Showing posts with label Causes of the War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Causes of the War. Show all posts

Monday, November 28, 2011

Prophetic words of wisdom from General Patick Cleburne


Mural of General Patrick Cleburne,
Wright Plaza, Cleburne, Texas
Quote from  Patrick Cleburne; a Major General of the Confederate States of America during the War for Southern Independence:

"Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late...

"It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by  Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision...

"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all that our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."

Sunday, July 24, 2011

When America Went Crazy


By Eric Peters


Eric Peters
America lost its mind 146 years ago and hasn’t been the same since. Or rather, it’s been a different country ever since.


A psychotic, self-referential, duplicitous country – largely ignorant of its own history and convinced of its messianic role in world affairs. A country not merely content to live – and let live. But one determined to to force others – everyone – to live its way.


At bayonet point, if need be. 


It all goes back to the events of 1861-1865. The struggle for Southern independence, which the modern histories dishonestly – not merely mistakenly – call the “Civil War.”


Which it was not.


The Southern states had no desire to dominate the Northern states, nor to control the government of the North. (Which is what the “federal” government had become by 1861, as the Northern states and Northern corporatist cartels controlled it; Lincoln was the front man for these corporatist interests – a shyster lawyer and born grifter who would do anything – to anyone – in the service of his paymasters.)


 No, the Southern states simply wished to exercise that right which the American colonists themselves had exercised in 1776 (and which some Northern states had themselves threatened to exercise on prior occasions, for similar reasons). The right to withdraw from the voluntary union entered into by each sovereign state at the time of the ratification of the federal Constitution. The motives were no different – and no less honorable or legitimate: The Southern states, like the American colonies, had come to regard the central authority as distant, unrepresentative and increasingly tyrannical. It no longer served their interests. It no longer represented them. And to paraphrase the author of the original Declaration of Independence, when a government no longer operates in the best interests of the people as they see those interests; when it no longer represents them; and when its actions evince a systematic effort to subjugate them, when other remedies have not proved fruitful, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government – and start over.


This is what we celebrate on July 4th but what we also (in typically demented/ignorant/hypocritical American fashion) excoriate the Southern states for having done.


This was the Southern conception of “consent of the governed” – the same one held by the American revolutionaries – and the same one eradicated by the victory of the North over the South.


Since that unlucky event, there has been no recourse, no escape from Washington’s self-proclaimed, self-defined, self-interpreted and increasingly unlimited authority. We the People are not governed by consent but by force. This fact is too obvious to require extensive elaboration, yet many continue to believe we are “free” because we have “democracy” – that is, we may vote. But we do not have a choice. There is no freedom option. Just Government X (Republican) or Government Y (Democrat). This duopoly is far more subtle – and thus, far more effective – than the obvious single-party tyrannies of the past. But in fact we do have a single ruling elite – and so, no real choice – if your choice is liberty.


Lincoln – the ur American tyrant who set the stage for the blood-soaked Deciders to come – was the first to twist plain English and the meaning of the American Revolution into their dark matter opposites.


“Consent of the governed” became somehow a consolidated federal leviathan from which there is no appeal or escape. The consent of the Southern people (and thus, all Americans) trampled underfoot, to be kept forevermore in a forced union, like a bad marriage – at bayonet point.


“Republican” government – that is, delineated (and thus, inherently limited) powers became “democracy” – open-ended, unlimited mob rule, via the vote – administered by millions of petty tyrants from the DMV to the TSA to EPA to the IRS.


From this sprang the ends-justify-the-means (any means) rationales that have been used to abrogate every single formerly sacred right that the Bill of Rights was written explicitly to declare and protect.


And it was Lincoln and his crew – including war criminals such as Sheridan and Sherman (who would have made fine corps commanders in Hitler’s Waffen SS or Stalin’s Red Army) that gave life to the American Mission, the subjugation of the world itself.


Not merely consolidation and uniformity. A conviction that there is only one morally right way to live – the Yankee (corporatist/empire) way – and it must be brought to every corner of the Earth, by any means necessary.


There is a meaningful line in the Clint Eastwood movie, The Outlaw Josey Wales.  A union officer is confronted by a tired scout who admonishes him that the war is over; that it is time to stop the carnage. To let people be. The officer replies, “There ain’t no end to doin’ right.” In this you can hear the future echos of George W. Bush – or Barack Obama. From Iraq to Libya to main street, USA – there ain’t no end to doin’ right.


The orthodox histories pass over all this, touting instead the morally righteous crusade of the North to free the slaves and help the Black Man. Except of course the North did no such thing. Not only was slavery protected in the North and Northern-held territories until after the war was over (in other words, for nearly two years after the so-called Emancipation Proclamation of 1863) but the Northern populace would have revolted if Lincoln had touted his determination to subjugate the South – to “save the union” – as a crusade to free the black man. Not only was Lincoln himself a virulent racist (and a founding member of the Illinois “back to Africa” movement) but so was the North, which saw free blacks as threat to free white labor and which had “black codes” every bit – and often more – brutal than the black codes students are endlessly lectured about as being a Southern exclusive.


But pay no mind to that man behind the curtain. The war was about saving democracy and the consent of the governed. America is righteous. Let freedom ring.


Even though – as singer Merle Haggard put it – the average American has less real freedom today than he had as a parolee back in 1969.


Until the American people recover their senses the American consolidated Empire will only grow more oppressive, more and more openly brutal.


A people incapable of leaving their neighbors alone cannot be expected to leave the world alone.


Cloverism was born at Appomattox.


It is up to us to see it strangled.




Reprinted with permission from EricPetersAutos.com.
Copyright © 2011 Eric Peters

About the author: 

Eric Peters is a longtime car/bikes/Libertarian-minded journalist. His new book, "Road Hogs," came out June 2011.

Peters has been writing a weekly column about cars for almost 20 years now. He is the author of "Automotive Atrocities" and "Road Hogs" (MBI). He lives in rural SW Virginia with his wife and a polyglot crew of animals.


Monday, December 20, 2010

See the Ad Banned by The History Channel



Video Script:

The Morrill Tariff

Another major cause of the War Between the States of which you've probably never heard was the Morrill Tariff Act initiated in 1859 which increased tariffs on the South from 15 percent to nearly 50 percent. Lincoln's first inaugural address stated his resolve in collecting these taxes no matter what.

He said, "The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts (tariffs, in other words), but beyond what way may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion - no using force against or among the people anywhere."

Ultimately, he was willing to sacrifice 620,000 American lives with his illegal invasion of the Southern states who had legally seceded... and all this just to keep money pouring into Washington, DC.

These were the grounds that sparked the first meeting for Secession 150 years ago.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Economic Reason For The War

Below is one of a dozen television spots produced by the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, in commemoration of the upcoming sesquicentennial of the War for Southern Independence.  You can follow the links at the YouTube site to see all of this excellent series.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Following the Money - getting rich during Sherman's March to the Sea

The letter below is from the Alderson, West Virginia Statesman, dated October 29, 1883. It was authenticated and republished in the Southern Historical Society Papers in March 1884.  I found a copy of this very revealing letter in the book “The Confederate Cause and Conduct in the War Between the States” by George L. Christian and Hunter McGuire, published in 1907.



Camp near Camden, S.C.,
February 26, 1865

My Dear Wife:

I have no time for particulars. We have had a glorious time in this State. Unrestricted license to burn and plunder was the order of the day. The chivalry have been stripped of most of their valuables. Gold watches, silver pitchers, cups, spoons, forks, &c., are as common in camp as blackberries.

The terms of plunder are as follows: Each company is required to exhibit the results of its operations at any given place. One-fifth and first choice falls to the share of the commander-in-chief [General Sherman] and staff; one-fifth to the corps commanders and staff; one-fifth to field officers of regiments, and two-fifths to the company. Officers are not allowed to join these expeditions unless disguised as privates. One of our corps commanders borrowed a suit of rough clothes from one of my men, and was successful in this place. He got a large quantity of silver (among other things an old milk pitcher) and a very fine gold watch from a Mrs DeSaussure, at this place (Columbia). DeSaussure is one of the F. F. V.’s of South Carolina, and was made to fork out liberally..

Officers over the rank of Captain are not made to put their plunder in the estimate for general distribution. This is very unfair, and for that reason, in order to protect themselves, subordinate officers and privates keep back every thing that they can carry about their persons, such as rings, earrings, breast pins, &c, &c. of which, if I live to get home, I have about a quart. I am not joking. I have at least a quart of jewelry for you and all the girls, and some No. 1 diamond rings and pins among them. General Sherman has silver and gold enough to start a bank. His share in gold watches alone at Columbia was two hundred and seventy-five.

But I said I could not go into particulars. All the general officers and many besides had valuables of every description, down to embroidered ladies' pocket handkerchiefs. I have my share of them, too. We took gold and silver enough from the damned rebels to have redeemed their infernal currency twice over. This, (the currency), whenever we came across it, we burned, as we considered it utterly worthless.

I wish all the jewelry this army has could be carried to the Old Bay State [Massachusetts]. It would deck her out in glorious style; but, alas! it will be scattered all over the North and Middle States.

The damned niggers, as a general thing, prefer to stay at home, particularly after they found out that we wanted only the able-bodied men, and to tell the truth, the youngest and best-looking women.

Sometimes we took off whole families and plantations of niggers, by way of repaying influential secessionists. But the useless part of these we soon managed to lose; sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in other ways. I shall write you again from Wilmington, Goldsboro, or some other place in North Carolina. The order to march has arrived, and I must close hurriedly.

Love to grandmother and Aunt Charlotte. Take care of yourself and children. Don't show this letter out of the family.

Your affectionate husband,
Thomas J. Myers,
Lieut. &c.

P.S. --I will send this by the first flag of truce to be mailed, unless I have an opportunity of sending it to Hilton Head. Tell Lottie I am saving a pearl bracelet and earrings for her. But Lambert got the necklace and breast pin of the same set. I am trying to trade him out of them. These were taken from the Misses Jamison, daughters of the President of the South Carolina Secession Convention. We found these on our trip through Georgia."



Addressed to Mrs. Thomas J. Myers, Boston, Massachusetts.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The only legitimate Reasons for War

American men slaughtered in Abraham Lincoln's War to Prevent Southern Independence

By Michael Gaddy

It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it.
~ Robert E. Lee

Throughout history, those who have the tendency to "grow too fond of war," in most cases have never fought in one. Soldiers who have "seen the elephant" are impacted by the horror of it for life. Many who are unable to cope with the recurring thoughts and visions resort to escape mechanisms – alcohol, drugs, and in extreme cases, suicide. One soldier that I knew, a Vietnam Vet, literally ate himself to death. I visited him in the hospital shortly before his death. He was forced to sleep sitting up because when he reclined the fat compressed against his lungs and made breathing impossible. He had been forced to endure a court-martial during Vietnam for shooting a turncoat "Chu Hoi" for leading his unit into an ambush where several soldiers of his Civilian Irregular Defense Group (CIDG) unit were killed.

A close friend tells the story of asking his dad, a WWI Vet, what the term "over the top" meant when he was just a young boy. He relates that his father got up from the table, went onto the porch and retched. His mother told him to "never mention that again!" There is great meaning to be found in the term: "no one loves peace like a soldier."

Just War

What in heaven’s name could be just about killing people you don’t even know because some lying politician needs to improve the bottom line of his corporate cronies and campaign contributors. Wars should be initiated for defense of country and liberty only. There is no one alive in this country to read these words that fought in a war that was not in some way predicated by political lies and deceptions. There is no one who fought in any of this country’s wars in the last sixty years that fought in a constitutional war. You know, the Constitution soldiers swear to uphold and defend. Could the domestic enemy we swore to defend our country and Constitution from be our politicians who ignore the Constitution and lead us into illegal wars? Who is a greater threat to our liberty, out of control politicians or terrorists created by these same politicians and their insane foreign policy that makes billionaires of their cronies? Who passed and confirmed the Patriot Act? Does Usama bin Laden care what library books you read, who you talk to on the phone or whether or not you own a gun or how many rounds that gun’s magazine holds?

What does it take to get an American to die for lies: words from a politician with no integrity, a few colored ribbons, a quest for glory, or a John Philip Sousa March? Even former Commandant of the Marine Corps, Major General Smedley D. Butler, said that in his 33-year military career he never had an original thought!

"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag."
~ Major General Smedley Butler

In my humble opinion, the last Just war that was fought in this country ended at Appomattox, Virginia in 1865.

"We should meet the federal invader on the outer verge of just and right defense and raise at once the black flag. No quarter to the violators of our homes and firesides."
~ Thomas Jonathan (Stonewall) Jackson, May 1861

Smedley Butler, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee were correct: war should be so terrible that it would never be considered except as a retaliation for invasion or an attack on liberty. Were an invasion of homes and firesides or an attack on liberty to occur, there should be no quarter given to those invaders and usurpers–death and total annihilation to those who would violate the sanctity of home or an attack on our liberties.

The terrible truth is: the invader that Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee had to war with from 1861–1865, is the same invader the people in Iraq and Afghanistan are warring with today and the same invader the American Indian fought to protect their homes and property from during and after the War Between the States. The attacks on our liberties are not coming from al Qaeda or terrorists – they are coming from our elected leaders and their money grabbing, freedom destroying, death machine.

About the Author:  Michael Gaddy, an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.  This article is copyrighted by and was first published by http://www.lewrockwell.com/ .

Saturday, July 24, 2010

What Led to the War Between the States?

by Walter E. Williams

The problems that led to the Civil War are the same problems today—big, intrusive government. The reason we don’t face the specter of another Civil War is because today’s Americans don’t have yesteryear’s spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called “The War Between the States” or the “War for Southern Independence.” The more bitter southerner might call it the “War of Northern Aggression.”

History books have misled today’s Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves. Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so.” During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery.” A recent article by Baltimore’s Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled “The Great Centralizer,” in The Independent Review (Fall 1998) cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln’s intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to “impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government” that “place at defiance the intentions of the republic’s founders.” Douglas was right, and Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the “Tariffs of Abominations.” A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain’s Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs. That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.

The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of-the governed” was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states’ right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

States should again challenge Washington’s unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.


Copyright by Walter E. Williams


Dr. Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin distinguished professor of economics at George Mason University, and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

They Died in Defense of Constitutional Liberty

Kentucky's First Confederate Memorial, Cynthiana, Kentucky

Battle Grove Cemetery in Cynthiana, Kentucky was dedicated November 4, 1868 to honor those who fell there June 12, 1864 during the second Battle of Cynthiana.  The battle ensued when Union troops invaded Kentucky during the War to prevent Southern Independence (1861-1865).

In the following spring, on May 27, 1869, Battle Grove Cemetery became the site of the first of dozens of Confederate memorials in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and it is widely believed to be the second oldest Confederate monument in the nation. 

The memorial consists of a granite shaft, beside which flys the First National Flag of the Confederacy.  Surrounding the shaft and flag is a circle of headstones of Confederate dead, most of them unknown.  And why did these brave men die?  The monument makes the answer clear with the inscription:  They died in defense of Constitutional Liberty. 

In the spirit of American Revolution of 1776, the Confederates made the ultimate sacrifice in a war for freedom from an out of control federal government.  The North, under the despotic dictatorship of Abraham Lincoln, trampled the Constitution in a grab for money and centralized governmental control over the previously sovereign states. 

Chiseled in stone on front of the monument are these words:

ERECTED 
MAY 27, 1869
BY THE
CYNTHIANA CONFEDERATE
MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION
IN MEMORY OF
THE CONFEDERATE DEAD WHO
FELL IN DEFENSE OF
CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY 

The other side of the monument contains this verse:

THEIR NAMES SHALL NEVER BE FORGOT
WHILE FAME THEIR RECORD KEEPS.
AND GLORY GUARDS THE HALLOW'D SPOT 
WHERE VALOR PROUDLY SLEEPS.


Wednesday, June 9, 2010

They Honor the Valor of Ancestors

A letter to the editor of the York (Pennsylvania) Daily News
By Steve  Weller

As a descendant of one who fought in the 36th Wisconsin, I enjoyed reading Donald Coho's editorial on the causes of the Civil War. I agree that secession was the proximate cause, but slavery, and the desire to contain it or perpetuate it, was at least one fundamental cause. It ignited passionate anger and indignation on both sides, and it gave the sectional argument an emotional dimension that could not be quenched.


However, it would be a mistake to conclude that all Confederate soldiers were consciously fighting to preserve slavery. The average soldier was a subsistence farmer who didn't own slaves. It is much more likely he fought to defend his home. If you had to choose between joining an army that will invade your homeland or joining one that will resist it, which would you choose? Robert E. Lee himself was confronted with the same choice. He thought slavery was "an unmixed evil" and he would not draw his sword again save in the defense of his home state.

Was racism rampant in the South in the 1860s? Certainly. But it was in the North as well. All reasonable people agree that whatever racism remains today is another unmixed evil.

When Southerners issue proclamations commemorating the Confederacy, or when re-enactors fight under the Stars and Bars, I believe their intent is to honor the valor of ancestors who fought in defense of their homes. I have never heard any of them laud slavery or pine for a return to it. Nor have I heard racial slurs.

Please, let's have a little less vitriol and a little more understanding.

STEVE WELLER
WINDSOR TOWNSHIP

Source:  http://www.ydr.com/opinion/ci_15252416

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Why we still Revere our Confederate Ancestors

By Lewis Regenstein
Speech to the Gainesville, Georgia Kiwanis Club
10 April, 2007 

Thank you, I am honored to be here today with the Gainesville Kiwanis Club, and to speak before such a distinguished group, on the occasion of Confederate History and Heritage Month.


The observance of this month has generated some controversy and misunderstanding, and I’d like to explain why so many of us are proud of our Confederate ancestors, based on the experiences and writings of members of my own family.

Before I begin I’d like to emphasize that while I am very proud of my ancestors, I‘m not bragging about anything. I can claim no personal distinction for their heroism, which reflects what was common among the hopelessly outnumbered, outsupplied but not outfought Confederate troops, something in which we all take much pride.

Our ancestors often ran low on food, ammunition, and other supplies, but never on courage.

I write and talk about all this because I am proud of our heritage and committed to helping keep its memory alive and honored, amidst the ongoing campaign to rewrite history and discredit the valor and honor of the Confederate soldiers and their Cause.

The Valor of the Confederate Soldiers

It’s been almost exactly 142 years since General Sherman burned Columbia, South Carolina and sent a battle-hardened military unit towards nearby Sumter, presumably to do the same. My then 16 year old great grandfather, Andrew Jackson Moses, rode out to defend his hometown, along with some other teenagers, invalids, old men, and the disabled and wounded from the local hospital.

Jack kept running away from school to join the Confederate army, so they finally let him join up and act as a courier on horseback. His final mission was as hopeless as it was valiant, but the rag-tag group of volunteers did manage to hold off the tough and experienced “Potter’s Raiders” for over an hour before being overwhelmed by this vastly superior force.

The date of this skirmish at Dingle’s Mill was 9 April, the same day that General Robert E. Lee surrendered, and that Jack’s eldest brother, Joshua Lazarus Moses, was killed in the War’s last big engagement.

Josh had been in the thick of the shooting when Fort Sumter was attacked at the beginning of the War, and was wounded in the war’s first major battle (First Manassas or Bull Run). He was killed at Fort Blakeley, Alabama, commanding the last guns firing in defense of Mobile. Josh was shot down a few hours after Lee surrendered, his unit outnumbered 12 to one, in this battle in which one brother was wounded and another captured.

The fifth Moses bother, Isaac Harby Moses, who began the War as a Citadel cadet, was fighting with Wade Hampton’s legendary cavalry, commanding his company since all of the officers had been killed or wounded. His Mother wrote very proudly that after the Battle of Bentonville, North Carolina, he rode home from the War, never having surrendered to anyone.

The War was Not Fought Over Slavery

The five Moses brothers were among the 3,000 or so Jewish Confederates, part of an amazingly diverse army that also included Native Americans, Hispanics, Scotch, Irish, Germans, Italians, even Blacks, all fighting for a common purpose, to throw back the invasion from the North.

These Confederates showed incredible courage and valor in fighting not for slavery, as is so often said, but for their country, their families, and to save their own lives.

Indeed, slavery and other political issues were probably the furthest thing from their minds as they fought desperately against an invading army that was trying, with great success, to kill them, burn their homes, and destroy their society.

Yet, those of us who take pride in our ancestors’ bravery are constantly portrayed in the press as ignorant and intolerant bigots, vilified as defenders of slavery, and derided as living in a past that never really existed.

I know this first hand, because when the battle over Georgia’s flag was raging a few years ago, I wrote for the Atlanta Journal Constitution a mild mannered article trying to explain why so many good and decent Georgians take pride in their ancestors and the symbols & flags they fought under.

I tried to explain that we revere our ancestors because, against overwhelming odds, they fought on, often hungry, cold, sick, wounded, or shoeless to protect their homeland from an often cruel invader.

In response, the newspaper published two letters to the editor:

One said that my statements “were reminiscent of neo-Nazi apologists denying the Holocaust.” The other letter accused me of defending slavery and “a treasonous movement” called the Confederacy.

My then 84 year old Mother asked me, “please wait until I die before you write any more articles.”

Longstreet’s Chief of Commissary

Here in Gainesville, not far the home of General James Longstreet, under whom my ancestor Major Raphael Jacob Moses served as chief commissary officer, is a good place to talk about how that War really was fought.

Raphael Moses was a fifth generation South Carolinian who in 1849 moved to Columbus, Georgia, where he was a lawyer, planter, and owner of a plantation he named “Esquiline.” Moses’ English ancestors came to America during colonial days, one of them being his great, great grandfather Dr. Samuel Nunez, fleeing the Inquisition. He is credited with saving the newly-established, mosquito-infested colony of Savannah, Georgia from being wiped out in 1733 by a “fever,” then thought to be yellow fever but which was probably malaria.

Major Moses is known as “the father of Georgia’s peach industry,” and is most famous for having attended the Confederate Government’s last meeting, and carrying out its Last Order.

As General James Longstreet's chief commissary officer, Major Moses participated in many of the major battles in the East, and was responsible for supplying and feeding an army of up to 54,000 troops, including porters and other non-combatants.

General Lee had forbidden him from entering private homes in search of supplies in raids into Union territory (such as the incursions into Pennsylvania), even when food and other provisions were in painfully short supply, and his soldiers were suffering greatly from this lack of supplies..

Often while seizing supplies, Moses encountered considerable hostility and abuse from the local women, which he always endured in good humor, and it became a source of much teasing from his fellow officers.

Moses always acted honorably, compassionately, and as a gentleman. Once, when a distraught woman approached Moses and pleaded for the return of her pet heifer that had been caught up in a cattle seizure, he graciously gave the cow back to her.

Moses’ memoirs contain some very interesting observations on General Longstreet and especially the ill-fated and crucial Battle of Gettysburg. “…We lost the battle,” laments Moses, “and then came the retreat; the rain poured down in floods that night ! I laid down in a fence corner and near by on the bare earth in an India rubber [tarp] lay General Lee biding the pelting storm.”

In his memoirs, Moses reveals that “General Longstreet did not wish to fight the Battle of Gettysburg. He wanted to go around the hill, but Lee objected on account of our long wagon and artillery trains.” Longstreet, as historian Ed Bearss notes, “knew what muskets in the hands of determined troops could do,” and felt that the Union forces, holding the high ground, would have the same advantage over his forces that the Confederates had over the Federals at Fredericksburg. If his advice had been taken, it could have changed the course of the War.

But Lee rejected Longstreet’s recommendation to swing his troops around the heights, and instead ordered the attack on the center of the Union forces at Cemetery Hill, saying of the Yankees, “I will whip them here, or they will whip me.” Honorable as always, after the battle Lee took responsibility for the disaster, saying “All this has been my fault.” Longstreet, feeling that the ground fought over had no military value, called that day “the saddest of my life.” Shelby Foote calls Lee’s decision “The mistake of all mistakes.”

Interestingly, the entire battle might have been avoided and the course of the war changed if Longstreet’s forces had not been forced to wait for reinforcements to arrive. Moses says that if the Confederates had not been delayed near Cash Town for over a day waiting for General Richard Stoddert Ewell’s wagon train of supplies, “…I do know that we could have marched easily from Chambersburg to Gettysburg, in a day, and been there before the Union troops.”

THE LAST ORDER OF THE LOST CAUSE

About three weeks after the war’s end, as chief commissary for Georgia, Moses carried out what is reputed to have been the last order of the Confederacy. It involved safeguarding and delivering the Confederate treasury’s last $40,000 of silver and/or gold bullion (perhaps $750,000 today).

The money was to be used to feed and help the thousands of Confederate soldiers, in nearby hospitals, and straggling home from the War, sick, tired, hungry, often shoeless or wounded.

Moses' three sons also fought for the South, and one was killed at Seven Pines in May, 1862 after performing acts of amazing valor – Lt. Albert Moses Luria, at age 19, the first Jewish Confederate to fall in battle. His first cousin, Josh Moses, killed at mobile, was the last.

Brutality of the Union Army

The contrast is striking between the humane Confederate policies and those of the North, wherein Union generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan regularly burned and looted homes, farms, courthouses, churches, libraries, and entire cities full of civilians, such as Atlanta and Columbia, South Carolina, and most everything of value in between. Some typical Union actions included:

• Ordering the destruction of an entire agricultural area to deny the enemy support (the Shenandoah Valley, 5 August, 1864).

• Overseeing the complete destruction of defenseless Southern cities, and conducting such warfare against unarmed women and children (e.g., the razing of Meridian, and other cities in Mississippi, spring, 1863, and the burning of Atlanta the following year and most everything between there and Savannah).

Most terrible of all was the mass murder, a virtual genocide, of Native People, slaughtered mercilessly before, during, and after the War, such as the Plains Indians in 1865-66. The victims were mainly helpless old men, women, and children in their villages, eliminated to seize their land for the western railroads.

What the famous Civil War author and television producer Ken Burns, and other eminent historians euphemistically call "the Indian Wars", was carried out by many of the same Union officers who led the war against the South – Sherman, Grant, Sheridan, Custer, and other leading commanders.

The Role of Southern Women

Some of the most impressive stories of the War concern the role of Southern women in these perilous and trying times.

One of my ancestors of whom I’m most proud is my great great grandmother, Octavia Harby Moses, who was a leader in Sumter, S.C. in supporting the troops from the homefront, and I think she typifies many of the Southern women who did so much to help the war effort.

Octavia lost her Mother at age four, and married Andrew Jackson Moses Sr. (Jack’s father) at age 16, bearing 17 children (three of whom died in infancy), and outliving most of them. She was very active on the Homefront in support of the Confederacy. As she put it, “When the War broke out, …like every other Southern woman, I immediately began work for the soldiers”:

I organized a sewing society, to cut and make garments for them. Many boxes of clothes and provisions were sent off, not only to my own sons, but to any others who needed them. I made it a point to try and meet every train that brought soldiers through our town, and, with others, frequently walked from my home, sometimes at two o’clock in the morning, to take food to our men as they passed through. We always greeted them with the wildest enthusiasm, and no thought of defeat ever entered our minds.

During all this time, I was working unceasingly for our soldiers – getting up entertainments [meetings] to furnish means and, like other women, I cut up my carpets and piano cover for them, sent them blankets, etc. … Whenever the boys were fortunate enough to get home on short furloughs, they were the guests of the town – everybody feted them, nothing was too much to do in their honor.

Octavia’s daughter Rebecca adds that “For our own soldiers, she felt that nothing she could do would be too much – they deserved all that was possible”:

With young children clustering round her knees, with her home filled with aged and helpless relatives who had refugeed there from Charleston and other points, she yet found time to work unceasingly for “the men behind the guns.”

Octavia stressed that, considering the widespread suffering so prevalent throughout the South, she did not consider her sacrifices to be a hardship, writing that “I have always said that I knew no privations during the War.”

“The History of Sumter County” related how “The women of Stateburg and Sumter formed themselves into the Soldier’s Relief Associations…”:

"They knitted socks, rolled bandages and lint for dressing wounds, and sent boxes of supplies to the larger centers of Charleston and Columbia…At the depot in Sumter, the ladies set up a long table beside the tracks, where in fair weather, hot food was served to soldiers on the crowded troop trains passing through. In bad weather, they used the dining-room of the Rev Noah Graham’s hotel. Later in the war, when hurrying soldiers did not have time to stop, the ladies handed out packaged lunches, while their little daughters filled the canteens with fresh water. Even in the hours after midnight, Mrs. Octavia Moses and other devoted women would walk to the depot, taking food for the soldiers."

With provisions in short supply, “the busy women of Sumter,” doing all they could to support the war effort, “stitched by hand the garments for their families as well as for the soldiers. They made coffee from okra seeds and parched peanuts, and dim, evil-smelling candles from tallow and myrtle berries. They devised hats from corn shucks, and new dresses from old window curtains. They sent their silver to the Confederate government, the church bells to the foundries to be cast into cannon, and cut their carpets into blankets for the soldiers. They held fairs and bazaars to raise money for the war activities.”

When hospitals were established in Sumter, Octavia writes, “Our ladies, of course, took immediate charge, and the soldiers were fed and nursed with all the means of our command, and all the tenderness of Southern women.”

She also showed compassion for the Union troops who had been taken prisoner: “When I heard that the Northern prisoners would be brought through our town and that they were nearly in a starving condition, I immediately exerted myself to obtain a large quantity of provisions…to give to them…”

After the war, she devoted her life to memorializing "The Lost Cause," and in 1869 was elected president of the "Ladies Monumental Association.” Succeeding her was her eldest daughter Rebecca, who wrote that “Daughters and grand daughters were all taught by her that this was a sacred duty.”

In 1903, at the age of 80, Octavia wrote a summary of her memoirs, describing the family's experiences during the war, concluding with the paragraph, "the rest of the miserable story, through the days of Reconstruction, need not be told. We suffered, as others did, and endured as best we could."

How can you not take pride in people like that !

And how can we not undertake the “sacred duty” to continue to speak of our ancestors’ sacrifices and valor ?

Southerners are stubborn people. And so we will never give up on honoring our ancestors, remembering their valor, recognizing their sacrifices, defending our heritage, and insisting that The Truth be known.

It may have been a Lost Cause, but it was an honorable one, and no matter how hard and frustrating it is, we must never let that be forgotten.

Thank you for inviting me and for the honor of being with you today.

Lewis Regenstein , a Native Atlantan, is descended on his Mother’s side from the Moses family of Georgia and South Carolina, whose patriarch, Myer Moses, participated in the American Revolution. Almost three dozen members of the extended family fought for the Confederacy, and participated in most of the major battles and campaigns of the War. At least nine of them, largely teenagers, died in defense of their homeland, and included the first and last Confederate Jews to fall in battle.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Judge Andrew Napolitano on the cause of the War Between the States

By Judge Andrew Napolitano

I think War Between the States was fought over the issue of federal dominance. I think slavery was not the reason for the War Between the States. I think that Lincoln was a dictator who was terrified that by the loss of tariffs from southern ports – about 55 million dollars a year in 1860. It was a huge portion of the federal government's income, which consisted at the time of tariffs, user fees and land sales. It was the loss of those ports that caused Lincoln to wage war against the states. I don't think it was the Constitution that facilitated war. I think it was monster government that facilitated the War Between the States. I think slavery would have been eradicated on its own, much as it had been in Puerto Rico and Brazil and Portugal and Great Britain and even years earlier in western Europe.

The above statement is a part of a much longer interview given by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano to "The Daily Bell," June 6, 2010.  You may see the entire interview here:  http://www.thedailybell.com/1108/Judge-Andrew-Napolitano-on-Chaotic-Courts-and-Unconstitutional-Justice-in-the-United-States.html

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Remembering Lincoln the Racist


This striking monument to Stephen A. Douglas (left) and Abraham Lincoln (right) is the centerpiece of Washington Square in downtown Ottawa, Illinois. It marks the site of the first of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates which was held here on August 21, 1858.

Between late August and mid-October, 1858, Lincoln and Douglas traveled together around the state of Illinois to confront each other in seven historic debates. Douglas, a Democrat, was the incumbent United States Senator; Lincoln, a Republican, was his challenger. Here in Ottawa, before a crowd of 10,000 citizens, Douglas accused Lincoln of being a secret abolitionist, a charge which Lincoln soundly denied by declaring:

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

When pressed further Lincoln continued:

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

A few weeks later, before a crowd of 15,000 in Charleston, Illinois Lincoln re-emphasized his anti-negro stance:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people."

He continued:

"I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Lincoln failed in his bid for the Senate seat, but just two years later he was nominated to run for President of the Untied States in the newly formed northern Republican party. In a pre-nomination speech, delivered at Cooper Union in New York City on February 27, 1860, Lincoln said that slavery was "an evil not be extended, but to be tolerated and protected." In his prepared text he emphasized, "This is all Republicans ask -- all Republicans desire -- in relation to slavery," He went on to state that any emancipation should be gradual and carried out in conjunction with a program of scheduled deportation, sending the negroes back to Africa.

During the campaign Lincoln vowed to increase already high tariffs that put an extremely unfair tax burden on the South for the benefit of the North. He did not carry a single southern state and garnered only 39% of the popular vote nationwide. However, in a four way race, Lincoln became the president through the electoral collage.

Upon Lincoln's election, the southern states began to exercise their Constitutional right to seceed from the Union - one which defended the institution of slavery but unfairly taxed the South, which held only about 30% of the votes in congress. The former Vice-President John C. Calhoun put it this way:

"The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North… the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue."

Upon taking office, while still promising to defend slavery, Lincoln called for an army to invade the peaceful South in order to collect his tariffs, under the guise of preserving the Union.

Observers in Europe saw through the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and recognized what was really at stake. Charles Dickens observed:

"Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."

Karl Marx quoted newspaper accounts from Great Britain which agreed:

"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."

A friend recently said to me that in spite of Lincoln's many faults and even his atrocities against the South, he should be credited with saving the Union. Really? In truth, Abraham Lincoln did more to destroy the United States - and the Constitution that holds it together - than any other person in history.

Story and photo by J. Stephen Conn

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Defending the Union?


This monument to the Union Veterans of the War of 1861-1865 stands beside the Cortland County Courthouse, Cortland, New York. The inscription reads:

CENTENNIAL OFFERING OF
CORTLAND COUNTY
TO THE MEMORY OF THOSE
WHO FOUGHT IN DEFENSE
OF THE UNION
1861 - 1865
A.D. 1876

This is such a very sad monument to an utterly needless war.  The monument, erected only 11 years after the War to Prevent Southern Independence, attempts to justify an unnecessary war by calling it a war to "defend" the Union. 

Actually, the Union, and the United States, were not in need of defense from the Confederate States because they were not under attack. It was the northern Union which was the aggressor in this unfortunate conflict, which resulted in the deaths of 620,000 American soldiers, plus countless thousands of innocent civilians, utterly destroying cities, villages and farms throughout the South.

Most historians agree that had there never been a so called "American Civil War," slavery would have soon ended peacefully in the South, just as it had ended in the North. Few people seem to remember that Massachusetts was the first state to legalize slavery, and that all of the slave ships which ever sailed from America were under the United States flag and from northern ports such as Boston, New York and Providence.

No slave ship ever sailed from the South, or under a Confederate flag. In fact, the Confederate Constitution outlawed the salve trade (the importation of new slaves) and many of the Confederate leaders were actively working toward a gradual emancipation - just as had happened in Europe and the northern states, and as was still happening in South America. In none of these other places was a war necessary to end slavery, and it would not have been necessary in the Confederate States of America.

Without the attrocities committed by the Yankees in this this War of Northern Aggression, and the subsequent punitive "Reconstruction," race relations would be much better today throughtout the United States. It is also quite possible that the Confederate States would have peacefully returned to the Union if only Lincoln would have ended the unfair taxation in which the Southern states paid up to 85% of the national budget, which was spent mostly in the North. Instead, Lincoln planned to raise the unjust tarrifs against the South by 40%, and then he called for an army to collect those taxes. That's when, and why, the South seceded. The terrible effects of Lincoln's misguided war are still being felt almost 150 years later.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Mr. Lincoln's War - An Irrepressible Conflict?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

“[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”
—London Times, November 7, 1861

“The preservation of the union is the supreme law.”
—Andrew Jackson, December 25, 1832

The Civil War was the greatest tragedy ever to befall the nation. Brother slew brother. Six hundred thousand of American’s best and bravest died of shot, shell, and disease. The South was bled to death, invaded, ravaged by Union armies, occupied for a dozen years. Under federal bayonets, her social and political order was uprooted and the 11 states that had fought to be free of the Union were “reconstructed” by that Union. America’s South would need a century to recover.

Thirteen decades after Appomattox the questions remain: Was it “an irrepressible conflict”? Was it a necessary war? Was it, as Churchill wrote, “the noblest and least avoidable of all the great mass-conflicts of which till then there was record”? Was it a just war? What became of the great tariff issue that had divided and convulsed the nation equally with slavery in the decades before the war? Are there lessons for us in this most terrible of tragedies where all of the dead were Americans?

After any such war, it is the victors who write the history. That has surely been true of the Civil War. Among the great myths taught to American schoolchildren has been that the “Great Emancipator,” Abraham Lincoln, was elected to free the slaves from bondage, that America’s “Civil War” was fought to end slavery in the United States.
 This is fable. Even the name given this terrible war is wrong. A civil war is a struggle for power inside a nation like the War of the Roses, or the horrible war between Bolsheviks and Czarists in Russia, “Reds” and “Whites,” after Lenin’s October Revolution. The combatants from 1861-1865 were not fighting over who would govern the United States. The South had never contested Lincoln’s election. The South wanted only to be free of the Union.

The war was not over who would rule in Washington, but who would rule in South Carolina, Georgia, and the five Gulf states that had seceded by the time of Fort Sumter. From the standpoint of the North, this was a War of Southern Secession, a War to Preserve the Union. To the South this was the War for Southern Independence.

The Birth of a Myth

At the dedication of Gettysburg Battlefield, on November 19, 1863, three years after Lincoln’s election, the Great Myth was born. There, Abraham Lincoln declared that the war had been, all along, about equality.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."

But four score and seven years before Lincoln spoke was 1776. The “new nation” may have been “conceived” in 1776, but it was not born until 1788 after the ninth state had ratified the Constitution. In that Constitution, freemen, black and white, were equal. But slavery, the antithesis of equality, was protected. By Benjamin Franklin’s compromise, slaves were to be considered as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation in the House. Painful to concede, it is more truthful to say that slavery, the essence of inequality, was embedded in the Constitution of the new nation.

Moreover, in reaching back to 1776, Lincoln had invoked, in defense of a war to crush a rebellion, the most powerful brief every written on behalf of rebellion. The Declaration of Independence is not about preserving a union. It is a declaration of secession; it is about the “Right of the People to alter or to abolish” one form of government “and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers on such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” It is about a person’s right “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.”

Friday, October 30, 2009

The War for Southern Independence and the University of Georgia




Near the 1857 Arch which marks the main entrance to the campus of the University of Georgia, at the intersection of Broad Street and College Avenue, Athens, Georgia, this historical marker gives a brief history of the university and bears silent witness to the impact of the War of 1861-1865, which is here named the War for Southern Independence.  The marker reads:

Endowed with 40,000 acres of land in 1784 and chartered in 1785, the charter was the first granted by a state for a government controlled university. After Louisville and the Greensboro were first selected, the current site was chosen.

The first president, and author of the school's charter, Abraham Baldwin, resigned when the doors opened, and was succeeded by Josiah Meigs. The University first began to thrive under Moses Waddel, who became president in 1819. Alonzo Church was president in 1829-1859.

During the War for Southern Independence, most of the students entered the Confederate Army. The University closed its doors in 1864, and did not open again until January 1866. After the war many Confederate veterans became students.

Famous pre-war professors were John and Joseph LeConte and Charles F. McCay, while famous students were Robert Toombs, Alexander H Stephens, Howell Cobb, and Crawford W. Long.

Plans for a modern university were first developed by Walter B. Hill and realized under Harmon W. Caldwell. The best known of the post-war presidents (now chancellors) was David C. Barrow. The Builder of the modern plant was Chancellor Steadman V Sanford.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Confederates Gave their Lives in the Spirit of 1776

Texas Confederate Monument, State Capitol, Austin

Like the people of all the Southern States, Texans are justly proud of the men from the Lone Star State who paid the ultimate sacrifice in defending their homeland against the invading Union armies during the War for Southern Independence. The inscription on the Confederate Monument in front of the State Capitol in Austin, Texas reads:

DIED
FOR STATES RIGHTS
GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION

THE PEOPLE OF THE SOUTH, ANIMATED BY THE SPIRIT OF 1776, TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS,
WITHDREW FROM THE FEDERAL COMPACT IN 1861. THE NORTH RESORTED TO COERCION.
THE SOUTH, AGAINST OVERWHELMING NUMBERS AND RESOURCES,
FOUGHT UNTIL EXHAUSTED.
DURING THE WAR THERE WERE TWENTY TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY SEVEN ENGAGEMENTS.
IN EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND EIGHTY TWO OF THESE, AT LEAST ONE REGIMENT TOOK PART.
NUMBER OF MEN ENLISTED:
CONFEDERATE ARMIES 600,000; FEDERAL ARMIES 2,859,132
LOSSES FROM ALL CAUSES:
CONFEDERATE, 437,000; FEDERAL, 485,216


Thursday, July 23, 2009

John H. Reagan on Causes of the War

John Henniger Reagan, Postmaster General of the C.S.A.

John H. Reagan served as a United States Congressman from Texas both before and after the War Between the States. During the interim, he was a member of Confederate President Jefferson Davis' cabinet, Postmaster General of the Confederate States of America. In spite of severe difficulties he served with distinction and effectiveness. One historian called the postal service of the Confederate States "the only post office department in American history to pay its own way,"

On April 19, 1903, as the last surviving member of the Confederate States Cabinet, Reagan gave a very interesting and enlightening speech in Houston, Texas, on "Why the South Seceded." He said, in part:

"During the war, 1861 to 1865, and ever since there has been a studied, systematic effort on the part of those who were our adversaries to pervert and falsify the history of the causes which led to that war....

"Their (the North's) pretense was that They were fighting to save the Union, and they made thousands of honest soldiers believe they were fighting for the Union. Their leaders knew that the Union rested on the Constitution, and that their purpose was to overthrow the Constitution. The Union the soldiers fought for was the Union established by the Constitution. The Union the leaders sought was only to be attained by the subversion of the Constitution, the annulment of the doctrine of State rights, the making of a consolidated central republic, abolishing the limitations prescribed by the Constitution and substituting a popular majority of the people of the whole Union in their stead, and to open the way for individual and corporate gain through the agency of the government....


"Our people were not responsible for the war; it was forced on them. They were not rebels or traitors. They simply acted as patriots, defending their rights and their homes against the lawless and revolutionary action of a dominant and reckless majority."

You can read the entire speech here: http://civilwartalk.com/Resource_Center/General_Resources/Politics_and_Politicians/why-the-south-seceded-a442.html