Names tell a lot, and that conflict had many names. The one that seems to have stuck is “The Civil War.” But is this an accurate description? Civil wars by definition are wars waged between two or more factions within a country struggling for control of the government (1). But Robert E. Lee was not fighting to take over the government of Abraham Lincoln any more than George

Washington was fighting to take over the government of George III. Quite to the contrary, both were fighting to get out from under those governments, and Lincoln and George III were fighting to prevent them from doing so. Why?

Did the North wage war against the South because the South fired the first shot? South Carolina – with far more provocation (2) – did no more than Massachusetts did when she seceded from the British Empire and fired on the British troops at Lexington and Concord.

Did the North wage war against the South to preserve democracy? Notwithstanding Lincoln’s stirring rhetoric in his Gettysburg Address (3), government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” did not “perish from the earth” when the Southern States withdrew from the Union. It perished when they were driven back into it at the point of the bayonet. Furthermore, while Lincoln was issuing this stirring address, his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus had been in effect for ten months (4) and up to 38,000 of his critics and political enemies had been languishing in his dungeons without trial from one end of his domain to the other (5). At home, opposition printing presses had been destroyed by Mr. Lincoln’s Army and editors threatened with death, while Lincoln was conducting total war against a Southern people who only wished to be let alone, and whose attempt to peacefully withdraw from a voluntary Union would not have in any way prevented the North from having all the democracy it desired.

We are very often told the War was fought over slavery. “Just look at the Ordinances of Secession,” we are told. “They had slavery written all over them.” A little research will show that this generality did not apply to all of them – such as Virginia’s. But even if it did, so what? The Ordinances of Secession were not Declarations of War. They were Declarations of Independence. However, one will notice that this is never mentioned in the National narratives, because it would directly repudiate the National legacy of the Declaration of Independence that the thirteen slaveholding (6) colonies signed in 1776. So to cloud the issue, the contention that slavery caused the war is emphatically and always implied – but never explained! Lincoln himself could not even explain it. In his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln said of slavery:

“All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.” (7)

Let us take another look at this. “All knew,” Lincoln claims, that “somehow” slavery was the cause of the war. We see here in Lincoln not some infallible Oracle of Truth, but merely an obfuscating lawyer arguing his case by pointedly ignoring the question of “How?” – the very question whose answer was fundamental to his accusation.

The fallacies of Lincoln’s accusations are readily apparent. The Southern States – far from withdrawing from the Union in order to expand the territorial limits of slavery – essentially gave up their claims to the territories rather than live under a Northern despotism, and thereby restricted their avenues for the expansion slavery! This not only brought about what Lincoln said was the Federal Government’s sole object – to restrict slavery’s expansion – it went most of the way towards peacefully removing slavery from the United States altogether! As for rending the Union, “even by war,” I would ask: Who rebuffed Southern diplomatic overtures of peace from December 1860 to April 1861? Whose garrison committed the first act of war by spiking the guns at Ft. Moultrie and slipping into Ft. Sumter in the dark of night in direct violation of the truce then in effect? And who deceived the South diplomatically until he could send a powerfully armed armada to Charleston to provoke the South into firing the first shot?

If the North was fighting a Crusade of Liberation, why didn’t she wage war on New York and Boston, the largest African Slave-trading ports in the world in 1861 (8)? Or on Africa herself and her slave-raiders – such as the Kingdom of Dahomey – the largest exporters of African slaves in the world (9)? Or on New England and her manufacturing profits gleaned from slave-picked cotton, and from rum manufactured from slave-harvested sugar cane and distilled for trading along the African coast for more slaves (10)? Why? Because slavery was not the issue of the “Irrepressible Conflict,” as William Seward contended (11). The “Irrepressible Conflict” was between the “opposing and enduring forces” of an agrarian economy and an industrial economy. The respective labor systems of the antagonists were just as irrelevant in this conflict as in any other war of conquest.

Why did Northerners abolish slavery in the first place? Was it because of their superior morality? Or was it because in an industrialized economy a free-labor system is more profitable to an employer than a slave-labor system? Adam Smith – in his classic treatise on economics entitled The Wealth of Nations – explained it all in 1776 and set the Abolition ball rolling (12). And if abolishing slavery in their States was because of the Northerners’ superior morality, why did they first sell their slaves “down the river” before the abolition laws went into effect? Did they wish merely to rid themselves of a troublesome and unprofitable labor system, or to rid themselves of their African population as well? Alexis de Tocqueville makes some interesting observations on this in his classic work, Democracy in America (13).

But did the North in fact abolish slavery? Or did she merely transform it into something a little more discreet and a lot more profitable? Slavery is as old as Egypt, and the Preacher tells us there is no new thing under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). If the borrower is the servant to the lender (Proverbs 22:7), then some of us have voluntarily sold ourselves into indentured servitude to our mortgage bankers, but our children have been sold into involuntary servitude with a thirty-four trillion dollar national debt. And when did this happen? It was all inaugurated during Reconstruction. Lt. Gen. Richard Taylor, CSA, son of President Zachary Taylor, described the carpetbagger as being worse than Attila the Hun, for Attila could only steal existing wealth, while the carpetbaggers stole the labor of unborn children with their invention of public credit (14). And they are still waxing fat on the backs of our enslaved children.

No, the North was not fighting to free the slaves. Lincoln said so himself. He specifically stated that he was fighting to save the Union (15). What he neglected to add, however, was that he was fighting to save the Union for Northern financial and industrial interests! And what were some of these interests? The industrializing North, with her sectional majority, was rapidly gaining control of the Federal Government and wielding it to accomplish her political ambitions to centralize its power, and use her control of that power to accomplish her industrial ambitions for high protective tariffs, bounties for transcontinental railroads, and the creation of national banks to manage it all, all at the South’s expense, turning the Southern States into her agricultural colonies – of the sort that England had earlier created with her thirteen Colonies. With the election of Lincoln and the triumph of his strictly Northern sectional party, the Cotton States saw it all coming and got out from under the North’s control once and for all.

So what was the War all about? Quite simply, it was the North’s war against the South’s secession. Secession is an Imperialist’s worst nightmare. When the thirteen Colonies rebelled against England’s economic exploitation by seceding from the Empire, England sent in the Redcoats. When the Southern States rebelled against Yankee economic exploitation by seceding from the Union, the Yankees sent in the Bluecoats.

With the secession of the Southern States, the North lost her largest source of tariff revenues, her source of cotton for her mills, a large portion of her markets for her manufactured goods, and control of the mouth of the Mississippi. If the South were to be allowed to leave the Union and get out from under the control of the North and her sectional majorities, the Northern economy would wither on the vine (16).

So the North provoked the South into firing the first shot, blockaded the Confederate coasts, and marched her armies across the South to the tune of the Puritanical and militantly intolerant Battle Hymn of the Republic – burning and pillaging and raping and killing – until she drove the Southern States back into the Union. Then – by the Reconstruction Acts that dis-franchised Southern intelligence and enfranchised Southern ignorance under the control of unscrupulous and predatory Northern carpetbaggers and demagogues propped up by Federal bayonets – the North passed Amendments that effectively gutted the Constitution of its federative nature, and put the Federal Government under her unlimited control (17). With the stumbling blocks of the South and the Constitution finally out of the way of her ambitions, the North then sent Sherman, Sheridan and Custer out to the Great Plains to tend to the Indians, who were in the way of her transcontinental railroads. (The South’s accounts of these genocidal incendiaries are underscored ten-fold by the Indians’ subsequent accounts in Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (18).) But this doesn’t look too good on the pages of a fourth grade history book or in a National Park Service film presentation, so the North’s war of conquest must be cloaked in robes of morality and turned into a war of liberation. To the victor belong the spoils, and the “Official History Book” – written by “Court Historians,” taught in public schools, and romanticized endlessly on the TV and movie screens – is one of the spoils of war.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the South has been made the nation’s foil, the scapegoat, the traitor, the guilty one, fighting not to defend herself from invasion, conquest, and coerced political allegiance, but fighting to defend slavery. And it should come as no surprise that the North has been made the righteous one, the “good guys,” fighting not a war of imperialism and conquest, but fighting a noble war of liberation under the tragic benevolence of “Father Abraham.” But the truth is that when Abraham Lincoln got the war he wanted, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, secured for himself dictatorial powers, and – with the collaboration of his political party – implemented the very usurpation that the Founders had struggled to prevent.

With the possibility of secession and nullification destroyed by force of arms in 1865, the States – who created the Federal Government in the first place (19) – are no longer the final arbiters of the limits of Federal power granted by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is. But the Supreme Court is part of the Federal Government. Therefore the Federal Government is the final arbiter of the limits of its own power – and that is the very definition of despotism. This, then – the exact opposite of Emancipation – is the true legacy of Abraham Lincoln and his War to Prevent Southern Independence. The Confederacy – the last remnant of the Republic of sovereign States bequeathed us by the Revolutionary Founders – was the American Empire’s first conquest.


  1. Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth ed., (Springfield: G. & C. Merriam, 1943.)
  2. “The War Begins.” Editorial. Richmond Dispatch, April 13, 1861, quoted in H. V. Traywick, Jr., Empire of the Owls: Reflections on the North’s War against Southern Secession (Manakin-Sabot, Virginia: Dementi Milestone Publishing, 2013) p. 59-61. See also Edward A. Pollard, Southern History of the War, 2 vols. (New York: Charles B. Richardson, 1866) 1: 55-6, 58-9, 61. And see Abraham Lincoln’s May 1st, 1861, letter to Capt. G. V. Fox, the commander of the Ft. Sumter expedition, in Samuel Wylie Crawford, The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter 1860-1861 (New York: Charles L. Webster & Co., 1887) 420.
  3. Abraham Lincoln, “Gettysburg Address” (1863) in Charles W. Eliot, LLD, ed. The Harvard Classics. 50 vols. (New York: P. F. Collier & Son, 1910) 43: 441.
  4. “Another Proclamation from Abraham.” Editorial. Richmond Enquirer, September 29, 1862, quoted in Traywick, p. 161-2.
  5. “The Reign of Terror in the North.” Greg Loren Durand, America’s Caesar: The Decline and Fall of Republican Government in the United States of America (Wiggins, Mississippi: Crown Rights Book Co., 2001) 171-87.
  6. See U. S. Census Returns of 1790 in Thomas Prentiss Kettell, Southern Wealth and Northern Profits (New York: George W. & John A. Wood, 1860) 120.
  7. Abraham Lincoln, “Second Inaugural Address” (1865) in Eliot, 43: 451.
  8. “The Slave-Trade in New York.” Editorial. Continental Monthly, January 1862, 87, in W. E. B. DuBois, The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870 (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1896) 179, quoted in Traywick, p. 31.
  9. See Zora Neale Hurston’s interview with Cudjo Lewis, the last living ex-slave who had come over on a slave ship, in Zora Neale Hurston, Dust Tracks on a Road (1942; New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1969) 206-12.
  10. Kettell 42-3, 52.
  11. William H. Seward, “The Irrepressible Conflict,” speech, Rochester, New York, October 25, 1858, in The Works of William H. Seward, 5 vols. Ed. George E. Baker (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1853-84) 4: 289, 291-2.
  12. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), ed. C. J. Billock, PhD., in Eliot 10: 85.
  13. Tocqueville 1: 385, 387-8, 391-2.
  14. Lt. Gen. Richard Taylor, CSA, Destruction and Reconstruction (New York: D. Appleton, 1879) 236.
  15. Abraham Lincoln, “First Inaugural Address” (1861) in Eliot 43: 334. See also Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862, in Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings, ed. Roy Basler (New York: DaCapo Press, 1946) 652.
  16. Kettell 19, 24, 42, 52, 75-6. See also “The Difference.” Editorial. New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861, quoted in Traywick, p. 66-8.
  17. William A. Dunning, PhD., Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction: and Related Topics (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1898) 247-52. See also Walter Lynwood Fleming, The Sequel of Appomattox: A Chronicle of the Reunion of the States. Textbook ed. The Chronicle of America Series. Ed. Allen Johnson. Gerhard R. Lomer and Charles W. Jeffereys assistant editors (New Haven: Yale UP, 1919) passim.
  18. Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1970) passim.
  19. Article VII, U. S. Constitution. See also Tocqueville 2: 425-6.


Basler, Roy, ed. Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings. New York: DaCapo Press, 1946.

Constitution of the United States of America.

Brown, Dee. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1970.

Crawford, Samuel Wylie. The Genesis of the Civil War: The Story of Sumter 1860-1861. New York: Charles L. Webster & Co., 1887.

DuBois, W. E. B. The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870. New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1896.

Dunning, William A., PhD. Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction: and Related Topics. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1898.

Durand, Greg Loren. America’s Caesar: The Decline and Fall of Republican Government in the United States of America. Wiggins, Mississippi: Crown Rights Book Co., 2001.

Eliot, Charles W., LLD, ed. The Harvard Classics. 50 vols. New York: P. F. Collier & Son, 1910. Vol. 10, The Wealth of Nations, and vol. 43, American Historical Documents.

Fleming, Walter Lynwood. The Sequel of Appomattox: A Chronicle of the Reunion of the States. Textbook ed. The Chronicle of America Series. Ed. Allen Johnson. Gerhard R. Lomer and Charles W. Jeffereys assistant editors. New Haven: Yale UP, 1919.

Hurston, Zora Neale. Dust Tracks in a Road. (1942) New York: Arno Press and The New York Times, 1969.

Kettell, Thomas Prentiss. Southern Wealth and Northern Profits. New York: George W. & John A. Wood, 1860.

New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861.

Pollard, Edward A. Southern History of the War. 2 vols. New York: Charles B. Richardson, 1866. Vol. 1.

Richmond Dispatch, April 13, 1861.

Richmond Enquirer, September 29, 1862.

Seward, William H. The Works of William H. Seward. 5 vols. Ed. George E. Baker. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1853-84. Vol. 4.

Taylor, Lt. Gen. Richard, CSA. Destruction and Reconstruction. New York: D. Appleton, 1879.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. 2 vols. (1835). Trans. Henry Reeve. New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1904. Vol. 1.

Traywick, H. V., Jr. Empire of the Owls: Reflections on the North’s War against Southern Secession. Manakin-Sabot, Virginia: Dementi Milestone Publishing, 2013.

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth ed. Springfield: G. & C. Merriam, 1943.

H.V. Traywick, Jr.

A native of Lynchburg, Virginia, the author graduated from the Virginia Military Institute in 1967 with a degree in Civil Engineering and a Regular Commission in the US Army. His service included qualification as an Airborne Ranger, and command of an Engineer company in Vietnam, where he received the Bronze Star. After his return, he resigned his Commission and ended by making a career as a tugboat captain. During this time he was able to earn a Master of Liberal Arts from the University of Richmond, with an international focus on war and cultural revolution. He is a member of the Jamestowne Society, the Society of the Cincinnati in the State of Virginia, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Society of Independent Southern Historians. He currently lives in Richmond, where he writes, studies history, literature and cultural revolution, and occasionally commutes to Norfolk to serve as a tugboat pilot.


  • William Quinton Platt III says:

    Nice. But your conclusion shows the true cause for the war. The SCOTUS declared in Dred Scott the simple fact anyone could take their property anywhere in the union without restriction. The war was fought because the non-slave (non-malarial) States didn’t want their workers competing with “sickle cell slaves”. How could the non-malarial States compete with malarial labor? The malarial States (which were warm and wet enough to produce malaria) could grow cotton and tobacco which were the world’s premier cash crops. The only advantage (and it was a HUGE advantage which is still not fully understood by most) the non-malarial States enjoyed was the lure of free land to bring in the poor Whites of Europe. IT IS WITHOUT COINCIDENCE THE CONTOURS OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES EXACTLY MATCH THE MALARIAL ZONE IN NORTH AMERICA.

    Slavery was a miracle brought about by God to bring blacks to the New World. None of them wanted to return to Africa. ALL “back to Africa” movements failed…all of them…period. If it hadn’t been for malaria and west African development of sickle cell, there would have been no reason to bring blacks to the New World. Poor White European labor could have come in to replace what was needed to replace native populations dying off due to disease brought by the Old Worlders. Without malaria, I seriously doubt the native populations would have been obliterated (not decimated, as is so often used improperly to describe near annihilation) and perhaps Europeans would not have been able to absolutely dominate the New World, as most of arable land mass of the New World is in the malarial zone and would have remained populated by a diminished but not vanished group of people who had a propensity to eat their captives instead of merely enslaving them.

    I do not think New York and Boston were importing slaves in the time frame mentioned (1861).

    THERE WERE ZERO SLAVE UPRISINGS DURING THE WAR despite millions of yankees losing tens of thousands of weapons on battlefields policed by slaves. Slavery was not the issue…CONTROL OF THE CONGRESS, THE SENATE, THE SCOTUS, THE PRESIDENCY were the issues…the Morrill tariff and Homestead Acts (all rammed though in the first moments of secession) were designed to steal money from the South and to bring in poor, White European immigrants who would vote against Southern land owners and who were the source of the majority of federal funds.

    Thank you for the effort. You are an example of why the internet will destroy the “narrative”.

  • Paul Yarbrough says:

    History, absent Yankee histrionics.

  • David LeBeau says:

    Nicely done, H. V.
    It’s sad that the mass of Americans are either too ignorant or too lazy to challenge the mainstream narrative.

    • Adrian Tentea says:

      they can’t challenge what they don’t know or don’t want to know. too bad articles like this don’t get a wider coverage

  • scott Thompson says:

    this is where i wonder if the republican cabal behind lincoln, sure…knowing their economy would be challenged by having to buy cotton now internationally, from the csa, also were concerned that if the south left then the newly us/union acquired territories might also at some point want to leave…and join the south or make their own western confederacy. why would a racist yankee of the period care about 50 slaves in Oklahoma or new Mexico.

  • Julie Paine says:

    Thank you! I was just trying to put this information into a nutshell for a young friend who has never heard anything about the War except the tidbits from public school. You’ve done a great job here!

  • Lafayette Burner says:

    This is arguably one of my favorite question! What is a war, any war, about?

    Was the war (or as Lincoln referred to it: great insurrection?) about slavery? One northern newspaper wrote of Ohio County Virginia: “Love of the institution of slavery has naught to do with the motives of those who in anywise side with seceded States, or with the power that be at Richmond, for slavery is almost entirely ignored. State pride [or allegiance] induces them…” You’ll recall that in those time a man had not the right to repudiate allegiance to his own State.

    And, at home in ‘pro-Union western Virginia’, they did more than threaten the lives of newspapermen: “John Hall was President of ‘West Virginia’s’ first constitutional convention. Fervent in his beliefs, [John] Hall had killed Lewis Wetzel, the editor of the Point Pleasant Register, in 1862 in a fight over attempts to stop the paper from publishing pro-Confederate editorials. Hall paid a substantial fine upon being convicted of manslaughter.”

    Excellent article sir. Lessons learned from reading it has relevance and application even today!

  • Lafayette Burner says:

    One more thing:
    There, you’ll see the 4th Estate in full force… supporting another false flag war, under concocted or false reason

  • Tyler says:

    Thank you HV for the hours of thought and re-editing you dedicated to this article. Your points came out with exceptional clarity. Please continue to shine the light of truth on this web of lies about 19th century issues.

  • Valerie Protopapas says:

    First, it was Lincoln who called it a “civil war” in his first inaugural address. He did so to make it appear that the South was as responsible as the North for the conflict. In Civil Wars, BOTH SIDES fight for a particular outcome. What actually happened in 1861 was an attack on States exercising their constitutional right to leave a Union that had become detrimental to their well being.

    Having said that, however, let’s undo the idea that the whole thing was the fault of the federal government. Such a central government was essential to the survival of those entities that had fought for their independence in the revolutionary war. Certainly the individual colonies ~ later States ~ were anything but cooperative and had it not been for the government created by the Constitution, there would have been no “United (united) States.” Either the larger States would have consumed the smaller, or Britain would have returned to simply take over the chaos that would have been the result of the War for Independence. Washington certainly knew that!

    Furthermore, what happened in 1861 was the FAULT OF STATES (and people) who wanted to retain the treasure of the Southern States for their own usage. The federal government was not the problem; it was the tool of people and States. The blame placed upon the federal government reminds me of those who blame guns for “gun crime” as if guns run around shooting people! PEOPLE are responsible for gun crime just as people and States were responsible for the attack on the South. Oh, slavery was used as an excuse, but there were other excuses as well. Washington had also warned about a SECTIONAL division. He tried mightily to link the North and South through himself. He was, after all, loved in all sections of the new nation. But he warned that if the spirit of party prevailed, the blessings of union might well become a curse. He was right ~ as usual.

    • William Quinton Platt III says:

      The immigration flows and hence, the votes for congressmen went to the northern States. Living in the malarial zone of the New World was tough. Yankees discovered they could buy congress with their votes and started voting money from out of Southern pockets. This would have only ended with technological advances such as chlorinated water, window screen, air conditioning…etc…but technology would have ended the slave system anyway…peacefully…like how the steam engine could do the work of thousands of men…BUT WE HAD TO HAVE THE WAR TO ESTABLISH THE PRIMACY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT even if that was an unintended consequence of northern States conspiring to steal Southern wealth.


  • Gordon Harvie says:

    Excellent, Mr. Traywick. I have found, in recent years, the best arguments about the War with doubters and adversaries are made with questions. There are so many to support our cause that we never have to be on defense. A benefit is never having to insult the listener by condescending to their ignorance, giving them a chance for response and leaving a possibility they’ll act on curiosity. I’ve been told in as many words that it is effective.

    I won’t offer analysis of the cause of the war. It will lead to a filibuster. I’m essentially from George Cary Eggleston’s school, the text book being his A History of the Confederate War, and it was a messy business. It’s sufficient that the Confederate states had the moral, political and legal right to government of their choosing.

    Mr. Traywick, knowing you live in Richmond and your connections to VMI and Confederate authorship and activism, you may be interested in knowing of a monument I’ve placed for one of our own. A New Market Cadet, a neighbor and kinsman, has his entire family – parents, siblings cousins and in-laws buried at the local Presbyterian Church. I contracted for and just had placed a granite marker for “TGJ” in front of the family stone, inscribed “Buried at VMI”, “In My Father’s House Are Many Mansions”. It’s probably all you need to know who and where but if you’re interested in information you may leave a reply. I suspect Abbeville Institute comment section is one of the safest, least creepy places on the internet.

    • John Goddard says:

      God bless you for doing so. That’s one of the most poignant moments that I have ever read. It was William Davis’ “The Battle of New Market” that first got me interested in the War. Ironic and sad (and infuriating)that Mr Ezekiel’s monument at Arlington is being removed as you have placed a memorial TGJ’s grave

      • Gordon Harvie says:

        Thanks. Davis’ book was one of the first I read too and I just re-read it. A lady with the UDC mentioned raising funds for Tom’s marker and I thought I should do it myself; I was embarrassed I didn’t think of it first. I was raised on a nearby farm and my father rented the Jefferson place to raise hay. I knew young Tom’s nephew – I’m not that old, he was – it wasn’t that long ago. Unfortunately my father died young, everyone else is gone and I can’t imagine the information lost. At least I can help bring Tom some recognition as the Historical Society says they want to have a ceremony in the spring.

        I read the Ezekiel family has written in favor of removal of Moses’ monument. I’d like to contact them and ask if they’re embarrassed by it all I’d like to have him reinterred with his friend’s family, including his marker: Sergeant of Company C, Battalion of Cadets, of the Virginia Military Institute.

  • Adrian Paul McClaren says:

    CORE Reason (for the War)—-CHRISTIANITY v paganism– 1848-all “Marxist” revolutions throughout Europe failed. Its adherents then immigrated to the northern & eastern USa. They spread the satanic doctrines of ABOLITIONism, TRANSCENDENTALism & UNITARIANism into what was left of the fading CHRISTIAN church in the north & east. These doctrines deny JESUS’ Divinity as the SON of the living GOD. 1865-result: the yankees won their war & most importantly Lost their GOD. The Confederates lost the war & most importantly kept (& still do) their GOD (Holy Trinity: Father YHWH, HIS SON JESUS CHRIST & HOLY SPIRIT)—–

Leave a Reply