession, by Rowman and Littlefield). Nowhere are the "gatekeepers" more zealous than in guarding the Official View of Abraham Lincoln and the War to Prevent Southern Independence. For the Lincoln Myth is…