Facts & Figures

[Skunk]

The following is a chart that estimates the casualties of both the North and South during the Civil War. The chart comes from the ABC-CLIO academic website (see references below). The statistics appear to show that although the Civil War was bloody for both sides, the North suffered more overall casualties with more killed in action or dying of wounds, and more dying of diseases. And although the North had less overall people captured, more Northerners died in captivity than did Southerners. Also note that on both sides, more folks died as the result of disease than did as the result of being killed or wounded in action. I found this chart to be as the Germans say: "wirklich interessant" (very interesting), and thought I would pass it along.

Estimated Casualty Statistics of the American Civil War

 

Union

Confederacy

                           

Total Mobilized	2,800,300	1,064,200
% of Population Mobilized	10.7%	13.1%
Killed in Action or Died of Wounds	110,100	94,000
Died of Disease	224,600	164,000
Wounded	275,175	194,000
Captured	194,743	214,865
Died as Prisoner of War	30,218	25,976
% of Prisoners Who Died during Captivity	15.52%	12.09%
Cost (billions of 1990s$)	$27.3	$17.1

Sources

Advocacy & Intelligence Index for POW-MIAs, Inc. Prisoners of War/Missing in Action. www.allpowmia.com (cited July 17, 2007).

The Civil War. 28 vols. New York: Time Life Books, 1983–1989.

Clodfelter, Michael. Warfare and Armed Conflict: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1618–1991. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1992.

Department of Defense. Principal Wars in which the United States Participated: U.S. Military Personnel Serving and Casualties. Washington, DC: Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 2003.

References

Estimated Casualty Statistics of the American Civil War (Facts & Figures). (2009). In United States at War: Understanding Conflict and Society. Retrieved October 18, 2009, from http://www.usatwar.abc-clio.com

[subdjoe]

Does that source have an estimate of civilian deaths?  I have yet to find anything that seems definitive.  


I did find this, which looks interesting: War Crimes Against Southern Civilans

And this on a blog" I read a Washington Post Article that named, in late 2006, “excess”
civilian death (compared to pre invasion death rates) at 600,000. I read that Prime Minister Malaki mentioned as of this year, one million. This is where our army has been careful to avoid civilian death. Lincoln’s administration deliberatly targeted civilians, and safe to say, conditions where far less advanced medically then. So the estimate I read in “War Crimes Against Southern Civilians”, from David Aikens, editor of “A City Laid Wate” - at 2 million, including the 620K military - leaving about 1.4 million dead - intuitively seems conservative (which led me to search for that book).  And since most of the war was fought in the south, I would say that it is reasonable to assume that the bulk of that 1.4 million civilian dead is made up of southerners.  And likely most of those from starvation.  Just an assumption there, but I think a reasonable one.

[Skunk]

Good question Joe. I'll have to look more thoroughly through the website and see if I can find something specifically about civilians. In the above post, I purposely called the casualties, people and folks because the chart did not make it clear if it included only members of the military.

[Cabin4]

I also have not seen statistics on civilian deaths because of the Civil war. The only estiamtes I've seen are represented as tens of thousands. So that to me sounds like 20,000 or greater and likly under 100,000.

[subdjoe]

I also have not seen statistics on civilian deaths because of the Civil war. The only estiamtes I've seen are represented as tens of thousands. So that to me sounds like 20,000 or greater and likly under 100,000.

I've seen estimates of 20k or more civilian deaths just for individual states.  And consdiering the scope of the scorched earth of Shermans offensive, I would say that 100k would be rather low. 

I could maybe go with that 20k to 100k if you are talking about only those directly killed by military action such as gun shot or artilley fire. But I'm wanting all deaths resulting from the policiy of the federal government, which would include the deaths by starvation. Or those, like the women and children of Roswell, GA that just disappeared and were never seen again.  Well, three of the "Roswell Women" did turn up after the war.  But that was only 3 out of more than 400.  And there were other towns that had that happen too. 

[subdjoe]

Good question Joe. I'll have to look more thoroughly through the website and see if I can find something specifically about civilians. In the above post, I purposely called the casualties, people and folks because the chart did not make it clear if it included only members of the military.

Skunk, that chart matches pretty well with all the figures I have seen for the military deaths.   

The difference in the deaths of POWs can be attributed, I think, to the general lack of food and supplies in the south.  If you don't even have enough for your own people, and they are dying of starvation, what are you supposed to do?  So the south had some kind of valid excuse.  But why did so many southerners held by the north die of starvation and disease when the north had plenty of supplies? 

Another good link: Descendants of Pt. Lookout Prisoner of War Organization

[shortround]

Elmira, New York was everybit as bad as Andersonville. The big difference was that in New York, the Union forces had the means and ability to take care of their prisoners, whereas it was not so in Andersonville. Civilians and soldiers alike in South Georgia suffered greatly at the later stages of the war.

Let's also not forget it was the Union's idea to halt pardons that allowed men taken prisoner to return home. The total war policy waged by federal authorities knew full and well that their people would be a burdon on Southern prisons, since it was difficult enough to care for their own people let alone mouths of POW's. In fact they counted on it. Such was not the case in Union prisons.

We see time and time again it was Union/federal powers who committed the worst acts against people who on the one hand they claimed were fellow Americans, yet who were treated worse than any overseas nation the United States has fought before or since the war.

Most here would be familiar with the book, "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo; a new book I bought last week is an equally compelling book written by John Emison, called "Lincoln Uber Alles: Dictatorship Comes to America" It goes even further into Union/federal actions in the South and highlights attrocities, illegal acts and war crimes committed by the Union/federal authorities against Southerners, during and after the war.

[Bob Riebe]

Elmira, New York was everybit as bad as Andersonville. The big difference was that in New York, the Union forces had the means and ability to take care of their prisoners, whereas it was not so in Andersonville. Civilians and soldiers alike in South Georgia suffered greatly at the later stages of the war.

Let's also not forget it was the Union's idea to halt pardons that allowed men taken prisoner to return home. The total war policy waged by federal authorities knew full and well that their people would be a burdon on Southern prisons, since it was difficult enough to care for their own people let alone mouths of POW's. In fact they counted on it. Such was not the case in Union prisons.

We see time and time again it was Union/federal powers who committed the worst acts against people who on the one hand they claimed were fellow Americans, yet who were treated worse than any overseas nation the United States has fought before or since the war.

Most here would be familiar with the book, "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo; a new book I bought last week is an equally compelling book written by John Emison, called "Lincoln Uber Alles: Dictatorship Comes to America" It goes even further into Union/federal actions in the South and highlights attrocities, illegal acts and war crimes committed by the Union/federal authorities against Southerners, during and after the war.

Can  you prove that had the South marched a goodly way into Northern territories with victory in mind, it would have been any different?

War is hell , and that is how it is supposed to be. Coddling the enemy is at present killing hundreds of allied soldiers.

[subdjoe]

Can  you prove that had the South marched a gooly way into Norther terretories with victory in mind, it would have been any different?
War is hell , and that is how it is supposed to be. Coddling the enemy is at present killing hundreds of allied soldiers.

You can play all sorts of "what if" games. If the feds hadn't blockaded southern ports enough arms and supplies could have come in to turn the tide and give the South victory. Or If teh Brits had entered on the side of the South in early 62....
But, let's stick to fact. The federals, for the most part, had the means to keep the POWs they held from freezing and/or starving.  They also didn't need to use POWs as human shields against CS bombardment. 

[shortround]

I know all about war being hell.

 I fought in Grenada, Lebanon, El Salvadore and Honduras (despite advisor status I was still shot at and endured mortar and rpg attacks)

I also spent a good bit of 2007 and 2008 in Afghanistan, so I think I can say with some accuracy that I've been there and done that.

As the CSA was looking for INDEPENDENCE and not CONQUEST as the union/federal forces were, your question lacks substance.

The entry by the Army of Northern Virginia into Pennsylvania, which led to the Battle of Gettysburg was one of the few times the CSA attempted to go north.

In this case it was in hopes of getting a victory that would led to European recognition of the Confederacy. The populace were NOT subjected to the terrors the civilians in the South were subjected too and even in their own writtings of the day you'll find they were treated with civility and even friendship.

It was the union/federal forces who engaged in genocide against the people of the South and later men like Sherman and Sheridan would do the same thing to American Indians.

An act which Adolf Hitler not only aggreed with but often spoke of when he was wanting to wage his own war of genocide against those he deemed and inferior race.

Sherman and Sheridan.....

Men Hitler respected and wanted to emulate....Doesn't that make you proud?

[Bob Riebe]

I know all about war being hell.

 I fought in Grenada, Lebanon, El Salvadore and Honduras (despite advisor status I was still shot at and endured mortar and rpg attacks)

I also spent a good bit of 2007 and 2008 in Afghanistan, so I think I can say with some accuracy that I've been there and done that.

As the CSA was looking for INDEPENDENCE and not CONQUEST as the union/federal forces were, your question lacks substance.

The entry by the Army of Northern Virginia into Pennsylvania, which led to the Battle of Gettysburg was one of the few times the CSA attempted to go north.

In this case it was in hopes of getting a victory that would led to European recognition of the Confederacy. The populace were NOT subjected to the terrors the civilians in the South were subjected too and even in their own writtings of the day you'll find they were treated with civility and even friendship.

It was the union/federal forces who engaged in genocide against the people of the South and later men like Sherman and Sheridan would do the same thing to American Indians.

An act which Adolf Hitler not only aggreed with but often spoke of when he was wanting to wage his own war of genocide against those he deemed and inferior race.

Sherman and Sheridan.....

Men Hitler respected and wanted to emulate....Doesn't that make you proud?

You are saying the South, who engaged in slavery, has some sort of superior morals, because you want it to be so, has squat do with any facts.
You are looking at the glorious south with rose colored glasses, or just ate too many sour grapes.

You say they were not looking for conquest, as a soldier, you know that you do not cause an enemy to cease fighting by being nice to them, you do so by defeating them badly enough that they cannot fight back, EVER.

[KB21]

Yes, the south had slaves.  However, one of the reasons the south had slaves was because southerners bought them from northerners to keep the northerners from selling them in the international slave trading market.  It's a funny thing that the North had no problem with slaves when they were making a profit on them.  It wasn't until the North stopped making a profit in the international slave market that they suddenly got moral about the issue. 

In the South though, slave owners knew that slavery would eventually end.  Slaves were being educated and prepared to be free men by some plantation owners in the south, the great Jefferson Davis and his brother being just a couple of those slave owners.

I know all about war being hell.

 I fought in Grenada, Lebanon, El Salvadore and Honduras (despite advisor status I was still shot at and endured mortar and rpg attacks)

I also spent a good bit of 2007 and 2008 in Afghanistan, so I think I can say with some accuracy that I've been there and done that.

As the CSA was looking for INDEPENDENCE and not CONQUEST as the union/federal forces were, your question lacks substance.

The entry by the Army of Northern Virginia into Pennsylvania, which led to the Battle of Gettysburg was one of the few times the CSA attempted to go north.

In this case it was in hopes of getting a victory that would led to European recognition of the Confederacy. The populace were NOT subjected to the terrors the civilians in the South were subjected too and even in their own writtings of the day you'll find they were treated with civility and even friendship.

It was the union/federal forces who engaged in genocide against the people of the South and later men like Sherman and Sheridan would do the same thing to American Indians.

An act which Adolf Hitler not only aggreed with but often spoke of when he was wanting to wage his own war of genocide against those he deemed and inferior race.

Sherman and Sheridan.....

Men Hitler respected and wanted to emulate....Doesn't that make you proud?

You are saying the South, who engaged in slavery, has some sort of superior morals, because you want it to be so, has squat do with any facts.
You are looking at the glorious south with rose colored glasses, or just ate too many sour grapes.

You say they were not looking for conquest, as a soldier, you know that you do not cause an enemy to cease fighting by being nice to them, you do so by defeating them badly enough that they cannot fight back, EVER.

[shortround]

Well, well we've got the diaper brigade in town.

You can always tell when some candybutt bigot comes onto the discussion he jumps right away into the "Slavery Was the Issue"

It's the only thing he can say, just like a broken record or a mantra from some new age junkie.

Someone's who's never been anywhere or done anything, but reads a lot and lives on the internet because he has no life.

He then runs off at the mouth with his "war is hell" and you "must destroy the enemy crap."

Like he's actually been there.

If this country fought a war and you had to go, you'd be off to Canada so fast you'd leave a streak on the road.

Those of us who have actually seen combat and fought and suffered in wars don't need sofa generals telling us how it's done.

Those of us who've actually seen death and destruction are the last people you can say wear rose colored glasses. We've seen humanity at it's worst.

There is warfare and then there is that which goes beyond the pale and seperates itself from humanity. The acts committed by union/federal forces fall into that catagory and no amount of yelling, screaming, lying and whining like a snot monkey will change that.

Killing is not something real humans take lightly. But, for those on the federal/union side it was something too many took to with relish.

Not only were military targets engaged and destroyed but civilian ones as well.

This was the first time in western history that western man had engaged in such an act against it's own people. Don't believe it? Look it up.

Slavery was not the issue and no amount of your belly aching will change that.

I've got a culture and heritage to be proud of. I don't wear rose colored glasses and there's no sour grapes on my end, my side was in the right and you'll just have to get over it.

[subdjoe]

You are saying the South, who engaged in slavery, has some sort of superior morals, because you want it to be so, has squat do with any facts.
You are looking at the glorious south with rose colored glasses, or just ate too many sour grapes.

You say they were not looking for conquest, as a soldier, you know that you do not cause an enemy to cease fighting by being nice to them, you do so by defeating them badly enough that they cannot fight back, EVER.

Oh, my, the EEEEE—vvviiillll South had slaves! They just snapped their fingers and PRESTO!  Blacks from Africa appeared.  And no where else.  The only place in the whole world that had slavery was the South

Well, there were slaves in the Oh, so tolerant north too.  Until it became uneconomical to keep them.  And until the Irish threatened to kill both slaves and owners if they had to compete with slave labor.  And then, all the slave owners had a change of heart and outlawed slavery.  Oh, wait – first they SOLD their slaves SOUTH.  THEN, after making money on them, they abolished slavery.  

And, NORTHERN slavers were still selling blacks that they bought in Africa (from factors who bought them from other blacks) as late as 1860.  Imagine that, NORTHERNERS selling slaves.  No….that can’t be.  We all know that ONLY the SOUTH sold slaves.  

I also find it interesting that you justify, or are trying to justify, teh Federal policy ofMURDER.  Murder of POWs by a policy of starvation, of ensuring that they freeze for want of clothing, blankets, and shelter, for want of medical attention, and by using them in front of their positions to try to prevent artillery bombardment.  And, by refusing to exchange prisoners because they knew that they put a strain on Southern resources,  FEDERAL murder of FEDERALS in Confederate hands (Lincoln knew that the South couldn’t feed them, but allowed them to die rather than exchange them)..  AND – the murder of hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million CIVILIANS – by gunfire, by torture, by hanging, by starvation because the federals stripped all food and livestock in the areas they went through.  You are JUST FINE with all that because – the South held slaves.  

[Bob Riebe]

Well, well we've got the diaper brigade in town.

You can always tell when some candybutt bigot comes onto the discussion he jumps right away into the "Slavery Was the Issue"

It's the only thing he can say, just like a broken record or a mantra from some new age junkie.

Someone's who's never been anywhere or done anything, but reads a lot and lives on the internet because he has no life.

He then runs off at the mouth with his "war is hell" and you "must destroy the enemy crap."

Like he's actually been there.

If this country fought a war and you had to go, you'd be off to Canada so fast you'd leave a streak on the road.

Those of us who have actually seen combat and fought and suffered in wars don't need sofa generals telling us how it's done.

Those of us who've actually seen death and destruction are the last people you can say wear rose colored glasses. We've seen humanity at it's worst.

There is warfare and then there is that which goes beyond the pale and seperates itself from humanity. The acts committed by union/federal forces fall into that catagory and no amount of yelling, screaming, lying and whining like a snot monkey will change that.

Killing is not something real humans take lightly. But, for those on the federal/union side it was something too many took to with relish.

Not only were military targets engaged and destroyed but civilian ones as well.

This was the first time in western history that western man had engaged in such an act against it's own people. Don't believe it? Look it up.

Slavery was not the issue and no amount of your belly aching will change that.

I've got a culture and heritage to be proud of. I don't wear rose colored glasses and there's no sour grapes on my end, my side was in the right and you'll just have to get over it.

Your rhetoric speaks volumes about your character.
When you are done crying in your beer, please turn the lights out.
 

[Bob Riebe]

You are saying the South, who engaged in slavery, has some sort of superior morals, because you want it to be so, has squat do with any facts.
You are looking at the glorious south with rose colored glasses, or just ate too many sour grapes.

You say they were not looking for conquest, as a soldier, you know that you do not cause an enemy to cease fighting by being nice to them, you do so by defeating them badly enough that they cannot fight back, EVER.

Oh, my, the EEEEE—vvviiillll South had slaves! They just snapped their fingers and PRESTO!  Blacks from Africa appeared.  And no where else.  The only place in the whole world that had slavery was the South

Well, there were slaves in the Oh, so tolerant north too.  Until it became uneconomical to keep them.  And until the Irish threatened to kill both slaves and owners if they had to compete with slave labor.  And then, all the slave owners had a change of heart and outlawed slavery.  Oh, wait – first they SOLD their slaves SOUTH.  THEN, after making money on them, they abolished slavery.  

And, NORTHERN slavers were still selling blacks that they bought in Africa (from factors who bought them from other blacks) as late as 1860.  Imagine that, NORTHERNERS selling slaves.  No….that can’t be.  We all know that ONLY the SOUTH sold slaves.  

I also find it interesting that you justify, or are trying to justify, teh Federal policy ofMURDER.  Murder of POWs by a policy of starvation, of ensuring that they freeze for want of clothing, blankets, and shelter, for want of medical attention, and by using them in front of their positions to try to prevent artillery bombardment.  And, by refusing to exchange prisoners because they knew that they put a strain on Southern resources,  FEDERAL murder of FEDERALS in Confederate hands (Lincoln knew that the South couldn’t feed them, but allowed them to die rather than exchange them)..  AND – the murder of hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million CIVILIANS – by gunfire, by torture, by hanging, by starvation because the federals stripped all food and livestock in the areas they went through.  You are JUST FINE with all that because – the South held slaves.  

I do not justify it, I accept that in war bad things happen and winner gets to write the history.

You are trying to sell some sort of superior moral character that the South is supposed to have, history does not say it exists.
I have not said the North is x, y or z only  you are.

[subdjoe]

I do not justify it, I accept that in war bad things happen and winner gets to write the history.
You are trying to sell some sort of superior moral character that the South is supposed to have, history does not say it exists.
I have not said the North is x, y or z only  you are.

You own words: "You are saying the South, who engaged in slavery, has some sort of superior morals" imply that you belive that because the South still had slavery, the North had a moral superiority, and was duty bound to hold the deep south in the Union.

[Cabin4]

The North's efforts against the South were immoral, unethical and unconstitutional. Slavery was not a single issue for the war, but clearly was a key determining factor for the south. Anyone that would study the history of the south's positions, can only conclude that states rights was the over arching issue as to why the south seceded.

Lincoln had no legal standing to march into the south. Secession is a right of the states and even if you question this right, you can find NO “right” that the federal government has/had the authority to stop secession. Therefore, the issue is at best a draw from a legal/constitutional standpoint. Given this legal “draw” situation and our constitutional premise that states rights trump federal authority on undefined matters , Lincoln should have yielded to the states to make this determination.

Lincolns claims that the union could not survive with the secession of the south is pure conjecture on his part. It was simply his justification that the nation needed to remain a single union.

Lincoln was a criminal, the worst president and worst constitutional violator in our nation’s history. If you have any doubt about this, just take a look at the over 600,000 grave stones to prove it. The current massive anti-constitutional and illegal federal government we have today, is in large part due to Lincoln’s actions.

[SouthernByGrace]

BRAVO, Gentlemen! I applaud your efforts, but you are surely beating the proverbial dead horse. People like Bob will not take the time to read the truth for themselves. Sources, like the 1860 Census, or the Library of Congress, or the actual writings of the people (military and civilian) from that time, etc., etc., will never creep into the delusional minds of some people. No matter how much proof you show them. They just will not see the truth.

We, as Southerners, have the common sense to actually read, research, and preserve that which we find to directly contradict what we were taught in school. That Abraham Lincoln was not the demigod that was presented to us as children, is so radical an idea to Northerners, they can't comprehend the thought that anything different from that could be the truth.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr., the Professor of Black Studies at Yale University, and the host of the PBS documentaries, African American Lives, Parts 1 & 2, (the same one that was arrested recently for disorderly conduct) recently released his 3rd installment in his research of slavery, the pre-war South, and Southern race relations. Looking For Lincoln revealed to this man that Lincoln was Not the man being portrayed by History.

He interviewed such high profile blacks as Morgan Freeman. He was bewildered at the thought of Mr. Freeman moving back to the South, to his family's home place in Alabama. When he asked him why he would do such a thing, when Mr. Freeman could afford to live anywhere in the world he chose, Mr. Freeman responded, "I am living where I choose. Alabama is my home. It is where I feel the most FREE."

Dr. Gates, after learning of the almost mass exodus of blacks from North to South, finally admitted he had been wrong in his assumptions about Southern culture, and the South's role in the Civil War. When he learned for himself that the Emancipation Proclamation freed not one single slave in the South, but actually kept slavery intact in the North, he was humbled beyond words.

The Bobs of the world don't want to hear such things. They don't believe slavery existed in the North until After the Civil War; Freed not by the Emancipation Proclamation, in 1863, but instead by the 13th Amendment, in 1866. They don't want to hear that the top Generals in the Confederacy not only did not own any slaves, they didn't believe in slavery. They don't want to believe the words spoken by those very slaves when they say they were better off before forced freedom, when those slaves knew that their white friends would have helped them get a new start in life after slavery's natural end.

They don't want to believe the photos of crowded slave markets in downtown Washington, D.C. (UNION Capital), less than 200 yards from the White House, in 1864! They don't want to believe the countless Official communications among Union officers, as well as civilians from both North and South.

They probably don't believe the Holocaust happened, either...
 
Get the point?
 
You guys have made me proud by your continued persistence, your determination, your vigor for the truth. By God, don't you EVER stop!

SBG

DEO VINDICE

[Bob Riebe]

I do not justify it, I accept that in war bad things happen and winner gets to write the history.
You are trying to sell some sort of superior moral character that the South is supposed to have, history does not say it exists.
I have not said the North is x, y or z only  you are.

You own words: "You are saying the South, who engaged in slavery, has some sort of superior morals" imply that you belive that because the South still had slavery, the North had a moral superiority, and was duty bound to hold the deep south in the Union.

Only in your mind, and the minds who think the South was some poor mistreated/understood item with grand intention would assume that.

It would seem some here simply eat sour grapes and point fingers based on nothing but the simple fact that the winner of any war, gets to write history as it sees it.

I said nothing of the superiority of the north, but history does not show that the south was any better than the north in any matter without exception.

I just wonder how many of the posters here who seem to imply that the slaves did not have it that bad, would act if for the rest of their lives they did as told, were sold as property.
I would be really interested how they would react when their children were sold off, and they had no rights what so ever, in any matters of their lives.

The under the government controlled separation that exists in the north, ethnically motivated, divide and separatei- would be a better term as it goes way beyond simple racial differences, is a vile thing, but no  one with any brains ever defends it.

It is rather odd though that the misery the Chinese, Indians and other minorities suffered AFTER the civil war, get half-hearted treatment at best.

[Cabin4]

I do not justify it, I accept that in war bad things happen and winner gets to write the history.
You are trying to sell some sort of superior moral character that the South is supposed to have, history does not say it exists.
I have not said the North is x, y or z only  you are.

You own words: "You are saying the South, who engaged in slavery, has some sort of superior morals" imply that you belive that because the South still had slavery, the North had a moral superiority, and was duty bound to hold the deep south in the Union.

Only in your mind, and the minds who think the South was some poor mistreated/understood item with grand intention would assume that.

It is rather odd though that the misery the Chinese, Indians and other minorities suffered AFTER the civil war, get half-hearted treatment at best.

I actually somewhat agree with the first sentence. It just so happens that at the time, this thought was shared my the millions who lived in the South! That is why they wanted to leave the Union. A right which they should have been able to enjoy without the similar reverse superiority thoughts of the North!! Lincoln had his grand intentions and was willing to set aside our constitution and murder hundreds of thousands in the process! I’m curious how one can criticize the South for anything, when the North was willing to go to no end, to stop the states from exercising that, which was in fact their right under the constitution while hundreds of thousands suffered death.

I have no idea what the second sentence has to do with the Civil war or the South.

[Ga.windbreak]

Gentlemen the topic matter is Facts and figures.

Bob I notice you are new, welcome. Now having said that though I understand your stand morally you have not, as I see it posted any facts or figures to prop up your opinion. One can rant and rave about just who was right or wrong and although you are spot on as to the winner writing the history books that, in and of itself, does not make the said history true. Facts and figures prove otherwise.

Let us take slavery, for instance, of all the slaves brought to the Americas the US recieved the least amount. The First Blacks were used in the same light as other indentured servants. Also, in point of fact the very first African American who was pronounced a slave for life was done so by a Virginia Judge and remitted to his owner another Black man. Who himself was a former indentured servant. BTW the judge ruled against a white man who was trying to save the said slave from slavery to the winner. It is a most interesting story and one you might enjoy if you read it. Another interesting fact that the winner fails to bring up or even point out, the claim that Slavery was the reason for this unholy civil war was only used once and by this country. Every other Country in the Americas freed their slaves without war, that in its-self tells me that your reasoning is flawed or the US is backwards in its thinking. IMHO Lincoln and his cronies had to find a reason that would give them the moral high ground being that they were killing Northern Solders at a rate that any sane person would question as inhuman. To put it in modern terms Obama is blasted about troop increases while only talking of 30,000. Sherman lost 5000 in ten minutes during the first charge at Vicksburg. It was so bloody there that Grant, who had no qualms about sending men to their deaths, after just two charges desided it was just to much to ask and from the third day forward he settled in for a siege.

One can point to any number of reasons that the North and the South
would have differences. The truth is, and always been, only one man can be blamed for the war and its resulting start down the road to where we are today and that man's name is Lincoln. He and only he trashed the Constitution, he and only he ordered the call up of 75,000 troops for the invasion of the Southern states. He did so illegally and without consent of Congress. We have a Union because of our Constitution and not a Constitution because of our Union.

When I joined the US Navy my oath was, and is, to our Constitution. To protect it against ALL enemys, domestic and foreign.

Those are the facts and they are not in dispute!