The True History of the American Civil War (War of Rebellion)

[Ponygirl]

Having extensively studied the "civil war" I can appreciate this thread. When I taught high school I always referred to it as the "war of the states," because that term made more sense as a war is far from civil. Additionally, it was clear even from 'accepted' sources that slavery was not cause enough to fight this war. The big vs. small government argument for the cause does make sense and if you factor in that the south may have had longer memory in regards to true history then they were set for destruction.

I think that the one link we have to this "Tartary" that we seek, may be that they were destined to suffer. Having ancient knowledge, or even recollection of the true past, would detract from the new narrative thus making them enemies. Many tales also note how they are barbaric and uncouth which serves to demonize them and justify their destruction, the Yanks provided similar justification towards the south. Additionally, a free society would seem in line with the global infrastructure of Tartaria and, being of the great size that it was, would rely heavily on a federation type system. Federalism would allow regions to think for themselves and rule themselves with great autonomy. An easily controlled populace does not fit into this type of rule.

For the record I believe that Tartary was here in North America or at least it's remnants were. I believe that the land, and possibly the people, had to be sterilized prior to allowing the new oblivious population to proceed west. Even the existing east coast fortifications and cities, many of them star forts, had to be explained to either a gullible or a complicit population.

So, we have to collect our assumptions. Either the south was descended from Tartaria or not. They had memories that they shouldn't have or they did not. They had a Jeffersonian government uncontrolled by the controllers or they did not. The accepted current narrative of slavery/states rights is true or it was not. The war happened or it was staged. One or more of these does not negate the possibility that others may be true.

I totally agree with you. Check out the cap of confederate soldiers(just the word confederate tells us everything) it’s the same as what’s on the female liberty statues, so that tells us that it was a matriarcle society. Also, the snake on the flag—the serpent represents wisdom, and the Nummo, the research I’m working on now.

My research says that the ‘civil war’ was a the last stand of the Tartarian empire. Note the submarines the south had—yet we’re told they were plantation owners. Also note that Russia sent ships and to help the south, wearing uniforms that resemble those of the southerners.

Sherman’s neckties is a fun thing to look up—apparently Sherman’s cannons, or guns or whatever—had the power to twist rail road tracks around trees.

 

[asatiger1966]

Having extensively studied the "civil war" I can appreciate this thread. When I taught high school I always referred to it as the "war of the states," because that term made more sense as a war is far from civil. Additionally, it was clear even from 'accepted' sources that slavery was not cause enough to fight this war. The big vs. small government argument for the cause does make sense and if you factor in that the south may have had longer memory in regards to true history then they were set for destruction.

I think that the one link we have to this "Tartary" that we seek, may be that they were destined to suffer. Having ancient knowledge, or even recollection of the true past, would detract from the new narrative thus making them enemies. Many tales also note how they are barbaric and uncouth which serves to demonize them and justify their destruction, the Yanks provided similar justification towards the south. Additionally, a free society would seem in line with the global infrastructure of Tartaria and, being of the great size that it was, would rely heavily on a federation type system. Federalism would allow regions to think for themselves and rule themselves with great autonomy. An easily controlled populace does not fit into this type of rule.

For the record I believe that Tartary was here in North America or at least it's remnants were. I believe that the land, and possibly the people, had to be sterilized prior to allowing the new oblivious population to proceed west. Even the existing east coast fortifications and cities, many of them star forts, had to be explained to either a gullible or a complicit population.

So, we have to collect our assumptions. Either the south was descended from Tartaria or not. They had memories that they shouldn't have or they did not. They had a Jeffersonian government uncontrolled by the controllers or they did not. The accepted current narrative of slavery/states rights is true or it was not. The war happened or it was staged. One or more of these does not negate the possibility that others may be true.

This might be helpful.


The Jural Assembly Handbook By: Anna Von Reitz Section 3 — This is Not “Opinion” What I am pointing out to you and everyone else is not a topic for “argument”. It isn’t my “opinion”. It is the way the world’s court system has been organized for centuries and just because 99% of Americans are too ignorant to know that and have been deliberately kept too dumbed-down to learn it, does not make it any less true and factual. Now, you have a choice. You can be a landsman and reclaim your country and your “Natural and Unalienable” rights, and you can enforce the Constitution you are owed, and you can enjoy your freedom and you can join your Jural Assembly and you can operate your State or you can sit on your rump and blow your mouth and spin — and the British King will be happy to take all your assets and dump them into a Commonwealth Trust (that he controls and benefits from) and designate you as a “pauper” and a dependent of his government — your choice. If you want Choice A, help establish, staff, and organize a Jural Assembly. If you want Choice B, help establish, staff, and organize a Jural Society. Please note that this is not “American Corruption” — this same situation applies worldwide. The only exceptions are Iran, North Korea, the Holy See, and a handful of Pacific Island Kingdoms. And now for another repeat of a Vital History Lesson for All Americans and All Jural Assemblies: 1. The United States (unincorporated) was formed on July 1, 1776, as a result of the Unanimous Declaration of Independence. The members of this Union were all Colonies and they also operated as “the United Colonies of America”. This is not to be confused with Benjamin Franklin’s private business (also unincorporated) doing business as “the” United States. 2. The United States of America (unincorporated) was formed on September 9, 1776 by declaration of the Continental (that’s land jurisdiction) Congress. This Holding Company is a Federation of unincorporated geographically defined States: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maine, etc. 3. The States of America (unincorporated) was formed March 1, 1781, by Agreement of the States ratified as The Articles of Confederation. This was a Confederacy of States of States created to conduct commercial business in behalf of the Federation States. The members of this original Confederacy went by names like this: The State of Georgia, The State of Virginia, The State of Maine.... 4. The original Confederation adopted and became the recipients of the service contract known as “The Constitution for the united States of America” in 1787. If you can read and know anything at all about English grammar you can observe from this that the word “united” used here as an adjective to describe “States of America” and references their “union” created under The Articles of Confederation. This Confederacy of “States of States” is the actual Party to the 1787 Constitution. Updated: May 22, 2019 Table of Contents Page 8 of 209 The Jural Assembly Handbook By: Anna Von Reitz 5. In 1860-61, the Southern States of States in the original Confederacy left the organization doing business as the “States of America” — “seceded from it” — and formed a new and separate confederacy called “The Confederate States of America”. 6. The entire Civil War was thus a commercial mercenary conflict between the Northern States of States operating under the States of America Confederacy and the Southern States of States operating under The Confederate States of America. 7. After the end of hostilities the British Monarch saw his chance to pull a fast one, claim that the Federal States of States were under “Reconstruction” and then, very quietly, create an incorporated Scottish commercial corporation merely calling itself “The United States of America” [Incorporated] and substituting franchises of this corporation [formed in Scotland in 1868 — we have the paperwork and proof] for the original Federal States of States. Thus, “The State of Florida” owned and operated by Florida for the benefit of Floridians, was moth-balled, and a Territorial franchise corporation calling itself by the deceptively similar name “the State of Florida” owned and operated by the Scottish Government for the benefit of the British Monarch and United Kingdom, took its place — and generations of Americans have been kept none the wiser. Well, now you are all “the Wiser”.

Thank you for your time

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Also note that Russia sent ships and to help the south, wearing uniforms that resemble those of the southerners.

If that's so, it's weird because they also helped the Union North:

SH Archive - 1863 Russian involvement in the US Civil War

 

[asatiger1966]

I totally agree with you. Check out the cap of confederate soldiers(just the word confederate tells us everything) it’s the same as what’s on the female liberty statues, so that tells us that it was a matriarcle society. Also, the snake on the flag—the serpent represents wisdom, and the Nummo, the research I’m working on now.

My research says that the ‘civil war’ was a the last stand of the Tartarian empire. Note the submarines the south had—yet we’re told they were plantation owners. Also note that Russia sent ships and to help the south, wearing uniforms that resemble those of the southerners.

Sherman’s neckties is a fun thing to look up—apparently Sherman’s cannons, or guns or whatever—had the power to twist rail road tracks around trees.

KD once made a comment about a reference in a book stating that some unit had fought the Dutch, followed by many questions about what Dutch or which Holland. I think KD's comment was about shipping bodies back to Holland? My founding document reading found, on the " www.annavonreitz.com " website that the original constitutional government was eventually broken down into four separate sub-contractors which supplied services to the original government. One of those was named The United States and it was incorporated in Holland, the other was London, Vatican and I forget the third entity.

My University classes taught that there was never a declaration of war, no formal surrender, only Lee surrendering his Army. No charges of treason. The four separate entities were fighting over money and power. In my opinion that made it a mercenary war, and not a war involving the original constructional government.

 

[Ponygirl]

KD once made a comment about a reference in a book stating that some unit had fought the Dutch, followed by many questions about what Dutch or which Holland. I think KD's comment was about shipping bodies back to Holland? My founding document reading found, on the " www.annavonreitz.com " website that the original constitutional government was eventually broken down into four separate sub-contractors which supplied services to the original government. One of those was named The United States and it was incorporated in Holland, the other was London, Vatican and I forget the third entity.

My University classes taught that there was never a declaration of war, no formal surrender, only Lee surrendering his Army. No charges of treason. The four separate entities were fighting over money and power. In my opinion that made it a mercenary war, and not a war involving the original constructional government.

Amazing find. No wonder all the generals came from the same war college—West Point.

If that's so, it's weird because they also helped the Union North:

SH Archive - 1863 Russian involvement in the US Civil War

I must have gotten my armies mixed up. Was it the French and England that wanted to help the south? As someone else put it—maybe this was just all the countries fighting over the conquered Tartarians.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

I must have gotten my armies mixed up. Was it the French and England that wanted to help the south?

If you want to get even more confused, consider this:

The Circassian Genocide and the American Civil War.

 

[bocasdel]

I liked the article overall, but I don't like the use of the terminology "white supremacy" for facts happened in the 19th century. This is a modern cultural-Marxist category and it's strange that a supposedly anti-leftist guy uses it. Maybe just an error...

Yes, I concur with you regarding the term: "white supremacy". Like so many words and phrases, it is used in our present reality to further confuse the masses.

It is important to know that "white", and "black" were not used as racial categorizations until after what we now call the Civil War. Prior to that, these words were used as social categorizations. In other words, one could be dark complexioned and be socially categorized as "white" and likewise, a fair skinned person could be categorized as "black". To put it simply, it was a status thing.

Now, the question is: what was the basis of determining whether you were "white" or "black"? It was based on where your family was from and whether you were a person of means!

Therefore, there were indeed MANY so-called "black" people in the South who were in the white category regardless of how dark their complexion, and likewise, MANY so-called "white" people who were in the "black" category. That being said, the majority of the people who were in the "black" category were those whose land was appropriated by the newcomers. By "newcomers" I do not mean "white" folks, I am referring to those who came over and set up shop... they were NOT all "white".

This is one of the reasons why it's been so difficult to sort through the lies of the "Civil War". IMHO, the main reason why the South has been demonized after the war is because it was the best method to hide the truth about the Confederacy. What truth? Oh, this is a very touchy subject for the left, right, in-between, "white", "black" and all the other misidentified participants. The Confederacy was exactly what the word means: a league or alliance! The Confederacy consisted of many so-called "black" people in positions of LEADERSHIP.

The idea and practice of "white supremacy" was concocted after the "Civil War" as a strategy by poor "whites" to take complete control of the social, political, economic and military systems of the South after the war. This process gained momentum in the early 20th century and was codified by the "leftist" after WWI/II.

Our entire reality is one BIG scam! How we question everything about our history except why is it that EVERYTHING is "white"? A key reason for so much difficult in solving our historical riddle is because most of us do not want to face the truth. I think it was W.E.B. DuBois who said: "the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line". I now have a much different understanding of what he said now that I am a bit older.

Do you really KNOW who the "founding fathers" were? Do you really know who the leaders of Confederacy were?

Being a Virginian and a son of the Civil War and Revolution, I can only say that all wars are manipulated by the winners.
Robert E. Lee took communion after the war in a church in Richmond with a black man to everyone's shock and awe. That says it all for me.

I am not sure what you meant by your above comment: "Robert E. Lee took communion after the war in a church in Richmond with a black man to everyone's shock and awe. That says it all for me.

Well, take a look at and read this "official" document from the Library of Congress archives... just go to page 8728 and read how REL is described. It might explain why it wasn't a big deal for him to do that.

 

[White_Armor]

The Confederacy consisted of many so-called "black" people in positions of LEADERSHIP.

Can you give a source on this?

 

[bocasdel]

Can you give a source on this?

I attached a document I downloaded from the 1968 90th Congressional session. It took awhile, but you can find for yourself if you want to verify the source. Session 114, part 7 and search for the section that has page 8727.

If you download the document I included in the post and go to the bottom of page 8727 and continue reading about Robert E. Lee, you will see that he is described as “dark” in his complexion. I also read in the same congressional record a description of Ulysses S. Grant, and he is described as fair with freckles. So I don’t think there’s confusion on the part of the ones describing these people what these words mean.

I do have other information on other Confederate leaders but will post when I’m at my computer.

My reason for sharing the information is because I think we really need to dig deeper into what was really going on in the South. I find it quite odd that the one narrative that is consistent even by alternative researchers is that “black” folks were brought here as “slaves” from Africa and were picking cotton on the plantation. I think there’s LOTS of evidence that contradicts this narrative but it would blow too many minds.

 

[asatiger1966]

I think attaching out rage to most historical events, is a liberal trait, very nearly everything historical is outragiuous by modern standards, even stuff from 20 years ago.

I think a lot of history, ( if it happened at all anything like portrayed) was just an inevitability, based on events that preceded it and or the prevailing morality . or complete fluke that could have gone either way on the toss of a coin

There was only one likely out come from the confederation leaving the union and only one likely out come from the war, given the inequality between the sides. If the confederacy didnt realise that, they didnt consider it carefully enough

In my opinion the southern leadership were as educated as their northern brothers. So with that premise the south were well aware of the outcome we are offered today. Meaning the south had other options that as of now we are not knowledgeable.

 

[Lupo]

This is a rough outline of events…
Jews aka central banks are and were behind where we presently find ourselves.

1213A.D. The Pope and Vatican created the Treaty of Verona claiming ownership of all lands and souls in the world.

1215A.D. The Magna Carta was created to counter the Treaty of Verona.

1604A.D. The Virginia Company, a Frenchchartered Crown owned company, was created.

1620A.D. The Virginia Company granted a settlement of American land to the crew of the Mayflower to colonize.

1638A.D. The Connecticut colony issued the Fundamental Orders.

1776A.D. The Declaration of Independence was created and notice was given to the international community.

1783A.D. The Virginia Company changed its name to UNITED STATES of AMERICA. [All caps]

1787A.D. Articles Of Confederation was created.

1789A.D. Founders met at Constitution Hall in Philadelphia Pennsylvania and created the Federal Constitution to create a more perfect union. A reporter asked Ben Franklin “What form of government have you brought upon us?”. Ben Franklin responded “A republic”, “If you can keep it”. General Lee standing behind Ben Franklin said “And if you cannot keep it, you will end up with a Democracy”. This was the beginning of the Great American Experiment to see if the people can self govern. From this day forward the Vatican, London, and the Crownworked to subvert and take back the colonies.
1791A.D. The first 10 Amendments to the Federal Constitution became the Bill of Rights.
1812A.D. British soldiers burn our nation’s capitol to eliminate the original 13thamendment Title of Nobilities Act that forbids any nobility from holding a public office or trust. The British lost the battle and could not take the colonies. The Crown decided to take the colonies from within by stealth. British Accreditation Registry (B.A.R.) card holding lawyers with an oathgiven to Britain (allegiance to a foreign power) were instructed to subvert the American government and destroy it from within.
1861A.D. A Lawyer with Title of Nobility by the name of Abraham Lincoln in violation of the Title of Nobilities Act (Original 13th Amendment) became President on March 4th. On March 14th eleven southern states walked out of Congress without adjourningand setting a date to return. This is Sine Die. This is THE day our Republican form of Constitutional government became vacant. After this date America has NO government and all governmental actions are de factoand fraud.
1863A.D. Abraham Lincoln issued General Order 100 stating that “Until the people return to self governing, the military is to run the country.” (This is our doorway to return to original jurisdiction). America came to be governed under Lieber Code (Military Law, Martial Law). This is the same Military Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.
1865A.D. On April 14, Abraham Lincoln was eliminated before he could bring us out of Martial Law.
1871A.D. The Military hires the Virginia Company a.k.a. UNITED STATES of AMERICA to provide 19 essential governmental services to the American People.
1928A.D. War Department issues Field Training Manual 2000-25 on Citizenship and how to return to a Republican form of Constitutional government from a Democracy. General Douglas MacArthurstudies under this manual.
1932A.D. Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordersthe Training Manual 2000-25 and all negative references to a Democracy destroyed with no explanation.

 

[emperornorton]

Back in the 1850s and 1860s the radical arm of the Republican party branded itself "Wide Awake." Abraham Lincoln was an "honorary member."

The Wide Awakes were ardent supporters of John Brown, whose insurrectionary government, if successful, would have replaced the US constitution with one laid out on Communist lines, limiting citizenship to "oppressed people"...

Sound familiar?

 

[dreamtime]

​

Back in the 1850s and 1860s the radical arm of the Republican party branded itself "Wide Awake." Abraham Lincoln was an "honorary member."

The Wide Awakes were ardent supporters of John Brown, whose insurrectionary government, if successful, would have replaced the US constitution with one laid out on Communist lines, limiting citizenship to "oppressed people"...

Some short overview of their history (from a left-leaning) newspaper: Wide Awakes: the Lincoln-era youth movement inspiring anti-Trump protests

The political divisions of today already existed in the times of the Civil war, and it seems the words used haven't changed a lot.

 

[SovereignT3]

This might be helpful.


The Jural Assembly Handbook By: Anna Von Reitz Section 3 — This is Not “Opinion” What I am pointing out to you and everyone else is not a topic for “argument”. It isn’t my “opinion”. It is the way the world’s court system has been organized for centuries and just because 99% of Americans are too ignorant to know that and have been deliberately kept too dumbed-down to learn it, does not make it any less true and factual. Now, you have a choice. You can be a landsman and reclaim your country and your “Natural and Unalienable” rights, and you can enforce the Constitution you are owed, and you can enjoy your freedom and you can join your Jural Assembly and you can operate your State or you can sit on your rump and blow your mouth and spin — and the British King will be happy to take all your assets and dump them into a Commonwealth Trust (that he controls and benefits from) and designate you as a “pauper” and a dependent of his government — your choice. If you want Choice A, help establish, staff, and organize a Jural Assembly. If you want Choice B, help establish, staff, and organize a Jural Society. Please note that this is not “American Corruption” — this same situation applies worldwide. The only exceptions are Iran, North Korea, the Holy See, and a handful of Pacific Island Kingdoms. And now for another repeat of a Vital History Lesson for All Americans and All Jural Assemblies: 1. The United States (unincorporated) was formed on July 1, 1776, as a result of the Unanimous Declaration of Independence. The members of this Union were all Colonies and they also operated as “the United Colonies of America”. This is not to be confused with Benjamin Franklin’s private business (also unincorporated) doing business as “the” United States. 2. The United States of America (unincorporated) was formed on September 9, 1776 by declaration of the Continental (that’s land jurisdiction) Congress. This Holding Company is a Federation of unincorporated geographically defined States: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maine, etc. 3. The States of America (unincorporated) was formed March 1, 1781, by Agreement of the States ratified as The Articles of Confederation. This was a Confederacy of States of States created to conduct commercial business in behalf of the Federation States. The members of this original Confederacy went by names like this: The State of Georgia, The State of Virginia, The State of Maine.... 4. The original Confederation adopted and became the recipients of the service contract known as “The Constitution for the united States of America” in 1787. If you can read and know anything at all about English grammar you can observe from this that the word “united” used here as an adjective to describe “States of America” and references their “union” created under The Articles of Confederation. This Confederacy of “States of States” is the actual Party to the 1787 Constitution. Updated: May 22, 2019 Table of Contents Page 8 of 209 The Jural Assembly Handbook By: Anna Von Reitz 5. In 1860-61, the Southern States of States in the original Confederacy left the organization doing business as the “States of America” — “seceded from it” — and formed a new and separate confederacy called “The Confederate States of America”. 6. The entire Civil War was thus a commercial mercenary conflict between the Northern States of States operating under the States of America Confederacy and the Southern States of States operating under The Confederate States of America. 7. After the end of hostilities the British Monarch saw his chance to pull a fast one, claim that the Federal States of States were under “Reconstruction” and then, very quietly, create an incorporated Scottish commercial corporation merely calling itself “The United States of America” [Incorporated] and substituting franchises of this corporation [formed in Scotland in 1868 — we have the paperwork and proof] for the original Federal States of States. Thus, “The State of Florida” owned and operated by Florida for the benefit of Floridians, was moth-balled, and a Territorial franchise corporation calling itself by the deceptively similar name “the State of Florida” owned and operated by the Scottish Government for the benefit of the British Monarch and United Kingdom, took its place — and generations of Americans have been kept none the wiser. Well, now you are all “the Wiser”.

Thank you for your time

Thank you for mentioning Anna. I attend her conferences and discuss with many others the path to freedom. It involves correcting your status from the fraudulent title of “citizen” that was imposed on the living men and women. Thank you again

 

[Froglich]

My take on the Civil War is now Mathisian: all kings, politicians, prime-ministers, dictators, and generals of the last several hundred years who seemingly "mattered", regardless of purported aims or ideology, were and are actors fronting the old-line Ruling Families. This necessarily includes Lincoln, Douglas, and the rest of the CW menagerie. Additionally, most wars are faked to a large extent (particularly in terms of casualty-counts, or battles fought in obscure locations), existing only to provide excuse for periodic wholesale plundering of treasuries. (Contemporary films such as the John Wick series exist as limited-hangout propaganda promoting the idea of these ruling families constantly fighting each other, when in fact they are a seamless and well-ordered singular entity through continuous cousin-interbreeding with select multiracial adventurism if necessary to conquer particularly xenophobic hold-outs, e.g., late-medieval Japan, China, etc.)

You, the booger-eating tax-serf-for-life, are not supposed to know this. You are supposed to argue yourself blue in the face that South Carolina shot first, and that every Southern state had maintenance of slavery listed prominently in their articles of secession (while none cite tariffs, among other excuses conveyed on modern dissembling sites). Or, if you're so inclined to wild-rebel-yell, shake your fist at the carpetbaggers before pulling your pistols and whistling Dixie.

But such esoterics are beside the point of it all being political kayfabe in the first place. It keeps you fighting over surface dressing while the orchestrated looting safely continues behind the scenes.

 

[davtash]

This book is very albeit southern, mainstream. No acknowledgement at all of what was there before ie. Our famous tartaria. Even in this book which I bought there is no recognition of where the so called southerners came from eg accents too as well as music. Why did slavery finish in theory in the North first only to be replaced by the substantial Jim Crow laws? Don't say economics and enlightenment! But try and look at origins without the fictitious civil war. Or was it?

 

[Mavis]

A tidbit from the historical novel, "The Widow Of The South by Robert Hicks (giant print edition, 2005, chapter 4, pages 62, 63)."

Carrie McGavock, Mistress of Carnton Plantation, Franklin, Tennessee, November 30, 1864:
"I had spent hours in John's office bent over his globe, tracing its lines and squiggles and unnatural shapes. I spent sometime memorizing the points of my own boundaries--here is Natchez, Mobile, humpbacked Kentucky, and Wilmington. There is Nashville. I spent hours whispering to myself the names of places on the other side of the world and wondering how they had been named and how their lines had been drawn and what forces conspired to make them stay put. I wondered if they really did stay put and, if they didn't, why men bothered to draw them upon globes. I spent much time considering the border between Europe and Asia, which marked the boundary apparently, between existence and nothingness. To the left, on the western side of "The Euxine (or Black Sea)," the map was full, dense with names rendered in a spidery typescript, and mountain ranges, and colors. Hungary, Moldavia, Little Tartary. The Krim, Dalmatia, Gallipoli, Bagnaluk. To the east the map went white and flat, broken only by the words, "Anatolia (or Asia Minor)."
("Excerpt from the historical novel, The Widow Of The South by Robert Hicks")

 

[Mavis]

Recommended historical reading: The War Outside My Window: The Civil War Diary of LeRoy Wiley Gresham, 1860-1865

 

[Mavis]

"In December 1860, when the secessionists of South Carolina finally achieved their long-sought victory and voted to take their state out of the Union, one of the men exclaimed triumphantly, 'We have pulled a temple down.' So they had. After generations of controversary and agitation, the Union was broken.

In their own time and afterward, one particular set of men claimed and received the greatest share of the dubious credit for this achievement. They called themselves 'fire-eaters.' Men like William L. Yancy of Alabama, Robert B. Rhett, Sr., of South Carolina, and John Quitman of Mississippi, among others, pressed with increasing vigor and intemperance after 1830 for withdrawing the slave states from the Union, either to follow their destiny individually or to band together into a new confederation based on Southern rights. During the four-year life of the Confederate States of America, they at last, tragically, got their wish.

Pulling the Temple Down is the first thorough, comprehensive study of the fire-eaters , exploring who they were, how they operated, their efforts to lead public opinion, their successes, and their failures. They were always political mavericks. Men so out of step with each other--let alone the North--that they could rarely walk in Unison. For the first time a historian has used intensive research in the papers of these men to examine just how much of the claim they laid to fathering secession they really deserve. His conclusions challenge the past century's conventional thought on these radicals and their place in their times.

Pulling the Temple Down offers not only a look at a group of discontented--and very ambitious--Southern would-be leaders, but also a case study in the workings of agitators and self-styled revolutionaries of all times. And in the end the author addresses the question that the careers of such men inevitably begs to have answered: As adept as they were at destroying, at 'pulling down' an edifice, did they really have the ability to build something in its place." ("Preceding is Book jacket commentary regarding book, Pulling the Temple Down: The Fire-Eaters and the Destruction of the Union by David S. Heidler, Cooyright 1994")

 

[polymath]

One thing I've found odd since studying the "war" as a child was the brother vs. brother aspect including my own family. But even mores, the fact that after the "war" southern states were allowed to give pensions to rebel combatants and their dependents and widows. Each southern state had their own rules and timeline but if this really was treason and rebellion, how was this allowed?

Texas went so far as to grant land to rebel veterans. (I use rebel in the historical sense, according to the narrative because the post war treatment was odd for an enemy defeated.)

Texas
In 1881 Texas set aside 1,280 acres for disabled Confederate veterans. In 1889 the State began granting pensions to indigent Confederate veterans and their widows. Muster rolls of State militia in Confederate service are also available.

LINK:
Confederate states giving pensions