It began when a lone British sentry was attacked by a crowd of more than thirty men. These men were not simply protesting, they attacked the soldier verbally by calling him names, inciting him to react, and then threw hard, sharp, objects at him. Another nine soldiers came to his aid and, as a result, the crowd nearly doubled (as if others were waiting in the shadows), and had at least sixty men, along with some boys. Contemporary witnesses gave testimony that this angry mob of men had clubs and came inciting a conflict with yells that included, “Do not be afraid of them, they dare not fire, Kill them! Kill them! Knock them over!” The crowd also became more antagonistic and violent and swelled into the hundreds. This meant that the British soldiers, of less than a dozen, were far outnumbered and, while having rocks, hard ice and shells thrown at them, were surrounded. Then they were beat with clubs. When one of the soldiers was struck by a club, he fell and his rifle accidentally discharged, and so the rioters increased the severity of their attack. Now, the soldiers were either to be pummeled to a possible death (or at least serious injury) or fight back. Being greatly out-numbered and surrounded, they did what any man of reason would do under such circumstances: use the weapon in his hands to protect himself. As a result, three of the rioters were killed, and eight others injured -two of those later died as a result (a total of five colonists dead). The mobs were not finished, as one observer testified: “Several officers, having nothing to do with the events, were attacked and knocked down by the mob, with one officer very much wounded and his sword taken from him.”

       This was a terribly sad and unfortunate event, yes. But understanding the specifics of the event now, it is against reason and sound judgment to think of this as an actual massacre as the term is properly understood. One could even argue that it was self-defense (as an actual victim admitted), for five of the ten soldiers sustained injuries, while two of them had more than superficial head wounds. (The soldier who fell and whose rifle fired had sustained a serious head and arm injury.) In fact, one of the citizens who had been shot, Patrick Carr, who later died from his wounds, admitted that the soldiers were defending themselves. Carr declared to his surgeon, Samuel Hemmingway, that “he forgave the man whoever he was that shot him, and was satisfied he had no malice, but fired to defend himself.”

       Nevertheless, Samuel Adams, a leader of the Masonic Sons of Liberty, and other "Boston Patriots" used this event to inflame even more resentment against the British crown (something which they had been planning to do all along). They called the event, the "Boston Massacre," and published exaggerated accounts of it. But they knew that a "picture paints a thousands words," and thus leaves a greater impression in the minds (and emotions) of those who see them. So Adams encouraged his fellow conspirator, fellow Freemason Paul Revere, to create a cartoon drawing of the event. They sent out a thousand copies which distorted and misrepresented the truth by depicting a scene where a line of British soldiers are all at the same time shooting down a line of peaceful citizens in the street. The impression given was that of a firing squad shooting unarmed people just innocently standing there. Captioned under the drawing are these words about the "Redcoats:"

Like fierce barbarians grinning o'er their prey;
Approve the Carnage, and enjoy the day

       This drawing is still used in history texts and the media as representing what occurred. But now we know this drawing is at best a distortion, and in reality a propaganda piece.

       This event in Boston and how it was (and still is) portrayed was one of the earliest examples of Masonic-American propaganda used to justify an over-all rebellion against a legitimate governing authority. The Masonic revolutionary leaders needed an excuse to take up arms against England and her king (for they had already wanted to dethrone all monarchy in the first place). No British atrocity occurred even when the Sons of Liberty previously devised plans to incite riots and threaten the safety of the British soldiers assigned to the colonies. As previously mentioned, three of those killed in the riot had already participated in twenty previous riots against British soldiers -whereby they had injured some. But the reactions of the soldiers in the previous riots exhibited good restraint. This time, however, it seems they were forced to fight back for safety sake. It was a no win situation for those eleven British soldiers in Boston on that fifth day of March, 1775. The Masonic Sons of Liberty couldn't have asked for better results.

Myth #26: The first hospital in America was founded in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin in the early 1750s.

Fact: The first hospital in America was founded in St. Augustine Florida in 1565 under the leadership of Pedro Menendez, the first governor of Florida. Even so, a hospital was established in New Orleans by the Ursuline Nuns in 1727, still a quarter of a century before Franklin founded his. (At most, then, the only claim to be made is that Franklin's was the first within the 13 English colonies.)

Myth #27: The United States of America was founded upon Christian principles, and these are embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

Fact: The U.S.A. was not founded upon Christian principles, but upon the rationalistic and revolutionary principles of the so-called "Enlightenment." The U.S. Constitution is based upon these ideas: fundamentally upon the revolutionary idea that Sovereignty resides in the people. However, the idea that authority comes from the people is in direct conflict with both natural law and what God has revealed. Here is what God has revealed in His Holy Word:

By me [the Lord] kings reign... By me princes rule...(Prov.8:15-16)

Let every person be subject to the higher authorities. For there is no authority [or power] except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. Therefore, he who resists authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will receive condemnation. (Romans 13: 1-2)

Jesus answered: “Thou would not have any power over me, unless it were given thee from above” (John 19:11).

       Authority, then, by definition, is hierarchical in nature. It comes down from above (from God), and can only be delegated from one higher to one lower. The entire establishment of the United States of America, and all modern republics and liberal democracies, rejects this revealed and fundamental truth. The United States of America was the first nation to formally decree that the people are the source of authority, not God or His Word. This is the so called “Great American Experiment,” to form a government not only for the people, but a government “of the people and by the people.” In other words, self-government, and this is a rejection of God’s designed order.

Every civilized community must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its author. Hence it follows that all public power must proceed from God. FOR GOD ALONE IS THE TRUE AND SUPREME LORD OF THE WORLD. Everything without exception must be subject to Him, and must serve Him, so that whosoever holds the right to govern, holds it from one sole and single source, namely, God, the Sovereign Ruler of all. “There is no power but from God.” (Rom.13:1)

Democracy goes so far in wickedness as to place sovereignty in the people… Modern writers in great numbers, following in the footsteps of those who called themselves philosophers in the last century, declare that all power comes from the people; consequently those who exercise power in the State do not exercise it from their own authority, but from an authority delegated to them by the people and on the condition that it can be revoked by the will of the people from whom they hold it. Quite contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold that the right of government rule derives from God as its natural and necessary principle.

       God’s Word and traditional Church teaching on the source of authority and power is direct, explicit, and unambiguous. Therefore, since all power/authority comes from God, then those who govern derive their authority from God, and not from the people who elected them (whether or not they believe one way or the other). Also, the Constitution ignores the authority of Christ, and implicitly denies it -by declaring authority comes from the people, not from God- so how can one honestly claim the U. S. was founded on Christian principles? Clearly, then, the U.S.A. was not founded upon Christian principles, but, in fact, upon anti-Christian principles which reject the true source of authority, and also reject the social Kingship of Christ, for there is nothing that is not subject to Christ (Heb.2:8), and this includes states and governments (and the laws they legislate), as well as individuals. Unfortunately, the claim that authority comes "from the people" is a rejection of this truth.

Fact: Russians made the first claims to California. During the late 1720's, 1728 to be exact, Vitus Bering and Alexie Chirikov -commissioned by the Russian Crown- did become the first to sail through the strait named after Bering. They later discovered Alaska and the Aleutian Islands in 1741. But, Russian explorers/sailors did not even reach the Californian coast until the 1770's. However, this was two hundred and thirty years after Spain had already claimed it!

       Many are aware that, in 1602, the Spanish Navigator Sebastian Vizcaíno left Mexico to explore the California coast. With a frigate, two other boats and 130 men, including three Discalced (shoeless) Carmelite friars, he came looking for a secure port for ships. Before they left, the whole crew went to Confession and received Holy Communion. On November 19 they arrived at a bay they named San Diego (Saint James). When they went ashore, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was offered. It is believed that this was the first Holy Mass offered in California. They planted a cross and secured the claim that the region had been previously claimed for Spain.

       We say previously claimed because Vizcaíno had come to California six years earlier. In 1596, during the reign of Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605), Vizcaíno first explored the coast of California. With him was Father Diego Perdomo, O.F.M., and other Franciscan missionaries who were looking for regions in which to spread the Gospel. However, the hostile natives prevented them from both continuing their exploration by land and any missionary efforts. After exploring the coast they returned to Mexico and reported on their expedition.

       It was not, however, Vizcaíno who discovered California as many think, nor was it the murderous pirate Sir Frances Drake who sailed up along the coast in the 1580's. In 1542, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo was sent northward from Mexico to find a possible water route across North America from west to east. This hoped for passage was called "The Strait of Anian." Of course it was never found since it does not exist. Nevertheless, it was on this expedition when California was discovered. On September 28, 1542, Cabrillo entered and landed at what is now San Diego Bay and claimed the land for Spain and its king. This land he discovered became his last resting place, for he soon died after the discovery and was burieds on the island of San Miguel in Santa Barbara Channel.

Fact: With the peace established in 1783, and the laws of England no longer the law of the land, many Catholics in America had believed that the anti-Catholicism of the colonies under England's anti-Catholic Penal laws would end. This also was believed by those Catholics of England who wanted to escape the Penal laws, for soon after America's independence, bodies of the faithful arrived in the sea ports of Boston, New York, and Charleston looking for a new start.

       However, despite the fact that the American states had now separated themselves from England and its laws, they still remained anti-Catholic. Even with the drafting of state constitutions, where liberty was proclaimed for all (supposedly), only three states immediately allowed Roman Catholics any equality with others who called themselves Christians; these states were Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland. The constitutions of the other nine states established one or more of the Protestant sects –or Protestantism in general- as the state religion. Only those who held to the Protestant faith could hold public office. The next state to lift the laws against Catholics and the open practice of the true Religion was South Carolina, and this was not until 1790; Georgia held out until 1798; New York, until 1806; Connecticut, until 1818, Virginia, until 1830; Massachusetts, until 1833; North Carolina, until 1835, New Jersey, until 1844. When most of these bigoted laws were expunged from the books, they were done so by the untiring efforts of Catholics.

       Even with this happening, there was still an anti-Catholic character that belonged to this new young nation. For example: Samuel Adams wanted laws specifically directed against Catholics everywhere. Future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, did his best to deny Catholics the rights of citizenship in New York and elsewhere. As late as 1876, New Hampshire still had a clause in its Statute-Book excluding Catholics from office. During the 19th century there were a number of specifically Anti-Catholic groups such as: the Order of Know-Nothings, American Protective Association, Native American Democratic Association, Order of the Sons of America, Order of the Star-Spangled Banner, and others. These all held that membership in the Catholic Church “is irreconcilable with American citizenship.” These were not just social clubs. There were involved in actively persecutings Catholics. In the east during the 1840's and 1850's there were numerous attacks upon Catholics and Church property. Here are just a few of more than a dozen examples that could be provided.

• On August 11, 1844, the Ursuline convent and school in Boston was attacked by an anti-Catholic mob. The chapel was violated with sacrileges committed against the tabernacle, the vestments were torn to shreds, and the Bible burned in mockery. The mob barely gave the nuns and their pupils time to get out before they burned the buildings to the ground. One of the maniacs took a Sacred Host from the tabernacle and ran off bragging of his deed. But God saw to it that He would not be mocked. Somehow the man could not control himself and fell into the flames screaming in agony. To escape the pains of his burning flesh, he took a razor and cut his own throat.

• During November of 1844, three days of rioting took place in Philadelphia, during which a canon was fired point blank into St. Philip Neri Catholic Church. Two separate convents were attacked and set on fire. The churches of St. Michael and St. Augustine were burned, as were 30 homes of Catholic citizens. The police hardly lifted a finger to find the guilty parties.

• In 1853, a Catholic U.S. Navy petty officer was put in chains for refusing to attend a Protestant worship service.

• When a Papal Nuncio (a representative of the Pope to foreign governments) visited the U.S., violence and bloodshed followed as he traveled to Boston, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Wheeling. On Christmas Day, 1853, an attempt was made on the Nuncio’s life by a mob of some 600.

• In July, 1854, numerous homes of Catholics in Massachusetts were either set on fire or “gutted” to the point of being un-inhabitable. On July 4, the only Catholic church in Dorcester, Massachusetts, was blown up as part of their “Independence Day” festivity, and a church in Bath was set on fire and destroyed.

• In February of 1855, at least three convents in Massachusetts were ransacked from top to bottom by members of a state appointed committee run by the ‘Know-nothings.’

• In 1890, both New Mexico and Arizona (under their Catholic-Hispanic leadership) applied for entrance as states into the Union. They were denied their request. One reason for this denial was opposition from local Protestant Anglos who displayed fear and mistrust of the region’s Catholic-Hispanic leadership. The United States Congress had an additional reason: “The Roman Catholic population seemed un-American.”

Fact: Before Florida joined the United States, it was a territory under the governing authority of Catholic Spain. It had a well developed Christian civilization, a society influenced and guided by the Catholic social and moral order, which acknowledged the social reign of Christ the king. Tens of thousands of Indians were Christian, civilized, and sincerely practicing the Faith (often more devoutly than their co-religious American brethren). History texts more often than not simply state that, after uncontrolled Indian rebellions, Spain ceded Florida over to the US in 1819 for a sum of five million dollars. But much anti-Catholic activity in fact led up to this event.

       The Masonic US government under both presidents Madison and Monroe had encouraged multiple excursions and/or uprisings against Spanish rule in Florida in order to rid it of a governing Catholic monarchy. These aggressive and violent attempts to take Florida occurred in the following years: 1799, 1810, 1811-12, 1818. The last, leading to a successful (in U.S. eyes) result. The turmoil and resulting instability would be used by the U.S. as an excuse for taking all of Florida. As a result of these conflicts engineered, supported, and directed by the U. S. government, in February, 1819, after three hundred years of exploring, colonizing, evangelizing and civilizing Florida, Spain reluctantly gave it up and sold Florida to the United States for five million dollars. The Masonic U. S. government got what it wanted.

       Simply stated: the U. S. was involved in invading a foreign territory and attacking (and killing) its citizens. These acts of aggression and the way the United States acquired Florida were clearly unjust and immoral, yet they are ignored or glossed over or simply misrepresented (i.e. given a positive twist) by establishment historical works and the media. Nearly three hundred years of a successful and beautiful Catholic Spanish-Indian culture was destroyed. The same happened to Texas, the Southwest, and California.

Fact: These early confrontations and battles of the U.S. with Mexico are often distorted and romanticized. The courage of Davy Crockett and the outnumbered Texans fighting at the Alamo Mission against the Mexican army has grown to almost mythic proportions. But the Catholic student of history must ask himself: Were they fighting for the rights of Christ the King and His Church? Were they fighting for a type of freedom that would allow the laws of the land to conform to the laws of God and honor the Kingship of Christ? Were they fighting in order to establish a government that would enact laws based on these truths? Or were they fighting for the (false) “Enlightenment” notion of freedom, whereby men would rule and govern themselves rather than let a government which acknowledged the authority of God to rule them? Or were they fighting simply because Americans coveted Texas for themselves? Sadly, it was the latter two reasons. The Texans had no just cause or purpose for their deeds.

       One of the laws of Mexico was that, before one could settle in Texas (a Mexican state), one had to convert to the Catholic Faith and swear allegiance to Mexico (a common practice). Such a policy was despised by the Masonic U. S. government and President Jackson (also a Mason) who coveted Texas and, being children of the over-all Revolution against the traditional Christian social and moral order, wanted to rid the American continent of the presence of a Catholic Monarchical government. Most of the settlers who were granted land did not really mean to convert, they just wanted the land. Among other law-breaking activities, these Anglo-settlers formed unauthorized governing bodies that collected taxes from the locals but did not return any of this revenue to the state. These Anglo-American settlers, though they swore allegiance to Mexico when they arrived in Texas, nonetheless rebelled and declared Texas an independent republic on March 2, 1836. They took over several Catholic institutions, including the Mission of San Antonio de Valero, known as El Alamo (established in 1718), in San Antonio, and the Mission of Our Lady of the Holy Spirit (established in 1749), in Goliad near the Rio Grande. (The old Spanish missions often had entire towns built up around them.) The rebel settlers chased the Franciscan friars and the native Indian converts away from the missions, their homes. Sacrileges were committed against Our Lord in the tabernacle at the Mission of Our Lady of the Holy Spirit -a clear sign of the anti-Catholic bigotry held by the Anglo settlers.

       General Santa Anna, with an army, came up to recover the Alamo, which was held by just over 180 mostly Texan rebels, including the famous Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Santa Anna demanded that they surrender and give the Alamo Mission of San Antonio back. The rebel Texans refused. So, after allowing the women and children to leave, a battle was fought by Santa Anna’s army to retake the mission from the rebels. Despite the natural bravery of the rebels, they all were killed. Not one surrendered.

       Americans called the event at the Alamo an unmerciful slaughter by the “invading” army of the “evil” Santa Anna. But this is factually incorrect, and a distortion of the truth. The facts are that Santa Anna came to gain back what rightfully belonged to Mexico. His army was not at all an invading army, and the Texas rebels had not “taken refuge” in the old Alamo Mission, for they had previously and forcefully taken it over. Rather, the Anglo-Americans who settled in Texas and swore loyalty were the actual invaders, because they lied when they took their oaths of citizenship. Nevertheless, Santa Anna offered them the chance to surrender. They refused. He made sure all women, children and elderly had left the area before he attacked, though a number of the wives and sons and daughters of some of the rebel Texans refused to leave. -In fact, a known total of eighteen of these non-combatants survived the battle (the last survivor of the Alamo, Alejo Perez, Jr., died in 1918). This fact concerning the noncombatant survivors, and the fact that not one of the rebel Texans surrendered before the end, when it was clear that they were defeated, shows that it was not an “unmerciful slaughter.” The Texans stubbornly chose their fate. (Actually, one man who did fight in the battle did survive, a black man named Joe, who was Col. William Travis' slave.)

       Santa Anna’s army then headed on to Goliad to recover the Mission of Our Lady of the Holy Spirit. At one point when they were resting during their after-dinner siesta, they were ambushed by rebel colonists led by Sam Houston. Unable to react in time, Santa Anna and his army were defeated and captured. This occurred on April 21 at a place called San Jacinto. “Remember the Alamo!” was the battle cry used by the Americans commanded by Sam Houston as they attacked the Mexican army.

       It should be noted that the Texas declaration of independence described the Catholic priesthood as one of “the eternal enemies of civil liberty, and the usual instruments of tyrants.” Clearly, anti-Catholicism was behind the action of taking Texas from Mexico.

       So, let us look at this objectively: Americans, granted permission to live as colonists in a land under a Catholic government committed perjury (when they took their oaths of citizenship), lied before God when pretending to convert, then simply rebelled against an authority they said they accepted, fought any local resistance, then claimed independence with the immediate support of the U.S. government. In Florida and Texas not only was this done, but after treaties were signed, Americans proceeded to change the boundaries and claim even more land, taking it by force (this led to the war of 1846-48 against Mexico). These actions have serious consequences in the eyes of God. Americans must be warned: “Curse be he that removes his neighbor’s boundary marks”(Deut. 27:17).

       Historian Charles A. Coulombe has given us an insightful view concerning the Alamo episode with this parrallel: What if a group of Mexicans came and settled in Alabama, and falsely converted to the Southern Baptist religion, falsely swore allegiance to the United States (i.e., committed perjury), and then repaid our welcoming generosity by taking the state over and proclaiming independence? Would they have had a moral right to do such? No, of course not. Would we not send in our army to take the state back? Yes, we would and we would be in the right. Well, this is exactly the situation Mexico was in with the Texan rebels.

Fact: Whites were not the only slave holders: many Blacks themselves (thousands who were free and land owners), along with many Mulatoes and Indians also were holders of both black AND white slaves. This was not rare, but was common throughout the South. Here are some examples:

     These facts also demonstrate that slavery in America was not based on racial bigotry. (For more suppressed facts concerning slavery in early America see U. S. History Myth Busters 1, Myth #9 and #10)

Myth 33: It was the demand of the Southern U. S. states that kept the black (African) slave trade flourishing.

Fact: It was not the American South where most of the African slaves were taken. More than 95% of African slaves were bought/traded for and then sent elsewhere, either to Arabian(Muslim) lands, to central Africa, like Angola(Portuguese), Nigeria (British), and Cameroon (Kamerun -German), or to the Caribbean and South American countries. The African slaves had already been captured by fellow black African natives, not white men (whites rarely, if ever, went inland to capture natives), and were obtained by U S. Northerners who used Northern manufactured rum and guns to trade for them. The slaves were shackled and transported on Northern ships, captained and operated by Northern seamen, owned by Northern bankers and businessmen who also financed the operations. Thus, the slave-trade was a Northern operation, whose slave ships flew the U.S. (i.e. Union) flag. It was not a Southern operation. Thus, captured Africans came to hate the Stars and Stripes, not the Stars and Bars.

Fact: No, the Southern state of Virginia was the first state to pass laws against the importation of slaves from foreign lands, and did so with a statute passed by the state legislature in 1778. All the Southern states had outlawed slave importation by 1820, yet Northern slave merchants kept making money by continuing the slave trade beyond U. S. boundaries.

Fact: No, it was the state of South Carolina which first allowed Blacks to vote, and this statute was passed back in 1706. Bigotry towards Blacks was stronger in the North than it was in the South. In the South blacks had a place in society as slave, servant, businessman, and even as slave holder. In the South, Blacks were a common sight at social gatherings and town meetings. Whereas in the North they were largely unwelcomed in such gatherings of whites who did not want Blacks mixing with them at all as part of their society. Here are a few examples of this prejudicial attitude displayed by Northern state laws.

     -Massachusetts had a law ordering every Black, Mulatto, or Indian who came into the state and remained for two months to be whipped publicly. This law remained in effect up to 1834 and accomplished its purpose: keeping "undesirables" out. (However, there were plenty to be found after 1834, and in 1860 attempts were made to expell blacks from Boston.)

    Northern abolitionists wanted slavery ended not for any righteous reasons, but out of just plain prejudice towards blacks and hatred of Southern culture. They even wanted blacks shipped out of America! These were not the radical sentiments of a few individuals. A group known as the American Colonization Society, and financed by northerners, was organized in 1817 to help freed and escaped slaves settle, not in America, but in a new African country established just for this purpose. The land the Society purchased was then named Liberia (a variation of liberty). Its capital was named Monrovia, after the President of the day, James Monroe. Eventually some 11,000 blacks were shipped to Liberia. However, the Society lacked the approval of many black Americans, free or slave, for they could see that the organization was bent on getting rid of blacks, not helping them in America.

    Bigotry and hatred towards blacks did not occur in the South until the so-called "Reconstruction" of the South after the war. (This was actually a social/cultural destruction of the South, its character, and the traditions of her people.) During this time of forced military occupation (1865-1877), the unelected military dictators throughout the South picked and armed uneducated and untrained former black slaves (never any of the former white slaves) to both help police the occupied southern towns and cities, as well as to govern(!) these regions.

    As a result of this newly gained authority and power, there were many conflicts and riots between blacks and whites. Whites, including white police, were attacked by black soldiers in a number of places. Black troops and freedmen were out of control. Riots, looting and fighting occurred everywhere in the South, including Charleston, Chattanooga, Fredericksburg, Memphis, Montgomery, New Orleans, Norfolk, Pensacola, Richmond, Savannah and elsewhere. The rioting and fighting lasted for three days in Memphis where forty-eight lay dead in the streets. In Texas, a band of several hundred black soldiers went on a rampage, raiding, robbing, and raping. In Mississippi, Governor W. L. Sharkey, with permission of Federal authorities, called out the state militia to deal with the wide-spread lawlessness (Macan Beacon, August 25, 1865).

    The student of history must consider this situation. What occurred after the war had never occurred before it: an out-right race war, with murder, looting, destruction of property, and rape. Even the ill were murdered while in their beds by blacks, where freedom and authority was like a drug which made them unable to control themselves. Newspapers were filled with accounts of murders, rapes and crimes committed by former slaves. Many black soldiers now drunk with power abused their new positions. Complaints against black troops were reported in every state in the South. The June 16, 1866, edition of the Montgomery Daily Mail reported that the occupying troops “make the night hideous with their pistol shots and indecent yelling… acting as if they are privileged.” Blacks were given leadership positions within Southern state governments and, encouraged by Northerners, they passed numerous harsh and unjust laws against the white, Southem population. Naturaly this caused resentment. Nevertheless, the fact is that any prejudice held by white Southerners against blacks began, in general, at this time of the forced military occupation and its plan of enforced social (re)engineering, not before. Unfortunately neither Hollywood, nor the Media, nor establishment history/social sudies texts recognize these facts.

Fact: The war between the North and the South was not fought by the North (Union) to secure the freedom of slaves, nor to end slavery itself as many were told and others still think. Here are facts which prove this:

    -At a conference in Washington, D.C., on February 27, 1861, Northern delegates met and voted against a constitutional amendment to end slavery. Why would they not vote to end slavery if they were supposedly about to go to war to do so? The reason is because the war was not fought to free the slaves. The war was fought by the North to keep the South from seceding and to strengthen Northern control over the Southern states. The North, or Union, was fighting against the rights of states; it was fighting to destroy the agricultural way of life of the South so as forcibly to bring about the dominance of the industrial way of life of the North.

    - On July 25, 1861, a bill was passed in Congress -the Crittenden Resolution- which declared that the war was being fought to preserve the Union, not to stop, or even change, slavery in its established form.

    -Another fact which proves that the North was not fighting to end slavery is that Lincoln and the Federal government were hoping for the support of the border states such as Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri, which were all slave states. The North would have lost any hoped-for support from these states if it had fought for the purpose of ending slavery.

    -Yet, another fact which proves that the North (or Union) was not fighting to end slavery is this: When the war actually began (April 1861), the Union had MORE slave states than the Confederacy! When the South fired upon Fort Sumter, there were eight slave states still in the Union (Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolnia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri), while the Confederacy at the time was made up of only seven slave states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas). Thus, the North could not have been fighting to end slavery, for it would have been fighting against a large portion of itself when the war began.

    -On its side the South was not fighting simply to keep slavery. No more than one out of fifteen Southern white men were ever slave owners. In other words, for every fifteen white Southern adults, only one was a slave owner. This means there were fewer than 350,000 white slave-holders in all the South. Yet, more than 600,000 soldiers served in the Confederate armies, including slave and free blacks, mulattos, and Indians. Thus, seventy to eighty percent of the Confederate soldiers and sailors were not slave holders. Further, not every slave-holder fought in the war. But even if every slave-holder did put on a uniform and fight, there would still have been hundreds of thousands of soldiers with no personal stake in slavery. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery (if that's what it was fighting to retain) by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.

    Some of the leading Southern generals were not slave holders at the start of the war, including Robert E. Lee and J.E.B. Stuart. Yet, the commanding general for the North, Ulysses S. Grant, enjoyed the services and benefits of slaves owned by his wife up to the end of the war! Facts such as these prove that the North/Union was not fighting to end slavery, nor was the South fighting to keep slavery. It was fighting for its honor, for its cultural heritage, for states’ rights, and for its independence from Northern repression. (The idea that the North was fighting to end slavery was a strategic ploy used by Lincoln in order incite slave rebellion and thus weaken the Southern cause; see below.)

Go to Part 4 of "U.S. History Myth Busters" (Still in progress)