The Grande Experiment

I was watching the making-of Special Feature of the movie Gettysburg. The narrator said, “This grande experiment of the United States of America was on the brink of complete and desperate failure that summer of 1863.” I've heard that expressed before, but something never occurred to me until now. The right to secede, as we have seen, was established and provided for in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. According to common accounts, the “experiment” would have been deemed a failure had the south won independence. I put it to you: the experiment was a failure because the south did not win independence. The intent of the founding fathers was plain in the design of the new government: that it never become a tyrant's yoke upon the shoulders of the unwilling. From its birth in the minds of its architects it derived its authority from the consent of the governed, and should that consent ever be withdrawn, they (the governed) were charged with the duty to separate and form a new government. Had the southern states been allowed to do that peacefully and without obstruction from Mr. Lincoln and his Federal army, then we could have termed the grande experiment a success.

Rebel Pride

Imagine with me for a moment . . .

A New York newspaper reports:

APRIL 1861  Relations between the Federal government in Washington D.C. and the newly formed Confederate government in Richmond, Virginia, continue to be strained. President Lincoln continues, however, to seek a peaceful solution and an amicable separation for the disgruntled Southern nation. Having no wish to part on hostile terms, Mr. Lincoln is working hard to insure that the newly independent South will be peaceful neighbors and allies now that they have disassociated themselves from the Union. Delaware remains a prickly subject, however, since it is decidedly pro-slavery, and equally decidedly within the Federal demesne. The Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, has demanded a swift and equitable solution for the Confederacy's “isolated and beleaguered kin”.

AUGUST 1861 A proposed Constitutional Amendment was introduced into Congress earlier this week that proposes immediate freedom for all slaves currently held in Federal jurisdictions. This amendment would also outlaw the institution in all states currently in the Union, as well as any territories seeking statehood. By all accounts, this amendment should pass swiftly, and, it is expected, quickly pass through the ratification process as well. This proposal lends a new urgency to the so-called “Delaware Crisis”. Delaware, which remains a part of the United States, is openly pro-slavery. It is, however, politically aligned with the government in Richmond, and is cut-off from them geographically by many hundreds of miles. The state is unwilling to secede for fear of Federal reprisal and its isolated condition.

OCTOBER 1861 As the Anti-slavery Amendment continues to pass ratification, another potential solution to the Delaware Crisis fails to satisfy the Confederate government in Richmond. The Confederates are not wavering in their demand for a 50-mile wide corridor from Virginia to Delaware. The lands within the corridor, according to demands, would be sovereign Southern territory, including any cities, farms, or industries. As may be expected, President Lincoln has no intentions of acquiescing to this demand, and has offered numerous compromises, to no avail. Tensions continue to grow, as with each state that ratifies the amendment more Confederate troops drift toward the Virginia-Maryland border.

JANUARY 1862 The Delaware Crisis reached full boil this week as the final state needed for ratification of the Anti-slavery amendment was heard. Delaware immediately announced its secession, while simultaneously wiring the Confederate government for assistance. Unyielding on the topic of abolition, President Lincoln declined to recognize Delaware's secession, being unwilling to have a slave-state within his borders. Even one that was ostensibly part of another nation. Federal troops have been sent to the tiny state in order to insure that the new law is properly followed. The government in Richmond has vowed to secure Delaware's sovereignty, by force, if necessary, declaring that no foreign power shall enact legislation within its borders or against its states.

     In a statement made from his office in the Confederate capitol, Jefferson Davis said, “We fully support Delaware's right to maintain slavery as a necessary component of its economy. Having heard Delaware's petition to enter our Confederacy, we welcome that state as a brother, equal in rights to Virginia or South Carolina, or any other state of our country. We  shall strive by all means available to us, including military action if necessary, to come to the aid of the good people of Delaware and secure their right to maintain that integral part of the functioning of their economy, namely the institution of slavery.”

MARCH 1862 Confederate troops, with the ultimate goal of perpetuating slavery in Delaware, crossed the border into Maryland today. . .

Now, that would have been a war about slavery. A Confederacy that fought that war would have richly deserved to be remembered as contemptible. Of course, that isn't remotely close to the truth. So, why are we in the South repeatedly told that we descend from a racist heritage? We are swiftly vilified should any image we bear, whether a tattoo, t-shirt, flag, or school mascot, depict an image associated with a Confederate south. If we express any degree of pride in our heritage we are instantly, and without need of further evidence, labeled “racist”. In fact, it doesn't have to be an image of the “Confederate” south. Any association with the south qualifies.

Think about it. Germans can be proud to be Germans, even though in their past they exterminated millions. It is fine for Japanese to take pride in their heroism in WWII (Clint Eastwood even made a movie celebrating it), even though they launched an unprovoked sneak attack that cost thousands of American servicemen their lives. We're even tip-toeing around Muslims, trying to foster mutual goodwill and understanding designed to prevent our prejudging of them, even though it was Muslims that brought down the Twin Towers. They are free to practice their cultural traditions, such as veils and turbans, and it isn't right to judge them for their association with the bombers. But let me fly a confederate flag and watch the labels start flying.

Don't believe me? Take a drive to Oxford, MS, some Saturday afternoon this Fall. Take in a football game at Ole Miss while you're there. Gone is the Colonel Rebel mascot walking the sidelines. No longer will you see flags waving that bear any portion of the Confederate battle flag. These were deemed to conjure images of Mississippi's Civil War racist past.

Colonel Rebel

Ole Miss Rebel Pride Flag - Now out of favor

New Less-offensive Flag (No mention of "Pride")

(Incidentally, slavery was not about racism. The Negroes were slaves because they were available. If Spaniards had been selling each other into slavery, the slaves would have been Spanish. However, the cold truth of it is that it was the Africans selling each other into bondage, so the slaves were Negroes. It isn't as if there were hundreds of thousands of free blacks living in the south and one day it was decided that they were inferior because they were black and so they were pressed into slavery. Racism came later, after they were enslaved, not before.)

So, back to Mississippi. The school decided it was impossible to move forward with such a despicable and backward-looking mascot to lead them. They became concerned that black students may be so insulted by these things that they would pass Ole Miss right on by. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that the way to attract students is by hiring top-shelf faculty, constructing the finest facilities, and offering world-recognized degree programs, rather than trying to make sure the school's mascot is as PC and inoffensive as possible. My chief concern when selecting an institute of higher learning will be the quality of my education and not insuring that my social sensitivities won't be offended.

One last point do I impose on your kind indulgence. Imagine a school whose team was called the Kamikazes, they had a samurai mascot stalking the sidelines, and the team flag had as one of its components a “rising sun” as used by the Japanese military in WWII. One of two things would have come out of it:

1)                  Japanese people would be offended and demand that their heritage not be reduced to a caricature for use as a mascot;

2)                  It would be deemed offensive by Americans who remember WWII. They would petition for it to all be changed. A Japanese group would find out about it and raise a stink about being denied their cultural heritage.

But because the Cult of Lincoln has colored and slanted history as they have, not only is it impossible for me to express pride in my heritage, it is also impossible for me to defend my desire and right to do so. Impossible, at least, without being labeled.

Doubleheader

Well, it has been a while since I made a substantive post, so I thought I would reward your patience with two such: Declaration and Independence is an examination of the Declaration of Independence, Aristocrats and Industrialists is my thoughts on Southern aristocracy. The first one is a little long, so don't forget the second. I hope you enjoy them as much as I enjoyed writing them.

Declaration and Independence (A Longish Post)

I know I said I was going to be presenting some other things, but something came up. I had some time on my hands and was doing some reading at Barnes & Noble (something called The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War, I think). The author was discussing the Declaration of Independence as it related to the constitutionality of secession. I was amazed and embarrassed that I had overlooked the Declaration when I broke down the Constitution. For brevity's sake I am going to dispense with many of the grievances against King George. The pertinent points will be bold. My comments will be red italics.

The Declaration of Independence

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

This document leaves no doubt that the Confederate states not only had the right to secede from the Union, they had the duty to do so. I have to be honest. In my heart, I have always known two things: the war was not about slavery, and the South had the legal right to secede. It is one thing to know something because your heart believes it, it is quite another to be confronted with absolute vindication for your faith. To see the South's rights spelled out so concisely by the founding fathers is very moving to me. It is made clear through this document that the South had a very solid legal foundation upon which to base its secession. From the outset, the states were given the right of self determination.

Some specific points I would like to address:

Several of the Colonials' grievances with King George are being repeated by the Federal government upon the southern states. Please note that, as with the Colonials, some of these grievances were occurring once war broke out, and not necessarily as a prelude to war:

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation

The government of the United States took upon itself to attempt to enact and enforce what was essentially a law (though it was termed a “war measure”) on a foreign power. Namely, the Emancipation Proclamation, which had no effect on US lands or peoples, but was intended to be enacted against “those states in rebellion”. How would we handle it now if France passed a law in America that made it illegal to own a gun, and sent french soldiers here to enforce it? That would get real ugly, real quick.

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world

Technically, not completely cut off, but the protectionist tariffs of the early-to-mid 19^th century achieved virtually the same effect economically. The taxes on cheaper and higher quality goods from Europe essentially priced them beyond the reach of most Southerners, which forced them to rely on expensive, inferior goods of northern manufacture.

Incidentally, slavery was just as morally wrong in 1820 as it was in 1862, so why was it tolerated before the war? The tariffs, that's why. The northern textile barons did not waste one minute worrying about the plight of the Negro as long as his looms were getting a steady supply of southern cotton that he could weave and ship overseas, shipments that were protected and secured by the tariffs.

For imposing taxes on us without our consent

These taxes being the protectionist tariffs previously mentioned.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury

The case of John Merryman of Maryland. He was arrested and held without formal charges, having his right of Habeus Corpus completely ignored, on orders of President Lincoln. When Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Taney found out about it, he declared Merryman's detention unconstitutional and ordered him released. He wasn't, and Lincoln ordered that Taney be arrested. He never was, fortunately for him.

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments

The states, under the constitution, were plainly given the right to secede. They did so, wrote their own constitution and devised their own government, under which they operated. The Federal government usurped their right of secession and denied their government. Not only did the Federal government abolish Confederate laws and attempt to alter Confederate government, by denying the right to secession, it abolished its own laws and altered its own government.

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever

This ties in with the first grievance I have above. The Federal government did assume upon itself the authority to legislate laws to be enforced on foreign soil. Of course, Lincoln did not consider the Confederacy foreign soil. He refused to recognize the Confederacy as a political entity. However, self-assumed ignorance does not entitle one to acts of belligerence.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

These two, for my purposes, should be considered together. They are, by far, the most egregious of the lot. Imagine this: the county where you live decides, for whatever reason, that the state government is no longer operating in its best interest. It decides it wants to be its own state. Now, this county just happens to have something of vital economic interest within its borders, so your state is opposed to this. Rather than attempting to find a diplomatic solution, though, the governor calls up the National Guard. Within a few days tanks come over the county line, blasting everything in sight, planes fly overhead raining bombs, and soldiers are running riot through your county looting and burning. Does that seem at all like a reasonable response?

Of course not. The unreasoning savagery of it is brought into even sharper focus by the fact that the Southern states were constitutionally empowered to leave the Union. They sought a peaceful separation from a government they no longer felt operated in their best interests. They simply wanted to go their own way. Their actions were completely in keeping with the letter and spirit of the constitution. Virtually nothing that Lincoln did to “restore the Union” had any constitutional authority.

Lincoln's armies, under his authority as commander-in-chief, murdered, and otherwise destroyed, the lives and livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Southerners, whites and blacks, free and slave. There were also many Northern families destroyed by the loss of fathers and husbands, providers and bread-winners of families. Rather than be remembered as a national hero and one of our greatest presidents, Lincoln should be remembered as one of the worst tyrants of the 19^th century and posthumously tried as a war criminal. His actions were a disgrace to what should be an honorable, dignified office.

I truly believe, based on precedents already established in recent history, that the former Confederate states as a whole, and individual should receive an official government apology for the crimes committed against them. We, as Southerners, are entitled to this every bit as much as Holocaust survivors or the descendants of former slaves. We were illegally stripped of our constitutional rights of self-determination and forced to submit to foreign rule. How does that differ, in essence, from events in the Balkans states or the various states of the former Soviet Union that seek their independence from Russia? Yet the world sympathizes with them. How did Lincoln's actions differ from the dictators in those areas, dictators who are considered war criminals by the court of public opinion? Lincoln should assume his rightful place among them, and the South is owed an apology.

Aristocrats and Industrialists

I fancy myself something of a self-educated, amateur historian. I always try to present the historical materials upon which I am commenting so that the reader can draw his or her own conclusions, independent of mine. There is something, however, I wish to comment on without being able to follow that format. I haven't seen anything speaking directly to the point on this topic (yet), I have only caught “glimpses” of it in different sources.

I have developed the impression, through experience with multiple media, that the South and Southern way of life was likened to the English aristocracy. Unfortunately, the only source I can cite for this is The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara, and the movie Gettysburg, based on that work. The character, Buster Kilrain, goes into a speech about wanting to be judged on his own merit, not based on who his father was, nor wanting someone to be counted superior to him based on his lineage, like it was in the Old Country. He went on to say that he personally was fighting the war for the cause of justice, and to put a stop to the aristocracy, the “stinking plumed chivalry”, which he associated with the Confederacy. Little references like that keep catching my attention, but not enough singly, which would be easier to cite. It does seem, though, that they have accumulated enough mass to get me thinking.

I would not want to live in any sort of feudal or caste system. I want to rise or fall by my own hand, and God's will for me, not due to a circumstance of birth. I think a gentle aristocracy, one that promotes honor and moral virtue, is not a bad thing, though. One where the strong feel a natural and genuine responsibility for the weak or misfortuned. However, it must be attainable and not the province of a privileged minority.  But the Confederacy lost, and with it was lost that ideal of a just and decent aristocracy.

In the movie Gods and Generals, Jackson is talking to Stuart, explaining to him his feelings on the war. Jackson says, “If the North triumphs, it is not alone the destruction of our property. It is the . . . end of free and responsible government on this continent. It is the triumph of commerce, the banks, factories.” I have no idea if, historically, that is a direct quote or conjecture, but it isn't important either way. What is important is the truth of it.

We live in a modern interpretation of a feudal system. The notable difference being that the “nobility” in our case bears no responsibility for the “commoners”. We are exploited at almost every turn. S&L bailouts, corporate bankruptcies that are then “saved” by the government. The military being used to provide security, not for the welfare of the citizenry, but security for the welfare of corporate profit. In the feudal ideal the commoners provided for the day-to-day function of life on the medieval manor, while the lord provided for the common defense, enforced the laws of the land, and ruled impartially on civil disputes. Ideally, it was a symbiotic relationship.

The aristocracy of the Old South was based on family lineage, and one's attitudes toward honor and duty. Wealth may have played a part, but was not significant. A.P. Hill was courageous, a fine division commander, and wealthy, but he never broke into the Virginia aristocracy, though he greatly desired to take his place among them. So, perhaps lineage was most important. I am only speculating, I am not read on this particular topic. At any rate, the Southern Gentlemen were keenly aware of their duty to their respective sovereign states, and thus to the Confederacy. They were honor-bound to that duty, and considered it a privilege to bear it. It wasn't only the generals, the entire army carried their duty to home and family with pride and dignity, from the drummer boy on up.

Now, I put it to you: Would such an aristocracy, bore with honor, humility, and a sense of duty to home, family, and those dependent upon you be so terrible a thing? We now find ourselves living in a system where the common citizenry is brazenly exploited for the benefit of an elite minority. Families lose their homes, see their children living on the street, while executives from bankrupt corporations are spending tens of thousands of dollars on vacations. Decent, hard-working people forced to live in fear because their neighborhood isn't “important” enough to keep crime in check. Meanwhile, the army, the United States Army, is providing security for oil field workers in a country that isn't even ours (technically). The same oil field workers, by the way, that are making 4 to 5 times as much money as the young soldiers that have been ordered to take a bullet for them.

Make no mistake: corporate interests rule this country. Period. Would a Southern aristocracy have been any better 5 or 6 generations later? Who knows? We can make educated guesses and predictions, but we will never know.  We do know, though, how Jackson's predicted  “ . . . triumph of commerce, the banks, factories” turned out. All in all, I think I would prefer taking my chances with the aristocracy.

A Personal Note

Not much of a post after such a delay, I know. I was very excited, as yesterday I found a copy of Killer Angels in a thrift store for 75 cents. I've never read it and I am enjoying it immensely.

A Whole New Month

So far we have spent quite a bit of effort exploding some myths surrounding the cause of the war. The subtitle of the blog concerns unpopular truths. We are going to head off in a new direction, you and I, and examine some unpopular truths concerning the quality and way of life for blacks during the war. I will expose the bigotry and racism that pervaded the Union, from the common soldier all the way up to Mr. Lincoln himself. We will pierce the veil of misconception to discover the true lot of the Southern blacks, both slave and free. That's right: free. There were free blacks living in the south during the war. Some voluntarily served in the Confederate army, some even owned black slaves. All this and more, coming soon, so stay tuned . . .

The Prayer of Twenty Millions - Comments/Analysis

Greeley's entire premise for his letter is simple: Enforce the Second Confiscation Act. His letter is mainly concerned with the fact that Union generals and other officers are ignoring a law that was duly passed. He gives example of a group of fugitive slaves who made their way to New Orleans, which under the terms of the Act should have been a safe haven. Yet, rather than being declared free and allowed to pursue gainful employment, they were set upon “maimed, captured, and killed”. This at the hands of Union troops.

                Even though he is an abolitionist, Greeley's letter does not spend much effort in trying to convince Lincoln to take stronger steps toward abolishing slavery. He is simply admonishing Lincoln to do his job: enforce the duly and properly enacted laws of the land. He is not urging him to do more, and, apart from the example from New Orleans, does not lament the state of negroes held in bondage. His letter has a point, and for the most part, stays focused on that point. The point of his letter is not the freeing of the slaves, as one  may be led to wrongfully conclude from Lincoln's reply.

Lincoln's reply, like Greeley's letter, is to the point. Curiously, it is not a point that bears any relation to the letter to which it replies. Nonetheless, in late August of 1862, Lincoln stated unequivocally that freeing the slaves was not a war aim. In fact, if he could achieve his goal of restoring the Union without freeing any slaves, he would have done so. “ If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it . . .” That brings up an interesting question: How much longer would slavery have lasted if the Confederates had lost Bull Run and the war ended in 1861? Personally, Lincoln abhorred slavery, but he felt he did not have the constitutional  authority to outlaw it. So, as of 1861, had the war ended then, the most recent piece of slavery legislation was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Would the Northern man on the street really care enough about slaves if the war had ended then and the collective way of life not been disrupted? Imagine if all the boys came home a few months after it all started and the war was over with fewer than 1000 casualties. It is doubtful that Reconstruction would have been as it truly was, so the South would have remained largely intact. The Emancipation Proclamation could not have been enacted as a war measure, it would have had to go through a ratification process, being championed by a president who felt he had no authority to do it. It would have had to pass ratification against an intact South, rather than a reconstructed South being overseen by carpetbaggers. A dismal scenario for the abolitionists.

                But, that is all pure speculation. The fact of this reply to Greeley's letter remains: freeing the slaves was not Lincoln's objective for the war. It was not even one of his objectives.

A Quick Thought

I was watching Gods and Generals the other day. The scene came up where the character of Union Col. Chamberlain was explaining to his brother that an army is power, that its sole purpose is to force an opponent to submit to its will through coercion. He went on to say something about how could the Confederacy be claiming to fight for its freedom while they were willing to continue the institution of slavery. He felt that holding slaves invalidated the South's claim to be fighting for freedom.

Yet, in order to free the slaves, he was more than happy to deny the South the right to be free of the Federal government. He was fighting to deny the Confederate states the right to self-determination regarding secession through the use of the coercive army, all the while claiming the South had no right to be free because it was denying a group their freedom. That smacks of hypocrisy.

Objectives and Agendas

Until now my format has been to introduce you to a historical document and some days later post my opinion and analysis. This post, however, is strictly my thoughts. I am not abandoning the other format, just doing something a little different.

I was ruminating the other day about conflicts the United States has been in, our reasons for being in them, and the ultimate outcome. Consider:

•                     We entered WWI in 1917, with the goal of stopping Germany and its allies. Once we had accomplished that, removed the kaiser from power, and secured the Treaty of Versailles, we came home.

•                     In 1941, we went to war with Germany, again. Once again, we stopped the Germans, along with their new allies, and removed the German leader. Those goals secured, we came home.

•                     In 1990, Saddam Hussein ordered his Iraqi army into Kuwait. We led an overwhelming coalition against him, liberated Kuwait, and restored order in the region (relatively speaking). Then, we packed up our tanks, planes, and guns, and came home.

In each case, the United States achieved its military objectives (which in each case was essentially to liberate a group of people from some sort of tyrannical situation), and left. We left each of these places, the first two we saw to it that they democratically elected new leadership, and in the case of Kuwait, we restored their former leadership. In each case we left them to determine their own future, to chart their own course, as they each saw fit. We did not annex, occupy, or colonize.

If, IF, we are to believe that the War of Northern Aggression truly was fought to free the slaves, why did the United States military continue to occupy the South, even to this very day? Now, before somebody wants to point out that I am comparing 20^th century policy to 19^th century policy, I understand that I am indeed doing that very thing. The point is that once the Confederacy came to the peace table, the slaves were free. Mission accomplished. Occupation was not required. Unless, of course, freeing the slaves was not the objective.

Which, indeed, it was not. The objective was preservation of the Union. There was also a more sinister goal, one not talked about. With the re-absorbtion of the Confederate states, the United States went from being a Union of free, autonomous states, to being a nation of subject states subservient to a strong central government. That was the beginning of a movement that ultimately culminated in a virtually all-powerful United States president unilaterally declaring war against a country that had never attacked us and posed no appreciable threat to us. It was the opening volley against our system of checks and balances and the departmentalization of our government. It all started in April of 1865 with the death of states' rights. The hidden agenda, the secret objective, of the War of Northern Aggression. 

The Prayer of Twenty Millions - Introduction

       On August 19, 1862, Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, published an open letter, entitled The Prayer of Twenty Millions, urging  Lincoln to free the slaves. Mr. Greeley held the opinion, as did many, that given the Confederacy's dependence on slave labor, emancipation of the slaves would strike a telling blow to the Southern economy.  In response to the editorial, Lincoln stated that his main purpose was to preserve the Union, and, to achieve that goal, he was prepared to free none, some, or all of the slaves, as the ultimate goal demanded.  Lincoln's cabinet had already been in discussion concerning the Emancipation Proclamation, since July.  Lincoln had decided to await a Union victory on the battlefield before issuing his proclamation. He believed it was necessary to issue the Proclamation from a position of strength, such as following a great victory. Linked at left is Greeley's original article as published and directly following that is Lincoln's reply. As always, my analysis and commentary will follow later this week.

Disclaimer for June

I have said before, and plainly, that slavery is an abomination and should never be tolerated, no matter where it be found. I would never desire nor propose, neither directly nor obtusely, a return of that vile institution. My goal here has always been to educate, to dispel misconceptions fostered and nurtured since the time of the Reconstruction, to renounce the false teachings we have been burdened with since elementary school, and to present the heritage of my home in a truer light. The belligerence propagated against the South was not initiated to free slaves. Mr. Lincoln made it a war goal, certainly, but not until the war had been underway for a year and a half. I believe it may be easy to become side-tracked into thinking I am arguing for slavery here, and I want to avoid such side-tracking. I am very passionate about this topic, and that passion may lead to misconceptions concerning my intent. I am a son of the South, born and bred. I greatly desire to return to my heritage the pride which is its due. Yet, before I may do that I must demonstrate that the United States did not enter the war for the purpose of freeing slaves, and, by extension, that the Confederacy was not fighting to keep slaves. The war was not about slavery.

Due to the volatility of my topic each month I will make disclaimers such as this, to insure that my purpose and goal are never misconstrued. I will do this each month so that the disclaimer does not get lost in the archive. I ask for your  kind indulgence in this. Thank you.

Second Confiscation Act - Analysis and Commentary

CHAP. CXCV.–An Act to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other Purposes.

“An Act . . . to punish . . ." I am no attorney, nor am I an authority on Constitutional matters. I have always understood that laws were in place to establish intolerable behavior. Obvously a primary component of a system of law is to set forth the just punishments to be visited upon those who ignore the laws. It strikes me as particularly inflammatory that this Act is itself intended to punish, not to simply establish the behaviors which would result in punishment.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every person who shall hereafter commit the crime of treason against the United States, and shall be adjudged guilty thereof, shall suffer death, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free; or, at the discretion of the court, he shall be imprisoned for not less than five years and fined not less than ten thousand dollars, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free; said fine shall be levied and collected on any or all of the property, real and personal, excluding slaves, of which the said person so convicted was the owner at the time of committing the said crime, any sale or conveyance to the contrary notwithstanding.

Death, or imprisonment for not less than 5 years. Let me say again: I  am no attorney. This type of range of punishments may well be common. It just strikes me as odd that the allowable punishment could be anything from 5 years of your life, up to your very life itself. I believe that is an opportunity for humanity (see Sec 13). The whole point of this Act is to establish a legal basis under which to free slaves. Up to this point (as we shall see in coming entries) Lincoln did not believe he had the Constitutional right to outlaw slavery. This was a “work-around”, since it is well-established that personal property can be made forfeit as legal punishment.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years, or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the discretion of the court.

Another opportunity to free slaves as a punishment under law, rather than as a (dubious, as Lincoln feels) Constitutional amendment.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That every person guilty of either of the offences described in this act shall be forever incapable and disqualified to hold any office under the United States.

I suppose this was intended to be a deterrent to those Southerners with political aspirations, post-war. As I write this, though, another possibility occurs to me. Was this early groundwork for Reconctruction? It precludes any possibility that any Southerners would have any say in the planning, direction, or execution of Reconstruction. That would certainly be desirous, and in a certain perverse way, poetic. One of the South's chief goals for the war was self-determination. By virtue of this section of this Act, a defeated South would be denied any voice in determining its post-war recovery and conduct.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall not be construed in any way to affect or alter the prosecution, conviction, or punishment of any person or persons guilty of treason against the United States before the passage of this act, unless such person is convicted under this act.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That, to insure the speedy termination of the present rebellion, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States to cause the seizure of all the estate and property, money, stocks, credits, and effects of the persons hereinafter named in this section, and to apply and use the same and the proceeds thereof for the support of the army of the United States, that is to say:

First. Of any person hereafter acting as an officer of the army or navy of the rebels in arms against the government of the United States.

Secondly. Of any person hereafter acting as President, Vice-President, member of Congress, judge of any court, cabinet officer, foreign minister, commissioner or consul of the so-called confederate states of America.

Thirdly. Of any person acting as governor of a state, member of a convention or legislature, or judge of any court of any of the so-called confederate states of America.

Fourthly. Of any person who, having held an office of honor, trust, or profit in the United States, shall hereafter hold an office in the so-called confederate states of America.

Fifthly. Of any person hereafter holding any office or agency under the government of the so-called confederate states of America, or under any of the several states of the said confederacy, or the laws thereof, whether such office or agency be national, state, or municipal in its name or character: Provided, That the persons, thirdly, fourthly, and fifthly above described shall have accepted their appointment or election since the date of the pretended ordinance of secession of the state, or shall have taken an oath of allegiance to, or to support the constitution of the so-called confederate states.

Sixthly. Of any person who, owning property in any loyal State or Territory of the United States, or in the District of Columbia, shall hereafter assist and give aid and comfort to such rebellion; and all sales, transfers, or conveyances of any such property shall be null and void; and it shall be a sufficient bar to any suit brought by such person for the possession or the use of such property, or any of it, to allege and prove that he is one of the persons described in this section.

Unless I am missing something (always a possibility), this entire section establishes who may be held accountable under this Act. The most interesting part of this, by far, is that the Confederacy is specifically referred to by name, “the so-called confederate states of America”. So, however inadvertantly or sarcastically it may have occurred, the federal government in Washington acknowledged that the states in cesession were indeed a nation. It is specifically mentioned that the confederacy has a constitution, “ . . . support the constitution of the so-called confederate states . . .”. So, significantly to me, and for the first time to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, the federal government clearly acknowledges that it is dealing not with a collection of insubordinate states, but with a nation.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That if any person within any State or Territory of the United States, other than those named as aforesaid, after the passage of this act, being engaged in armed rebellion against the government of the United States, or aiding or abetting such rebellion, shall not, within sixty days after public warning and proclamation duly given and made by the President of the United States, cease to aid, countenance, and abet such rebellion, and return to his allegiance to the United States, all the estate and property, moneys, stocks, and credits of such person shall be liable to seizure as aforesaid, and it shall be the duty of the President to seize and use them as aforesaid or the proceeds thereof. And all sales, transfers, or conveyances, of any such property after the expiration of the said sixty days from the date of such warning and proclamation shall be null and void; and it shall be a sufficient bar to any suit brought by such person for the possession or the use of such property, or any of it, to allege and prove that he is one of the persons described in this section.

This section gives United States citizens found to be aiding the Confederacy 60 days to stop or lose pretty much everything.

SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That to secure the condemnation and sale of any of such property, after the same shall have been seized, so that it may be made available for the purpose aforesaid, proceedings in rem shall be instituted in the name of the United States in any district court thereof, or in any territorial court, or in the United States district court for the District of Columbia, within which the property above described, or any part thereof, may be found, or into which the same, if movable, may first be brought, which proceedings shall conform as nearly as may be to proceedings in admiralty or revenue cases, and if said property, whether real or personal, shall be found to have belonged to a person engaged in rebellion, or who has given aid or comfort thereto, the same shall be condemned as enemies' property and become the property of the United States, and may be disposed of as the court shall decree and the proceeds thereof paid into the treasury of the United States for the purposes aforesaid.

SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the several courts aforesaid shall have power to make such orders, establish such forms of decree and sale, and direct such deeds and conveyances to be executed and delivered by the marshals thereof where real estate shall be the subject of sale, as shall fitly and efficiently effect the purposes of this act, and vest in the purchasers of such property good and valid titles thereto. And the said courts shall have power to allow such fees and charges of their officers as shall be reasonable and proper in the premises.

Sections 7 and 8 seem to my eyes to be simply restating things concerning the seizure, liquidation, and ultimate disbursement of proceeds from the sale of any and all properties seized under this Act.

SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who shall hereafter be engaged in rebellion against the government of the United States, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escaping from such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army; and all slaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming under the control of the government of the United States; and all slaves of such person found on [or] being within any place occupied by rebel forces and afterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemed captives of war, and shall be forever free of their servitude, and not again held as slaves.

Slaves that come to be under the control of the federal government are declared captives of war, and then declared free. Fairly to the point, but I am confused as to why they would first be deemed captives of war. Does that confer some special status?

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That no slave escaping into any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, from any other State, shall be delivered up, or in any way impeded or hindered of his liberty, except for crime, or some offence against the laws, unless the person claiming said fugitive shall first make oath that the person to whom the labor or service of such fugitive is alleged to be due is his lawful owner, and has not borne arms against the United States in the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid and comfort thereto; and no person engaged in the military or naval service of the United States shall, under any pretence whatever, assume to decide on the validity of the claim of any person to the service or labor of any other person, or surrender up any such person to the claimant, on pain of being dismissed from the service.

I could be wrong here, but this section seems to me to say that escaped slaves may be returned to their owner if that owner is in no way connected to the rebellion. Contextually this makes sense, since the Emancipation Proclimation would use virtually the same language later that same year. This section declared that states not in rebellion are not subject to this Act. Likewise, under this Act, if their slaves escape, they are to be returned. The authority to determine if an escaped slave is to be returned is denied to soldiers, sailors, and officersof the Union forces. Ironically, officers had, up to this point, enjoyed that authority. In March of that year, they had been ordered to disregard the Fugitive Slave Act. I suppose that these escapees would be held as captives of war until a determination be made.

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States is authorized to employ as many persons of African descent as he may deem necessary and proper for the suppression of this rebellion, and for this purpose he may organize and use them in such manner as he may judge best for the public welfare.
This section empowers the president to employ as many blacks as he sees fit, and to utilize them as he sees fit.

Why is this here? It would seem the writers of the Act expected opposition to blacks holding jobs within the government. If that is the case, then they were already preparing for freed slaves to receive a less-than-warm welcome. Before the slaves were even freed, a civil rights crisis was being anticipated.

SEC. 12. And be to make provision for the transportation, colonization, and settlement, in some tropical country beyond the limits of the United States, of such persons of the African race, made free by the provisions of this act, as may be willing to emigrate, having first obtained the consent of the government of said country to their protection and settlement within the same, with all the rights and privileges of freemen.

While Lincoln may be remembered as the Great Emancipator, he did not envision a nation with whites and blacks cohabiting as equals. He championed a plan to return freed blacks to Africa, Liberia specifically. This section places responsibility for such relocation squarely with the federal government.

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That the President is hereby authorized, at any time hereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons who may have participated in the existing rebellion in any State or part thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions and at such time and on such conditions as he may deem expedient for the public welfare.

This section makes it clear that this Act is the precursor to the Emancipation Proclimation. Under this section the president is authorized to commute the sentences passed against anyone found to be connected with the rebellion. Remember: Lincoln did not believe he was Constitutionally empowered to outlaw slavery. The entire purpose of this Act was to use the legal precedent of confiscation as punishment to free slaves. This Act was never truly intended as a vehicle for imprisoning rebellious southerners. So at the end of the day their slaves were set free and the rest of their sentence was pardoned. Not a very elegant solution, but a workable stop-gap.

SEC. 14. And be it further enacted, That the courts of the United States shall have full power to institute proceedings, make orders and decrees, issue process, and do all other things necessary to carry this act into effect.

APPROVED, July 17, 1862.

Conclusion
     So, in 1862 slavery was creeping toward an end, but this Act was a two-steps-forward-one-step-back proposition. This Act essentially negated the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, however in March of 1862 Union officers had already been ordered to disregard the earlier Act. Then in July comes the Second Confiscation Act. Pretty much any slave that comes to be under the authority of the US government will be declared free.  Union officers no longer had the authority to free fugitive slaves that find their way to Union lines. A very curious change in policy, which I am at a loss to understand.
     What did the Emancipation Proclimation do that this Act didn't? Not very much at all. It declared its intent in much grander form. It was enacted as a war measure, deemed necessary to end the rebellion. But at the operational level, there was little enough difference. In both documents the freedom so granted would only occur once slaves were under federal jurisdiction. Both measures also exempted certain, specific slave-holding states and counties, allowing these locales to continue holding slaves, and having captured slaves returned to them.
     The real difference was of perception. The Emancipation Proclimation uses the particular language ". . . shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free . . .” In other words, while freedom was almost a by-product of the Second Act of Confiscation, it was the express purpose of the Emancipation Proclimation. The freedom granted by each was identical, but that granted by the Emancipation Proclimation was more marketable. Let's face it, that is what Lincoln and the federal government needed in 1862. They needed good publicity. They needed a standard the country could rally 'round. They needed a real-world goal, with immediate tangibility, that every man could take to heart and that every woman was willing to spill her son's blood for. Lincoln's abstract concept of Union was not enough. Very few even shared it, and no one was as zealous about it as he.
     In freeing the negroes there was a cause easily understood. It was a small matter to conjure all sorts of horrid images (many of them rooted in fact, I say to my great shame) of the treatment and conditions of slaves. An inflammatory press was nothing new. A political cartoon of a map showing the nation divided was lost, but one of a man being beaten by the leering image of a southern plantation owner resonated. THAT man, that victim, that slave must be freed, not merely granted freedom as a consequence of someone else's misdeeds, or by his own wits and ability to escape. He must be freed, forcefully since there was no other course. Summoning up that enduring image of a just and triumphal federal army shattering the chains of slavery was beyond the scope of this Act, yet it was precisely that image Lincoln needed. So, in the end, it wasn't enough to merely free the slaves, Mr Lincoln needed to look good doing it.

A Brief Word

My apologies for the delay in posting this. Summer break is upon me and Runescape waits for no man, nor does the man's son who is a Runescape fanatic. So, my posting schedule may be somewhat more erratic than I prefer, but have no fear, I have no shortage of ideas or direction.

The Second Confiscation Act

In July of 1862, Congress passed into law The Second Confiscation Act. It paved the way for the Emancipation Proclimation, by declaring that Confederates who did not surrender within 60 days were to be punished by having their slaves freed. Today, as with the Emancipation Proclimation, I am posting the Act in a pristine state. Later in the week I will give my impressions and comments. Coming next week, I'll examine "The Prayer of Twenty Millions", the open letter to Mr. Lincoln published by Horace Greeley. I will also examine Mr. Lincoln's reply, which may surprise you.

My Thoughts on the Emancipation Proclimation

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, 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; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

There was a 100-day grace period. According to this paragraph the only slaves freed are those in states in rebellion. Thus, this proclimation did nothing for the 90,369 slaves being held in Deleware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, the nation's capitol. How can any person with the capacity for reason ever believe that this war was fought to bring an end to slavery, when there were over 3000 slaves in the United States capitol? That is one slave for every 22 free persons. This Emancipation Proclimation did nothing for them.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Establishes what conditions qualify a state as not being in rebellion. Presumably to facilitate the application of the preceeding paragraph. When taken with the above paragraph, one is led to understand that if a state is able to send a duly elected representative to Congress by January 1, 1863, then that state may keep its slaves.

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, 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 Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, 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.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

Now we are getting serious. This is a fairly momentous paragraph.

Lincoln enacts this proclimation as a war measure, rather than going straight into an amendment process. The advantage is that it is enacted immediately as a war measure. The disadvantage is that, as a war measure, it only applies while the war is on. I believe he did not want to risk a lengthy ratification debate and vote, one which he wasn't certain the proclimation could carry anyway. So, he opted for the certainty of a limited measure, rather than risk risk it all and lose.

What was far more compelling to me, especially in light of my purpose for this blog, was this: " a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion". How was freeing the slaves, an act limited to only the states in rebellion, necessary for suppressing the rebellion? That freedom was only on paper anyway, until northern troops arrived and liberated a given slave population. There was no military advantage, neither tactical nor strategic gained by issuing this proclimation.

Here he also plainly states that the military will be used to secure and maintain this freedom. Thus, with this clause Mr. Lincoln completely redefines the purpose for the use of military force against the South.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

Encourages freed slaves to refrain from violence (presumably of a retaliatory sort) and to become productive members of society ASAP.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

Establishes the eligibility of freed slaves to join the army and navy.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

Here we have another eventful passage. Lincoln states that this is a just proclimation. OK, I'll buy that. “Warranted by the Constitution”? I'm a little fuzzy on what that means, but it seems to say that the Constitution in some way backs this up or empowers it. How? If it did, would there have even been a need for a proclimation such as this? Or maybe he is referencing the “all men are created equal” and “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness”, as the warrantors and this proclimation is an extension of that. “Upon military necessity”? This goes back to the above passage about this proclimation being necessary to suppress the rebellion.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Conclusion

Most significantly, this document did NOTHING to outlaw slavery. That wouldn't happen until December of 1865, with the ratification of the 13th Amendment. It only freed slaves being held in certain areas of states in rebellion. In Deleware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia there was a total slave population of 706,338, according to the census of 1860, that were not benefited by this proclimation. There were a dozen counties (parishes) in Louisiana, and six counties in Virginia that were not affected b the proclimation. It would be difficult to determine the exact slave population of those individual locales. That amounts to 18% of the slave population left in bondage. Left in bondage in states under federal control and authority, supposedly. Why? Why were states still belonging to the Union (all but Tennessee, and the excluded counties mentioned), still subject to federal law, allowed to keep slaves, even in the face of this proclimation?

As I stated above, the freedom granted by this wasn't made real until the slaves were actually liberated by Union troops. No slave owners automatically released their slaves just because Mr. Lincoln declared they were now free men. So, what was the real purpose of this?

Publicity. Lincoln had to polarize the North, to get them behind this war effort, and in the process, to get them behind re-electing him in 1864. Without some polarizing event, the Northern populace would have replaced Lincoln with a candidate who advocated reaching a peaceful solution to the conflict. This is the reason for so many of the eccentricities of the proclimation. Consider:

It was a war measure so it would go into effect swiftly, and under his authority as Commander-in-Chief. That made it clear that it was President Lincoln that freed the slaves.

An amendment ratification process would have been drawn out, taking the focus off the nobility of freeing the slaves, and off Lincoln as the architect.

It made it official that from that point on the Federal army was fighting for the express purpose of freeing the slaves, a just and noble cause that people could rally 'round.

The Emancipation Proclimation was a publicity stunt designed to keep Lincoln in office and the North in the war. In the pursuit of those goals, it was a stunning success. But as the document of freedom, set out to break the chains of slavery, it was all smoke and mirrors. Union officers had been under orders since March 13, 1862, to disregard the Fugitive Slave Act and declare free any slaves they found or liberated. This was essentially how the Emancipation Proclimation worked in practice. Thus, as a measure to free the slaves, it did absolutely nothing that wasn't already being done. All the while it was being lauded as the end to slavery, and Mr. Lincoln was collecting his accolades as the Great Emancipator, it was being ignored that Mr. Lincoln and his proclimation left 1 slave out of every 5 in chains. The re-election he won as a result of the proclimation would extend the war another 2 years and cost over 140,000 more American lives.

The Emancipation Proclimation

How many of you have actually read this document? Since the central premise of my effort here is that the war was not about slavery, it seems appropriate that we examine this historical document. As with the Confederate Constitution, it is linked to at left. Coming later this week will be my personal commentary on the document, but for now read it, and study it, in its pristine state.

Confederate Constitution

On a separate page, link to the left, I have uploaded the Confederate Constitution. It is my hopeful plan to post articles examining the document, as well as commentary, and a comparison with the United States Constitution. But for now, hopefully you will find the constitution interesting.

A Brief Disclaimer

I just wanted to include a brief entry to explain my purposes and desires for this blog. I want to restate here that I am not a racist. At least not excessively. Anyone who states unequivocally that they are not racist is lying. Everyone is guilty on occasion of racist thoughts and feelings. It is human nature. What makes a difference is our reaction to our racist thoughts. Do we fight them or surrender to them?

But, I digress. With this blog, it is my wish to explore the following:

・ The true causes of the war;

・ The Confederate army was not a rabble of hillbillies and rednecks fighting to keep their slaves;

・ The true sentiments in the North and South concerning slavery and Negroes;

・ The efforts of the Federal government to transition Negroes from slavery to being full and productive free citizens;

・ The “what-ifs”, the endless possible futures had this or that led to a Confederate victory;

・ Finally, the lesser explored changes wrought on the American landscape by the Federal victory.

At no point will I engage in, nor indulge comments concerning, speculations relating to the continuation of slavery (in the event of Confederate victory), a return to slavery, nor shall I ever propose a new state of secession, rebellion, or revolt.

Now, having established the basis under which this blog shall be conducted, allow me to close this disclaimer with these thoughts. It is my most heart-felt wish that whoever reads this comes away from it with something good. Maybe your eyes will be opened to the real causes and you will now be free to develop a new appreciation for the South. Maybe you will learn that in many cases the Confederate government actually had more honorable intentions toward slaves than the Federal government. Maybe, if you are a Southerner, you will learn more concrete reasons to be proud of your heritage and new “ammunition” with which to defend your pride.

If we are to believe, as we have been taught, that the war was about slavery, and the North was fighting to free the slaves, then by inference we must also believe that the South was fighting to continue holding African-Americans in bondage. Operating under such beliefs, the only conclusion that may rightly be drawn is that the South, her people, and her cause, are all deplorable. This has indeed been the opinion of the South for a very long time. It is my goal, through this blog, to dispel the falsehoods which have empowered this opinion for generations.

It is my sincerest hope that, through this blog, the true causes of this national tragedy may be learned, and thus the stain on the honor of the South, my home, be cleansed.

A final note on terms: I will be using the terms African-American, black, and Negro throughout this blog. When I use the term Negro I am doing so to preserve historical context, as that was considered the proper term for African-Americans of the day.

The Opening Volley

Hello, and welcome.

I am a Civil War enthusiast and amateur historian. I am also a Southerner, born and bred. It is no small task to announce that and NOT be profiled and prejudged. I'm from Alabama. I was born in Walker County in 1961. I have lived virtually my entire life in Alabama. To most folks outside the south that means certain things:

• I am probably ignorant;
• It is doubtful that I have a high school diploma;
• I probably have some inbreeding in my family;
• I am a racist;
• I would restart slavery and the Civil War tomorrow if I knew how.

Not everyone outside the south holds those opinions, but they are commonly held. It gets worse, though.

You see, I am a thinking man. I don't open wide for the spoonful of vanilla truth that passes for history in public schools today. I KNOW the Civil War was not about slavery. Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, was a bigger RACIST than I am. Racism and bigotry are not the exclusive province of the Deep South.

With this blog, I want to put the truth out in the air. If somebody's eyes are opened, good. If not, well, all I can do is put the truth about the history of the Civil War in front of you. You are free to do with the information as you please.

Thanks for coming out.

PS> I'm not ignorant. I graduated high school in 1980. There is no inbreeding in my family. I am a racist, but we all are to some degree. I believe mine is at a minimum. As for slavery and the war: no one in my family ever owned a slave. I find the institution deplorable. As for the war, in a sense that's what this blog is. So, keep your head down and your powder dry.