The past is the present for future generations who do not know their history

It is a southern saying that “It is a rich man’s war…

but a poor man’s fight.” That seems to bear out as truth in most, if not all, wars that our nation has been involved in. The north has always tried to beat the south down by saying that the War for Southern Independence was about slavery. Hogwash.

The writings of the soldiers of the south that I have been privileged to read all make such an assertion into hogwash. Slavery was only introduced into the war at the behest of Abraham Lincoln at a point in the long and weary war that he seemed to be on the brink of losing his cause. Additionally, it was initiated at the point when his soldiers were weary of the fight, and were not willing to fight any longer. Even the textbooks list Abraham Lincoln has the 16th President which is false as far as the south is concerned. Abraham Lincoln was never President of the states who seceded, which included Alabama. The President at that time and place was Jefferson Davis. They are so persistent in changing our history. But the rebels have been a little stronger in not allowing that to happen, yet.

The War for Southern Independence, or the Civil War as Yankees call it, caused a lot of loss of life and treasure, but it was fought over taxes. Mrs. Maness, a history professor – the best history professor, at the University of North Alabama taught about the era of history of that time. A test question that was more often missed was what caused the Civil War. The indoctrinated answer who be ‘slavery’ and that answer would have been wrong. The soldiers of the south would almost with one hundred percent agreement also state that ‘state’s rights’ were an even stronger reason that tied into the ‘taxes’ prompt.

Below is an article from a newspaper that spells this out as clearly as could be explained.

confederate letter


You see, the folks of the south knew a thing or two about government, and they never trusted the gubment from the gitgo. And each and everyone of them knew that every war was started by and for the rich, and the poor man was the soldier risking his guts and glory. The southerns also knew a thing or two about different forms of government, especially since about a hundred years earlier their fathers had fought against King George over a surtax placed on their one indulgence, tea. That started the battle for independence from an oppressive government and they would not stand for that every again.

Forms of Government are much easier to understand than the international globalists would want you to believe. THEY try to distract you from the IMPORTANT issues with celebrity gossip and NON-issues. The Truth remains simple; the difference is simply WHO or WHAT “rules”.

The USA is a “Constitutional Republic”, which is the most FREE and secure form of government. Historically, Republics have been downgraded to greedy democracies, hostile anarchies, and are finally ruled by dictators under an oligarchy.

Anarchy: Chaos; Ruled by Nobody

Republic: Rule of Law; Constitution

Democracy: Majority Rules

Oligarchy: Ruled by Elite Group

Monarchy: Ruled by King or Queen

5 responses

  1. Thank you for your above words, and the posting of the news article. For the past six years I have been researching a novel based on this war, and antebellum social and political upheaval. You have captured the essence of truth I found. Sadly.

    June 11, 2014 at 10:36 am

  2. Bill Browning

    The author’s statements that the saying: “It was a rich man’s war, but the poor did the fighting” is “hogwash,” completely misses a hard to accept, demonstrable fact. The saying is true. After passage of a law exempting planters with 20 or more slaves from service permitted thousands of able bodied Confederates to stay home. Thousands of others bought positions in the home guard, and, yes, they stayed home too. Implementation of the draft by the CSA in 1862 further alienated tens of thousands of non-slaving owning small farmers, tenant farmers and urban dwellers. Hundreds of thousands in the South remained pro-union, they were dissenters, and over 200,000 white southerners fought for the union. Add to that number, 250,000 former slaves who flocked to Union lines and later took up arms against the south. Anti-confederate activity existed throughout the Confederacy, from Texas to the Carolinas, Virginia to Florida. In Alabama there was the “Free state of Winston,” as residents of Winston county refused to honor secession. Jackson county Alabama seceded from Alabama in the fall of 1863. Randolph County Alabama was also a hotbed of anti-Confederate activities. Pro-Union sympathizers ran underground movements that spirited not only slaves to freedom, but Union prison camp escapees and Confederate draft resisters. The idea that the south lost the war due to lack of industrial power, men and munitions is HogWash! The South never lost a battle as the result of lack of ammunition. Had the 200,000+ southern whites who fought for the north remained at home to fight for the Confederacy and the colored troops remained on their respective plantations, the head count of the armies of North and South would have been virtually the same. The south lost because it lost the civil war raging at home: putting the burden of fighting on those who did not own slaves; by food shortages caused by a majority of planters continuing raise cotton and tobacco; implementation of the of a draft that was not equitable, by the refusal of planters to meet their commitment to feed those at home and because of the corruption of the planter class. Don’t believe me? Read David Williams’ book: “Bitterly Divided.” The evidence is astounding in its detail. Oh, and my great great grand uncle was one of those who fought against the South as a member of the 1st Tennessee Alabama Independent Vidette Cavalry, Company A.

    June 25, 2014 at 8:02 pm

    • You sound very angry. Of course there were dissenters in the south. Many of my ancestors were a part of the 1st Alabama Tennessee Independent Vidette Cavalry; at least one of them was an officer. They were from my paternal side of the family. A few of their brothers fought for the south, and at least one of them never came home. But your view of the war is very one sided. I have the history from both sides from my very own family. The 16th Alabama Regiment of Infantry, CSA was short on everything, food, clothing, supplies, and AMMUNITION. Col Woods started up his own plant to produce ammunition for his troops on the banks of the Tennessee River.I can see that you are very proud of gggranduncle who fought the south; but if he hated the south so much, why did he not just move north; I am sure some of my family would have helped him pack. My family that was in the 1st Alabama Tennessee Independent Vidette Cavalry had to remove their families (or most of them did) because they were IN the south and FIGHTING the south and their neighbors did not take kindly to that. That is what prompted most of them to move westwardly in north Alabama after the war. I can top you in ancestors served in the 1st: my great-great-grandfather William Deaton Jackson Murray and two of his brothers were; as were many of their Isbell, Elkins, Gregory, Hurst, (and more) cousins and uncles. You have left out some pretty important factors.

      June 27, 2014 at 5:41 pm

  3. kam

    It was indeed a war over slavery. States’ rights was secondary to the primary. Had there not been the issue of the right of the states to allow citizenry to own slaves, there would have been no bone to fight over, just scraps (minutiae). One need only look to the final and major result of the war – the end of slavery and total change of the way of life for blacks and whites in the south, to see that the objective was to end slavery.

    October 4, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    • Wrong. Abraham Lincoln made the war about slavery when his fighters were tired of war and not volunteering in needed numbers. Good way to get volunteers wouldn’t you say; promise them 40 acres and a mule and freedom. I have it from first hand accounts of too many Alabama men who braved the bitter winters, little food clothing or ammo, and who left their families back home in dire straits to fight this war over taxation imposed by the northerners. There was a revolution only about a hundred years earlier over a little tax on tea that King George III imposed. The southerners do not cotton to taxation without representation.

      November 24, 2014 at 5:53 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s