For God, Family and Republic

Well April is at an end, and I think I will wrap up my special features in honor of Confederate History Month.

I did admittedly omit some pivotal Today in History episodes like Fort Sumter, but what would I use next year? Hmmm... Maybe I will post some related content again in April 2007.

Anyway, thanks to my regulard readers for tuning in.

Deo Vindice! God favors our cause!

"A righteous God, for our sins toward Him, has permitted us to be overthrown by our enemies and His."
—R.L. Dabney, chaplain under Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson

"If I ever disown, repudiate, or apologize for the Cause for which Lee fought and Jackson died, let the lightnings of Heaven rend me, and the scorn of all good men and true women be my portion. Sun, Moon, Stars, all fall on me when I cease to love the Confederacy. 'Tis the cause, not the fate of the Cause, that is glorious!"
—Maj. R.E. Wilson, CSA

"Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees."
—General Thomas Jonathan Jackson, CSA, last words

"Tell Hill he must come up... Strike the tent."
—General Robert Edward Lee, CSA, last words

What might have been?
What if the Confederacy was not militarily extirpated in 1865, and the Union government conceded recognition of an independent Confederacy in the 1860s? This is all within the realm of the speculative—and the "what if?" So, what if the south had have won?

Myself, I have been interested in alternative history since I first heard of it, because it is tethered to history, which I love with a passion. It is the exercise of looking at the past and asking "what if?" What if some major historical event had gone differently? Alternative history as a genre of fiction has gained in popularity in recent years, though it may still go unnoticed in many quarters. Alternate history asks the question, "What if history had developed differently?" Fictional works in this unique genre are set in real historical contexts, and feature military, socio-economic, and geopolitical circumstances that developed in contrast to our history or at a different pace from our own timeline. Alternative history proper comprises fiction in which a change or point of divergence based on a real event happens and thereby causes history to diverge from our own timeline at some pivotal juncture in the past. Some skeptical historians dismiss it as counterfactual history, and an utter waste of time. Many are apt to dismiss it, simply because alternative history writers have simply made some poorly executed works with an implausible point of convergence, or a misguided recollection of a battle, war or event, making their speculations as utterly implausible.

Nonetheless, many people, historians included, embrace this realm of the speculative because of an inquisitive curiosity innate to man about what might have been.

Granted, some say that alternative history is an exercise in wishful thinking. Naturally, those antithetical to the Confederacy for ideological reasons chalk up the interest in alternate history to "Lost Cause" delusions of grandeur. Perhaps. And this may very well explain my utter lack of interest in dystopian alternative history where the United States goes communist or the Allies lose World War II. There are such books out there! Now, granted there are certain alternative history writers that have entertained the notion of the South winning the War are completely disparaging of the Confederacy, in their speculations of the future thereafter. I believe they fundamentally misunderstand history in their speculations, which are designed more to appeal to the ideological nostrums of the politically correctness in our time than historical plausibility. I haven't read every book on the subject, and I can gather from various book reviews which books in the genre are more prone to this tendency. For this reason, I neglect mentioning all alternative history books because they lack plausibility and/or are so biased that I must eschew recommending or even mentioning them.

Some books herein I present without active endorsement as well, but merely to bring such books to the attention of my readers.

Sid Meir's Civil War Collection
Many alternative history books that try and answer that "what if?" question. Likewise, there are computer games that entertain the notion of alternative history as well. PC gaming software such as Sid Meir's Civil War Collection allows gamers to rewrite history in replaying the pivotal battles of old-- testing new strategies, pressing an advantage not taken, or avoiding a mistake in the past. Hindsight is always 20/20 I grant. Gettysburg is one of those battles. Likewise, the inconclusive battle of Antietam is one as well. What would you have done different if you were the Confederate's at Cemetary Hill? Would the 1st Texas brigade avert their fate at Antietam, and still hold the ground defiantly? Here is where the gamer rewrites history.



1862: A Novel
Robert Conroy's 2006 gambit 1862: A Novel is the most recent endeavor in the alternate history genre concerning the late War between the States. Here is where the Empire Strikes Back repeating its city-burning shenanigans like in the War of 1812! (No pun intended.)

The point of divergence is the little known Trent Affair, which was a historical reality in our timeline. In an attempt to gain support for the Confederacy from European nations during the war, the Confederates dispatched two diplomats, James M. Mason of Virginia as minister to Britain and John Slidell of Louisiana as minister to France via RMS Trent, a British mail steamer. The Trent departed from Havana, Cuba, but was intercepted and stopped by Captain Charles Wilkes of the USS San Jacinto on November 8, 1861. The two Confederate diplomats and their secretaries were removed, over their protests and the protests of the Trent's British captain. The Trent was then allowed to resume its voyage. The news of this incident reached London on November 27, 1861. But diverging from our timeline, the British ultimatum was worded with a more powerful and vehement denunciation of the act of the Lincoln administration arriving in mid-December. The U.S. response would come in January leaving a British declaration of war being issued no earlier than early February 1862. This is in a nutshell is the backdrop for the plot of Robert Conroy's 1862: A Novel.

Only a few months after its initial release in February 2006, the book has already elicited some grumblings and disputes about its plausibility. The question essentially emanates around the likely magnitude of the commitment by the British in response to the Trent Affair if a state of war commenced between the British and the United States in the 1860s. Apparently, in Conroy's book the wherewithal of the British is lacking, though they do muster up a fight, as Grant spars with Lord Cardigan in Canada. One critical reviewer, S.M. Stirling, himself a fiction novelist quipped in criticism:

1862 was a disappointment. In actual fact, America would be fighting way, way out of its weight against Britain in 1862. ¶The UK had a larger population, a much larger GDP, and the advantage in the crucial areas (heavy industry, marine steam engines, heavy engineering) was even greater -- somewhere between six to one and eight to one. ¶In 1862 Britain was at its height as the nt manufacturing power, producing half or more of the entire world's output. ¶The Union had to extert every effort to defeat the Confederacy. Its prospects of defeating the UK and the CSA at the same time would be somewhere between zero and zip. ¶The US might make gains in Canada, but that would be irrelevant and they'd have to cough up at the peace conference; the war would be fought and won and lost at sea, and on the southern front. ¶Real results? A close blockade of the northern coasts, collapse of Federal government revenues, hyperinflation, defeats at the hands of the Confederate army, British-built gunboats ting the Mississippi.

One Amazon.com reviewer Michael Snyder counters this aforesaid contention in declaring,

The British Empire was the most powerful political entity in the world in 1862, but with responsibilities and challenges that matched that position. In Europe, tension was growing over the Danish and Prussian-Austro-Hungarian question of Schleswig-Holstein, that put the Kingdom of Hanover at risk. There was continuing tension between Prussia and Austro-Hungary... There was tension with the French over their clash with the new Italian government and a constant porblem in the Balkans and with the "Sick Man of Europe," the Ottoman Empire. The Russians had not forgiven the West their defeat in the Crimean War in 1854, and continued to push the limits of the treaty ended that conflict, especially in the Black Sea and in their expansion into Central Asia, pushing up aganist India.
¶In Africa, Asia and China, British forces were involved in or bringing to an end various interventions against local threats to British economic and political interests. Then there was the ing fear created by the Great Indian Mutiny of 1857, which would tie down troops for years. ¶In 1860, the entire British Army numbered but 150,000 Regulars, voluntarily recruited. There were 75,000 Volunteers and Yeomanry, who might or might not volunteer for overseas service. The British were spread so thin, that during the Trent Affair, only 6,823 troops could be found to reinforce Canada, and two battalions of Guards had to be pulled into the Expeditionary force to reach that number. It took ten weeks for those troops to reach Canadian ports and another ten days to reach the frontier. By the end of 1862, there were all of 18,000 Regulars and 10,000 Militia in Lower and Upper Canada, a number which only reached 35,000 by the end of 1863. During the Antietam Campaign in 1862 and the Gettysburg Campaign in 1863, the state of New York alone was able to raise 35,000 armed, equipped, uniformed and organized Militia for 90 day duty. The British garrison in the Caribbean amounted to less than 8,000 troops, so that the total mobile force that the British could have committed to offensive ground operations in North America by the end of 1862 amounted to something less than 30,000 troops. And the means to sustain these troops were not available locally. Their supply lines would have stretched back across the Atlantic, vulnerable to weather and raiders.

Perhaps the one way of settling the question in your own mind would be to investigate Conroy's book and see for yourself.

Dixie Victorious
Dixie Victorious is a special venture into alternative history, because it is anthology of essays brought to you by several prominent historians and military strategists who speculate on alternative battles and different paths taken that may have made Dixie Victorious. Lawrance Bernabo, an Amazon.com reviwerer offers this telling review.

Dixie Victorious: An Alternative History of the Civil War is a collection of ten essays imagining how the South could have won the Civil War edited by Peter G. Tsouras, author of several alternative histories including "Gettysburg: An Alternative History." The title, of course, spoils the outcome off all of the essays, but then the appeal here is more argumentative than narrative and the question is whether each author can make a compelling case that tips the delicate balance between military success and failure the other way:

Andrew Uffindell, "'Hell on Earth': Anglo-French Intervention in the Civil War," has the "Trent" incident resulting in Great Britain declaring war against the Union and France following suit. Uffindell comes up with additional reasons for the two nations to fight the war that neither wanted in 1861 to force the North into fighting a war on all fronts.

Wade G. Dudley, "Ships of Iron and Wills of Steel: The Confederate Navy Triumphant," has Confederate Secretary of the Navy Stephen R. Mallory creating an ironclad navy. Consequently, when the "Monitor" shows up at Hampton Roads it faces not one Confederate ironclad but three and the historical stalemate becomes a decisive Rebel victory.

David M. Keithly, "'What Will the Country Say?': Maryland Destiny," turns Special Order No. 191, which fell into McClellan's hands before the Battle of Antietam, into a "ruse de guerre" as Lee baits a trap to destroy the Army of the Potomac. This one is an interesting twist on history and yet another opportunity to show Lee as being clever and McClellan incompetent, which is almost always fun.

Michael R. Hathaway, "When the Bottom Fell Out: The Crisis of 1862," revisits Lee's first invasion of the North and has the Confederate general avoiding hurting himself when he was thrown by his horse the day after the second battle of Manassas. Overall I tend to like the essays where the key change is rather simple, which is what Hathaway does by having Lee free from pain and clear headed during his first invasion of the North.

James R. Arnold, "'We Will Water our Horses in the Mississippi': A.S. Johnston vs. U.S. Grant," has Albert Sidney Johnston's life being saved by a tourniquet at the Battle of Shiloh. The South still loses on the second day, but Jefferson Davis is able to put Johnston back in command of Confederate forces in the West during the siege of Vicksburg. Clearly the idea here is insert Johnston back into the war in the western theater at the point where Davis most felt his loss, which explains why Shiloh remains a Confederate defeat.

Edward G. Longacre, "'Absolutely Essential to Victory': Stuart's Calvary in the Gettysburg-Pipe Creek Campaigns," has the Confederate cavalry keeping in contact with Lee during the second invasion of the North. The Battle of Pipe Creek replaces that of the historical Battle of Gettysburg. Those who have read the alternative history "Gettysburg" by Newt Gingrich and William R. Fortschen will find this essay of more than passing interest since it shares the belief that there was a Confederate victory to be had in Lee's second invasion of the North, but not at Gettysburg itself.

John D. Burtt, "Moves to Great Advantage: Longstreet vs. Grant in the West," finds Braxton Bragg being wounded and James Longstreet taking command of the Army of Tennessee and fighting Grant. Longstreet had agreed to go west so that he could have an independent command, and Burtt's essay argues out a best case scenario for what he could have accomplished, although his aggressiveness might strike many as being beyond his nature.

Peter G. Tsouras, "Confederate Black and Gray: A Revolution in the Minds of Men," has Jefferson Davis seizing the opportunity afforded by Major General Pat Cleburne's Manifesto to give the South's slaves an opportunity to earn their freedom by fighting for the Confederacy. This one has the advantage of taking actions the Confederacy was eventually compelled to do, and moving them forward to a time when it might have actually helped the Southern cause.

Cyril M. Lagvanec, "Decision in the West: Turning Point in the Trans-Mississippi Confederacy," has Kirby Smith taking back Arkansas and Missouri in 1864, as David Dixon Porter's Mississippi Squadron falls victim to its commander's greed for captured cotton. I had the most problems with this scenario because I am not inclined to think that the Union would have reduced its overwhelming number advantages in Virginia and Tennessee-Georgia to make up for setbacks in Louisiana, thereby setting up a domino of effects.

Kevin F. Kiley, "Terrible as an Army with Banners: Jubal Early in the Shenandoah Valley," basically has Phil Sheridan's ride failing to reverse the Union's fortunes after Early's attack in the Valley. Kiley also finds an opportunity to remove a major obstacle to a Southern victory with a single bullet, which I have to admit was a card I thought would be played more often in these essays.

In most of these essays the Confederacy does not win the war militarily, but rather a pivotal military victory (or combination of victories) tips the delicate balance and gives the South a political victory (e.g., McClellan defeats Lincoln in the 1864 election). All of these essays are presented as the work of military historians in an alternative reality. Each has footnotes documenting sources, with those from fictional sources noted with an * (Lagvanec is the farthest over the rainbow with all of his notes for his Trans-Mississippi essay having asterisks).

Readers will know exactly what they are getting with "Dixie Victorious," so those who are offended by "What If" stories in general and those in which the South wins the Civil War in particular can stay far away. The idea here is to be provocative and to come up with diverse scenarios for this to happen, and in that regard this collection is successful. Students of the Civil War will find a lot to argue about in these pages.

Gingrich on Gettysburg
Many people are not aware that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was not actually an attorney by training, but rather an historian. For several years, he has teamed up with William Forstchen to put together several alternate history books. I admittedly got one of his earliest ones in the 1990s, and was not moved by it, nor did I care for following up with the sequel. Though, Gingrich and Forstchen perhaps learned from flawed execution in earlier endeavors. A Baptist pastor I know as online acquitance, Lawrence Underwood (see my blogroll), recommends Gingrich's book. Essentially, the two authors have put together an alternate history trilogy emanating from a point of divergence at the battle of Gettysburg in which prospects bode well for the Confederates. There trilogy encompasses three novels Gettysburg, Grant Comes East, and Never Call Retreat : Lee and Grant: The Final Victory one of which just recently came out. Some speculate that had Jeb Stuart's calvary reconnected with Lee's army, or had the Confederates pushed aggressively for Cemetary Hill late at night at the very onset of the conflict, then it would have had a much different result. Perhaps. This is precisely what Gingrich and Forstchen speculate about in their trilogy.



The Guns of the South
The Guns of the South is not alternative history in the strictest sense, as it is where alternative history meets the realm of science fiction. The Confederates win the War with aid from South African time travelers in a "what-if" tale. The point of divergence in the Guns of the South is interesting. It is January of 1864, Lee's army is in short supply, in poor spirits after an abated invasion of the north. They are met with an offer they cannot refuse, as strange man and his cohorts offer them a most remarkable weapon—a repeater rifle. That repeater rifle is the fully-automatic Kalashnikov assault rifle, the infamous AK-47. Having used a time machine, Andries Rhoodie and Afrikaneers from A.D. 2014, travel back to 1864. It shouldn't come as a surprise that possessed of such a technological innovation and with the military genius characteristic of the Confederate Generals, the wily Gray Fox, Robert E. Lee pulls off a military victory. In the aftermath of Confederate victory, Lee pushes for emancipation. This surprises the strange time travelers possessed of bigoty, and naturally puts Lee in opposition to them.

All things considered, this book reflection upon Lee's sentiments and character is revealing, and very plausible particularly given Lee's statements during and after the war. And in reality, as historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel revealed in his groundbreaking historical research Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, if the Union had not attempted to forcibly coerce the seceding states back into the Union in 1861, irresistable economic and market forces coupled with a shared political sentiment would have extinguished slavery in the 1870s and no later than 1880s, and brought black freeman into the wage economy of free labor. In point of fact, less than one out of five southerners owned slaves, and the overwhelming majority of the slave population was concentrated in the hands of less than one in twenty southerners. Black freedman and Cherokees owned slaves as well.

Author Harry Turtledove offers other books in a similar series entitled The Great War, but with a different point of convergence and not tied to the storyline in The Guns of the South. In my humble opinion, Turtledove should have quit after he wrote the Guns of the South and How Few Remain. He made a Great War series that is not particularly great. For starters, everything in his scenario hedges on continual, almost endless conflict between the north and south, which crescendos into a world war. In this series, both the north and south are possessed of implausible quasi-fascistic ideological tendencies (with an underlying fervor of reactionary socialist ideology in the shadows.) Despite my recognition of war as a leaven for radical social change, I consider this non-sensical, implausible and ahistorical. An honest scholar Eugene Genovese, originally from the political Left, notes that the malignment of the conservative south as fascistic is a "charge by those who know nothing about southern conservatism or fascism. Those who study both honestly will be surprised by how little fascism and southern conservatism share." Indeed, the Fascist State is utterly repugnant to parochial minded southerners. Likewise, provincial southerners with their penchant for localism and republican self-government are repulsed by centralism and overbearing statism. As former Confederate Vice President Alexander Hamilton Stephens avowed,

If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity.

How true? So why should we entertain notions that correlate the South with an ideology rooted in totalitarianism and centralism? Though, in fairness, Turtledove conveys that the North is even more possessed of the blood and iron creed of imperialism and finds Bismarck's Germany as a natural ally in his unfolding scenario. In his historical fiction, the Union naturally turns its imperial ambitions into fighting Great Britain and conquering Canada. This somewhat fits Lincoln's rejection of self-determination and the principle of rule by the consent of the governed. After all, in our timeline, he inaugurated an invasion of the southern states to supress their secession. The Union's sheer bloodlust in Turtledove's scenario still defies the imagination. Also, in Turtledove's alternative scenario, Marxism embraced by the working class becomes an ideological leaven that threatens to undermine the order within an independent Confederacy in the decades following its independence. Lincoln too turns into a socialist demagogue in 1881. As much as I dislike Lincoln, and would like to see the radical socialist correlation with the North, I think this goes too far. Lincoln was a corrupt, pragmatic politician who had no problem with legal plunder to be sure, but he was not an ideological socialist. In reality, there were actually Union Generals such as Siegel that indoctrinated their men in the tenets of revolutionary socialism. Turtledove apparently sensed the radical impulse in the north, particularly amongst radical Reconstructionists, in making his speculations.

All things considered, I would only point the curious reader to How Few Remain if they want a history of a southern victory that is plausible and to The Guns of the South if they want something different, and again I emphasize that it has no sequel. I recommend against the Great War series. How Few Remain begins with a different point of divergence than the Guns of South, and the Confederates seize D.C. I don't quite aquiesce that Turtledove is the master of alternate history as the cover of his book proclaims by the way, but he is creative and imanginative to be sure. Plausibility is the measure of good alternative history, and to put it mildly, some of his speculations are implausible in his Great War series. Last I heard, he has written alternative history that centers around World War II coming to a screeching halt, because of a unified human opposition to alien invaders from outer space. What non-sense?!?



What would be the probable political landscape of an independent Confederacy?
One may speculate about the geopolitical landscape of an independent Confederacy. Undoubtedly, unless the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia had accomplished the daunting feat of capturing Washington, D.C., it would be unlikely that they would have negotiated a favorable settlement that would have included recognition of all of her claimant states, such as the border states of Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky. Maryland, more than any of the three, had a heart and sentiment that put her in the South, and she fielded quite a few troops - volunteers no less - for the south. But as we know Lincoln abated her state legislature's attempt to convene a secession convention. One may speculate that perhaps one or more of the borders states might have split in two, particularly Missouri, which was known for its bitter fighting during the war, and gave rise to the aphorism, the Uncivil War. West Virginia as a Union state would have probably existed under Union control, albeit with considerably less territory than exists today (obviously ceding territory in the region bordering her mother state Virginia which was occupied by Confederates for a considerable time into the war.) It is highly probable, however, that an independent Confederacy could have encompassed Arizona and New Mexico as political sentiment allied her with the Confederacy. Incidentally, one or two southern political tinkerers may have conjured up the idea of the Confederacy acquiring territory in Mexico (likely by purchase rather than conquest) in the early 1860s, which makes it plausible but not necessarily an irresistable conclusion if the Confederacy had lived on as an independent nation. Less plausible, but tenable nonetheless, is the idea of the Confederacy acquiring Cuba from Spain by purchase. I think the Confederacy's sense of Manifest Destiny would have likely stopped at acquiring Mexican territory connecting it to the Pacific, which precludes Carribean possessions such as Cuba. The Confederates were no imperialists after all.

I collect militaria, and in my collection are about eleven 1/6 scale figures, most of which are produced by Sideshow Collectibles. Some are customs, I put together myself, and I'm working on accompanying dioramas. Anyway, one of the hallmarks of my collection is a figure of Confederate Calvary General James Ewell Brown Stuart, better known as 'Jeb' Stuart.

The official blurb reads:

The elite cavalryman of the Confederacy, James Ewell Brown "Jeb" Stuart started as a Regiment Commander and quickly rose to be Commander of the Cavalry Corp of the Army of Northern Virginia. Of all the Cavalry Commanders of the Civil War none would surpass J.E.B. Stuart in romance and dash.

General Jeb Stuart comes with:
● Slouch hat w/ Feather
● Double Breasted Shell Jacket
● Dark Blue Trousers w/ Gold Stripes
● Military Vest
● US Saber Belt w/ Officer Buckle
● Cavalry Sash
● Leather Gauntlets
● High Riding Boots
● 1860 Light Cavalry Saber w/ Saber Knot
● Le Mat Pistol
● Holster
● Binoculars and Case

This was the first figure I acquired in 2004. Only 3,000 went into production, and the manufacturer no longer stocks it, though some are available on ebay I understand. If you're interested in this or related products, then I recommend that you try searching ebay for "Sideshow + Brotherhood of Arms" and be sure to toggle the checkbox, Search title and description.

James Ewell Brown Stuart, nicknamed J.E.B. after his first three intials, was a Confederate cavalry commander known for his dashing image (as he wore a red-lined gray cape, yellow sash, hat to the side with a peacock feather, red flower in his lapel, often sporting cologne). He was possessed of audacious tactics and a profound sense of daring, determination and drive. He was a West Point graduate, and a veteran of the frontier wars against the Apache and the Mexican War. Through his daring raids and reconnaissance missions, he became General Robert E. Lee's eyes and ears. Though, he failed to regroup the Calvary with Lee's Army in Gettysburg and got lost for a while in Pennsylvania while doing reconnaissance. He was tragically killed late in the War. He was very much missed by Lee and the Confederacy.

The Last Days of Jeb Stuart
Jeb Stuart was mortally wounded on April 28, 1864, and his biographer Burke Davis captures that captivating and tragic moment:

Captain Gus Dorsey, commanding this company, was near Stuart, in the center of the sevent-odd men of K Company. Stuart shouted, "Bully for Old K! Give it to 'em, boys!"

McClellan watched him empty his big silver-chased pistol at the retreating Federals, who were being pushed by a charge of the 1st Virginia.
Stuart continued to call to the troopers, "Steady, men, steady!"

A bluecoat horseman who had been dismounted in the charge trotted back with his companions, pistol in hand, just across the fence from Stuart.

The Federal was Private John Huff.

Huff fired on the run at the big man on the gray horse, with almost casual aim.

Oliver saw the general press a hand to his side. Stuart's head dropped. His hat fell off.

"General, are you hit?" Oliver asked.

"Yes."

"You wounded bad?"

"I'm afraid I am," Stuart said, "but don't worry, boys. Fitz will do as well for you as I have."

To the courier at his side Stuart said, "Go ask General Lee and Doctor Fontaine to come here."

The courier found Lomax and told him the news, then found Fitz Lee on the left of the line.

Dorsey recorded his own impressions of the moment: "Stuart reeled on his horse and said, 'I am shot.' And then, 'Dorsey, save your men!"

Dorsey caught the general to hold him in his saddle and troopers took Jeb to the rear.

"As we were taking him back Tom Waters, of Baltimore, led his horse while Fred Pitts and myself, one on either side of him, went back about one hundred yards."

Stuart protested, and Captain Dorsey remonstrated, "We're taking you back a little, General, so as not to leave you to the enemy."

Davis, Burke. Jeb Stuart: The Last Cavalier (New York, NY: Wings Books, p. 406.

As the ambulance was dispatched to aid him, Stuart continiously pleaded with Captain Dorsey to abandon him and return to the lines. Stuart said, "Leave me. Get back to your men and drive the enemy." Dorsey rebuffed him, "I can't obey that order, General, I would they get me, too, than leave you here for them. We'll have you out in a shake." Burke Davis notes, "They took Jeb farther to the rear, and most of the cavalrymen, obeying his order, returned to the front."

April 26 is Confederate Memorial Day, so this is dedicated to all of my Confederate namebearers in the Setliff family (which is derived from the English Puritan surname Sutcliffe or Sutliff). Likewise, it is dedicated to those in my extended family, particularly the late James Lackey who served in the 57th Virginia, who is kin to my grandmother on my father's side. My mother's surname is Perkins, which links us indirectly to Calvary General Jeb Stuart, though not by direct lineal descent, as Stuart's mother was Elizabeth Perkins born in Pittsylvania County.

Setliff, Abraham 2nd Regiment, Kentucky Cavalry (Duke's)
Setliff, Alexander 13th Regiment, North Carolina Infantry
Setliff, B.F. 17th Regiment, Tennessee Infantry
Setliff, Daniel 45th Regiment, North Carolina Infantry
Setliff, G. W. 26th Regiment, Mississippi Infantry
Setliff, Joseph 13th Regiment, North Carolina Infantry
Setliff, Thomas P. 2nd Regiment, Georgia Infantry
Setliff, Thomas P. 1st Regiment, Confederate Infantry
Setliff, W. G. 32nd Regiment, Mississippi Infantry
Setliff, William D. 45th Regiment, North Carolina Infantry
Sutcliffe, D.E. 35th Regiment, Arkansas Infantry
Sutcliffe, Daniel 35th Regiment, Arkansas Infantry
Sutcliffe, Henry 2nd Regiment, Kentucky Mounted Infantry
Sutcliffe, J. British Guard Battalion, Louisiana Militia
Sutcliffe, J.S. 1st Regiment, Virginia Infantry (Williams Rifles)
Sutcliffe, Joseph 1st Regiment, Virginia Infantry (Williams Rifles)
Sutliff, A. 2nd Regiment, Kentucky Cavalry (Duke's)
Sutliff, Abraham 13th Regiment, North Carolina Infantry
Sutliff, Alexander 13th Regiment, North Carolina Infantry
Sutliff, Barnett 37th Battalion, Virginia Cavalry (Dunn's Battalion, Partisan Rangers)
Sutliff, D. 51st Regiment, Arkansas Militia
Sutliff, Daniel 45th Regiment, North Carolina Infantry
Sutliff, James 8th Regiment, Missouri Infantry
Sutliff, James 5th Regiment, Virginia Cavalry
Sutliff, Joseph 13th Regiment, North Carolina Infantry
Sutliff, Richard 1st Regiment, Missouri Cavalry
Sutliff, Thomas P. 1st Regiment, Confederate Infantry
Sutliff, W.G. 32nd Regiment, Mississippi Infantry
Sutliff, William 22nd Regiment, Virginia Cavalry (Bowen's Virginia Mounted Riflemen)

In flight from Union Armies, on April 23, 1865, Confederate President Jefferson Davis wrote a letter for his wife Varina Howell Davis who was in Georgia. There, he proclaimed the dire straits of the Confederacy which was militarily extirpated:

The dispersion of Lee's army and the surrender of the remnant which remained with him destroyed the hopes I entertained when we parted. Had that army held together I am now confident we could have successfully executed the plan which I sketched to you and would have been to-day on the high road to independence. Even after that disaster if the men who "straggled" say thirty or forty thousand in number, had come back with their arms and with a disposition to fight we might have repaired the damage; but all was sadly the reverse of that. They threw away theirs and were uncontrollably resolved to go home. The small guards along the road have sometimes been unable to prevent the pillage of trains and depots.

Panic has seized the country. J. E. Johnston and Beauregard were hopeless as to recruiting their forces from the dispersed men of Lee's army and equally so as to their ability to check Sherman with the forces they had. Their only idea was to retreat of the power to do so they were doubtful and subsequent desertions from their troops have materially diminished their strength and I learn still more weakend their confidence.

The loss of arms has been so great that should the spirit of the people rise to the occasion it would not be at this time possible adequately to supply them with the weapons of War.
....
I think my judgement is undisturbed by any pride of opinion or of place, I have prayed to our heavenly Father to give me wisdom and fortitude equal to the demands of the position in which Providence has placed me. I have sacrificed so much for the cause of the Confederacy that I can measure my ability to make any further sacrifice required, and am assured there is but one to which I am not equal, my Wife and my Children. How are they to be saved from degradation or want is now my care. During the suspension of hostilities you may have the best opportunity to go to Missi. and thence either to sail from Mobile for a foreign port or to cross the river and proceed to Texas, as the one or the other may be more practicable. The little sterling you have will be a very scanty store and under other circumstances would not be counted, but if our land can be sold that will secure you from absolute want. For myself it may be that our Enemy will prefer to banish me, it may be that a devoted band of Cavalry will cling to me and that I can force my way across the Missi. and if nothing can be done there which it will be proper to do, then I can go to Mexico and have the world from which to choose a location. Dear Wife this is not the fate to which I invited when the future was rose-colored to us both; but I know you will bear it even better than myself and that /of us two/ I alone will ever look back reproachfully on my past career.
....
Farewell my Dear; there may be better things in store for us than are now in view, but my love is all I have to offer and that has the value of a thing long possessed and sure not to be lost. Once more, and with God's favor for a short time only, farewell --

YOUR HUSBAND

Reprinted with permission of the Patrick Cleburne Society

Patrick Ronayne Cleburne was born in Ovens, County Cork, Ireland on March 16, 1828. The second son of Dr. Joseph Cleburne, the only physician in the locale, Patrick grew up in comfortable, middle class surroundings and privilege. However life was not without its tragedy. His mother died when he was eighteen months old, and by the time the boy reached age fifteen, his father had also died. He pursued the family tradition of studying medicine, but failed the entrance exam to Trinity College in February 1846. Pride and his sense of honor led him to enlist in the 41st Regiment of Foot of the British Army to escape his failure. Three and one half years later, he bought his discharge and came to America with two brothers and an older sister. He settled in Helena, Arkansas, in 1850, first as a druggist until he became a naturalized citizen. In 1856 he began the practice of law, and was senior partner with Cleburne, Scaife and Mangum by 1860.

Cleburne joined the Yell Rifles of Phillips as a private, and was soon elected Captain of the company. From this position he rose swiftly in rank, through the early months of the war and became Colonel of the 1st Arkansas. When Gen. William J. Hardee was put in command of Confederate troops in Arkansas, he quickly recognized the gem he had in an officer, and secured Cleburne’s promotion to Brigadier General on March 4, 1862.

Shiloh, the Kentucky Campaign and Murfreesboro were ahead for Patrick Cleburne. He was severely wounded in the mouth at Richmond, Ky. on August 30. Returning to duty in time to participate in the Battle of Perryville on October 8, he proved his capability in a charge on the field that led to Confederate victory. After the Battle of Murfreesboro, Tennessee December 31and January 1, 1863, Cleburne was promoted to Major General.

Through the campaigns of 1863, Cleburne became more outspoken along with his superior and mentor William J. Hardee on the incompetence of Gen. Braxton Bragg. After the Battle of Chickamauga and the Chattanooga Campaign, Cleburne achieved lasting military fame for his defense of Tunnel Hill on Missionary Ridge in Tennessee and at the Battle of Ringgold Gap in North Georgia. His brilliant tactical command in the use of his small force, and strategic utilization of terrain remain among the most compelling in military history to study.

Always pensive and observant, he realized the deplorable state of morale in the army, and the straitened conditions of the Confederacy in general were working against the goal of independence. He had a solution which he earnestly believed would turn the tide in favor of the South, both militarily and politically, and on January 3, 1864, he met with Gen. Joseph Johnston and other high command personalities in Dalton, Georgia to read his proposal on emancipating the slaves and enlisting them in the Confederate army. His concept was shocking to some, endorsed by others, but ultimately rejected by President Jefferson Davis at the urging of his military advisor in Richmond, Braxton Bragg.

Patrick Cleburne accepted his superiors’ suggestions to suppress his proposal on enlisting slaves, and accompanied his friend William J. Hardee as best man to Hardee’s wedding in Demopolis, Alabama. Cleburne met Susan Tarleton, the 24-year-old daughter of a Mobile, Alabama planter, and was love struck. He proposed to her before his ten-day furlough was up, and she agreed to become engaged to him. The spring of 1864 began military operations, which culminated in the Atlanta Campaign. Patrick Cleburne fought valiantly at every battle, from the opening shots at Rocky Face Gap until the end at Jonesboro in August. He received no other promotions, though vacancies occurred for corps commander. He was distressed when Hood replaced Joe Johnston as commander-in-chief of the Army of Tennessee, and marched his division north with the army in the Tennessee Campaign. In a desperate assault on Union breastworks at Franklin, Tennessee on November 30, 1864, Patrick Cleburne was killed in action beside his men. He was buried at St. John’s Church near Mount Pleasant, Tennessee. In April 1870, his remains were disinterred and brought back to Helena, Arkansas, where he was reburied in an impressive ceremony in Evergreen Confederate Cemetery. His fiancée Susan Tarleton, married a classmate of her brother’s, but died of a swelling of the brain on June 30, 1868.

This article reprinted with permission of Mauriel Phillips Joslyn and the Patrick Cleburne Society

Related Reading:
A Meteor Shining Brightly by Mauriel Joslyn
(Terrell House, 1997)

Embrace An Angry Wind by Wiley Sword
(Harper Collins, 1992; Kansas University reprint, 1996)

Cleburne and His Command by Irving Buck
(Broadfoot reprint, 1995)

Pat Cleburne, Confederate General
by Howell and Elizabeth Purdue
(Hill Jr. College Press, 1973; Old Soldier Books reprint, 1987)



Other Information
Patrick Cleburne Society
P.O. Box 157
1113 Murfreesboro Rd, Franklin, Tennessee 37064

Lincoln supposedly said, "The principles of Jefferson are the axioms of a free society." And many think the adoption of the Republican name by the elements of the splintered Whig Party, in forming a new party, was a conscious attempt to resurrect the name of the party of Jefferson. But were the principles of Jefferson, and his esteem for limited constitutional government and frugality really compatible with the Lincoln-Republican agenda? In a recent LewRockwell.com article entitled A President’s Mission To Destroy the Press, Thomas DiLorenzo observed:

Lincoln was in fact the anti-Jefferson. Jefferson’s famous "Principles of ’98," including his Kentucky Resolve of 1798, establish him as the foremost American architect of the states’ rights philosophy. Lincoln commanded an army that killed 300,000 fellow citizens to assure the destruction of that philosophy.

Jefferson opposed central banking and the use of tax dollars to subsidize corporations, especially the hated Bank of the United States; Lincoln championed the Bank throughout his political career, resurrected it with his National Currency Acts, and spent thirty years of his life battling for corporate welfare subsidies to his political supporters in the railroad and road-building industries.

Jefferson was the author of America’s first declaration of secession – the Declaration of Independence – a declaration of secession from the British empire. Lincoln denied that such a right even existed and waged war to destroy the most important principle of the Declaration of Independence.

Jefferson championed the view that the citizens of the states were sovereign, that the central government was merely their agent, and that the union was a compact among the states. Lincoln denied every one of these facts, and waged the bloodiest war in history up to that point to "prove" himself right and Jefferson wrong.

Jefferson’s philosophy of government was one of decentralization; Lincoln did more than any other human being to bring to America the centralized, bureaucratic leviathan state that we all slave under today.

Jefferson was a great champion of free speech; his Kentucky Resolve of 1798 announced that not all American citizens intended to comply with the Sedition Act, which made it a crime to criticize the federal government. In his First Inaugural Address he said, "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union . . . let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

Lincoln, on the other hand, was the First Amendment’s worst enemy, orchestrating the shutting down of literally hundreds of opposition newspapers in the northern states during the war, along with the destruction of printing presses and the imprisonment of newspaper editors and owners.

Jefferson was a southerner and an agrarian; Lincoln was a corporate trial lawyer from a northern state whose clients included much of the northern business elite, especially the railroad and banking industries. He traveled throughout the mid-west in a private train car accompanied by an entourage of Illinois Central executives.

Jefferson was a founding father and an extraordinarily well-educated man; Lincoln had less than a year of formal education, suffered from mental illness, and probably never even read The Federalist Papers. His library was almost entirely comprised of books on rhetoric and speech making.

Of course, economist and historian Thomas DiLorenzo exposed the Real Lincoln, in his bestselling book The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War.

On Lew Rockwell's blog, Thomas DiLorenzo tells us something surprising that government school history books:

Few Americans know this, but there is growing acceptance among "Civil War" historians that Lincoln's assassination on Good Friday in 1865 was probably revenge for Lincoln's own foiled plot to assassinate Jefferson Davis. It's known as the "Dahlgren affair," so named after Union Army Col. Ulric Dahlgren, who was killed on March 2, 1864 during a failed raid on Richmond. On his body were found orders to assassinate Davis. The government originally denied this, but today, distinguished historians such as Stephen W. Sears, author of a fantastic book on the Battle of Chancellorsville, among others, insist that the story is true. The papers were authentic. There is also much agreement that this is what motivated John Wilkes Booth.

Regicide is immoral, but it was the modus operandi of the Lincoln administration. Shall we say the administration reaped what it sowed? And Lincoln's assassin Booth should be rightly condemned for making a martyr out of a tyrant.

Needless to say, the gatekeepers to the Lincoln myth contrived a lionized saint who was martyred for the Union in their history books. Constitutional government, and the compact nature of the Union were lost. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed,

The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and, in uniting together, they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so; and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly, either by force or by right. In order to enable the Federal Government easily to conquer the resistance which may be offered to it by any one of its subjects, it would be necessary that one or more of them should be specially interested in the existence of the Union, as has frequently been the case in the history of confederations.

As Confederate General Pat Cleburne said,

Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.

This has very much been the case with establishment history, and especially the textbooks celebrated in academia, though many southern partisans and copperheads in the north have risen to tell the other side of the story.

Related Articles:
America's Civil War magazine - The Dahlgren Papers Revisited: The mystery surrounding documents detailing a Union plan to murder Jefferson Davis is put to rest.

U.S. News & World Report - Purloined poison letters: Fake or real, they raised hell

by John Remington Graham. (Gretna, LA: Pelican Publishing, Nov. 2002. List Price $24.95)

Book Review by Ryan Setliff.

The Constitutional History of Secession is the history of the legal practice of secession in the Anglo-American world. The learned jurist John Remington Graham is possessed of a profound expertise on American, British and Canadian constitutional law. He has written a compelling defense of the right of secession. Secession, the right of self-determination, and the principle of "rule by consent of the governed" were among the foremost principles animating the American War for Independence of Seventeen-Seventy-Six. Yet the consolidationist sophists malign and deny these tried and true principles of free government. Graham however traces British and American constitutional history and developments with great clarity and buoys the case for secession.

He offers an amazing exposition of seventeenth century British constitutional developments, which culminated in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which the Crown peacefully passed from James II to William and Mary without armed conflict. The accession of William of Orange to the throne was met with popular support, as the usurpations of William II were not amenable to the populace. This so called revolution set a standard for peaceful political separation, and it was exactly what the American Continental Congress sought from Great Britain.

Likewise, peaceful separation was what the southern states that formed the Southern Confederacy wanted when those eleven states formally separated from the United States. Secession does not have to mean war and violence, but war was thrust upon American colonials and southern confederates when their previous government refused to acknowledge their right of self-determination. As the Declaration of Independence proclaims, "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." As Confederate President Jefferson Davis proclaimed, “All we ask is to be left alone.” The Glorious Revolution forms the foundation of Graham's treatise as he advances his thesis and makes the case for secession. As Donald Livingston proclaims in the preface, “The central focus of this work will be revolution, not as an armed overthrow of an established government, but as a rational and orderly process, specifically allowed by fundamental law.”

In making the case for secession, Graham substantiates the compact nature of the Union as well, which correspondingly legitimizes interposition, nullification, and secession. Two early constitutional commentaries including St. George Tucker's View of the Constitution of the United States (1801) and Pennsylvania Federalist William Rawle's A View of the Constitution (1829) both affirm a right of secession.

John Remington Graham further traces American constitutional developments, and in doing so he substantiates the compact nature of the Union, and makes a profound case for the Constitution as a compact, which in effect legitimizes the right of secession. His illustrations of the state ratifying conventions makes the reality was assumed by the founding fathers readily apparent to all but the most obstinate nationalist consolidator in denial. Even nationalists like Hamilton conceded both secession and the compact nature of the Union, in his pleading for adoption of the Constitution, despite his original plan for a unitary state based on complete consolidation.

Graham further explains all of these episodes in constitutional history with amazing detail and clarity:

● The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which were in continuity with the colonial-revolutionary tradition of State remonstrance, protest, interposition and nullification of unconstitutional acts of central government authorities.
● The Hartford Convention and the anti-war, anti-embargo northern secessionist movement which emerged after the unwelcomed War of 1812 with the British.
● The Webster-Hayne Debates on the nature of the Union is explained in detail. Likewise, Daniel Webster's case of foot-in-mouth disease is made manifest as Hayne hearkens back to his deeds at the Hartford Convention.
● The Missouri Compromise and constitutional question of slavery and the sectional strife over the spread of slavery into the territories is explained.
● The secession of the eleven southern states from the Union and the circumstances leading to their separation are explained in detail. Likewise, the birth of the Southern Confederacy and the north's violent refusal to accept their separation is painstakingly documented.
● The unlawful and violent conquest of the South, the unconstitutional political repression in north and south, the illegal suspension of the writ of habeas corpus throughout the whole nation and the oppressive Reconstruction Acts are explained with amazing clarity and detail.

Graham fast forwards to the twentieth-century. In our time, Quebec has asserted the legal right of secession as a viable political alternative if its relationship with the central government of the Canadian Confederation does not prove to be more mutually-beneficial and less detrimental to the interests of Quebec's citizenry in coming years. With a distinctive francophone culture and nearly half of the populace voting for secession in the last popular referendum, we may very well witness the peaceful separation of Quebec from Canada in our lifetime. Ironically, in the Anglo-Canadian legal framework, the French Quebecois find a vital precedent for peaceful transformation of government in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

All things considered, John Remington Graham has done a remarkable job at making the case for the legality of secession and has made a lasting contribution to constitutional scholarship. His book is well-documented and awash in powerful quotations from British and American statesmen. There is a preponderance of evidence in the Anglo-American constitutional heritage which makes secession a lawful exercise. Likewise, he is very logical in tracing the deducible nature of State sovereignty. Graham in final application points out that self-determination as expressed in an act of secession emanates from the right of people themselves to self-government. Essentially by presenting the secession of the American colonies and the Southern Confederacy in its proper historical and legal context, Graham has made a valuable contribution to understanding the Anglo-American political tradition. As Jefferson astutely opined, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes..." Thus, secession is never to be approached lightly, and the act of secession negates the value, benefits and security of the Union.

John Remington Graham has served as an expert advisor on British constitutional law and amicus curiae for Quebec in the Canadian Supreme Court secession case decided in 1998.
-------------------------------------
Notable Quotables of Related Interest

"Whenever government becomes destructive of these ends [viz. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government."
–Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence of the American Colonies, July 4, 1776

"Sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence. The states could have not reserved any rights by articles of their union, if they had not been sovereign, because they could have no rights, unless they flowed from that source. In the creation of the federal government, the states exercised the highest act of sovereignty, and they may, if they please, repeat the proof of their sovereignty, by its annihilation. But the union possesses no innate sovereignty, like the states; it was not self-constituted; it is conventional, and of course subordinate to the sovereignties by which it was formed."
–John Taylor of Caroline, New Views of the Constitution, Nov. 19, 1823

"I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."
–Lord Acton to Robert E. Lee, Nov. 4, 1866

Today, April 17, 2006 marks the one-hundred and forty-fifth anniversary of the secession of my native Commonwealth of Virginia from the Union.

When Lincoln took office as President, eight southern states Union in the upper south remained in the Union. Yet Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to suppress the "rebellion" prompted four of them -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to join the Confederacy. The political situation in Virginia was somewhat different than in the deep south. Interestingly, in the 1860 election, in both Virginia and Kentucky carried heavily in favor of the Constitutional Union Party, including my hometown Danville, Virginia. Virginians were not quic

Virginia was prudent and not quick to seek secession as a rightful remedy, but Lincoln's pronounced hostile intentions towards Virginia's sister states in the deep south antagonized her, and compelled Virginia to cast her lot with the Confederacy.

Virginia governor John Letcher wrote to Lincoln: "You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited toward the South."

In point of fact, on April 17, 1861, the Virginia legislature assembled in convention, and passed the following ordinance of secession, following a popular referendum among the citizens:

AN ORDINANCE to repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United State of America by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution.

The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitition were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:

Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying and adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

And they do further declare, That said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State.

This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day, when ratified by a majority of the voter of the people of this State cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted.

Adopted by the convention of Virginia April 17,1861

A Brief Vindication of Secession as a Right
Secession as a right emanated from popular sovereignty, which was the crux of republicanism. Original intent and the common sentiment throughout the United States was in favor of the compact nature of the Union, and even northern Federalists readily acknowledged the right of secession. In fact, the first states to seriously entertain secession was those of New England in 1815 at the Hartford Convention.

Almost seventy-five years before Virginia's secession, in the Virginia Convention of 1788 to ratify the U.S. Constitution, the right of secession was readily conceded. As a matter of fact, the Virginia Convention made it explicit, in her ordinance adopting the U.S. Constitution:

We the Delegates of the People of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the People of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will...
–Ordinance of the Virginia State Ratifying Convention, June 27, 1788, 1 Eliot’s Debates 327, 3 Elliot’s Debates 656, Tansill’s Documents.

The debate background to this ordinance in the Virginia Convention is even more eye-opening. It was declared, "That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the people." Every state seemed to take secession for granted, though cautious in the sentiment that compelled advocacy of the U.S. Bill of Rights, the states of Virginia, Rhode Island, and New York make the affirmation of the right of secession explicit in their ordinance of ratification. After all, republicanism had its foundation in rule by consent of the governed, and such consent is not imposed but also entered intent voluntarily. Nine-tenths of the other states, could not bind the holdout states of Rhode Island or North Carolina who delayed considerably in their ratification of the Constitution.

On June 5, 1788, Judge Edmund Pendleton declared:

We the people, possessing all power, form a government, such as we think will secure our happiness. And suppose, in adopting this plan, we should be mistaken in the end. Where is the cause of alarm in that quarter? In the same plan we point out an easy and peaceable method of reforming what may be found amiss. No but, say gentleman, we have put the introduction of that system in the hands of our servants, who will interrupt it for motives of self-interest. What then? We will resist, did my friend say, conveying the idea of force? Who shall dare resist the people? No, we will assemble in Convention, wholly recall our delegated powers, or reform them to prevent such abuse, and punish those servants who have perverted powers and designed for our happiness to their own emolument.

John Marshall, later U.S. Supreme Court Justice, forthrightly proclaimed the sovereignty was inherent in the people, and he basically conceded that should the people be threatened with palpable oppression by the new general government, they could summarily withdraw their assent to the Union:

We are threatened with the loss of our liberties by the possible abuse of power, notwithstanding the maxim that those who give may take away. It is the people that give power and can take it back. What shall restrain them? They are the masters who give it, and of whom their servants hold it.

In that same Virginia Convention, James Madison conceded the right of secession: "If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."

Substantiating Evidence
A Brief Enquiry into the Nature and Character of the Federal Government by Abel Parker Upshur, 1840.
A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States by Alexander Hamilton Stephens, 1868.

This song is entitled Going Home by vocalist and songwriter Mary Fahl in her solo album debut The Other Side of Time, which was part of the soundtrack in the 2003 blockbuster movie Gods and Generals. If you have a fast connection (i.e. ethernet, broadband, cable), then click here for a higher-resolution video.

In Harpers Ferry, the Town House was used for quartering soldiers during the late War between the States. There was story of a Confederate drummer boy that was particularly moving, and yet utterly sad.

A group of Union soldiers had captured a number of Confederate soldiers including a young Confederate drummer boy. Because he was so young, the Union soldiers decidely that sending him to an abysmmal Union prison would be a veritable death sentence. Instead they decided to keep the boy with them, and they made him into sort of a mascot.

Things went well for the little fellow for several weeks, but then the soldiers got bored and turned to riotous entertainment. They started to pick on the little drummer boy. They tasked him with menial tasks, and ordered him around, subjecting him to constant harrassment, goading and prodding. They made him labor for hours on end, and he had to wash their clothes, clean their guns and shine their boots. The boy became so utterly discouraged in time that he started to cry and beg for his mother. They had no pity, and it only infuriated the soldiers; they told him to 'grow up,' and they goaded him more and more. The poor boy cried off and on and continually begged all the more for his mother.

One night the Union soldiers were drinking heavily, and went into a riotus frenzy and they started goading and picking on the drummer boy. They started tossing him from one drunken soldier to another, and scared him. And something terrible happened to make his screams all the more omninous, as a soldier did not capture the little drummer boy when he was tossed his way. Terribly, the poor little boy went flying out of a window and landed on a rock below, killing him instantly.

Since that time, this story has fed ghost stories and old wise-tales in the Harper's Ferry town of a little boy being heard crying for his mother.

Acknowledgements
Story colloborated in Ghosts of Harpers Ferry by Stephen D. Brown

Photo copyright Mike Lynaugh Photography, and is reprinted with permission. Mike is proprietor of the Virtual Civil War web site, and author of a marvelous book entitled Ghosts of the Field.

Movie Review
One of my favorite movies of all time is probably the 2003 screen adaptation of novelist Jeff Shaara's bestselling book Gods and Generals. I saw it with a number of college friends in 2003 while attending Liberty, in Lynchburg, VA. The film began in early 1861 and continues on through 1862 to May 1863. It follows the exploits of the noble Confederate Robert Edward Lee, commander of the Army of Northern Virginia and his compatriot, the illustrious Confederate General Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson (played by Stephen Lang), commander of Virginia's 1st Brigade. The film alternates between capturing both sides, and focuses attentively on Lt. Col. Joshua Chamberlain (played by Jeff Daniels), commander of the 20th Maine. The choreography is beautifully well done in my humble opinion, and the soundtrack is electric and appropriate for the historical period as well. The movie was a good three hours, and is available on a two-DVD set.

The 2003 blockbuster film Gods and Generals directed by Ron Maxwell follows the Union and Confederate armies in the Virginia theater from First Manassas to Fredericksburg to Chancellorsville. It is a very authentic presentation of the late War Between the States, and even encompasses some of the various general's famous words on the field and on their deathbed.

No film has ever before attempted to cast such a complex portrait of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson. Gods and Generals drew some criticism from nit-picker critics for being 'too Confederate' in its sympathies, but the fact remains that no character on the opposing side in this story possessed the stature that Jackson held. Ron Maxwell's forthcoming film The Last Full Measure will feature Union Generals Grant and Sherman however. So, the trilogy will feature some prominent Union personalities.

Gen. "Stonewall" Jackson: Stephen Lang
Gen. Robert E. Lee: Robert Duvall
Lt. Col. Joshua Chamberlain: Jeff Daniels
Sgt. Thomas Chamberlain: C. Thomas Howell
Sgt. "Buster" Kilrain: Kevin Conway
Gen. John Bell Hood: Patrick Gorman
Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock: Brian Mallon

Visit the official Gods and Generals web site.



Support our Amazon.com Gods and Generals Marketplace


Related Links:

American Rhetoric - Thomas Jonathan ("Stonewall") Jackson Addresses Virginia's 1st Brigade at the Battle of Manassas

American Rhetoric - General Robert E. Lee Accepts Command of the Citizen's Army of Virginia

Getting off track briefly from our regularly scheduled program to make a brief announcement. My article entitled "The Real Henry Clay: The Corrupt American Architect of Mercantilism and Protectionism" was slated for publication on LewRockwell.com for April 12, a popular political e-zine, which features columnists such as economist Thomas DiLorenzo, historians Thomas Woods and Clyde Wilson. Anyhow, a typo/syntax error on my part, set production back on that article for a day, and unfortunately, though I sent a revised file, and they updated it, it was not announced in the headlines as scheduled for April 12. I slated it for the occasion of Henry Clay's birthday on April 12.

Who is Lew Rockwell you might be wondering? He served as a chief congressional staffer for Rep. Ron Paul in the early 1980s, and rose to become the chief and founder of the Mises Institute (a libertarian think tank in Auburn, Alabama) with the help of the late Murray Rothbard.

Notable Quotables on Black Confederates

"There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels."
—Frederick Douglass

"We must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced on our social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ them without delay."
—Gen. Robert E. Lee

"Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number [Confederate troops]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in Confederate ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc... and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army."
—Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the U.S. Army Sanitary Commission

"Many people don’t realize that blacks served in the Confederate Army, and that some actually fought."
—Earl Ijames, archivist, N.C. Department of Cultural Resources

Notable Quotables from Northerners

"The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the negro."
—U.S. Secretary of State William Seward - Lincoln administration surmising northern opposition to slavery in the territories

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in where we can set them free."
—U.S. Secretary of State William Seward - surmising the pragmatism behind the Emancipation Proclamation

"The original proclamation has no... legal justification, except as a military measure."
—Abraham Lincoln - surmising the intent which was for diplomatic posturing with Europe and hope of fomenting servile rebellion

Black Confederates
by Walter Williams

DURING OUR WAR OF 1861, ex-slave Frederick Douglass observed, "There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down ... and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government."

Dr. Lewis Steiner, a Union Sanitary Commission employee who lived through the Confederate occupation of Frederick, Maryland said, "Most of the Negroes ... were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army." Erwin L. Jordan's book "Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia" cites eyewitness accounts of the Antietam campaign of "armed blacks in rebel columns bearing rifles, sabers, and knives and carrying knapsacks and haversacks." After the Battle of Seven Pines in June 1862, Union soldiers said that "two black Confederate regiments not only fought but showed no mercy to the Yankee dead or wounded whom they mutilated, murdered and robbed."

In April 1861, a Petersburg, Virginia newspaper proposed "three cheers for the patriotic free Negroes of Lynchburg" after 70 blacks offered "to act in whatever capacity may be assigned to them" in defense of Virginia. Erwin L. Jordan cites one case where a captured group of white slave owners and blacks were offered freedom if they would take an oath of allegiance to the United States. One free black indignantly replied, "I can't take no such oaf as dat. I'm a secesh nigger." A slave in the group upon learning that his master refused to take the oath said, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take." A second slave said, "I ain't going out here on no dishonorable terms." One of the slave owners took the oath but his slave, who didn't take the oath, returning to Virginia under a flag of truce, expressed disgust at his master's disloyalty saying, "Massa had no principles."