Category: Myth of Saving the Union

Reconstruction Days in Washington

On March 2, 1875, President Grant signed the Civil Rights Bill for which Charles Sumner had labored so many years, and which was a tribute to his memory. Southerners and Democrats in Congress had bitterly contested the Bill, which imposed a $500 fine, upon owners of restaurants, theaters and hotels which refused to accommodate all persons regardless of color. The Bill did not apply to churches nor to schools – and in the South, was held to be an unwarrantable interference with the rights of the individual States, and after a number of test cases in the lower courts, this opinion was sustained by the US Supreme Court.

Reconstruction Days in Washington

“During the Reconstruction period the colored people of Washington were able briefly to enjoy some of those advantages and privileges for which they and their Radical friends had so long struggled. The leaders of the Republican party, well-aware that only the solid support of the colored voters of the South had regained the two-thirds majority of their party in Congress and therefore anxious to preserve their loyalty, treated the colored representatives with a healthy respect.

The largest contingent of Negro congressmen had come from South Carolina, which had been under Republican control since the new state constitution of 1869. The white “Scalawag” members who had been returned to the 41st Congress had reflected little credit on their state or their party. One of them, B.F. Whittemore, had resigned after his sale of West Point cadetships was revealed. Another, C.C. Bowen, the representative for the Charleston district, was jailed for bigamy after a long and sensational trial in the District courts. Convicted by a mixed jury, Bowen was freed after two weeks in prison; he was not, however, renominated for his congressional seat.

Joseph H. Rainey was a mulatto native of Georgetown, SC and a barber. His scanty formal education had been improved by travel in the West Indies. In an interview, Rainey stated it was hard to find rooms in Washington and that colored congressmen were charged more than white men. At Falf’s Bar, across from the Post Office, he had been obliged to pay fifty cents for a glass of beer, the water freely admitting that the extra charge was account of his color.”

(The Uncivil War: Washington During the Reconstruction: 1865-1878. James H. Whyte, Twayne Publishers, 1958, pp. 237-238; 242)

Fish and Oyster Subsistence

The disbanding of the State militia by order of the Florida convention and steady withdrawal of troops for service in the Army of Tennessee forced the abandonment of Apalachicola by the military, while the Federal blockading fleet hovered off the coast. Florida created its Coast Guard in early October 1861 to defend its long shoreline. Northern military incursions and slave seizures increased in 1862 while Lincoln’s administration was negotiating with the Danes and Dutch to take those seized for their Caribbean sugar plantations.

Fish and Oyster Subsistence

“People expected Apalachicola sooner or later to experience the fate of Cedar Keys, Jacksonville, St. Augustine and Fernandina; therefore, many inhabitants followed the retiring troops to the interior. The northern blockaders had demanded in March 1862, that the town be surrendered and the people forthwith to take the oath of allegiance to the union. Whereupon a committee of citizens – among them the Roman Catholic priest responded: “The city is defenseless. There are no soldiers or arms; but there is no one having authority to surrender it.” The answer closed with the opinion that there was “no one who would take the oath of allegiance except some —- foreigners.”

The expected visitation from the Federals soon followed this candid reply. On the night of April 2nd, 1862, a boat expedition put off from two warships to find some 500 people – mostly poor whites and free Negroes – remaining out if a total population of 2500 with the streets and wharves deserted. Destitution was apparent – no flour, no sugar, no meat, very little corn. The people were dependent on fish and oysters for subsistence.

A man in the crowd called out: “Captain, some of our boys [meaning negroes] have gone to your ship. Will they be given up?” The commander responded: “No. They have been used to transport soldiers and arms, in building fortifications and a gunboat to be used against the United States. You will never get relief for their loss.”

This comparatively unimportant affair alarmed the people of the lower Chattahoochee valley, with the Columbus, Georgia voting funds to obstruct navigation above Apalachicola with a submerged boom.”

(The Civil War & Reconstruction in Florida, William Watson Davis, Columbia University, 1913, pp. 162-163)

 

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)

 

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)

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 Better Men

“Civil wars, like private quarrels, are likely to repeat themselves, where the unsuccessful party has lost the contest only through accident or inadvertence. The Confederates have gone out of this war with the proud, secret, deathless, dangerous consciousness that they are THE BETTER MEN, and there was nothing wanting but a change in a set of circumstances and a firmer resolve to make them the victors.”

(The Lost Cause. Edward A. Pollard. E. B. Treat & Company, Baltimore, Md., L. T. Palmer & Company, 1866. pg. 729)

“Rebels and Patriots”

The following address was delivered to those attending the annual Confederate Memorial Day observance in Columbus County, North Carolina.

“Rebels and Patriots”

In this cemetery today we honor brave American patriots who defended their families, hearths & country against an invading enemy 1861-1865, many of whom died doing so. Many also remain in distant unmarked graves, and whose families waited and waited for their return. Their tombstones are the many granite monuments erected all across the South.

Let us never cease to remember that these patriots were no different than the patriots of 1776, as both fought for freedom, political independence and self-government. They both proclaimed that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. And it is most important for us today to recognize that the very root the 1776 -1783 war was secession from England; and the very root of the 1861-1865 war was secession from the United States.

Today’s good news is that more are coming to recognize that the 1861 war was simply another American war of independence, though there are some holding onto their long monopoly of the narrative who do not like competition.

During the 1776-1783 Revolution, local men of the militia – mostly farmers and laborers – fought Tories & Loyalists who adhered to the British crown. This militia fought bravely at several engagements not far from this spot where we are today.

Please allow me to pose this question to you: What difference existed between the patriots at the Moore’s Creek battle in 1776, and the patriots defending Fort Fisher in January 1865? We know in both cases they defended the very same thing – political independence – with their homes, farms and families behind them. They both were there to repel an invader whose intent was to deny them political independence.

Then how is it that we are told incessantly that the patriots of 1776 fought for political independence from England, but the “rebels” of 1861-1865 were “defending slavery?”

Let’s examine the facts.

In June of 1775 a desperate North Carolina Royal Governor, Josiah Martin, proclaimed African slaves free and armed those who adhered to his authority. Only 4 months later, an equally desperate Virginia Royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, creating a black “Corps d’Afrique” to assist in subduing the “rebels.” From this point on, and as Washington did not enlist slaves, the “rebels” were fighting the emancipators.

Eighty-seven years later, when Americans in the South sought political independence from what they viewed as an oppressive government, a desperate Abraham Lincoln called them “rebels” and then followed the royal example of proclaiming African slaves free – but only within the new Confederacy.

In mid-January 1863, Ohio’s “Copperhead” US Congressman Clement Vallandigham excoriated his fellow northern congressmen for denouncing “Southern rebels,” stating:

“After 2 years of brutal warfare the North has failed to subjugate 10 million “rebels” you say. And you call them “rebels? “Your own fathers & grandfathers were “rebels.” The large canvas portrait of General Washington looking down upon us in this chamber was a “rebel.” Yet we, sitting here today, and cradled in rebellion, make the word “rebel” a reproach.”

You have every right to honor annually the “rebels” buried around us and hold them up as worthy of emulation. In 1861, your local “rebels” formed several companies to join North Carolina regiments, and as the war took its toll, your Junior Reserves did their part in the ranks.  We must also recognize the supreme dedication of the ladies at home – “rebels” as well – who formed Soldiers’ Aid Societies to collect supplies and maintain roadside hospitals.

As a last word, I want to emphasize that the “rebels” we honor today fought a just cause defending the sacred 10th Amendment – simply interpreted as home rule and “States rights” – without which the United States Constitution would not have been ratified by North Carolina.

Deo Vindice!

John Bernhard Thuersam, Historian and Author

www.circa1865.org

 

Devotion to Land, Bible and Constitution

The writer below notes that historians burdened with modern egalitarian standards often “do not grasp the most elementary concept of the sound historian: the ability to appraise the past by standards other than those of the present. They accept a fanatical nationalism which leaves no room for sectional variations.”

Devotion to Land, Bible and Constitution

Jefferson Davis [is condemned by biographers] as a prolonged conspirator against the Union. But the facts show that as late as 1860 he, as a United States senator, was advocating appropriations for the army he was to fight in less than a year. A proper sympathy for the sectional values would perhaps lead to a condemnation of Davis because he did not become a conspirator against the Union soon enough.

Davis was not one of the great revolutionists of history; he was too honorable for that. Unlike William L. Yancy and R. Barnwell Rhett, he was slow in understanding that the North was in a revolutionary conspiracy against the Constitution as he interpreted it and could be answered effectively only by counterrevolution. Allen Tate, the poet, is the only biographer who condemns Davis for not understanding that the aim of the plutocratic democracy of the North was to crush his beloved homeland.

Davis should be praised for finally recognizing the forces arrayed against his section and then heroically defending its concept of truth and justice. Despite physical weaknesses, he maintained a proud but ragged nation for four years against the powers of wealth, progress and patriotism. After defeat he did not repent.

For his failure to repent, historians will not forgive Davis. He did not respond to the new wave of nationalism which came after the Civil War. He was no pragmatist, no evolutionist. Until his death, he remained devoted to his section, the soldier who found greatest virtue in continuing the battle charge after the enemy has inflicted a grievous wound and remained the scholastic who accepted the Bible and the Constitution just as they are written. He was as optimistic in his devotion to the antique values of the South as was Don Quixote to the antique values of an older land.

If the historians of the South were as tolerant of our past as are the European historians of theirs, they would confer on the defeated President of the Confederacy as many honors as have been conferred on the famous Spanish knight.”

Tolerating the South’s Past. Francis Butler Simkins. Journal of Southern History, Vol. XXI, No. 1, February 1955, pp 33-8)

The Radical Star Chamber

The Radical element of the Republican party emerged as a means to direct and control Lincoln’s war against the American South. West Point-graduate General George McClellan was an early casualty of Radical meddling as they strove to ensure that Radicalized military commanders- usually inept – were selected for high command.

The Radical Star Chamber

“It is a sordid story of how the people’s representatives, Sumner, Stevens, Wade, Chandler, Trumbull, Henry Wilson, Henry Winter Davis, and others, undertook to determine the conduct of the war for partisan purposes. They are shown as the representatives of the new “bourgeoisie” who ‘intended to do more than use their new-fledged political power to consolidate an already dominant economic position. They meant to extend the new industrial order to the South and make that section an economic adjunct of the North.’

The most certain way to accomplish this double purpose would be to destroy slavery, and with it the Old South. The Radicals ‘loved the Negro less for himself than as an instrument with which they might fasten Republican political and economic control upon the South.’ Lincoln saw the war as a way to preserve the Union while the Radicals saw it as a way to end slavery and the slave owners’ political power.

Victory must not come, therefore, through Democratic generals like McClellan, nor after a short war which would leave slavery untouched. This was a view which sometimes placed Radicals in the ‘position of regarding Union defeats on the battlefield as helpful to their cause.’ The Radicals would dominate the Republican party, Congress, and the Executive. They would form the President’s Cabinet, shape his policies, select his generals, and control the patronage.

The Committee for the Conduct of the War was hit upon as the Congressional agency over which the President would have no power. It was a Court of Star Chamber in every respect. It developed a refined technique for browbeating witnesses, suppressing testimony, damaging reputations, making oblique attacks upon Lincoln, and all under the guise of impartial investigations designed to mobilize efficiently the forces of victory.

With Washington full of amateur strategists, the army full of politicians, Lincoln indecisive and desperate for sound advice, and the Cabinet a hodge-podge, it is not surprising that the Radicals, with principles too high to let the Constitution stand in the way, soon got the smell of blood in their nostrils and were away in full pursuit. McClellan was fair game but difficult to corner, although some of his subordinates were the victims of pot-shots. Eventually, McClellan’s own weaknesses combined with the Radical sniping caused Lincoln to send him for cover.

The Radicals were adept at picking political generals who could not fight. These usually fell by the way, with never a tear shed by those who had urged them on Lincoln as saviors of the republic. When a general favored by the Radicals lost a battle, the blame was put on a Democratic or conservative subordinate; if a conservative won a battle, as in the case of Meade at Gettysburg, it was carefully explained that the credit should go elsewhere.

Even Grant was assailed as a Democrat until the Radicals decided they wanted to annex him, and Grant was politician enough to want to be annexed.”

(Lincoln and the Radicals, T. Harry Williams. University of Wisconsin Press, 1941. Review by R.H. Woody, Duke University. North Carolina Historical Review, Vol. XIX, No. 4, October 1942, pp. 410-411)

 

A Common Agent Rather Than a King

Jefferson Davis mused in his magisterial Rise and Fall: “As time rolled on, the General Government gathering with both hands a mass of undelegated powers, reached that position which Mr. Jefferson had pointed out as an intolerable evil – the claim of a right to judge the extent of its own authority.”

A Common Agent Rather Than a King

“In July 1776, the Congress of the thirteen united colonies declared that “these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.” [England’s] denial of this asserted right and the attempted coercion made it manifest that a bond of union was necessary, for the common defense.

In November of the following year, 1777, the Articles of Confederation and perpetual union were entered into by the thirteen States under the style of “The United States of America.” Under the Articles, no amendment to them could be made except by unanimous consent, which hampered the efficient discharge of the functions entrusted to the Congress.

What is the Constitution of the United States?

The whole body of the instrument, the history of its formation and adoption, as well as the Tenth Amendment, added in an abundance of caution, clearly show it to be an instrument enumerating the powers delegated by the States to the Federal Government, their common agent. It is specifically declared that all which was not so delegated was reserved.

On this mass of reserved powers, those which the States declined to grant, the Federal Government was expressly forbidden to intrude. Of what value would this prohibition have been, if three-fourths of the States could, without the assent of a particular State, invade the domain which that State had reserved for its own exclusive use and control?

It [is, I hope], been satisfactorily demonstrated that the States were sovereigns before the formed the Union, and that they have never surrendered their sovereignty, but have only entrusted to their common agent certain functions of sovereignty to be used for their common welfare.”

(Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume I. Jefferson Davis. D. Appleton & Co., 1881, pp. 192; 195-196)