Free Republic

You're right, it was about economics. That's the position taken by Charles Adams in "When in the course of Human Events". A goggle search should turn up something about Adams' book. The record is clear that Lincoln was for gradual emancipation and shipping the freed slaves to colonies in the jungles of Central American or to Africa.
In our schools, we have yankee propaganda misrepresented as history.

Well, I salute the AF captain for taking a stand for the truth, but he should have known the basic rules of military careerism; go along and get along, tell 'em what they want to hear and kiss ass. Some West Point members of my CE officer basic class explained it all to me, a ROTCer. After a short time I realized that I could not prostitute my integrity, so I didn't "play the game". I spoke out and burned my bridges and finally resigned. Vietnam was a big mess and this story is just one of many. In the Fall of 1965, MACV J2 looked at population numbers and concluded that: "The enemy will be able to replace his losses and continue a high level of guerilla and terrorist activities indefinitely". In other words, we could not win a war of attrition, Westmoreland's body count strategy. Later I read that the CIA had reached the same conclusion in 1964. We could still be over there running up body counts and winning battles but that would not win the war. All we were doing was keeping in power a corrupt unpopular Saigon government which was created by the CIA and fighting a war the Vietnamese would not fight..............and I'm still angry, and I blame the US Government and Military for all our KIAs, MIAs and WIAs.

"Let's say that again: the South seceded to preserve slavery"

Slavery was legal in the US until December, 1865 when the 13th Amendment was passed, more than six months after the war was over. Lincoln made it clear that he would not interfer with slavery. Burns doesn't talk about the five UNION SLAVE STATES; Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and New Jersey, and they aren't mentioned in the EP. Ok, NJ had only a few older retired slaves. If the North fought the war to free the slaves, why didn't they free 'em in the North? Delaware had slavery til the end, even voted against the 13th Amendment, said it was a States' Rithts issue.

I understand, and I salute our warriors; but it was never our war to win or lose. We could still be over there winning battles and running up body counts, but the other side was not going to run out of bodies and they were not going to give up. That was MACVJ2's conclusion in the Fall of '65, and later I read the the CIA had reached the same conclusion a year earlier. I went on some search and destroy operations with ARVN and I saw why those operations were later called search and AVOID.

"This is just a rembrance of a soldier who gave his life so that we could all be free."

And a remberance of all the American boys who were killed or maimed as a result of the US Government sending them half way around the world to defend a corrupt Saigon Government which was created by the CIA, and to fight a war the Vietnamese would not fight.

I love my country but I have nothing but contempt for the US Government........The Government is NOT the country.

MACVJ2/ARVN CMD G2 Advisor '65-'66

I've been hearing this BS about fighting for OUR freedom for more than 35 years. Give me break!

"But conspicuously absent from this list is the ORIGINATORS of the African slave trade: The Muslim Arabs."

National Geographic had an article a few years back that said 80% of the slaves were prisoners captured in tribal wars. Criminals and the mentally impaired were also sold into slavery. It was the Black African tribal leaders who did the selling. The tribal war are still going on, but now they slaughter and maim their POWs.

Keith,

Isn't Barr from Iowa?

What's the source of your info?

"You make it sound like a picnic."


??????? So what is it that you have a problem with?
Sherman saw slavery first-hand while serving in South Carolina when he was a young soldier, and he said that the abolitionist view was "a delusion of the brain". The public's perception of slavery is based on that propaganda and various works of fiction including "Roots". I just think that we should try to see it as truthfully as possible; and we should judge those people in the context of the times. I find it sad that so many Americans' world view and understanding of history is based on propaganda sound bites.

"Please pay reparations only if one were born in 1863 and was a slave".

1863? Slavery was legal until Dec, 1865, more than six months after the war was over. We don't hear a lot about the UNION SLAVE STATES. Delaware kept slavery to the end; even voted against the 13th Admedment; they said it was a states' rights issue.

The demand for reparations is based on the belief that slave labor was free, but it was not. The planters owed the slaves "a living" from the cradle to the grave. In his Nobel Prize winning study of slavery, "Time on the Cross", Fogel reports that 90% of the value created by a slave was returned over a life time. That's why the planters were proud of their system. Everyone was proved for, the sick, the disabled and the aged. I hope the Congress does address this issue. Maybe we'll get some facts rather than propaganda.

" white people were held in slavery by Africans (Egyptians) and the opppression continues to hold me down today."

Yes, the Egyptians were Africans, but the were NOT Negroes. I've pointed out that fact to some black teachers. Blacks, Negroes, Colored People or whatever are from Central Africa. Black people were NOT "creating civilization while white were hiding in caves in Europe"

I'm not a fan of miss jane and her dirty dope smokin' buddies, but I too was against the war. I was at MACV Intelligence and was an advisor with ARVN, and I saw first-hand that we were supporting an unpopular, corrupt Saigon govenment which was created by the CIA; and we were fighting a war the Vietnamese would not fight. Sure we won all the battles, including Tet, and we could still be over there winning battles and running up bodies counts, but that would win the war. If the public had been told the truth during the early '60s, we would never have gotten envolved. I salute all the GIs who served, butI have nothing but contempt for the political and military leaders who sent us half way around the world to impose a govenment on the Vietnamese people.

Mind you, if someone dares challenge their position on this kind of idiocy, they/we become nothing short of "Uncle Toms" who have "forgotten who we are."


You're right. I've seen that happen so many times. Good Blacks speak up and they get shouted down by the Black bigots. The NAACP continues to expand the White backlash which they created. Without their attacks on the Confederate Flag, there would be no Southern Movement. ..........HEY!, I hope they keep it up 'cause we're gettin' organized
DEO VINDICE!

"According to Article I of the constitution, the feds are required to put down rebellions"

There was no rebellion. The Southern States seceded from the Union, and Lincoln had no authority to rule that they could not. Slavery was safe in the Union as evidenced by the fact that there were UNION SLAVE STATES, including Delaware which kept slavery to the end. They voted against the 13th Admenment, saying that slavery was a States' Rights issue.

Concerns about slavery was a cause for SECCESSION, but Linclon's unlawful effort to hold property which was clearly the Southern States share of the federal pie, and his unlawful, unconstitutional, and immoral invasion of the Southern States to "save the union", mostly for economic reasons, was the cause of THE WAR.
But simple minds want simple answers so we get "the war was about freeing the slaves" BS.
DEO VINDICE!

<< I am white. I was born (1941) and raised in the South. "American by birth, Southern by the Grace of God!" >>

Them people up there in Yankeeland sure seem to have a lot race problems. The left coast is the same way. Hope they learn how to get along like we did.

Well, I've read a lot of conflicting material and it's difficult to know what the truth is. I read Bamford's book to learn about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. He presented what I consider the government's cover story. I read a report on the incident at MACV-J2 in the Fall of '65. It was short and simple. For background; the USS Maddox was collecting signal intelligence along the coast of North Vietnam at the same time the CIA was conducting secret raids on cosatal targets. In his book, McNamara says there was no connection between the raids and the Maddox. HAH! There's no way the CIA would opperate without NSA support. The intell folks on the Maddox intercepted a msg from three NVN PT boats which was interpreted as "prepare for attack", or something like that. The PT boats headed for the Maddox, and when they within range, the Maddox opened fire and called in navy air. Someone at a higher level read the msg and said it meant to be prepard in case of attack. Maybe it something like battle stations or general quarters. It appears that they were simply investigating the Maddox. And of course as we all know, the second attack which was the basis of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which got us into the war, never happened. At that point in the war, it hard to believe that the North Vietnamese would attack US ships. My point here is that we are lied to so much it's hard to know what to believe. The philosophy at work is the idea that truth is subjective, it's all in your head. The late CIA Director William Colby put it this way: "...truth is in the mind of the beholder; If you affect what he thinks, that's the truth." So, "they" fill our head with false perceptions, and thus we live in a fog of lies.

The Liberty attack is addressed in Chapter Seven of James Bamford's book about the NSA: "Body of Secrets". He says the attack was deliberate and he says the motive was to stop the Liberty from interceping commo about: "...near the mineret at El Arish, Isreali forces were engaged in a criminal slaughter....Egyptian casualties there(in the Sinai)ranged from 7,000 to 10,000 compared with 275 (Israeli)troops....Few were spared as the Iraelis pushed forward." And:"As the Liberty sat within eyeshot of El Arish, evesdropping on the surrounding communications, Israeli soldiers turned the town into a slaughterhouse, systematically butchering their prisoners". And there's more along the same line. I'm not lookin' for a fight, I'm just relating what Bamford says. The Isrealis, along with a lot of help from LBJ and the US government, did a good job of PRin' the incident.

So the war was about slavery? So why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in the UNION SLAVE STATES at the beginning of the war? And why did he appeal to the South to return to "the Union as it was ", with slavery? Alexander Stephens wanted to stay in the Union because he knew that slavery was safe with Lincoln. Lincoln was for gradual emancipation and deporting Black to colonies in the jungles of South America. Your "sound bite" view of history is consistent with the public's "sound bite" view of the world today.
DEO VINDICE!!!!and HURRAH FOR DIXIE!!!

Geez, are you saying that the Confederate Flag is the same as the Nazi Flag?........ Are you aware that there were Union slave states: Missouri, Kentucky, Marylang, Delaware and New Jersey? This whole county has been brainwashed by Yankee lies........HURRAH FOR DIXIE!!!