KGC INTERESTED MIGHT WANT TO SEE THIS

ran across this the other day and thought some of you might want to see it,
      http://www.kgcdixie.com/                    gldhntr.......

Nice website.

Timberwolf

Add shield to bottom.  Gary 12/17

I'm looking for opinions on which background looks best.  Document 2 is one of the ways parchment aged in the 1800s which has more to do with they way paper was made at that time.  There's always the first one or three .  Anybody? Gary

Gary...since you asked...it is in my opinion that those are the cheesiest looking documents I have ever seen...in my life!  That...and I don't understand why anybody would fabricated a fantasy certificate proclaiming themselves as a member in the Knights of the Golden Circle.

I've been waiting for you to join in SWR.  But the question was not what you think of the KGC but the background paper. 

These do print out very nicely on just about any printer.  I'm tending to think the third one as the cross and crown stand out more.

Gary

I'm looking for opinions on which background looks best.  Document 2 is one of the ways parchment aged in the 1800s which has more to do with they way paper was made at that time.  There's always the first one or three .  Anybody? Gary

Gary...since you asked...it is in my opinion that those are the cheesiest looking documents I have ever seen...in my life!  That...and I don't understand why anybody would fabricated a fantasy certificate proclaiming themselves as a member in the Knights of the Golden Circle.

I've been waiting for you to join in SWR.  But the question was not what you think of the KGC but the background paper. 

These do print out very nicely on just about any printer.  I'm tending to think the third one as the cross and crown stand out more.

Gary

Gary, the crown and cross is American masonic KT, KGC didn't use it but I do like your graphics.

Gary, the crown and cross is American masonic KT, KGC didn't use it but I do like your graphics. 

Walker Colt,

I had to do some research on the cross and crown but really that started very early for me as I photographed church stained glass around town.  Back then anyone could go into any church without being challenged and no doors were locked.  There were many cross and crowns but these were very old mainline churches.  Cross and crown go back to before the founding of America in the stained glasses of Europe. 

The Freemason's also use the symbol but unlike most versions ever seen in glass or church literature. You may notice the cross is almost straight up and down to the crown and any illumination is 360 degrees around both.  I've only seen the up and down cross once in a Lutheran window.  The one you see in the document is patterned after the more common church version with but with light shining out of the crown. 

There is so little left from the founding of the KGC in the 1850s but the Freemasons were likely involved in its organising effort.  Though they do not freely admit such I've pretty much satisfied my mind and reasoning they did.  Who knows that they may have made up a good percentage of membership but not a majority.

I'm glad you like the graphics.  There's nothing like the satisfaction of creating new works.

Gary

Here is the latest addition to the KGC forum for Knight Defenders only.  (I had the light of the flag folds going from left to right in prior versions. 12/26)

 I've left room for perhaps a Latin phrase but none discussed as yet.

"in hoc signo vinces"?

I've left room for perhaps a Latin phrase but none discussed as yet.

"in hoc signo vinces"?

In hoc signo vinces is the rendition in Latin of the Greek phrase "ἐν τούτῳ νίκα", en toutōi nika, meaning "with this sign you shall conquer". ... [Wikipedia]

CCC, that one may be taken.  But it might be best in these troubled times to use one with a bit more application--ha, ha.  Sure could use a group like that.

Gary

Here is the latest addition to the KGC forum for Knight Defenders only.  I've left room for perhaps a Latin phrase but none discussed as yet.

Just a quick reality check here...but, you do know the Knights of the Golden Circle was a pro-slavery movement. I am not quite sure why you want to put you name on a document that would support slavery

SWR,

I suppose to believe that a bad thing one would have to believe that the Emancipation was more than a war measure and its post-war celebration more than the victory of rhetoric.  Sometimes it's best going to the horse's mouth to dispel historical inaccuracies that get accepted as commonplace understanding.

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." --Ulysses S. Grant

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." --Abraham Lincoln. March 4, 1861 Inaugural address

I do wonder if we all haven't been reading too many New England history books ?  See below.
____________


War Between The States Reasons
From a true Confederate on the Internet.

Historians have long debated the causes of the war and the Southern perspective differs greatly from the Northern perspective. Based upon the study of original documents of the War Between The States (Civil War) era and facts and information published by Confederate Veterans, Confederate Chaplains, Southern writers and Southern Historians before, during, and after the war, I present the facts, opinions, and conclusions stated in the following article. I respectfully disagree with those who claim that the War Between the States was fought over slavery or that the abolition of slavery in the Revolutionary Era or early Federal period would have prevented war. It is my opinion that war was inevitable between the North and South due to complex political and personal differences.

The famous Englishman Winston Churchill stated that the war between the North and South was one of the most unpreventable wars in history. The Cause that the Confederate States of America fought for (1861-1865) was Southern Independence from the United States of America. Many parallels exist between the War for American Independence (1775-1783) and the War for Southern Independence.

There were 10 political causes of the war--one of which was slavery--which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to get the South's resources (land-cotton-coal-timber-minerals) for pennies on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and decentralists. The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even if slavery had never existed.

A war almost occurred during 1828-1832 over the tariff when South Carolina passed nullification laws. The U.S. congress had increased the tariff rate on imported products to 40% (known as the tariff of abominations in Southern States). This crisis had nothing to do with slavery. If slavery had never existed--period--or had been eliminated at the time the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 or anytime prior to 1860 it is my opinion that there would still have been a war sooner or later. On a human level there were four causes of the war--New England Greed--New England Fanatics--New England Zealots--and New England Hypocrites. During "So Called Reconstruction" (1865-1877) the New England Industrialists got what they had really wanted for 40 years--THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. It was a political coalition between the New England economic interests and the New England fanatics and zealots that caused Southern secession to be necessary for economic survival and safety of the population.

1. TARIFF--Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just four Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 era (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

2. CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS---The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited Federal Government and Sovereign States. The North wanted to and did alter the form of Government this nation was founded upon. The Confederate States of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as established by America's founding fathers who were primarily Southern Gentlemen from Virginia. Thus Confederate soldiers were fighting for rights that had been paid for in blood by their forefathers upon the battlefields of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The Constitution of the United States of America. His War of aggression Against the South changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a Democracy (with Socialist leanings) and broke the original Constitution. The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations after his reelection in 1864. A considerable number of European Socialists came to America and fought for the Union (North).

3. CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM--The South believed in basic Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible. The North had many Secular Humanists (atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians). Southerners were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that man, science and government can solve all problems. This philosophy advocates human rather than religious values. Reference: Frank Conner's book "The South Under Siege 1830-2000."

4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES--Southerners and Northerners were of different genetic lineages. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original Britons), Scottish, and Irish linage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to be of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction. The two cultures had been at war and at odds for over 1,000 years before they arrived in America. Our ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon princes at the battle of Baden Hill (circa 497--516AD). The cultural differences that contributed to the War Between the States (1861-1865) had existed for 1,500 years or more.

5. CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES--The North wanted to control Western States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were politically attached to the North. They passed laws against slavery that Southerners considered punitive. These political actions told Southerners they were not welcome in the new states and territories. It was all about control--slavery was a scapegoat.

6. NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES. The Northern Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South's resources for pennies on the dollar. They began a campaign about 1830 that would influence the common people of the North and create enmity that would allow them to go to war against the South. These Northern Industrialists brought up a morality claim against the South alleging the evils of slavery. The Northern Hypocrites conveniently neglected to publicize the fact that five New England States (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of the slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state owned fleets of ships.

7. SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS. This political cause ties in to the above listed efforts by New England Industrialists. Beginning about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began to slander the South. The Industrialists used this tool to indoctrinate the common people of the North. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up to a feverish pitch. Southerners became tired of reading in the Northern Newspapers about what bad and evil people they were just because their neighbor down the road had a few slaves. This propaganda campaign created hostility between the ordinary citizens of the two regions and created the animosity necessary for war. The Northern Industrialists worked poor whites in the factories of the North under terrible conditions for 18 hours a day (including children). When the workers became old and infirm they were fired. It is a historical fact that during this era there were thousands of old people living homeless on the streets in the cities of the North. In the South a slave was cared for from birth to death. Also the diet and living conditions of Southern slaves was superior to that of most white Northern factory workers. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and slander.

8. NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THE SOUTH. Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo in the 1790 era and that the French (white) population had been massacred. The abolitionists published a terrorist manifesto [The Impending crisis of the South] and tried to smuggle 100,000 copies into the South showing slaves how to murder their masters at night. Then when John Brown raided Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859 the political situation became inflammatory. Prior to this event there had been five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Lincoln and most of the Republican Party (64 members of congress) had adopted a political platform in support of terrorist acts against the South. Some (allegedly including Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Browns terrorist activities. Again slavery was used as a scapegoat for all differences that existed between the North and South.

9. SLAVERY. Indirectly slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery. However they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North. Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the morality claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. The first state to legalize slavery had been Massachusetts in 1641 and this law was directed primarily at Indians. In colonial times the economic infrastructure of the port cities of the North was dependent upon the slave trade. The first slave ship in America, "THE DESIRE", was fitted out in Marblehead, Massachusetts. Further proof that Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery is found in the diary of an officer in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. He stated that "he had never met a man in the Army of Northern Virginia that claimed he was fighting to preserve slavery". If the war had been over slavery, the composition of the politicians, officers, enlisted men, and even African Americans would have been different. Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves (Custis estate) prior to 1863 whereas Union General Grant's wife Julia did not free her slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution and court action. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South. Mildred Lewis Rutherford (1852-1928) was for many years the historian for the United Daughters Of The Confederacy (UDC). In her book Truths Of History she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army (315,000) than the Confederate Army (200,000). Statistics also show that about 300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union. Clearly the war would have been fought along different lines if it had been fought over slavery. The famous English author Charles Dickens stated " 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."

10. NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES, Proof that Abraham Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort (A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy started the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a rebellion. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States. On April 17th 1861, Governor Letcher of Virginia sent this message to Washington DC: "I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers of Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern states and the requisition made upon me for such a object--an object in my judgement not within the purview of the constitution or the act of 1795, will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war; having done so we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South."

The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES 1861-1865 occurred due to many complex causes and factors as enumerated above. Those who make claims that "the war was over slavery" or that if slavery had been abolished in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was signed or in 1789 when The Constitution of the United States of America was signed, that war would not have occurred between North and South are being very simplistic in their views and opinions.

The Union victory in 1865 destroyed [] the right of secession in America,which had been so cherished by America's founding fathers as the principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England, understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4, 1866, Lord Acton wrote "I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2, 1865, the war had "tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to militate against the Jeffersonian Ideal (Thomas Jefferson) that the best government is that which governs least. Years after the war former Confederate president Jefferson Davis stated "I Am saddened to Hear Southerners Apologize For Fighting To Preserve Our Inheritance". Some years later former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt stated" Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are Beyond Redemption".

SWR, I suppose to believe that a bad thing one would have to believe that the Emancipation was more than a war measure and its post-war celebration more than the victory of rhetoric.  Sometimes it's best going to the horse's mouth to dispel historical inaccuracies that get accepted as commonplace understanding. "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." --Ulysses S. Grant  "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." --Abraham Lincoln. March 4, 1861 Inaugural address  I do wonder if we all haven't been reading too many New England history books ?  See below.

You are side-stepping the issue. The Knights of the Golden Circle was a pro-slavery organization. Pro-slavery...they (KGC) did not want to abolish slavery. They (KGC) felt every white man has the right to own slaves. No matter how you type it....the results are the same. Pro-Slavery. Oh yeah...and this was all pre-Civil War. So...why would anyone want to put their name on a document of an organization that supports slavery?

Well, actually I do not believe I am sidestepping a thing.  Might it be possible you're doing the very thing you point the finger at?  Several Northern states and/or citizens owned fleets of slave carrying ships.  The issue was and is simply a wedge used to socially control just as any might use manipulation today.  Let me show you how that works.

Profits from the slave trade were so great that Rhode Island would not approve the U.S. Constitution without a guarantee that slavery was in.  Rhode Island was for slavery right up until the end as the Emancipation war measure was passed.  Yet do you know of any living in those Northern states today?

Shouldn't any be ashamed, even embarrassed to have name printed on any degree, diploma or marriage certificate? Why not?  Yet, I live in a Dixie state and you'd level "past sins" of slavery against those, individuals and organisations. 

Your margin information states you're in Tampa, Florida and we all know that state, yes, that government supported slavery.  What is it that you've done today to change that image?  Just curious.

Gary

Even though you are just pretending to be a member of a pro-slavery club, the fact remains the same...it is pro-slavery. This is 2009 and not 1861

A point of view many apply to Dixie but not individuals today living in the former pro-shipping states so, yes, "this is 2009 and not 1861" as you state but the game is the same.  Would you say they are pro-shipping just as you assert any vestige of the KGC is pro-slavery? 

It is true the last slave ship was caught around 1860. Hmmm...something to think about for a moment.

Gary

KGC4Dixie:

  That was an outstanding post.  Is it protected or can it be copied and
disseminated?  Thanks for a real history lesson.

lastleg

KGC4Dixie:  That was an outstanding post.  Is it protected or can it be copied and
disseminated?  Thanks for a real history lesson. lastleg

Lastleg, the article was written by a fellow but I've forgotten his name.  He did mean the article for wide distribution but if ever there is objection (I doubt that) just delete.

One knows instinctively that all wars are about getting the other man's money or resources.  They always have been and always will be.

Gary

Just a bit of advice, don't listen to historians but listen to the men who made secession happen in 1860 and 1861. They seceeded for political issues surrounding slavery most especially the right to extend slavery into new territories. The tariff issues had died by the 1850s. In fact the confederate government imposed the Walker Tariff act of 1857 on itself which was the same one they were under in the Union. You have to listen to them...they had secession conventions and each state drafted their reasons for secession and it was over the issues of slavery and the extension of it into the new territories because it was legal and constitutional.

Of course after they lost the war they started the lost cause myth in the 1870s and 80s.

I think you've missed my point about Gary proudly putting his name on the pro-Slavery document. Even though the document is a fantasy item, concocted in his head, by doing so he is proudly proclaiming his pro-Slavery stance. Has nothing to do with secession or political issues. 

SWR,

I think this point by now has left the African Gold Coast heading for New England as in "that ship has already set sail."

Gary

Walker Colt:

  I was unable to find much info on the Confederate Government's Walker Tariff
Act of 1857.  Not on Wiki, help please.

lastleg

Tariff Act of 1857 which is the amended Walker Tariff. There were some concerns about the Morrill Tariff Act but it had no chance of passing until secession. Here is the Texas Ordinance of Secession http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm.

By the way 8 of the signers were known KGC and I am sure there were more that were but no evidence has surfaced yet.

Walker Colt:
 
  Thanks for that reply but it was not what I asked for.  I wanted you to prove
to our mutual satisfaction that a certain tariff was initiated by the "confederate
government" in 1857.

It was adopted in 1861. http://books.google.com/books?id=y_...ISO-8859-1&output=html&cd=6

The tariff issues had died by the 1850s. In fact the confederate government imposed the Walker Tariff act of 1857 on itself which was the same one they were under in the Union.

Walker Colt, I'm trying to understand why it would be a bad thing for the Confederate government to impose a tax for itself and not have 75-80% pre-secession taxes flee Dixie to build Northern infrastructure.

Gary

My only point was that during secession the Tariff was almost a non issue. The southern states were happy with the Walker Tariff of 1846 and its revision of 1857 so much so they adopted it. The overwhelming reason for secession was that the Federal Government did not allow the institution of slavery in the new territories and if these new territories became free states it would upset the balance of power in the senate and the institution of slavery in the southern states would be in jeopardy.

You really don't see the state's rights issue come up until the 1870s. People still argue this until they are blue in the face. My ancestors were confederates, two were wounded, one captured at Vicksburg where he was paroled and captured later in the war and sent to the hell hole Camp Douglas prison and never signed an oath of allegiance to get out before the war ended. Most of the south did not own slaves but their economy was driven by it. I am not embarrased by my ancestry so I don't have to come up with other issues why they seceeded. They told us load and clear in every newspaper and secession convention why they did.

My only point was that during secession the Tariff was almost a non issue. The southern states were happy with the Walker Tariff of 1846 and its revision of 1857 so much so they adopted it.

Walker Colt, The Southern states were by tariff forced to trade with the North and buy goods, millions of dollars were once discovered of excess in the U.S. treasury and divided among Northern states only. Being "happy" is highly subjective a statement to when being treated as the milk cow of the union by New England states and there are always political reasons that later no one can figure.  Are you one for registry of firearms, new healthcare or a muzzle on free speech?  As we are seeing, the majority do not have to want those things to get them by Congress.

The overwhelming reason for secession was that the Federal Government did not allow the institution of slavery in the new territories and if these new territories became free states it would upset the balance of power in the senate and the institution of slavery in the southern states would be in jeopardy.

Perhaps the reasons you read slavery into the "only" reason for secession was the result of the Northern social hammer of abolitionism.  Any have to look at both sides to get a real picture and so many of the books available nowadays are strongly one sided.

You really don't see the state's rights issue come up until the 1870s. People still argue this until they are blue in the face.

A real Confederate will correct this point.  In the ratifications to the U.S. Constitution there were states of which was Rhode Island who declared that laws injurious to the well-being of the state and her people constituted a right to leave.  In 1812, New England states at the Hartford convention sent a letter of secession to Washington D.C. because the South would not stop fighting the British.  The War ended right away and the letter was retrieved en route.  In the 1830s South Carolina threatened state's rights in the nullification of tax laws to which threats were made by Andrew Jackson to send troops.  I believe this points to the need to do more research on how state's rights were only reduced by the concept of the great Civil War afterward.  If anything, I can only imagine discussion in the 1870s were a backlash to a perceived loss of rights by the states.

My ancestors were confederates, two were wounded, one captured at Vicksburg where he was paroled and captured later in the war and sent to the hell hole Camp Douglas prison and never signed an oath of allegiance to get out before the war ended. Most of the south did not own slaves but their economy was driven by it. I am not embarrased by my ancestry so I don't have to come up with other issues why they seceeded. They told us load and clear in every newspaper and secession convention why they did.

You have great potential to be a KGC Dixie defender if we could only get you the right reading materials.  Here is a quote from someone living through those times.

"There was no surrender at Appomattox, and no withdrawal from the field which committed our people and their children to a heritage of shame and dishonor. No cowardice on any battlefield could be as base and shameful as the silent acquiescence in the scheme which was teaching the children in their homes and schools that the commercial value of slavery was the cause of the war, that prisoners of war held in the South were starved and treated with a barbarous inhumanity, that Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were traitors to their country and false to their oaths, that the young men who left everything to resist invasion, and climbed the slopes of Gettysburg and died willingly on a hundred fields were rebels against a righteous government." --The Reverend James Power Smith, last surviving member of General Jackson's staff, 1907

Gary

Well Gary it is pointless to argue the matter. If you won't listen to the men who made secession happen or read their own secession ordinances then why listen to me. After they lost the war their stories changed into the lost cause myth but before the war they were very clear as to why they seceeded. Lets get back to treasure hunting and the KGC.

Well Gary it is pointless to argue the matter. If you won't listen to the men who made secession happen or read their own secession ordinances then why listen to me. After they lost the war their stories changed into the lost cause myth but before the war they were very clear as to why they seceeded. Lets get back to treasure hunting and the KGC.

It is never pointless to carry a correct view in the face of overwhelming odds and I'm glad to listen to you Walker Colt but not accepting of this peculiar point of view in understanding not shared by KGC and Confederate Founders.  The history of Dixie has always been the same.  Enjoyed.

Gary

  Many patriots in Texas are entertaining the idea of Succesion II.

Well guys, I just have to put my two cents in here.  Ill start with some facts to add to the discussion.  Ol' Honest Abe was pro slavery himself.  His family were SLAVE OWNERS.  Although his mother and father were to poor to own many if any at all.  It was his kin folk that owned them. It wasn't until Lincoln was practicing law in a free state (Illinois) with Will Herndon that he changed his voice to antislavery. The issue of slavery in the south was an economic strategy.  If the southern states were free states and without slaves, the economy would not be able to support a war.  If you have ever read the entire Emancipation Proclamation, you would read that states in the north and areas of northern control in the south were allowed to keep slaves.  President Lincoln tried to outlaw slavery in a country that was no longer under his control.  Lincoln even had plans and contracts to ship freed slaves back to Africa after the war.  However these plans were not accomplished due to the secret nature and his untimely death. 

Yes slavery was an issue during the civil war.  But not the right or wrong of it.  Just the economic stability it gave the south.  There were many issues that lead to the war.  Protection from indians and mexican bandits, taxes being paid to the union were not used to advance conditions in southern states, southern state leaders were being pushed around in Washington by northern majorities, and violence was used as a scare tactic by the north against southern states that "might" succeed. 

The Civil War, like any other war was an economical one.  Anyone who disagrees with this should realize that England was on the side of the confederacy.  Its a well known fact and one that explains alot.  If not for financial reasons.... Why would England even care?

For the many people out there who refuse to give proof that the info they post is real, here are my sources...

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/fe...pation_proclamation/transcript.html

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlincoln.htm

... There is also a book and article written by a black person stating these facts.  I believe they were a writer for Ebony Magazine.  The cover of the book is half black and half white.  If anyone finds this info please share it for I have misplaced my link.

These are the facts.  Take them and use them in your own twisted ways. 

You are surely correct on your statements, dirty_digger.  Dishonest Abe wrote in the EP that all slaves within the Secessionists States were free, except for two (unnamed) Parishes in south Louisiana.  Most folks have not read the EP, but they should;  it's only one page in length. 

I've heard Americans of African Decent, hotly speak AGAINST the Constitution of the Confederate States of America and claim that anyone who speaks against Obama is a racist with sworn allegiance to the CSA Constitution.  That statement proves their total ignor ance and the FACT that they have never even LOOKED at that document;  much less,actually READ it.     How can anyone so openly advertise their lack of knowledge (ignor ance) on that subject? 

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America and the Emancipation Proclamation are very easy to find on the internet.  All  A.A.D.'s should read those 2 documents............but they won't.

dirty_digger and members, here is an excellent book that documents everything that dirty-digger said and more about Abe Lincoln and the causes of the Civil War.  I read it a few years ago and posted excerpts from it on our Bloody Bill Anderson Mystery group's message board.

***
From: "Lincoln Unmasked - What You're Not Supposed to Know About
Dishonest Abe" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2006.

***

"Thomas J. DiLorenzo is the author of "The Real Lincoln" and "How
Capitalism Saved America". A professor of economics at Loyola College
in Maryland and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, he
has written for the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Washington
Post, Reader's Digest, Barron's, and many other publications. He lives
in Baltimore, Maryland."

***
~Texas Jay
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bloodybillandersonmystery

The secessionist tell us why they left the Union. They wrote Declarations of Causes along with their Ordinances of Secession. Read their own words.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

SWR,  I cant believe I am posting this, but it must be said.  TEXAS JAY was right to repost his crazy yahoo link here.  I usually do not agree with TEXAS JAY, and his lack of resources.  If he has resources to back his claims, he usually will not post them.  It causes quite the comotion in many parts of this forum, lol.  But if he quotes a reference on the site, let him post it.  You dont have to read it.  Im just glad he used references this time, lol.  Im glad there are a few more references to back what I said up.  I am bad about forgetting where I find some of this info.  Thanks for the positive replies and support guys.  We all need to remember that what we were tought in school is usually way off.  And we will NEVER know all of the story.  All we can do is try to fill in the holes with factual events and records.

SWR, I guess thats true.  I didnt look through his group long enough to find the book sources he was refering to.  Guess I gave him credit a lil to early.  So lets have the real sources or links to these books TEXAS JAY.  I know I would like to read them.  Sorry SWR, I jumped the gun, lol.

SWR, I guess thats true.  I didnt look through his group long enough to find the book sources he was refering to.  Guess I gave him credit a lil to early.  So lets have the real sources or links to these books TEXAS JAY.  I know I would like to read them.  Sorry SWR, I jumped the gun, lol.

Gun jumper lol

   I am puzzled about why SWR feels the need to inject PC garbage into this
harmless artistry discussion.  Gary does beautiful work and some of us like
his talents.  In fact, I don't associate it with slavery at all.
  This whole KGC phenomonan is currently popular and is the source for many
enjoyable comedic moments for this observor.  PC crap is a downer.

SWR, I guess thats true.  I didnt look through his group long enough to find the book sources he was refering to.  Guess I gave him credit a lil to early.  So lets have the real sources or links to these books TEXAS JAY.  I know I would like to read them.  Sorry SWR, I jumped the gun, lol.

dirty_digger, I post sources for every informative post I make on here.  As for the DiLorenzo book I referred to, you will have to actually buy the book or get a copy from your public library in order to read it. 

  http://www.thomasdilorenzo.com/

https://www.randomhouse.com/catalog...?isbn=9780307338419&view=quotes

~Texas Jay

"Confronting the Lincoln Cult"

{Ever since starting the most extensive investigation ever conducted into the controversial life and death of Bloody Bill Anderson of Quantrill's Raiders in early 2006 and extending the research into the Knights of the Golden Circle, I and members of our group have faced the same kind of traditionalist opposition and dirty tactics that DiLorenzo faced when he wrote and published "The Real Lincoln". - Texas Jay}  

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=97...amp;FS=Confronting+the+Lincoln+Cult

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bloodybillandersonmystery - this is the forum I chose to create in order to bring researchers, genealogists, historians, and other interested people together for this important historical project.  

Calling Abe Lincoln PRO SLAVERY is like calling Obama PRO GUN. Lincoln's Congressional record speaks loud and clear that he was a antislavery abolitionist. Not as bad as some of the others but bad enough for Calhoun to call him out in his Southern Address.

Lincoln was a big time supporter of the Wilmot Proviso, and also wrote legislation to abolish slavery in DC and all federal owned properties.

According to the secessionist the main reason for secession was if the newly acquired territories became freestates then it would give the abolitionists more power in congress and threaten slavery in the southern states. Lincoln was strongly in favor of that which made him the enemy of the institution of slavery.

Action (Voting record) means more than his words.

Hi Walker Colt.  I don't know when I or DiLorenzo ever said that Lincoln was "pro-slavery" but the record is clear that Lincoln was against what is called "racial equality".  Those are two different positions and are not synonymous.  One point that the Lincoln cultists and traditionalists refuse to acknowledge is that the Civil War had many causes.  Slavery was only one of them. 
~Texas Jay

Thanks TEXAS JAY, thats the kind of links I like to see on here.  Right to the point so to speak.  I will read those books and hope to lear a lil something.  I had heard of them before. 

WALKER, I believe that between TEXAS JAY, myself and others posting on this topic, it has been established that Dis-honest Abe was NOT pro slavery.  The resources for his position on race equality, or lack there of, have been posted and agreed upon by several members posting here.  There is nothing to argue.  The issue of Lincoln's racial opinions is simply a fact that was intentionaly left out of the history books. 

And BOGGYBOTTOMJAY, you can bite me!!!!!!!

Well guys, I just have to put my two cents in here.  Ill start with some facts to add to the discussion.  Ol' Honest Abe was pro slavery himself.  His family were SLAVE OWNERS.  Although his mother and father were to poor to own many if any at all.  It was his kin folk that owned them. It wasn't until Lincoln was practicing law in a free state (Illinois) with Will Herndon that he changed his voice to antislavery. The issue of slavery in the south was an economic strategy.  If the southern states were free states and without slaves, the economy would not be able to support a war.  If you have ever read the entire Emancipation Proclamation, you would read that states in the north and areas of northern control in the south were allowed to keep slaves.  President Lincoln tried to outlaw slavery in a country that was no longer under his control.  Lincoln even had plans and contracts to ship freed slaves back to Africa after the war.  However these plans were not accomplished due to the secret nature and his untimely death.  

I apologize gentlemen, I was responding to your earlier post.

Hi Walker Colt.  I don't know when I or DiLorenzo ever said that Lincoln was "pro-slavery" but the record is clear that Lincoln was against what is called "racial equality".  Those are two different positions and are not synonymous.  One point that the Lincoln cultists and traditionalists refuse to acknowledge is that the Civil War had many causes.  Slavery was only one of them. 
~Texas Jay

If you read the Declarations of Causes you will see slavery is numero uno my friend. That doesn't mean the Confederate rank and file were fighting to keep the institution but the state governments certainly were. In fact by the end of the war Lee and others wanted to free the slaves and arm them. You've got to listen to what they said before the war not after. After they lost the war they came up with all kinds of reasons for secession. Don't buy into revisionist history, read the secession convention details in the newspapers and the Confederate Constitution debates.

"Confronting the Lincoln Cult"

{Ever since starting the most extensive investigation ever conducted into the controversial life and death of Bloody Bill Anderson of Quantrill's Raiders in early 2006 and extending the research into the Knights of the Golden Circle, I and members of our group have faced the same kind of traditionalist opposition and dirty tactics that DiLorenzo faced when he wrote and published "The Real Lincoln". - Texas Jay}  http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=97...amp;FS=Confronting+the+Lincoln+Cult
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bloodybillandersonmystery - this is the forum I chose to create in order to bring researchers, genealogists, historians, and other interested people together for this important historical project. 

Good grief. Soliciting Yahoo groups again. Old, old, old.  DiLorenzo, another conspiracy theorist who tries to rewrite history. There is a reason these publications do not get a glowing review from peers, nor are they interpreted as Real History by mainstream scholars

Yes, and if you think history is mistreated then one should read what was written about George Washington by the English during the war.  What a rebel!  I think they call you a "colonist" to this day SWR but you don't know it according to mainstream scholars.  Too funny.

Gary

"Confronting the Lincoln Cult"

{Ever since starting the most extensive investigation ever conducted into the controversial life and death of Bloody Bill Anderson of Quantrill's Raiders in early 2006 and extending the research into the Knights of the Golden Circle, I and members of our group have faced the same kind of traditionalist opposition and dirty tactics that DiLorenzo faced when he wrote and published "The Real Lincoln". - Texas Jay}  http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=97...amp;FS=Confronting+the+Lincoln+Cult
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bloodybillandersonmystery - this is the forum I chose to create in order to bring researchers, genealogists, historians, and other interested people together for this important historical project. 

Good grief. Soliciting Yahoo groups again. Old, old, old.  DiLorenzo, another conspiracy theorist who tries to rewrite history. There is a reason these publications do not get a glowing review from peers, nor are they interpreted as Real History by mainstream scholars

Yes, and if you think history is mistreated then one should read what was written about George Washington by the English during the war.  What a rebel!  I think they call you a "colonist" to this day SWR but you don't know it according to mainstream scholars.  Too funny.

Gary

SWR is regularly called worse that that, and not by the English.................well, MAYBE them, too.   

SWR,

I'm still around but digging into a whole lot of genealogy.  Still not through with the searches which are very time consuming.

Gary

______________

Nice to see I still own you.    thumbsup

Gary:

   Will these geneological pursuits take you to the Sunshine State?