Colonial Versus British Law

Between 1680-1688 England operated 249 slave ships; from 1713, for twenty years, 15,000 slaves were annually shipped to America; by 1786, England had brought over 97,000 slaves. Though Liverpool was the chief port for this trade, Bristol was a close second. New England was not slow in this nefarious system – by 1725 it had become the center of the transatlantic slave trade. After the Pequot tribe was vanquished in the latter 1630s, Puritans sold captive men, women and children into West Indies slavery.

Colonial Versus British Law

“Slavery [in American colonies] simply evolved in practice, as a custom, and then received statutory recognition. Actually, the process of “recognition” was implicit, involving no articulation of first principles. In 1636 the governor and council of Barbados decreed that “Negroes and Indians, that come here to be sold, should serve for Life, unless a Contract was made before to the contrary.” A Rhode Island statute of 1652 cited “the common course practiced among English men to buy Negars, to that end that they may have them for service or slaves forever.”

The famous Fundamental Constitutions, drawn up by John Locke and the Earl of Shaftesbury in 1669 for the nascent South Carolina colony, guaranteed that “Every Freeman of South Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over Negro Slaves.” [And] the reality is that slavery was principally acknowledged in law by an extensive set of police measures.

Chief Justice Sir John Holt reasoned that “as soon as a negro comes to England, he becomes free; one may be a villein in England, but not a slave.” Yet in an earlier opinion he concluded to the contrary that Africans were indeed commodities; yet in no case did the common law ever meddle with, ratify, reject or otherwise directly address slavery in the colonies, as opposed to England, other than as the apparent custom of the colonies.

In fact, there are many reported cases concerning the English slave-trading monopoly, indebted tobacco or sugar planters, the duties charged on various plantation commodities, and trade to Africa and America, all matters whose circumstances frequently involved black slaves.”

(Slavery and the Law, Paul Finkelman, ed., Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002, pp. 382; 388-389)

Florida’s Reconstruction

By order of the Sixth District’s Federal military occupation commander, Major-General John Pope, the election of Florida’s constitutional convention members was to be held on November 14, 15 and 16, 1867. Those chosen to register voter names were noted as “pronounced and bitter Republican partisans,” and holding positions as election officers and poll judges.

The struggles over Reconstruction issues in Florida noted below would revive the State’s prewar Democratic party, as conservative citizens became aware of the Republican scheme to form a “ring” to monopolize the State’s railways with New York funding.

Florida’s Reconstruction

“The native whites were not exhibiting interest in registering [under Reconstruction rule]. From Walton County, West Florida, came the report: “I fear this class (negroes, carpetbaggers and scalawags) will control the county unless a greater interest can be awakened.” What is true of Walton is true of most of the counties in the State,” announced the Floridian.

The mass of the whites had refrained from voting, with only 1,220 white votes cast, of which 203 were against assembling the convention. The Conservative party [of native whites] had succeeded neither in making Conservative voters of the negroes nor in preventing them from voting the Republican ticket.

Forty-six delegates were actually returned in this election: eighteen were negroes, and three of the latter were citizens of other States. Of the twenty-seven whites, one or two were Conservatives, fifteen or sixteen were Radical carpetbaggers from the North, and ten or twelve Southern loyalist or “scalawags.”

What were the obvious characteristics of these delegates chosen by the newly enfranchised? Several of the negro members were unlettered – unable to read or write. Two or three of the blacks had evil reputations and would have done better in jail than in legislative halls. Of the whites, the native Union or loyalist element was made up of men of no particular reputation – good or bad – and of mediocre enlightenment.

The carpetbag or Northern element – composing about one-third of the delegates – contained some men of considerable intelligence and passable education. The most cultured member of the convention, probably, was Jonathan Gibbs, a tall and slightly- built man of color indicating mulatto origin. Born in Philadelphia, educated at Dartmouth College and Princeton Theological Seminary, he was a fairly successful type of an intelligent black subjected to New England culture.

Sent into Florida for philanthropic work among the negroes. He soon entered politics and was ere long in rubbing shoulders with cantankerous and thieving ignorance. He died before the end of Republican rule, ostensibly from eating too heavy a dinner. It was rumored that he was poisoned by fellow Republicans.”

(The Civil War & Reconstruction in Florida, William Watson Davis, Columbia University, 1913, pp. 491-495)

 

Dahomey’s Export Trade

To understand how the slave trade to the Americas developed, one must look to the African country of Dahomey which existed from about 1600 until 1904 and is now known as the Republic of Benin. These warlike people, the Fon, became a strong regional power in the 18th century with an economy built upon conquest and slave labor. The Fon soon conquered the port of Whydah on the Atlantic coast, from which it exported its slaves to European traders.

Dahomey’s Export Trade

“Visitors extensively documented the kingdom which became one of the most familiar African nations known to Europeans, as it became known as a major supplier of slaves. Dahomey was a highly militaristic society organized for constant warfare, taking captives in wars and raids against its neighbors and trading them to Europeans as slaves in exchange for weapons, gunpowder, fabric, tobacco and alcohol. Other captives became slaves for Dahomey royal plantations or died in human sacrifice celebrations known as the Annual Customs of Dahomey.

In the 1840s, Dahomey was in decline due to British pressure to abolish the slave trade, which included the anti-slavery blockade of Africa by the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron. The country was also weakened after crushing defeats by the Yoruba who were migrating south. Territorial disputes with France led to war in 1890 and part of the kingdom became a French protectorate. Renewed fighting led to the end of the kingdom four years later and annexation into French West Africa. French Dahomey gained independence in 1960 with Hubert Maga as its first president, who was deposed in an army coup three years later led by Gen. Soglo, who dismissed the civilian government. Another military coup occurred in late 1967; yet another in 1969, and another in 1972. Between 1974 and 1989 Dahomey embraced socialism and changed its name to the People’s Republic of Benin. In 1990, Benin abandoned its Marxist ideology, began moving toward multiparty democracy, and changed its name again, to the Republic of Benin.”

Its literacy rate in 2010 was recorded to be 42.4%. (Wikipedia)

 

“So Many Times . . .”

Maj-General Robert F. Hoke once said in regard to the War:

“So many times we failed of success by such a narrow margin that it seems it was not intended that we should succeed.”

(Confederate Veteran, September 1912, pg. 437)

Hoke’s Men at Cold Harbor

The Lincoln government fed northern newspapers horrid tales of inhuman treatment of prisoners held at Andersonville, Georgia, while refusing Southern pleadings to send doctors and medicine safe passage to feed and treat them. Grant’s policy, underscored by Lincoln, was to refuse prisoner exchange as blue-clad prisoners would be sent home to recuperate while most Southern prisoners returned to the ranks to fight.

Hoke’s Men at Cold Harbor

“At an early hour on June 3, 1864, the battle was opened by a vicious assault upon our right and center,” much of which was occupied by Maj-Gen. Robert F. Hoke’s command. As our cannon commanded the field, the loss of the enemy was frightful to contemplate with the ground on our front covered with their dead and wounded. For two days Grant left his dead unburied and the wounded left to their loneliness and agony. Then he reluctantly asked for a truce to bury the one and care for the other.”

Time and time again the order was given to advance as new troops were moved to the front and division after division was hurled against the works held by Kershaw and Hoke, where Lee’s veterans with steady nerve and accurate aim sent death and destruction to the advancing hosts of the enemy. Everywhere along the line Grant’s mighty army was hurled back by a storm of steel.”

(Sketch of Gen. Robert Hoke, Tho. Hufham, Confederate Veteran, Sept. 1912, p. 438)

Memorial to the Victors at Plymouth

Memorial to the Victors at Plymouth

The following is an extract from the address by Josephus Daniels, June 19, 1928, at the unveiling of the Confederate Memorial Marker on the site of the Battle of Plymouth, North Carolina.

“If the man from Mars should seek to learn how the Confederate army, poorly equipped and poorly-fed, kept at bay superior forces for four long years, the answer would be” “Look at the character, resourcefulness, and courage of the men who led the armies and who followed them in battle.”

Every army is judged by the oncoming generation, not by its victories or defeats, but by the spirit and life of its personnel. By that standard the battalions of the South have stood the test of threescore and more years.

While the survivors of those who wore the grey cannot take their sons to Gettysburg or to Appomattox and say, “Upon these battlefields we overpowered our opponents and carried our standards to victory,” they can indeed point to success after success won against superior odds, almost in the very shadow of Washington, DC, and on a hundred fields of battle. Among these splendid victories that attest to the glory of the brave men who achieved them stands out in bold relief the battle of Plymouth. It is fitting, therefore, that we should stand here today with the thin line of the immortals with bowed heads, in honor of the victor of Plymouth, as there is unveiled here a memorial to their valor and their success.

Many battles surpassed the one waged and won here by Southern troops, for the most part North Carolinians, in the number of troops or in far-reaching results. It has, however, one distinction that is without parallel in that the victory was so highly esteemed by President Jefferson Davis that he promoted Brig-Gen. Hoke to the rank of Major General by telegraph immediately after the news reached him.

This was the only promotion made directly by President Davis on the field of battle during the war.”

(“Two Illustrious Roberts of the Southern Confederacy.” Confederate Veteran, September 1912, pg. 437)

 

Old Men and Boys Defend Marianna

The raid upon the peaceful town of Marianna, Florida in late September 1864 was led by Brig-Gen. Alexander Asboth, a refugee from the failed 1848 Hungarian socialist revolution. Earlier in the Civil War he fought under Fremont in Missouri and Arkansas along with other European revolutionaries, following nomination as brigadier by Abraham Lincoln. In 1863 he commanded the district of West Florida and led raids to suppress armed resistance. During his attack on Marianna, Asboth was severely wounded by two bullets, one shattering his left arm and another lodged under his right cheek.

Old Men and Boys Defend Marianna

“September 18-October 4: General Asboth leaves Barrancas at the head of 700 picked mounted troops- black and white – and several artillery pieces. They cross Pensacola Bay and move the fifty miles to East Pass. Here the raiders take on supplies from their steamer Lizzie Davis and then march rapidly northeast into Washington and Walton counties.

At daybreak on September 23, a surprise attack is made on the town of Eucheanna plundering homes, gathering horses and mules, and taking fifteen citizens as prisoners. The raiding column then moves toward Jackson County while news of their approach quickly reaches the town of Marianna, the county seat. Defense reparations are hastily made there with the few depleted companies of irregular Confederate troops in and about the town. Also, old men and boys are armed with available weapons such as shotguns and squirrel rifles. The defenders erect a barricade where the road forks within the town, and there some 300 men and boys await the enemy’s arrival.

The raiders come up rapidly and sweep aside the barricade with artillery and follow this with a determined charge by the 2nd Maine Cavalry. The defending force is dispersed with some withdrawing to the Chipola River bridge, and many taking refuge in the nearby Episcopal Church and continue firing from its windows. The enemy then sets fire to the church, and its defenders are shot down as they run into the graveyard, falling amid its headstones. Some of the boys are burned to death inside the church. The enemy advance is finally checked at the Chipola Bridge.

In this raid the enemy lost a total of 39 killed and wounded, and before leaving town they plundered stores and homes, taking with them 81 prisoners, 200 horses, 600 Negroes and 400 cattle.”

(The Civil War and Reconstruction in Florida, William Watson Davis. Columbia University, 1913, pp. 311-312)

Henry Timrod on the 4th of July

Henry Timrod (1828-1867) was an American poet born to a family of German immigrants – his father a veteran of the Seminole Wars. Henry was educated first in Classical schools and in 1847 attended the University of Georgia at Athens.
Henry was a member of Charleston’s literati and often in the company of Basil Gildersleeve and William Gilmore Simms.
 Henry Timrod on the 4th of July
“We have no inclination to deprive [this] day of its just honors on which was, for the first time, effectively and solemnly enunciated – ‘the right of the people to alter and abolish a form of Government, deriving it’s just powers from the consent of the governed.’ This is the principle for which we are even now contending, and which we have never violated; and, therefore, whatever associations are connected with that mid-summer day in the year of our Lord 1776, ought to be peculiarly and perpetually cherished by the citizens and citizen-soldiers of these Confederate States of America.
When the time and our means permit, we shall be glad to see renewed, with every return of the occasion, the bonfires and rejoicings with which it used to be celebrated, and we shall read, with hardly less pleasure than in the season of our boyhood, the familiar but ever fresh truths appropriate to the day written by the art of the pyrotechnist in letters of emerald and crimson against the dusk evening sky.
Yet while we advocate the celebration of the 4th by ourselves, we don’t know what right the Yankees have to regard it with like respect. It is one of the most remarkable proofs of their effrontery as a nation that they would dare to take the name of that day in vain. The impudence of the thing almost surpasses belief. But it is a piece of the bold hypocrisy of a people who represent themselves as the philanthropists of the world while they are engaged in a crusade of extermination against another.”

The Great American Misfortune

The Northern States actually gained wealth, population and power between 1861 and 1865, during the concurrent destruction of the American Confederacy. The North’s industrial production exploded and made agriculture prosper, while the flood of European immigration more than replaced the men in blue lost by Grant, Sheridan and Sherman. The South was in shambles and soon the North would send its carpetbaggers and Union League organizers to loot anything of value that remained.

The Great American Misfortune

“On June 19, 1865, General Gordon Granger of the Union army landed in Texas. At Galveston he proclaimed, in the name of President Johnson, that the authority of the United States over Texas was restored, that all acts of the Confederacy were null and void, and that the slaves were free. With him, thousands of bluecoats arrived in Texas; 52,000 were sent to the border areas alone. This force was meant to overawe the French in Mexico; the others congregating along the coast were sent as a show of force to keep order in the State. None of these troops proceeded to the old Indian forts; few marched to the interior and most camped in the centers of population in the east. There was no opposition. Thousands of Texans watched Union soldiers march through the State with fife and drum; men, women, and small children saw miles of bayonets go by.

Few Texans saw the fact that the big battalions had won as “right.” They had fought valiantly for the right as they saw it, for the Constitution as their people construed it, and for liberty as Texans felt it. The Texans were stubborn and prideful people. They had conquered Mexicans and driven out Indians. Few Texans then living saw things any other way; the Northern enthusiasm had been a war for democracy had no currency. In 1861, Texas had been an Anglo-Saxon democracy too.

The knowledge of defeat was bitter, but the coming humiliations were worse. The State was placed under military rule and army tribunals replaced the civil courts . . . Army officers were able to act as they saw fit. More galling than the actual atrocities [by Union soldiers], however, was the fact that most Northerners took an almost sadistic pleasure in demeaning or ridiculing the pretensions and folkways of the Southern race.

Thousands of the occupation troops in Texas were composed of Negro regiments. In every locality where Negroes were stationed, there was trouble, without exception. The public could not bar them, but it refused to accept them. Texans took the other side of the street to avoid passing them; women spat on the ground they trod. Men who made gestures of resistance, or who appeared in public in remnants of gray uniforms, were arrested.

Union officers were pariahs, and some reacted bitterly to this. At Victoria, the Negro garrison terrorized the town. Its white officers refused to let any professed Union man or Negro be jailed by local citizens for any offense. At Brenham, Negro troops burned down the town and no soldier or officer was ever brought to trial or admonished for this act. Other Union soldiers raided Brownsville.

This had not happened to Americans before, and few people in the North ever understood its full and lasting effect. The great American misfortune was not that it happened so much as that it was to go on so long. In Texas, outside rule was to last not a few months, but for nine long years. These years seeded for a century certain hatreds, fears, distrusts and suspicions along with psychic damage in the native Texas soul.”

(Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans. T.R. Fehrenbach. Collier Books, 1968, pp. 394-395)

 

The Deadliest War

The author cited below wrote: “Perhaps it was cold comfort to dismembered Mexico, but the “Mexican Cession” led in the next two decades to the death of a million gringos, as well as to sectional hatreds that persist to the present.” The Compromise of 1850 led to the political rise of Lincoln, John Brown’s violence, the formation of the Republican party, the election of Lincoln, the withdrawal of Southern States and war.

The Deadliest War

“The Deadliest war in American history, in terms of total deaths per thousand who served per year, at last was over. Of the 100,182 soldiers, sailors, marines who participated, only 1548 were killed in action, but 10,970 died from disease and exposure. Thus, the mortality rate was 110 per 1000 per annum (as compared with a Civil War rate of 65; a Spanish-American War rate of 27.79; and a World War I rate of 16. In World War II the death rate was about 3 percent of the total strength of the armed forces.

And the death rate was appallingly high in relation to the length of actual combat, for the conflict with Mexico lasted just twenty-two months (with only seventeen months of actual combat) . . . [and American soldiers] would continue to succumb to diseases contracted in Mexico for the next several decades. J.J. Oswandel, a veteran of the war, wrote in 1885, “After the close of the war we returned home with impaired health . . . with a disease contracted in a strange climate, which, in a few years after the war had taken from their homes more than half of those who returned.”

(North America Divided: The Mexican War, 1846-1848. S. Connor & O. Faulk. Oxford University Press, 1971, pp.170-171)