Circa1865

Early Spencer carbine-investor, Maine congressman (later Senator) James G. Blaine was an avid Lincoln supporter and determined to find more advanced weaponry with which to subdue the South’s drive for political independence. The incessant drive for more destructive death machines did much to develop the North’s burgeoning arms industry.

Postwar, Blaine was implicated in the Credit Mobilier scandal during the Grant administration, whereby railroad companies bribed federal officials to turn a blind eye to fraudulent contracts which overcharged the federal government by millions of dollars.

To More Effectively Kill Americans

“Christopher M. Spencer, inventor of the Spencer Carbine, after much difficulty in getting his product before [Northern] officials, finally got a hearing from Lincoln himself. An amusing incident occurred typical of both arms merchant and the famous rail-splitter. Spencer set up a shingle against a tree, fired a few shots at it, then handed the gun to the President who took aim and got results less satisfactory than did the inventor. Lincoln handed the gun back to the inventor with the remark: “When I was your age I could do better.”

But Spencer had won the President, and he left with an order for all the guns he could furnish.

Spencer at once proceeded to organize a company of which James G. Blaine was a stockholder, who was a then-congressman from Maine, later a Senator from the same State, Secretary of State in two cabinets, and 1880 presidential candidate of his party.

As stockholder in the Spencer Arms Company, he was apparently not very comfortable, since he inscribed on the letters which he wrote to the company secretary a note reading: “Burn these letters.” This little-known side of Blaine’s life harmonizes very well with his other shady dealings with western railroads and schemes, for which even his own partisans bitterly denounced him.”

(Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armament Industry. H.C. Englebrecht, F.C. Hanighen. Dodd, Meade & Company. 1934, pp. 67-68)

Since the early 1700s, New England merchants were engaged in the transatlantic slave trade which populated the American South with labor for the plantations. After Eli Whitney’s gin was invented in the 1790s, the owners of New England’s busy cotton textile looms ignored the moral and humane aspects of perpetuating slavery, being more concerned with profit and loss statements. Once war began in 1861, they focused on their government capturing Southern ports to reopen the supply of cotton.

Improved Arms for Gold

“September 6^th – We are not increasing our forces as rapidly as might be desired, for the want of arms. We had some 150,000 stand of arms, at the beginning of the war, taken from the arsenals; and the States owned probably 100,000 more. Half of these were flint-locks, which are being altered. None have been imported yet.

Occasionally a letter reaches the department from Nashville, offering improved arms at a high price, for gold. These are Yankees.

I am instructed by the Secretary to say they will be paid for in gold on delivery to an agent in Nashville. The number likely to be obtained in this manner, however, must be small; for the Yankee Government is exercising much vigilance.

Is this not a fair specimen of Yankee cupidity and character? The New England manufacturers are furnishing us, with whom they are at war, with arms to fight with, provided we pay them a higher price than is offered by their own Government! The philosophical conclusion is, that this war will end when it ceases to be a pecuniary speculation.”

(Rebel War Clerk’s Diary at the Confederate Capital, Volume I. J.B. Jones. J.B. Lippincott & Co. 1866, pg. 78)

“We Are Now an Occupied Territory”

Gov. Orval Faubus’ Message to Arkansas:

“On Tuesday, September 24, 1957 . . . the cleverly conceived plans of the US Justice Department under Republican Herbert Brownell, were placed in execution. One thousand two hundred troops of the 101^st Airborne Division were flown in from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to occupy Little Rock’s Central High School.

At the same time, the entire Arkansas National Guard and Air guard were federalized and are now a part of the US Army and Air Force. We are now an occupied territory.

Evidence of the naked force of the federal government is here apparent in the unsheathed bayonets in the backs of schoolgirls – in the backs of students – and in the bloody face of a railroad worker, who was bayoneted and then felled by the butt of a rifle in the hands of a sergeant of the 101^st Airborne Division. This man, on private property, as a guest in a home two blocks from the school, has been hospitalized. Others have suffered bayonet wounds from the hands of the US Army soldiers. Your New York newspapers also show the scenes.

Up until the time the injunction was issued against me by the imported federal judge, the peace had been kept in Little Rock by as few as 30 National Guardsmen. Not a blow was struck, no injury inflicted on any person, and no property damage sustained. I wish to point out that no violence broke out in the city until after the injunction was issued by the imported federal judge, and the National Guardsmen were withdrawn. And I might add here, all we have ever asked for is a little time, patience and understanding, as so often expressed by President Eisenhower himself, in solving this problem.

In the name of God, whom we all revere, in the name of liberty we hold so dear, in the name of decency, which we all cherish – what is happening in America? Is every right in the United States Constitution now lost? Does the will of the people, that basic precept of our republic, no longer matter? Must the will of the majority now yield, under federal force, to the will of the minority, regardless of the consequences?

If the answers to these questions are in the affirmative . . . we no longer have a union of States under a republican form of government. If this be true, then the States are mere subdivisions of an all-powerful federal government, these subdivisions being nothing more than districts for the operation of federal agents and federal military forces – forces which operate without any regard for the rights of a sovereign State or its elected officials, and without due regard for personal and property rights.

The imported federal comes from a State a thousand miles away with no understanding whatsoever of the difficulties of our problems in the field of race relations.”

(Another Tragic Era: Gov. Faubus Gives His Side of the Arkansas Story. US News & World Report, October 4, 1957, pp. 66-67)

Late-war and early postwar Northern propaganda attributed the basest motives to the American Confederacy as the Republican Radicals prepared their punishments for the defeated. They asserted that “it was not merely the Southern people . . . they were abetted by their government . . . a congressional investigation reported that “there was a fixed determination on the part of the rebels to kill the Union soldiers who fell into their hands.” The US Sanitary Commission declared that “the conclusion is unavoidable . . . that these privations and sufferings [in prison camps] have been designedly inflicted by the military and other authorities of the rebel government.” Both reports were publicized by the North’s infamous “Loyal League.

Shaping the Demand for Revenge

“Northern opinion was thus rigidly shaped in the belief that “tens of thousands of national soldiers . . . were deliberately shot to death, as at Fort Pillow, of frozen to death at Belle Island, or starved to death at Andersonville, or sickened to death by swamp malaria, as in South Carolina.” Horror passed into fury and fury into a demand for revenge.

The New York Times insisted that “every rebel official who had been concerned, directly or indirectly, in the torturing and murdering of our prisoners” should be excluded from the terms of presidential pardon. Secretary of War Stanton ordered officers of armies advancing into the South to arrest the “inhuman monsters” most prominent in management of prisons. The archfiend of iniquity, for so the North considered him, Major Henry Wirz, was hanged as a murderer.

It was not until 1876 that the publication of R. R. Stevenson’s “The Southern Side, or Andersonville Prison” and J.W. Jone’s “The Confederate View of the Treatment of Prisoners” gave to such unbiased minds as might wish to know an adequate exposition of the Southern side. It was not difficult to find, however, material in these years that indicates the South received the Northern charge with sullen hatred. Typical is an article contributed to the Southern Review of January 1867:

“The impartial times to come will hardly understand how a nation, which not only permitted but encouraged its government to declare medicines and surgical instruments contraband of war, and to destroy by fire and sword the habitations and food of non-combatants, as well as the fruits of the earth and the implements of tillage, should afterwards have clamored for the blood of captive enemies, because they did not feed their prisoners out of their own starvation and heal them in their hospitals [devoid of medicines].

[When the facts of the deliberate and inexorable non-exchange of prisoners and refusal of food and medicines for Andersonville prisoners is realized], men will wonder how it was that a people, passing for civilized and Christian, should have consigned a Jefferson Davis to a cell, while they tolerated Edwin M. Stanton as a cabinet minister.”

So, the endless argument continued. The wounds remained unhealed festering their poison in unforgiveness. While Northerners blamed the evil genius of slavery for the war, Southerners pointed the finger of responsibility to “those men who preached the irrepressible conflict to the Northern people” and “helped to bring on that unlawful and unholy invasion of the South.”

(The Road to Reunion, Paul H. Buck. Little, Brown and Company, 1937, pp. 46-48)    

The Southern Historical Society was founded in 1868 by Gen. Dabney Herndon Maury and dedicated to the preservation of the history of the Confederate government and its war for independence. Gen. Isaac Trimble was elected vice-president of the Society for the State of Maryland and was very active in attending meetings and contributing essays until his death in 1888 at age 82. The eminent historian Douglas Southall Freeman described Trimble as “a dark handsome man with flaming eye and deep ambition – perhaps disposed to be contentious, certainly a dandy in dress, but of the most conspicuous courage and a furious, insatiable fighter.”

Trimble’s View of Gettysburg

“One of the most-recognized essays written by Gen. Trimble was his recounting of his role at Gettysburg, and analysis of that battle. It is not precisely known when this essay was written, because it was not published until ten years after Gen. Trimble’s death, in 1898. The original manuscript had been in the possession of Major Graham [Daves] of North Carolina, who recounted that Trimble had written it for Veterans’ Associations and had given it to him for safekeeping. It is likely that the essay was originally delivered as a speech.

In the twenty or so years following the War, Gettysburg more than ever came to be seen as the “high water mark of the Confederacy” and virtually everyone with a perspective was contributing their proverbial “two-cents worth”. Trimble was not to be left out of the discussion, for his opinions were strong indeed. He prefaced his comments thusly:

“But it is certain that the Confederate commander never for a moment supposed that he could take a large army into Pennsylvania and continue there many weeks without fighting a great battle somewhere. This, General Lee hoped to do on ground of his own choice, with deliberate plan, and under circumstances entirely favorable to success. We are to see how these reasonable expectations were defeated by adverse circumstances; disobedience of orders by his commander of cavalry and want of concerted action and vigorous onset among his corps commanders at critical moments in the assaults of each of the three days.”

Trimble was of the opinion that the three days’ fighting at Gettysburg were a draw, and certainly the fact of the two armies at rest, facing one another for the day of July 4^th, supports his contention. He also opined in his essay that had one of several errors by the Confederates not occurred, the battle could have been a signal victory for Lee.

Trimble specifically enumerated [nine] errors by the Confederate army at Gettysburg, and in so doing gives vent to his old resentments toward Stuart and Ewell [plus Rodes and Longstreet].

Trimble concluded his commentary by the statement that there was “no question” that a victory at Gettysburg “would have secured Southern independence.”

(Furious, Insatiable Fighter: A Biography of Major General Isaac Ridgeway Trimble, CSA. David C. Trimble. University Press of America, 2005, pp. 117-118)

Abolitionist Wendell Phillip’s own State of Massachusetts was the first British colony in America to codify African slavery within its borders, and its maritime fleet dominated the transatlantic slave trade in the first half of the eighteenth century. The speaker below was Major Graham Daves, Memorial Day Address presenter at Raleigh, North Carolina, May 10, 1901. All city businesses were virtually closed that afternoon – all banks and most State offices were closed.

Wendell Phillips on South Carolina’s Independence

“It is a matter of interest and worthy of memory, that the right of secession and the duty of the United States Government to withdraw its forces from the seceded territory were admitted by very distinguished abolitionist authority. By no less a person than Wendell Phillips of Massachusetts, the great and able abolitionist, the ‘silver tongued orator,’ distinguished scholar, bold uncompromising foe of the American South and of her institutions.

In a speech delivered at New Bedford, Massachusetts, on April 9^th, 1861, just four days before the reduction of Fort Sumter by Confederate forces, he said:

“Here are a series of States girding the Gulf, who believe their peculiar institutions require that they should have a separate government. They have a right to decide that question without appealing to you or me. A large body of the people sufficient to make a nation, have come to the conclusion that they will have a government of a certain form. Who denies them the right?

Standing with the principles of 1776 behind us, who can deny them the right? What is the matter of a few millions of dollars or a few forts? It is a mere drop in the bucket of the great national question. It is theirs as much as it is ours. I maintain on the principles of 1776 that Abraham Lincoln has no right to a soldier in Fort Sumter.”

Those are the words of Wendell Phillips. Can language be more plain or more forcible in support of the belief and action of the people who united in establishing the Confederate States of America?

(Southern Historical Society Papers, Volume XXXII, R.A. Brock, editor, published by the Society, 1904, pg. 283)

By May of 1862, Lincoln demanded more troops from Northern governors who responded that their citizens “had developed an immunity to patriotic appeals,” and some other inducement than oratory was required. This was to begin the North’s descent into the hiring of well-paid mercenaries with which to subdue the truculent American South. During the war, the US government would pay – with its fiat money greenbacks – roughly $750,000,000 in recruitment bounties for soldiers.

Bounties Produce Bounty-Jumpers

“[Northern] governors were finding that Lincoln’s threat of a draft a compelling reason to raise men. An exception, however, was found in Ohio, where blunt Governor John Brough did not face the problem of reelection in 1864. Freed from the political anxieties that weighed upon his colleagues, Brough had time to think of the costs of the recruiting program.

Under the threat of Lincoln’s draft, States, counties and townships had been giving bounties, bidding higher and higher for the lives of men, until it was possible for a potential soldier to obtain a thousand dollars for joining the army. The local communities were bankrupting themselves to avoid the draft of their citizens. The system, as Brough saw it, was destroying the confidence of the people in the government, was compounding corruption and undermining patriotism.

Brough’s solution, however, was political suicide: Let the States fill their quotas by their own drafts and let them agree to a common bounty policy. When Stanton reported to Congress that the governors asked for delays in drafting, Brough hastened to disclaim any such intention. The financial situation was bad, and recruiting had ceased: Brough wanted the draft made promptly.

But more than he wanted a draft, Brough wanted an end to the war. The bounty-bought enlistments did not produce soldiers; they only contributed bounty jumpers.”

(Lincoln and the War Governors. William B. Hesseltine. Alfred A. Knopf, 1955. Pp. 349-350)

Credit should be given to New York Governor Horatio Seymour for immediately seeing through Lincoln’s 10-percent plan of “reconstruction” of the United States, that is, creating loyal States out of conquered provinces. Even the Radical Republicans saw that Lincoln’s plan would only increase executive power while restricting their predatory raids on Southern property.

Lincoln’s Rotten Borough Political Device

“From the night of the October 1863 elections in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Lincoln kept his eyes glued on the coming contest. Two days later he was back in the War Department discussing political prospects.

The first development in the campaign was a Presidential proclamation of amnesty and reconstruction for the Southern States. On December 8 Lincoln announced that any person in the South – with the exception of high-ranking civil and military officers of the Confederacy – might be granted amnesty if he took an oath of allegiance to the United States. Moreover, whenever ten percent of the population of any State had taken the oath, they might hold elections and establish a State government, which the President would recognize.

The political implications of the proclamation were immediately evident to both Radical Republicans and Democrats. Horatio Seymour of New York perceived it as a new assault on popular liberties. In his January message to the legislature, he pointed out that the arbitrary military power of the federal government was growing steadily. Moreover, every measure to pervert the war into a war against private property and personal rights at the South had been paralleled by claims to exercise military power at the North.

He enumerated them: there was the emancipation proclamation for the South, and the suspension of habeas corpus at the North; the Confiscation Act for the South, and arrests, imprisonment and banishment for Northern citizens; the claim to destroy political organizations in the South, and the armed interference in Northern elections.

These acts against Northern liberties had been justified as necessary, but the government had given up no powers when the emergency had passed. In fact, “more prerogatives are asserted in the hour of triumph than were claimed as a necessity in days of disaster and danger.” The doctrine of Southern degradation, explained the Governor, “is a doctrine of Northern bankruptcy . . . it is a measure for lasting despotism over one-third of our country, which will be the basis for military despotism over the whole land.”

As for Lincoln’s reconstruction program, Seymour saw it as a political device. The minority of one-tenth in reconstructed States would be kept in power by the North’s arms and treasure. There would be no motive, prophesied the Governor, to draw the remaining population into the fold; instead, “there will be every inducement of power, of gain, and of ambition, to perpetuate the condition of affairs.”

Moreover, it would be to the interest of the national administration to continue this system of government. Nine controlled States in the South with 70,000 voting population would balance in the House of Representatives and in the electoral college one half the population of the United States. Fourteen hundred men in Florida would balance New York in the Senate.

Thus, the nine States mentioned in Lincoln’s proclamation, together with Pierpont’s [western] Virginia would constitute a system of rotten boroughs that would govern the nation.”

(Lincoln and the War Governors. William B. Hesseltine. Alfred A. Knopf, 1955. Pp.-350-353)

Ironically, New York’s Irish Brigade was led by Thomas Meagher, a rebellion leader in the 1848 drive for Irish independence. Captured and sentenced to death – though commuted to life in prison – he escaped to America and organized a unit of New York Irishmen. Many Irish emigres served in the Southern armies, greatly concerned that northern victory would bring a flood of emancipated slaves northward to obtain the low-paying jobs on which they depended.

His brigade was decimated at Fredericksburg in December 1862 while advancing on Lee’s well-defended position at Marye’s Heights with 1600 men and soon retreating with barely 1000 able to walk. After further decimation at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, Meagher’s brigade was reduced to well-under regimental strength with 600 men.

Postwar, Meagher was appointed Secretary of State for the Montana Territory by Andrew Johnson, and later as Territorial Governor. He fell off a steamboat and drowned in 1867 under mysterious circumstances, believed to be intoxication, suicide or possibly a political murder.

Irish Brigade

“At Fredericksburg the Irish Brigade was almost wiped out. When it became apparent to [its] leader that there was no prospect of being allowed to recruit new members for the New York regiments of the brigade, it was decided to consolidate the three regiments with perhaps 300 effective men into a battalion of six companies and muster out [unneeded] officers. General Meagher had previously asked leave to resign, as his brigade no longer existed except in name.

Meagher thought it a mockery to keep up a brigade with the few men left and great wrong to consolidate regiments that had attained great renown. Although its 63^rd Regiment served through the Wilderness Campaign – its ranks being recruited by the addition of three new companies and by augmentations – as a distinctive Irish organization it may be regarded as nonexistent after Meagher’s resignation.”

(Foreigners in the Union Army & Navy. Ella Lonn. LSU Press, 1951. p. 122)

The British officer below had little knowledge of the American South prior to arriving in Virginia for a month’s visit in 1862 – but soon became a staunch advocate of the Confederacy. After returning to England, he penned an article for Blackwood’s Magazine entitled “A Month’s Visit to the Confederate Headquarters” which the following is drawn from. His closing words in the article urged the British Parliament to recognize the Confederate States of America, writing that it was time to put an end “to the most inhuman struggle that ever disgraced a great nation.”

The Inhuman Struggle

“The first British soldier to visit the Confederacy had at one time expected to be fighting against the North. Lieutenant-Colonel Garnet J. Wolseley, a veteran of several of Queen Victoria’s wars, was part of a British force ordered to Canada during the Trent affair of late 1861. After the threat of war soon receded, he traveled to New York City in September 1862 to join London Times correspondent Frank Lawley for a visit to the American Confederacy. By the time the two men crossed the Potomac, General Robert E. Lee’s army was withdrawing from Maryland after the Sharpsburg campaign.

Even as he entered Virginia, Wolseley was favorably disposed toward the Confederacy, ostensibly out of concern for civil liberties in the wartime North. He described residents of Maryland as “stricken . . . with terror” by arrests ordered from Washington. Traveling by train from Fredericksburg to Richmond, Wolseley and Lawley shared accommodations with the wounded from Lee’s Maryland campaign. Their plight impressed even Wolseley, the professional soldier:

“Men with legs and arms amputated, and whose pale, haggard faces assumed an expression of anguish at even the slightest jolting of the railway carriages, lay stretched across the seats – some accompanied by civilian friends who had gone from Richmond to fetch them back, and others by wives or sisters, whose careworn features told a tale of sleepless nights passed in painful uncertainty regarding the fate of those they loved.”

When Wolseley reached Lee’s headquarters, he and Lawley were taken to meet the general. The British officer was impressed: “[Lee] is a strongly built man . . . He is slightly reserved; but he is a person that, whenever seen, whether in a castle or a hovel, alone or in a crowd, must at once attract attention as being a splendid specimen of an English gentleman.”

Wolseley found an appealing lack of pomp and ostentation at Lee’s headquarters, which, he noted, consisted of seven or eight pole tents, pitched on ground so rocky as to be uncomfortable to ride over. Lee’s staff lived two or three to a tent, a nearby stream being the only amenity.

Everywhere he was impressed with the tough, dedicated Confederate soldiers. Could such men be defeated, he would ask, “by mobs of Irish and German mercenaries hired at $15 a month to fight in a cause they know little and care less about?”

(British Observers in Wartime Dixie. John M. Taylor. Military History Quarterly, Winter 2002, pp. 68-69)