« Sunnyside Park | Main | ‘Political games’ in Kansas »

February 22, 2009

No apology needed

Missouri Rep. Bryan Stevenson need not apologize for calling the Civil War “the War of Northern Aggression” (2/11, Local). Actually, I call it “the War of Yankee Arrogance.” But due to the politically correct stance that is current today, stating my southern sympathies would be like talking to a wall.

However, if Stevenson’s Cherokee Indian heritage is a factor, remember this: After the war, the Yankees broke treaties, made huge land grabs, committed rape, genocide and put Indians in concentration camps. (Oh, excuse me, I mean reservations.)

Stevenson should apologize only for the apology itself.

Greg Miller
Overland Park





But I had to write "18" on the soles of my shoes so I could tell the recruiter "I'm over 18".


Good to read an eyewitness account of the war. :-)

I'll add this, the emancipation was a paper tiger. Considering that there were no slaves in the Union Lincoln did not free a single person.

As far as black soldiers, a few years ago I saw "Glory", a movie based on the first black platoon that saw action. They were basically marched in as cannon fodder in the attack of a fortress. You are correct that very few saw action in the war.


The Southern States were producers and exporters of agricultural products. They were importers of manufactured goods. The Northern States, especially the New England ones, were industrial areas and wanted high tariffs on imported manufactured goods. They wanted the tariffs high enough to cause the Southern States to buy from them. This was a large part of the basis for the trouble between the two areas. As to black soldiers in the Southern Army, this was a last resort measure and was not allowed in any significant numbers until very late in the conflict. At the time of the "Emancipation Proclamation" they were not a significant factor at least as to soldiers or combatants. That document very likely was issued more for its effect on England and France than for any other reason. Even in the Northern army, the use of black troops was very limited as far as combat missions were concerned.

Stifled Freedom

Mr Miller, I thought I was bold so some of my out-of-the norm political assertions that rights to sexual freedom should be for everyone...not just women because the foundation of my arguments are EQUALITY. Are you actually going public to support slavery? It sure sounds like that is what you are saying.

I cant believe the Star would publish such hate speech.


President Lincoln stated that if he could save the Union by freeing some of the slaves, he would do it, if he could save the Union by freeing all of the slaves he would do that and if he could save the Union by not freeing any of the slaves he would take that route.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery, but it was a contributing factor.


A few things:

First, I never meant to defend the letter writer's name for the Civil War. I agree that the civil war is a fine name.

Second, I have read many accounts that seem to confirm the fact that much of the push behind Lincoln's emancipation was a need for additional black soldiers (or at least a decrease in the south's forces). It certainly wasn't a moral concern for the concept of slavery, because as pointed out, Lincoln preferred a REALLY gradual plan (100 years) and hoped that a requirement to leave for Africa be included.

Third, while I'll agree with Pub in the fact that the concept of "states rights" had a lot to do with the war, and even the notion that the free-state controversy pushed the issue as a precursor to abolishment for southern states, I stick by by guns that the Civil War wasn't about the eminent end of slavery. Lincoln let it be known during the election that he supported new territories as free states, but he was just as widely known at the time for his opinions of an EXTEREMELY gradual approach.

"Slavery=seccession=Civil War."

Maybe in textbooks circa 1950, but not according to most historians of the last 25 or so years.


"... Lincoln's position to end the expansion of slavery ..." would have ended slavery over time, as sure as the sun rises.

Unlike you the Confederate states were able to see the obvious. Slavery (and slaveholders) would be abolished as soon as enough non-slave states joined the Union.

Slavery=seccession=Civil War.


"(full of black soldiers)" is an exaggeration at best and a lie at worst.

Many blacks "in" the Confederate army were simply forced laborers with no choice in the matter.

But the Confederate army also got blacks to join by promising them freedom if they served. No doubt there would have been more blacks in the Confederate ranks, but many "masters" refused to donate their slaves to the seccesionist army.

And slaves weren't serving Marse Robert because they believed in states' rights. They were grasping at a slim hope of surviving long enough to win their freedom. The number of free blacks who joined the Confederate army was tiny.

The U.S. Army, by contrast, offered few inducements to blacks for their service. In fact, blacks were given substandard pay, clothing and equipment for much of the war. Yet blacks volunteered by the thousand and by the end of the war made up nearly 10% of the U.S. Army.

Pub 17

Seriously, was the Purple Heart for the chunk of your butt the rock took out, or for breaking your glasses?


No, kidding have you been to court yet? What did you end up with besides "drunk school" and a fine? Did they take your license?

Pub 17

Hey Special Services, when you fell out of that Jeep in Nam with the load of AMT model kits for the Hobby Shop and got a Purple Heart, did you pay off the yeoman who typed it up in Jack Black kyped from the O Club or in '72 Buick Kustom Kits?


Hey Pubes you been to court yet on your DWI?

Pub 17

Sorry, Marctnts. Two misses. First, the Confederate Army wasn't "full of black soldiers." Order of magnitude was about 50,000 out of a total of 2,000,000 Confederate soldiers. You're in the range of 2-3%, certainly not 5%.
Second, the fact--and it is a fact--that the war was not a war over slavery, but one of the consolidation of Federal power versus the concept of the Union as a confederacy of independent States hardly gives anyone lief to correctly call it "The War of Northern Aggression," or as the brainless Greg Miller would have it, "The War of Northern Arrogance." "Civil War" is a perfectly neutral description of the conflict, as would be "The War of Secession" or "The War Between the States."


And yeah, I think the south was WRONG for attempting secession, just to avoid any "you're a racist" comments.


"The Southern states wanted to leave the union so they could continue holding blacks as slaves."

I hate to burst your bubble, VV, but there was NO serious discussion of ending slavery prior to the civil war. Seven southern states seceded after Lincoln's election but BEFORE his inauguration out of protest for Lincoln's position to end the expansion of slavery, not it's then-current existence.

Most current historians are also beginning to agree that Lincoln had no intention to free the slaves, as he preferred a gradual 100-year end to the practice (that, BTW, included sending black families back to Africa once they were freed). The battle-field success of the southern army (full of black soldiers) convinced Lincoln of the necessity of freeing the slaves to increase his army's strength (and sadly, he didn't even think it would really work, stating that a gun in the hands of a black soldier would end up in the south hands within 48 hours).

I am by no means a southern apologist, I just think it's sad that so many people buy into the revisionist tale that the virtuous north fought the war to free the slaves. In reality, both sides saw (and used) slaves as a means to winning the war, and their freedom by Lincoln was seen as a recruitment necessity and not a moral duty.


The Southern states wanted to leave the union so they could continue holding blacks as slaves.

The northern states fought to preserve the union and freed the slaves in the process. Unfortunately many black Americans were enslaved for another 100 years by Jim Crow.

Anybody who remains a Confederate apologist is by definition a racist ... not to mention an ignorant halfwit.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright