|
THE 10 CAUSES OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES
by James W. King, Commander Camp 141 and Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson
Sons of Confederate Veterans
PO Box 70577
Albany, Georgia 31708
229-436-0397
Historians have long debated the causes of the war and the Southern
perspective differs greatly from the Northern perspective. Based upon the
study of original documents of the War Between The States (Civil War) era
and facts and information published
by Confederate Veterans, Confederate Chaplains, Southern writers and
Southern Historians before, during, and after the war, I present the facts,
opinions, and conclusions stated in the following article.
Technically the 10 causes listed are reasons for Southern secession. The
only cause of the war was that the South was invaded and responded to
Northern aggression.
I respectfully disagree with those who claim that the War Between the
States was fought over slavery or that the abolition of slavery in the
Revolutionary Era or early Federal period would have prevented war. It is
my
opinion that war was inevitable between the North and South due to complex
political and cultural differences. The famous Englishman Winston Churchill
stated that the war between the North and South was one of the most
unpreventable wars in history. The Cause that the Confederate States of
America fought for (1861-1865) was Southern Independence from the United
States of America. Many parallels exist between the War for American
Independence (1775-1783) and the War for Southern Independence.
There were 10 political causes of the war (causes of Southern Secession),
one of which was slavery,
which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the
North
and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to
get the South's resources ( land-cotton-coal-timber-minerals ) for pennies
on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and
decentralists. The North would have found an excuse to invade the South
even
if slavery had never existed.
A war almost occurred during 1828-1832 over the tariff when South
Carolina passed nullification laws. The U.S. congress had increased the
tariff rate on imported products to 40% ( known as the tariff of
abominations in Southern States ). This crisis had nothing to do with
slavery. If slavery had never existed --period--or had been eliminated at
the time the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 or anytime
prior to 1860 it is my opinion that there would still have been a war
sooner
or later.
On a human level there were 4 causes of the war--New England Greed--New
England Fanatics--New England Zealots--and New England Hypocrites. During
the
"So Called Reconstruction" ( 1865-1877 ) the New England Industrialists got
what they had really wanted for 40 years--THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES FOR PENNIES
ON THE DOLLAR. It was a political coalition between the New England
economic
interests and the New England fanatics and zealots that caused Southern
secession to be necessary for economic survival and safety of the
population.
1. TARIFF--Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal
Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional
tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern
states--Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%-20%
of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were
being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John
Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820
demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to
preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control
of
the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain
and
increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to
pay
for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue
bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War
Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South.
Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would
increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States.
Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of
Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the
1828-1832
era ( between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that
was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New
England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern
secession movement.
2. CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS---The United States of America was
founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited
Federal Government and Sovereign States. The North wanted to and did alter
the form of Government this nation was founded upon. The Confederate States
of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as
established by America’s founding fathers who were primarily Southern
Gentlemen from Virginia. Thus Confederate soldiers were fighting for rights
that had been paid for in blood by their forefathers upon the battlefields
of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The
Constitution of the United States of America. His 'War of Aggression Against
the South' changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a
Democracy ( with Socialist leanings ) and broke the original Constitution.
The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations
after his reelection in 1864. A considerable number of European Socialists
came to America and fought for the Union (North).
3. CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM--The South believed in basic
Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible. The North had many Secular
Humanists (atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians). Southerners
were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had
its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that
man, science and government can solve all problems. This philosophy
advocates
human rather than religious values. Reference : Frank Conner’s book "The
South Under Siege 1830-2000."
4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES--Southerners and Northerners were of different
Genetic Lineages. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original
Britons), Scottish, and Irish linage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to
be
of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction. The two cultures had been
at
war and at odds for over 1000 years before they arrived in America. Our
ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon
princes at the battle of Baden Hill ( circa 497 AD --516 AD ). The cultural
differences that contributed to the War Between the States (1861-1865 ) had
existed for 1500 years or more.
5. CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES-- The North wanted to control Western
States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed
Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were
politically attached to the North. They passed laws against slavery that
Southerners considered punitive. These political actions told Southerners
they were not welcome in the new states and territories. It was all about
control--slavery was a scapegoat.
6. NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES. The Northern
Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South's
resources
for pennies on the dollar. They began a campaign about 1830 that would
influence the common people of the North and create enmity that would allow
them to go to war against the South. These Northern Industrialists brought
up a morality claim against the South alleging the evils of slavery.
The
Northern Hypocrites conveniently neglected to publicize the fact that 5 New
England States ( Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and New York ) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of
the
slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state
owned
fleets of ships.
7. SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS. This political cause ties
in to the above listed efforts by New England Industrialists. Beginning
about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began to slander the South. The
Industrialists used this tool to indoctrinate the common people of the
North. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up
to
a feverish pitch. Southerners became tired of reading in the Northern
Newspapers about what bad and evil people they were just because their
neighbor down the road had a few slaves. This propaganda campaign created
hostility between the ordinary citizens of the two regions and created the
animosity necessary for war. The Northern Industrialists worked poor whites
in the factories of the North under terrible conditions for 18 hours a day
( including children ). When the workers became old and infirm they were
fired. It is a historical fact that during this era there were thousands of
old people living homeless on the streets in the cities of the North. In
the
South a slave was cared for from birth to death. Also the diet and living
conditions of Southern slaves was superior to that of most white Northern
factory workers. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and
slander.
8. NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THE
SOUTH. Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New
England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These
fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would
result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were
aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo in the 1790 era
and that the French (white) population had been massacred. The
abolitionists
published a terrorist manifesto and tried to smuggle 100,000 copies into
the
South showing slaves how to murder their masters at night. Then when John
Brown raided Harpers Ferry,Virginia in 1859 the political situation became
inflammatory. Prior to this event there had been more abolition societies
in the
South than in the North. Lincoln and most of the
Republican Party ( 64 members of congress ) had adopted a political
platform
in support of terrorist acts against the South. Some (allegedly including
Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Brown's terrorist
activities. Again, slavery was used as a scapegoat for all differences that
existed between the North and South.
9.. SLAVERY. Indirectly, slavery was a cause of the war.
Most Southerners
did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery.
However, they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free
slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war
there
were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North.
Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of
slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor
system
of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without
economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were
responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the 'morality' claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. The first state to
legalize slavery had been Massachusetts in 1641 and this law was directed
primarily at Indians. In colonial times the economic infrastructure of the
port cities of the North was dependent upon the slave trade. The first
slave
ship in America, "THE DESIRE", was fitted out in Marblehead, Massachusetts.
Further proof that Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery is
found in the diary of an officer in the Confederate Army of Northern
Virginia. He stated that "he had never met a man in the Army of Northern
Virginia that claimed he was fighting to preserve slavery". If the war had
been over slavery, the composition of the politicians, officers, enlisted
men, and even African Americans would have been different.
Confederate
General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves (they had not been purchased by
him, they were inherited by his wife's estate) prior to 1863
whereas Union General Grant's wife Julia did not free her slaves until
after
the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution.
Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was
fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South.
Mildred Lewis Rutherford ( 1852-1928 ) was for many years the historian for
the United Daughters Of The Confederacy (UDC). In her book Truths Of
History
she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army ( 315,000 )
than the Confederate Army ( 200,000 ). Statistics and estimates also show
that about
300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the
Union.
Clearly the war would have been fought along different lines if it had been
fought over slavery.
The famous English author Charles Dickens stated " the
Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug
designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern
states."
10, NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES, Proof that Abraham
Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter
incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox
shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South
Carolina into firing on the fort ( The Union was using Fort Sumter as A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY ). It was
politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot
so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy 'started' the war. Additional
proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with
a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and
returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war
and he refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the
Fort
Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for
75,000
troops to put down what he called a 'rebellion'. He intended to march Union
troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina.
Virginia
and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and
criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State.
Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern
States.
On April 17th 1861, Governor Letcher of Virginia sent this message to
Washington DC: "I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not
be
furnished to the powers of 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."
The WAR BETWEEN THE STATES 1861-1865 occurred due to many complex causes
and factors as enumerated above. Those who make claims that "the war was
over slavery" or that if slavery had been abolished in 1776 when the
Declaration of Independence was signed or in 1789 when The Constitution of
the United States of America was signed, that war would not have occurred
between North and South are being very simplistic in their views and
opinions.
The following conversation between English ship Captain Hillyar and Capt.
Raphael Semmes of the Confederate Ship CSS Alabama occurred during the war on
August 5th, 1861. It is a summary from a well-educated Southerner who is
stating his reasons for fighting.
Captain Hillyar expressed surprised at Captain Semme's contention that the
people of the South were "defending ourselves against robbers with knives
at our throats", and asked for further clarification as to how this was so,
the exchange below occurred. I especially was impressed with Semmes'
assessment of yankee motives - the creation of "Empire"!
Semmes: "Simply that the machinery of the Federal Government, under which
we have lived, and which was designed for the common benefit, has been made
the means of despoiling the South, to enrich the North", and I explained to
him the workings of the iniquitous tariffs, under the operation of which
the South had, in effect, been reduced to a dependent colonial condition,
almost as abject as that of the Roman provinces, under their proconsuls;
the only difference being, that smooth-faced hypocrisy had been added to
robbery, inasmuch as we had been plundered under the forms of law"
Captain Hillyar: "All this is new to me", replied the captain. "I thought
that your war had arisen out of the slavery question".
Semmes: "That is the common mistake of foreigners.
The enemy has taken
pains to impress foreign nations with this false view of the case. With the
exception of a few honest zealots, the canting hypocritical Yankee cares as
little for our slaves as he does for our draught animals. The war which he
has been making upon slavery for the last 40 years is only an interlude, or
by-play, to help on the main action of the drama, which is Empire; and it
is a curious coincidence that it was commenced about the time the North
began to rob the South by means of its tariffs. When a burglar designs to
enter a dwelling for the purpose of robbery, he provides himself with the
necessary implements. The slavery question was one of the implements
employed to help on the robbery of the South. It strengthened the Northern
party, and enabled them to get their tariffs through Congress; and when at
length, the South, driven to the wall, turned, as even the crushed worm
will turn, it was cunningly perceived by the Northern men that 'No slavery'
would be a popular war-cry, and hence, they used it.
It is true that we are defending our slave property, but we are defending
it no more than any other species of our property - it is all endangered,
under a general system of robbery. We are in fact, fighting for
independence."
The Union victory in 1865 destroyed the right of secession in
America, which had been so cherished by America's founding fathers as the
principle of their revolution. British historian and political philosopher
Lord Acton, one of the most intellectual figures in Victorian England,
understood the deeper meaning of Southern defeat. In a letter to former
Confederate General Robert E. Lee dated November 4,1866, Lord Acton wrote: "I saw in States Rights the only available check upon the absolutism of the
sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction
but as the redemption of Democracy. I deemed you were fighting the battles
of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization and I mourn for that
which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was
saved at Waterloo (defeat of Napoleon). As Illinois Governor Richard Yates
stated in a message to his state assembly on January 2,1865, the war had "tended, more than any other event in the history of the country, to
militate
against the Jeffersonian Ideal ( Thomas Jefferson ) that the best
government
is that which governs least.
Years after the war former Confederate president Jefferson Davis stated " I
Am saddened to Hear Southerners Apologize For Fighting To Preserve Our
Inheritance".
Some years later former U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt
stated " Those Who Will Not Fight For The Graves Of Their Ancestors Are
Beyond Redemption".
....................................................................................... The
Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves!
......................................................................................
It is not widely known that
the Southern state of Virginia was the very first political body in the
entire world to enact legislation to end the slave trade. On 5 October
1778, the General Assembly passed "An act for preventing the further
importation of slaves," in which "any slave brought into the state
contrary to the law would be then and forevermore free." In keeping with
such opposition to the wickedness of the slave trade, the Constitution
of the Confederate States of 1861 permanently abolished the practice in
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1. Confederate President Jefferson Davis
made clear his plans for the infant country when he stated, "The slave
must be made fit for his freedom by education and discipline and thus be
made unfit for slavery."
It was Davis' prediction that slavery "will eventually be lost"; it had
outlived its usefulness and would inevitably die a natural death. Although
there were indeed some who believed that the natural condition of the
Black man was servitude, the prevailing opinion in the South was that of
gradual emancipation. Some Southern leaders, such as General Robert Edward
Lee, were wholly opposed to African slavery.
Let the Reader contrast such sentiments with the actions of the invading
Northern forces. In a letter to General Grant, General John A. Logan
reported that his men were "capturing Negroes, with or with out their
consent.... They are being conscripted." In 1864, General Innis N. Palmer
wrote to General Butler, "The Negroes will not go voluntarily, so I am
obliged to force them." And at the same time Black men were being taken
against their will into "service" to the United States, Yankee soldiers
were "committing rapes on the Negroes" and were "in the Negro huts for
weeks, debauching the females." A war to free the slaves? Only a deluded
mind would believe such nonsense.
What then would inspire a vast majority of non-slaveholding Confederates,
many of whom were as young as fourteen years of age, to shoulder their
muskets and charge with resolve into the very face of death? What gave
these men the mental fortitude and courage to stand firm in their defiance
of the mightiest war machine the world had seen up to that time? I firmly
believe that the rag-tag "Rebels" were motivated by their love for their
homeland, their families, and for their Christian roots. These men deserve
to be honored for withstanding tremendous odds in an attempt to secure for
future generations of Southerners the eternal "blessings of liberty." In
the words of one Confederate soldier: I was a soldier in Virginia in the
campaigns of Lee and Jackson, and I declare I never met a Southern soldier
who had drawn his sword to perpetuate slavery.... What he had chiefly at
heart was the preservation of the supreme and sacred right of
self-government.
Even the editors of the London Times acknowledged this to be true when
they stated on 7 November 1861: The contest is really for empire on
the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....
This "supreme and sacred right of self-government" is not based on the
color of a man's skin, but on the readiness of his soul to accept such a
lofty responsibility. As such, self-government most assuredly would have
been eventually enjoyed by the slaves of Dixie had the fanaticism and
hatred of nineteenth-century Abolitionists not prevented her from
implementing measures for a gradual emancipation which would honor both
the property rights of Southern planters as well as humanly prepare the
slaves for the duties which accompany freedom. Such a task did not require
the shed blood of over half a million men and the anguish of countless
grieving widows and mothers. Even the most noble ends do not justify
violent and revolutionary means.
******************************************************************
Fort Sumter facts
Charleston, South Carolina - On the night of December
26, 1860, Major Robert Anderson decided to move the Fort Moultrie garrison
to Fort Sumter, in his words "To prevent the effusion of blood." A
merchant ship, the Star of the West, was sent with supplies but was turned
back by South Carolina artillerists on 9 January 1861. This event is
still considered by many scholars as the first shot of the Civil War.
....................................
(Transcribed from the Official Records of the War, Series
I, Chapter I)
Fort Sumter, S.C. December 26, 1860 - 8 p. m.
(Received A. G. O., December 29.)
Colonel: I have the honor to report that I have just completed, by the
blessing of God, the removal of this fort of all of my garrison, except
the surgeon, four non-commissioned officers, and seven men. We have one
year's supply of hospital stores and about four months' supply of
provisions for my command. I left orders to have all the guns at Fort
Moultrie spiked, and the carriages of the 32-pounders, which are old,
destroyed. I have sent orders to Captain Foster, who remains at Fort
Moultrie, to destroy all the ammunition which he cannot send over. The
step which I have taken was, in my opinion, necessary to prevent the
effusion of blood.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
ROBERT ANDERSON
Major, First Artillery, Commanding.
.................
13 April 1861 -- Ft Sumter in South Carolina fell to the Confederate States
of America after 33 hours of bombardment.
According to United States Army Captain Montgomery C. Meigs, "This is the
beginning of the war which every statesman and soldier has foreseen since
the passage of the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession."
Preserved in print by the United States Government is Captain Meig's
testimony. He very candidly locates the responsibility of the bloodshed to
come with the office of the President, and not with the Confederates! He
states that "the violation of the armistice was an Executive act, unknown
at the time to any but those engaged therein, including General Scott, the
Secretary of State, and the President."
When Judge Campbell realized he had been used by the Lincoln
Administration to lull the Confederate Commissioners into a false sense of
security, he wrote to William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State:
"I think no candid man will read over what I have written, and consider
for a moment what is going on at Sumter, but will agree that the
equivocating conduct of the Administration, as measured and interpreted in
connection with these promises, is the proximate cause of the great
calamity."
During the months prior to April 13th when there were many public and
private assurances of peace being made, Lincoln was making plans to
reinforce Ft Sumter. Just 3 months before taking the oath of office, he
sent a message to General Winfield Scott: "Please present my respects to
the general, and tell him confidentially, I shall be obliged to him to be
as well prepared as he can to either hold or retake the forts, as the case
may require, at and after the inauguration." When Major Anderson
mysteriously left his position at Ft. Moultrie in Dec. 1860 and moved his
forces to Ft. Sumter, South Carolinians were resentful. President Buchanan
expressed alarm because his Secretary of War had given no such order.
By April 1861 the stage was set for a fight. With the pretext of trying to
get food and provisions to the "starving men" in Ft Sumter, Lincoln sent
out a "Relief Squadron". It consisted of 8 warships, carrying 26 guns, and
1,400 men.
When the Confederate Government in Montgomery learned of Lincoln's
treachery, it authorized General Beauregard to demand the surrender of the
fort.
..................................
"The aggressor in war is not the first who uses force, but the first who
renders force necessary." (Henry Hallam)
Information taken from:
Official Records, Armies Series I, Volume I America's Caesar, The Decline
and Fall of Republican Government in the United States of America Greg L.
Durand 2001
(see http://www.crownrights.com )
..................................
Major Anderson Invades South Carolina:
“The following excerpt is from an article by Prof.
Robert L. Preston of Leesburg, Va., which appeared in the New York Times
of May 9, [1926] on the “Title to Governor’s Island---Rights of the
Federal Government and the State of New York as Set Forth in the Old
Statutes,” is a most remarkable and interesting statement about the
legal status of Fort Sumter in 1861: “South Carolina in 1805 (Statutes
at Large, Volume V, p. 501) provided as follows in regard to the
cessions in Charleston Harbor:
“That, if the United States shall not, within three
years from the passing of this act, and notification thereof by the
governor of this State to the Executive of the United States, repair the
fortifications now existing thereon, or build such other forts or
fortifications as may be deemed most expedient by the Executive of the
United States on the same, and keep a garrison or garrisons therein, in
such case this grant or cession shall be void and of no effect.”
It may be on interest to state that Fort Sumter not only
was not completed within the three-year limit stipulated in the
contract, but was not completed in Dec. 1860 when Major Anderson transferred
his garrison from Fort Moultrie. Moreover, it had never been garrisoned
until he occupied it. So that, having neither been completed not
garrisoned according to the contract, either within the three years
specified time, or, for that matter, by 1861, Major Anderson occupied a
piece of property that the United States had not the vestige of a right
to occupy, and which was under the ownership, jurisdiction, and
sovereignty of the State of South Carolina exclusively. In other words,
he invaded the State of South Carolina with his troops---unwittingly, it
is true, and on orders, but in fact, at any rate. Adverse possession
even could not lie here in behalf of the United States, since the United
States had not garrisoned it.”
(Fort Sumter in 1861, Confederate Veteran, September,
1926, page 325)
*****************************************
Black Slave Owners
Please ask the NAACP members if the name that they are known by is
taken from the black slave owners. I am sure that they would be known by
another name if they were still back where they came from and where the
chief's sold them to the slave traders. Selling slaves was a "cottage
industry." If anyone will do the research they will find that in SC in
1840 William Ellison started "slave breeding" where he sold slaves for
$400.00.
In the state of LA in 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana
who owned 65 or more slaves, widow C. Richard and her son P. C. Richard
owned 152 slaves. Antoine Dubuclet owned over 100 slaves. In Charleston,
SC 125 free negroes owned slaves, six of them owned ten or more. In fact
if anyone will take the time to check they will find that the blacks owned
as many slaves if not more than the the whites. In New Orleans. Justus
Angel, Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton, SC, District owned 84 slaves in
1830. The fact are in 1830 one fourth of the free Negroes slave masters
in SC owned 10 or more slaves.
Of the 224 years that slavery was LEGAL in this country both north and
south only 4 years was under the St. Andrews banner. How about jumping on
the stars and stripes 220 years slavery was legal under that banner. Put
in to your computer these words "black slave owners" your eyes will be
opened to the truth.
Sincerely,
R.W. Moore, Publisher
The Truth Newspaper, Inc.
*********************************************************************
The First Slave
Owner In America Was A Black Man
From evidence found in the earliest legal documents
extant, it is Anthony Johnson, a black man,
who we now must recognize as the nation's first slaveholder.
After all, the court battle he eventually won in 1655 to keep
John Casor as his servant for life,
identifies this unfortunate soul as the first slave
in the recorded history of our country. Claiming that he
had been imported as an indentured servant, Casor attempted to transfer
what he argued was his remaining time of service to Robert Parker, a
white, but Johnson insisted that "hee had ye Negro for his life".
The unfortunate defendant in the court action, John Casor, thus became
the first individual known to be legally declared and legally
recognized slave by any colonial government.
The court ruled: "seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the
premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly
keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master....It is therefore
the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro
forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson,
And that mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit."
Antonio Johnson (who later changed his name to Anthony), a black or
black-hispanic mixed man, and his future wife Mary, a black woman, were
among the very first non-white and non-Native American people to arrive in
America. They came by boat to Virginia in 1619, with other blacks
and whites, as indentured servants. Upon their release they were
given land and eventually became wealthy enough to take on indentured
servants of their own. John Casor became one of Anthony Johnson's
indentured servants. In 1665 Anthony and Mary Johnson moved to
Maryland to live out the rest of their lives, but not before setting the
legal precedent for lifelong slavery of Christians, (mostly white Scots
and Irish). It didn't take long for rich
land-owners and politicians to contrive ways to change the focus of
slavery from religion to color, and slavery as we generally
know it was born.
Slavery was birthed in the New World by a black man from Africa!
The concept of slavery in America, or in this case colonial
America, originated with a court ruling of one black man owning another.
Prior to that ruling, there had been a generally accepted practice of
"indentured servitude", of which blacks, whites, and many other races and
ethnicities took part as a matter of course. To suggest that slavery
in this country came about as the embodiment of some white predisposition
to the subjugation of blacks is a common misconception. The
structure of the slave trade was first build around the enslavement of
white Scots and Irish in the late 1600's and early 1700's. That
structure was later applied to to enslavement of blacks but it certainly
didn't start with blacks as many people continue to believe. The
racial component of slavery didn't come about until later and even then
race was not a sole determining factor, as many free blacks also traded
black slaves, both here and on the African continent. The history of
slavery in this country is much more nuanced and diverse than is commonly
admitted.
Johnson was not "brought to trial for owning slaves".
Johnson himself went to court to petition for the return of one of his own
servants, John Casar, because of an ongoing dispute that Casar had with
Johnson over the length and conditions of his indenture. At this
time, slavery per se was actually "indentured servitude". Many of
the first colonial settlers indentured themselves (redemtioners) in
exchange for passage to the New World, usually for seven or so years, and
upon the end of their indenture, were granted their freedom and a few
dozen acres of land by the British crown. It was Johnson's
contention in court that Casar was indentured to him for life and the
court ruled in his favor. Thus, Casar was the FIRST indentured
servant in Virginia to be legally indentured for life (slave), which was a
monumental legal distinction from temporary servitude. That ruling
paved the way for lifetime servitude, or "slavery" to be coded into law in
1660, but there was no racial component to that either. The racial
component of the new slavery did come into play, not because of race
itself, but because blacks of the day had more experience growing tobacco,
a huge cash crop in early Virginia and for their superior physical
abilities which made them more productive than their white counterparts.
But white slaves served in other capacities also.
The court's ruling was the first legal precedent for lifetime servitude in
Virginia. It was also the cornerstone of the generational servitude
laws that came 6 years later where it was determined that a child born of
a servant was also a servant (slave), white or black. Mr. Johnson
did in fact own the first legally recognized lifetime slave in
Virginia.
*********************************************************************
"In saving the Union, I have destroyed the Republic.
Before me I have the Confederacy, which I loathe. But behind me I have the
bankers, which I fear."
-- Abraham Lincoln
*********************************************************************
Emancipation? Hardly.
If slavery was the only issue over which the Southern states seceded, then
why, when the remaining Federal government proposed the original
13th Amendment to the Constitution which was designed to permanently
protect the right of the states to decide the issue of slavery without
Federal jurisdiction or interference, did the Southern states continue on
their course?
On March 2, 1861, the 36th U. S. Congress (minus the seven seceded states
of the Deep South) passed by a two-thirds majority a proposed amendment to
the Constitution. Had it been ratified by the requisite number of states
and signed by President Lincoln before the war intervened (who looked
favorably on it as a way to lure the Southern states back into the Union),
the proposed 13th Amendment would have prohibited the U. S. government
from ever abolishing or interfering with slavery in any state.
The proposed 13th Amendment read: "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 there of,
including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said
State." Note that this amendment was designed to be unrepealable (i.e. "No
amendment shall be made . . . .")
This exposes that claims that the Union went to war in 1861 to free the
slaves were and are patent lies. It also undermines claims that the South
seceded solely to preserve the institution of slavery.
The fact is that the so-called' Emancipation Proclamation" freed not a
single person under Lincoln's legal jurisdiction and specifically kept
those who were under his jurisdiction enslaved. It reads as follows:
"Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was
issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other
things, the following, to wit:
"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves
within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall
then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then,
thenceforward, and forever free...
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard,
Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension,
Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans,
including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the
forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia), and also the counties
of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne,
and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, and which
excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation
were not issued."
The documental historical fact is that the "Emancipation Proclamation"
precisely and specifically EXCLUDED every slave in the Union or
Union-controlled territory (including the whole Confederate state of
Tennessee) that Lincoln could have actually affected. Slavery continued as
a legal and Federally-protected fact in those Confederate states and areas
defined as well as the Union states of Kansas, Missouri, West Virginia,
Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware.
While slavery ended in the areas INCLUDED in the "Emancipation
Proclamation" in April, 1865, when the Confederacy ceased to exist, it
continued LEGALLY and under protection of Federal law in the states and
areas listed above until December, 1865. The United States remained a
slave nation for eight months AFTER the Confederacy ceased to exist...and
the only two states to refuse to ratify the 13th Amendment were Texas and
the Union state of Delaware.
When looking to discover the true nature of the self-avowed racist, white
supremacist Lincoln, suggested reading is "Forced Into Glory: Abraham
Lincoln's White Dream," a book written by respected Black author and
Executive Editor of EBONY magazine, Lerone Bennett, Jr., and published by
the Johnson Publishing Company, available at
Amazon.com. It has the uncomfortable position of dealing with the
facts of Lincoln's words and deeds, not the fantasies assigned him by
fawning admirers. Here's a
Youtube video of
Mr. Bennett talking about the book.
The United States flag flew over a slave nation from 1776 until December,
1865, some eight months _after_ the Confederacy and slavery in the South
had ceased to exist. During the four years of the War and afterwards the
states of Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, West Virginia, and Delaware were
Union slaveholding states and slavery was legal under Federal law. In
1863, after the "Emancipation Proclamation," Free Men of Color were
arrested, fined, and sold into slavery in Illinois for the "high
misdemeanor" of staying in the state longer than ten days. Union General
U.S. Grant expelled all Jews from his Army in December, 1862, and expelled
Jewish citizens "as a class" from their homes "within 24 hours" - he freed
his slaves only when compelled to do so by the 13th Amendment in December
1865.
Black Southerners fought alongside white, Hispanic, Native American,
Jewish, and thousands of foreign-born Southerners. They fought in mixed
units and they fought in all-Black units as documented in Tennessee by
_Union_ sources. Federal Official Records, Series I, Vol XVI Part I, pg.
805 records: "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." 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 [*in italics*] two
rebel negro regiments. [*end italics*]."
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 fired upon by Maine troops
while assaulting Battery Wagner in South Carolina. The Federal Official
Records and memoirs of the USCT document of all these war crimes.
Since the Civil War the American 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
from 1941-1945. Thank then-governor of California and former Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court and "Champion of Civil Rights" Earl Warren and
Franklin D. Roosevelt for that violation of the Bill of Rights.
Native Americans have a greater right to object to symbols which reflect
the genocidal practices directed against them for almost 400 years. During
the War for Southern Independence the Confederacy signed formal alliances
with the Five Civilized Tribes which recognized their ethnic and
geographic sovereignty and offered them equal pay and treatment while
Lincoln was signing orders for the mass hanging of 39 Northeastern
tribesmen for daring to try to reclaim confiscated tribal lands.
.................................................................................................................
Pennsylvania
Gazette,
Oct. 15, 1730.
"RUN away on the 13th of September last
from Abraham Lincoln of Springfield in the
County of Chester [Penn.], a Negro Man named
Jack, about 30 Years of Age, low Stature, speaks little or no English,
has a Scar by the Corner of one Eye, in the Form of a V, his Teeth
notched, and the Top of one of his Fore Teeth broke; He had on when he
went away an old Hat, a grey Jacket partly like a Sailor's Jacket.
Whoever secures the said Negro and brings him
to his Master, or to *Mordecai Lincoln
... shall have Twenty Shillings Reward and reasonable
Charges"
* Mordecai Lincoln (1686-1736) was
great-great-grandfather of President Abraham Lincoln.
...............................................................................................................
Not a Confederate Flag in Sight
The most cruel aspect of the British slave trade to the West Indies was
the extreme mortality rate among sugar plantation slaves, which prompted
increased traffic in slave importation there and increased misery for
the poor Africans. In contrast, the rising birthrate and population
among slaves in the American South indicates that the unfortunate
institution was far more humane. But the question to answer is this: If
none of the slavers of various countries were flying Confederate Battle
Flags and the American Confederacy had no part in this nefarious traffic
which populated the British colonies in North America; how is it that
only the Confederacy is tainted by its late association with African
slavery, and any symbols of it are seen as "racist"?
Bernhard Thuersam, Executive Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
Post Office Box 328
Wilmington, NC 28402
www.CFHI.net
Not A
Confederate Flag in Sight:
"During the American Revolution the (British) slave trade was
discouraged by French and colonial American privateers. Peacetime
recovery was slow (and)...By 1787 British traders still had not regained
their former level of human exports. In that year some 137 ships with a
combined tonnage of 22,263 and with crews of about 5,000 sailed from
British ports to trade for slaves on the African coast. They carried
British goods (which) were delivered to British factories on the coast,
part to private black dealers for slaves. With (the slaves on board) the
ships began the difficult eight-week journey across the Atlantic (and)
because of the frightful conditions on board, perhaps only 34,000 (of
42,000) remained alive when they reached the West Indies. There they
were sold for an average of 35 pounds each to English, French, Dutch,
Danish and Spanish (plantation) proprietors, either directly or through
agents.
The organization of the British slave trade centered in Liverpool and
Bristol. Aggressiveness, specialization, and proximity to the
manufacturers of African trade goods had helped the former town overcome
the lead of the latter in the first half of the century. In 1787
Liverpool sent 78 ships...to Africa, whereas Bristol sent only 31
ships...a few (slave) ships also cleared from London, Lancaster and
Poole. None came from Scotland.
(In March 1790) a total of 139 Liverpool ships was employed in slaving,
of which half were owned by only eight companies. The other half were
scattered among another thirty-one owners. Liverpool slave merchants
often engaged in other kinds of shipping, as well as banking and
insurance. Around Liverpool a network of small manufacturers and
tradesmen supplied the "trade goods" used or barter in Africa---beads,
textiles, ironmongery, brass bars, cheap rifles, liquor, and so on---and
generally fitted out the ships for each new venture. Suppliers of trade
goods around Manchester employed "upwards of 18,000 men, women and
children. In Liverpool itself, participation in the trade was almost a
community affair....it is well-known that many of the small vessels that
import about a hundred slaves are fitted out by attorneys, drapers,
ropers, grocers, tallow-chandlers, barbers, tailors, etc; some have
one-eighth (share in a ship's capital), some a fifteenth, some a
thirty-second."
A striking proportion of the 38,000 to 42,000 slaves purchased annually
by the British traders in Africa were destined for non-British
territories on the other side of the ocean. George Hibbert, a London
slave and sugar merchant, estimated that 15,567 slaves were annually
imported, and remained, in the British West Indies, leaving 23,000 to
27,000 for other Caribbean buyers. The foreign market for slaves had
been built up during the eighteenth century with the approval of the
British government. According to the economic ideas of the day, slaves
were a commodity whose sale abroad would help the balance of trade. Not
until later did the slaves come to be seen as factors of production and
hence responsible for the upsurge in foreign competition in the sugar
market.
Before 1775 the British slave merchants faced little competition in
foreign markets. Their proximity to supplies of cheap trade goods, and
their superior financial organization gave them an advantage over other
European traders. (But) Aggressive merchants from Massachusetts (and)
Rhode Island...were reported to have vastly expanded their trade to
Africa immediately after the revolutionary war, and by 1790 they were
even fitting out in English ports to save money. Most of them were
supplying the Southern States, but they found it easy to ship by way of
the Caribbean to pick up extra business. Spain, having gained two small
islands off the Cameroons coast in 1778 tried hard to establish her own
slave trade (and) the French had already accomplished (her own slave
trade)... Before 1778 the French had imported 14,000 to 15,000 Africans
a year in their own ships, while purchasing even more from the British.
(According to the) Slave Trade Regulating Bill of 1788...the number of
slaves annually exported from Africa was given as follows: 38,000 by the
British, 20,000 by the French, 10,000 by the Portuguese, 4,000 by the
Dutch, and 2,000 by the Danes.
As in Bristol, the defense of the slave trade settled in the hands of
the most official and respectable body: in Liverpool, the Mayor and
Common Council. The Council was a self-perpetuating body which co-opted
new members as needed, and over the years it had come to be dominated by
the African (slave trade) merchants. Even the Mayor was a slave trader.
Thus the African merchants were able to initiate petitions, or send
delegations, in three separate capacities, a position they used to
combat abolition.
The day to day work of opposing abolition fell mainly to the member of
Parliament: for Bristol, Banastre Tarleton and the brothers Gascoyne.
Banastre Tarleton was elected...on the record of his brutally heroic
record in the American War. In 1787 he published a boastful "History of
the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781 in the Southern Provinces of North
America" which cast such discredit on his superior officers that
Tarleton lost his chance for further promotion. Loquacious,
strong-minded, passably educated and well-known in society, and
outspoken Whig and friend of the Prince of Wales...(Tarleton) is the M.P.
most closely associated with the defense of the slave trade because he
sat for Liverpool from 1790 to 1806, when the abolition question was at
its height. Such were the defenders of the slave trade."
(The Abolition of the Slave Trade in England, 1784-1807, Dale H. Porter,
Archon Books, 1970)
...........................................................................................
STRANGE MYTHS ABOUT THE CIVIL WAR
1. "The South was the aggressor."
I came to the Civil War debate as someone who was very
pro-Northern.
One of the things that struck me like a ton of bricks as I began to
read on the subject was that it was obvious that, contrary to what I
had always supposed and been taught, the North, not the South, was the
aggressor. This was the first crack in my pro-Northernism. Even
before I became aware of Lincoln's statements to Fox and Browning
about his motive for sending the armed naval convoy to Fort Sumter, I
recognized his sending of the convoy as a deliberate provocation, the
equivalent of stepping across a line or bumping someone on the
shoulder and daring them to do something about it.
What was even more revealing, and surprising, were the
events that
followed the bloodless attack on Sumter. The South did not invade it
was going to invade the North. The South did not announce it was
going to try to overthrow the federal government. The South did not
refuse to recognize the right of the Northern states to live as they
pleased. No, it was the North that announced it was going to invade
the South, and that did invade the South. It was the North that
announced it was going to overthrow the Confederate government and
force the Southern states to return to the Union against their will.
"So how in the world," I remember wondering to myself, "can anyone say
the South was the aggressor, much less that the South somehow started
the war?"
2. "The South started the war."
Huh? The North invaded the South even as the South
was still calling
for peaceful coexistence, but the South started the war??? That is
Orwellian logic. It's beyond absurd. "But the South fired on
Sumter!" is the usual reply. Get real. If the U.S. had seized an
island fort in any other nation's harbor and then sent an armed naval
convoy to resupply that unwanted garrison, such an act would have been
universally recognized as hostile and provocative. A bloodless attack
on a fort you have seized and refused to leave is hardly a credible,
moral excuse for launching a brutal invasion, especially when the
other side has offered to pay compensation for the fort if you just
will leave it peacefully.
Of course, we now know that the Republicans had no
intention of
allowing the South to remain independent, and that they were
determined to pick a fight so they could use it as an excuse to invade
the South. Lincoln himself made it quite clear that he sent the naval
convoy to Sumter hoping it would provoke an attack. Even before
Confederate leaders learned of the naval convoy's pending arrival,
they recognized that the Republicans were not going to allow the South
to leave in peace. They knew that if they allowed Sumter to be
resupplied, Lincoln would send a force to some other formerly federal
installation to "enforce federal authority" with the intent of
provoking an armed response that would then be used as a pretext for
invasion.
3. "Fort Sumter was federal property, so the North had
every right to
seek to maintain control of it."
One, under the original understanding of American
sovereignty, the
ultimate sovereign for a state was the citizenry of that state. Once
the citizens of SC voted to rescind their ratification and to resume
their independent status, all formerly federal property in the state
reverted back to their ownership. The citizens of SC had the sole,
exclusive right to decide whether or not to join the Union, and they
had the sole, exclusive right to decide whether or not to remain in
the Union. Granted, when such a reversion occurs, it is only right
that compensation be paid for the property that has reverted back to
the state citizenry's control, and both SC and then the Confederacy
offered to pay such compensation.
Two, what kind of a government launches a brutal
invasion and forces a
group of states back into a "union" over a fort that wasn't even
completed and that the other side was willing to pay compensation
for? Our Patriot forefathers bitterly resented the fact that the
British would not allow the colonies to go in peace. They felt it was
tyrannical and immoral for the British to try to force the colonies to
rejoin the empire against their will. The fundamental premise of the
Revolution was that a people have a natural right to separate
themselves from an existing government and to form a new one of their
own choosing, and that this right should be recognized and respected.
Lincoln and his fellow Republicans behaved toward the Southern states
in the same undemocratic, tyrannical way that the British behaved
toward the colonies, if not worse.
Was it really worth over 600K dead and over 1M wounded
simply to
"enforce federal authority" at the unfinished, previously ignored Fort
Sumter? Of course, Sumter was just the excuse. No moral, just
government launches a brutal invasion over a bloodless attack against
an unfinished fort that nobody has cared two cents about, especially
when the other side has offered to pay for the fort and has made it
clear that it wants good relations and peaceful coexistence. But the
Republicans didn't want peaceful coexistence. They didn't want to let
the Southern states live under a government of their own choosing.
They didn't recognize the citizens of the Southern states as the
ultimate sovereign of those states. They believed in mob rule, that
the Northern states somehow had the right to use the federal
government to force the Southern states to rejoin the Union, that now
"federal authority" was superior to the sovereignty of the people in
the Southern states. They rejected James Madison's explanation that
the people were sovereign only as citizens of their respective states
and not as a whole.
And what happened to the Northern troops at Sumter
after the bloodless
attack? Were they executed? Taken prisoner? Held hostage? Roughed
up a little bit and then sent packing? No, none of the above. They
were allowed to surrender with full military honors, were saluted by
Confederate soldiers, and were allowed to return to the North in
peace. Yet Lincoln's response to all this was to launch a massive
invasion and start the worst war in our history.
Mike Griffith
Civil War website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id163.htm
........................................................................................
Despite assurances by Northern politicians that the proposed 13th
Amendment (and signed by Lincoln) of 1861 would guarantee slavery in
the South would not leave the Union, the South chose a new
federation in which their taxes would be spent to enrich themselves.
Bernhard Thuersam, Executive Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
Post Office Box 328
Wilmington, NC 28402
www.CFHI.net
Senator Wigfall on the Cause of Discontent:
"Said Senator Louis Wigfall, of Texas, March 4th 1861 in the United
States Senate, only a few hours before Mr. Lincoln's inauguration:
It is early in the morning and I hope I shall not say anything that
may be construed as offensive. I rise merely that we may have an
understanding of this question.
It is not slavery in the Territories, it is not expansion, which is
the difficulty. If the resolution which the Senator from Wisconsin
introduced here denying the right of Secession, had been adopted by
two-thirds of each branch of this department of the Government, and
had been ratified by three-fourths of the States, I have no
hesitation in saying that, so far as the State in which I live and
to which I owe my allegiance is concerned, if she had no other cause
for a disruption of the Union taking place, she would have
undoubtedly have gone out. The moment you deny the right of free
government to the free white men of the South, they will leave the
Government. They believe in the Declaration of Independence.
In the "address of the People of South Carolina, assembled in
convention...to justify the passage of the South Carolina Secession
Ordinance of 1860, it is declared that (excerpted): "The one great
evil from which all other evils have flowed is the overthrow of the
Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United
States is no longer the Government of Confederated Republics, but of
a consolidated Democracy. It is no longer a free Government, but a
Despotism. It is, in fact, such a Government as Great Britain
attempted to set over our Fathers; and which was resisted and
defeated by a seven years struggle for Independence. The Revolution
of 1776 turned upon one great principle, self-government---and
self-taxation, the criterion of self-government.
The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position towards
the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain.
The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same
power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament. "The
General Welfare" is the only limit of legislation of either; and the
majority in Congress, and in the British Parliament, are the sole
judges of the expediency of the legislation this "General Welfare"
requires. Thus the Government of the United States has become a
consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern States are
compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the
Revolution of 1776.
The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the
Colonies, was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British
Parliament undertook to tax the Colonies to promote British
interests...Our fathers resisted this pretension. And so the
Southern States, toward the Northern States, in the vital matter of
taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation
in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and
they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly
as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British
Parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes
laid by the Congress...have been laid with a view of subserving the
interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by
duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent
with revenue---to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interest in the
productions of their mines and manufactures.
The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit
of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected,
three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause...has
made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed;
they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural
productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of
the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our
foreign trade is almost annihilated....by gradual and steady
encroachments on the part of the people of the North, and
acquiescence on the part of the South, the limitations in the
Constitution have been swept away; and the Government of the United
States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in
its operations.
A majority in Congress, according to their interested and perverted
views, is omnipotent. Numbers with them, is the great element of
free Government. A majority is infallible and omnipotent. "The
divine right to rule in Kings," is only transferred to the majority.
The very object of all Constitutions, in free popular Government, is
to restrain the majority. Constitutions, therefore, according to
their theory, must be the most unrighteous inventions, restricting
liberty. None ought to exist; but the body politic ought simply to
have a political organization, to bring out and enforce the will of
the majority. This theory is a remorseless despotism."
(The Great Conspiracy, Its Origin and History, John A. Logan, A.R.
Hart & Company, 1886)
..........................................................................................
White Slavery, what the Scots already know
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/other/white_slavery.htm
Hey, Bernhard, I wonder if the English have a wing in their museum
to memorialize all the Scots that they enslaved??? I would be happy
to see a tiny memorial to the 25,000 kidnapped Scots they sent to
Barbados in chains to plant sugar cane. that 25,000 planted the
first sugar cane crop that resulted in the founding of the Mt. Gay
Rum distillery in 1703. That distillery produced the rum that
fueled the British side of the Atlantic Slave Trade. When you look
at the British Union Jack, you still see the beloved Cross of St.
Andrew of Scotland crushed under the oppressive weight of the Cross
of St. George! I've always said that "Political Correctness" can
cut both ways. Do the English really want to go there?
Jim Walters,
KTJ, FSA Scot,
Laird O ' Tha Haggis
The Caledonian Kitchen
www.caledoniankitchen.com
972-966-2040
...................................................................................................
More Forrest Firefighting
Dear Mrs. Stewart,
I was sadly disheartened after reading your opinion
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1178567/nathan_bedford_forrest_barack_obama.html?page=1&cat=8
about Lt Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest, and the Jax Fl HS bearing his
moniker.
Published opinions - yours included - only further the negative
racial stereotypes and add to compound the unity that America should
stand for.
As with my reply to your comment in the response box below your
opinion, I will add some info that is most important to this
situation.
I cannot make you read it, nor with it make you change your opinion
in any measure. However, with this information, I would strongly
urge you to examine it at your leisure and carefully weigh your
opinions and beliefs to the facts given thereunto.
If this info causes a new insight, great! Perhaps a public comment
would help set the record straight. Nelson Winbush of Florida - a
black man whose black ancestor rode as a confederate soldier with Lt
Gen NB Forrest, as well as Jim Ellis of Tennessee who is a
descendant of NBF just might appreciate it.
OK, here is the info needed to make I feel a fair and balanced
decision:
The Ku Klux Klan was founded in December 1865.
6 men were the founders, done in a law office in
Pulaski Tn.
1. Captain John C. Lester - Knight Hawk
2. Captain John B. Kennedy - Grand Magi
3. Frank O. McCord - Grand Cyclops
4. Calvin E. Jones - (son of Thomas M. Jones)
5. Richard R. Reed - Lictor
6. James R. Crowe - Grand Turk
Nathan Bedford Forrest is not listed as 1 of the 6
founders. However, while Forrest's name was used without his consent
for recruitment, he did publicly call for and had disbanded the KKK
in 1869. He was cleared from involvement in the KKK and any
'massacre at Ft Pillow" by the US Congress.
Here is the complete history of how and why the school is named for
the NBF
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022899/met_2b1Forre.html
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022899/nef_foley.html
Eyewitness accounts of Ft Pillow
"That Devil Forrest, The Life of Nathan Bedford Forrest"
John Allan Wyeth, Pages 322-324
"Major Booth, from all accounts an excellent and brave commander,
was dead. Major Bradford, evidently as stated by Major General S. A.
Hurlburt, “without experience”, had succeeded to command, and had
made the fatal error of giving his men free access to the liquor
with which the commissary of the fort was supplied. The sworn
testimony of a large number of honorable and trustworthy men
establishes this fact beyond contradiction. Forrest so stated this
fact, and Generals Chalmers and Bell, Colonels McCullough, Wisdom
and Barteau, and many more surviving Confederates swear that vessels
containing whiskey were distributed along the inside of the works,
with cups and dippers convenient for use. To those familiar with the
two classes, black and white, which composed the bulk of the private
soldiers in the garrison at Fort Pillow, and their fondness for
intoxicating drinks, especially so with the Negroes just free from
slavery, it will be readily be accepted that they did not fail to
take advantage of the opportunities here offered to drink to excess.
Their conduct during the truce and the insane resistance beneath the
bluff bear out the allegation that many were intoxicated.
Meanwhile it is the general testimony of the survivors that the
troops of the garrison, especially the colored soldiers who now had
mounted the parapet in considerable numbers, shouted to McCulloch’s
men, many of whom had come out from behind the barracks and houses
which concealed and protected them, daring them to try to take the
fort and hurling epithets at them couched in most obscene and
abusive terms and accompanied by gestures and actions not to be
described. If their officers made any effort to put a stop to this
unusual exhibition, it was without effect."
A portion of British General Viscount Wolseley's
estimate of Forrest, published in the 1892 April and May issues of
'United Service Magazine' of London:
"It is not my intention to enter here into the much vexed question
of Forrest's dealing with the garrison of Fort Pillow. The
story was told at the time in the Northern Press, with a skillful
seasoning of horrors which only those can equal who are accustomed
to prepare these sort of repasts for the public, or who have some
party object to accomplish. He reached the place at nine a.m.,
the 15th of April 1864, after a ride of about seventy-two miles
since six p,m, the previous evening, and having surrounded the
place, he duly summoned the commandant to surrender with the
garrison as prisoners of war. Negotiations followed, which
occupied some time, but led to no result. The signal for
assault, being then given, the place was quickly taken. There
was a heavy loss on both sides, but all things considered, including
the intense ill-feeling then existing between the men of Tennessee
who fought on one side and on the other, I do not think the fact
that about one-half the small garrison of a place taken by assault,
was either killed or wounded, evinced any very unusual
bloodthirstiness on the part of the assailants, The
unexpectedness of this blow, and the heavy loss in killed and
wounded it entailed, served much to increase Forrest's reputation as
a daring Cavalry leader, and to intensify the dread in which his
name was held far and near amongst his enemies."
Private John Milton, Co. E, Seventh Tennessee
Cavalry, published his 'Notes' in Memphis in 1909. Excerpt
about Fort Pillow:
"There was much talk when we got quietly settled in camp at Verona,
Miss., about the capture of Fort Pillow, an affair in which the
Seventh Tennessee, being on detached duty near Randolph, did not
participate. most of this was in regard to what seemed to be
the senseless conduct of the garrison after they must have seen that
the place was doomed. After the officer in command had refused
to comply with the demand to surrender and the whole Confederate
force moved on their works, the entire garrison, having left their
flag flying, fell back to a safer place under the bank of the river.
Much has been said by Northern writers concerning what they term an
unnecessary slaughter. It should be remembered that this same
garrison of both whites and negroes had committed numerous outrages
upon the people of the surrounding country. These things had
come to the ears of the Confederates and many of the victims had
petitioned Forrest to avenge their wrongs by breaking up what
appeared to be a den o thieves and marauders. Howbeit, part of
them were Tennesseans. Add to all this, that the garrison had
been lavishly stimulated with whisky, as was evident from the fact
that a number of barrels of whisky and beer with tin dippers
attached were bound by the Confederates, and it is not hard to see
why there was unnecessary slaughter. The incident could be
dismissed by saying that those within the fort knew that they
deserved condign punishment because of the outrages committed on
innocent people, and being somewhat in a state of intoxication, were
incited to resist to the last extremity, while the Confederates were
incited to victory by every instinct that impels a manly soldier to
resent an insult and to protect the innocent. If General
Forrest had no other victory to his credit, his fame would be
secure."
Here is the link to the 1871 US Congressional Hearing of N.B.Forrest. Pages
3 - 41.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=moa;idno=ACA4911.0013.001;rgn=full%20text;view=toc;cc=moa
Lt General NB Forrest’s farewell speech to his troops:
Confederate Correspondence, Orders, And Returns Relating To
Operations In Kentucky, Southwestern Virginia, Tennessee, Northern
And Central Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, And West Florida, From
March 16 To June 30, 1865.--#8
O.R.--SERIES I--VOLUME XLIX/2 [S# 104]
HEADQUARTERS FORREST'S CAVALRY CORPS,
Gainesville, Ala., May 9, 1865.
SOLDIERS: By an agreement made between Lieutenant-General Taylor,
commanding the Department of Alabama, Mississippi, and East
Louisiana, and Major-General Canby, commanding U.S. forces, the
troops of this department have been surrendered. I do not think it
proper or necessary at this time to refer to the causes which have
reduced us to this extremity, nor is it now a matter of material
consequence to us how such results were brought about. That we are
beaten is a self-evident fact, and any further resistance on our
part would be justly regarded as the very height of folly and
rashness. The armies of Generals Lee and Johnston having
surrendered, you are the last of all the troops of the C. S. Army
east of the Mississippi River to lay down your arms. The cause for
which you have so long and so manfully struggled, and for which you
have braved dangers, endured privations and sufferings, and made so
many sacrifices, is to-day hopeless. The Government which we sought
to establish and perpetuate is at an end. Reason dictates and
humanity demands that no more blood be shed. Fully realizing and
feeling that such is the case, it is your duty and mine to lay down
our arms, submit to the "powers that be," and to aid in restoring
peace and establishing law and order throughout the land. The terms
upon which you were surrendered are favorable, and should be
satisfactory and acceptable to all. They manifest a spirit of
magnanimity and liberality on the part of the Federal authorities
which should be met on our part by a faithful compliance with all
the stipulations and conditions therein expressed. As your
commander, I sincerely hope that every officer and soldier of my
command will cheerfully obey the orders given and carry out in good
faith all the terms of the cartel.
Those who neglect the terms and refuse to be paroled may assuredly
expect when arrested to be sent North and imprisoned. Let those who
are absent from their commands, from whatever cause, report at once
to this place or to Jackson, Miss.; or, if too remote from either,
to the nearest U.S. post or garrison for parole. Civil war, such as
you have just passed through, naturally engenders feelings of
animosity, hatred, and revenge. It is our duty to divest ourselves
of all such feelings, and so far as in our power to do so to
cultivate friendly feelings toward those with whom we have so long
contested and heretofore so widely but honestly differed.
Neighborhood feuds, personal animosities, and private differences
should be blotted out, and when you return home a manly,
straightforward course of conduct will secure the respect even of
your enemies. Whatever your responsibilities may be to Government,
to society, or to individuals, meet them like men. The attempt made
to establish a separate and independent confederation has failed,
but the consciousness of having done your duty faithfully and to the
end will in some measure repay for the hardships you have undergone.
In bidding you farewell, rest assured that you carry with you my
best wishes for your future welfare and happiness. Without in any
way referring to the merits of the cause in which we have been
engaged, your courage and determination as exhibited on many
hard-fought fields has elicited the respect and admiration of friend
and foe. And I now cheerfully and gratefully acknowledge my
indebtedness to the officers and men of my command, whose zeal,
fidelity, and unflinching bravery have been the great source of my
past success in arms. I have never on the field of battle sent you
where I was unwilling to go myself, nor would I now advise you to a
course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue. You have been good
soldiers, you can be good citizens. Obey the laws, preserve your
honor, and the Government to which you have surrendered can afford
to be and will be magnanimous.
N. B. FORREST,
Lieutenant-General.
And finally, NB Forrest's speech to blacks:
Memphis Daily Avalanche, July 6, 1875, 1.
"July 4, 1875 - Memphis, Tennessee -
Miss Lou Lewis was introduced to General Forrest then presented him
with a bouquet of flowers and said: 'Mr. Forrest — allow me to
present you this bouquet as a token of reconciliation, an offering
of peace and good will.'
Gen. Forrest received the flowers with a bow, and replied:
'Miss Lewis, ladies and gentlemen — I accept these flowers as a
token of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the
South. I accept them more particularly, since they come from a
colored lady, for if there is any one on God's great earth who loves
the ladies, it is myself.
'This is a proud day for me. Having occupied the position I have for
thirteen years, and being misunderstood by the colored race, I take
this occasion to say that I am your friend. I am here as the
representative of the Southern people — one that has been more
maligned than any other.
'I assure you that every man who was in the Confederate army is your
friend. We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, live in
the same land, and why should we not be brothers and sisters.
'When the war broke out I believed it to be my duty to fight for my
country, and I did so. I came here with the jeers and sneers of a
few white people, who did not think it right. I think it is right,
and will do all I can to bring about harmony, peace and unity. I
want to elevate every man, and to see you take your places in your
shops, stores and offices.
'I don't propose to say anything about politics, but I want you to
do as I do — go to the polls and select the best men to vote for. I
feel that you are free men, I am a free man, and we can do as we
please. I came here as a friend and whenever I can serve any of you
I will do so.
'We have one Union, one flag, one country; therefore, let us stand
together. Although we differ in color, we should not differ in
sentiment.
'Many things have been said in regard to myself, and many reports
circulated, which may perhaps be believed by some of you, but there
are many around me who can contradict them. I have been many times
in the heat of battle — oftener, perhaps, than any within the sound
of my voice. Men have come to me to ask for quarter, both black and
white, and I have shielded them.
'Do your duty as citizens, and if any are oppressed, I will be your
friend. I thank you for the flowers, and assure you that I am with
you in heart and hand.'"
I will offer you my email address
cobbslegionscvscv@hotmail.com if you wish a civil dialogue. I
only seek truth and understanding of historical fact.
I thank you for your time.
God Bless
Billy Bearden
Victory: School Board Keeps Nathan B. Forrest High School's
Name
Lovers of the South, we had a great victory last
Monday, November 3rd, here in Jacksonville, Florida, CSA. The Duval
County School Board voted 5-2 to retain the name of Nathan B.
Forrest High School. Tremendous pressure had been placed on the
Board over the past two years to change the school's name.
Please accept my grateful thanks to all of you who wrote and called
School Board members or spoke at the meetings on behalf of our
Southern heritage and history. Your efforts made the victory
possible. I admit I was very worried that we would lose this one
because several of the Board members are about to retire or cannot
run again due to term limits; they would not have to answer to
voters. Instead, they listened and remembered their history.
In today's Sunday Florida Times-Union, there is a front page story
on the decision. (See
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/110908/met_353875219.shtml
) According to it, our Mayor John Peyton, Executive V.P. of the
Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce Jerry Mallot, and Public
Relations guru Michael Munz are unhappy with the decision. If you
like, you can contact them at:
Mayor John Peyton
City Hall
117 W. Duval St.
Jacksonville, FL 32202
(904) 630-1776
Email: jpeyton@coj.net
Mr. Jerry Mallett, Executive Vice President
Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce
5000 Norwood Ave.
Jacksonville, FL 32208
(904) 366.6654
Email:
jerry.mallot@jacksonvillechamber.org
Mr. Michael Munz
Dalton Agency
140 W. Monroe St., Ste. 200
Jacksonville, FL 32202
(904) 398-5222
FAX: (904) 398-5220
As Jesus told us, we must be ever vigilant for the enemy lurks
around waiting to devour. Nothing could be truer than with the name
of Nathan B. Forrest High School here. Every few years, we have to
refight this battle. I will keep you posted as to any future
developments.
Again, thank you for all your hard work and support. Be blessed --
Deo Vindice, Sue
................................................................................
Late in the war, when the Confederates were short on
troops, Gen. Pat Cleburne and others wanted to free slaves to fight.
Well, the Confederate Congress DID in fact pass a
law and raise black troops. But then blacks were already serving in
the CS Army anyway.
Senate Bill, No. 190.
A Bill to Provide for Raising Two Hundred Thousand Negro Troops
1 SECTION 1. The Congress of the Confederate States of
America
2 do enact, That the President of the Confederate States be
3 and he is hereby authorized to receive into the military service,
4 any number of Negro troops not to exceed two hundred thousand.
1 SEC. 2. That the President be and he is
authorized, to assign
2 officers already appointed, or make appointments of officers, to
3 raise and command said troops; and the same, when raised,
4 shall be organized as provided under existing laws.
..................................................................................
"If they
had behaved differently; if they had come against us observing strict
discipline, protecting women and children, respecting private property
and proclaiming as their only object the putting down of armed
resistance to the Federal Government, we should have found it perhaps
more difficult to prevail against them.
But they could not help showing their cruelty and rapacity, they could
not dissemble their true nature, which is the real cause of this war.
If they had been capable of acting otherwise, they would not have been
Yankees, and we should never have quarreled with them."
-- Judah P. Benjamin, Confederate Secretary of War
|
