Saturday, May 12, 2018

Jefferson Davis's Response to the Emancipation Proclamation, Full Text

President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, to become effective on January 1, 1863.  Northern newspapers carried the news in January 1863, and Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, responded to the proclamation on January 14, 1863.

Unfortunately, someone unknown wrote and disseminated a forgery that was supposed to be Davis's address.  It was vile and put Jefferson Davis in a bad light, much to the glee of followers of the Northern Myth.  The forgery is reprinted in this blog at this link.  Some readers have argued that this document is not a forgery, as Davis's speech had been reprinted in Richmond newspapers.  However, they are assuming that the forgery is the speech that was reprinted.

To end this confusion, I searched for the actual text of Jefferson Davis's actual speech and response to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, and the actual speech is nothing like the forgery.  I found the actual speech online, as recorded in the Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, January 14, 1863.  I had to refer to scanned copies of the original minutes, but I have transcribed the speech into Word, and now I copy and paste it here.

Jefferson Davis's Response to the Emancipation Proclamation, Full Text
An address to the Confederate Congress, January 14, 1863

The public journals of the North have been received, containing a proclamation dated on the first day of the present a month, signed by the President of the United States, in which he orders and declares all slaves within ten of the States of the Confederacy to be free, except such as are found within certain districts now occupied in part by the forces of the enemy.

We may leave it to the instincts of that common humanity which a beneficent Creator has implanted in the breasts of our fellow-men of all countries to pass judgment on a measure by which several millions of human beings of an inferior race, peaceful and contented laborers in their spheres, are doomed to extermination, while at the same time they are encouraged to a general assassination of their masters by the insidious recommendation “to refrain from violence unless in necessary self-defense.”  Our own detestation of those who have attempted the most execrable measure recorded in the history of guilty man is tempered by profound contempt for the impotent rage which it discloses.  So far as regards the action of this Government on such criminals as may attempt its execution, I confine myself to informing you that I shall, unless in your wisdom you deem some other course more expedient, deliver to the several State authorities all commissioned officers of the United States that may hereafter be captured by our forces in any of the States embraced in the proclamation, that they may be dealt with in accordance with the laws of those States providing for the punishment of criminals engaged in exciting servile insurrection.  The enlisted soldiers I shall continue to treat as unwilling instruments in the commission of these crimes, and shall direct their discharge and return to their homes on the proper and usual parole.

In its political aspect this measure possesses great significance, and to it in this light I invite your attention.  It affords our people the complete and crowning proof of the true nature of the designs of the party which elevated to power the present occupant of the Presidential chair at Washington, and by the perfidious use of the most solemn and repeated pledges on every possible occasion.  I extract, in this connection, as a single example, the following declaration made by President Lincoln, under the solemnity of his oath as Chief Magistrate of the United States, on the 4th of March, 1861: “Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered.  There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehensions.  Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection.  It is found in nearly all the speeches of him who now addresses you.  I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so; and I have no inclination to do so.  Those who nominated and elected me did so with the full knowledge that I made this and many similar declarations, and have never recanted them.  And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: “’Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest crimes.’”

Nor was this declaration of the want of power of disposition to interfere with our social system confined to a state of peace.  Both before and after the actual commencement of hostilities the President of the United States repeated in formal official communication to the cabinets of Great Britain and France that he was utterly without constitutional power to do the act which he has just committed, and that in no possible event, whether the secession of these States resulted in the establishment of a separate Confederacy or in restoration of the Union, was there any authority by virtue of which he could either restore a disaffected State to the Union by force of arms or make any change in any of its institutions.  I refer especially for verification of this assertion to the dispatches addressed to the Secretary of State of the United States under direction of the President to the ministers of the United States at London and Paris, under date of 10th and 22d April, 1861.

The people of the Confederacy, then, can not fail to receive this proclamation as the fullest vindication of their own sagacity in foreseeing the uses to which the dominant party in the United States intended from the beginning to apply their power, nor can they cease to remember, with devout thankfulness, that it is to their own vigilance in resisting the first stealthy progress of approaching despotism that they owe their escape from the consequences now apparent to the most skeptical.  This proclamation will have another salutary effect in calming the fears of those who have constantly evinced the apprehension that this war might end by some reconstruction of the old Union or some renewal of close political relations with the United States.  These fears have never been shared by me, nor have I ever been able to perceive on what basis they could rest.   But the proclamation affords the fullest guarantee of the impossibility of such a result; it has established a state of things which can lead to but one of three possible consequences—the extermination of the slaves, the exile of the whole white population from the Confederacy, or absolute and total separation of these States from the United States.

This proclamation is also an authentic statement by the Government of the United States of its inability to subjugate the South by force of arms, and as such must be accepted by neutral nations, which can no longer find any justification in withholding our just claims to formal recognition.  It is also in effect an intimation to the people of the North that they must prepare to submit to a separation, now become inevitable, for that people are too acute not to understand that a restoration of the Union has been rendered forever impossible by the adoption of a measure which, from its very nature, neither admits of retraction nor can coexist with union.

From the Secretary of Jefferson Davis, N.B. Harrison
As recorded in the Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, January 14, 1863
See Volume 3            


Thursday, July 6, 2017

What Modern Confederates Believe

I don't speak for every person who identifies with the Southern Confederacy, or who reveres it as his or her heritage.  However, I am active enough in various pro-South organizations to have a fairly good sense of what the mass of us believe.  Here it is:

1.  We acknowledge that slavery was a great evil.  However, in 1860 the Southern generation at that time had inherited an entrenched system that was very difficult to get rid of.  Immediate, uncompensated emancipation would have resulted in economic ruin for the South (and probably the North as well), and starvation for the former slaves.

The North never, at any time, proposed a practical plan for peacefully ending slavery.  Further, slavery was an American evil, not merely a Southern one.  The North was equally responsible for its presence in America, as Lincoln admitted candidly in his first speech of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

2.  We do not believe that the North invaded the South to free the slaves, or had any altruistic motivations in that regard.  We believe they invaded the South to preserve the Northern economy, that would have been severely damaged had the South been permitted to leave the Union.

3.  We believe the South had a Constitutional and moral right to secede from the American Union and form a new union of Southern states, i.e., the Confederate States of America.  Secession was not, and is not, treason; it is the natural right of any people to govern themselves.

4.  We do not honor or display the Confederate flags in order to offend anyone.  We don't want to offend anyone, we aren't trying to offend anyone.  However, if you are offended by flags and monuments, we don't really care that much.  We see your feelings of offense to be borne of ignorance of history and Southern culture, and that's your problem, not ours.  We see attempts to repress Southern flags, songs and statues as a grave insult to our ancestors.  Such repression assigns dishonor to them, and strongly (and wrongly) implies that they were evil.

5.  Not everyone who flies the Confederate flag or plays Dixie is a "racist" or a member of the Ku Klux Klan.  We resent it when anti-Southern bigots conflate Southern pride with racial prejudice.  We resent it when outsiders assign to us positions, feelings and beliefs that we do not possess.

6.  We resent the violent invasion of the South in 1861 and the numerous crimes against Southern civilians.  The injustice of Lincoln's War causes feelings of resentment and bitterness to this day.

7.  We insist on the Confederacy being given an honorable place in American history, and that its flags, monuments and other icons be preserved.  To the extent these things are dishonored and disrespected, the greater we feel removed, ostracized and marginalized from the American family.   This does not cement our loyalty to the United States, but instead revives a yearning for a new secession.  It underscores, in our minds, how right our ancestors were to seek separation and self-government.

8.  You don't have to agree with every point in this list, but hopefully, you will better understand our position.  We just want to be left alone, to LIVE AND LET LIVE.  Give us the benefit of the doubt and we may return the favor.

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

The United States of America: an Illegitimate Nation?

One of the core principles of our founding was the "Consent of the Governed."  Lincoln's War of 1861 - 1862 ended that principle.  We are today a nation composed of conquered territories, most especially the Southern states and the State of Hawaii.

Lincoln, by brute force, ended the voluntary Union of free and independent states, and replaced it with an involuntary union of coerced states.

So is the USA a legitimate nation today?  I think not.  This is not to say that it could not be restored to what the Founders intended.  The Kennedy brothers have a new book out called "Rules for Rebels," in which they advocate non-violent but non-traditional ways to fight politically for that restoration.  I am reading it now.

Monday, August 15, 2016

Monday, July 4, 2016

Flying Your Flag on July 4th

I have a flag holder attached to the front of my house.  However, it has been a long time since it has held any flag.  I have resolved to purchase various Confederate flags -- the First National, the Second and Third Nationals, the battleflag, the Bonnie Blue Flag, and fly one of them on national holidays.

I will start off with the First National flag.  However, I have to purchase one first.  Searavenpress.com sells Confederate flags for $15 each with free shipping.  I will order all of the flags today.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

The Southern Poverty Law Center Exposed (Video) (#SPLC)

The despicable Southern Poverty Law Center is now targeting Confederate monuments, flags and symbols.  They are a far-left, money-making scheme that seeks to marginalize all Conservative groups and personalities.  They have no credibility.


Thursday, January 14, 2016

Defending the Confederacy Today: Lochlainn Seabrook

I haven't posted here for seven months.  I didn't stop writing, I just transferred much of my heritage defense to my other, better-read blog, Saberpoint.  Now I am back to this one for dealing with Confederate heritage and history.

It is not easy to defend the Confederacy nowadays, as the anti-South hatred has been stoked to a degree greater than anytime since reconstruction.  It's as if a form of madness has spread across the nation like a plague.  The mere display of a Confederate flag results in sharp cries of outrage and anguish, with much posing and posturing by those who would defend us from it.

Most Americans don't remotely know or understand what happened in America between 1860 and 1877, the time period that includes Lincoln's war and the reconstruction that came afterwards.  However, the Northern version of the history of that time period is largely a lie, a self-serving, massive distortion of what actually happened and why.

I have discovered a Southern writer who explains what happened and why, one Lochlainn Seabrook of Sea Raven Press.  I just finished his book Abraham Lincoln:  the Southern View.  Next on my reading list is Everything You Were Taught About American Slavery is Wrong, Ask a Southerner. Both of these books are weighty tomes, 654 pages for the former, 1020 pages for the latter.

The book on Lincoln inflamed my feelings against the North, Lincoln and Yankeedom.  If I suddenly attained supernatural powers, I would restore the Confederate States of America immediately, then resurrect and hang Lincoln, Sherman, Grant and Sheridan for crimes against humanity.  Since I can't do that, I can continue to learn, and to propagate the truth, in the hopes that future generations may go looking for it and someday find it.

You should do the same.  Check out Sea Raven Press at their website, here.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Support the Confederate Flag: DON'T BACK DOWN

Note to those who support the Confederate flag: DON'T BACK DOWN.

Don't be tepid or tentative in your support of the flag. Our opposition to Northern cultural bigotry and historical (and hysterical) ignorance must be firm and unflinching. We are right, and they are wrong. View the issue with the moral clarity it deserves.

Anti-Southern bigotry is possibly one of my biggest triggers.  I wrote about that some time ago, in a previous post from 2010.  In that post I noted that the Civil War was then, and this is now.  I said that I wanted to work with Northerner conservatives in our modern political struggles, and not refight a war of 150 years ago.  However, I noted that the Civil War (better described as The War for Southern Independence) tapped deep emotions in me, and had the power to make me hate.  I stated that I don't like to hate and seek to avoid that emotion whenever possible, because happiness and hate cannot coexist.  This week, however, I feel the negative emotion returning.  

Why?  Because Yankees, liberals and Southerners ignorant of their own history keep re-invading the South.  They buy into the Northern Myth.  Intellectually lazy, they go along with the popular mythology that casts the Confederates into the role of villain.  They dishonor our Confederate ancestors and grossly misrepresent their cause.  Now they want to finish the wishes of General Sherman to exterminate all Southerners completely, by insisting that the Confederate flag be relegated to museums, viewed only as a dishonorable artifact.

"We must show manners to those who find the flag objectionable," they write.  Why is it that we must show manners but they do not?  Why do their feelings count but not ours?  

Arm yourselves with knowledge of Southern history.  I suggest you can do that by reading a previously posted article by Professor Donald Livingston of Emory University, "Why the Civil War Was Not About Slavery."

Sunday, June 21, 2015

The Confederate Flag Will Not Come Down: Deal With It

As a Confederate descendant who is well read on the history of the War for Southern Independence, I revere the Confederate flag.  It is the flag of my country and my ancestors.  In light of the Charleston murders, we are now seeing a lot of liberals and mainstream Republicans calling for the removal of the flag from public display.

Mitt Romeny tweeted that the flag should come down.  He tweets

Take down the #ConfederateFlag at the SC Capitol. To many, it is a symbol of racial hatred. Remove it now to honor #Charleston victims.

I answered him with this:
I regret voting for you Mitt. The flag stays. Take down the flag of Utah, it's a symbol of a false prophet and polygamy.

And of course, there's "Old Gorey" that many associate with invasion of the South, war on women and children, the genocide of the American Indian, the theft of Hawaii from its Queen and its people, and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Oh yes, and it flew over Northern slave ships who brought the slaves to America in the first place.

The point is, a flag means different things to different people. We Confederate descendants do not accept Mitt Romney's definition or our flag, nor that of the Daily Kos, Karl Rove, Jeb Bush or any other cultural bigot who wishes to bully us into accepting their skewed view of history.

Here are the motivations of the flag haters:

1. Moral vanity. Nothing pleases a liberal more than asserting his alleged moral superiority over someone else. What is an easier way than by attacking the South?

2. To legitimize the Northern Myth, the huge lie that the North invaded the South to free the slaves because they were just so morally righteous and broad minded and enlightened. The truth is that the North hated blacks, wanted them kept out of the new territories, made laws prohibiting their presence, and planned to deport them all back to Africa or elsewhere. They went to war to force the Southern states back into the Union for economic reasons; slavery had nothing or very little to do with it. An independent South would have free trade, open ports, thus ending the Northern tariff on imported goods. A massive relocation of jobs and revenues would quickly flow from the North to the South. This would have created an economic boom in the South, but would have impoverished the North, who depended on the South continuing to pay 80% of the taxes collected by the federal government, and whose dock workers, shipping companies, railroads, textile mills and warehouses would soon find themselves out of work. Yes, this is all well documented in the newspapers of the time. When asked why he would not simply let the South go, Lincoln exclaimed "Let the South go? Who will pay my tariff?"

3. To legitimize the consolidation of the once sovereign states into subordinate entities inferior to and controlled by the federal government. Today this is effectively being accomplished through federal courts, who overturn state laws and legislate from the bench.

4. To legitimize the federal government's "right" to invade the individual states and make war on their citizens, using force to impose its will. We are continually moving in that direction today.  A nationalized police force is in the works.  Once accomplished, all American states will be effectively occupied by the federal government.

Here's why we will never agree:

Taking down the flag would mean acquiescing to bullies who wish to force their viewpoint on us, a viewpoint that is erroneous, insulting, self-serving and false. It would mean replacing our superior knowledge of history with the superficial myths the flag-haters learned from popular media, Hollywood and Northern-biased textbooks. We will not allow knowledge to be replaced with ignorance, or truth with falsehood.

History, or what is alleged to be history, is a major political weapon. The fight over history will largely influence how current and future generations see the Republic: as a collection of sovereign states with the right to self-govern and even secede, or as consolidation of those states into an increasingly oppressive federal tyranny from which there is no refuge, remedy or escape.

Leave our flag alone.

Saturday, June 20, 2015

Sick Freak Murders Nine in Black Charleston Church; Irrational Outpouring of Outrage Ensues

Another freakazoid has murdered people with a gun.  This time the perpetrator is one Dylann Roof, who resembles another mass murderer, Adam Lanza, who shot and killed 26 people in 2012, including 20 children in their classroom.  Both of these freaks remind me of the in-bred banjo player of "Deliverance" fame, but only in appearance.  They are nuts, crazy psychopaths -- and they can't even play the banjo.

Roof shot and killed nine parishioners in a Charleston church on June 17, 2015.  His apparent motive was that he hated black people.  The killing has invoked passionate debate, about gun control, the Confederate flag, and the collective guilt of white people for racism.

Now for some points that will prove unwelcome in the frenzied search for culprits in the aftermath of the crime.

1.  White people are less "racist" (I hate that overused word) than black people.  Some black people have been calling for a race war for some time, on Twitter and elsewhere.  Blacks have been shooting cops since Michael Brown was killed in the act of assaulting a white police officer, and expressing hatred of whites and advocating murder of policemen everywhere.

2.  Blacks commit murders and other crimes against whites in far greater proportion than the opposite.  Bad attitudes, racial prejudice and an inability to be held accountable for these things are endemic within the black community.  These facts are bound to increase prejudice against blacks by others, not only by whites, but also by Hispanics, Asians and Jews, who are frequently the victims of black violence and crime.

Colin Flaherty writes in the American Thinker, in an article titled The War on Black People in South Carolina: the First Casualty is Truth:
In Charleston, locals know racial violence is far more widespread than that. Only it is far more likely to be black on white.
And:
A black person is 50 times more likely to assault a white person than the other way around. The black on white rape numbers are even more out of proportion when compared to white on black sexual assault.
3.  The Confederate flag had nothing to do with the crime.  However, the Daily Kos and other leftist sites are calling for the flag to be removed from public display in South Carolina.  Lindsay Graham has defended the flag and stated that it will not come down.  Graham is right.  Confederate descendants, and there are millions of us, love the flag for other than "racist" reasons.  It's not coming down, and those who don't like it can self-copulate.

4.  Dylann Roof's crime is not a factor of his political leanings.  Whether he is a Democrat or a Republican is irrelevant.  The little punk is nuts, crazy and insane.  Insanity is not a political persuasion.  Rabid political partisans on either side should stop trying to make political hay out of the tragedy.

5.  There are many good black people who have thrown their lot in with the forces of tolerance and civilization.  Many blacks in the South identify with the Confederate flag and are aware that the Northern Myth (of fighting the Civil War to free the slaves) is a lie of Biblical proportions. The criticisms in this post are not directed towards them.  Every man and woman is an individual, to be judged on his or her own merits alone.

6.  We will not give up our guns, and become helpless against a central government that seeks greater and greater control over our lives and liberties, as well as defenseless to violent criminals.  It is a shame that insane people periodically murder innocents with guns, and solutions must be sought to alleviate this.  However, such tragedies will have to be endured until solutions are found that do not remove guns from law-abiding citizens.

That's the way I see it anyhow.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Henry Wirz, Commandant of Andersonville Prison, To Be Honored in Memorial Service

PRESS RELEASE   

SCV logo  
    
CONGRESSMAN PAUL BROUN TO SPEAK IN HONOUR OF CONFEDERATE HERO          
  

(Atlanta - October 29, 2014) The Americus camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) organization will host an annual Memorial Service for Civil War Andersonville Prison Commandant Capt. Henry Wirz on Sunday Nov. 9. The musical group, "A Joyful Noise," from Leesburg, will play and sing Southern Confederate songs and Gospel Hymns from 2 to 3PM followed by a formal memorial service. The public is invited to join the SCV and pay tribute to a Southern hero and martyr.
   The guest speaker will be Congressman Paul Broun from Athens .  Dr. Broun, a native of Athens, practiced medicine in Americus many years ago.  Confederate Reenactors "The Muckalee Guards" will provide Honor Guard duties during the Service.


   When the War Between the States (Civil War) ended in 1865, Capt. Wirz was paroled.  However, shortly thereafter, he was arrested and carried to Washington , D.C. where he was placed in the Old Capitol Prison.  His trial before a military tribunal lasted several months, and included the perjured testimony of a Yankee soldier who was a deserter from a NY. Regiment who falsely claimed to be a great nephew of Lafayette of Revolutionary war fame.  For his false testimony against Capt. Wirz, he was given a position with the U.S. Dept. of the Interior.  It was later learned that this key witness whose perjured testimony contributed considerably to the conviction had never been at Andersonville . The vast Majority of defense witnesses for Capt. Wirz were not permitted to testify.  Many historians call his trial a farce and travesty of justice.  After the war, James Madison Page, a Michigan cavalryman, who had been a POW at Andersonville , wrote a book completely exonerating Wirz.
  Capt. Wirz was found guilty of murdering 13 Union prisoners at Andersonville, although not a single body, nor even the name of any of the 13 was ever produced.  He was also falsely convicted on a second charge of conspiracy with high ranking members of the Confederate government to create the conditions that caused the high death rate. Wirz was made a scapegoat for the South.  On Nov. 10, 1865, Capt. Wirz was hanged in the yard of the Old Capitol Prison.  He declared his innocence to the end. The night before the hanging he was offered a commuted sentence if he would implicate Confederate President Jefferson Davis as a conspirator for Andersonville deaths. Wirz was an honorable man and would not lie to save his life.
   After the hanging, the barbaric Yankees cut off his head and arms and other body parts, and exhibited them about the country. It took Capt. Wirz's attorney, Louis Schade, four years to collect enough body parts to have a Christian burial in Mount Olivet Cemetery in Washington .
    The highly biased Northern version of Andersonville Civil War Prison (POW) Camp is well known however the true facts concerning Andersonville  are not well known. The government of The Confederate States of America issued an order that a large POW prison should be constructed in early 1864 to alleviate crowding in existing camps in the South. The requirements were that it be constructed at a location further South away from the battle front and should be a healthy location with plenty of pure water, a running stream, close to grist and saw mills and if possible have shade trees. The location selected was in South Georgia in Sumter County and was officially named Camp Sumter although it became known as Andersonville . It was constructed to house 10,000 Union POW's however numbers increased to as high as 45,000 due to a policy by the Lincoln administration to discontinue exchanges.
   The average death rate at other POW camps in the South was about 9% as compared to 12% for POW camps in the North where Confederate POW's were incarcerated.  In contrast the death rate at Andersonville was approximately 29% due to causes beyond the control of Confederate authorities and was unintentional. Also in contrast were the similar death rates at several Northern POW camps notably Elmira New York and Camp Douglas Chicago where the high death rates have been proven to be intentional.
    It is a well known fact that the victor of a war writes the history from a biased perspective. Immediately after the end of the war absurd war crimes claims were made by Northern politicians, military authorities, newspapers, periodicals, and citizens that the decisions and conditions that caused the human disaster at Andersonville were intentional on the part of Confederate authorities. Demands for War Crimes Trials were made and the Commandant of Andersonville POW camp, Capt. Henry Wirz, was arrested, tried, and convicted in a farce trial by a military tribunal who had predetermined that a conviction would result. No War Crimes Charges against Northern POW commandants were ever made and no Northern POW camp has ever been enshrined by the U.S. Government as a memorial to Confederate POW's. Only Andersonville in the South has been enshrined and it has become a memorial to American POW's of all wars that have involved American veterans.
   In defense of the Confederate government and Confederate prison officials in regards to Andersonville, a response was made in 1876, by the Southern Historical Society, consisting of 9 points that place the blame for deaths and suffering at Andersonville totally on Northern politicians and military authorities. Specifically President Lincoln, Sec. of War Stanton, Asst. Sec. of War Dana, and Gen. Grant shoulder the blame as noted in the following 9 points.
1. It is not denied that great suffering and mortality occurred but it was due to circumstances and conditions beyond Confederate control.
2. If the death rate be adduced as "circumstantial evidence of barbarity" the rate of Confederate deaths was higher in Northern POW camps where there was an abundance of food, medicine, and shelter.
3. The Union POW's were given the same rations as Confederate guards and soldiers and equal treatment in hospitals as required by the CSA government and the death rate of CSA guards was the same as POW's.  The Northern Federal government did not have this humane policy.
4. The exchange of prisoners was refused by the North  
5. The CSA government requested that Northern doctors and medicine be sent to treat Northern POW's and the request was denied.
6. The CSA tried to buy supplies including bowls and other utensils to use in feeding the POW's. They offered to pay with cotton and gold but the offer was refused by the Lincoln administration.
7. The Federal Government under President Lincoln made medicine contraband causing suffering and death of Union POW's and all Southerners, military and civilian.
8. Prior to the period of greatest mortality, the CSA authorities offered to release the Andersonville POW's without exchange but the offer was not accepted by the Lincoln Administration who was told by CSA authorities "we cannot feed or care for them-just come get them". Sherman 's barbaric war crimes in Georgia consisting of stealing, destroying, and burning made food and supplies even scarcer and increased suffering and mortality.
9. The Northern press was furnished lies and propaganda by Union Sec. and Asst Sec. of War Stanton and Dana claiming deliberate cruelties and war crimes by the South. The control of Northern POW camps was transferred by Stanton and Dana to vindictive partisan criminal elements and deliberate war crimes of cruelty, torture, and murder were committed against Confederate POW's as proven by a joint resolution of the U.S. Senate and House SR97.
  In 1906 former Confederate General Stephen D. Lee charged the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) organization with the duty to defend the honor of the South and the Confederate Soldier:
"To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the Cause for which we fought.  To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish.  Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations."

For more information about the Sons of Confederate Veterans or any of this year's planned events to commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the War, contact the Georgia SCV at 404-456-3393 or online at www.GeorgiaSCV.org    

  
END RELEASE


  
* Permission to reprint this release is granted. 
 
  


Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Slavery In The North: So Much Smaller Than In The South, So Not Immoral?

Some Northern apologist attempted a rebuttal of my post about Limbaugh's error (see previous post below).  He argued, that yes, there was slavery in the North, but it was much smaller than that of the South.  Therefore, he implied, the North was less guilty of the stain than the South.

His argument didn't really address the point of my post, that Limbaugh's assertion of Northern innocence was fundamentally erroneous.  The North did not have strong objections to slavery, did not compromise their principles to encourage the South to join the union, as Limbaugh asserted.

However, the reader's comment about the low number of slaves in the North intrigued me.  Just how low was the number?  Was it indeed so  low that it doesn't matter?  I decided to do some research, and went looking for the Census of 1800, as it was close to the Revolution of 1776.

I found that the Northern states in 1800 had 150,075 slaves (17%) compared to the South's 743,530 slaves (83%).  Yes, the weather of the Southern states was much more amenable to cotton and tobacco farming, and for economic reasons (not moral ones), the South had more slaves.  So if our study in comparative morality and awesomeness depends on slave numbers alone, the reader might have a point.  But I doubt it.  Consider:  if the Northern states have ONLY 150,075 slaves, are they under the bar at which slavery becomes immoral?  I think not.  The argument is self-serving.

Of course, the North's greatest contribution to slavery lies in its slave trading.  For every slave the Yankees sold the South, they sold 20 more to Brazil, Cuba and the West Indies.

The summary of slaves per state in the 1800 Census is below the fold.