The Living In The Land Of Cotton BLOG is designed to help or assist anyone who is a student in the studies of the “War Between the States.” Some may call it the “Civil War” or “The Great Rebellion.” On this site, however, such terms are not used. Those from the South studying this conflict or those who have a vested interest in Confederate History, see it as the “War of Northern Aggression” or the “War of Southern Independence.” ---- Dr. Richard Lee Montgomery
Subscribe to this blog
Follow by Email
Search This Blog
He (Grant) Threatened to Resign and Cast His Lot with the South
The editor of the Randolph Citizen recalls some interesting reminiscences of the great Reticent. He had a tongue at one time, it would seem:
In the summer of 1861 General Grant, then Colonel of the Twenty-first Illinois Regiment of Infantry, was stationed at Mexico, on the North Missouri Railroad, and had command of the post. He remained several months, mingling freely with the people, regardless of the peculiar shade of any one's political opinions; and as the distinguished Colonel had then no thought of aspiring to the Presidency or a dictatorship, no occasion existed for the reticence to which latterly he owes the greater part of his popularity. Ulysses the Silent was then Ulysses the Garrulous, and embraced every fair opportunity which came in his way to express his sentiments and opinions in regard to political affairs. One of these declarations we distinctly remember. In a public conversation in Ringo's banking-house, a sterling Union man put this question to him: "What do you honestly think was the real object of this war on the part of the Federal Government?"
"Sir," said Grant, "I have no doubt in the world that the sole object is the restoration of the Union. I will say further, I though, that I am a Democrat—every man in my regiment is a Democrat—and whenever I shall be convinced that this war has for its object anything else than what 1 have mentioned, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the purposes of the abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier that I will not only resign my commission, but will carry my sword to the other side, and cast my lot with that people."
Matthew Carey Jr., The Democratic Speaker's Hand Book, (Cincinnati: Miami Print and Pub Company, 1868), 33.
Myth:The War Between the States Was Fought Over SlaveryByRichard Lee Montgomery Living in the Land of Cotton: livinginthelandofcotton.com
True or false? Abraham Lincoln gave us the answer. When asked in March of 1861 by a newspaper reported at a Virginia Compromise Delegation, “Why not let the South go?” Abraham Lincoln replied, “Let the South go? Let the South go! Where then shall we gain our revenues?”1 Why would President Lincoln say such a thing? Well, it’s because he was alluding to the fact that the South paid 85 percent of the tax (Tariffs) burden of the nation. Lincoln sensed total financial ruin for the North so he waged war on the South.
In fact, the notion that the war was fought over slavery is so far from the truth and yet this interpretation has taught so many generations a deceptive lie. Even across the Atlantic Ocean in England, Charles Dickens, in 1862 said, “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for…
The South Was Right, pp. 12-14byS. A. Steele(Samuel Augusta Hawkins Steel) livinginthelandofcotton.com Alexander H. Stephens called it "The War Between the States," and I am sorry to see that this name has been recommended as the proper name by the Legislative Committee on the revision of the Constitution of North Carolina. This name conveys a wrong idea of the war. It was not a war between the States, but between the United States and the Confederate States, each acting as a nation. It is glaringly inaccurate and misleading. By some it is called "The War Between the Sections." The objection to this name is that it is too vague, and gives no idea of what the war was about. It is not a name, only a label. By some it has been called "The War of Secession." The objection to this name is that it implies that the South was responsible for the war, and this is not true. The North was the aggressor from first to last. For years before the war, it began and carried …