Edward C. Lain

There are many fictitious stories of the War for Southern Independence that have become legend and history. Fictitious in that they tell an incomplete or exaggerated story. In some cases, there has been outright deception.

"The Civil War was fought to free slaves, punish the Southerners and to assert Northern rules and laws." For many years, that sentence has, in layman's terms, summed up what the Civil War was all about. Few people will tell you what really happened. Most do not know what happened between the years 1860 and 1877. In some instances, one might be told that there was a Civil War. A responsible, learned person might say that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865. However, it is very unlikely that the atrocities that happened to the Southern Nation will be mentioned, much less known. Ever since the words "to the victor go the spoils" were first pointed out, we have known that the country or person that wins a war generally writes the history of the war. For the losing side of a war, history is generally not in their favor. Southerners have grown up with a tainted and scornful view of their roots, which is no doubt due to the inaccurate recording of history. It is time to tell the truth. Southern states should have the right to correct the history books by which their children are taught. Southern families should demand the right to allow their ancestors peace and truth.

Abraham Lincoln, born in 1809 and assassinated in 1865, was sincere in his desire to free the slaves. His debates with Judge Steven Douglas are legendary. To this day Lincoln is a symbol of integrity and honesty in our country. He was also a racist and believed only in the white race. On September 18, 1858 in Charleston in a debate against Douglas, Lincoln was asked how he felt about "negro citizenship" he replied, "I am not in favor of negro citizenship."[1] Lincoln was for freeing slaves and disbanding that evil institution of slavery, but he did not want "Negroes" in the country. During the mid-1800s, African-Americans were not wanted in the United States. Abolitionists wanted to free them, make them Christians and send them back to Africa. African-Americans were not considered to be on the same level as white Americans. Nevertheless, the fact that Lincoln freed the slaves, yet did not want them in the country does not mesh well with his being considered a great humanitarian.

In addition to the Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln wrote a truly remarkable proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation was written to free the slaves. However, he mentioned freeing the slaves in "states or designated parts of a state that people whereof shall be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward and forever free."[2] The proclamation was truly a derogatory statement against the Southern states only. The Northern states were to free their slaves also. Some did and some did not.

Earlier, in May 1862, Lincoln received a letter from the Headquarters of the Southern Army, which basically said Georgia, Florida and South Carolina slaves were set free.[3] However, Lincoln sent word back in a proclamation revoking that letter from the Southern Army. His reason was "…not any other commander or person, has been authorized by the government of the United States to make a proclamation declaring the slaves of any state free...is altogether void…"[4] Thus, Lincoln thought he could set slaves free when they were not part of his country, but the South could not set them free when the slaves were part of the Confederate States.

Abraham Lincoln's legend is truly exaggerated. No other president has had so much written about himself. One might believe that Lincoln was a greater President than Thomas Jefferson or even George Washington. Although Lincoln was against slavery he was also against "Negroes". In the South, having "Negroes" in the country was never an issue. Unfortunately, much of what Lincoln stood for was opposed to Southern culture, and he personally was against the South. In another debate with Judge Steven Douglas, Lincoln himself shows one more reason why he should not be immortalized. On September 18, 1858 he had this to say:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races—that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.[5]

So there stands Mr. Abraham Lincoln, a spokesman for White Supremacy! To be fair it must be pointed out that a many of Southerners and Northerners felt the same as Lincoln. But to immortalize the man who freed the slaves, and claim he was righteous or just, is wrong. By contrast, there were many in the South who did not own slaves and worked comfortably alongside African-Americans.

Any winning side in a war will usually be considered the moral and just side. The winners are marked as heroes for saving their side and even for saving (as well as conquering) the opposing side. The North was thought to have saved the American union. "They fought to save the American government. They fought to free the slaves." What this myth hides is the real reason the North went to war with the South. The North was trying to protect the Union, but the South was not part of this union during the war and shortly before the war.

Unionists have quoted President Andrew Jackson as having said, "The Federal Union—It must be preserved." The fact that he was giving a toast at the time to Thomas Jefferson is never mentioned.[6] He was referring to our union being a voluntary union. In The Federal Government: Its True Nature & Character, Burr states; "A Union of states necessarily implies separate sovereignties, voluntarily acting together. And to bruise these distinct sovergnities into one mass of power is, simply, to destroy the Union—to overthrow our system of government."[7] A Union of States or rather the United States could not rationally preserve such a union while attempting to destroy the Confederate States Union.

The North fought the war to preserve their economy and they did it by taking apart the Confederate States and everything the Confederate States stood for. When America first established The Articles of Confederation, our union was referred to as a perpetual union. Perpetual union is an ongoing union, which may be interpreted to mean each state will consistently stay voluntarily in the union. When the Constitution of the United States of America was written that part was kept out. This is interpreted to mean that the United States is no longer a volunteer union.

"The South fought a war to fight for the right to own slaves." So Americans in the past century have always been told. Unfair, untrue and completely ill suited to the history of the South. Americans are told that the South was nothing more than rich aristocratic plantation owners who owned hundreds of slaves. Several leaders of the Confederate States Army, such as General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A.; General J. E. B. Stuart, C.S.A.; and General Fitzhugh Lee, C.S.A. were not slave owners. Seventy to eighty percent of the Confederate soldiers and sailors were not slave owners.[8] It is not logical for a Southern soldier or sailor to fight for slavery when they did not own slaves. The answer is more likely that they did not fight for slavery, but for their state's rights.

According to the article "What Shall Be Done for a Revenue?" in the Evening Post of March 12, 1861:

There are some difficulties attending the collection of the revenue in the seceding states which it will be well to look at attentively…Revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe…What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the President call a special session of Congress to do what the last unwisely failed to do—to abolish all ports of entry in the seceding states?[9]

The war was fought mainly due to economic repercussions that the North may have believed would result if the South seceded. Though the South fired the first shot, they fired on the North because the North occupied Southern territory. The North was concerned that the South would become more economically independent and thus would be harder to bring back into the Union.

"Southern states are better off because of the war." Northern myth tells students of history that the war was a long time ago and is no longer relevant to us today.[10] In matter of fact, the South became a country of economically lower class citizens. The 1980 U. S. Census Bureau measured the South as having a poverty rate twenty percent higher than for the nation as a whole. Likewise in 1959, the U.S. Census Bureau shows, through a history of poverty, that the South had a thirty-five and a quarter percent poverty level. The national level at that time was twenty-two and a quarter percent.[11] All states with high poverty levels were in the South.[12]

A small but grossly exaggerated myth concerns General Robert E. Lee. Lee has been called a "reluctant southern nationalist."[13] But in his own words in a letter to Lord Acton dated December 15, 1886 he called himself "a citizen of the south."[14] Lee told Governor Stockdale of Confederate Texas:

Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no, sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand.[15]

Clearly, Lee was a dedicated Southerner who felt the North had railroaded Southerners out of their homeland.

"The Civil War" is the term used by everyone to describe the war of the North and South in the 1860s. Most books about that period are written about "The Civil War". The literal definition of a civil war is a war between two factions of a nation. Since the Confederate States had seceded from the Union in February 1861, it cannot be called a "civil war". The war did not officially start until April 12, 1861 after the Confederate States had ratified their constitution in March 1861. According to the book, The South was Right, parole papers mention two nations, the United States of America and The Confederate States of America.[16] Thus Southerners should insist on the use of the proper name of the war. The War for Southern Independence should be used at every available opportunity.

War crimes were committed at Andersonville, Rock Island, Belle Isle, Johnson's Island, Fort Lafayette, etc. Andersonville has been likened to the Nazi war camp Auschwitz. Andersonville was a miserable place filled with disease and death, but so were places like Rock Island and Johnson's Island. Andersonville was an over-crowded prison, because the Federal Government stopped the prisoner exchange between the North and South.[17] The vast majority of the deaths that occurred at Andersonville happened when Sherman marched to the sea, the summer of 1864. The movie Gone with the Wind shows Sherman leaving a trail of arson behind him. There were times when the South would start a fire in defiance to keep the Northern soldiers from destroying that land, but such land was not land where food was grown. The Southern farms were more cash crops than food crops. Sherman destroyed all land, whether cash crop or food. Sherman ordered any contraband—private or not—destroyed. This also included medicine, which would have helped not only Southerners but also helped prisoners who were from the North. Sherman did not care that his actions would cause prisoners to go hungry and die from lack of care. According to Confederate Veteran magazine of September-October 1991, 12,912 of the 45,613 Union prisoners at Andersonville died during its fourteen months of operation.[18]

Of that number, most died after Sherman's March of 1864. Secretary of War for the United States of America, Edwin Stanton gave a reason for the prisoner exchange halt—one that most Northerners did not want to hear, but it tells the truth of how the North believed prisoners were expendable. "We will not exchange able-bodied men for skeletons," and "We do not propose to reinforce the rebel army by exchanging prisoners."[19] The North did not care about their soldiers, because as far as they were concerned they had enough men to outlast the South. It was feared if the North exchanged prisoners, it would give the South more soldiers. Yet if Southern men, who had been prisoners of war, went back to fighting, the South still would not have had the manpower that the North had.

The U. S. government treated Major Henry Wirz unjustly before he was hanged for war crimes. The charges brought against him were incomplete, vague and unconstitutional, according to both Nations' constitutions. He was charged with murder, though; no victim's were named. To add to that fact, one of the "unknown victims" was killed on February 1, 1864 and Wirz did not arrive at Andersonville until March of 1864. Wirz was charged with "conspiracy to destroy prisoner's lives", and yet it takes two people to form a conspiracy. Of the 160 witnesses called to testify against him, 145 said they never saw him kill anyone. One of the essential witnesses against Wirz was a deserter from the Seventh New York Regiment. After Wirz was hanged, the witness admitted he committed perjury against Wirz.[20] Just as there were misconceptions obout Major Henry Wirz, it is probably true that there were misconceptions about Andersonville.. James Madison Page was a union officer who was a prisoner at Andersonville. He wrote The True Story of Andersonville Prison, because he wanted the complete story told, "in the interest of truth and fair play caused by the exaggerated and often unjust reports of Major Wirz' cruelty and inhumanity to prisoners."[21]

Since the North won it is maintained that the North was preserving the American virtues. Obviously, the South must represent evil and non-virtuous people. Generally speaking, in schoolbooks the North is the "freer of the slaves". Movies and television have helped perpetuate the myth. The real story of why the North fought the war has to do with economic reasons. The New York Times in 1861 stated there would be a loss of revenue because the high tariffs in the South were no longer collected. After the South seceded, the tariffs were no longer enforced.[22] As previously stated, the North fought because they "feared loss of economy."[23] To prove the point Lincoln replied to a question of letting the South secede: "Let the South go? Let the South go? Where then shall we get our revenues!"[24] It is high time that the world be told why the North declared war on the South. They did not do it for freedom: they did it to fatten their purses.

The most repulsive myth is that of slavery. True there was slavery in the South. There was also slavery in the North. One of the biggest misconceptions of the war is how the North fought to end racism. The fact is that several Northern States had laws against "Negroes". Whether they were free or enslaved, they were forbidden in those states. By contrast, Southern white men in most cases worked along side of the black man. Alexis de Tocqueville stated: "White carpenters, white bricklayers, and white painters will not work side by side with the blacks in the North but do it in almost every Southern state."[25] States such as New Jersey, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Ohio, just to name a few, in some way or another did not want blacks in their states.[26] The North was down South freeing slaves (supposedly), and at the same time making laws against slaves moving to the North.

Unfortunately, these myths are just a few of the terrible myths our nation has perpetuated throughout the years. A rebel flag is misrepresented as racist. Television and movies have created stereotypical Southerners as people living in fear and under white sheets: Southerners are ignorant, dumb hicks; Southerners chew tobacco and spit on the sidewalks; Southerners eat with their hands and call everyone Bubba.

But Southerners are really not stupid or ignorant. The South is tired of being posted as the bad guy in white sheets It is time to write the history books correctly.

The War for Southern Independence was fought for the very same reasons that the American colonies fought The American Revolution. The Colonies wanted rights that England, the mother country, was denying them. The South wanted rights that the Federal Union was denying to them.