Customize

Historical Research On The War Between The States (contains graphic images)

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Johnny_Reb_1865, Jul 26, 2014.

  1. Continued......

    American slave ships flew the Stars and Stripes (not the flags of the Confederate States of America) (JRK p. 69-70).
    The slave trade had early roots in New England, going back as early as 1640. The sailing ship Desire, sailing from Salem, Massachusetts, is designated as the first slave ship outfitted in America (JRK p. 66).

    In 1750, Newport, Rhode Island's fleet of slaving ships numbered one hundred and seventy (FWS p. 28).
    West Indian molasses provided the basis of the New England slave trade. The molasses was used in the making of rum by New England distillers. New England based slave ships would then take on a cargo of rum to be used in trading for African slaves (JRK p. 66-67). According to the research of author Francis W. Springer:
    "[A]s early as the 1750's there were 63 distilleries in Massachusetts and 30 in Rhode Island busy converting molasses into rum for the [slave] trade. When an import duty was levied on molasses, it was never collected because it was claimed that it would ruin the slave trade, throw 5,000 men out of work and cause 700 ships to rot" (FWS p. 42; also JRK p. 67).

    According to author Daniel P. Mannix in his book, Black Cargoes, the colony of Rhode Island registered a protest to the English Board of Trade in 1763 over the tax on molasses claiming it would greatly harm her slave trade, a mainstay of her economy (JRK p. 67).

    The July, 1916 issue of the Hartford Current summarized the operation of the New England slave trade and its contribution to slavery in the South:
    "Northern rum had much to do with the extension of slavery in the South. Many people in this state [Connecticut] as well as in Boston, made snug fortunes for themselves by sending rum to Africa to be exchanged for slaves and then selling the slaves to the planters of Southern states" (SCV p. 14).

    According to the Boston News Letter, at least twenty-three thousand blacks were brought from Africa to Massachusetts between 1755 and 1766 (FWS p. 28).

    The gradual reduction of slavery in the North was due in large part to the growth in the number of white laborers (JRK p. 54). According to author Lorenzo Johnson Green, in his 1966 book The Negro in Colonial New England 1620-1776, John Adams insisted that the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts was due to the protest of competing white laborers rather than for ethical or moral reasons. Adams stated,

    "Argument might have some weight in the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, but the real cause was the multiplication of labouring white people, who would no longer suffer the rich to employ these sable rivals so much to their injury. The common people would not suffer the labor, by which alone they could obtain a subsistence, to be done by slaves. If the gentlemen had been permitted by law to hold slaves, the common white people would have put the slaves to death, and their masters too perhaps" (JRK p. 84; SCV p. 13).

    George H. Moore, in his 1866 book Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts, documents that in 1788 Massachusetts, having instituted a process of gradual emancipation of its slaves, passed a law stating that blacks, mulattos, and Indians who came into the State and remained two months would be publicly whipped (JRK p. 76).
    In 1799 New York declared that children born to slaves after July 4, 1799 were to be free. In order to recoup the loss in value of their slave holdings, New York slave owners shipped their slaves South to be sold at auction (CA p. 133).

    In 1798 and 1799, the legislatures of Virginia, inspired by James Madison, and Kentucky, inspired by Thomas Jefferson, asserting their belief that they had the sovereign right to nullify any illegal or harmful acts of the Federal government, declared that both the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by the Federalist controlled Congress, were unconstitutional and would not be enforced in their States (WEW p. 289; SEM p. 354; JRK p. 164-65; MLD p. 22).
    The Virginia Resolution declared in part that "the powers of the Federal Government" are the result of a compact "to which the States are parties." As such, the States are "duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress" of "deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by said compact" to the Federal Government (JLMC p. 106).

    The Kentucky Resolution, drawn up by Jefferson, warned that allowing the Federal Government to be the judge of the extent of its own power stops "nothing short of despotism since those who administer the Government and not the Constitution would be the measure of their powers; that the several States who formed the instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of the infraction; and that a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument is the rightful remedy" (JLMC p. 106-07).

    It was widely proposed by New England Federalists that the New England States secede from the Union should Jefferson be elected president in the election of 1800. The Federalist newspaper, the Columbian Centinel, warned, "Tremble then in case of Jefferson's election, all ye holders of public funds, for your ruin is at hand." Federalist John Adams, having lost his reelection bid, was so disgusted at the outcome of the election that he refused to welcome Jefferson or attend his inauguration (WEW p. 290, 292).
    In 1804, New Jersey adopted a mode of gradual emancipation of slaves that was to take effect in 1827. Slaves born before 1804 were to remain slaves for life. These remaining slaves were referred to as "colored apprentices for life." Children of slaves born after July 4, 1804, were "free," but had to remain as servants of their masters. Females had to labor in this way until age 21, and males until age 25. In 1850 there were 236 slaves for life in New Jersey. The 1860 United States census officially enumerated 18 slaves in New Jersey.

    The method of gradual emancipation used in the North respected "property" rights of the Northern slave holders, many of whom sold their slaves South and recouped their investment–an investment that wasn't especially profitable in the North, anyway (JRK p. 75; GKW).

    New England Federalists, already enraged over the Louisiana Purchase, feared that their influence in the affairs of government would be further diminished as western and southern territories applied for admission into the Union. Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts, in a speech to the House of Representatives, spoke of Western "Representatives and Senators from the Red River and Missouri pouring themselves upon this and the other floor, managing the concerns of a seaboard fifteen hundred miles at least from their residence" (WEW p. 308, 333). During debate in Congress on Jan. 14, 1811 over the admission of Louisiana as a state, Josiah Quincy declared,
    "If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union; that it will free the States from their moral obligation; and as it will be the right of all, so it will be duty of some, definitely to prepare for a separation–amicably if they can, violently if they must" (WEW p. 331; GLD p. 28; SDC p. 28).

    American ship owners and merchants, especially in New England, were very much against United States participation in the War of 1812. New England Federalists organized political and economic opposition to the United States war effort. New England merchants and privateers carried on illicit and profitable commerce with British merchant ships and conducted business with the British army in Canada in defiance of the United States embargo against trade with England (GLD p. 33; WEW p. 329-33; MLD p. 8). A few of the more outspoken members of the Federalist party even advocated a separate peace between New England and Great Britain (GLD p. 32). The governors of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, exercised their sovereign States' rights by refusing President Madison's call for their State militias to aid in the war effort against the British (WEW p. 327; JLMC p. 114-15).

    New England newspapers boldly advocated secession during the War of 1812, arguing that "the Federal constitution is nothing more than a treaty between independent sovereignties [...] and that any state had a right to withdraw" (WEW p. 333).

    The January 13, 1813, edition of the Boston Centinel editorialized approvingly on secession as the imminent remedy for New England's perceived inadequate voice in the governing of the United States by stating,

    "The sentiment is hourly extending, and, in these northern states, will soon be universal, that we are in no better condition with respect to the south, than that of a conquered people [...] We must be no longer deafened by senseless clamours about a separation of the states [...] Should the present administration, with their adherents in the southern states, still persist in the prosecution of this wicked and ruinous war–in unconstitutionally creating new states in the mud of Louisiana (the inhabitants of which country are as ignorant of republicanism as the alligators of the swamps) and in opposition to the commercial rights and privileges of New England, much as we deprecate a separation of the union, we deem it an evil much less to be dreaded that a co-operation with them in these nefarious projects" (GLD p. 30-31).

    On February, 14 1814, with the United States still at war with England, both houses of the Massachusetts State Legislature passed a resolution that read, "The question of New England's withdrawal from the Union is not a question of power or of right to separate, but only a question of time and expediency." On October 8, 1814, a committee of the Massachusetts legislature called for a December 15th convention of New England States in Hartford, Connecticut for the purpose of considering the secession of the Eastern States from the Union and the creation of a New England confederacy (SEM p. 383; WEW p. 331-33; SDC p. 28).

    The September 10, 1814, edition of the Boston Centinel opined,

    "I have, for many years, considered the Union of the Northern and Southern States as not essential to the safety, and very much opposed to the interests, of both sections. The extent of territory is too large to be harmoniously governed by the same representative body [...] The commercial and non-commercial states have views and interests so different, that I conceive it to be impossible that they ever can be satisfied with the same laws [...] each section will be better satisfied to govern itself: and each is large and populous enough for its own protection [...]" (GLD p. 31).

    The December 15, 1814, edition of the Boston Centinel argued,

    "By a commercial treaty with England, which shall provide for the admission [into the New England republic] of such states as may wish to come into it, and which shall prohibit England from making a treaty with the South and West, our commerce will be secured to us, our standing in the nation raised to its proper level; and New England's feelings will no longer be sported with or her interests violated" (GLD p. 32; GE p. 112).

    The Missouri Compromise of 1820, limiting slavery to South of the 36°30' parallel, while couched in terms of slavery, was really a political compromise over a balance of Congressional power between the industrial North and agrarian South. It was not concerned with the plight of slaves. Balance was maintained with the new free State of Maine offsetting the new slave State of Missouri. This debate served to reinforce the sectional consciousness between North and South (WEW p. 352-54).
    Thomas Jefferson, now in private life, was greatly alarmed by the Missouri Compromise. He considered it ill-conceived and suicidal to the Union.
    In a letter to Mark Langhorn Hill, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts, on April 5, 1820, he wrote, "I congratulate you on the sleep of the Missouri question–I wish I could say on its death; but of this I dispair! The idea of a geographical line once suggested, will brood in the minds of all those who prefer the gratification of their ungovernable passions to the peace and Union of the country!" (SDC p. 46).

    On April 22, 1820, Jefferson wrote to John Holmes, U.S. Representative from Maine, that this compromise "like a fire bell in the night, awakened, and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the death knell of the union! It is hushed, indeed, for the moment, but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men will never be obliterated, and every irritation will make it deeper and deeper! I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man in earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach [of slavery] in any practical way. The cession of that kind of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle, which would not cost me a second thought. A general emancipation and expatriation could be effected, and gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go! Justice is in the one scale and self preservation in the other [...]" (SDC p. 46).

    Thomas Jefferson saw a scheme of defeated Federalists behind the Missouri Compromise, using it as a means back into power. He asserted that they were attempting to fan the flames of passion over slavery and capitalize on the deepening North-South geographical consciousness that the Compromise fueled in order to win back the Presidency.
    On September 20, 1820, he wrote to William Pinckney, Senator from Maryland: "the Missouri question is a mere party trick. The leaders of Federalism, defeated in the schemes of obtaining power, by rallying partizans [sic] to the principle of monarchism–a principle of personal, not if local division, have changed their tack [...] They are taking advantage of the virtuous people, to affect a division of parties, by a geographical line. They expect that this will insure them on local principles, the majority they could never obtain on principles of federalism; but they are still putting their shoulder to the wrong wheel–they are wasting jeremiads on the evils of slavery, as if we were advocates for it" (SDC p. 46).

    On December 29, 1820, Jefferson wrote to General Lafayette: "The boisterous sea of liberty, indeed, is never without a wave, and that from Missouri is now rolling toward us, but we shall ride over it as we have all others. It is not a moral question, but one merely of power. It's object is to raise a geographical principle for the choice of a President, and the noise will be kept up till that is effected" (SDC p. 47).

    On August 17, 1821 Jefferson wrote to General Henry Dearborn: "I rejoice with you that the State of Missouri is at length a member of our Union. Whether the question it excited is dead, or only sleepeth, I do not know. I see only that it has given resurrection to the Hartford Convention men. They have had the address by playing on the honest feelings of our former friends to seduce them from their kindred spirits, and to borrow their weight into the Federal scale. Desperate of regaining power under political distinctions they have adroitly wriggled into its seat again in the ascendency [sic], from which their sins have hurled them" (SDC p. 47).
    The South produced nothing that benefited from protectionist tariffs, while at the same time Northern industrialists lobbied for tariffs to protect their domestic interests from foreign competition (WEW p. 513). The divisive sectionalizing effect of tariffs became clear after the passage of the Tariff Act of 1816. To the people of the South, inexpensive imported finished goods were welcome, and they resented the idea of paying higher prices in order to benefit New England manufacturing interests. Tariffs were boosted even higher in 1824 (WEW p. 364-65; BBM p. 3).

    Not satisfied with the 1824 tariff rates, protectionist interests sought a further increase in tariffs. With the presidential election of 1828 approaching, political maneuvering by both protectionists and free-traders went awry resulting in tariffs being raised to unprecedented new heights under the Tariff Act of 1828. Under this "Tariff of Abominations", as John C. Calhoun of South Carolina called it, a roar of protests arose from the agrarian South (WEW 365-68).

    The famous Senate debate between Daniel Webster and Robert Y. Hayne in January of 1830 epitomized the continuing Federalist vs. Antifederalist–or nationalistic vs. States' rights–battle of interpreting the Constitutional authority of the Federal government. Hayne, speaking first, emphasized the understanding that the citizens who gathered to create a federal government were representing the interests of the citizens of their respective States. In rebuttal, Webster minimized the fact that these founding citizen's first concern was to the welfare of their own State and, instead, emphasized their coming together en masse. By de-emphasizing the State as a political entity, Webster attempted to minimize the relationship between a State and its citizens and sought to build up the importance of the Federal government over that of the States. While the issue was still not resolved, the nationalists inched their way forward while the States' rights advocates seemed to lose some influence, thus placing the South even more on the defensive (WEW p. 389-92; JLMC p. 108).

    With it being largely unprofitable, especially with the large influx of immigrants, slavery had long been on the decline in the North (JRK p. 79-80). This was commonly accomplished through gradual or conditional emancipation. Abolitionists, however, insisted that slavery be abolished immediately, even though it was still a more integral and vital part of the Southern economy. In January of 1831 the famous Boston abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, urged immediate emancipation of slaves with no compensation to the slave owners. Failing this, he advocated secession of the Northern States from the Union.

    Labor union leaders sought his attention regarding the slavery-like conditions of Massachusetts cotton mill workers who worked much longer hours that did slaves, and whose meager pay kept them in living conditions worse than those of slaves. Garrison, bitterly opposed to labor unions, was not interested. In the first issue of his newspaper the Liberator Garrison lashed out against union organizers for trying to "inflame the minds of our working classes against the more opulent and to persuade them that they are contemned and oppressed by a wealthy aristocracy" (WEW p. 414-15).

    In November of 1832, South Carolina exercised the belief in States' rights by passing an Ordinance of Nullification in response to the new federal tariff law of 1832, itself a revision of the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations." The federal tariff law of 1832 was declared "null, void and no law, not binding upon this state, its officers or citizens." It was further stated that should the Federal government attempt to enforce the tariff act, the people of South Carolina would be absolved from their political connection to the United States. President Jackson threatened to send in troops to force South Carolina to collect the new tariff. Jackson finally proposed a compromise tariff, while South Carolina wasn't able to muster support from other Southern States. In an 1833 retrospective statement to a friend, Jackson accused South Carolina of trying to form a Southern Confederacy (WEW p. 393-94; MLD p. 19, 31).

    In 1845, John Quincy Adams and other Northern Congressmen declared that the controversial proposed annexation of Texas would be just grounds for dissolution of the Union. The Legislature of Massachusetts, along with other New England States, declared they were under no obligation to recognize the annexation. The joint Standing Committee on Federal Relations of the Massachusetts Legislature stated in part:
    "When Massachusetts is asked to violate the fundamental provisions of that Constitution as well known as her own, she unhesitatingly throws herself back on her rights as an independent State. She cannot forget that she had an independent existence and a constitution before the Union was formed" (JLMC p. 129).
    Of the $107.5 million in import tariffs collected on goods entering the United States during the 1830s and 1840s, $90 million or approximately 83% was collected from Southern ports of entry. In 1860, about 87% of total tariff revenue was collected in Southern ports (CA p. 27).

    On January 20, 1848, Illinois Congressman Abraham Lincoln affirmed the spirit of the Declaration of Independence in a portion of a speech before Congress.
    "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this a right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit" Congressional Globe, Volume XIX, page 94 (GLD p. 67; SDC p. 87; BBM p. 296).

    In light of the famous 1850 Congressional oratories of Senators John C. Calhoun, William H. Seward and others over the admission of California into the Union and the slave status of the territories of New Mexico and Utah, it became evident that the famous and unresolved Federalist versus Antifederalist debate over the nature of American federalism that began during the writing and ratification of the United States Constitution was among the core issues of the South's War for Independence. By now, a North-South division within the Congress of the United States had taken place, a division which took place between Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats. John C. Calhoun argued for Southern self-determination, and contended that the Northern States were using the national government to aggressively move against slavery and Southern commercial prosperity through protectionist policies that favored Northern interests (MLD p. 9). The resulting Compromise of 1850, while seeking to stave off a secessionist movement by Southern States, actually agitated pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions by having the effect of nullifying the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and introducing the explosive Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (WEW p. 455-59).

    In 1852 Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe's book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, was published. Writing from abolitionist stereotypes, Mrs. Stowe had never been to the South and had no first-hand knowledge of slavery. Nonetheless, her book filled the imaginations of Northerners with evil white Southerners reveling in beating their thousand-dollar slaves (WEW p. 466).

    Seen as a threat to white laborers, blacks were widely disenfranchised in Northern States, especially during the 1850s and 60s. It was not until after the War that these so-called "black codes" showed up in the South. Free blacks not only had restrictions placed on opportunities to earn a living, but also upon opportunities for education, for the privilege to vote, and even whether they could legally reside in a given State (JRK p. 55-57, 77; CA p. 130; BBM p. 170-72).

    In 1851, the Indiana constitution was changed to state that "no negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the state [...]" (JRK p. 55; BBM p. 171).
    1853 Illinois law prevented "the immigration of free negroes into this State." In 1862 the citizens of Illinois amended their State constitution to say that "No Negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state [...]" (JRK p. 55, 77; CA p. 130; BBM p. 171).

    Oregon's constitution, adopted on November 9, 1857, stated that "[n]o free negroe or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall come, reside or be within this state [...]" (JRK p. 55; BBM p. 172).

    New Jersey and Massachusetts had also placed similar restrictions on blacks (JRK p. 55).

    In a chain of events that began on March 11, 1854, with the rescue by Sherman M. Booth of fugitive slave, Joshua Glover, from imprisonment under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the State of Wisconsin declared this Federal law and a similar one of 1793 to be unconstitutional. In words reminiscent to those of 1798 Kentucky and Virginia over the Alien and Sedition Acts, Wisconsin declared that the assumed authority of the Federal Judiciary in this case and the Fugitive Slave Act to be "void and of no force" within her boundaries. Wisconsin was asserting its States' rights–that is, state sovereignty–one of which was nullification.

    Booth was arrested and confined by a Federal Marshal. On May 27, 1854 Judge A. D. Smith of the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Booth's contention that the Fugitive Act was unconstitutional. The full Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed Judge Smith's ruling on July 19, 1854. The State court ordered Booth released (SDC p. 74-75).
    During a message to the Wisconsin legislature in 1858 Republican Governor Alexander W. Randal denounced the encroachment of the Federal Government upon the reserved rights and sovereignty of the States, as typified in the enforcement of the Federal Fugitive Slave Laws.

    "The tendency of the action of the Federal Government has been for many years, aided by the Federal Courts, to centralization, and to an absorption of a large share of the sovereignty of the States. It has trspassed [sic] upon the reserved rights of the States and the people–assuming a jurisdiction over them in their exercise of power undeligated. The Federal Government, so far as there is any sovereignty under our form of Government, is sovereign and independent in the exercise of its delegated powers, and the States are sovereign and independent in the exercise of their reserved powers. The safety of the States in the exercise of these powers, in defense of the lives and properties and liberties of the people, demands a fair, deliberate opposition and resistance to any attempt at usurpation or aggression by the Federal Government, its Courts, its officers, or agents upon the reserved rights of the States or its people" (SDC p. 83; SEM p.601).

    The United States Supreme Court reversed the Wisconsin Supreme Court on March 7, 1859.
    On March 19, 1859, the Republican controlled Wisconsin Legislature passed a joint resolution in support of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that stated in part,
    "Whereas, The Supreme Court of the United States as assumed appellate jurisdiction, in the matter of the application of Sherman M. Booth, for a writ of habeas corpus [...]
    And Whereas, Such assumption of power and authority by the Supreme Court of the United States to become the final arbiter of the liberty of the citizen, and to override and nullify the judgments of the State Courts [...]
    Resolved, the Senate concurring, That we regard the action of the Supreme Court of the United States in assuming jurisdiction in the case before mentioned, as arbitrary act of power unauthorized by the Constitution and virtually superceding [sic] the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus, and prostrating the rights and liberties of the people, at the foot of unlimited power.

    Resolved, That this usurpation of jurisdiction by the Federal Judiciary, in the said case, and without process, is an act of undeligated power, and therefore, without authority, void and of no force.

    Resolved, That the Government framed by the Constitution of the United States, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself [...]
    Resolved,[...] that the General Government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who administer the Government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers–that the several states which formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction, and that a positive defiance of those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts, done, or attempted to be done, under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy" (SDC p. 84).

    Taking advantage of the furvor over slavery in the territories, the Republican Party was organized in 1854 at Jackson, Michigan by gathering together the Whig remnant, Know-Nothings, Free-Soilers and abolitionists. However, behind the scenes, party organizers were more intent in controlling the national government, "obtain federal subsidies for railroads and steamship lines, and have their own way with the currency, the public lands and the tariff" (WEW p. 466-67).

    Speaking on October 16, 1854 in Peoria, Illinois, Lincoln acknowledged the difficulty facing white society of the day in abolishing slavery. He also voiced what he saw as the likely solution over time - gradual emancipation and then sending blacks in the United States to Liberia, Africa.

    "When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying [...] If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia–their native land [...] We cannot make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South" (BBM p. 184).

    While some in the North decried slavery, Northern industrial demand, Northern and European consumer demand, and Northern financiers kept slavery viable in the South. The English received over 80% of exported American cotton and employed about four hundred thousand workers in their cotton mills (WEW p. 526).

    Unlike most leading politicians of the day, some abolitionists were unwilling to compromise on the issue of slavery, even to the point of dissolving the Union. In 1856 abolitionist Garrison proclaimed,

    "This Union is a lie! The American Union is an imposition–a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell! [...] I am for its overthrow! [...] Up with the flag of disunion, that we may have a free and glorious Republic of our own; and when the hour shall come, the hour will have arrived that shall witness the overthrow of slavery" (SDC p. 56, 100).
    Where the abolitionist speeches, sermons and editorials left off, fanatical abolitionist, John Brown, picked up. He didn't hesitate to spill the blood of slave holders and others as necessary to do his part in eradicating slavery.
    On May 24, 1856, Brown led a raid on Pottawatomie, Kansas in which five unarmed men were dragged from their beds at night and murdered because of their pro-slavery views (WEW p. 476; SEM p. 601).

    Brown sought to form a republic of fugitive slaves in the Appalachians from which war would be waged against those States in which slavery was still legal (WEW p. 501; SEM p. 601). On October 16, 1859, Brown led his invasion into Virginia to seize the United States arsenal at Harpers Ferry. As part of his plan, he would distribute the captured arms to the many blacks whom Brown thought would eagerly join in the uprising. To his bewilderment, no blacks came to his side. Even the few slaves he came in contact with at a nearby plantation would have nothing to do with him. Ironically, the first man killed in the raid was a free black man who was shot while running away after Brown's men had ordered him to stop. Brown was captured by a detachment of United States troops under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee on October 17. He was tried for treason, murder, and conspiracy with slaves to rebel and found guilty. He was hanged on December 2, 1859. Abolitionists now had a martyr, and Southern fears were ignited. (WEW p. 501-02; SEM p. 602, 605).

    The South held its breath as it awaited Northern opinion over John Brown's execution. While most Northern opinion was against Brown, a few prominent voices began to raise him up as a saintly martyr.

    Ralph Waldo Emerson fueled Southern fears as he wrote, "That new saint, than whom nothing purer or more brave was ever led by love of men into conflict and death [...] will make the gallows glorious like the cross" (SEM p. 602).

    Some Northern newspapers also contributed to the mounting North-South tension after Brown's execution. The Fort Atchison, Wisconsin Standard was typical of the outbreak of Northern abolitionist sympathy of Brown.

    "John Brown Dead–The first act in the tragedy has been performed. The great State of Virginia has played the hangman's part, and is crowned with its bloody honors [...] No mercy was expected for the victim of southern vengeance. But the end is not yet [...] A wall of bayonets may guard the hideous bastile of cruelty and wrong, but cannot obstruct the march of the free legions that will spring forth from their slumber, and make the earth tremble beneath their tread.

    "Now may God help the right! and give us tongues of fire, and hands that shall never weary, to wage an eternal crusade against the diabolical sin of slavery.
    "Peaceful be the sleep of the murdered Brown, and glorious his awakening" (SDC p. 65).

    In 1857, New Englanders held a convention at the industrial city of Worcester, Massachusetts to determine whether they should secede from the Southern States in direct response to the lowering of protectionist trade tariffs pushed by Southern Democrats in Congress (WEW p. 514). Northern bankers and manufacturing interests blamed the panic of 1857 and its lower prices on the Southern opposition to these tariffs. Southern opposition votes also defeated attempts to obtain Federal subsidies for improving transportation and communications that would further benefit Northern industry and commerce (SEM p. 602-03).

    During the fourth Lincoln-Douglas debate on September 18, 1858, in Charleston, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln emphatically stated his view of the role blacks in American society.
    "I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them marry with white people. I will say in addition that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality; and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of the superiors and the inferiors; and that I, as much as any other man, am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white man" (WEW p. 500; JRK p. 27; MLR p. 113).

    Union General William Tecumseh Sherman, believing that slavery was necessary and that the black man must be subject to the white man, wrote in December of 1859, "I would not if I could abolish or modify slavery" (WEW p. 519).

    Judging from its May 18, 1860, convention in Chicago, the Republican party was a Northern party. The convention platform advocated no slavery in the territories of the United States, but stressed a noninterference policy regarding slavery in the States where it already existed. The platform also advocated a protectionist tariff (WEW p. 505; SEM p. 602).

    Lincoln's election on November 6, 1860, was made possible by a North-South split in the Democratic party, and was solely along a sectional dividing line between the North and South. He received little if any of the popular vote south of Virginia, and only 2000 votes in Virginia. He received only 40 percent of the popular vote nationwide (WEW p. 506-10). His election was considered by many to have been an accident, even among those who served in his own administration (WEW p. 522).

    On Murry Hill, New York, 1936.
  2. Continued...... If you read this far I tip my hat to you sir.


    On November 26, 1860, Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune wrote,

    "If the cotton states unitedly and earnestly wish to withdraw peacefully from the Union, we think they should and would be allowed to do so. Any attempt to compel them by force to remain, would be contrary to the principles enunciated in the immortal Declaration of Independence–contrary to the fundamental ideas on which human liberty is based" (SDC p. 86).

    While many Northern editorials were advocating a peaceful and calm attitude should any Southern States decide to secede, others in the North were thinking ahead to the possible negative consequences to federal subsidies to the Northern industrial infrastructure, to trade, and to commerce. After all, over 80% of federal tariff revenue was generated in Southern ports and the Northern shipping was highly dependent on both Southern and foreign trade. One such expression of concern came from the December 10, 1860 Chicago Daily Times.

    mhc_am_Sunny_South_small_272750_7.jpg

    "In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow"(CA p. 23, 27).

    Horace Greeley, expressing the majority of Northern sentiment at the time, stated in the December 17, 1860 New York Tribune,

    "If it [the Declaration of Independence] justified the secession from the British Empire of three millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of five millions of Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861" (GE p. 164, SDC p. 87; BBM p. 297).

    Republicans having won the congressional elections of 1858, Lincoln's election in 1860 "placed Northern interests in control of the national government (MLD p. 34), their nationalism and the Southern commitment to state sovereignty crystallized" (MLD p. 8). Feeling that the economic, political, and sovereign interests of the States of the South were in danger, a conference of South Carolina state leaders in October of 1860 decided to secede from the Union if Lincoln were elected President (WEW p. 511). To these States, the reserved sovereign right of secession was the only peaceable escape from a central government that had become the judge of its own authority (MLD p. 52). On December 20, 1860, prior to Lincoln's swearing in, the state convention declared South Carolina to be out of the Union (WEW p. 511).

    Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, on the day of his State's secession from the Union, cited Wisconsin State Supreme Court Judge Smith in the Booth case as precedent for State action in response to wrongs committed by the Federal Government.

    "Sir, the North threaten to fight us back into the Union, after we shall have taken our stand for Southern Independence. They now deny the right of a State to judge of its own grievances and to apply its own remedies, notwithstanding for years, many Northern States, Wisconsin in particular, have asserted this right for themselves. I want no better license for our action to-day than the decision of Judge Smith in the Rescue cases of Wisconsin" (SDC p. 85).

    Once the consequences of secession of the Southern States to Federal revenue became clear, some Northern editorials were less gracious toward the South. The December 21, 1860, issue of the Philadelphia Press prophesied the nature of the actions that the North would shortly take in preserving her economic interests.

    "The government cannot well avoid collecting the federal revenues at all Southern ports, even after the passage of secession ordinances; and if this duty is discharged, any State which assumes a rebellious attitude will still be obliged to contribute revenue to support the Federal Government or have her commerce entirely destroyed" (CA p. 24).

    In December, 1860 the Chicago Tribune stated,

    "Not a few of the republican journals of the interior are working themselves up to the belief, which they are endeavoring to impress upon their readers, that the seceded States, be they few or many, will be whipped back in the Union [...] but the drift of opinion seems to be that, if peaceable secession is possible, the retiring States will be assisted to go, that this needless and bitter controversy may be brought to an end. If the Union is to be dissolved, a bloodless separation is by all means to be coveted. Do not let us make that impossible" (SDC p. 101).

    In a speech before the Senate on December 25, 1860, Senator Stephan A. Douglas voiced his political convictions regarding the motives of the more radical Republicans:

    "The fact can no longer be disguised that many of the Republican Senators desire war and disunion, under the pretext of saving the Union. They wish to get rid of the Southern States, in order to have a majority in the Senate to confirm the appointments, and many of them think they can hold a permanent Republican majority in the Northern States, but not in the whole Union; for partisan reasons they are anxious to dissolve the Union, if it can be done without holding them responsible before the people" (SDC p. 53).

    Along with their position within the Union, the Southern States were turning their backs on what they perceived as the deterioration of American constitutional federalism as originally set in place by the Founding Fathers (MLD p. 1-5). Author Marshall L. DeRosa summarizes the issue.

    "But by 1861, the political divisions between North and South regarding constitutional exegesis were so entrenched that the Constitution ceased to be the instrument of a 'more perfect union' and rather served as the vehicle for dissension and separation [...] Northerners insisted upon a model of federalism consisting of a national community of individuals, with sovereignty being a national phenomenon–that is, nationalism–whereas Southerners adhered to a model consisting of a community of states, with the citizens in their respective states functioning as the repositories of sovereignty and thereby controlling the bulwarks of their social and economic interests–that is, state sovereignty" (MLD p. 8-9).

    The January 15, 1861, Philadelphia Press clarified that losing the South as a source of Federal revenue, and not the secession of the Southern States as such, was their real concern. The Southern States could not be forced to collect revenue for Washington without Northern military occupation of the forts located in Southern ports.

    "It is the enforcement of the revenue laws, not the coercion of the State that is the question of the hour. If those laws cannot be enforced, the Union is clearly gone; if they can, it is safe" (CA p. 24).

    In a speech before the House of Representatives on January 15, 1861, John H. Reagan of Texas expressed the persistent frustration of the South concerning the imbalance of the source of collected Federal revenue. In doing so, he also highlighted those things which were to be the primary purpose for which the North would go to war to protect.

    "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions" (CA p. 80-81).

    Secretary of State William Seward, during a Cabinet meeting in the first month of the Lincoln administration, stated,

    "The attempt to reinforce Sumter will provoke an attack and involve war. The very preparation for such an expedition will precipitate war at that point. I oppose beginning war at that point. I would advise against the expedition to Charleston. I would at once, at every cost, prepare for war at Pensacola and Texas. I would instruct Major Anderson to retire from Sumter" (GE p. 160).

    Governor Letcher of Virginia, while an advocate of the legal right of a State to secede from the Union, spoke against the secession movement precipitated by South Carolina (BBM p. 248-49). The Virginia Assembly called for a convention in the City of Washington on February 4, 1861, of as many States "as are willing to unite with Virginia in an earnest effort to adjust the present unhappy controversies" (BBM p. 250).

    The Virginia Assembly called for a State convention to debate the course of action that the State should take in the current secession crisis. At the same time, Virginia voters cast ballots in a general election on February 4, 1861 to register their opinion. By a vote of 100,536 to 45,161 the voters of Virginia declared their rejection of secession, and that the findings of the State convention would be subject to voter approval. The Convention opened on February 13, 1861. The main question that concerned the delegates was the attitude that the new Federal administration would have toward the seceded States. (BBM p. 256-59)

    As recorded in the Congressional Globe on February 11, 1861, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution with unanimous Republican support that stated in part:
    "Resolved, that neither the Federal Government, nor the people, or Governments of non-slave holding States, have a purpose or a Constitutional right to legislate upon, or interfere with slavery in any of the States of the Union" (SDC p. 150).

    Commercial interests in the North were greatly disturbed over the secession of the Southern States, fearing great financial harm to Northern shipping from the lower import tariffs at Southern ports. An editorial in the February 19, 1861, Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat voiced the common concerns of Northern shipping interests.

    "The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. No–we MUST NOT let the South go!" (JRK p. 52)

    On February 23, 1861, Horace Greeley wrote in the New York Tribune:

    "We have repeatedly said and we once more insist that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed is sound and just; and that if the Slave States, the Cotton States, or the Gulf States only, choose to form an independent nation they have a clear moral right to do so" (BBM p. 297).

    In an attempt to keep Southern States from leaving the Union, a thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, very different from the current one, was whittled out of the Crittenden Compromise by both Republicans and Democrats, with Lincoln's approval and even his signature. It was approved by Congress on February 28, 1861, and submitted to the States for ratification on March 2, 1861. It declared:

    "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor orservice by the laws of said State."

    The States of Maryland and Ohio ratified it before the War broke out (WEW p. 520-21; SEM p. 609; CA p. 128).

    On March 2, 1861, Congress passed the Morrill Tariff, and with it the highest tariffs in American history. With this one act, Congress further alienated the South, and aggravated Northern fears of foreign goods abandoning Northern ports for lower tariffs in the South. Now, with this high tariff on goods imported into the United States, and the announced intentions of a low tariff in the Southern States that had seceded, the secession of the Southern States took on a new and threatening look to Northern industrial interests. By the close of March, 1861, a growing panic over the future of Federal revenues was echoed in newspaper editorials throughout most of the North. The press had largely turned from "let the South go in peace" to a call to war to preserve economic prosperity however this (CA p. 23, 63-70, 81). The March 2, 1861, New York Evening Post , in an editorial entitled What Shall Be Done for a Revenue, opined,

    "That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop" (CA p. 24).

    On March 4, 1861, Lincoln reiterated his support of the constitutional protection afforded to slavery in his first inaugural address.

    "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so" (PMA p. 215; BBM p. 6).

    He then went on to assure the Nation of his support of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

    "There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

    "'No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.'
    "It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law" (PMA p. 215-16).

    In his March 4, 1861, inaugural address, Lincoln placed the seceded States on notice; that he was willing to resort to bloodshed to nullify the secession of the Southern States, to repossess former U.S. federal properties in the South, and to collect import tariffs from Southern ports (BBM p. 264).

    "I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the states. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner, direct to the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend, and maintain itself.

    "In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion [...]" (PMA p. 218-19; SEM p.610).

    By the time of his inauguration, Lincoln had formulated his argument against the legality of secession. Ignoring the roots of his own country, his argument was that the Union predated the States, was unbroken beginning with the Articles of Association in 1774 and, therefore, secession was impossible (Lincoln's First Inaugural Address; PMA p. 117; FWS p. 135). Among the criticisms of Lincoln's position are:

    That he overlooks the fact that the colonies had declared themselves "Free and Independent States" in their Declaration of Independence from England in 1776–a fact acknowledged by England as well (GLD p. 71).

    He ignores his own earlier affirmation of the precepts of human liberty and the consent of the governed spelled out in the Declaration of Independence (FWS p. 135, Congressional Globe, Volume XIX, page 94; GLD p. 67; SDC p. 87; BBM p. 296).

    His view was contrary to the fact that the Union would come into existence only after nine of the thirteen States ratified the Constitution. Clearly, the States that did not immediately ratify the Constitution did not blink out of existence once it was ratified by the requisite nine States. Instead, they maintained their independent status under their own duly instituted State constitutions until such time as they too voluntarily ratified the new Constitution. The States were offering to one another the opportunity to enter into a new voluntary covenant, one that was to replace the previous relationship under the Articles of Confederation (GLD p. 69-71).

    That he overlooks the fact that some of the States had reserved the right to recall the powers they had delegated to the federal government prior to their entrance into the Union (FWS p. 135).

    Finally, one may wonder at how the millions of citizens in the States that seceded were denied their opportunity to peacefully determine their own destiny. The duly elected governments of the States had now become subservient to the will of the Federal Government, effectively nullifying much of the original intent of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln had indicted the population of the South for treason for doing nothing more than what the patriots of 1776 had done. (FWS p. 136).

    President Buchanan had declared that he could find no constitutional authority for using force against any State that seceded. However, contrary to the views he held as a Congressman in 1848, President Lincoln declared, in effect, "I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, which means, in my opinion, a union of the states. I shall do anything in my power to sustain the Constitution and the union, regardless of the constitutional aspect of what I do" (WEW p. 525).

    Rumor and speculation as to Lincoln's intentions toward the South led the March 6, 1861, edition of the New York Herald to write,

    "We have no doubt Mr. Lincoln wants the Cabinet at Montgomery to take the initiative by capturing the two forts in its waters, for it would give him the opportunity of throwing upon the Southern Confederacy the responsibility of commencing hostilities. But the country and posterity will hold him just as responsible as if he struck the first blow [...]" (GLD p. 95).

    On March 8, 1861, George W. Brent, a delegate to the Virginia State Convention to debate the direction of the State, spoke words that were representative of that body.

    "Recognizing as I have always done, the right of a state to secede, to judge of the violation of its rights and to appeal to its own mode for redress, could not uphold the Federal Government in any attempt to coerce the seceding states to bring them back into the Union" (BBM p. 265-67).

    Lincoln sought to influence the Virginia Convention to adjourn without making a decision of secession, and without his assurance that he would not attempt to coerce the seceded States back into the Union (BBM p. 270).

    In the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, its framers sought to eliminate ambiguities that gave rise to the grievances that led to the secession of the Southern States, at the core of which was the centralization of government to the detriment of the States. The issue of States' rights as a major cause of the secession of the Southern States becomes clear in the issue of the Confederate States Supreme Court. Although Article III of the C.S. Constitution, adopted on March 11, 1861, establishes the Supreme Court, federal encroachment upon States' rights fostered by rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court were still fresh in the minds of the C.S. Congress. Author Marshall L. DeRosa relates,

    "In response to a bill introduced in the C.S.A. Senate to organize the Supreme Court, William Yancey of Alabama remarked in no uncertain terms that 'when we decide that the state courts are of inferior dignity to this Court, we have sapped the main pillars of this Confederacy.'"

    As a result of this mindset, the actual establishment of the C.S. Supreme Court never took place (MLD p.75-77).

    Consistent with the South's persistent objection to protectionist trade tariffs, the C.S. Constitution explicitly forbade them (WEW p. 513; MLD p. 94; SF p. 42).
    "The Congress shall have power–

    1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States:" (emphasis added)(Article 1, Section 8, clause 1, Confederate States Constitution; MLD p. 139)

    As slavery was legal under the United States Constitution, so it was in the Confederate States. Under the C.S. Constitution, slavery was explicitly recognized as an institution of the States, whereas in the U.S. Constitution the issue of slavery in general was intentionally vague. As in the United States, the federal government of the Confederate States was prohibited from interfering with slavery within the States. The States of the Confederacy, however, were not constitutionally required to recognize or continue the practice of slavery within their own borders. In fact, several proposals to require that each State continue to recognize slavery were not adopted during the Constitutional Convention. The consensus, as voiced by Senator Albert G. Brown of Mississippi, was that "each State is sovereign within its own limits; and that each for itself can abolish or establish slavery for itself" (MLD p. 68-71).

    The C.S. Constitution did not explicitly provide for the right of secession because it was assumed to be an act of sovereignty that the States had not delegated or otherwise abdicated. After all, they had just exercised this ultimate remedy themselves. In the preamble to the C.S. Constitution, using the words "each State acting in its own sovereign and independent character," the framers implicitly allowed for secession by emphasizing the understanding of each State's sovereign nature (MLD p. 53; SF p. 42).

    On March 12, 1861, three Confederate commissioners, who had come to Washington seeking negotiations toward a peaceable separation and offer payment for apportioned public debt and seized federal property, addressed Secretary of State William Seward with an official letter of intent. Having open the lower Mississippi River to the free flow of commerce, the Confederate government expected reciprocal gestures from Lincoln, including the evacuation of Fort Sumter (SF p. 45). Seward, speaking only through Supreme Court Justice John A. Campbell, assured the Confederate commissioners that the Union troops in Fort Sumter in Charleston and Fort Pickens in Pensacola would be evacuated in three days (WEW p. 522; SF p. 45-46).

    In reply to Lincoln's March 15, 1861, inquiry as to the advisability of provisioning Fort Sumter, Secretary of State William Seward wrote,

    "If it were possible to peaceably provision Fort Sumter, of course, I should answer that it would be unwise and inhuman not to attempt it. But the facts of the case are known to be that the attempt must be made with the employment of military and marine force which would provoke combat and probably initiate a civil war which the Government of the United States would be committed to maintain, through all changes, to some definite conclusion." (CA p. 45; BBM p. 285)

    On March 18, 1861, the Philadelphia Press demanded in part:


    "Blockade Southern Ports. With no protective tariff, European goods will under-price Northern goods in Southern markets. Cotton for Northern mills will be charged an export tax. This will cripple the clothing industries and make British mills prosper. Finally, the great inland waterways, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Ohio Rivers will be subject to Southern tolls" (CA p. 65).

    On March 22-23, 1861, the economics editor of the New York Times reversed his position and now advocated, "At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States" (CA p. 65).

    Concern over the alarming reduction in Government and commercial revenue due to the loss Southern ports of entry highlight a powerful motivating force in regaining the South. The New York Times made the following points on March 30, 1861:

    The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood [...] If the manufacturer at Manchester [England] can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage [...] If the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own ports by the millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers [...] Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free [...] We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched (JRK p. 51-52).

    On April 1, 1861, Justice Campbell returned to find out from Seward why Sumter had not been evacuated as he had told the Southern envoys it would be. Seward now told the shocked Campbell, "I am satisfied the government will not undertake to supply Fort Sumter without giving notice to Governor Pickens [of South Carolina]." As Campbell relayed this latest development, the Southern envoys saw that the this likely spelled trouble. In their report back to the Confederate government in Montgomery they said, "The war wing presses on the President; he vibrates to that side... Their form of notice to us may be that of a coward, who gives it when he strikes" (SF 46-47).

    The April 5, 1861, New York Tribune reported,

    "Many rumors are in circulation to-day. They appear to have originated from movements on the part of the United States troops, the reasons for which have not been communicated to the reporters at Washington as freely as the late Administration was in the habit of imparting Cabinet secrets. There can be no doubt that serious movements are on foot" (SDC p. 51).
  3. Continued....

    Yes I know it's a lot to read but it's the truth.


    On April 8, 1861, the United States Government informed the authorities at Charleston, South Carolina by messenger that they desired to send an unarmed supply ship to Fort Sumter, backed by force if needed. United States military vessels were reported off Charleston by April 10. Ignoring attempts to negotiate, Lincoln had backed the Confederacy into a corner. Feeling that Washington had not acted in good faith over Sumter, and fearing that the nearby Federal fleet would also enter the harbor, they signaled their intent to fire upon the supply ship should it enter the harbor, but the United States sent the ship anyway. In response to the presence of the ship, the Southern military in Charleston prepared to attack the Fort, having anticipated the use of force by the Federal fleet to send military reinforcements. On April 12, after a demand for surrender made to commanding officer Major Anderson was denied, Fort Sumter was fired upon. An article in the April 15, 1861, New York Tribune reported that "[t]he armed ships which accompanied the supplies took no part in the contest" (SDC p. 51-52; FWS p. 78; SF p. 47).
    Not one man was killed on either side during the Southern bombardment of Fort Sumter. After surrendering, Major Anderson dined as a guest with Confederate commander General Beauregard (WEW p. 524).
    While the attention of the South was on Fort Sumter, the Federal fleet succeeded in reinforcing Fort Pickens in Pensacola with men and supplies. It became clear that the entire episode at Charleston had been a diversion from the Federal intent to reinforce Fort Pickens. This plan had the additional benefit of provoking the South into firing the first shot and a inciting war fervor in the North, thus providing Lincoln with the political and popular cover he needed in order to use force against the South (SDC p. 50-51; WEW p. 524). The April 15 New York Post reported,
    "Gen. Scott has been averse to the attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter. He saw that it would cost men and vessels which the Government could not spare just now [...] He saw that the two keys of the position were Fort Pickens, in the Gulf, and Washington, the Capital. His plans, based on these facts, were at once laid [...] Every hour the traitors spent before Sumter gave them more surely into the hands of the master. To make assurance doubly sure, he pretended to leave Fort Pickens in the lurch [...] The Government said not a word–only asked of the traitors the opportunity to send its own garrison a needed supply of food. They refused, fearing the arrival of the Federal fleet [...] Scarce had they begun [their attack], when they saw with evident terror, ships hovering about the harbor's mouth; [...] but no ships came in to Anderson's help [...] The position of affairs is this–Charleston is blockaded–Fort Pickens is reinforced by troops, which the traitors foolishly believed were destined for Sumter [...] The traitors have, without the slightest cause, opened the war [...]" (SDC p. 52-53).
    Lincoln biographer, J. G. Holland, explained in his 1865 work, Life of Lincoln, why Lincoln did not call for armed force to suppress the secession of Southern States before the fall of Fort Sumter.
    "Up to the fall of Sumter, Mr. Lincoln had no basis for action in the public feeling. If he had raised an army, that would have been an act of hostility, that would have been coercion. A thousand Northern presses would have pounced down on him as a provoker of war. After the fall of Sumter was the time to act" (GE p. 167).
    On April 13, 1861, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to be raised from State militias to march on those States which had seceded. Up until this time, the citizens of the border States had voted to remain in the Union. Practically overnight, Lincoln triggered a change of sentiments in the border States. In response to the Secretary of War regarding Virginia's quota of troops, Governor Letcher replied,
    "I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States and the requisition made upon me for such a object–an object in my judgment not within the purview of the constitution or the act of 1795, will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war; having done so we will meet you in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited toward the South."

    In response to this action of the President, the Virginia Convention adopted an ordinance of secession on April 17, 1861, and sent it to the people of Virginia for ratification by a special vote set for April 23. (BBM p. 279-82; SF p. 51-52). The secession of Virginia was closely followed by Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina (WEW p. 512; CA p. 29, 38; FWS p. 82-83; SEM p. 611-12).
    While largely Southern in sentiment, Kentucky and Missouri were divided, but did not secede. But Governor Magoffin responded to Lincoln's call to arms, "Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern states." Likewise, Governor Jackson of Missouri replied, "Your requisition is illegal, unconstitutional, revolutionary, inhuman, diabolical, and cannot be complied with" (CA p. 38; SF p. 53). In both states, however, secession conventions were held and each sent representatives to the Confederate Congress.

    (This accounts for the twelfth and thirteenth stars on the well-known Confederate battle flag.)

    By defining the secession of the Southern States from the Union as a "rebellion," Lincoln was able to justify mustering an army to quell the "insurrection" under the Act of Congress of 1795 which limited the use of the specially called militia to thirty days after the beginning of the next session of Congress. Lincoln delayed calling Congress into special session for at least two and a half months, thus prolonging his use of the militia against the South before he had to obtain congressional approval for his actions. By this time, Lincoln had set the machine of war into motion, and Congress was left to do little other than to appropriate funding for Lincoln's plans (GLD p. 109-11; WEW p. 525; CA p. 41, 44, 121-22). This effectively preempted what Lincoln referred to in his inaugural address as the ability of the American people to "withhold the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner" prevent his using force against the seceded States.
    The great majority of Confederate soldiers owned no slaves. The 1860 United States census revealed that about 25% of white Southern families, or about 6% of the total white Southern population held slaves (WEW p. 529; JRK p. 83, 86).
    The loyalty of free black Southerners and even slaves toward the Southern cause was counted on in some parts of the South. Along with their white counterparts, there were free blacks who were anxious to prove their bravery and patriotism against the invading Yankees (ELJ p. 219). Even though the use of black volunteers in the Confederate Army did not officially take place until the closing three months of the War (ELJ p. 246), black volunteers were often employed in state militias and local home guard units throughout the War (ELJ p. 219; CKB p. 8-10). These black Confederates were often awarded state pensions after the war based on their service to the Confederacy. Historian Ervin L. Jordan documents that in 1928 the State of Virginia awarded pensions to "black males who served on military details or performed guard duty on behalf of the Confederacy" (ELJ p. 226).
    In June of 1861, Tennessee became the first State in the Confederacy to authorize the use of free black soldiers. Black soldiers between the ages of fifteen and fifty were paid $18 per month and received the same rations and clothing as white soldiers. By September of 1861 two regiments of black soldiers were in Memphis (ELJ p. 218-19).
    On July 4, 1861, before a special session of what was left of the Congress, Lincoln rationalized his actions against the South as he said, "These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and public necessity, trusting then as now that Congress would readily ratify them" (GLD p, 111).
    The legislature of Maryland was to convene on September 17, 1861. Beginning on the night of September 12, under orders of Secretary of War Simon Cameron, Major General Banks arrested all members of the legislature who were suspected of having Southern sympathies. These and other influential citizens were seized and imprisoned in Fort McHenry (CA p. 41). There were no charges against them of having committed overt acts of disloyalty or treason. They "appealed to Chief Justice [Roger Brooke] Taney who decided that they were held illegally, but they were not released. In this action of President Lincoln's a most dangerous precedent was created. Through the acquiescence of Congress, then in session, the president had become a dictator" (WEW p. 525-26).
    In November of 1861, elections were held in Maryland. Occupying soldiers of the Union Army voted in these elections, even though they were not citizens of Maryland. Soldiers were also stationed at the polls with bayonets affixed to their rifles. It was a foregone conclusion that only Union sympathizers would be elected. "The elections were a fraud, and finally the democratic system of government in Maryland breathed its last breath" (CA p. 41).
    In 1861, John Hughes, Archbishop of New York, warned the U.S. War Department that his flock was "willing to fight to the death for the support of the constitution, the government, and the laws of the country, [but not] for the abolition of slavery" (SEM p. 666).

    English author Charles Dickens, an avid student of the forces behind America's War of 1861, and an opponent of slavery, made the following observation in an article entitled "American Disunion" in the December 21, 1861, issue of his London periodical, All the Year Round:

    "The struggle between North and South has been of long duration. The South having the lead in the federation had fought some hard political battles to retain it... But in the last presidential election, which was a trial of strength between South and North, the South considering itself subject to the North within the federation, carried out its frequent threat and desire of secession" (CA p. 88).
    Dickens biographer, Peter Ackroyd, reiterated Dickens' view on the popular opinion regarding slavery and the war:

    "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states" (CA p. 89).

    In his December 28, 1861, follow-up article, "The Morrill Tariff", in his periodical All the Year Round, Dickens summarized his observations of the harmful effects of protectionist tariffs on the Southern economy being at the root of the North-South conflict:

    "If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? [...] Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived [...] The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union [...] [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel" (CA p. 90-91).

    Union soldiers from New York on patrol out of Newport News, Virginia on December 22, 1861, were attacked by local Confederate forces near Newport Bridge. The attacking Confederate force was made up of cavalry and 700 armed blacks. Local Confederate fighting units were often formed during times of Union raids, and then were disbanded until needed again (ELJ p. 222).
    Anthony Trollope, a British citizen traveling throughout the North and South early in the War observed, "The South is seceding from the North because the two are not homogeneous. They have different instincts, different appetites, different morals, and a different culture" (JRK p. 23).
    In a message to Congress on March 6, 1862, Lincoln proposed compensation to the owners of slaves in any state–including those in the South–that would emancipate its slaves. This would have been consistent with how many of the slaves were freed in Northern States. Both Lincoln's Cabinet and Congress rejected the proposal (WEW p. 543). However, Congress did pass an act abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. Lincoln signed the act on April 16, 1862. Owners were compensated up to $300 apiece for their liberated slaves (WEW p. 544; SDC p. 175).

    To the surprise of many Yankee soldiers, many Southern blacks were not slaves. Knowing of the South only through stereotypes and often thinking that all Southern blacks were slaves, Yankee soldiers sometimes accused free blacks of hiding their masters, especially if the person's home were nicely furnished. During such encounters, the Yankees would often steal the free black person's food and belongings, and even destroy their homes (JRK p. 133-34).
    The loyalty of Southern blacks in the presence of Yankee soldiers was varied. Some slaves went over to the Union troops, while others remained loyal to their white families (JRK p. 133-34). Rarely, though, did Southern blacks give Yankee soldiers their complete trust (ELJ p. 143).
    Union soldiers reporting on the June, 1862 battle of Seven Pines claimed that two black Confederate regiments proved themselves ruthless opponents, showing no mercy to either dead or wounded Yankee soldiers (ELJ p. 223).
    The wife of Union general Ulysses S. Grant, a slave owner herself, kept her slaves until the close of the War (WEW p. 518, 543).
    In a letter dated August 22, 1862, to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said,

    "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union" (GE p. 218; SCV p. 5-6).

    On August 25, 1862, Lincoln wrote a letter to Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune in which he again stated,
    "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone; I would also do that" (WEW p. 508).

    During the battle of Antietam in September of 1862 fully armed black Confederate soldiers were observed as an integral part of Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia (ELJ p. 223).
    On September 24, 1862, Lincoln, having especially suffered the criticism of the Northern Democrats or "Copperheads" since he commenced hostilities against the South, suspended the writ of habeas corpus (the right to a speedy and public trial), a right guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. A Copperhead was a Northern Democrat who was critical of Lincoln's war policies and his war against the South.

    An estimated 20,000 to 38,000 political prisoners were incarcerated by Lincoln's Provost Marshals, some of whom were sentenced before military tribunals, while others received no trial at all, never having known the charges against them (WEW p. 525; GLD p. 115-16; GE p. 7; CA p. 57).
    Through the power of the military, Lincoln had newspapers shut down for coming out in direct opposition to his war time policies, or even if they merely raised questions. Ultimately over three hundred newspapers were closed. After enough public outrage, Lincoln simply had unfavorable newspaper editors imprisoned, leaving their positions to be filled by those who would support his policies (CA p.45-46, 58).

    In December of 1862, Lincoln sought to alleviate the fears that emancipated slaves would come into the North and compete for the labor of white workers by assuring Congress that each State can "decide for itself whether to receive them" (JRK p. 55; BBM p. 173).
    With the war losing its popularity in the North in 1862, the people of the North were not so willing to send their husbands and sons to die in "Mr. Lincoln's war" to restore the Union, let alone for the emancipation of slaves (WEW p. 544).

    It was not until well into the War that Lincoln began to link abolition of slavery with the War itself. He began to use the issue of slavery as a political tool to give the War a moral cause to help bolster Northern support, distance England and France from the South, solidify his support with the growing abolitionist movement, and possibly foster a slave revolt in the South. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, issued under his war powers, declared only slaves in those States that seceded to be free. Those still enslaved in Northern or otherwise Union States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri) were not freed by Lincoln's proclamation since he knew he could not legally deprive United States citizens of their "property." Exemptions from Lincoln's proclamation included "the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. Johns, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans [...] the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth," much of Tennessee, the South Carolina coast, and any other areas of the Southern States under Union control. Not one slave was actually freed through Lincoln's proclamation (WEW p. 545; SEM p. 654; ELJ p. 255; PMA p. 264-66).
    Therefore, contrary to popular belief, Lincoln did not "free the slaves." Emancipation of the slaves throughout the North and South was due to the ratification of the current Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by both the Northern and Southern States. Only in this way could an acknowledged internal matter of the States be constitutionally dealt with at the federal level–that is, with the States delegating authority that had been previously reserved by them. Constitutionally, this was not a matter for Lincoln and the Executive branch of the federal government.


    During Congressional debate on January 8, 1863, Thadeous Stevens of Pennsylvania declared on the floor of Congress that the States of the Confederacy were a "belligerent nation" and no longer in the Union. As such, they were no longer entitled to the protections of the U. S. Constitution. Therefore, the taxes he proposed as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee were to be levied upon "conquered provinces, just as all nations levy them upon provinces and nations they conquer." He went on to say that he would "as a necessary war measure, take every particle of property, real and personal, life-estate and reversion, of every disloyal man, and sell it for the benefit of the nation in carrying on this war." Stevens further stated that "this war must be carried on upon principle wholly independent of it [the Constitution]" and that the United States "must treat those States now outside of the Union as conquered provinces and settle them with new men, and drive the present rebels as exiles from this country [...] They have such determination, energy, and endurance, that nothing but actual extermination or exile or starvation will ever induce them to surrender to this Government" (GLD p. 151; The Congressional Globe, January 8, 1863, p. 239-40, 243).

    The Conscription Act of March 3, 1863, forced Northern men into service through a military draft. The draft was biased against the poor in that a man could pay $300 to commute his service for a particular draft. A man could also find a permanent substitute to serve in his place through a three year enlistment. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the bringing in of black workers to break a dock workers' strike brought Irish immigrants in New York City to the boiling point. The first drawing of names for the draft in the working-class quarters on July 13, 1863, sparked four days of riots in New York City. Blacks, having been blamed for the loss of jobs and the reason for the existence of the draft, were indiscriminately killed or beaten (SEM p. 666).

    Northern States and cities were often officially and harshly rebuked by the Lincoln administration for not making their quota of recruits. Within the Confederacy, the Conscription Act of 1862 was enacted under the watchful eyes of the States. Within the Confederacy, federal legislation had to pass the muster of the high courts of the States. This oversight was exercised by these State high court judges who reserved the right to intercede on behalf of their citizens concerning actions of the federal government. Judge Moore of Texas, aware that conscription could be a tool of oppression in the hands of the federal government, concluded that "a necessity exists today, and the law is therefore constitutional, if tomorrow that necessity should cease, its continuance would be as clearly unconstitutional" (MLD p. 114-15). In practice, the Confederate States federal government recognized the preeminence of the sovereignty of a State in disputes where State and federal jurisdiction are in contest (MLD p.76).
    On May 16, 1863, a convention of Democrats gathered in Albany, New York to protest the military arrest of Clement Laird Vallandigham, Ohio Democrat Congressman and candidate for governor of Ohio, along with many other such military arrests of civilians, and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. According to findings of the military trial, he was found guilty of accusing Lincoln "and his minions" of rejecting a chance at peace with the South "the day before the battle of Fredericksburg" because "the men in power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more cruel and more oppressive than ever existed before." As reported in The American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1863, Lincoln answered the criticism of the Democrats by letter on June 12, 1863. It reads in Part:
    "Ours is a case of rebellion [...] and the provision of the Constitution that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it,' is the provision which specially applies to our present case. This provision plainly attests the understanding of those who made the Constitution that ordinary courts of justice are inadequate to 'cases of rebellion'–attests their purpose that, in such cases, men may be held in custody whom the courts, acting on ordinary rules, would discharge [...] and its suspension is allowed by the Constitution on purpose that men may be arrested and held who cannot be proved to be guilty of defined crime [...] arrests are made, not so much for what has been done, as for what probably would be done [...] The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy; much more if he talks ambiguously–talks for his country with 'but,' and 'ifs,' and 'ands'" (GLD p. 119; GE p. 209-13; SDC p. 201-03).

    In answer to Lincoln's letter of reply, the Democrats harshly criticized his usurpation of power in a letter dated June 30, 1863. It reads in part:
    "You seem aware that the constitution of the United States, which you have sworn to protect and defend, contains the following guarantees, to which we again ask your attention [recitation of the first four Amendments to the Constitution] [...] You are also, no doubt, aware that, on the adoption of the constitution, these invaluable provisions were proposed by the jealous caution of the states, and were inserted as amendments for a perpetual assurance of liberty against the encroachments of power [...] The fact has already passed into history that the sacred rights and immunities [...] have not been preserved to the people during your administration. In violation of the first of them, the freedom of the press has been denied. In repeated instances newspapers have been suppressed in the loyal states, because they criticized, as constitutionally they might, those fatal errors of policy which have characterized the conduct of public affairs since your advent to power. In violation of the second of them, hundreds, and we believe thousands, of men have been seized and immured in prisons and bastiles, not only without warrant upon probable cause, but without any warrant, and for no other cause that a constitutional exercise of freedom of speech [...] For all these acts you avow yourself ultimately responsible [...] These repeated and continued invasions of constitutional liberty and private right have occasioned profound anxiety in the public mind. The apprehension and alarm which they are calculated to produce have been greatly enhanced by your attempt to justify them, because in that attempt you assume to yourself a rightful authority possessed by no constitutional monarch on earth [...] elieving as we do, that your forbearance is not the tenure by which liberty is enjoyed in this country, we propose to challenge the grounds on which your claim of supreme power is based. While yielding to you as a constitutional magistrate [...] we cannot accord to you the despotic power you claim [...] [Y]our meaning is, that, while the rights of the citizens are protected by this constitution in time of peace, they are suspended or lost in time of war, when invasion or rebellion exists [...] You claim to have found [...] within the constitution, a principle or germ of arbitrary power, which, in time of war, expands at once into an absolute sovereignty, wielded by one man; so that liberty perishes, or is dependent on his will, his discretion, or his caprice [...] An act of Congress approved by you on the 3d of March, 1863, authorized the President to suspend it [the writ of habeas corpus] during the present rebellion. That the suspension is a legislative, and not an executive act, has been held in every judicial decision ever made in this country, and we think it cannot be delegated to any other branch of the government" (SDC p. 204-06).
    It was clear that total subjugation of the South and her independent spirit was the goal of the Union Army. Major General William T. Sherman, while in Vicksburg on January 31, 1864, wrote the following to a subordinate.

    "The Government of the United States has [...] any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything [...] war is simply power unrestrained by constitution [...] To the persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better [...]" (JRK p. 288).
    In a letter to Major General Halleck on July 14, 1864, General Grant stated his intention to strip Virginia clean:
    "If the enemy has left Maryland, as I suppose he has, he should have upon his heels veterans, militiamen, men on horseback, and everything that can be got to follow to eat out Virginia clear and clean as they go, so that the crows flying over it will have to carry their provender with them" (MLR p. 76).
    In a letter dated December 18, 1864, Chief of Staff, Major General W.H. Halleck, instructed General W.T. Sherman to utterly spoil the city of Charleston:
    "Should you capture Charleston, I hope that by some accident the place may by destroyed; and if a little salt should be sown upon the site, it may prevent the growth of future crops of nullification and secession" (MLR p. 76).

    In his reply to General Halleck, General Sherman wrote on December 24, 1864:

    "I will bear in mind your hint as to Charleston, and I do not think 'salt' will be necessary. When I move, the Fifteenth Corps will be on the right of the right wing, and their position will bring them into Charleston first; and if you have watched the history of this corps, you will have remarked that it generally does its work pretty well. The truth is, the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina. I almost tremble at her fate, but feel that she deserves all that seems to be in store for her. We must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war as well as their organized armies" (MLR p. 77).

    In May, 1865, Confederate POWs held at Point Lookout, Maryland were being released if they took oaths of allegiance to the United States. A lone black Confederate soldier refused the oath, remaining "unreconstructed and unreconstructable." Historian Ervin L. Jordan laments the denial of the existence and role of black Confederates, and their being consigned to the obscurity shared by those blacks who served in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 (ELJ p. 251).
  4. And finaly...

    On May 16, 1863, a convention of Democrats gathered in Albany, New York to protest the military arrest of Clement Laird Vallandigham, Ohio Democrat Congressman and candidate for governor of Ohio, along with many other such military arrests of civilians, and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. According to findings of the military trial, he was found guilty of accusing Lincoln "and his minions" of rejecting a chance at peace with the South "the day before the battle of Fredericksburg" because "the men in power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more cruel and more oppressive than ever existed before." As reported in The American Annual Cyclopedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1863, Lincoln answered the criticism of the Democrats by letter on June 12, 1863. It reads in Part:
    "Ours is a case of rebellion [...] and the provision of the Constitution that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it,' is the provision which specially applies to our present case. This provision plainly attests the understanding of those who made the Constitution that ordinary courts of justice are inadequate to 'cases of rebellion'–attests their purpose that, in such cases, men may be held in custody whom the courts, acting on ordinary rules, would discharge [...] and its suspension is allowed by the Constitution on purpose that men may be arrested and held who cannot be proved to be guilty of defined crime [...] arrests are made, not so much for what has been done, as for what probably would be done [...] The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy; much more if he talks ambiguously–talks for his country with 'but,' and 'ifs,' and 'ands'" (GLD p. 119; GE p. 209-13; SDC p. 201-03).
    In answer to Lincoln's letter of reply, the Democrats harshly criticized his usurpation of power in a letter dated June 30, 1863. It reads in part:
    "You seem aware that the constitution of the United States, which you have sworn to protect and defend, contains the following guarantees, to which we again ask your attention [recitation of the first four Amendments to the Constitution] [...] You are also, no doubt, aware that, on the adoption of the constitution, these invaluable provisions were proposed by the jealous caution of the states, and were inserted as amendments for a perpetual assurance of liberty against the encroachments of power [...] The fact has already passed into history that the sacred rights and immunities [...] have not been preserved to the people during your administration. In violation of the first of them, the freedom of the press has been denied. In repeated instances newspapers have been suppressed in the loyal states, because they criticized, as constitutionally they might, those fatal errors of policy which have characterized the conduct of public affairs since your advent to power. In violation of the second of them, hundreds, and we believe thousands, of men have been seized and immured in prisons and bastiles, not only without warrant upon probable cause, but without any warrant, and for no other cause that a constitutional exercise of freedom of speech [...] For all these acts you avow yourself ultimately responsible [...] These repeated and continued invasions of constitutional liberty and private right have occasioned profound anxiety in the public mind. The apprehension and alarm which they are calculated to produce have been greatly enhanced by your attempt to justify them, because in that attempt you assume to yourself a rightful authority possessed by no constitutional monarch on earth [...] elieving as we do, that your forbearance is not the tenure by which liberty is enjoyed in this country, we propose to challenge the grounds on which your claim of supreme power is based. While yielding to you as a constitutional magistrate [...] we cannot accord to you the despotic power you claim [...] [Y]our meaning is, that, while the rights of the citizens are protected by this constitution in time of peace, they are suspended or lost in time of war, when invasion or rebellion exists [...] You claim to have found [...] within the constitution, a principle or germ of arbitrary power, which, in time of war, expands at once into an absolute sovereignty, wielded by one man; so that liberty perishes, or is dependent on his will, his discretion, or his caprice [...] An act of Congress approved by you on the 3d of March, 1863, authorized the President to suspend it [the writ of habeas corpus] during the present rebellion. That the suspension is a legislative, and not an executive act, has been held in every judicial decision ever made in this country, and we think it cannot be delegated to any other branch of the government" (SDC p. 204-06).
    It was clear that total subjugation of the South and her independent spirit was the goal of the Union Army. Major General William T. Sherman, while in Vicksburg on January 31, 1864, wrote the following to a subordinate.

    "The Government of the United States has [...] any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything [...] war is simply power unrestrained by constitution [...] To the persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better [...]" (JRK p. 288).

    In a letter to Major General Halleck on July 14, 1864, General Grant stated his intention to strip Virginia clean:

    "If the enemy has left Maryland, as I suppose he has, he should have upon his heels veterans, militiamen, men on horseback, and everything that can be got to follow to eat out Virginia clear and clean as they go, so that the crows flying over it will have to carry their provender with them" (MLR p. 76).
    In a letter dated December 18, 1864, Chief of Staff, Major General W.H. Halleck, instructed General W.T. Sherman to utterly spoil the city of Charleston:
    "Should you capture Charleston, I hope that by some accident the place may by destroyed; and if a little salt should be sown upon the site, it may prevent the growth of future crops of nullification and secession" (MLR p. 76).

    In his reply to General Halleck, General Sherman wrote on December 24, 1864:

    "I will bear in mind your hint as to Charleston, and I do not think 'salt' will be necessary. When I move, the Fifteenth Corps will be on the right of the right wing, and their position will bring them into Charleston first; and if you have watched the history of this corps, you will have remarked that it generally does its work pretty well. The truth is, the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina. I almost tremble at her fate, but feel that she deserves all that seems to be in store for her. We must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war as well as their organized armies" (MLR p. 77).

    In May, 1865, Confederate POWs held at Point Lookout, Maryland were being released if they took oaths of allegiance to the United States. A lone black Confederate soldier refused the oath, remaining "unreconstructed and unreconstructable." Historian Ervin L. Jordan laments the denial of the existence and role of black Confederates, and their being consigned to the obscurity shared by those blacks who served in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 (ELJ p. 251).

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sources:
    BBM Virginia's Attitude Toward Slavery and Secession, Second Edition by Beverley B. Munford, 1910. Reprinted by Crown Rights Publishing, Dahlonega, Georgia, 2001. (A look at the many contributing factors in the secession of the Southern States and of the War that followed.)
    CA When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, Ma., 2000. (A look at the case for Southern secession and the execution of the war by the North.)
    CKB Black ConfederatesCompiled and Edited by Charles Kelly Barrow, J. H. Segars, and R. B. Rosenburg, Pelican Publishing Co., 2001, Originally published as Forgotten Confederates 1995. (A fascinating compilation of first-hand accounts, newspaper articles, photographs, and letters documenting service to the Confederacy by blacks in military and non-military capacities.)
    ELJ Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia by Ervin L. Jordan, Jr., The University Press of Virginia, 1995. (A fascinating work documenting the lives of and roles of blacks in "Civil War" Virginia.)
    FWS War for What? by Francis W. Springer, Nippert Publishing, Springfield, TN, Second Printing 1997. (A history of slavery in North America.)
    GE Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-1865 by George Edmonds, Science Hall Lamb, 1904. Reprinted by Crown Rights Publishing, Wiggins, Miss., 2000. (A compelling view of the politics of the War for Southern Independence.)

    GKW New Jersey Slavery and the Law, Gary K. Wolinetz, Rutgers Law Review, 50 (Summer 1998): 2227 ff

    GLD America's Caesar - Abraham Lincoln and the Birth of a Modern Empire by Greg Loren Durand, Second Edition, 2000. (A very revealing inquiry into Lincoln's role in radically altering the original relationship and roles of the Federal government versus that of the States during the War for Southern Independence.)
    JLMC The Southern States of the American Union by J.L.M. Curry, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1895. Reprinted by Crown Rights Publishing, Wiggins, Miss., 1999. (Traces the origins of the spirit of liberty expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and in the South's secession from the Northern States of the American Union.)
    JRK The South Was Right! by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, 1998. (A fascinating and well footnoted look into little known facts critical in understanding the War for Southern Independence.)

    MLD The Confederate Constitution of 1861 by Marshall L. DeRosa, University of Missouri Press, 1991. (A good look at the intentions of the C.S.A by looking at their own Constitution and the few, but significant differences between it and its U.S. counterpart.)

    MLR Truths of History by Mildred Lewis Rutherford, Athens, Georgia, 1920. Reprinted by Southern Lion Books, Inc., Atlanta, Ga., 1998. (One Southerner's blunt perspective of the War in historical and cultural context.)

    PBK The Founder's Constitution, edited by Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, the University of Chicago Press, 1986. (A collection of documents from the early 1600s to 1830 that shed light on the philosophies behind our American form of government.)

    PMA By These Words by Paul M. Angle, Rand McNally & Co., 1954. (Text of selected documents of American history.)
    SCV The Gray Book Published by Gray Book Committee S.C.V., The Sons of Confederate Veterans. Reprinted by Crown Rights Publishing, Wiggins, Miss., 2000. (A defense in response to "attacks upon the history, people and institutions of this Southern section of our united country.")
    SDC The Logic of History by Stephen D. Carpenter, S. D. Carpenter, Publisher, Madison, Wis., 1864. Reprinted by Crown Rights Publishing, Wiggins, Miss., 2000. (A collection of news accounts and analysis pertaining to the War.)
    SEM The Oxford History of the American People by Samual Eliot Morison, Oxford University Press, New York, 1965. (A useful reference, but with a strong central government and "pro-union" bias. Also somewhat colored by the social atmosphere of the 1960s.)
    SF The Civil War, A Narrative - Fort Sumter to Perryville by Shelby Foote, Vintage Books, New York, 1986 (A standard of the history of the War.)
    WEW A New American History by W. E. Woodward, Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., On Murry Hill, New York, 1936. (Excellent. Balanced, with more attention to detail than many works and quite interesting to read.)
  5. Random guy Member

    I think you need to break it up a bit.

    Also: Source? Author? Year? Publication?
  6. Hugh Bris Member

    @RG Thanks, I didn't realize about the immigration.
  7. The Internet Member

    Lotta tl;dr. And the only link to present time I’m feeling is the link to crappy PR from Russia about the US heading for a civil war.

    Ukraine did not pay its gas bill a few times. This pissed Putin off. But before the inevitable invasion and ass kicking, there was the psyops and infiltration and recruitment and organization phase.

    So when the invasion started, suddenly some important Ukrainians were supporting “separatist states.” And this is why Ukraine does not have nice things today.

    The moral of the story: if we are not united, China and Russia will take our good stuffs. So do not want civil war any more.
  8. I have been spending quite some time writing this in a word document over the summer.
    And Internet if you are actually going to contribute to the tread please stay on topic ok?

    Vile quote of the day:

    ibjrX5wYWvuuAF.jpg

    IT'S IN COLOUR! ^

    "....The Government of the United States has any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything war is simply power unrestrained by constitution To the persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better....."

    Major General William T. Sherman January, 1864

    [IMG]

    Burning Atlanta by Mort Kustler

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=william t sherman&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tecumseh_Sherman&ei=iXoIVP_4FdWrggSy1YKwCQ&usg=AFQjCNEdzOjK0QJWz6-78QkznRuybC3jMQ&bvm=bv.74649129,d.eX View attachment images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9NgmBWExZuT2SdlBtWdp6KsPBPhPOt

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=william t sherman's march to the sea&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman's_March_to_the_Sea&ei=uHoIVMzhOoG5ggTuqIGQDw&usg=AFQjCNGgrQmN1daBmTfEGHfTtz1ZjM8qdQ&bvm=bv.74649129,d.eXY

    Major General William T. Sherman's own words


    "The young bloods of the South; sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard players and sportsmen, men who never did any work and never will. War suits them. They are splendid riders, first rate shots and utterly reckless. These men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace...."

    Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman

    "The more Indians we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next, because the more I see of the Indians the more convinced I become that they must either all be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper. Their attempts at civilization is ridiculous..".

    Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman

    "Look to the South and you who went with us through that land can best say if they have not been fearfully punished. Mourning is in every household, desolation written in broad characters across the whole face of their country, cities in ashes and fields laid waste, their commerce gone, their system of labor annihilated and destroyed. Ruin and poverty and distress everywhere, and now pestilence adding to the very cap sheaf of their stack of misery..."

    Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, the man who left a 60 mile wide, 300 mile long path of death and desolation across GA and up
    through SC.

    jb_civil_charlstn_3_e.jpg

    Charleston South Carolina 1865 ^

    "Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources” (emphasis added).

    " It is hard on our men held in Southern prisons not to exchange them, but it is humanity to those left in the ranks to fight our battles. Every man released on parole or otherwise becomes an active soldier against us at once, either directly or indirectly. If we commence a system of exchange which liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to fight on until the whole South is exterminated." .....Gen. U.S. Grant, August 18, 1864 in a dispatch to Gen. Butler.




    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo140.html
  9. Quote of the day

    145-jpg.236019.jpg

    General Robert E. Lee

    January 19th 1807- September 12th 1870

    “Everyone should do all in his power to collect and disseminate the truth, in the hope that it may find a place in history and descend to posterity. History is not the relation of campaigns and battles and generals or other individuals, but that which shows the principles for which the South contended and which justified her struggle for those principles. ”

    Robert E. Lee

    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/About%20the%20General.htm&sa=U&ei=ingIVKfmIc_KgwTWqoCICA&ved=0CCUQFjAF&usg=AFQjCNHpKgJ0WQdM6LYHn9KPTqXm7UIuXA

    3390894.jpg

    Robert E Lee's words of wisdom.

    • [W]e made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle, and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers
    • [T]here is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man's face and another behind his back.
    • You must study to be frank with the world: frankness is the child of honesty and courage. Say just what you mean to do on every occasion, and take it for granted that you mean to do right.
    • With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword...
    • A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others
    • My experience through life has convinced me that, while moderation and temperance in all things are commendable and beneficial, abstinence from spirituous liquors is the best safeguard of morals and health
    • The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He can not only forgive; he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which imparts sufficient strength to let the past be put the past.
    • The education of a man is never completed until he dies.
    • We failed, but in the good providence of God apparent failure often proves a blessing.
    • What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.
    • You can have anything you want - if you want it badly enough. You can be anything you want to be, have anything you desire, accomplish anything you set out to accomplish - if you will hold to that desire with singleness of purpose.
    • Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret.
    • Never do a wrong thing to make a friend or keep one.
    • They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins.
    [IMG]



    Lt. General Tomas "Stonewall Jackson (in colour)

    January 21st 1824 - May 10th 1863



    "Let us cross over the river....and rest under the shade of the trees"

    The mighty Stonewall's last words on his death bed at Guina Station May 10th 1863

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson

    his words of wisdom and faith.

    "General" I remarked, "How is it that you can keep so cool and appear so utterly insensible to danger in such a storm of shell and bullets as rained about you when your hand was hit?" He instantly became grave and reverential in his manner, and answered, in a low tone of great earnestness: "Captain, my religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed. God has fixed the time for my death. I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may overtake me." He added, after a pause, looking me full in the face: "That is the way all men should live, and then all would be equally brave"

    Lt. General Thomas Jackson speaking to then Captain John D. Imboden,

    Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War,
    G.F.R Henderson, Vol. 1, p. 163."

    "In my tent last night, after a fatiguing day's service, I remembered that I failed to send a contribution for our colored Sunday school. Enclosed you will find a check for that object, which please acknowledge at your earliest convenience and oblige yours faithfully."
    Lt. General Thomas Jackson, in a letter to his Pastor,

    Please note that teaching blacks how to read and write was ileagal in the state of Virginia at the the time.


    Dr. White after the Battle of First Manassas.
    "Christ in the Camp" by J. Williams Jones, D.D.


    "Always mystify, mislead and surprise the enemy; and when you strike and overcome him, never let up in the pursuit. Never fight against heavy odds if you can hurl your own force on only a part of your enemy and crush it. A small army may thus destroy a large one, and repeated victory will make you invincible.
    To move swiftly, strike vigorously, and secure all fruits of victory is the secret of a successful war. - 1863
    I had rather lose one man in marching than five in fighting."

    "The hardships of forced marches are often more painful than the dangers of battle."

    "If we cannot be successful in defeating the enemy should he advance, a kind Providence may enable us to inflict a terrible wound and effect a safe retreat in the event of having to fall back."

    - To Joseph E. Johnston, 1862.


    "Shoot the brave officers, and the cowards will run away and take the men with them."
    - To Richard S. Ewell.

    "If officers desire to have control over their commands, they must remain habitually with them, industriously attend to their instruction and comfort, and in battle lead them well."

    - To his commanders, 1861.

    "I see from the number of physicians that you think my condition dangerous, but I thank God, if it is His will, that I am ready to go."

    General Jackson on his deathbed at Guinea Station
    The US National Park Service

    "Now, gentlemen, let us at once to bed, and see if tomorrow we cannot do something."- To his soldiers after a day of profitless marching.


    "This army stays here until the last wounded man is removed. Before I will leave them to the enemy, I will lose many more men." - Winchester, 1862.

    "So great is my confidence in General Lee that I am willing to follow him blindfolded."


    "It is painful enough to discover with what unconcern they speak of war and threaten it. I have seen enough of it to make me look upon it as the sum of all evils."


    "I yield to no man in sympathy for the gallant men under my command; but I am obliged to sweat them tonight, so that I may save their blood tomorrow." - 1862

    ^This one is where General George S Patton got his pint of sweat and gallon of blood quote.

    Attached Files:

  10. Random guy Member

    OK, once more: Source? Author? Year? Publication?
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Random guy Member

  12. http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&...t/&usg=AFQjCNEGFWFS7a36AXkbSnKIpLTd6keg1Q

    *Edit*

    And BTW here is false evidence of black confederates.

    I have posted this to tell people the truth so they have to know about this fakery.

    This photographs has been appearing on a number of websites:

    RC02.jpg

    It was cropped!!:

    RC01.jpg


    Here is a painting based on the photograph:

    RC03.jpg

    So a Philadelphia photograph from 1864 of a group of US Federal black soldiers with their white officer becomes a group of "Black Confederates" by way of Photoshop.

    This kind of shit is NOT helping the southern heritage movement at all.
    If your going to educate people about black confederates at least tell the truth!

    This pisses me of very much!!
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Random guy Member

  14. Your welcome Rand,

    I'm just trying to get the truth out.

    You can ask Hugh Bris about the shit in the textbooks.
  15. Osceola, Missouri

    James H. Lane, a United States Senator from Kansas returned to his home state of Kansas in the summer of 1861 to command what was called "Lane's Brigade." Lane was to retain his Senate seat while occasionally rampaging through Missouri.

    His brigade was composed of Kansas infantry and cavalry. This force was, in fact, a ruthless band of Jayhawkers (plundering marauders) wearing United States uniforms. James H. Lane was known as the "Grim Chieftain" for the death and destruction he brought on the people of Missouri.

    In September of 1861 Lane and his men descended on the town of Osceola, Missouri. This community of 2,000 was the county seat of St. Clair County, Missouri. It was here that Lane and his men established their criminal reputation. When Lane's troops found a cache of Confederate military supplies in the town, Lane decided to wipe Osceola from the map. First, Osceola was stripped of all of it's valuable goods which were loaded into wagons

    taken from the townspeople. Then, nine citizens were given a farcical trial and shot. Then Lane's men went on a wild drinking spree. Finally, his men brought their frenzy of pillaging, murder and drunkenness to a close by burning the entire town.

    References: "The South Was Right" by James R. Kennedy and Walter D. Kennedy, Chapter 4. "Truths of History" by Mildred L. Rutherford, Chapter 10. "The Lost Cause" by Edward A. Pollard, Chapter 9. Also 4 pages of documentation (available upon request) found in: Southern Historical Society Papers Vol. VI, Richmond, Va., October, 1878, No. 4 Van Dorn's Operations in Northern Mississippi -- Recollections of a Cavalryman. Southern Historical Society Papers Vol. VII. Richmond, Va., May, 1879. No. 5. The Missouri Campaign Of 1864 -- Report Of General Sterling Price. Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. XXIV. Richmond, Va., January-December. 1896. Reconstruction In Texas. O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME LIII [S# 111] Confederate Correspondence, Etc.--#6 O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 3 [S# 3] SEPTEMBER 22, 1861. ---Skirmish at, and destruction of, Osceola, Mo. Report of Brig. Gen. James H. Lane, commanding Kansas Brigade. Confederate Military History, Vol. 9 CONTENTS--MISSOURI. CHAPTER XVIII Burning of Osceola.
    B. New Manchester, Georgia and The Roswell, Georgia Mills

    In July of 1864, Sherman's troops approached Atlanta, Georgia, during Sherman's "March To The Sea." Enroute, Sherman left a trail of utter destruction behind, leaving nothing for the civilian population in his path.

    At ten o'clock on Saturday morning, July 2, 1864, two regiments of U.S. cavalry, commanded by Colonel Silas Adams and a strong force of infantry under Major Haviland Thompkins appeared at New Manchester, Georgia, a town that once stood in present day Douglas County on the present site of Sweetwater Creek State Park.

    From high ground across Sweetwater Creek, Confederate scouts saw them set up artillery within sight of the factory, but they could do nothing. From the windows of the mill, anxious employees watched as a line of blue-uniformed skirmishers approached the building. Not a shot was fired, however, and Major Thompkins and Colonel Adams were soon in the mill office demanding to know who was in charge.

    Henry Lovern and A.C. "Cicero" Tippens were quickly brought before the officers and placed under arrest, along with every man, woman and child in the nearby town. The mill was shut down and the citizens of New Manchester returned to their homes under guard, having been misled after being told that once transportation arrived that they would be moved west out of the path of the armies where they would be safe from harm. For the next several days, Federal soldiers searched the town, broke open the company safe-it was empty-and sent patrols up and down Sweetwater Creek to check out the Ferguson-Merchant Mill to the north and Alexander's Mill to the south.

    Meanwhile, Major Thompkins led part of the cavalry force in his command up the Chattahoochee River to Roswell, Georgia, where the Roswell Mills were located. Here he encountered a defiant Frenchman named Theopholie Roche. In a desperate attempt to save the Roswell Mills, the owners, without consideration, deeded the property to Roche. He was an "attaché" of the factory and was as that time a citizen of France, a foreign national. Roche ran up a French flag and claimed protection under it. When told of this, General Sherman became furious. "I repeat my orders," he raged at U.S. General Garrar, "that you arrest all people, male and female, connected with those factories, no matter what the clamor, and let them foot it, under guard, to Marietta, where I will send them by cars to the North." "If you hang Roche," he screamed, "I approve the act beforehand!"

    On Friday, July 8, Major Thompkins arrived back at New Manchester where he informed Colonel Adams of General Sherman's determination to destroy the town and deport it's people. The next morning Major Thompkins sent a guard for Henry Lovern to tell him of the decision.

    Thompkins had burnt the Roswell Factory on the previous Thursday. Thompkins advised Lovern that the New Manchester hands "must fix up to go west where they could get provisions as they intended to destroy everything in this part of the country."

    On Saturday, July 9, 1864, a detachment of eight men went to the factory and set fire to it in several places. One by one the company store, the machine shops and the homes around the mill were put to the torch. Great clouds of smoke filled the air as the civilians of New Manchester watched their homes burn.

    Major Thompkins then ordered that the 300-foot-long wooden dam across the creek above the mill be cannonaded. After several shots ripped holes in the dam the swirling waters of Sweetwater Creek finished off the destruction. Within minutes, several hundred thousand dollars worth of property perished in the flood, including one piece of Union artillery. The transport wagons then arrived, not to take the citizens to safety westward but to take them to Marietta, Georgia, where they would board trains for deportation to the North.

    When the transport wagons proved to be insufficient, each cavalryman was ordered to take a second rider on his horse. The women hated riding behind the soldiers, but it was "a very fine sight," one Illinois soldier wrote home, one "we don't often see in the army." "The employees were all women," he continued, "and they were really good looking." Since the men had not been near a woman for months, order and discipline quickly broke down.

    Besides, one soldier later wrote in his defense, "we always felt that we had a perfect right to appropriate to our own use anything we needed for our comfort and convenience." The Yankee troopers' "delirium," one soldier confided to his diary, "took the form of making love to the women." In this manner, the people of New Manchester set out for the sixteen-mile trip to Marietta, Georgia. Before night, one officer found it necessary to move his troops one mile north of the prisoners to restore a semblance of order and discipline within his troops.

    By the time the New Manchester women reached Marietta, Georgia, they had long since ceased to exist as identifiable individuals. They had been merged with groups of other mill prisoners and were huddled together - 400 in the group - the male prisoners having been segregated from the female. This group hereafter was referred to in official reports and dispatches simply as the "Roswell Women," or the "Factory Hands."

    Once they arrived in Marietta and were housed in the Georgia Military Institute building, the battered women became an embarrassment to U.S. General George H. Thomas, who wrote to Sherman on July 10: "The Roswell Factory hands, 400 or 500 in number, have arrived at Marietta. The most of them are women. I can only order them transportation to Nashville where it seems hard to turn them adrift. What had best be done with them?" Sherman replied, "I have ordered General Webster at Nashville to dispose of them. They will be sent to Indiana."

    On July 15th, these women were given nine days' rations, placed on trains and were sent to a distribution point in Nashville, Tennessee. On July 20th, they were again moved to Louisville, Kentucky, where a local newspaper reporter noted their arrival: "The train which arrived at Louisville from Nashville last evening brought up from the South two hundred and forty-nine women and children, who are sent by order of General Sherman, to be transferred north of the Ohio River, there to remain during the war. We understand that there are now at Nashville fifteen hundred women and children, who are in a very destitute condition, and who are to be sent to Louisville to be sent North. A number of them were engaged in the manufactories at Sweetwater at the time that place was captured by our forces."

    By this time, however, General Sherman's wholesale deportations had caused a furor in the North. One New York newspaper wrote: "...it is hardly conceivable that an officer bearing a United States commission of Major General should have so far forgotten the commonest dictates of decency and humanity...as to drive four hundred penniless girls hundreds of miles away from their homes and friends to seek their livelihood amid strange and hostile people. We repeat our earnest hope that further information may redeem the name of General Sherman and our own from this frightful disgrace."

    In April 1865, a great silence descended across the land - the war was over. The South, shattered and defeated, had become a conquered province. Nowhere was the silence greater than at New Manchester. Not one of the New Manchester women ever returned and only a handful of the men. Henry Lovern, for instance, returned in January 1866 and became an employee of the Princeton Manufacturing Company's textile mill in Athens, Georgia. Nathaniel Humphries, who ran the company's store at New Manchester was confined for eleven months at Jeffersonville, Indiana. From there he returned to Georgia and spent the remainder of his life in Cobb and Carroll Counties. W.H. Bell, second in the card room, finally returned, as did Gideon J. Jennings, who had been employed at the factory as a machinist.

    In March 1868, these were the only men who could be found within the state who had a first-hand knowledge of the events at New Manchester on those fateful days. Most of them never saw their families again. One husband traced his wife to Louisville, Kentucky, where they were reunited, but this was an exception. Most of them died never knowing the whereabouts of their wives and children.

    On October 26, 1882, Theopholie Roche, the Frenchman, brought suit against the government of the United States claiming damages in the amount of $125,000 for false arrest and destruction of the Roswell Mills. When this case came to a hearing before the French-American Claims Commission on July 2, 1883, it was dismissed "for want of prosecution." Roche had escaped the hangman's noose but not Gen. Sherman's wrath.

    References: "The Lost Cause" by Edward A. Pollard, Chapter 37. "The Story of the Confederate States" by Joseph T. Derry, Part 3, Section 3, Chapter 3 & 4. "The South Was Right" by James R. Kennedy and Walter D. Kennedy, Chapter 4. "Truths of History" by Mildred L. Rutherford, Chapter 10. Also 3 pages of documentation (available upon request) found in: O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXVIII/1 [S# 72] MAY 1-SEPTEMBER 8, 1864.--The Atlanta (Georgia) Campaign. No. 1.--Reports of Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman, U.S. Army, commanding Military Division of the Mississippi. O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXVIII/5 [S# 76] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN, FROM JULY 1, 1864, TO SEPTEMBER 8, 1864.--#4 O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXVIII/5 [S# 76] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN, FROM JULY 1, 1864, TO SEPTEMBER 8, 1864.--#5
    C. Sherman's March Through The South

    U.S. General William Tecumseh Sherman's march through the South, notably, through Georgia and South Carolina, may qualify as the most hideous of all military assaults against a civilian population in modern history. The list of recorded accounts of events that Sherman was wholly responsible for would be entirely too long to attempt to cover in this publication. But, several examples from the Official Records of Sherman's actions will surely leave the reader convinced that Sherman detested the Southern people.

    Brigadier General Edward M. McCook, First Cavalry Division of Cavalry Corps, at Calhoun, Georgia, on October 30, 1864, reported to Sherman, "My men killed some of those fellows two or three days since, and I had their houses burned....I will carry out your instructions thoroughly and leave the country east of the road uninhabitable."

    Sherman, on November 11, 1864, telegraphed Halleck, "Last night we burned all foundries, mills, and shops of every kind in Rome, and tomorrow I leave Kingston with the rear guard for Atlanta, which I propose to dispose of in a similar manner, and to start on the 16th on the projected grand raid.....Tomorrow our wires will be broken, and this is probably my last dispatch."

    In Kingston, Georgia, Sherman wrote to U.S. Major General Philip H. Sheridan, "I am satisfied...that the problem of this war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory, so that hard, bull-dog fighting, and a great deal of it, yet remains to be done....Therefore, I shall expect you on any and all occasions to make bloody results."

    Captain Orlando M. Poe, chief engineer, Military Division of the Mississippi, reported: "The court-house in Sandersonville (Georgia), a very substantial brick building, was burned by order of General Sherman, because the enemy had made use of it's portico from which to fire upon our troops."

    Sherman, in Milledgeville, Georgia, issued Special Order no. 127, "In case of...destruction (of bridges) by the enemy,...the commanding officer...on the spot will deal harshly with the inhabitants nearby....Should the enemy burn forage and corn on our route, houses, barns, and cotton-gins must also be burned to keep them company."

    General Howard reported to Sherman, "We have found the country full of provisions and forage....Quite a number of private dwellings...have been destroyed by fire...; also, many instances of the most inexcusable and wanton acts, such as the breaking open of trunks, taking of silver pate, etc."

    Sherman reported to Grant, "The whole United States...would rejoice to have this army turned loose on South Carolina to devastate that State, in the manner we have done in Georgia."

    On December 22 in Savannah, Georgia, Sherman advised Grant, "We are in possession of Savannah and all it's forts....I could go on and smash South Carolina all to pieces."

    On December 24 Sherman wrote Halleck, "The truth is the whole army is burning with an insatiable desire to wreak vengeance upon South Carolina."

    When Sherman had reached Savannah he was ordered to board ship and sail to Virginia to join Grant outside Virginia. Sherman rebelled in rage. He pledged, "I'm going to march to Richmond...and when I go through South Carolina it will be one of the most horrible things in the history of the world. The devil himself couldn't restrain my men in that state." General William T. Sherman also issued the following military order at Big Shanty, Georgia (presently Kennesaw) on June 23, 1864: "If torpedoes (mines) are found in the possession of an enemy to our rear, you may cause them to be put on the ground and tested by a wagon load of prisoners, or if need be a citizen implicated in their use. In like manner, if a torpedo is suspected on any part of the road, order the point to be tested by a carload of prisoners, or by citizens implicated, drawn by a long rope."

    General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brig. Gen. John Eugene Smith at Allatoona, Georgia, on July 14, 1864: "If you entertain a bare suspicion against any family, send it to the North. Any loafer or suspicious person seen at any time should be imprisoned and sent off. If guerrillas trouble the road or wires they should be shot without mercy."

    General Sherman also wrote to U.S. Brig. Gen. Louis Douglass Watkins at Calhoun, Georgia, on Oct. 29, 1864: "Can you not send over to Fairmount and Adairsville, burn 10 or 12 houses of known secessionists, kill a few at random and let them know it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon from Resaca to Kingston."

    And, finally, Gen. Sherman writing to U.S. Maj. George H. Thomas on Nov. 1, 1864: "I propose...to sally forth and make a hole in Georgia that will be hard to mend."

    Sherman's march through the South will be remembered by generations still yet to come. Sherman himself estimated that the damage done by his troops in Georgia totaled $100,000,000. His statement on the destruction done to Georgia; "This may seem a hard species of warfare, but it brings the sad realities of war home." The ultimate attempt at total genocide by the U.S. troops under Sherman would have to be the multiple cases of troops sowing salt into the soil of an area in which they were about to leave. Thus, leaving the entire area unfit to grow any crops in the near future.

    References: "The South Was Right" by James R. Kennedy and Walter D. Kennedy, Chapter 4. "Truths of History" by Mildred L. Rutherford, Chapter 10. The Lost Cause" by Edward A. Pollard, Chapter 37. "The Story of the Confederate States" by Joseph T. Derry, Part 3, Section 3, Chapter 3 & 4. "The Story of the Confederacy" by Robert S. Henry, Chapter 24, 26, 27. Also 53 pages of documentation (available upon request) found in: O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XXXIX/2 [S# 79] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN KENTUCKY, SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA, TENNESSEE, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTH GEORGIA (THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN EXCEPTED), FROM OCTOBER 1, 1864, TO NOVEMBER 13, 1864.--#21 O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XXXIX/2 [S# 79] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN KENTUCKY, SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA, TENNESSEE, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTH GEORGIA (THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN EXCEPTED), FROM OCTOBER 1, 1864, TO NOVEMBER 13, 1864.--#30 O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XLIII/1 [S# 91] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING SPECIALLY TO OPERATIONS IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA, WEST VIRGINIA, MARYLAND, AND PENNSYLVANIA, SEPTEMBER 1, 1864, TO DECEMBER 31, 1864.--#23 O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XLIV [S# 92] NOVEMBER 15-DECEMBER 21, 1864.--The Savannah (Georgia) Campaign. No. 4.--Reports of Capt. Orlando M. Poe, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, Chief Engineer. O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XLIV [S# 92]. UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, AND FLORIDA, FROM NOVEMBER 14 TO DECEMBER 31, 1864.--#4 SPECIAL FIELD ORDERS No. 127. O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XLIV [S# 92] NOVEMBER 15-DECEMBER 21, 1864.--The Savannah (Georgia) Campaign. No. 7.--Report of Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard, U. S. Army, commanding Army of the Tennessee. O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XLIV [S# 92] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, AND FLORIDA, FROM NOVEMBER 14 TO DECEMBER 31, 1864.--#12 O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XLIV [S# 92] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, AND FLORIDA, FROM NOVEMBER 14 TO DECEMBER 31, 1864.--#11 O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XLIV [S# 92] NOVEMBER 15-DECEMBER 21, 1864.--The Savannah (Georgia) Campaign. No. 1.--Reports of Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman, U. S. Army, commanding Military Division of the Mississippi. O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XV [S# 21] Union Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To Operations In West Florida, Southern Alabama, Southern Mississippi, And Louisiana From May 12, 1862, To May 14, 1863: And In Texas, New Mexico, And Arizona From September 20, 1862, To May 14, 1863.--#2 O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XLIV [S# 92] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, AND FLORIDA, FROM NOVEMBER 14 TO DECEMBER 31, 1864.--#14 O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXVIII/4 [S# 75] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN, FROM MAY 1, 1864, TO JUNE 30, 1864.--#24 O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME XXXVIII/5 [S# 76] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN, FROM JULY 1, 1864, TO SEPTEMBER 8, 1864.--#6 O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XXXIX/2 [S# 79] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN KENTUCKY, SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA, TENNESSEE, MISSISSIPPI O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XXXIX/2 [S# 79] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN KENTUCKY, SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA, TENNESSEE, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTH GEORGIA (THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN EXCEPTED), FROM OCTOBER 1, 1864, TO NOVEMBER 13, 1864.--#20 O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XXXIX/2 [S# 79] UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS RELATING TO OPERATIONS IN KENTUCKY, SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA, TENNESSEE, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTH GEORGIA (THE ATLANTA CAMPAIGN EXCEPTED), FROM OCTOBER 1, 1864, TO NOVEMBER 13, 1864.--#15 O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XLIV [S# 92] NOVEMBER 15-DECEMBER 21, 1864.--The Savannah (Georgia) Campaign. No. 1.--Reports of Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman, U. S. Army, commanding Military Division of the Mississippi. Confederate Military History, Vol. 5 CHAPTER XXI. Confederate Military History, Vol. 6 CHAPTER XVII. Southern Historical Society Papers Vol. I. Richmond, Virginia, June, 1876. No. 6. History Of The Army Of The Cumberland. Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. II. Richmond, Virginia, July, 1876. No. 1. Editorial Paragraphs. Southern Historical Society Papers. Vol. III. Richmond, Virginia, February, 1877. No. 2. Diary Of Captain Robert E. Park, Twelfth Alabama Regiment. Southern Historical Society Papers Vol. VIII Richmond, Va., May, 1880. No. 5. The Burning of Columbia, South Carolina -- Report of the Committee of Citizens Appointed to Collect Testimony. By J. P. Carrol, Chairman. Southern Historical Society Papers Vol. X. Richmond, Va., August and Sept'r, 1882. Nos. 8-9. Sherman's March To The Sea, As Seen By A Northern Soldier. Southern Historical Society Papers. Volume XII. July-August-September. Nos. 7, 8, 9. General Sherman's March from Atlanta to the Coast -- Address Before the Survivors' Association of Augusta, Ga., April 20th, 1884. by Colonel C.C. Jones, Jr.
  16. fishypants Moderator



    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ve_conservatives_furious_the_changes_are.html
    • Like Like x 1
  17. From the The War of the Rebellion:
    A Compilation of the Official Records
    Of Union and Confederate Armies:

    August 1861, Series I, Volume IV Colonel John W. Phelps (1st Vermont Infantry) They—the enemy—talked of having 9,000 men. They had twenty pieces of artillery, among which was the Richmond Howitzer Battery, manned by Negroes.
    .............................................................................................................................................
    May 1862, Series I, Volume XIV Colonel Benjamin C. Christ (50th Regiment Pennsylvania Volunteers) There were six companies of mounted riflemen, besides infantry, among which were a considerable number of colored men."
    .........................................................................................................................................
    July 1862, Series I, Volume XVI, Lieutenant Colonel John G. Parkhurst (9th Michigan Infantry) There were also quite a number of negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day.
    .........................................................................................................................................
    July 1862 Series III, Volume II Richard Yates, Governor of Illinois. Excerpt from a Letter to President Abraham Lincoln:
    They [CSA] arm Negroes and merciless savages in their behalf. Mr. Lincoln, the crisis demands greater efforts and sterner measures.
    ........................................................................................................................................
    Sept. 1862 Series I, Volume XV Major Frederick Frye (9th Regiment Connecticut Volunteers) Pickets were thrown out that night, and Captain Hennessy, Company E, of the Ninth Connecticut, having been sent out with his company, captured a colored rebel scout, well mounted, who had been sent out to watch our movements."
    ..........................................................................................................................................
    Sept. 1862 Series I, Volume XIII Major General Samuel R. Curtis (2nd Iowa Infantry) We are not likely to use one negro where the rebels have used a thousand. When I left Arkansas they were still enrolling Negroes to fortify the rebellion.
    ......................................................................................................................................
    Oct. 1862 Series I, Volume XIX, Part I-Reports Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Wheeler Downey (3rd Maryland Infantry, Potomac Home Brigade) Question by the Judge Advocate.: Do you know of any individual of the enemy having been killed or wounded during the siege of Harpers Ferry?
    Answer. I have strong reasons to believe that there was a negro killed, who had wounded 2 or 3 of my men. I know that an officer took deliberate aim at him, and he fell over. He was one of the skirmishers of the enemy, and wounded 3 of my men. I know there must have been some of the enemy killed.
    Question. How do you know the Negro was killed?
    Answer. The officer saw him fall.
    ............................................................................................................................................
    Jan. 1863 Series I, Volume XVII Brigadier General D. Stuart (U.S. Army 4th Brigade and Second Division) I t had to be prosecuted under the fire of the enemy's sharpshooters, protected as well as the men might be by our skirmishers on the bank, who were ordered to keep up so vigorous a fire that the enemy should not dare to lift their heads above their rifle-pits; but the enemy, and especially their armed negroes, did dare to rise and fire, and did serious execution upon our men.
    .........................................................................................................................................
    June 1863 Series II, Volume VI Lieutenant-Colonel William H Ludlow (Agent for Exchange of Prisoners / 73rd New York Volunteer Infantry) And more recently the Confederate legislature of Tennessee have passed an act forcing into their military service (I quote literally) all male free persons of color between the ages of fifteen and fifty, or such number as may be necessary, who may be sound in body and capable of actual service; and they further enacted that in the event a sufficient number of free persons of color to meet the wants of the State shall not tender their services, then the Governor is empowered through the sheriff's of different counties to impress such persons until the required number is obtained.
    ............................................................................................................................................
    September 1863 Series III, Volume III Thomas H. Hicks (United States Senator, Maryland) Excerpt from a Letter to President Abraham Lincoln:
    I do and have believed that we ought to use the colored people, after the rebels commenced to use them against us.
    ..................................................................................................................................
    Aug. 1864 Series I, Volume XXXV, Part I, Reports, Correspondence, etc. Brigadier General Alexander Asboth (U.S. Army, District of West Florida) We pursued them closely for 7 miles, and captured 4 privates of Goldsby's company and 3 colored men, mounted and armed, with 7 horses and 5 mules with equipments, and 20 Austrian rifles
    ...........................................................................................................................................
    Nov. 1864 Series I, Volume XLI, Part IV, Captain P. L. Powers (47th Missouri Infantry, Company H) Correspondence, Etc. Series I, We have turned up eleven bushwhackers to date and one rebel negro.
    ......................................................................................................................................
    April 1865 Series I, Volume XLIX, Part II Major A. M. Jackson (10th U. S. Colored Heavy Artillery) The rebels are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Mississippi, and the negroes are all enrolled in the State.
    After the action at Missionary Ridge, Commissary Sergeant William F. Ruby forwarded a casualty list written in camp at Ringgold, Georgia about 29 November 1863, to William S. Lingle for publication. Ruby's letter was partially reprinted in the Lafayette (Missouri) Daily Courier for 8 December 1863: "Ruby says among the rebel dead in the [Missionary] Ridge he saw a number of Negroes in the Confederate uniform."

    William F. Ruby
    Residence Tippecanoe County IN;
    Enlisted on 9/18/1861 as a Private.
    On 9/18/1861 he mustered into "E" Co. IN 10th Infantry
    He was Mustered Out on 9/19/1864 at Indianapolis, IN
    Promotions:
    * Comm Sergt 3/20/1863 (Estimated day)
    Intra Regimental Company Transfers:
    * 3/20/1863 from company E to Field & Staff (Estimated Day)
  18. black confederate.png

    Photo by Alexander Garder taken at the battle field of Sharpsburg 1862
  19. "The Fourth Tennessee Cavalry was dismounted to fight as infantry, every fourth man being told to off to hold horses. These horse-holders, and also all the colored servants, were kept in the rear. The colored men numbered about 40, and having been in service a long time, had gradually armed themselves. Some of them were even better equipped than their masters, for on successful raids and battles they could fallow in the rear and pick up those things that soldiers had no time to secure; so that these coloured servants could each boast of one or two revolvers and a fine carbine or repeating rifle."

    "During all of the early part of the battle of Chickamauga, the Fourth Tennessee Cavalry had been fighting as infantry, and as it became evident that a victory was to be won, Col. McLemore, commanding, ordered Captain Briggs to return to the horse-holders, and after placing the horses, teams, etc., under charge of the servants, to bring up the quarter of the regiment in charge of the horses so that they might take part in the final triumph. Capt. Briggs, on reaching the horses, was surprised to find the colored men organized and equipped, under Daniel McLemore, colored (servant to the Colonel of the regiment), and demanding the right to go into the fight. After trying to dissuade them from this, Capt. Briggs led them up to the line of battle in which was just preparing to assualt Gen. Thomas's position. Thinking they would be of service in caring for the wounded, Capt. Briggs held them close up the line, but when the advance was ordered the **** company became enthused as well as their masters, and filled a portion of the line of advance as well as any company of the regiment. While they no guidon or muster roll, the burial after the battle of four of their number and the care of seven wounded at the hospital, told the tale of how well they fought."

    From Time Life Books "Voices Of The Civil War" Series.
  20. The Nashville daily union., March 07, 1863, Image 2, col. 1

    "During the fight the battery in charge of the 85th Indiana was attacked by two rebel negro regiments. Our artillerists double shotted their guns and cut the black rebels to pieces, and brought their battery safely off.


    ...

    It has been stated repeatedly, for two weeks past, that a large number, perhaps one fourth, of Van Dorn's force were negro soldiers, and the statement is fully confirmed by this unfortunate engagement. The Southern rebels have forced their miserable negroes to take up arms, to destroy this Government, and to enslave us and our children.

    Freemen of the North and of the South, does it not make your blood boil in your veins, like a flood of fiery lava, does it not make your hearts swell with indignation, that your liberties, your government, and your happiness, should be destroyed by the negro troops of JEFF DAVIS? Will you stand it? Will you brook the outrage in quiet? Will you suffer your flag to be torn down and trodden under foot by the black battalions of Van Dorn? People of the North, shall rebel negroes slay your sons, and strip their bodies on the battle-field?

    Send out your new armies by millions. Send them no more by regiments or by brigades, or division, but by millions. Let the tramp of your loyal armies cause the hills of the South to shake to their foundations, and the vallies [sic] to tremble to their centre. Rally to the defence of the dear old flag. Hesitate no longer.--Let not history record that while slavery was the cause of the rebellion and slave-holders the prime movers of the rebellion, you were such degenerate dastards as to allow negro slaves to be the instruments of your country's eternal downfall, and the agency which made the rebellion successful."



    WHY DOES THE PC DENY ALL OF THIS?????
  21. What we have been taught and come to believe has been edited, expurgated, abridged, censored and just plain rewritten for more than 150 years.

    The words of Irish-born Confederate Major General Patrick Cleburne from his January, 1864, letter which proposed the mass emancipation and enlistment of Black Southerners into the Confederate Army express profoundly accurate prophecy:

    "Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late...It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision...The conqueror's policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them... ....It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."

    In 2000 the $37 Million movie Ride With the Devil was suppressed in distribution and offered in only 200 theaters for a limited three-day engagement despite the fact that it was directed by Oscar-winning director Ang Lee and had received many excellent reviews. It was suppressed by its distributor, USA Films, because it factually portrayed a Black Confederate guerrilla fighting with Confederate Bushwhackers in the Kansas-Missouri operations. The video release of the movie was delayed for two months to allow removal of the image of the Black Confederate from the cover art. The character was based faithfully on Free Black John Noland who rode with Quantrill as a scout and spy.

    Black Southerners fought alongside white, Hispanic, Indian, Jewish and thousands of foreign-born Southerners. They fought as documented by Union sources:

    Frederick Douglass, Douglass' Monthly, IV [Sept. 1861,] pp 516 - "there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate Army - as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government...There were such soldiers at Manassas and they are probably there still."

    "Negroes in the Confederate Army," Journal of Negro History, Charles Wesle, Vol. 4, #3, [1919,] 244-245 - "Seventy free blacks enlisted in the Confederate Army in Lynchburg, Virginia. Sixteen companies of free men of color marched through Augusta, Georgia on their way to fight in Virginia."

    "The part of Adams' Brigade that the 42nd Indiana was facing were the 'Louisiana Tigers.' This name was given to Colonel Gibson's 13th Louisiana Infantry, which included five companies of 'Avegno Zouaves' who still were wearing their once dashing traditional blue jackets, red caps and red baggy trousers. These five Zouaves companies were made up of Irish, Dutch, Negroes, Spaniards, Mexicans, and Italians." - Noe, Kenneth W., Perryville: This Grand Havoc of Battle. The University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY, 2001. [page 270]

    From James G. Bates' letter to his father reprinted in the 1 May 1863 "Winchester [Indiana] Journal" [the 13th IVI ["Hoosier Regiment"] was involved in operations around the Suffolk, Virginia area in April-May 1863 ] - "I can assure you [Father,] of a certainty, that the rebels have negro soldiers in their army. One of their best sharp shooters, and the boldest of them all here is a negro. He dug himself a rifle pit last night [16 April 1863] just across the river and has been annoying our pickets opposite him very much to-day. You can see him plain enough with the naked eye, occasionally, to make sure that he is a "wooly-head," and with a spy-glass there is no mistaking him."

    The 85th Indiana Volunteer Infantry reported to the Indianapolis Daily Evening Gazette that on 5 March 1863: "During the fight the [artillery] battery in charge of the 85th Indiana [Volunteer Infantry] was attacked by two rebel negro regiments.

    After the action at Missionary Ridge, Commissary Sergeant William F. Ruby forwarded a casualty list written in camp at Ringgold, Georgia about 29 November 1863, to William S. Lingle for publication. Ruby's letter was partially reprinted in the Lafayette Daily Courier for 8 December 1863: "Ruby says among the rebel dead on the [Missionary] Ridge he saw a number of negroes in the Confederate uniform."

    Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol XVI Part I, pg. 805: "There were also quite a number of negroes attached to the Texas and Georgia troops, who were armed and equipped, and took part in the several engagements with my forces during the day."

    Federal Official Records Series 1, Volume 15, Part 1, Pages 137-138: "Pickets were thrown out that night, and Captain Hennessy, Company E, of the Ninth Connecticut, having been sent out with his company, captured a colored rebel scout, well mounted, who had been sent out to watch our movements."

    Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XLIX, Part II, pg. 253 - April 6, 1865: "The rebels [Forrest] are recruiting negro troops at Enterprise, Miss., and the negroes are all enrolled in the State."

    Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol. XIV, pg. 24, second paragraph - "It is also difficult to state the force of the enemy, but it could not have been less than from 600 to 800. There were six companies of mounted riflemen, besides infantry, among which were a considerable number of colored men." - referring to Confederate forces opposing him at Pocotaligo, SC., Colonel B. C. Christ, 50th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, official report of May 30, 1862

    "Sargt said war is close to being over. saw several negros fighting for those rebels." - From the diary of James Miles, 185th N.Y.V.I., entry dated January 8, 1865

    Black Southerners also demonstrated loyalties based not on ownership, subservience or fear. The Confederate Burial Mound for Camp Morton, Indiana, at Indianapolis, Indiana, has bronze tablets which list the nearly 1200 Confederates who died at that camp. Among those names are 26 Black Southerners, seven Hispanic Southerners and six Indiaan Southerners.

    At a time when those Black Southerners could have walked into the Camp Commander's office, taken a short oath and signed their name to walk out the gates free men obliged to no one they chose instead to stay even unto death. Your understanding of that choice is likely nonexistent.

    Union soldiers robbed, raped and murdered Free Black and slave Southerners they had come to "emancipate." Union "recruiters" hunted, kidnapped and tortured Black Southerners to compel them to serve in the Union Army. At the Battle of the Crater white Union soldiers bayoneted retreating Black Union soldiers and the 54th Massachusetts was intentionally fired upon by Union Maine troops while assaulting Battery Wagner. The Federal Official Records and memoirs of the USCT document all of these war crimes.

    Since the Civil War the United States flag has flown over a country that has continued attempted genocide against its Native Peoples with the able help of Black "Buffalo Soldiers," condoned the slavery of Orientals in California well into the 1880s, fought wars to maintain dominance over countries whose people were not white, and imprisoned its own citizens because of the color of their skin as they did with the Japanese-Americans in California from 1941-1945.

    It is time that the misrepresentation which has come to be accepted as "history" is restored to its full measure and the positive and negative aspects of all parties exposed for
    consideration of all Americans both black and white.



    blkcs.jpg
    201.jpg 325px-Cherokee_Confederates_Reunion.gif ConfederateSoldiers.jpg

    Black Confededrates Jewish Confederates Cherokee Confederates Irish Confederates


    These men came from many places they all had diferant backgrounds, storys lives and cultiers the only thing they had in common was that they all wore the grey.

    Don't let the PC define history.

    "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

    George Stanayana
  22. Richmond Daily Dispatch.
    Friday Morning...April 19, 1861.
    The Newbern (N. C.) Progress, of the 17th inst., says:
    The committee, of which we were a member, having performed the commission they were sent to do, returned by a special train last night. There are now about 150 to 200 men under arms at Fort Macon, and everything is being put in order. Should a Government vessel attempt to enter the harbor they will receive a warm reception, certain.
    The ladies of Newbern were busily engaged yesterday making bedding and other things necessary for the comfort of our military companies who went down to Fort Macon last night.
    Yesterday, when our military companies were beating up for recruits, about sixty free negroes volunteered and went down to Fort Macon to do battle for their country, while another gave twenty-five dollars cash to help support the war; and still another, who is a poor man, having just arrived at our wharf with a load of wood for sale, delivered it up to the town auctioneer, with a request to sell it and appropriate it in the same way.
    ---------------------------------
    Monday morning...April 22, 1861.
    The Newbern Progress, speaking of the colored population, says:
    We learn from Mayor Lane that 15 or 20 more free negroes came forward yesterday morning and volunteered their services to go to the Fort and work or assist in the defence of the Fort, if required. Laborers enough having gone to the Fort, they were not sent down, but requested by Mayor Lane to hold themselves in readiness
    ---------------------------------
    Petersburg, April 23, 1861.
    Large numbers of free negroes have offered their services, and will be sent to Norfolk to erect batteries. Many of the poor creatures are out of employment, in consequence of the closing of the tobacco factories, and it would be a mercy to give them some useful work to perform, if only for their bread and meat.--Some of the more thrifty of the class have subscribed liberally to bear their expenses--one of them as much as $100; others smaller sums.
    ---------------------------------
    Richmond Dispatch.
    Thursday morning...April 25, 1861
    About fifty free negroes → in Amelia county have offered themselves to the Government for any service.
    In our neighboring city of Petersburg, two hundred free negroes offered for any work that might be assigned to them, either to fight under white officers, dig ditches, or anything that could show their desire to serve Old Virginia. In the same city, a negro hackman came to his master, and insisted, with tears in his eyes, that he should accept all his savings, $100, to help equip the volunteers.--The free negroes of Chesterfield have made a similar proposition. Such is the spirit, among bond and free, through the whole of the State. The fools and scoundrels who calculate on a different state of things, will soon discover their mistake.
    ----------------------------------
    Richmond Dispatch.
    Thursday morning...April 25, 1861
    The following items are from the Norfolk Argus:
    A large number of slaves are busily working upon the batteries and other means of defending the harbor. The services of many of these stalwart sons of Africa have been tendered by their generous owners and they enter upon their new duties zealously and eagerly.
    Captain Walker, of the ship schooner Zephaniah, which arrived from Baltimore on Mondaynight, reports that on his way down the Bay he saw two large steamers, probably transports, bound up. One of them appeared to be filled with troops. He also saw a third steamer, yesterday, take troops to Fort Monroe.
    A list of thirty-two worthy free negroes of this city, who have offered their services in the work of defence, or in any other capacity required, has been sent in to the Captain of the Woodis Riflemen.
    ------------------------------------
    The Daily Dispatch: may 20, 1861.
    Petersburg, May 18, 1861.
    The company of free negroes, under the command of Captain Finn, who have been engaged at Norfolk for several weeks, returned this afternoon, to spend the holidays with their wives and sweethearts. They will go back next week. It did one good to look on their happy, joyous faces, on which not a care of any kind has left its imprint. They appeared to be quite flush of the needful, and as soon as they were disbanded, numbers of them proceeded to the market-house, for the purpose of treating their families to the delicacies of the season. Mon Coeur.
    -------------------------------------
    The Daily Dispatch: July 17, 1861.
    The Convention and the free negroes .
    --The Convention, after authorising the impressment of the free negro population to aid in works of defence, further provides-- That all free negroes thus detailed, and appearing at the place of rendezvous, shall be received into public service (under such officers as may be detailed by the Commandant as aforesaid to receive them) as laborers, on condition that they be entitled to such compensation, rations, quarters, and medical attendance, as may be allowed other labor of a similar character employed in the public service; and that they shall not be detained, at any one time, for a longer period than thirty days, without their consent.
    That any free nervously detailed and notified as aforesaid, who shall fail or refuse to obey the requisition as aforesaid, shall be subject to the penalties provided by law for persons drafted from the militia and failing or refusing to obey such draft.
    Such free negroes shall, whilst engaged in the public service as aforesaid, be subject to the rules and articles of war.
    --------------------------------------
    The Daily Dispatch: September 19, 1861
    Contribution from free Negroes.
    The Charleston Mercury says:
    The free colored men of Charleston have contributed $450 to sustain the cause of the South. The zealous and unfailing alacrity with which this class of our population have always devoted their labor and their means to promote the safety of the State, is alike honorable to themselves and gratifying to the community.
    --------------------------------------
    The Richmond Daily Dispatch: December 28, 1861.
    The skirmish near Newport News. The following paragraph in reference to a skirmish near Newport News, we take from the "Situation" article of the New York Herald, of the 25th inst.:
    The skirmish at Newport News on the 22d was a brisk affair, considering that the 20th New York regiment, engaged on our side, had only two companies in the field, and were suddenly surrounded at Newmarket Bridge by force of 700 rebel cavalry and infantry, but succeeded in cutting their way through them without losing a man. Six of the 20th however were slightly wounded.--
    Ten of the enemy are known to have been killed, and a number wounded. Seven dead bodies were found yesterday morning; one was that of an officer, and was taken to Newport News. He wore buttons lettered " A. M. M.," perhaps the Alabama Minutes Men. It is reported that a whole company of negroes were engaged, and two of our men are known to have been shot by them. General Mansfield and Acting Brigadier General Weber, highly complimented the troops engaged, for their coolness and bravery.
    --------------------------------------
    Tuesday morning...Jan. 29, 1861.
    Items from Georgia.
    Joe Clark, a colored barber of this city, has written a letter to Gov. Brown, offering to raise a company of free colored men, to be enlisted in the service of the State of Georgia in the present crisis. Whatever may be thought of the policy of enlisting soldiers of this cast, the offer is a patriotic one, and ought to show the "philanthropists" of the North that the free colored population of the South do not appreciate their efforts in behalf of the negro race. Joe served in the Indian war of 1836, and still limps occasionally from a wound received in that campaign.
    --------------------------------------
    Richmond Dispatch
    Friday morning...May 24, 1861
    Clarksville, Mecklenburg co., May 21, 1861
    A servant of Thomas B. Wall, of this county, insisted so much on going with Capt. Finley's company, that his master consented for him to go. He was told that his clothes were not fit; he replied that he had money to buy suitable clothing. When told that he would have to pay his expenses on the railroad, he said he had fifty dollars which he had made by hard work, and he wanted to go to fight, to die for the South. The conduct of this intelligent servant is much praised.
    -------------------------------------
    The Daily Dispatch: September 19, 1861
    Gen. Lyon killed by a Darkey,
    The Fort Smith (Ark,) Times contains the following in relation to the death of General Lyon at the battle of Oak Hill, in Missouri: A negro man, body servant to Capt. John Griffith, of the gallant Third, was in the hottest of the fight, at Oak Hill, and fought in the last charge like a tiger. He claims to have killed Gen. Lyon. He says, he shot a man in the breast, that was on a large grey horse, and was waving his hat, and he saw him fall. Thus it is very probably that the Abolition Lyon fell by the hands of a darkey.
    This same black man, finding his youngest master. Benj. Griffith, wounded in the calf of the leg, picked him up, and carried him off of the field; notwithstanding, Ben resisted it with all his might, as he wanted to fire a few more rounds at the Dutch..
    --------------------------------------
    Arrival of French officers at Mobile — appropriate escort Promised to prisoners.
    Mobile, Sept. 24.
    --Three officers from the French
    Ship corvette Savoissier arrived this evening, bringing a mail bag. An immense crowd congregated at the landing to greet them on their arrival. The vessel is anchored near the passes.
    It is understood that the prisoners expected to-morrow will be escorted to the parish prison by a colored company.
    ------------------------------------
    Richmond Dispatch.
    Tuesday morning...Sept. 24, 1861.
    Free Government transportation.
    Entitled to transportation.
    Officers and soldiers, under orders and on official business.
    Paymaster's clerks, under orders.
    Soldiers left behind, sick or by accident, and recruits with orders, are entitled to transportation to their companies.
    Sick and wounded soldiers, having an order for transportation from a Medical Director or from a Surgeon General, home and back.
    Rejected recruits.
    Soldiers honorably discharged, except those discharged for wounds or sickness, who are provided for by railroad resolutions.
    Officers and soldiers transferred by order of the War Department or General Commanding.
    Horses of officers, according to regulation allowance.
    Assistant Surgeons on duty, obeying first order.
    Recruiting officers, on recruiting service, by authority of their regimental officers and with the approval of the officer commanding the post.
    An escort of one man will be allowed with the remains of deceased officers and soldiers.
    Stores and supplies for troops or hospitals.
    Colored cooks and musicians, when included as members of companies.
    ------------------------------------
  23. From the records of courts of law, after the war....
    General Butler in New Orleans: History of the Administration of the Dept. of the Gulf in the year 1862 ...By James Parton, 1864
    The Panic in New Orleans, page 264
    ...There were but twenty-eight hundred Confederate troops in the city; and General Lovell, their commander, had gone down to the forts the day before, and was now galloping back along the levee like a man riding a steeple-chase. The militia, however, were numerous; conspicuous among them the European Brigade, composed of French, English and Spanish battalions. A fine regiment of free colored men was on duty also. But, in the absence of the general, and the uncertainty of the intelligence, nothing was done or could be done, but assemble and wait, and increase the general alarm by the specticle of masses of troops....Some thousands of the militia, it appears, left with the twenty-eight hundred Confederate troops, choking the avenues of escape with mulititudiuous vehicles. Other thousands remained, doffing their uniforms, exchanging garments even with negroes, and returned to their homes. The regiment of free colored men would not leave the city- a fact which was remembered, some months later, to their advantage.
    The major player in the story of the "Native Guard" is Major-General John Lawson Lewis, head of the military arm of the State of Louisiana. By 1862 he was in his mid 60s, had served in the War of 1812, had served in the militia of Louisiana most of his life, as Sheriff, and mayor of New Orleans. We have his words, his testimony, in front of the Congressional Committee of the United States, of his role and thoughts in the riots of New Orleans in the summer of 1866. At this time he was the Deputy Sheriff, serving under Sheriff General Hays.
    In testimony, some of Lewis' answers to questions are careful and allusive....
    ---------------
    Question--- You are styled general. I suppose you got your title in the confederate service?
    Witness--- No, sir. I never held the confederate commission. When the rebellion broke out I was major general of militia in the State of Louisiana. Previous to that—since 1840 or 1841—I had been a major general of the first division. The State was divided into divisions. The legislature, in 1862, abolished this system, and appointed a major general of the State, and the halance were brigadier generals. I was elected by the legislature major general of the State of Louisiana, and was ordered by the governor, about that time, to organize the militia of the State. It was my mission to organize the militia. After the city of New Orleans fell, the government of the State was removed to Opelousas, and I went with it. After that the whole system was changed; the militia system was abolished by an act of the confederate congress, and every man in the militia was declared to be in the confederate army.
    Question--- What rank did you hold in the confederate service?
    Witness---I never held any. I was a volunteer aid of General Gregg after the militia of the State had been abolished.
    Question--- You did not yourself, then, engage in any fighting?
    Witness--- I was a volunteer aid, and was in several battles. I was wounded at Mansfield.
    Question--- Where were you when the surrender took place?
    Witness---I was on the other side of Lake Pontchartrain.
    Question--- Upon what service?
    Witness---I was appointed by Governor Allen to visit the hospitals, to relieve the wounded and sick soldiers, not only the confederate, but Union soldiers, wherever I found them in the hospitals.
    Question--- You fought through the war until the surrender in April, 1865, and have held office as sheriff since May, 1866?
    Witness---I have; as deputy sheriff. I went out with my State when she went. As I have stated, I never held any commission in the confederate service. The only commission I ever held was one from Governor Allen as visitor of hospitals, with rank and pay of colonel of cavalry, to go around and relieve the sick and wounded.
    ---------------
    Question---There were men who were loyal to the government and tho flag all the while, were there not?
    Witness---Yes, sir; I meet them every day. Some of them were here during the whole war. Some of them were members in every convention—were in the secession convention and voted against secession. I name, for instance, Mr. Rosier, who is a loyal man I can respect.
    Question--- Do you not think it would be the duty of the government to take care of and protect the men who havo stood by it during this rebellion?
    Witness---There is no doubt about it.
    Question--- Let me ask you if there is not a large class of men in Louisiana who did just that thing from the beginning to the end?
    Witness---No, sir; not a very large class; a very few.
    Question--- How was it in regard to the colored men?
    Witness--- Do you mean the slaves?
    The Chairman. I include all the colored people of the State, as far as your knowledge extends. Were they not friends of the Union?
    Witness--- The slaves naturally were. The effect of tho war was to change their status.
    Question--- How in reference to those who were not slaves?
    Witness---They were with us. I myself reviewed a regiment of colored men in the city of New Orleans, and they were ready to fight for us if we had brought them into requisition.
    Question--- You cannot name any of those who did fight for you, can you?
    Witness---We did not have any slave population in our army.
    Question--- Were not these same men organized when General Butler took command, and enrolled in the United States service?
    Witness---I do not know that. I left the city the 25th of April, 1862. I was acting under command of General Lovell, and was ordered by him to leave with my command. The colored men did not go with us. Those occupying the inferior position of slaves it was natural should sympathize with the men who set them free. They have all their rights with us now, except voting. Many of them own property. They do not sit on juries, but the colored people here have just as good rights in our courts as any of us.
    There is more, from the Reports of the Committees of the House of Representatives, Made During the Second Session Thirty-Ninth Congress, 1866-67.
    ----------------
    Why was Major-General John L. Lewis, so careful and evasive in his answers? It maybe because of his record during the war. It seems that the Union Army believed that Major-General Lewis (who claimed he never served in the Confederate forces) under some authority was charged with the executions of seven Louisiana German Union soldiers POWs, he claimed deserted from the State of Louisiana militia and were committing treason. See O.R. Series 2, Vol. 4. pg. 708.
    O.R. Series 4 - Volume 1, page 625. A message from General Twiggs to Lewis.
    Adjutant-General's Office,
    New Orleans, La., September 29,1861.
    Maj. Gen. J. L. LEWIS,
    First Division Louisiana Militia, New Orleans, La.:
    GENERAL: The major-general commanding has decided not to make use of the services of the companies of colored citizens tendered him as an escort for the prisoners of war, and instructs me to communicate his decision to you.
    He thanks them for the promptness with which they answered the call, and is assured that they will be equally ready upon a more important occasion.
    I have the honor to be, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
    JNO. G. DEVEREUX,
    Lieutenant and Acting Assistant Adjutant- General.
  24. The Real Lincoln




    These are his own words

    "....I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything....."

    -Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)


    Sic Semper Tyranis!
  25. Random guy Member


    Why does a Christian pastor spend a sermon praising a soldier? What is wrong with these people?
  26. Random guy Member


    Mate, you are cherry picking comments and quotes. Your representation is extremely one-sided, and it is getting worse.

    What I see here is self-radicalization, you whipping yourself into a fervour over a war fought a century and a half ago. This is what happens to young Muslims over here in Euroland, turning reasonably well adjusted young men into bomb-wielding radicals.

    Don't go down that track, mate. I'm sure the official story of the Civil War has been coloured by the North winning, but it is something that happened long, long time ago. Don't let it take over your life. Dead men have no need for your devotion.
  27. The Internet Member

    face on mars.png
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  28. The Internet Member

    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  29. Random guy Member


    I suggest looking them up on Wikipedia. There's a few interesting articles among the sources that are interesting reads.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Confederate_Veterans

    What is lacking from Johnny's many quotes is the understanding of how the Civil War changed things both in the North and in the South. The US that emerged from the war was not the same that entered onto it. The anti-negro quotes from Lincoln reflects a statesman's summary of the pre-war belief in black inferiority. The many references to blacks fighting in the South are all late war, show how necessity trumps idealism.

    Lincoln freed the black as a political tool, Davis freed (some) blacks because he was running out of whites to fight for him. The end result of the war was an end to almost a century of institutionalized white supremacy, no matter what the reasons for the war had originally been. The blacks that ended up in the Confederate lines does not somehow justify the Confederate reasons for secession, it only shows the vagarities of war. Johnny's many postings shows a failure to grasp this.
  30. "Your representation is extremely one-sided"

    And I am telling the other side of the story.
  31. "I will have to add the Sons of Confederate Vets to my list of people who hate our freedoms."



    Here is something you should know internet.

    Half of our membership are American veterans and the very first thing we do at ALL of our meetings is say the Pledge of Allegiance to the US flag.

    http://www.scvmeridian.org/about-us.html
  32. Nothing....nothing at all...

    Remember random guy the south has a very strong military tridition and General Forrest has been slanderd ever sence his death.
    This is not a normal thing for the pastor I understand this but it was not a normal ocation.

    He was praising General Forrest becuase he was a Chistian soldier.

    It looks like to me that you did not see the whole video.
  33. Random guy Member

    I'm sorry, where I come from Christianity has something to do with "thou shalt not kill" and all that jazz. The churches are usually the first in line protesting involvements in war and to try to help the victims of war. I'm not a particularly religious guy nor a pacifist, but I do respect their principled stance. Either you believe ten commandments as a guidance or you don't. I could not take more than 10 minutes of this guys fawning over a blood drenched solider.
  34. Random guy Member


    No, you are trying to construct a narrative where Lincoln was the ultimate bigot and a negro-hater, and the South a group of jolly people who welcomed the blacks into their arms as soon as slavery was collapsing. In short, you are trying to make Jefferson Davis' apologetic post-war "lost cause" look reasonable. In the process, you stray close to radicalization.

    Don't go there mate, the world is shitty enough as it is.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins