• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

For OT & Other Lincoln Cultists

Mike

Well-known member
"Americans are forever proclaiming our boastful aspersions to the world . . . that our government was based on the consent of the people,” though in fact “it rests upon force, as much as any government that ever existed.”

~ Letter from Robert E. Lee to E.G.W. Butler, Oct. 11, 1867

"[H]ad the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified . . . in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.”

~ Lee Kennett, Marching through Georgia: A Life of William Tecumseh Sherman, p. 286

In his book Battle Cry for Freedom: The Civil War Era (p. 619), Lincoln cultist James McPherson wrote that some 50,000 Southern civilians perished during the War to Prevent Southern Independence. Others have made estimates that are much higher. The only way this could be possible is that if thousands were murdered in cold blood by the U.S. Army. This is a shocking claim, and it will be shocking to most because such statistics say little about the actual horror of mass murder at the hands of the state. Moreover, the state always has its court historians and paid propagandists who put such statistics "in proper perspective," so that they will not alarm us. (Thomas Sowell comes to mind as a contemporary commentator who has repeatedly belittled the number of Americans killed in Iraq in the past four years by comparing it to the number of deaths in World War II.)

The state funding and control of higher education that have produced the totalitarian regime of political correctness has all but guaranteed that there will be few (if any) publications that illuminate, rather than obfuscate, some of the more devious deeds of the American state throughout its history. But historian Walter Brian Cisco, who is not an academic and is not on any state payroll, has recently written a book — War Crimes Against Southern Civilians — that blows the lid off the conspiracy of silence about the violent, mass-murdering origins of the American Leviathan state (or "The New Birth of Freedom," as both left-wing and right-wing statists put it).

In the name of "restoring the union" the U.S. Army, under the micromanagement of Abraham Lincoln, waged war on its own people, shelling and burning entire cities populated only by civilians and engaging in acts of plunder, forced evacuation, and mass murder. It is all documented in gory detail by Mr. Cisco, who quotes conservative icon Richard M. Weaver in his introductory chapter as having remarked that "from the military policies of Sherman and Sheridan there lies but an easy step to total war of the Nazis, the greatest affront to Western civilization since its founding."

Lincoln cultists are fond of dismissing all of this by reciting Sherman’s "war is hell" slogan. But as Cisco points out, murders, rapes, and robberies are also inevitable in human society, and are likely to happen much more often if we cease to regard them as reprehensible. Those who idolize General Sherman in this way are not "hearing the totalitarian echo in their words."

Lincoln was always aware of what was going on; waging war on civilians — his own citizens — was his own policy from the very beginning, as Cisco proves. In May of 1861, for example, Captain Nathaniel Lyon recruited some seven thousand new German immigrants (mostly without uniforms) to eliminate suspected secessionists in St. Louis. They rounded up some six hundred men and paraded them through the streets playing the Star Spangled Banner (which must have been completely foreign to the mostly non-English speaking Germans). When the citizens of St. Louis protested, the recruits fired on them, killing twenty-eight civilians and wounding seventy-five. Lyon was promoted to brigadier general a week later, while some ten thousand civilians fled St. Louis.

By 1863 Missouri, under U.S. Army occupation, was a place were "arson, theft, and murder became so common that vast sections of the state were uninhabited." Cisco quotes Union General James H. Lane as saying, "We believe in a war of extermination. I want to see every foot of ground in Jackson, Cass and Bates counties burned over — everything laid waste."

Another practice of the Union Army that is reminiscent of totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century was forced relocation of suspected dissenters. Cisco gives chapter and verse of how this occurred in Missouri, Tennessee, and elsewhere, as thousands of civilians were forced to leave their homes. This even included Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham.

Plunder and pillage was also the Official Policy of the Lincoln regime from the start of the war, as Cisco shows. Before being defeated in the Battle of Fredericksburg the Union Army occupied the town for a short while. Cisco quotes a Union Army officer as saying that "the men had emptied every house and store of its contents, and the streets, as a matter of course, were filled with chairs and sofas, pianos, books, and everything imaginable. . . ."

An entire chapter is devoted to the sacking of Athens, Alabama, in 1862. Every store and shop in the town was looted, along with most private homes, where U.S. troops went about "stealing what they wanted and destroying the rest."

The commanding officer in charge, a Russian immigrant named Col. John Turchin, told his soldiers that he would shut his eyes while they went about plundering the town. That was the way of the Russian Cossacks, he said. One of Turchin’s superior officers, General Don Carlos Buell, relieved Turchin of his brigade command for committing such crimes against civilians. But he was overruled by the Lincoln regime, which promoted him to the rank of brigadier general instead.

Cisco also describes the shelling of civilian-occupied cities like Charleston, South Carolina by the Federal Army. "[D]uring one nine-day period in January no fewer than 1,500 shells fell on the city. Later, a single gun nearby threw 4,253 missiles into Charleston. . ." (Much of Cisco’s information comes from the U.S. Government publication, War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies.) This is how many of those 50,000 Southern civilians were killed.

Atlanta was shelled by Sherman for days after the Confederates evacuated the city and left it defenseless. Cisco describes how a Mr. Warner had a shell crash "into his home . . . . Both his legs were severed by the missile and he died within two hours. Warner’s six-year-old daughter was cut in two by the same shot." Sherman ordered more and more artillery to be shipped to Atlanta, "with which we can pick out almost any house in the town," he said. After the shelling stopped Sherman ordered the remaining surviving civilians to evacuate their homes just as winter approached and the land all around had been stripped of food by the army. The city was then burned. An "ocean of fire" covered the city, according to one Union officer, "leaving nothing but the smoldering ruins of this once beautiful city."

Cisco also details the war on civilians in the Shenandoah Valley, conducted by such cowardly murderers of women and children as Sheridan and Custer. "Unable to vanquish Robert E. Lee on the battlefield," wrote the editor of the Staunton, Virginia newspaper, "Grant has turned his arms against the women and children of our land."

War Crimes Against Southern Civilians is a must-read for anyone who wants to educate themselves about Sherman’s "March to the Sea." (For the cartoonish version, see the History Channel rendition.) The true story is a story of the continued plunder and rape of the civilian population, along with the gang rape of mostly black women by Federal soldiers under Sherman’s command. "Female servants were taken and violated without mercy" by Federal soldiers, wrote a war correspondent.

South Carolinians were so hated by Lincoln’s army that they even killed every dog in sight upon reaching the state on the "march." "The dogs were easily killed. All we had to do was to bayonet them," boasted one brave Union soldier.

Cisco also proves what delusional liars such Lincoln (and Sherman) cultists as Victor Davis Hanson are. Hanson has claimed in print that Sherman was some kind of egalitarian who was motivated by indignation over the degree of racial inequality in the South. The truth, of course, is that Sherman was every bit as much a racist and white supremacist as were virtually all other white Northerners, including Lincoln. He was also an anti-Semite, and of course hated red-skinned people almost as much as he hated South Carolinians — and would later kill them in even greater numbers.

Cisco documents "Abuse of African-Americans" by Sherman’s army in his final, stomach-turning chapter. Slaves were raped, pillaged, and murdered indiscriminately along with the white population of the South, and Sherman did nothing to stop it.

A favorite pastime of Sherman’s "bummers" was to tie a black man up by his thumbs until he told them where any valuables might be hidden. Sometimes they were hung by the neck instead, and quite often killed in that way. "They tied me up by my two thumbs and try to make me tell where I hid the money and gold watch and silver, but I swore I didn’t know," said a former slave, quoted by Cisco from The Slave Narratives.

There is nothing truly consensual about government. It is always and everywhere based on force, intimidation, and violence. When the founding generation formed a confederacy with the Articles of Confederation, and later the Constitution, it was at least a voluntary union of the states. The citizens of each state understood that their state, and all others, was free and independent and sovereign. They were free to participate in the union, or not.

The union of the founders was destroyed in 1865. War Crimes Against Southern Civilians explains in great detail how, in addition to killing some 300,000 dissenters to rule by Washington, D.C. on the battlefield, the U.S. Army, under the micromanagement of Abe Lincoln, also murdered tens of thousands of Southern civilians, including thousands of slaves and free blacks, while stealing tens of millions of dollars of their private possessions as well. None of it was necessary, of course, for the purpose of ending slavery; all other countries on earth ended slavery peacefully during the nineteenth century. This included the British, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Danish colonies, where 96 percent of all the slaves in the Western Hemisphere once existed. The purpose of the war was to finally realize the Hamiltonian dream of a consolidated, monopolistic government that would pursue what Hamilton himself called "national greatness" and "imperial glory." The purpose of the war, in other words, was a New Birth of Empire, one that would hopefully rival the Europeans in the exploitation of their own citizens in the name of the glory of the state.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Unfortunately this is always the case during war when the war is taking place in your territory. Had most of the fighting been in the north it may have been the same, only reversed. YOu also need to remember the "Confederacy" was a foreign country after secession. No special treatment was given to either side. Everyone had guns, few had uniforms and all most were hostile. To this day noone knows how many civilians died as it depends on your definition of "civilian". All I know is that WE lost.....we surrendered.

War is Hell
 

Mike

Well-known member
Lincoln cultists are fond of dismissing all of this by reciting Sherman’s "war is hell" slogan. But as Cisco points out, murders, rapes, and robberies are also inevitable in human society, and are likely to happen much more often if we cease to regard them as reprehensible. Those who idolize General Sherman in this way are not "hearing the totalitarian echo in their words."

Civilian casualties in war were/are normally inadvertent even back in the 1860's. But when you murder and maim civilians in a manner as to win a war most times you wind up apologizing to the Hiroshima's & Nagasaki's of the world.

And when you add the torture of the starving masses during the Reconstruction (which was not aptly named), the lack of compassion is multiplied many numbers of times.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
Lincoln cultists are fond of dismissing all of this by reciting Sherman’s "war is hell" slogan. But as Cisco points out, murders, rapes, and robberies are also inevitable in human society, and are likely to happen much more often if we cease to regard them as reprehensible. Those who idolize General Sherman in this way are not "hearing the totalitarian echo in their words."

Civilian casualties in war were/are normally inadvertent even back in the 1860's. But when you murder and maim civilians in a manner as to win a war most times you wind up apologizing to the Hiroshima's & Nagasaki's of the world.

And when you add the torture of the starving masses during the Reconstruction (which was not aptly named), the lack of compassion is multiplied many numbers of times.

Hell Mike I didn't even know Sherman was the one that originally said that. :shock: Civilians were starving long before the war was over. Everything was going to feed the soldiers, the slaves were mostly unproductive...you had a society that basically had no idea how to take care of itself. I'll never apologize for using the atomic bomb on Japan either. BTW It's my understanding that the purple hearts NOW being given out to OUR soldiers were actually manufactured in 1945 to be given to those that we anticipated WOULD DIE in a land assault on Japan. Someone else said "all is fair in love and war". Guess that usually follows the time following the end of the war. After all the south was a "foreign country" that attacked the U.S.A. !!
 

Mike

Well-known member
After all the south was a "foreign country" that attacked the U.S.A. !!

That is a matter of debate also. There were already 2 Federal forts in the Charleston Harbor and Sumter was almost through being built so that the Federal Tax Collectors could be sure and collect ALL the Tariffs on goods going & coming from England that were so contentious between North & South. The South Carolinians were on their home turf, felt that the Forts were theirs and had warned the Federal troops to leave on several occasions. Plus the U.S. Sec. of War lied to the Gov. of S.C. about them leaving. There were no casualties nor do I think there were injuries in this confrontation.

The First battle of Bull Run was the first invasion and attack of troops to battle and into Virginia a few months later.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
After all the south was a "foreign country" that attacked the U.S.A. !!

That is a matter of debate also. There were already 2 Federal forts in the Charleston Harbor and Sumter was almost through being built so that the Federal Tax Collectors could be sure and collect ALL the Tariffs on goods going & coming from England that were so contentious between North & South. The South Carolinians were on their home turf, felt that the Forts were theirs and had warned the Federal troops to leave on several occasions. Plus the U.S. Sec. of War lied to the Gov. of S.C. about them leaving. There were no casualties nor do I think there were injuries in this confrontation.

The First battle of Bull Run was the first invasion and attack of troops to battle and into Virginia a few months later.
Of course there were fed. forts there. It was part of the USA until SC seceeded just as all other US forts belong to the fed. gov't. Ft. Hood takes up a pretty good piece of Texas but we can't go bombarding it even if all we hit is rattlesnakes.

You're right. I dont think anybody even got a bloody nose.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Mike said:
After all the south was a "foreign country" that attacked the U.S.A. !!

That is a matter of debate also. There were already 2 Federal forts in the Charleston Harbor and Sumter was almost through being built so that the Federal Tax Collectors could be sure and collect ALL the Tariffs on goods going & coming from England that were so contentious between North & South. The South Carolinians were on their home turf, felt that the Forts were theirs and had warned the Federal troops to leave on several occasions. Plus the U.S. Sec. of War lied to the Gov. of S.C. about them leaving. There were no casualties nor do I think there were injuries in this confrontation.

The First battle of Bull Run was the first invasion and attack of troops to battle and into Virginia a few months later.
Of course there were fed. forts there. It was part of the USA until SC seceeded just as all other US forts belong to the fed. gov't. Ft. Hood takes up a pretty good piece of Texas but we can't go bombarding it even if all we hit is rattlesnakes.

You're right. I dont think anybody even got a bloody nose.
My point is that there were 3 Forts in the Charleston Harbor. THREE!!!! Charleston was the busiest port in the South and where most all the ships from Europe unloaded. The only reason for them would be to strangle the South with Regulations and force the South to pay those unfair tariffs that were breaking the back of the South.

England was willing to pay more for cotton than the North was and the Feds were forcing the South to sell to the North through those tariffs. The Secessionists did what they had to do to for economical reasons. Totalitarianism against any one section of the country was not supposed to be. There was no other way.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
My point is that there were 3 Forts in the Charleston Harbor. THREE!!!! Charleston was the busiest port in the South and where most all the ships from Europe unloaded. The only reason for them would be to strangle the South with Regulations and force the South to pay those unfair tariffs that were breaking the back of the South.

England was willing to pay more for cotton than the North was and the Feds were forcing the South to sell to the North through those tariffs. The Secessionists did what they had to do to for economical reasons. Totalitarianism against any one section of the country was not supposed to be. There was no other way.

Mike the south had pretty much ruled the US congress for many many years before the civil war. Another case of bad representation. We still ended up with the rich mans war and the poor mans battles.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Mike said:
My point is that there were 3 Forts in the Charleston Harbor. THREE!!!! Charleston was the busiest port in the South and where most all the ships from Europe unloaded. The only reason for them would be to strangle the South with Regulations and force the South to pay those unfair tariffs that were breaking the back of the South.

England was willing to pay more for cotton than the North was and the Feds were forcing the South to sell to the North through those tariffs. The Secessionists did what they had to do to for economical reasons. Totalitarianism against any one section of the country was not supposed to be. There was no other way.

Mike the south had pretty much ruled the US congress for many many years before the civil war. Another case of bad representation. We still ended up with the rich mans war and the poor mans battles.

The other alleged causes of the Civil War can be dispensed with fairly quickly. The argument that tariffs and taxes also caused secession is a part of the Lost Cause line favored by modern neo-Confederates. But this, too, is flatly wrong.

High tariffs had been the issue in the 1831 nullification controversy, but not in 1860. About tariffs and taxes, the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes” said nothing. Why would it? Tariffs had been steadily decreasing for a generation. The tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning, had been written by a Virginia slaveowner and was warmly approved of by southern members of Congress. Its rates were lower than at any other point in the century.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I see you've found Loewen and his lies :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/01/thomas-dilorenzo/more-lies-about-the-civil-war/

As I have written numerous times, in his first inaugural address Lincoln announced that it was his duty "to collect the duties and imposts," and then threatened "force," "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the federal tariff, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. He was not going to "back down" to tax protesters in South Carolina or anywhere else, as Andrew Jackson had done.

The most egregious falsehood spread by Loewen is to say that the tariff that was in existence in 1860 was the 1857 tariff rate, which was in fact the lowest tariff rate of the entire nineteenth century. In his famous Tariff History of the United States economist Frank Taussig called the 1857 tariff the high water mark of free trade during that century. The Big Lie here is that Loewen makes no mention at all of the fact that the notorious Morrill Tariff, which more than doubled the average tariff rate (from 15% to 32.6% initially), was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859–60 session of Congress, and was the cornerstone of the Republican Party's economic policy. It then passed the U.S. Senate, and was signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln's inauguration, where he threatened war on any state that failed to collect the new tax. At the time, the tariff accounted for at least 90 percent of all federal tax revenues. The Morrill Tariff therefore represented a more than doubling of the rate of federal taxation!

Liberals trying to re-write history. :roll: :roll:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Secession had already broken out before the act was signed. Secession did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but went through Congress because secession had taken place. The union had not increased the tax rate one cent at the time of secession.
 

Mike

Well-known member
The House passed it on May 10, 1860. Way before any secession.

Lincoln's election that year made it inevitable to pass the Senate. The Republicans swept the North as Lincoln made it clear that passage could take place on his inauguration day should it not pass the Senate sooner.

In its first year of operation, 1861, the Morrill Tariff increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%. In 1860 American tariff rates were among the lowest in the world and also at historical lows by 19th century standards, the average rate for 1857 through 1860 being around 17% overall (ad valorem], or 21% on dutiable items only. The Morrill Tariff immediately raised these averages to about 26% overall or 36% on dutiable items, and further increases by 1865 left the comparable rates at 38% and 48%. Although higher than in the immediate antebellum period, these rates were still significantly lower than between 1825 and 1830, when rates had sometimes been over 50%.

The handwriting was on the wall.

Union Democrat(Newspaper), Manchester, NH, February 19, 1861:

The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing....It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No---we MUST NOT "let the South go."

New York Times March 30, 1861:

"The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North...We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question---one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad...We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched."

Charles Dickens, English Author:

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."

"The Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states."
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
The House passed it on May 10, 1860. Way before any secession.

But it then went to the Senate and then went to committee where there were some amendments related to the tariffs on tea and coffee, which required a conference committee with the House, but these were resolved and the final bill was approved by unanimous consent on March 2, 1861 and went to affect 30 days latter.
 

Mike

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Mike said:
The House passed it on May 10, 1860. Way before any secession.

But it then went to the Senate and then went to committee where there were some amendments related to the tariffs on tea and coffee, which required a conference committee with the House, but these were resolved and the final bill was approved by unanimous consent on March 2, 1861 and went to affect 30 days latter.

Yes, and the U.S. gov't was broke and depending on this to pay the bills in Washington on the backs of the South.

And here we are. Full Circle. :lol:
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Mike said:
TexasBred said:
Mike said:
The House passed it on May 10, 1860. Way before any secession.

But it then went to the Senate and then went to committee where there were some amendments related to the tariffs on tea and coffee, which required a conference committee with the House, but these were resolved and the final bill was approved by unanimous consent on March 2, 1861 and went to affect 30 days latter.

Yes, and the U.S. gov't was broke and depending on this to pay the bills in Washington on the backs of the South.

And here we are. Full Circle. :lol:

Of course not. You guys had already seceeded. The north couldn't enforce the tax on the Confederacy.


The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was a high protective tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was a key element of the platform of the new Republican Party, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth by limiting competition from lower-wage industries in Europe. It had been opposed by cotton planters, but they had mostly left the United States Congress when it was finally passed.[/quote[]
 
Top