Americans owe Confederate history respect

Columbia Tribune ^ | June 10, 2003 | Chris Edwards

[stainlessbanner]

After attending the Confederate Memorial Day service on June 1 in Higginsville, I found myself believing our nation should be ashamed for not giving more respect and recognition to our ancestors.

I understand that some find the Confederate flag offensive because they feel it represents slavery and oppression. Well, here are the facts: The Confederate flag flew over the South from 1861 to 1865. That's a total of four years. The U.S. Constitution was ratified in April 1789, and that document protected and condoned the institution of slavery from 1789 to 1861. In other words, if we denigrate the Confederate flag for representing slavery for four years, shouldn't we also vilify the U.S. flag for representing slavery for 72 years? Unless we're hypocrites, it is clear that one flag is no less pure than the other.

A fascinating aspect of studying the Civil War is researching the issues that led to the confrontation. The more you read, the less black-and-white the issues become. President Abraham Lincoln said he would do anything to save the union, even if that meant preserving the institution of slavery. Lincoln's focus was obviously on the union, not slavery.

In another case, historians William McFeely and Gene Smith write that Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant threatened to "throw down his sword" if he thought he was fighting to end slavery.

Closer to home, in 1864, Col. William Switzler, one of the most respected Union men in Boone County, purchased a slave named Dick for $126. What makes this transaction interesting is not only the fact that Switzler was a Union man but that he bought the slave one year after the issuance of the Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Of course, history students know the proclamation did not include slaves living in the North or in border states such as Missouri.

So if this war was fought strictly over slavery, why were so many Unionists reluctant to act like that was the issue?

In reviewing the motives that led to the Civil War, one should read the letters soldiers wrote home to their loved ones. Historian John Perry, who studied the soldier's correspondence, says in his three years of research, he failed to find one letter that referred to slavery from Confederate or Union soldiers.

Perry says that Yankees tended to write about preserving the Union and Confederates wrote about protecting their rights from a too-powerful federal government. The numerous letters failed to specifically say soldiers were fighting either to destroy or protect the institution of slavery. Shelby Foote, in his three-volume Civil War history, recounts an incident in which a Union soldier asks a Confederate prisoner captured in Tennessee why he was fighting. The rebel responded, "Because you're down here."

History tends to overlook the South's efforts to resolve the issue of slavery. For example, in 1863, because of a shortage of manpower, Lincoln permitted the enlistment of black soldiers into the Union Army. Battlefield documents bear out the fact that these units were composed of some of the finest fighting men in the war. Unfortunately for these brave soldiers, the Union used them as cannon fodder, preferring to sacrifice black lives instead of whites.

These courageous black Union soldiers experienced a Pyrrhic victory for their right to engage in combat. However, history has little to say about the South's same effort in 1865. The Confederacy, its own troop strength depleted, offered slaves freedom if they volunteered for the army.

We know that between 75,000 and 100,000 blacks responded to this call, causing Frederick Douglass to bemoan the fact that blacks were joining the Confederacy. But the assimilation of black slaves into the Confederate army was short-lived as the war came to an end before the government's policy could be fully implemented.

It's tragic that Missouri does not do more to recognize the bravery of the men who fought in the Missouri Confederate brigades who fought valiantly in every battle they were engaged in. To many Confederate generals, the Missouri brigades were considered the best fighting units in the South.

The courage these boys from Missouri demonstrated at Port Gibson and Champion Hill, Miss., Franklin, Tenn., and Fort Blakely, Ala., represent just a few of the incredible sacrifices they withstood on the battlefield. Missouri should celebrate their struggles instead of damning them.

For the real story about the Missouri Confederate brigades, one should read Phil Gottschalk and Philip Tucker's excellent books about these units. The amount of blood spilled by these Missouri boys on the field of battle will make you cry.

Our Confederate ancestors deserve better from this nation. They fought for what they believed in and lost. Most important, we should remember that when they surrendered, they gave up the fight completely. Defeated Confederate soldiers did not resort to guerrilla warfare or form renegade bands that refused to surrender. These men simply laid down their arms, went home and lived peacefully under the U.S. flag. When these ex-Confederates died, they died Americans.

During the postwar period, ex-Confederates overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party. This party, led in Missouri by Rep. Dick Gephardt and Gov. Bob Holden, has chosen to turn its back on its fallen sons.

The act of pulling down Confederate flags at two obscure Confederate cemeteries for the sake of promoting Gephardt's hopeless quest for the presidency was a cowardly decision. I pray these men will rethink their decision.

The reality is, when it comes to slavery, the Confederate and United States flags drip with an equal amount of blood.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Robert Lee's residence and lands and family were supported in grand style, not by the U.S. Army, but by the labor of slaves.

[nolu chan]

[Walt] In another passage, [Douglas Southall] Freeman reports that "the negroes at Arlington numbered sixty-three." It is therefore clear that Lee and his family did own slaves."

Neither Lee nor his wife ever owned Arlington. The slaves at Arlington were the property of George Washington Parke Custis, father of Lee's wife. The Custis will directed that the slaves of the estate be freed within five years and arrangements made for their employment. R.E. Lee was named the executor of the estate.

It is clear that Lee's father-in-law owned the Arlington slaves.

[Walt] "Citing Lee's 1846 will in the records of Rockbridge County, Virginia, [Douglas Southall] Freeman states that "he had never owned more than some half-dozen slaves, and they had probably been inherited or given him by Mrs. Custis [his wife's mother]."

Assuming Freeman actually stated that Lee, "had never owned more than some half-dozen slaves....," that would only prove that Freeman said it.

Freeman makes a major leap of faith in inferring that Mrs. Custis owned any property at all. See the laws on coverture below. Until 1849, married women in New York could not own property. Until 1853, married women in New Jersey could not own property. I don't know how Freeman concluded that Mrs. Custis in Virginia owned any property.

Freeman wrote a 2,421 page bio of R.E. Lee published in 1934. It is available at
http://www.ku.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/home.html

I cannot find your cited quote. You apparently forgot to provide a citation to where Freeman allegedly said that an 1846 will allegedly said that Lee allegedly never owned more than a half-dozen slaves which allegedly had probably been inherited or given to him by his mother-in-law who was subject to the law of coverture.

I'm not certain what status applied at the time of the ACW, but in earlier times the slaves had been declared to be real estate and not chattel.

http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/vcdh/jamestown/laws1.html#49

October 1705-CHAP. XXII. An act declaring the Negro, Mulatto, and Indian slaves within this dominion, to be real estate.

[The legislators defined enslaved men, women, and children as real property in this act. See also the 1669 statute entitled An act about the casuall killing of slaves for another example of masters treating slaves as property.]

I. FOR the better settling and preservation of estates within this dominion,

II. Be it enacted, by the governor, council and burgesses of this present general assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That from and after the passing of this act, all negro, mulatto, and Indian slaves, in all courts of judicature, and other places, within this dominion, shall be held, taken, and adjudged, to be real estate (and not chattels;) and shall descend unto the heirs and widows of persons departing this life, according to the manner and custom of land of inheritance, held in fee simple.


As for your newsgroup excerpt, see
http://templeofdemocracy.com/LeeWhipping.htm

Robert E. Lee Has His Slaves Whipped and Brine Poured Into the Wounds

The following account is from the book, "Slave Testimony: Two Centuries of Letters, Speeches, and Interviews, and Autobiographies," edited by John W. Blassingame. It is published by Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge 70893. It is in paperback and not expensive at all.
Newspaper and Magazine Interviews, 1864­1938 467

WESLEY NORRIS Interviewed, 1866(?) b. Virginia Enslaved: Virginia

It has frequently been represented by the friends and admirers of Robert E. Lee, late an officer in the rebel army, that, although a slaveholder, his treatment of his chattels was invariably kind and humane. The subjoined statement, taken from the lips of one of his former slaves, indicates the real character of the man:

-----

With all due respect, it does not appear to me that the "subjoined statement" was written by a plantation slave. It looks like it was written by the same person who called it a "subjoined statement."

Even if every word were true, or its substance true, it would not prove Lee owned a single slave.

In his bio of Lee, Douglas Southall Freeman wrote,"Silence was his rule in the face of accusations brought against himself, as well as in dealing with those directed at the cause for which he had fought. 'The statement is not true,' he wrote that same spring, regarding the familiar libel of his mistreatment of slaves, which was revived in The Baltimore American, 'but I have not thought proper to publish a contradiction, being unwilling to be drawn into a newspaper discussion, believing that hose who know me would not credit it and those who do not would care nothing about it.... It is so easy to make accusations against the people at the South upon similar testimony that those so disposed, should one be refuted, will immediately create another; and thus you would be led into endless controversy. I think it better to leave their correction to the return of reason and good feeling."

It is Freeman who provides the characterization, "the familiar libel of his mistreatment of slaves."

A former Arlington slave, then living in Liberia, wrote to Mrs. Lee,

My Dear Madam: -- William [the writer's husband] has written you quite a long letter, yet I thought I could not let this opportunity pass without writing you a few lines to inform you something in regard to myself and family. ... I have thought and dreamt much about you lately. I hope you have got over your rheumatism, and the many troubles of which you spoke in your last letter. Please remember me particularly to all your children, and to Mr. Lee. I often think of them all... Yours humbly, Rosebell Burke"

-----

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/ency/blwh_coverture.htm

Sir William Blackstone, in his 1765 authoritative legal text, Commentaries on the Laws of England, said this about coverture and the legal rights of married women:

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called ... a feme-covert...."

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/ency/blwh_married_women_property_1848.htm

Married Women's Property Act
New York State, 1849

Encyclopedia of Women's History - from Jone Johnson Lewis

Before this law was passed, upon marriage a woman lost any right to control property that was hers prior to the marriage, nor did she have rights to acquire any property during marriage. A married woman could not make contracts, keep or control her own wages or any rents, transfer property, sell property or bring any lawsuit.

http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.scc.rutgers.edu/njwomenshistory/Period%5F3/womenspropact.htm

1852 Married Women's Property Act (New Jersey)
Source, Acts of the Seventy-Sixth Legislature of the State of New Jersey (Somerville, 1852), 407. Courtesy, Special Collections/University Archives, Rutgers University Libraries.

This Act, though very limited in its scope, was the first passed by the New Jersey Legislature giving married women rights to their own property. New Jersey law at the time adhered to the English common law practice of coverture, or the subsuming of a women's rights under those of her husband when she married.


In my meanderings, I came across a book which may be of interest to you:

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/stowell/forewd.html

In Tender Consideration is a signal contribution to American legal and social history. The authors use the unique resources of the DVD version of the Lincoln Legal Papers, The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition (2000) to recover and analyze family legal experiences. They do so in a series of compelling essays exploring the intersection of law, gender, and childhood in antebellum Illinois while documenting the realities of legal practice and adjudication in the state during the era. This analytical combination makes the book at once a significant analysis of nineteenth-century families and the law and an illuminating primer on the analytical possibilities of archival collections.

In Tender Consideration: Women, Families, and the Law in Abraham Lincoln's Illinois
Edited by Daniel W. Stowell
2002
280 pages. 6 x 9 inches. 11 photographs
Cloth, ISBN 0-252-02702-7. $34.95
Law / Women's Studies / Lincoln Studies

Finally, the pages of this volume revive one life in law-Abraham Lincoln's. Lincoln grappled with family law cases throughout his legal career. The authors document the breadth of his engagement with the family problems of antebellum Illinois women, children, and men. And they offer countless examples of the various roles he performed in trying to resolve their disputes. Lincoln represented wives seeking divorces, children fighting for their inheritance, women who claimed they were slandered, and many other clients.

[nolu chan]

Regarding R.E. Lee and alleged slave ownership.

The information at the link is very interesting and I quote the text from it below. In and of itself, this does not prove Lee personally owned slaves. I do not know whether he did or did not. I have seen multiple sources for either contention. I have yet to see any documented proof that Lee personally held ownership of slaves.

This is mainly a question of legal accuracy. Arlington (the Custis estate) was home to Lee and numerous slaves were there. My question is whether it is documented that any slave was the personal property of R.E. Lee. I do not know the answer.

It may well be documented in records at the Library of Congress, but I have not seen any such record. I have not come upon a picture of such a record in any book or posted online.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/african/afam004.html

Before the Civil War, Robert E. Lee freed most of his slaves and offered to pay expenses for those who wanted to go to Liberia. In November 1853, Lee's former slaves William and Rosabella Burke and their four children sailed on the Banshee, which left Baltimore with 261 emigrants. A person of superior intelligence and drive, Burke studied Latin and Greek at a newly established seminary in Monrovia and became a Presbyterian minister in 1857. He helped educate his own children and other members of his community and took several native children into his home. The Burkes's letters describing their lives in Liberia show that they relied on the Lees to convey messages to and from relatives still in Virginia, and the letters also reflect affection for their former masters.

"Table of Emigrants," in The African Repository and Colonial Journal, vol. 30, no. 1, January 1854, p. 121 Journal General Collections (17)

---

Letter from Liberian Colonist William Burke Despite the hardships of being a colonist, William Burke was enthusiastic about his new life. After five years in Liberia he wrote that "Persons coming to Africa should expect to go through many hardships, such as are common to the first settlement in any new country. I expected it, and was not disappointed or discouraged at any thing I met with; and so far from being dissatisfied with the country, I bless the Lord that ever my lot was cast in this part of the earth. The Lord has blessed me abundantly since my residence in Africa, for which I feel that I can never be sufficiently thankful."

[Letter from William Burke to ACS president Ralph R. Gurley], July 26, 1858 American Colonization Society Papers Manuscript Division (18)

---

Letter from Liberian Colonist Rosabella Burke Letters from the Burkes to Mary Custis Lee, wife of Robert E. Lee, were published in the 1859 edition of The African Repository with Mrs. Lee's permission. This letter from Mrs. Burke to Mrs. Lee demonstrates personal warmth between the two women. Mrs. Burke shows concern for Mrs. Lee's health, tells Mrs. Lee about her children, and asks about the Lee children. The "little Martha" referred to was Martha Custis Lee Burke, born in Liberia and named for one of the Lee family. Repeating her husband's enthusiasm for their new life, Rosabella Burke says, "I love Africa and would not exhange it for America."

[Letter from Rosabella Burke to Mary Custis Lee], February 20, 1859, in The African Repository and Colonial Journal, vol. 35, no 7, July 1859, p. 216 General Collections (20)

My Dear Madam: -- William has written you quite a long letter, yet I thought I could not let this opportunity pass withoutwriting you a few lines to inform you something in regard to myself and family. ... I have thought and dreamt much about you lately. I hope you have got over your rheumatism, and the many troubles of which you spoke in your last letter. Please remember me particularly to all your children, and to Mr. Lee. I often think of them all... Yours humbly, Rosebell Burke"

[GOPcapitalist]

The soldiers of the 82nd Airborne and the Arkansas National Guard called into federal service carried loaded weapons and would definitely have used them if people there had tried to forcibly prevent the execution of federal law

But would they, upon completing their execution of that law, continue to use them against the people and the government of Arkansas until they had successfully removed it and replaced it with themselves? Lincoln certainly did.

[nolu chan]

Regarding Douglas

Your claim contains an apparent impossibility. Under the laws of coverture then in effect, I believe it was a legal impossibility to bequeath the plantation to Martha and eventually her children. In 1847, women could not yet own property in New York or New Jersey, much less Mississippi.

I have no familiarity with the will in question, but if it worked like the Custis will, Martha would have been awarded a life tenancy and not ownership. Ownership would have passed to a male heir to keep the estate in the family.

I have not steadfastly maintained that Lee didn't actually own slaves. He did not own the slaves that were owned by G.W.P. Custis. I do not know if Lee owned any slaves or not. Nobody has shown me proof that he did.

I can agree with you that Douglas did not own any slaves, at least based on what you have provided.

If you are trying to ask if Douglas may have profited from slavery, ask that question. If you ask if he owned slaves, based on what you have provided, he did not.

[nolu chan]

Robert Lee's residence and lands and family were supported in grand style, not by the U.S. Army, but by the labor of slaves.

The Custis estate was supported in grand style by the labor of slaves.

That was Lee's official residence while in the Army. That is like my official "home of record" while I was in the Navy for 20 years. I was never stationed at home and did not see a whole lot of it.

There is absolutely no question that there were slaves at Arlington. That does not make Lee their owner.

The Custis family was certainly supported by the labor of slaves. I have not seen evidence that Robert E. Lee was being supported by the Custis family.

[mac_truck]

Are you still trashing Republicans and defending Democrats? You're starting to really become annoying. Go soak it in ice for a while, you Democrat loving loser.

[Grand Old Partisan]

"But would they, upon completing their execution of that law, continue to use them against the people and the government of Arkansas until they had successfully removed it and replaced it with themselves? Lincoln certainly did."

This does not even make sense.

[nolu chan]

[GOP] Many people forget that the first shot of the war as fired by South Carolina rebels at the Star of the West, months before.

Nah. I did not forget that incident of a violation of the laws of war surreptitiously using a civilian ship as a military troop transport and committing an act of war.
They shot across the bows, not at the Star of the West.

The civilian ship decided to cruise elsewhere.

See also:

http://www.nsg.navy.mil/NSGAP/pcs-info/pensacola-history.asp

"January 8, First shots of Civil War fired at Fort Barrancas 11 p.m.. Lt. Adam J. Slemmer (USA) posts guards at Fort Barrancas. Florida seceded from the Union. Col. William H. Chase (CSA) ordered by Governor M. Perry to seize the Pensacola forts."

[That is an official U.S. Navy site. NSG would be Naval Security Group.]


[GOP] Your talk of the United States Army invading a part of the United States makes no . . . sense

The officer commanding U.S. Naval forces off Pensacola disagreed with your assessment. He had to be given the order twice.

Captain Adams REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER and, on April 1, 1861 reported to the Secretary of the Navy as follows:

"It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost."

"Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it."

There was an interesting assortment of secret orders and missions in progress. Below is some background.

---

There was an agreement, an Armistice, existing at Charleston, entered into by the United States Government and South Carolina officials on December 6th, 1860; and a special agreement, armistice, at Pensacola, entered into by the United States and Florida authorities on January 29th, 1861, -- (both filed in United States War and Navy Departments) - by which the United States agreed not to attempt to reinforce Major Anderson, nor Fort Pickens; and South Carolina, Florida and the Confederate authorities, agreed to make no attack on Major Anderson, or Fort Pickens, while these agreements were observed.

To violate an armistice is considered an act of war.

For either party to prepare to act against a point covered by an armistice, is an act of war.

Any act, any order intended to change the existing status quo at any vital point, where an armistice exists, by strengthening, or arranging to strengthen, such a place, thus making force necessary, is an act of war.

---

Extracts.

March 12, 1861
To Captain I. Vogdes
First Artillery, U.S. Army
[in USS Brooklyn]

"At the first opportunity, you will land your company, reinforce Fort Pickens, and hold the same till further orders, etc."

[This order was received by Capt. Vogdes on March 31, 1861]


April 1, 1861
To Captain H.A. Adams
Commanding Naval Forces off Pensacola

Herewith I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my command at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you will place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me o carry into effect the enclosed order.

Signed: I. Vogdes, Capt. 1st Artly. Comdg.


Captain Adams REFUSED TO OBEY THE ORDER and reported to the Secretary of the Navy as follows:

It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost.

Both sides are faithfully observing the agreement (armistice) entered into by the United States Government and Mr. Mallory and Colonel Chase, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it.

The Secretary of the Navy issued a CLASSIFIED response to Capt. Adams:

April 6, 1861

Your dispatch of April 1st is received. The Department regrets that you did not comply with the request of Capt. Vogdes. You will immediately on the first favorable opportunity after receipt of this order, afford every facility to Capt. Vogdes to enable him to land the troops under his command, it being the wish and intention of the Navy Department to co-operate with the War Department, in that object.

Signed: Gideon Welles, Secty. of the Navy

April 11, 1861 (USS Brooklyn, official ship's log)

"April 11th at 9 P.M. the Brooklyn got under way and stood in toward the harbor; and during the night landed troops and marines on board, to reinforce Fort Pickens."

---

March 28, 1861 the Senate adjourned.

March 29, 1861
To the Secretary of the Navy

I desire that an expedition, to move by sea be go ready to sail as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum attached: and that you co-operate with the Secretary of War for that object.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

The memorandum attached called for:

From the Navy, three ships of war, the Pocahontas, the Pawnee and the Harriet Lane; and 300 seamen, and one month's stores.

From the War Department, 200 men, ready to leave garrison; and one year's stores.

April 1, 1861 by General Scott
April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln
To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. Army

You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed to New York where steam transportation for four companies will be engaged; -- and putting on board such supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known.
Signed: Winfield Scott
Signed approved: Abraham Lincoln

April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp

This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.

To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.

Signed: Winfield Scott

---

April 1, 1861
To: Lt. D.D. Porter, USN

You will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available.

Proceed to Pensacola Harbor, and, at any cost or risk, prevent any expedition from the main land reaching Fort Pickens, or Santa Rosa.

You will exhibit this order to any Naval Officer at Pensacola, if you deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor.

This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever, until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln
Recommended signed: Wm. H. Seward

April 1, 1861
Telegram
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

Fit out Powhatan to go to sea at the earliest possible moment, under sealed orders. Orders by confidential messenger go forward tomorrow.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

April 1, 1861
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

You will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will relieve Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

---

The Secretary of the Navy was unaware that President Lincoln had relieved Captain Mercer and was "borrowing" the Powhatan. It was a real secret mission.

April 1, 1861
Telegram
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

Fit out Powhatan to go to sea at earliest possible moment.

April 5, 1861
To: Captain Mercer, Commanding Officer, USS Powhatan

The U.S. Steamers, Powhatan, Pawnee, Pocahontas, and Harriet Lane, will compose a naval force under your command, to be sent to the vicinity of Charleston, S.C., for the purpose of aiding in carrying out the object of an expedition of which the war Department has charge. The expedition has been intrusted to Captain G.V. Fox.

You will leave New York with the Powhatan in time to be off Charleston bar, 10 miles distant from and due east of the light house on the morning of the 11th instant, there to await the arrival of the transports with troops and stores. The Pawnee and Pocahontas will be ordered to join you there, at the time mentioned, and also the Harriet Lane, etc.

Signed: Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy

---

April 6, 1861

Lt. Porter took the Powhatan and sailed.

Seward sent a telegram to Porter: "Give the Powhatan up to Captain Mercer."

A dispatch boat caught up with Powhatan and delivered Seward's message.

Lt. Porter responded to Seward: "I received my orders from the President, and shall proceed and execute them.

Before leaving, Lt. Porter instructed the Navy Yard officials, "Detain all letters for five days."


Storms and boiler problems delayed Powhatan, but she arrived disguised and flying English colors.

Porter filed this report:

I had disguised the ship, so that she deceived those who had known her, and was standing in (unnoticed), when the Wyandotte commenced making signals, which I did not answer, but stood on.

The steamer then put herself in my way and Captain Meigs, who was aboard, hailed me and I stopped.

In twenty minutes more I should have been inside (Pensacola harbor) or sunk.

Signed: D.D. Porter

---

July 10, 1861

A joint resolution was introduced in the U.S. Senate to retroactively legalize Lincoln's prior acts.

The joint resolution named six acts and states, "Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembles; That all the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and orders hereinbefore mentioned by and the same are hereby approved, and declared to be in all respects legal and valid, to the same, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority, and direction, of the congress of the United States.

Note: this applies only to those orders "hereinbefore mentioned."

It did not ratify the acts of war authorized, in secret, by President Lincoln, and neither known nor mentioned.

---

March 15, 1861
Seward to Judge Campbell,
Sumter will be evacuated in ten days

March 20, 1861
Seward repeated the above and also assured Judge Campbell "as to Fort Pickens, he, (Judge Campbell), should have notice of any design to alter the existing status there."

---

[GOPcapitalist]

This does not even make sense.

Sure it does. You just don't like the question. Let me phrase it again for you. If you send troops in to do something, is it okay for them after they finish doing what you sent them for to turn around and open fire on the crowd of civilians, or to topple the civilian authorities and put themselves in control? Lincoln did both of these things.

[GOPcapitalist]

Are you still trashing Republicans and defending Democrats?

The only liberal Democrat and avowed hater of Republicans around here is your good friend Walt aka WhiskeyPapa. You praise him on a regular basis around here and frequently assist him in his debates. So don't pick a speck out of somebody else's eye when you've got a log sticking out of your own.

mac_truck => as in hit by one.

[mac_truck]

Listen up Loser. Abe Lincoln was a REPUBLICAN, and you spend WAY TOO MUCH time trashing him on this forum. I have come to the conclusion that YOU are a southern seperatist stooge, whose mission in life is to bring down the Republican party by attacking its most prominent members.

REAL Republicans are proud of Lincoln, unlike you losers who can't trace your Republican ancestry past a single generation. Why don't admit that your own political ancestry leads you straight back to the Democrats or the Independent American Party, and that your political future is with Southern Independence Party or some other LOSer organization.

Neo-secessionist stooges like yourself are the "ants at the Republican picnic". The sooner you're stepped on and your nests destroyed the better off the Republican party will be.

[GOPcapitalist]

Listen up garbage_truck. WhiskeyPapa is a DEMOCRAT, and you spend WAY TOO MUCH time kissing his @ss around this forum. In light of that reality, the fact that you presume to lecture others on being republicans is outright absurd. You have stamped the word "hypocrite" across your own forehead for everyone to see. Now go back under that rock from whence you came and quit wasting my time.

[mac_truck]

Thats funny, cuz it looks like its just you and me now you stink breath. Your sneak attacks on the Republican party are over. You're just a cheap demagogue for the southern seperatist movement, and I'm the guy who just turned on the lights and told you to GTFO NOW! Your posts are full of hate for Republicans and this great country, and it would be my extreme pleasure to pound this point home to you personally. Now crawl on back to the Piney woods where you came from, and stop pretending for even one second that YOU are a Republican.

GOPCaptialist => SIPDemagogue

[GOPcapitalist]

Your rantings possess the coherency of a drunk and the zeal of a lunatic absent several days from his perscription. Aside from the fundamental hypocrisy inherent to your Wlat worship, your entire post is undermined by the crude nature of its content. Must be that decoder ring of yours acting up again. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

[mac_truck]

Who's your daddy?

[GOPcapitalist]

Who's your daddy?

I suppose that would make yours this guy...

...which wouldn't surprise me in the least considering that he doubtlessly has any number of bastard kids in trailer parks all over the country. What's even better for you though is that he is adored by your best friend Walt.

[Pelham]

This Pol Pot biz about Republicans who were Radically against slavery is ridiculous

In a published letter General William T Sherman advocated killing a million Southerners and re-populating the South with Northern stock. Congressman Thaddeus Stevens advocated the mass killing of Southerners to purge the land of Southern influence. There were numerous such bloodthirsty statements made by the Radicals, and Shelby Foote includes a number of citations in the text of his 3 volume "The Civil War".

Fortunately the Radical Republicans weren't able to direct the course of American history despite their attempts to seize control of the government, including the impeachment of President Johnson, and their military agents like Sherman and Sheridan were mostly confined to destroying the homes and farms of civilians rather than their lives. We should all give thanks that the hate-driven Radicals are but an asterisk in American history.

[Pelham]

The basis of the American Revolution was that "all men are created equal." --Thomas Jefferson

It must come as a sobering shock to you, Whiskey, to find out that the American Revolution was already more than a year old before Jefferson penned those words. Or does your calendar have a void from April 18, 1775 to July 4, 1776? What were they fighting for in the interim? Were they psychically channelling Jefferson's future words? Or were they fighting for Independence, as in The War of Independence?

I suspect you have no explanation for the Virginia Governor who complained that Union troops were freeing his slaves as they chased the Rebel army up the Virginia Tidewater. That was Governor Thomas Jefferson. The Union troops were the Redcoats of the United Kingdom. The Rebel army was that of George Washington. Do you suppose Thomas Jefferson failed to understand "the basis of the American Revolution"?

And we still haven't learned if you are consistent in choosing Loyalist Governor Lord Dunsmore, the Emancipator of 1775, over rebel George Washington, slaveowner. Please advise us which horn you pick in your dilemma- Emancipation and loyalty to King George III, or Independence and the slaveholders.

[WhiskeyPapa]

There were numerous such bloodthirsty statements made by the Radicals...

Swings both ways.

"People who want to start wars should think seriously about where the war might be fought. It is generally unpleasant to have the war fought on your own territory. Secessionists were particularly unthinking in this respect, the ACW being fought almost entirely in the South, with few minor and short-term exceptions such as Lee's failed Maryland incursion in 1862, Morgan's failed Ohio raid in 1863, Lee's failed Pennsylvania incursion in 1863, and Early's arsonist raid on Chambersburg, PA in 1864.

Thus the Union had far greater opportunity to misbehave in Secessionist territory than the reverse. But Rebel forces, in the few opportunities available to them, violated the same rules and useages of war that were breached by the Union.

Thus, we Southerners are a bit hypocritical when we condemn the Union for depredations in the South --- because the Secessionists were the first of the belligerent parties to propose and glorify a Total War policy to be applied against enemy cities, populations and private property.

Both Jeff Davis and Louis Wigfall, before resigning from the US Senate to go south, threatened the burning of Northern cities and the plunder of their populations as punishment (US Senate, CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE,10 Jan. 1861).

Stonewall Jackson urged the adoption of this policy (Henderson, STONEWALL JACKSON AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, London, 1898), adding that Confederate troops should fight under the "Black Flag" - no quarter, kill all prisoners - and proposing to Virginia Governor Letcher a week after Virginia's secession that he, Jackson, should set the example (Columbia, SC, DAILY SOUTH CAROLINIAN, 6 Feb. 1864). Letcher proposed in early 1862 that the Confederacy should attack Northern civilians and their public and private property, not simply to affect the enemy's armies but to punish its population for supporting the war (Letcher to Pickens, 28 April 1862. L&D Box 5, Clements Library. U. of Mich.).

From the very beginning of the war, the Secessionists' Total War policy was triumphantly endorsed by newspapers across the South, some of which were later to howl the loudest about Sherman's jaunt through Georgia. For example, thinking incorrectly that Lee was about to run rampant through Pennsylvania in 1862, the Richmond newspapers crowed "We hope that the (Confederate) troops will turn the whole country into a desert", (RICHMOND DISPATCH, 17 Sept. 1862). This sentiment was also widely reflected in Secessionist oratory and correspondence of the early-war period.

Lee's troops plundered and burned extensively in the 1863 invasion of Pennsylvania, committing acts of violence against civilians and personal property, including housebreaking, theft of money and food, and destruction of personal property. Lee's second order forbidding these practices was issued after the fact - and was again widely ignored by his troops (Royster, DESTRUCTIVE WAR, pg. 37; Knopf, 1991).

Early's burning of Chambersburg, PA, on 30 July 1864 predated Sherman's burning of Atlanta, GA. The main difference between the two events was that Atlanta was a fortified and strongly defended town holding a vast number of military installations, munitions factories and army supply depots, whereas Chambersburg was an unfortified, virtually undefended town holding nothing of any military use or value. Confederate troops left Chambersburg after more than 300 of its houses had been burned and many of its citizens robbed (Pauley, UNRECONSTRUCTED REBEL: THE LIFE OF GENERAL JOHN MCCAUSELAND CSA, Pictorial Histories Publ., 1992). Atlanta burned four days later.

In short, Grant and Sherman adopted the Secessionist policy of Total War, applied it more effectively than the Confederacy ever could, and thereby shortened an increasingly hateful and hated war. Yes, Sherman made Georgia and South Carolina howl, but for the second time. The first time Georgia and South Carolina (and Virginia) howled was for the same kind of violence to be applied against Northern cities, populations and private property. "

-- posted on AOL

A little balance is good, yes?

Walt