If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

[Aurelius]

Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'

Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."

Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?

At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."

Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.

Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???

Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.

[stand watie]

ROTFL, holding my sides!

what a bunch of self-serving, LYING NONSENSE. robert lincoln was a GROWN MAN;he didn't have to ask his mommy, daddy,nanny or anyone else to enlist.

i suspect he had a birth defect: a large yellow stripe down the spine. his father had that same problem when he was an officer in the militia.

you damnankee apologists are a HOOT! you will say and/or believe ANYTHING to attempt to fool the ignorant/naive/stupid. sadly for you, people here on FR are on to your game.

begone to DU, where ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous LIES are liked.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

what a SILLY post!

lincoln & those damnyankees of his ilk HATED blacks and saw them as PERMANENTLY inferior. they cared NOTHING for the welfare of blacks, whether slave or free.

what they did want, DESPERATELY, was to keep England, France & Canada out of the WBTS. that is imVho, the SOLE reason for trying to make the war "a crusade against slavery".

he also HATED/FEARED my people and openly said that "all the red savages should be exterminated, wherever they may be found".

the TRUTH is that lincoln was a STONE RACIST of the worst sort and a cheap politician, just like wee willie klintoon. you do yourself no honor by trying to defend him and his hatfilled cohorts.

free dixie,sw

[azhenfud]

Walt: "Sounds bogus. Date? Source?"

Admittedly, it does. But the truth is Abe St. Lincoln said:

"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 qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -- Abraham Lincoln (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858 (Vol. III pp. 145-461))

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks. I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the negro into our social and political life as our equal... Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the negro and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whole assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." -- Abraham Lincoln (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858 (Vol. V, pp. 371-5))

"You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated." -- Abraham Lincoln (address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes in Washington, DC on August 14, 1862 (Vol. V p. 371))

"Looks to me like Lincoln said all men were equal.

Walt"

No, he didn't say all men were equal. He said all men deserve equal opportunity afforded them under the Constitution.
You quoted Abe St. Lincoln from July of '58; I quoted from September of the same year (and later). Looks to me like if he then believed all men to be equal, he may have had a change of heart....

[capitan_refugio]

SW - "[I] know that you'd like to believe that the north's agressive war of attrition against the new southern republic was motivated by honorable desires to free the slaves.""

Watie, I know enough history to know that it was not Lincoln's primary motivation at the start of the war. There are many posts on this thread, contemporary threads, and prior threads which point that out, so let's not beat the dead horse of Union motiviation. I don't usually discuss Union motivation because it has been well-documented over the last 140+/- years. I don't believe in the "War of Union Agression" anyway - its a myth. I have referred to it as the "War for Southern Independence," which is a proper reflection of what the conflict was all about. "The War between the States," I believe, is not as accurate, because it was a "national conflict."

Many of the Southern apologists cite Lincoln's 1848 statement about the right to throw off a government. But Lincoln's proviso was the revolution needed a "just cause" What was teh South's "just cause?" I put the onus on the Southern leaders. What were their motivations? They precipitated the conflict.

SW - "{T}he Emancipation Proclamation was ONLY passed because the north feared that GB, France & Canada would enter the WBTS on the southern side."

As a Presidential Proclamation, it did not need to be passed, as it was an order by the President. Again, historians have long noted that Lincoln aimed his proclamation at areas of the country much of which he did not control, namely the rebel states. The proclamation was, in part, a bit of political bravado, but in another sense, Lincoln added more fuel to the Northern war fires by articulating the abolitionist aspect of his political coalition. The South was fighting its war of independence to further thecause of enslavement as an economic tool. The North began the war by fighting to prevent the "balkanization" of the United States and destroy the illegitimate secessionist ethos in the deep south.

The idea that France, Great Britain, or Canada were going to enter the war on behalf of the South is one of the greatest myths and frauds ever perpetrated on the public. Canada (then still a British possession until 1867) had a thriving commercial relationship with its southern neighbors (that is, the Northern states on the Canadian border). The Canadians wished to steer clear of the Ameerican conflict. Even though some Southern terrorists and their sympathetic fellow-travelers, the Copperheads, operated at time out of Canada, the Canadians arrested them when possible. Politically, Canada was going through a re-organization of its own. As for Great Britain and France, they never even recognized the CSA. The first step toward intervention would have been to trade ambassadors. It didn't happen. Allowing rebel warships to enter ports or take on stores is one thing, but to interven militarily is quite another. To discuss contingencies and "what ifs" as part of a government, as did the French and British, does not mean that recognition was a fait accompli.

In fact, as William C. Davis notes, "Unfortunately, the whole [recognition story] is nonsense, a fiction based upon carelessness with the facts, false logic, and a willingness to which all too many of us are prone simply to accept what we have heard without examining it further." The British, at the time of Antietam, were not considering CSA recognition, but rather, to offer to act as a mediator in settling differences. Davis continued, "In short, the notion of foreign recognition and Confederate victory being narrowly averted by McClellan's equivocal win at Antietam is pure myth. They were never even a remote possibility." "SW - [L]incoln & many other northern political leaders said they had NO interest in freeing slaves ANYWHERE until early 1863,when the WBTS was going badly for their side."

If you only focus on the Shenandoah Campaign and the battles in Northern Virginia, you might say the war "was going badly" for the North. Just as Jefferson Davis had to stick with the bumbling Joseph Johnston and Braxton Bragg in the west, for lack of other competent leadership, Lincoln was stuck with the timid McClelland and other weak generals of the Army of the Potomac. Let's face it, Lee, Stonewall Jacksone, and Longstreet were the best the confederates had, and even at a disadvantage numerically, they were able to outwit and outmaneuver the North.

On the other hand, in the "Department of the West," the South started retreating in 1861 and never stopped. The death of Albert Sidney Johnston during his loss at Shiloh was a blow the from which the south could never recover. Until the Battle of Chickamauga in September 1863, there were no notable southern successes outside of Virginia. (I am not including raids and other guerilla actions, especially in the "Trans-Mississippi" area, because the played no decisive role in the overall conflict.)

By July 4, 1863, with the twin coffin nails at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, the military fate of the South was sealed. In fact, the "Anaconda Plan" war plan, laided out by old Winfield Scott in early 1861, had pretty much gone the way as planned. The Virginia Theater of Operations did not go well for the north until meade took over and Grant arrived. However, the overall "War" never went badly; in fact, it stayed on plan.

[colorado tanker]

Quite right. I would add that at first, the northern public fought to preserve the union. During the first two years of the war, however, the sentiment grew that the country could not go back to the divisions and fighting that characterized the 1850's, that the slavery question ought to be settled once and for all before putting the union back together. By the time of the Proclamation, Lincoln had quite a lot of popular support for his policy.

The Proclamation did make the south radioactive in terms of international support. Whatever chance the south had for recognition by the UK or France pretty well ended at that time.

[WhiskeyPapa]

"I have urged the colonization of the Negroes, and I shall continue. My Emancipation Proclamation was linked with this plan. There is no room for two distinct races of white men in America, much less for two distinct races of whites and blacks. I can conceive of no greater calamity than the assimilation of the negro into our social and political life as our equal... Within twenty years we can peacefully colonize the negro and give him our language, literature, religion, and system of government under conditions in which he can rise to the full measure of manhood. This he can never do here. We can never attain the ideal union our fathers dreamed, with millions of an alien, inferior race among us, whole assimilation is neither possible nor desirable." -- Abraham Lincoln (Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858 (Vol. V, pp. 371-5))

That can't be correct as posted, as you have Lincoln referring to "My Emancipation Proclamation..." in 1858. Of course there was no EP until 1863.

This whole thing stil looks bogus to me; I'll try and confirm.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

No, he didn't say all men were equal.

He certainly did:

"until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal."

--7/10/58

He said all men deserve equal opportunity afforded them under the Constitution.

I don't think he ever said -that- either.

He said that the D of I applied to all men. He clearly indicated that those who served as soldiers should have the full rights of citizens. He said, "blacks, like other people, act on motives." He said so far as tested black soldeiers were as good as any, but I don't think he ever said what you attribute to him.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

However, the overall "War" never went badly; in fact, it stayed on plan.

Myth has obscured this, but it is definitely true.

Walt

[nolu chan]

[n-s] Well excuse me all to hell. Can you at least do something about your tendency of running off at the mouth, posting meg after meg of cut-n-paste information to no discernable purpose? Can you at least do that?

I'm sorry. I've tried to do it. I've never tried to do anything so hard in my life. I even bit my lip. But I just can't. I've been reading all of Wlat's cut-and-paste about The Great Emancipator, and I realized that not only should I help the genetically challenged such as Non-Sequitor, Grand Old Partisan, and especially WhiskeyPapa, but as Lincoln said, it is a sacred duty to help those who belong to a genetically inferior group.

Four score and seven minutes ago, having recognized such a sacred duty, I devised a plan to emancipate the inferior group lacking in intellectual capacity, thought and reason. First, in the spirit of Lincoln, I needed an N-word to call them, and so they were designated Nimrods.

I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization. And yet I wish to say there is an objection urged against free Nimrods remaining in the country, which is largely imaginary, if not sometimes malicious.

As the Great Emancipator reminded us, It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by intelligent people. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.

I considered a plan of gradual emancipation of Nimrods. Thirty-seven years sounded about right to me. But some are maliciously impatient to be rid of the Nimrods and want them emancipated and colonized right away.

Amongst the friends of the Union there is great diversity, of sentiment, and of policy, in regard to Nimrods and having the Nimrods amongst us.

Naturally, this would all be done legal and proper, with a vote taken. Of course, the Nimrod laws would apply. Nimrods would not vote. We can only have intelligent votes, and allowing Nimrods to vote would pollute the ballot box. To guarantee a fair and democratic process, we will have soldiers with guns to ensure nobody votes for anyone not on the Intelligent slate for Commissioner of Nimrods. Only after the people have spoken will I will decide to colonize you.

Indeed, if the plan fails, we will lose the last, best hope of earth. We can have a happy home of teeming millions of free, intelligent, prosperous people, and no Nimrod among them. I think we Intelligent people have some interest. Do we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may so express myself.

And I will get the Reverend James Mitchell, the man the New York Tribune and other papers called America's official Commissioner of Nimrod Emigration. And I will have the Reverend recruit and lead a group of five Nimrods into my office and have him introduce them to His Excellency. And this being the first time any Nimrod has been so invited to confer on an official matter, it will be an auspicious occasion. I will then use this forum to tell native-born Americans of Nimrod descent that it was their duty to leave America for genetic reasons.

But of course, there comes the question of where to colonize the Nimrods. To what clime should they be deported? I thought of West Texas, Liberia, Haiti, South America, and the Caribbean. They need some place without much intellect, reason or logic. It must be someplace outside, or not too closely associated with, the United States. I was thinking, perhaps California.

[nolu chan]

[Wlat] Lincoln never proposed to deport anyone.

"Almost from the commencement of this administration, the subject of deporting the colored race has been discussed."
Diary of Gideon Welles, Vol I, p. 150.

In April 1861, Lincoln met with Ambrose W. Thompson who proposed a plan for transporting Blacks to a Panamanian isthmus where he claimed his Chiriqui Improvement Company had a contract to mine coal. Welles and others called Thompson a hustler and critized the plan. Lincoln, however, adopted the idea and asked Secretary Welles to follow up.

"As early as May 1861, a great pressure was make upon me to enter into a coal contract with this company. The President was in earnest in the matter, wished to send the Negroes out of the country"
Diary of Gideon Welles, Vol I, p. 150.

The media called the place Linconia.

Welles looked into it and labelled it a "swindling speculation."

Undeterred, Lincoln then referred it to his Secretary of the Interior, Caleb Blood Smith. Smith was known to favor deportation.

As expected, Smith "made a skillful and taking report, embracing both coal and Negroes. Each was to assist the other. The Negroes were to be transported to Chiriqui to mine coal, for the Navy, and the secretary of the Navy was to make an immediate advance of $50,000 for coal not yet mined, -- nor laborers obtained to mine it, nor any satisfactory information or proof that there was decent coal to be mined." Welles and other members of the cabinet resisted, but "the President and Smith were persistent."
Diary of Gideon Welles, Vol I, p. 151.

[capitan_refugio]

Well, the historical focus has always been on Lee, Jackson, and the Virginia campaigns. While visiting relatives a couple of years ago in western Tennessee (Memphis, Dyer County, Kentucky Lake), I had the opportunity to tour some of the Civil War battlefields and cemetaries. Although I was born in Washington, D.C., lived in Arlington, and have had many times visited the D.C. area, I was extremely moved by Shiloh. And I found Forts Henry and Donelson to be of great interest, especially the relationship between Grant and Simon B. Buckner.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, my Tennesse ancestors had "irons in both fires," including one confederate who was captured at Fort Donelson and later swapped for Union POWs, as well as Unionist eastern (Maryville) Tennesseans. So I have no axe to grind.

[stand watie]

i'm NOT surprised that you see the WBTS that way, as that is the CURRENT (though flawed) REVISIONIST theory of the conflict. had we been posting to each other 30 years ago, you likely would have said something far different, as REVISIONIST historiography wasn't known then.

traditional scholarship when i was in grad school in the '60s was PRO-southern and the damnyankees got mauled in the classrooms of the US as badly as the rebels mauled the federals in every theatre until mid-63.

our side could have held the southland AND the trans-mississippi for a VERY long time had Marse Robert fought a defensive/guerrilla war on OUR soil, rather than making attacks in PA & MD. sooner or later the north would have given up trying to re-conquer the CSA. (may i remind you what a relative few VC did to US troops in RVN?)

free dixie,sw

[WhiskeyPapa]

President Lincoln --never-- suggested that anyone be forced out of the country.

He would have been glad to see relocation, but he never insisted on it.

Walt

[Non-Sequitur]

i'm so sad for you.

Ganging up on me???? You and nolu chan wish.

[Non-Sequitur]

the TRUTH is that lincoln was a STONE RACIST of the worst sort

Fine, pick a southern leader and show me how he was so much better. Show me a quote from a single southern leader, military or civilian, who believed that blacks were the equal of whites. Any quote that believed slavery should be done away with as soon as possible. Here's your chance. Show how much better southerners were than Lincoln. One hitch. Verifiable quotes only, from actual books and actual museums, not stuff you made up. And only quotes made prior to April 1865. We know how many southern leaders came to Jesus following the war and pretended that it wasn't about slavery at all.

[Non-Sequitur]

Can you at least do something about your tendency of running off at the mouth, posting meg after meg of cut-n-paste information to no discernable purpose? Can you at least do that?

Couldn't do it, I see.

[mac_truck]

So in other words, I'm not the least bit impressed by your list or the left wing trash on it.

I'm coming to the conclusion that you have a very dim view of higher education in this country. But your reasons for this viewpoint are weak and subjective. Your ability to dismiss the entire faculty of a school such as Rice University based on your observations of some students while driving by is well..amusing, but illogical an invalid.

Then show me the right wingers on that petition. I venture to speculate that 99.9% of them are all liberals from academia.

Your own source for the petition signers wasn't able to identify 99.9% as left-wingers, thats good enough for me. I disproved your silly hypothesis by showing you a so-called left-wing historian [Eric Foner]who didn't sign the petition.

As the article from Princeton clearly shows, the reason McPherson did not testify is because the time conflicted with his classes!

You have got to be kidding me. A man of McPherson's stature unable to find a grad student to cover his teaching schedule [if he even had one] for half a day , so he could take the two hour train ride to WDC to testify in front Congress!? Do you also believe in the tooth fairy?

McPherson gave statements defending Clinton to that newspaper, thus making them public.

No... McPherson defended his own position [opposing the Clinton impeachment on constitutional grounds] to the school paper, after declining to publicly defend the Clinton WH in front of Congress. Reasserting the same argument after it has been disproven doesn't change the outcome. It just makes you look foolish.

No honest person on this forum would dispute that the Clinton petition represents anything but the far left wing of american academia.

No honest person would assert that signing the petititon makes them a left-winger, much less a communist. No honest person would assert that opposing the Clinton impeachment on constitutional grounds was a left-wing or communist position.

So you think that a marxist party is a "legitimate political organization," mac? And you think that a marxist party is different from quasi and out right terrorist groups like Hamas?

The World Socialist Website (WSWS) is a legitimate political organization along the same lines as the League of the South (LOS).

The World Socialist Web Site is the Internet center of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). It provides analysis of major world events, comments on political, cultural, historical and philosophical issues, and valuable documents and studies from the heritage of the socialist movement.

The WSWS aims to meet the need, felt widely today, for an intelligent appraisal of the problems of contemporary society. It addresses itself to the masses of people who are dissatisfied with the present state of social life, as well as its cynical and reactionary treatment by the establishment media.

Our web site provides a source of political perspective to those troubled by the monstrous level of social inequality, which has produced an ever-widening chasm between the wealthy few and the mass of the world's people. As great events, from financial crises to eruptions of militarism and war, break up the present state of class relations, the WSWS will provide a political orientation for the growing ranks of working people thrown into struggle.

One might vehemently diagree with their political viewpoint, but that does not put them in the same catagory as Hamas or Ayran Nation.

Consider the facts, mac. We know for a fact that McPherson is politically active on the left as (a) an advisor to Bill Bradley, (b) an active opponent of Bill Clinton's impeachment, and (c) an active proponent of affirmative action.

From the Feb 6, Baltimore Sun:

WASHINGTON -- On the day more than a year ago that Bill Bradley officially entered the presidential race, a longtime aide worked her way down a phone list. It was time -- finally -- to mobilize the vast network of friends and acquaintances the former basketball great and Democratic senator had worked so hard to build.It was an Olympic-size list. "They were all people like me," says Roger Wilkins, a George Mason University professor and longtime Bradley friend who got a call.

From this puny evidence you created the fiction that McPherson was a political advisor to Bradley. What a joke. [BTW, the Bradley 2000 campaign folded one month later]

We also know that McPherson has an ongoing 5 year relationship with a marxist political party that publishes his articles and interviews.

You seem wedded to this hyperbole. Who is the head of this Marxist party? Is it this guy?

Look, I understand your need to purge your own southern Democrat ancestry, but these lame attempts at demagogery and distortion are becoming an embarrassment. If you would channel your own shortcomings into more constructive behavior, you'd feel better. [we all would] Better luck next time, ok?

You also persist in denying this yet cannot escape the obvious. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Duck Soup is more like it.

[capitan_refugio]

SW - "May I remind you what a relative few VC did to US troops in RVN?"

I don't want to get off thread here, but possibly you have read "Vietnam at War: The History 1946-1975" by Lt. Gen. Phillip Davidson (USA Ret.). Davidson was Westmoreland's J-2 from 1967 to 1969. If you want to sucessfully fight against a guerilla insurgency, read how to do it in Davidson's book.

[capitan_refugio]

Revisionist theory????

In the War for Southern Independence, revisionist history start with Alexander H. Stephens book, "A Constitutional View of the War Between the States" (1868) and Jefferson Davis's book "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" (1881).

[nolu chan]

[n-s] Couldn't do it, I see.

That is strictly a matter of your limited vision.