Hopefully helpful sites and information


From: billswann@yahoo.com


Chuck and readers:


There has been a lot written about the war and causation and many people repeat the mantra of States Rights as opposed to slavery. The problem is that if you read each and every State secession document, they all mention the institution of Slavery. So when a person argues that the war was fought over states rights and stops at that point in their defense, they are making the argument for our opponents. If everyone would read the various State Secession document, they would discover that what everyone wanted was a separation from the union, so they could once again have the right of self determination. Essentially, the right to make laws and establish taxes and tariffs based on common interest. This is the States Rights everyone means but seldom explains.


It has always been my contention that the War was over money, simply stated the South was tired of being subservient to the Northern Industrial interest, including manufacturing and especially shipping.


Speaking before the Georgia legislature, in November 1860, Senator Robert Toombs said, ". . . They

[Northern interests] demanded a monopoly of the business of shipbuilding, and got a prohibition against the sale of foreign ships to the citizens of the United States. . . . They demanded a monopoly of the coasting trade, in order to get higher freight prices than they could get in open competition with the carriers of the world. . . . And now, today, if a foreign vessel in Savannah offer [sic] to take your rice, cotton, grain or lumber to New York, or any other American port, for nothing, your laws prohibit it, in order that Northern ship-owners may get enhanced prices for doing your carrying."


As far as the tariffs go, our old friend Thomas DiLorenzo wrote this article on entitled “Lincoln’s Tariff War”


http://www.mises.org/story/952


In further proof of this, the following link is to the 1860 Republican Presidential Platform which I seldom see mentioned in the defense of our cause.


http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29620


The next link is to the Confederate Constitution, this is the most misquoted document and it really doesn’t need expanding, it speaks plainly, and it is a great source of material for defending our cause.


http://americancivilwar.com/documents/confederate_constitution.html


The last link is one I am proud to have found. It is a copy of a speech by Confederate Vice President Stephens, and it is a story in the New York Times. They report it as printed in the Augusta Chronicle. This is the clearest evidence of Vice President Stephens thought process regarding what the War was about. I copied a very small piece of the reported speech, but it plainly says:


“Why this war on their part against the uniform principles and practices of their own Government? There is but one plausible pretext for it; that is to exterminate our Southern Institutions. It is to put the African on equality with the white man. It is to conquer and subjugate independent and sovereign States, who deny their authority rightfully to rule over them. It is a war, in short, on their part, against right, against reason, against justice, against nature, and for nothing but power, conquest and robbery.”


Forgive me but the preacher in me is about to come out. In breaking down the entire speech Vice President Stephens is talking about the causes of the war. When he comes to the part about the “African” he does so in the context of explaining why the North was invading the South. We Southern/Confederate supporters have apologized for Vice President Stephens much too long. Personally I have attempted to minimize Vice President Stephens as just a Vice President; no one ever pays attention to them. I apologize to Vice President Stephens’s memory and to all Southern/Confederate Supporters for ever doubting VP Stephens.


Now it is sure to come up that it was another speech where the Cornerstone came up, after all the ultimate authority(in his own mind) James McPherson said it was so and who are we to disagree with the authority. Well, as a Preacher and the son of a Preacher and politician, most of us say the same things over and over. I seriously doubt that Vice President Stephens made another speech where his language or meaning changed that much. In addition, this is the New York Times and it is the only speech of Vice President Stephens they have in their records. Thinking logically, do you think it is remotely possible that if Vice President Stephens made the “Cornerstone Speech” that our enemies would have failed to use it to their benefit? If you believe they would have failed to use anything against us, contact Chuck about that ocean front property in South Dakota.


Lastly my brothers and sisters, there are certain people who attack us just to increase their own blogs visits or newspaper visits. When those people attack the South or any of our institutions, as hard as it might be, we need to ignore them. If a tree falls and no is there to hear it does it make a sound? If loud mouth ass’ brays and no one answers them, have they made a sound? When a new attacker presents himself or herself, we need to write them, hopefully with facts and not emotion (this from someone who calls them ass’). Okay do as I say and not as I do, (lol).


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9905E1DD143CE63ABC4E53DFB4678389679FDE


Copy the whole address into your browser, then click on the read whole article button, you have to have the free adobe acrobat reader to read the full text of VP Stephens whole speech it is one of the best I’ve ever read, and it makes our case better than we ever could.


GOD Bless, and may GOD Bless the Confederacy and its loyal citizens.