Gettysburg and Independence Day

[Major Grigg]

This time of year is always very special for me to reflect on our nation's independence and struggle for that independence over the past 241 years. 

Today marks the 154th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg. Today I'm reflecting on the courage and determination of Burford's cavalry troopers, the fighting and loss of Reynolds near McPherson Ridge, and Howard's XI Corps fighting north of the town trying to stop Ewell's Second Corps. Many men fought hard and died this day in history for many reason. Take a moment a remember these men. 

God bless the United States of America, the greatest country in the world. 

Edited July 1, 2017 by Major Grigg

[A. P. Hill]

Today, there is a threat from some loonies here in the states, who have the notion that destroying any history of the civil war period is the right thing to do, in a case of revenge, or victimization politics.

News articles here are published noting that the park service and local and state police will be on high alert for threats of monument destruction as well as grave desecration.

For those of you who can't be at Gettysburg the civil war trust is streaming live on facebook.

Edited July 1, 2017 by A. P. Hill

[William the Drake]

4 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

Today, there is a threat from some loonies here in the states, who have the notion that destroying any history of the civil war period is the right thing to do, in a case of revenge, or victimization politics.

Get over yourself Hill; there's a major difference between observing the events and actions of the past and learning the lessons from them, and celebrating groups and individuals who would see the nation split on grounds of the subjugation of others.

So yes, we should all do well to remember those that fought, and to observe that "War is Hell," and that it is good that it is so, "otherwise we should grow too fond of it"

[Major Grigg]

If you're gonna get pissy with pieces of history that saw the subjugation other humans, your view of world history must be pretty negative. 

Edited July 1, 2017 by Major Grigg

[A. P. Hill]

1 hour ago, William the Drake said:

Get over yourself Hill; there's a major difference between observing the events and actions of the past and learning the lessons from them, and celebrating groups and individuals who would see the nation split on grounds of the subjugation of others.

So yes, we should all do well to remember those that fought, and to observe that "War is Hell," and that it is good that it is so, "otherwise we should grow too fond of it"

Sorry, but it sounds to me like you might need to get over this yourself.   I'm perfectly fine with all the monuments and sacred ground of our forefathers who gave their lives for their respective beliefs in what and where this country needed to go.

I am against those who think so shortly that if they tear down the past, it will never be remembered again, also known as revisionist history.

Have a happy 4th.

And remember, the misuse of people of any race or denomination started in other places of the world first and was not an American idea from the get go as some people premise.  Also for the record, there are still places on this planet where this misuse still continue, where is your wrath for those?

[Draluigi]

Buford lost 0 cavalry on that morning btw ^^

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

3 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

Sorry, but it sounds to me like you might need to get over this yourself.   I'm perfectly fine with all the monuments and sacred ground of our forefathers who gave their lives for their respective beliefs in what and where this country needed to go.

I am against those who think so shortly that if they tear down the past, it will never be remembered again, also known as revisionist history.

Thank you, Hill. Well said. I don't understand where people get this idea that they can go around erasing history, just because they don't agree with it. They claim that it is the Southerners that wish to revise history, yet it is these anti-Southerners that try to change or destroy any record or history that doesn't jive with their particular view. 

[Gmoney7447]

I'm all for remembering our history but what I don't like is many southerners praising the CSA or thinking their actions were justified. Monuments are meant for praising someone. We should teach the civil war in the classroom not praise men who went against their own country, fought their own brothers for not a single good reason. But yes happy Fourth 

[CSX4451]

Everyone has their own opinion on the matter and they have every right to think as they please. That's why America IS the greatest country on the face of the earth. 

God bless American and Happy Independence Day !!!!

[Major Grigg]

8 hours ago, Gmoney7447 said:

I'm all for remembering our history but what I don't like is many southerners praising the CSA or thinking their actions were justified. Monuments are meant for praising someone. We should teach the civil war in the classroom not praise men who went against their own country, fought their own brothers for not a single good reason. But yes happy Fourth 

This brings up a good point. If you were alive then, which side would you go with? It's something I've thought about before. 

Something to remember is that the Union was still a new thing in some ways. A lot of people's parents grew up before the US gained its independence, so they may have viewed the country differently than we do. 

I'm all in for a smaller federal government, so I can see why the South felt threatened by a group of people they had absolutely nothing in common with. Our fathers and grandfathers brought South Carolina into this Union, why can't we take it out? I can see the logic. 

However, I would like to think that I would side with good of the country as a whole. 

[Gmoney7447]

10 minutes ago, Major Grigg said:

This brings up a good point. If you were alive then, which side would you go with? It's something I've thought about before. 

Something to remember is that the Union was still a new thing in some ways. A lot of people's parents grew up before the US gained its independence, so they may have viewed the country differently than we do. 

I'm all in for a smaller federal government, so I can see why the South felt threatened by a group of people they had absolutely nothing in common with. Our fathers and grandfathers brought South Carolina into this Union, why can't we take it out? I can see the logic. 

However, I would like to think that I would side with good of the country as a whole. 

I would definitely fight for the Union. I love America with all my heart and in my opinion I think the south had no (actual) justification for trying to secede. Their "justification" was "states rights" which basically meant I want to own another human being that does all the work for me and receives no benefit. Now I do understand why they wanted to secede, it's how they profited, and I do know most confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but I just could not support succession. 

[William the Drake]

9 hours ago, Gmoney7447 said:

I'm all for remembering our history but what I don't like is many southerners praising the CSA or thinking their actions were justified. Monuments are meant for praising someone. We should teach the civil war in the classroom not praise men who went against their own country, fought their own brothers for not a single good reason. But yes happy Fourth 

Precisely my point: I am all for remembering those who fought on either side. Remembering that they were willing to fight for what they believed in, not the cause itself. It is an entirely different thing between having monuments, iconography, etc. in a museum or similar setting vs. having a monument dedicated in celebration (and erected long after the conclusion of the war) in which the local lore is that the statue is "defiantly facing the enemy, the north" There is a clear difference in purpose and meaning in both; one benign and one, in the sense of a country that holds personal liberty as paramount, malicious.

and @A. P. Hill nice attempt at a red herring; close, but no cigar: what we are talking about here is specifically chattel slavery in America and that when the choice came up, half of the country openly decided it would rather leave than try to continue the democratic experiment that many of those same people would claim today to champion. Opinion regarding other forms in history, while not unimportant in the grand scheme, is not relevant here.

[CSX4451]

The south had every right to succeed and the north had every right to use force to force them to stay..... to the victors go the spoils.

We today can't put the situation into aspect as America was so new and most people of that period viewed the states themselves as their home regarding allegiance (especially in the south) unlike today where America as a whole country has become what we give our loyalty to. WW1 and WW2 built this love of country we have today. We live in a totally different world than our ancestors did and they made their decisions based on circumstances we can only read about in history books.... and we all know who writes history.  I find no fault with the CSA and I am very proud of my Southern Birth, Southern Heritage, and Southern Ancestory but no doubt the world is a better place with America as one nation. America is better as one nation full of free citizens. I could go much deeper but this is a forum for playing and discussing a great game not a place to start a second civil war with the members here. : )

 

Edited July 2, 2017 by CSX4451

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

Alright, I knew this would happen eventually. I do my best to stay out of these sorts of arguments, but I suppose I shall finally make an exception. I shall hold myself to this single post, then unfollow the thread.

 

Fighting an entire war just to keep slavery.... riiiiiiiiiight...

The absurdity of this propaganda comes when you understand that between seventy to eighty percent of Confederate soldiers and sailors were not slave owners! In fact, even of the minority that were slave owners, only less then three percent of the southern population could be qualified as "aristocratic", meaning the rest had five or fewer slaves, and had to work alongside them in the fields to make a living.

Not only the common soldiers, but the majority of The South's most famous generals weren't slave owners. A partial list includes General Robert E Lee the southern high commander, General Joseph Johnston the famous commander of the western theater, the energetic young "Last Cavalier" General JEB Stuart, and the hero that saved the Southern army at Sharpsburg, General A.P. Hill.

Before we go any further, let's make sure we clearly understand the full extent of Southern sacrifice. To put it into a modern context, let's compare the casualties to those of World War II.  During the Second World War, The United States of America lost over three hundred thousand military personnel, a devastating tragedy to our nation.

Here's the kicker. If America lost personnel in World War II at the same rate (per capata) as The Confederate States of America did during The War of Southern Independence, there wouldn't have been three hundred thousand casualties. There would have been six million.

 

Six million. Mull those numbers over for a few moments.

 

The War of Southern Independence was no walk in the park. It was one of the bloodiest, deadliest, most terrible conflicts in American history. These soldiers were going through hell.

So Southern soldiers and sailors, the vast majority of whom didn't even own slaves, overseen on both eastern and western theaters high commanders who hated slavery, marched against a numerically superior and better equipped force, and endured four long and deadly years of hardships... all in order for a few rich men to keep their slaves? Hmmmmmmmm...  To quote Patrick Henry when he refused to come to the Constitutional Convention, "I smell a rat!"

No, somehow I don't think that the men of The South would have thrown away everything they'd ever owned and loved, and march away with The Army of Northern Virginia just to defend a luxury for a handful of aristocrats. So what was the south fighting for?

George Washington Bolton of the Twelfth Louisiana Volunteer Infantry CSA, sent this encouragement in a letter to his family back home:

 

"You seem to be in low spirits and fearful we will not gain our independence. So long as there is an arm to raise in defense of Southern liberties, there is still hope. We must prove ourselves worthy of establishing an independent Government."

 

Ah. Here I believe we have hit the nail on the head. This is just one of hundreds of letters home in which soldiers of The Confederacy explain exactly what it is they're fighting for. And despite what absurd victor's propaganda has told you, it wasn't some evil vendetta against blacks.

They fought for the very same principles their forefathers had championed over the green fields of Lexington and the far away highlands of Scotland - the right of self-government.

[Major Grigg]

1 hour ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Alright, I knew this would happen eventually. I do my best to stay out of these sorts of arguments, but I suppose I shall finally make an exception. I shall hold myself to this single post, then unfollow the thread.

 

Fighting an entire war just to keep slavery.... riiiiiiiiiight...

The absurdity of this propaganda comes when you understand that between seventy to eighty percent of Confederate soldiers and sailors were not slave owners! In fact, even of the minority that were slave owners, only less then three percent of the southern population could be qualified as "aristocratic", meaning the rest had five or fewer slaves, and had to work alongside them in the fields to make a living.

Not only the common soldiers, but the majority of The South's most famous generals weren't slave owners. A partial list includes General Robert E Lee the southern high commander, General Joseph Johnston the famous commander of the western theater, the energetic young "Last Cavalier" General JEB Stuart, and the hero that saved the Southern army at Sharpsburg, General A.P. Hill.

Before we go any further, let's make sure we clearly understand the full extent of Southern sacrifice. To put it into a modern context, let's compare the casualties to those of World War II.  During the Second World War, The United States of America lost over three hundred thousand military personnel, a devastating tragedy to our nation.

Here's the kicker. If America lost personnel in World War II at the same rate (per capata) as The Confederate States of America did during The War of Southern Independence, there wouldn't have been three hundred thousand casualties. There would have been six million.

 

Six million. Mull those numbers over for a few moments.

 

The War of Southern Independence was no walk in the park. It was one of the bloodiest, deadliest, most terrible conflicts in American history. These soldiers were going through hell.

So Southern soldiers and sailors, the vast majority of whom didn't even own slaves, overseen on both eastern and western theaters high commanders who hated slavery, marched against a numerically superior and better equipped force, and endured four long and deadly years of hardships... all in order for a few rich men to keep their slaves? Hmmmmmmmm...  To quote Patrick Henry when he refused to come to the Constitutional Convention, "I smell a rat!"

No, somehow I don't think that the men of The South would have thrown away everything they'd ever owned and loved, and march away with The Army of Northern Virginia just to defend a luxury for a handful of aristocrats. So what was the south fighting for?

George Washington Bolton of the Twelfth Louisiana Volunteer Infantry CSA, sent this encouragement in a letter to his family back home:

 

"You seem to be in low spirits and fearful we will not gain our independence. So long as there is an arm to raise in defense of Southern liberties, there is still hope. We must prove ourselves worthy of establishing an independent Government."

 

Ah. Here I believe we have hit the nail on the head. This is just one of hundreds of letters home in which soldiers of The Confederacy explain exactly what it is they're fighting for. And despite what absurd victor's propaganda has told you, it wasn't some evil vendetta against blacks.

They fought for the very same principles their forefathers had championed over the green fields of Lexington and the far away highlands of Scotland - the right of self-government.

Good words. 

[Gmoney7447]

4 hours ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Alright, I knew this would happen eventually. I do my best to stay out of these sorts of arguments, but I suppose I shall finally make an exception. I shall hold myself to this single post, then unfollow the thread.

 

Fighting an entire war just to keep slavery.... riiiiiiiiiight...

The absurdity of this propaganda comes when you understand that between seventy to eighty percent of Confederate soldiers and sailors were not slave owners! In fact, even of the minority that were slave owners, only less then three percent of the southern population could be qualified as "aristocratic", meaning the rest had five or fewer slaves, and had to work alongside them in the fields to make a living.

Not only the common soldiers, but the majority of The South's most famous generals weren't slave owners. A partial list includes General Robert E Lee the southern high commander, General Joseph Johnston the famous commander of the western theater, the energetic young "Last Cavalier" General JEB Stuart, and the hero that saved the Southern army at Sharpsburg, General A.P. Hill.

Before we go any further, let's make sure we clearly understand the full extent of Southern sacrifice. To put it into a modern context, let's compare the casualties to those of World War II.  During the Second World War, The United States of America lost over three hundred thousand military personnel, a devastating tragedy to our nation.

Here's the kicker. If America lost personnel in World War II at the same rate (per capata) as The Confederate States of America did during The War of Southern Independence, there wouldn't have been three hundred thousand casualties. There would have been six million.

 

Six million. Mull those numbers over for a few moments.

 

The War of Southern Independence was no walk in the park. It was one of the bloodiest, deadliest, most terrible conflicts in American history. These soldiers were going through hell.

So Southern soldiers and sailors, the vast majority of whom didn't even own slaves, overseen on both eastern and western theaters high commanders who hated slavery, marched against a numerically superior and better equipped force, and endured four long and deadly years of hardships... all in order for a few rich men to keep their slaves? Hmmmmmmmm...  To quote Patrick Henry when he refused to come to the Constitutional Convention, "I smell a rat!"

No, somehow I don't think that the men of The South would have thrown away everything they'd ever owned and loved, and march away with The Army of Northern Virginia just to defend a luxury for a handful of aristocrats. So what was the south fighting for?

George Washington Bolton of the Twelfth Louisiana Volunteer Infantry CSA, sent this encouragement in a letter to his family back home:

 

"You seem to be in low spirits and fearful we will not gain our independence. So long as there is an arm to raise in defense of Southern liberties, there is still hope. We must prove ourselves worthy of establishing an independent Government."

 

Ah. Here I believe we have hit the nail on the head. This is just one of hundreds of letters home in which soldiers of The Confederacy explain exactly what it is they're fighting for. And despite what absurd victor's propaganda has told you, it wasn't some evil vendetta against blacks.

They fought for the very same principles their forefathers had championed over the green fields of Lexington and the far away highlands of Scotland - the right of self-government.

While I agree that most confederate soldiers didn't have slaves (in above post) they were fighting against their government, their constitution. The same constitution that men gave their lives for. The same one that exist today that we all know and love. I am not saying the confederate troops didn't sacrifice anything and I do think we should teach our youth about the conflict, but never praise them, praise their spirit but not their cause.

[CSX4451]

This is no way directed at anyone and hastily written on my iPhone but figured I'd voice my thoughts because every coin has 2 sides.

The CSA of the 1880-1890s would be what most conservative Americans are wanting for America today. A smaller federal government, less federal intrusion, with stronger state and individual rights with freedom for all. Slavery was dying on the vine and would never had survived to the turn of the century due to the advancement of the industrial technology and men realizing the immoral wrong of it. Human progress in humanity alone was gonna end it. Now I won't minimize the hell those 2 generations would suffer under before it did died on it own. We also know that a vast majority of CSA soldiers barely owned a plow much less another human being. They fought for their homes and family or sadly to ignorantly keep a rich man rich.... guess something's don't change. Read the narratives of Union soldiers from that time... most of them weren't fighting to end slavery, they were there to preserve the union, fighting for their side, or forced to fight once they arrived off the boat from Europe with no real knowledge of why they were fighting. No doubt there were those who's conviction was to free their fellow man and willing to die for it.  The CW was a meat grinder on both sides and the bravery of both armies is almost immeasurable by today's standards. This from a veteran of 2 wars myself that pale in comparison to what the veterans of the CW endured. With that said,  I often wonder how different things might be in the US if slavery had died on its own versus at the barrel of a gun and how different America might be today with our race relations. In places where slavery ended from its own weight of being wrong and accepted as wrong, the relations between the races are much better then here in our country. The population assimilation well and acceptance is much more positive and productive. We are the greatest country on this earth but we seem to be the only country to have a lasting effect of slavery 150 years after it ended......ever wondered why?

With the narrative being pushed by today's millennial education system the real truth of why this war was really fought is gone forever. Again, history is written by the victors......now with a liberal twist.

Off soap box and back to playing a wonderful game...... which I hope has many more updates and additions to come. 

[i64man]

57 minutes ago, CSX4451 said:

This is no way directed at anyone and hastily written on my iPhone but figured I'd voice my thoughts because every coin has 2 sides.

The CSA of the 1880-1890s would be what most conservative Americans are wanting for America today. A smaller federal government, less federal intrusion, with stronger state and individual rights with freedom for all. Slavery was dying on the vine and would never had survived to the turn of the century due to the advancement of the industrial technology and men realizing the immoral wrong of it. Human progress in humanity alone was gonna end it. Now I won't minimize the hell those 2 generations would suffer under before it did died on it own. We also know that a vast majority of CSA soldiers barely owned a plow much less another human being. They fought for their homes and family or sadly to ignorantly keep a rich man rich.... guess something's don't change. Read the narratives of Union soldiers from that time... most of them weren't fighting to end slavery, they were there to preserve the union, fighting for their side, or forced to fight once they arrived off the boat from Europe with no real knowledge of why they were fighting. No doubt there were those who's conviction was to free their fellow man and willing to die for it.  The CW was a meat grinder on both sides and the bravery of both armies is almost immeasurable by today's standards. This from a veteran of 2 wars myself that pale in comparison to what the veterans of the CW endured. With that said,  I often wonder how different things might be in the US if slavery had died on its own versus at the barrel of a gun and how different America might be today with our race relations. In places where slavery ended from its own weight of being wrong and accepted as wrong, the relations between the races are much better then here in our country. The population assimilation well and acceptance is much more positive and productive. We are the greatest country on this earth but we seem to be the only country to have a lasting effect of slavery 150 years after it ended......ever wondered why?

With the narrative being pushed by today's millennial education system the real truth of why this war was really fought is gone forever. Again, history is written by the victors......now with a liberal twist.

Off soap box and back to playing a wonderful game...... which I hope has many more updates and additions to come. 

The only thing I can say, being a veteran is that regardless of the point of view CS or Union, that was a war that pitted brother against brother, friends against friends. It was bloody and at the end for the next several years, there was resentment within those selected few that lost "their way of life" in the south. But in the end, wounds heal and we came out stronger as a nation in the 20th century. We are indeed enjoying the game and feel free to discussed the civil war and it's effect more than 140+ years latter and have an open opinion on what was right or wrong. And like CSX says lets hope for more updates to the game.

[Bobby Fiasco]

This was a lot better than the Steam thread about this.

[talonx4]

On 7/2/2017 at 7:54 AM, Gmoney7447 said:

I would definitely fight for the Union. I love America with all my heart and in my opinion I think the south had no (actual) justification for trying to secede. Their "justification" was "states rights" which basically meant I want to own another human being that does all the work for me and receives no benefit. Now I do understand why they wanted to secede, it's how they profited, and I do know most confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, but I just could not support succession. 

I am afraid your history is a bit hazy on this one.  You said "Their "justification" was "states rights" which basically meant I want to own another human being that does all the work for me and receives no benefit."

Civil war started on Apr 12, 1861.  The emancipation proclamation did not occur until January 1, 1863.  Unfortunately for you, "their justification" was not to "own another human being".  

You said "Now I do understand why they wanted to secede".  While obviously you do not.  

You said "I love America with all my heart".  All confederate soldiers would have agreed with you.  And that is why they succeeded.  

While the reasons of war exceed far beyond what can be explained here, I will give you one of the most basic ones. Taxes.  Increase in taxes on the south and possibly unjustly so pushed many Americans to ask the question "did we not already fight a war against taxation without representation.  My father and grand father didn't fight and die in the revolutionary war so that we could be taxed into oblivion."   Many on the confederacy saw themselves as the patriots who loved their country.   

Keep in mind that there are always two sides to every argument, and very rarely is it ever a cut line of good vs evil.   

[Gmoney7447]

3 hours ago, talonx4 said:

I am afraid your history is a bit hazy on this one.  You said "Their "justification" was "states rights" which basically meant I want to own another human being that does all the work for me and receives no benefit."

Civil war started on Apr 12, 1861.  The emancipation proclamation did not occur until January 1, 1863.  Unfortunately for you, "their justification" was not to "own another human being".  

You said "Now I do understand why they wanted to secede".  While obviously you do not.  

You said "I love America with all my heart".  All confederate soldiers would have agreed with you.  And that is why they succeeded.  

While the reasons of war exceed far beyond what can be explained here, I will give you one of the most basic ones. Taxes.  Increase in taxes on the south and possibly unjustly so pushed many Americans to ask the question "did we not already fight a war against taxation without representation.  My father and grand father didn't fight and die in the revolutionary war so that we could be taxed into oblivion."   Many on the confederacy saw themselves as the patriots who loved their country.   

Keep in mind that there are always two sides to every argument, and very rarely is it ever a cut line of good vs evil.   

The thing is they did have much representation, everybody received those taxes, yet it was the south who went against their brothers and constitution. Are you trying to justify them?

[Andre Bolkonsky]

4 hours ago, Gmoney7447 said:

The thing is they did have much representation, everybody received those taxes, yet it was the south who went against their brothers and constitution. Are you trying to justify them?

Justify them? It is a very difficult thing to understand the motivation of a people in a different place and a different time. It is difficult to stand in another persons shoes and understand what motivates them. It is very easy to sit in front of a computer and apply modern morays to an ancient time and throw an entire people into a bucket, but it is a shallow and unfruitful path. It is like thinking all Nazis are universally evil because many truly were, and none moreso than Heydrich;  but was not Oskar Schindler a card carrying member of the party? 

The Right of Secession is built into several state constitutions. People of that time were put on the horns of a dilmena, you have army officers who have been friends since West Point on the other side of the battlefield. Brother fighting Brother is not just a euphamism. Until you can understand the motivations of the individual, rather than projecting cartoon values upon an entire people, you cannot see this. People were forced to chose, and the vitality of both factions in that war shows that each side had a moral ground to stand upon. 

The scars of slavery are deep on most African Americans, and I tend to give them a bit of leash on this subject. I grew up in an area that never truly recovered from the Civil War, and now it is a cesspool of crime and violence because of residual anger and hatred. But burning down your own house to protest the actions of others is hardly the act of a rational mind. 

Lumping all people of the Confederacy into one group because it is easy is not the bridge to peace, no more so than lumping all African Americans into one group is fair to the individuals amongst them. More racism is not the cure for racism, nor is hatred the cure for hatred. 

[CSX4451]

Tariffs are the key to this...... however today's education system attempts to hide it. The tariffs on woolen and iron (40%) from Europe gave the European traders less profit to buy southern cotton on there return trip to Europe. These Tarriffs benefited northern production while strangled southern sales financially.

As for slavery being the main issue for the civil war. Read what President Lincoln wrote. 

On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

While freeing slaves was what Lincoln wanted personally ... it was far from his main reason for the Civil War if any at all to begin with. He wanted the union to remain whole. Slavery became an issue later in the war as a rally cry even when many northern states feared free black slaves moving north. This was a huge issue prior to and during the civil war as while some of the northerners wanted them freed, they didn't want them to leave the south. They did not want them to move to the northern states. Lincoln wanted them once the union was secured and the slaves freed to deport them back to Africa. 

Lets not forget the US Constitution  allowed slavery to exist and it wasn't till 1865 that the 13th admendment was introduced and ratified outlawing slavery in the US. 

This you will never read in today's text books. It was all about freeing your fellow man is what today's youth gets. 

The Greatest Lie Ever Told. 

Edited July 4, 2017 by CSX4451

[i64man]

And to add to your point CSX, today education pretty much point out that the single most important reason for the civil war was the end of slavery. The other issues have become more of a footnote.

[Major Grigg]

McPherson has a book containing essays that address several issues discussed on this thread. "Drawn with the Sword". I read it while I was in college and I just started it again. I highly recommend it.