"The Old South"
in the days of the
Read and Wauchope

Geographically, "The Old South" is a sub-region of the American South, differentiated from the Deep South by being limited to those Southern states represented among the original thirteen British colonies, which became the first thirteen U.S. states.


Culturally, "The Old South" is used to describe the rural, agriculturally-based, pre-Civil War or antebellum economy and society in the Southern United States.

Henry Grady
was the Editor of the Atlanta Constitution and coined the phrase "The New South."

He presented an important speech at the close of the Civil War which is presented below, with questions to think about, based on his remarks.

Also included below, is a short film about his life.
Dr. Brion McClanahan
presents the lecture
"The Old South and the New South"
Recent and Recommended for further reading on "The Old South"
A Narrative Introduction to this page...........
As Professor William Marvel has stated, the accepted role of the historian is to explain what happened, rather than to guess what might have been. The most intensely objective historical studies sometimes adopt an unintentionally narrow perspective through a reluctance to address alternatives available to the participants. 

Historians unwilling to consider the conditional past tend to present historical developments as the only possible results of immutable chains of events. 

In professional circles the examination of alternatives is associated with futile, lowbrow speculation, and indeed the genre of "counter-factual" history often descends to ludicrous levels of political science fiction.  Nonetheless, the refusal to weigh actions and events against some measure other than what they actually wrought leaves the historian functioning too much like an annalist and too little like an analyst.

Did the Read, Wauchope, and Porter families know what was going on, in the run-up to the Secession Crisis?  Yes they did.  Their letters and documents attest to that.  They certainly had newspapers (2 in the Vicksburg/Edwards Depot, MS area, and 2 in the Jackson, MS area) for them to draw upon, as well as friends and relatives who were in and out of the area prior to the Fort Sumpter event.

Unfortunately, there is much fallacious reasoning that goes on, and the attempt to think 'inside the box' and miss the true story of what happened during the War Between the States.  With so many turbulent political factions in operation today, we tend to look at our turbulent past as if they had only two sides, and we tend to give the greater interpretive deference to whichever side came out on top.

We tend to learn our history of the past as if everything worked out for the best; that there were no other real alternatives available to the participants.  At every historical juncture, there are alternative courses of action available.  It's almost impossible to argue that things work out for the best.

Defense of their homeland was the real incentive for a Southerner to volunteer, not slavery.  This is evident from reading the original source materials.  At the beginning of the war, in the North, it was not patriotism and selfless devotion that was the real motivation for enlistment.  It was money...mercenary motivation.  Then as now, many enlistments were found, especially in the first call to the colors, in the poorer sections of the North.  There was little sympathy for Abolition; there was a hostility against it.  Most of the Northern population were racist, even as Lincoln was. (Lincoln was an early member of an organization that wanted to export black slaves out of the United States; create colonies for them in other countries).  This becomes apparent by reading the original documents forward, not reading backward in the sources.  Contemporary sources show the real story.  Many soldiers' re-enlistments were also for the money.

Some who read what is presented here may say this is "revisionist" history.  When someone, and especially a historian, casts around the word "revisionist" or "speculation" as epithets, they are demonstrating their hostility to innovative thought, and their ignorance of the very field they have chosen to pursue.  The reason we follow history is to see what is new in it.  And if there be no revisionism or nothing new in it, then there is no reason to pursue it.

John Read (seen in the next photo) Charles "Savez" Read's grandfather (whose life is discussed on the "Read Family Story" web page) was a soldier in the War of 1812, and later owned a plantation in Mississippi with slaves.  But during the War Between the States, he remained loyal to the Union cause, and when Federal forces marched through Mississippi, they occupied his house but did not burn it.  He was a Unionist, but several grandchildren put on the Confederate uniform.
There is clear written evidence in primary sources that one young Read boy, William, (seen in the next photo) joined the Confederate troops as the Union forces came through his hometown.  He saw the Confederate soldiers fighting the Federals near his home; and he picked up a gun that had been dropped by a dead Confederate....and joined the fight....that's how he got involved.  Thus, he joined, not because of slavery (he didn't own any; he wasn't even old enough to enlist) but because the Northern Union forces had invaded his state and hometown. 

Clement Eaton's "A History of the Old South; The Emergence of a Reluctant Nation" 3rd Edition, is one of the standard textbooks on the era under discussion here.  It is clear that young William Read was not of the planter class, his father did not live in a plantation mansion, but, he is an example of a vastly larger middle class of yoman farmers and villagers who came from Colonial origins.  He did not live like the privileged planters, but did absorb something of the spirit and sense of values of the Southern gentry. 

He knew about hospitality, the importance of religion, the importance of the family cemetery...an important reason for the love of the home-place among Southerners.

He had observed his kinsfolk who were distinguished by a remarkable sense of pride; upholding a code of gentlemanly conduct.  Honor, both personal and regional, was a talismanic word in the Southern vocabulary, and was an important cause of secession.....not the ownership of slaves.

Out of the documents I have examined written by the Reads and their relatives, I can state that slavery had nothing to do with their support of the Confederacy.  One such documented story appears on the "Read Family Story" web page, which concerns Bettie Read and the Union soldiers who came through the Vicksburg area, burning, robbing, and killing innocent civilians.  Slavery was not the issue, as too many "court historians" will tell you.  And Lincoln supported slavery, as you will see documented on this page.

This is simply a historical fact and part of the Read family history.  It is not something that should be erased or ignored.  It is part of our family history and heritage. 

Thus, this web page will address "The Old South"where the Read and Wauchope families lived. They were familiar with the racial bias in the North, as well as where they lived.  They knew about the Black slave owners and the rising tariffs on goods coming through the ports, most of which were in the South.  Charles "Savez" Read was born in a small village located on the Yazoo River and became very familiar with the commercial trade on the Mississippi River.  He was also a personal acquaintance of Jefferson Davis in the Antebellum South. 

Here you will find information on: Black slave owners; Native American Indian slave owners; Black slaves and free men of color serving in the Confederate army and navy; the fact that (according to the 1860 Census) 98.8% of people in the Northern free states were white; 96.5% if you include all the the loyal states who had slaves and were white.

And all of these had racist views that offend our modern sensibilities; and they were not in favor of Emancipation except toward the end of the war, when they thought that it would help them defeat the South by getting rid of slavery which supported the South's economic base; the plans of Abraham Lincoln to deport slaves to other countries; and post-war Confederates who left to settle in other countries.....by the thousands; the plan of New York City to secede from the Union; the rampant slavery in the North.  One town in up-state New York actually did vote to leave the Union, and didn't rejoin the Union until President Harry Truman was president!

After the war, several in the Read family considered moving out of the U.S. into another country.  One wrote of his disappointment in seeing the desperate circumstances the Southern civilian population had been left in.  Destruction was widespread.

General R.E. Lee had been invited to join in the exiles who went to Mexico, discussed below, after the war.  He declined.  He felt it his duty to stay and influence his former comrades to work together in harmony for Union.

It is unfortunate that many in our country have not studied history and learned the facts surrounding the issue of slavery in the early days of our country, not only in the antebellum South, but in Colonial America, and, I might add, in the North.

The first slave owner in Virginia, was a Black man.  This may come to many as a surprise, but I learned this fact years ago, while studying history at Old Dominion University.

Then, it may surprise you to learn that many Native American Indians also owned Black slaves.  Some of these former Black slaves were later discriminated against, by the Indians, when the 5 Civilized Tribes were re-formed under new Peace Treaties.

A further surprise to some, may be that Abraham Lincoln, had he not been assassinated, planned to deport Blacks and resettle them in colonies away from the United States.

Indeed, all former Confederates or their widows were entitled to U.S. government pensions!  On the "Read Family Story" web page, you will see actual documentation that proves that fact; in addition to samples included on this webpage.  (A fact which the website "Snopes" got wrong!)  In addition, families of Confederate veterans can request and receive at not cost, headstones for their loved ones in a cemetery.

The recent unfortunate events in New Orleans (2017) concerning the removal, under the cover of darkness, of Confederate monuments, is representative of blatant Black racial bias.  It is an example of politicians who are caught up in the emotional moment and misunderstanding the history of our American historical memorial landscape. It is a blatant act by those who have not "read" history, of trying now to "erase" history. Those who vote for such removal in that and other cities in our nation, show their ignorance of history.

As the years of the Old South closed, how did the Veterans of North and South view each other after the war?  You may be surprised that many fought together in the Spanish-American War.  You may also be surprised that many who survived came together in reunions.  Also, one of the major monuments to the Confederate dead in Arlington National Cemetery was put there by Union veterans.  Two videos on this page represent what they thought of each other, and how they lived out their days.

This was the closing period of the Old South and the beginning of the New South.  It was in this context that John Jeremiah Read and members of the Wauchope family, would minister to various Native American tribes in Indian Territory, which later became the state of Oklahoma.  Some members of the Wauchope family were actually doing ministry among Native Americans before the War Between the States, and had to leave once it started.  Some Census records reveal that several Wauchope families before Reconstruction had "house servants" who lived with them.   Some of these are discussed on the "Wauchope Family Story" web page.  The Wauchopes would discover, as did Rev. John J. Read, that many Indians willingly or unwillingly, as the case may be, served as soldiers and scouts in both the Union and Confederate armies.

The "States' Rights" Dilemma
Slavery was not the primary cause for Virginia leaving the Union.  One needs to first understand that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution guaranteed the right of U.S. Citizens to own slaves.

Several states, primarily Virginia, did not see itself as a secessionist state.  In fact, in the run up to the final state-wide voting on the issue, even Jubal Early, who later became a Confederate General, was a staunch Unionist and was against secession.

Professor William Marvel has done an excellent job of outlining in his book, "Mr. Lincoln Goes to War," why Virginia was pushed into voting for secession.
On page 72, he states the obvious about Lincoln's uncharacteristically clumsy response to the secession crisis: as psychological impulse rather than by political imperative.

When Lincoln called for the call-up of militia, that act, in itself, laid down the gauntlet at the feet of all Virginians, large numbers of whom would have preferred to remain in the Union, if not asked to take up arms against the seceded states.

We need to understand that the Virginia convention had voted only tentatively to secede, pending ratification by a vote by the public at large.

But the disdain that Lincoln's mobilization order showed for states' rights had so infuriated Virginia citizens, that they voted overwhelmingly to leave the Union.

Dr. Marvel has correctly analyzed the voting totals and by locality to draw the correct conclusion.  Only in some of the westernmost counties did Union sentiment prevail.  Secession won by lopsided margins in the interior counties, particularly in Southside Virginia, where some counties voted unanimously to leave the Union.  Even in the border regions like Loudoun County, which had heavy concentrations of Quakers, loyal Germans, and conservative Whigs formed a substantial Unionist stronghold, secessionists outnumbered the Union faction better than two to one.

The implied threat of and subsequent invasion by Federal troops settled the question for Clinton Hatcher, the only child of an older couple who farmed a place near Purcellville, Virginia.

Clinton Hatcher (in above photo), had come home from Columbian College (now George Washington University) in the District of Columbia, at the news of Lincoln's militia proclamation, and within a month, his correspondence had assumed a relentlessly hostile tone.  Keep in mind that Hatcher was a Quaker. 

On May 23rd, he participated in his first election, voting in favor of the secession ordinance.  Then, after persuading his mother to withdraw her objections, he backed up that vote by signing the roll of a local rifle company.  Scores of his neighbors had already enlisted;  they did their voting in military encampments around the county.

Prior to the secession crisis, he was, at 6 feet 7 inches, conspicuous as a student at Columbian College.  He even met President Lincoln at a White House reception shortly after the inauguration.  Probably out of  modesty, Hatcher tried to avoid a meeting, but Lincoln stopped him, explaining, "Whenever I see a man taller than me I make it a point to shake hands with him."  (The March 9, 1861 "Sunday Star" newspaper noted, Lincoln was 6 feet 4 inches.)

The meeting supposedly was civil enough, but young Hatcher did not become a Lincoln fan.  As the secession crisis deepened, the young Quaker who would become a soldier, became an ardent Southern "fire-eater," ready to watch Yankees slain at the earliest opportunity.

He studied the then current soldiers' manual of arms, "Hardee's Tactics," and participated in the Battle of First Manassas.  He described in one letter of being unable to wait "until he can bayonet a Yankee," observing, "I never felt whole days if there were a possibility of a ball's striking me.  I had a kind of pre-sentiment that I would not be killed."

Unfortunately, Sgt. Thomas Clinton Lovett Hatcher fell at age 21, on October 21, 1861, during the Battle of Ball's Bluff, and as an unarmed color-bearer (which was the same field position of Joseph Read).
Thus, we have the story of a Quaker whose family did not believe in war-making, who went from being a pacifist to voting for secession due to Lincoln's disregard of Virginia's states' rights.

According to studies done by Professors Fellman, Gordon, and Sutherland, defense of home was a strong motivation for Confederates, especially since Union armies were "invading" their new nation.  Proving one's manhood, too, was a powerful influence that combined with many other factors, such as duty, patriotism, and defense of home, to inspire enlistment.  Others joined because there was communal or peer pressure to do so, and staying behind would have been far too embarrassing.  Money also played a role in luring men to enlist, especially in the North, where bounties were higher.

Curiously, slavery, which was an underlying cause of the war, was not the cause for which most Civil War soldiers volunteered to serve.  To be sure, Confederate soldiers believed firmly that they had to protect their "way of life" and beat back the hated Yankee aggression, but they seldom enlisted to defend slavery per se.  For most of the Southern aristocracy who owned the slaves, it was about the right to import slavery into the new territories and states.  Similarly, Union white soldiers, especially in 1861, although convinced that they faced a "slaveocracy" that threatened their free-labor economy, were none too keen on the notion of emancipation, let alone racial equality.  There were, of course, true abolitionists in the ranks of the Union from the war's start, but their number was always a minority, even when the war became one to end slavery.

There are literally hundreds and thousands of soldiers letters and diaries located in archives. In looking over many of these one finds verification of the Union soldier's racist comments and the fact that they had not enlisted for any Abolitionist cause.

Serene white mansions, aristocratic planters, ladies descending graceful staircases in crinoline skirts, slave gangs singing in the cotton fields, and the fragrance of moonlit gardens form a tenacious stereotype of the Old South.
Such scenes of glamour and ease for the privileged class actually existed in those areas of the South possessing rich soil and accessibility to markets.  This romantic stereotype, however, omits from the landscape the large middle class of farmers, the barefoot women, the log cabins, and the sweaty toil of white men under the hot sun.

In actuality, 3/4 of the white population of the antebellum South, which included the Read and Wauchope families, did not belong to slaveholding families, and the typical home was not a Mount Vernon or a Tara Hall, but a log cabin or a modest frame cottage or house.  The stereotype has taken certain real aspects of Southern society, especially the life of the small class of large planters, and has generalized and exaggerated them so that they appear to be typical of the South as a whole.
The romantic image of the Old South is a creation of a number of forces, not the least of which is the contribution by the Abolitionists with their propaganda that represented the land of Dixie as inhabited chiefly by haughty aristocrats, debased "poor whites," and black slaves.

The 1860 Census indicates something else:  the South of slavery days was predominantly a region of small independent farmers.  Indeed, the social pyramid bulged greatly at the sides, and the social structure was flexible enough to permit the movement of the sons of numerous poor men to a higher economic and social status.

At the top of the social pyramid were the planters and according to the arbitrary classification of the census bureau the planter status was based on the ownership of 20 or more slaves engaged in agriculture.  The accurate definition of a planter, however, should also include the ownership of a considerable acreage of land, a minimum of between 500 and 1,000 acres, of which at least 200 were in cultivation.

The Census of 1860 reported a surprisingly small number of "planters," only 46,274 persons, most of whom were heads of families, owning as many as 20 slaves.  Out of this privileged group, only 2,292 persons belonged to the large planter classification, that is, persons owning as many as 100 slaves.

Green Mont plantation in eastern Virginia is an example of a small planter with 50 slaves raising crops of wheat and corn.  The father was a doctor and justice of the peace.  The son worked on the plantation, plowed with the slave hands and did other work on the plantation.  His relations with the Negroes were friendly and informal, for slavery at Green Mont was a paternal institution.

Religion played an important role in the life of this family that had departed the Episcopal faith of earlier generations to join the Baptist church. The Fleet family combined the Puritan with the Cavalier traditions.  Fond of visiting, hospitable, enjoying dances, home-made wine and the reading of novels, they were nevertheless strong supporters of the church.

Benny Fleet, who grew up on the plantation, has an interesting diary which begins on January 9, 1860, when he was 13 years old and ends when he was killed in Confederate uniform at the age of 17.  This family had the Southern idea of honor, which made them look down upon those who were forced into the army by draft, and they made quite a distinction between "gentlemen" and the common people.

In the whole land of Dixie, the Census officials of 1860 reported finding only 1 slaveholder, an individual in South Carolina, having as many as 1,000 slaves, and only 13 persons owning between 500 and 1,000 slaves.  Thus, the large slaveholders were very few in number and comparable to the millionaires of modern America.  And I can state categorically, that the Reads and Wauchopes, although they lived in The Old South, were not at the top of the aristocratic planter class.
Slavery in the North before and during the War Between the States?  Yes; and many white people who live in the North today are in denial about it; some have been openly resentful that several historians have recently reported and published books about it. 
But, as Mark Twain once said, "Denial is not a river in Egypt!"

Several programs are included on this page which explain this is detail.
Cotton is still grown on land close to the original plantation of John Read seen in this picture taken near Edwards Depot, Mississippi, in 2016.
Slavery..........in the beginning...............

Stereotyping the Old South

As we approach the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War, the war over that conflict's meaning is less civil today than ever.  Jack Hunter explains:

Plantation System In Southern Life

Life in Old Louisiana (1830-1850)

Moonlight and Magnolia: A History of the Southern Plantation

 Native American Indian ownership of Black slaves is discussed in the documentary

"Black Slaves, Red Masters."

Indians in the Civil War Era

"The Union Indian Brigade in the Civil War" is available for free online at the Internet Archive website, where you can read it or download it by clicking with your 'mouse':


Indians owned Black Slaves

From the late eighteenth century through the end of the Civil War, Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians bought, sold, and owned Africans and African Americans as slaves, a fact that persisted after the tribes' removal from the Deep South to Indian Territory.

The tribes formulated racial and gender ideologies that justified this practice and marginalized free black people in the Indian nations well after the Civil War and slavery had ended. Through the end of the nineteenth century, ongoing conflicts among Choctaw, Chickasaw, and U.S. lawmakers left untold numbers of former slaves and their descendants in the two Indian nations without citizenship in either the Indian nations or the United States. In this groundbreaking study, Barbara Krauthamer rewrites the history of southern slavery, emancipation, race, and citizenship to reveal the centrality of Native American slaveholders and the black people they enslaved.

Krauthamer's examination of slavery and emancipation highlights the ways Indian women's gender roles changed with the arrival of slavery and changed again after emancipation and reveals complex dynamics of race that shaped the lives of black people and Indians both before and after removal.

"The role of black Indians, largely omitted from or distorted in conventional history books, is traced by William Katz with careful and committed research. . . . he integrates their general history with brief individual biographies, including leaders, army scouts and soldiers, frontiersmen and explorers, (and) dangerous outlaws".--Booklist.

Slavery existed in North America long before the first Africans arrived at Jamestown in 1619. For centuries, from the pre-Columbian era through the 1840s, Native Americans took prisoners of war and killed, adopted, or enslaved them. Christina Snyder's pathbreaking book takes a familiar setting for bondage, the American South, and places Native Americans at the center of her engrossing story.

Indian warriors captured a wide range of enemies, including Africans, Europeans, and other Indians. Yet until the late eighteenth century, age and gender more than race affected the fate of captives. As economic and political crises mounted, however, Indians began to racialize slavery and target African Americans. Native people struggling to secure a separate space for themselves in America developed a shared language of race with white settlers. Although the Indians' captivity practices remained fluid long after their neighbors hardened racial lines, the Second Seminole War ultimately tore apart the inclusive communities that Native people had created through centuries of captivity.

Snyder's rich and sweeping history of Indian slavery connects figures like Andrew Jackson and Cherokee chief Dragging Canoe with little-known captives like Antonia Bonnelli, a white teenager from Spanish Florida, and David George, a black runaway from Virginia. Placing the experiences of these individuals within a complex system of captivity and Indians' relations with other peoples, Snyder demonstrates the profound role of Native American history in the American past.

In The Native Ground, Kathleen DuVal argues that it was Indians rather than European would-be colonizers who were more often able to determine the form and content of the relations between the two groups. Along the banks of the Arkansas and Mississippi rivers, far from Paris, Madrid, and London, European colonialism met neither accommodation nor resistance but incorporation. Rather than being colonized, Indians drew European empires into local patterns of land and resource allocation, sustenance, goods exchange, gender relations, diplomacy, and warfare. Placing Indians at the center of the story, DuVal shows both their diversity and our contemporary tendency to exaggerate the influence of Europeans in places far from their centers of power. Europeans were often more dependent on Indians than Indians were on them.

Now the states of Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado, this native ground was originally populated by indigenous peoples, became part of the French and Spanish empires, and in 1803 was bought by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase. Drawing on archaeology and oral history, as well as documents in English, French, and Spanish, DuVal chronicles the successive migrations of Indians and Europeans to the area from precolonial times through the 1820s. These myriad native groups—Mississippians, Quapaws, Osages, Chickasaws, Caddos, and Cherokees—and the waves of Europeans all competed with one another for control of the region.

Only in the nineteenth century did outsiders initiate a future in which one people would claim exclusive ownership of the mid-continent. After the War of 1812, these settlers came in numbers large enough to overwhelm the region's inhabitants and reject the early patterns of cross-cultural interdependence. As citizens of the United States, they persuaded the federal government to muster its resources on behalf of their dreams of landholding and citizenship.

With keen insight and broad vision, Kathleen DuVal retells the story of Indian and European contact in a more complex and, ultimately, more satisfactory way.

Late in April 1861, President Lincoln ordered Federal troops to evacuate forts in Indian Territory. That left the Five Civilized Tribes—Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, and Seminoles—essentially under Confederate jurisdiction and control. The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 1863–1866, spans the closing years of the Civil War, when Southern fortunes were waning, and the immediate postwar period.


Annie Heloise Abel shows the extreme vulnerability of the Indians caught between two warring sides. "The failure of the United States government to afford to the southern Indians the protection solemnly guaranteed by treaty stipulations had been the great cause of their entering into an alliance with The Confederacy, "she writes. Her classic book, originally published in 1925 as the third volume of The Slaveholding Indians, makes clear how the Indians became the victims of uprootedness and privation, pillaging, government mismanagement, and, finally, a deceptive treaty for reconstruction.

Dr. Gary Gallagher in an excerpt from a lecture, "The Real Lost Cause," discusses why too many read history from the end instead of at the beginning; why the majority of people in the North were racist; why the Civil War could have ended with slavery intact:

Anthony Johnson:  First Slave Owner in America (in Northampton County, Virginia).....and he was Black.

In 1640, five years after being freed from slavery himself, Anthony Johnson (born in Angola, Africa), acquired a black slave named John Casar (sometimes Casor or Gesorroro). In 1648, Johnson, who had come to the Eastern Shore in the 1620s, purchased four head of livestock from four different planters. Two years later he was given a patent for an isolated 250-acre tract of land on the north side of Nandua, where he settled with his wife Mary (who had arrived from Africa in 1622) and proceeded to build a livestock business. A patent was a legal claim to land given by the government in exchange for bringing dependents (called "headrights") into the colony. In 1654, he acquired a second slave, Mary Gersheene. Over the next few years, the Johnson's sons, John and Richard, accumulated 650 acres adjacent to their parents' land.

The accumulation of several hundred acres of land, a herd of cattle, and a few slaves constituted a singular economic achievement for a free black family in mid-seventeenth-century Virginia. Historians have pointed to Anthony Johnson as proof that in the early and mid-1600's at least, Virginia's free blacks sometimes operated on an equal footing with whites. It is true that during the 17th-century free black men occasionally purchased not only black slaves, but indentured white servants, and they sometimes married white women. They established profitable farms and livestock businesses, and successfully sued whites in court.

But more recent investigations into the lives of free blacks on the Eastern Shore suggest that while colonial blacks had relatively more opportunity and freedom than their descendants in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, they too suffered at the hands of the white majority.

The Johnsons, for example, were harassed by two of their white neighbors, George and Robert Parker, who connived to lure John Casar away from the Johnson household in early 1655. Johnson successfully petitioned the court for Casar's return, ironically setting an early legal precedent for slavery in Virginia. A white planter attempted to defraud the Johnsons out of their land in 1653, and in 1658 another planter, Matthew Pippen, succeeded in taking land away from Richard Johnson.

Perhaps seeking an atmosphere more congenial for free blacks, the Johnson family moved north to Somerset County, Maryland in 1665, where Anthony Johnson leased 300 acres and founded a tobacco farm that he called Tories Vineyards. But their Virginia troubles were not over. In 1667, Edmund Scarburgh, the Shore's most prominent planter and politician, cheated Johnson out of more than 1,300 pounds of tobacco. And in the greatest injustice of all, in 1670 a jury of white men decided that "because he was a Negroe and by consequence an alien," the Virginia land originally held by Johnson should revert to the Crown.

Anthony Johnson died on his estate in Somerset before the 1670 decision was handed down. Mary Johnson died there 10 years later. Only one son, Richard Johnson, born about 1632, remained on the Eastern Shore, on 50 acres given to him by his father. In the next generation this property was inherited by Anthony's grandson, John Johnson Jr., who named the farm “Angola” as a tribute to his grandfather's birth country. John Johnson was unable to pay the taxes on the property and subsequently lost ownership. He died in 1721.

The Johnson family's economic success is a tribute to their hard work and resourcefulness, but the attempts by their white neighbors to ruin them are indicative of the severe obstacles to success placed in the path of blacks even during colonial times.

(Source: Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, “Site of 17th Century Estate of Anthony and Mary Johnson,” African American Historic Sites Database.)

William Ellison: Largest African American Slave Owner and Breeder

in South Carolina.....

and he was Black

"Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South" is the complete documented history of William Ellison, Jr., a black man who was among the top 10% of all slaveholders and landowners in Sumpter county, S.C.  In the entire state of South Carolina, only 5% of the population owned as much real estate as Ellison.  Only 3% of the state's slaveholders owned as many slaves.  Thus, compared to the mean wealth of white men in the entire South, Ellison's was 15 times greater.  99% of the South's slaveholders owned fewer slaves than he did.

William Ellison, Jr. "April"

a Black (mulatto) Slave Owner in South Carolina


In 1800, the South Carolina legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved" character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way." On June 8, 1816, William Ellison of Fairfield County appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free his slave, April, who was at the time 26 years of age. April was William Ellison, Jr. of Sumter County.

At birth, William Ellison, Jr. was given the name of "April." It was a popular practice among slaves of the period to name a child after the day or month of his or her birth. It is known that between the years 1800 and 1802 April was owned by a white slave-owner named William Ellison, son of Robert Ellison of Fairfield County in South Carolina. It is not documented as to who his owner was before that time. It can only be assumed that William Ellison, a planter of Fairfield district was either the father or the brother of William Ellison, Jr., freedman of Sumter County. April had his name changed to William Ellison by the courts, obviously in honor of William Ellison of Fairfield.

At the age of 10, William "April" Ellison was apprenticed and he was trained as a cotton gin builder and repairer. He spent six years training as a blacksmith and carpenter and he also learned how to read, write, cipher and to do basic bookkeeping. Since there are no records showing the purchase of April (later William Ellison of Sumter) by William Ellison of Fairfield, it is unknown as to how long April was owned by William Ellison. It is known that William Ellison of Fairfield inherited a large estate from his father Robert, and that the slaves of the estate, named in the will were left to his siblings. It is possible that Robert Ellison gave several slaves to his son before his death, so they would not have needed to have been mentioned in his will. William owned several slaves according to the census records. Both Robert and William were of an age to have been able to be the father of April.

April was trained as a machinist and he became a well known cotton gin maker. Upon receiving his freedom he decided to pursue his expertise in Sumter County, South Carolina where found an eager market for his trade. He is well known for perfecting the cotton gin invented by Eli Whitney.

In 1816, April, now known as William Ellison, Jr. (not to be confused with one of his own sons, whom he would name William Ellison, Jr.) arrived in Stateburg where he initially hired slave workers from their local owners. By 1820, he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop. On June 20, 1820, "April" appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a “freed yellow man of about 29 years of age,” he requested a name change because it “would yet greatly advance his interest as a tradesman.” A new name would also “save him and his children from degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to the name April.” Because “of the kindness” of his former master and as a “Mark of gratitude and respect for him” April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison. His request was granted.

The Ellison family joined the Episcopalian Church of the Holy Cross in Stateburg and on  August 6, 1824, William Ellis was the first black allowed to install a family bench on the first floor of the church, albeit in the back of the church, among those of the other wealthy  families of Stateburg. The poor whites and the other black church members, free and slave, sat in the balcony of the church.

Gradually, Ellison built up a small empire, purchasing slaves in increasing numbers as the years passed. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers and sold his machines as far away as Mississippi. He regularly advertised his cotton gins in newspapers across the state. His ads may be found in historic copies of the Black River Watchman, the Sumter Southern Whig, and the Camden Gazette.

By 1830, he owned four slaves who assisted him in his business.   He then began to acquire land and even more slaves. In 1838, Ellison purchased 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from former South Carolina Governor Stephen Decater Miller. Ellison and his family moved into a large home on the property. (The house had been known as Miller House but became known as Ellison House.) As his business grew, so did his wealth and  by 1840, Ellison owned 12 slaves.

His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves. By the early 1840s, he was one of the most prosperous men in the area. By the year 1850, he was the owner of 386 acres of land and 37 slaves. The workers on Ellison's plantation produced 35 bales of cotton that year. 

In 1852, Ellison purchased Keith Hill and Hickory Hill Plantations which increased his land holdings to over 1,000 acres. By 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner and in the entire state, only five percent of the people owned as much real estate as did William Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. Ellison also owned more slaves than did 99% of the South's slaveholders.

And how did he treat his slaves?  The records found in "Black Masters," tell us "He had a reputation as a harsh master.  His slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and worst clothed.  Hungry for more land and slaves, Ellison and his family lived frugally, and he probably was even more tightfisted in providing food, clothing, and housing for his slaves.   Harsh treatment could have stemmed from Ellison's need to prove to whites that, despite his history and color, he was not soft on slaves.  A reputation for harshness was less dangerous than a reputation for indulgence."

Did he pay for "slave catchers" to find his runaway slaves?  Yes, the record is clear on that point. 

He was also a slave "breeder" who sold off black slave girls to help raise the large sums he needed to buy more adult slaves and more land.  To him, slaves were a source of labor, and the laborers he needed most were adult men who could work in his gin shop and cotton fields.  Rather than accumulate slaves he could not exploit, it is seen that he sold twenty or more girls, retaining only a few who could eventually have more children, and in some cases, work in his home as domestics.  If Ellison sold twenty slave girls for an average price of $400, he obtained an additional $8,000 cash, a sum large enough to have made a major contribution to the land and slave purchases that made him a planter.  Thus, Ellison's economic empire was in large part constructed by slave labor and paid for by the sale of slave girls.  And from the local records available, local tradition is silent about Ellison's slave sales, but outspoken about his reputation as a harsh master.  In summary, his slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and worst clothed. 

When War Between the States broke out in 1861, William Ellison, Jr. was one of the staunchest supporters of the Confederacy. His grandson joined a Confederate Artillery Unit, and William turned his plantation over from cotton cash crop production to farming foodstuff for the Confederacy.

William Ellison  died on 5 December 1861, at the age of 71 and per his wishes, his family continued to actively support the Confederacy throughout the war. Aside from producing corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks, and cotton for the Confederate Army, they contributed vast amounts of money, paid $5000 in taxes, and invested a good portion of their fortune into Confederate Bonds which were worthless at the end of the war.

 William Ellison, Jr. had died with an estate under-appraised at $43,500, consisting of 70 slaves. His will stated that his estate should pass into the joint hands of his daughter and his two surviving sons. He bequeathed $500 to a slave daughter he had sold. At his death he was one in the top 10% of the  wealthiest people in all of South Carolina, was in the top 5% of land ownership, and he was the third largest slave owner in the entire state. 

Slave records show that Ellison owned by year and number:

1820: 2, 1830: 4, 1840: 30, 1850: 36, and 1860: 63.

The slave-holding black Ellison family fully supported the Confederacy.
In addition to buying Confederate War Bonds and growing crops to help feed the Confederate Army, at least one of the Ellison grandsons joined the Confederate army, seen in the next photo.

This and other primary document evidence, refutes those historians like Gary Gallagher, who fervently believe that no Black man ever served in the Confederate Army. More information about Black Confederates is found further down on this web page.


John Wilson Buckner (pictured above) served in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and A.H. Boykin, local white men who knew that Buckner was a Man of Color. Although it was illegal at the time for a Man of Color to formally join the Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. He did not die then. He applied for and received a pension from the Federal Government, as did all Confederate soldiers who applied. At his funeral it was held in Stateburg in August, of 1895 he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a "faithful soldier."


1st Artillery

1. Man of Color --- appears on a report of operations and casualties Fort Sumter, August 23, 1863.

Report date: Ft. Sumter, Aug. 24, 1863.

Remarks: Severely wounded head (Unfiled Papers and Slips Belonging in Confederate Compiled Service Records)


2. John Wilson Buckner -- Co. I. Enlisted March 27, 1863 at Franklin S. C. for 3 years. Roll of May and June 1863-- present, July and August 1863--present wounded in action at Battery Wagner, July 14, 1863. Roll of Sept and Oct 1863 --present, Nov. and Dec. 1863 --present. Jan. to Oct 19, 1864 -- present Deserted Oct. 19, 1864.


It is believed that John Wilson Buckner served with other South Carolina Confederate units, Capt. P.O. Gaillard's company and later became a scout in Capt. Boykin's company, both South Carolina regiments; however we have not been able to prove service in these units at this time.


"William Holmes Ellison " April" sons invested heavily in Confederate war bonds, and his grandson John Wilson Buckner was allowed to enlist in the South Carolina Artillery because of "personal associations and a sterling family reputation...." [pp. 305-307]

Source: Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roark, Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1984)


Ellison insisted that his children "toe the line" when it came to obeying and following his example.  One son, Reuben broke with that when he fathered black slave children born to Hannah, his young black domestic slave woman.  Hannah's eldest child, Dianna, was born in 1853, the year Reuben's mulatto wife, Harriett Ann died.  At two-year intervals thereafter, Hannah gave birth to Susan, Marcus, John, and Virginia....all black like their mother according to the 1860 Census.  When these slave children were baptized, Hannah was listed as the mother, but no father was indicated.  Reuben's illegitimate children continued to live the local black community in later years.

But the elder William Ellison continued to smolder with resentment at his son's behavior.  When Reuben died in the spring of 1861, he received a funeral at the church, but no headstone or marker of any kind in the family cemetery.  The old man had never scrimped on gravestones before, but the absence of a stone in this case reflects William Ellison's final judgment on Reuben's paternity of black slave children.  He also took no steps whatever to acknowledge kinship or even regard for Hannah's children. When he buried Reuben he hoped quietly to put to rest the distressing truth about slave Ellisons.
One of Reuben's slave children turned up in Oregon in later years, as evidenced by the death certificate seen below.  Notice that Hannah is listed as the mother (with no last name) and Reuben is listed as the father with his last name "Ellison" listed!
After the elder Ellison died in December 1861, the remaining children continued to carry on their plantation and gin business.  They had considered becoming exiles and moving to another country like Haiti, but decided to stay put.  They made money from converting from cotton to growing food like sweet potatoes, corn, and peas; and selling it to the Confederate government.  Thus, they stayed in the "good graces" with their Rebel white slave owner neighbors.

As the war progressed, Sherman, after marching from Atlanta, pushed into South Carolina.  He sent General Edward F. Potter to march north from Charleston and destroy railroads, military stores, and homes of Confederate sympathizers, in the Sumpter district.  They passed through Stateburg where the Ellisons lived, and it was only by luck, that they were not also burned out.  Had Potter's troops known about the wartime activities of Ellison's, they might have paused long enough to light a fire.

After the war and during Reconstruction, the Ellisons were simply Southern Negroes.  The Republican party offered the Ellisons little but trouble.  As large landowners, they had no desire to share with anyone, white or black.  These mulatto Ellisons were not about to hasten the destruction of their status by joining hands with ex-slaves in Republican politics.  Thus they joined the local Democratic Club, surrounded by old white friends.  Indeed, from 1890 to 1910, Ellison family members are found on their rolls.

As the family continued to farm their land, they had become masters without slaves and had to hire freemen.  Their plantation system broke down.  They preserved peaceful relations with local white people but in 1870, the family itself began to disintegrate with Ellison's daughter's death.  Surviving family members sued each other in court for what they thought was their share of the old man's inheritance.  Finally, on July 24, 1904, the last of William Ellison's children, 85 year-old William Ellison, Jr., died.  The will directed that after all surviving spouses died, the estate would be sold and divided among any surviving grandchildren.  Provision was made to maintain the family cemetery.
The segregated Ellison Family Cemetery
(William Ellison, a mulatto, decreed that no blacks or whites could be buried there.)
Information about William Ellison's children, grandchildren, spouses. (Courtesy of Find a Grave website)
"Dixie's Censored Subject: Black Slave Owners" by Robert M. Grooms
Harvard University History Professor
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., discusses
what he calls the "dirty secret"
of black slave owners:
Slavery in the Northern States prior to and during the War Between the States

It is unfortunate that many are ignorant of our American history.  A careful examination of the historical facts of our nation prior to and during the War Between the States might have tempered this year's dust up in Charlottesville and New Orleans, which was filled with racist rhetoric.


The 1850 Census clearly reveals that 98.8% of people living in the North before the War Between the States were White.  And if you add in the border/slave-holding states that stayed with the Union during that war, the percentage is still 96.5% White.


Many will find to their dismay and shatter their sensibilities, is that these Northerners were "racist."  Any desire for Northern whites in the 1850s to end slavery did not equate with a belief in racial equality.  The Blacks might be freed, eventually, but they would not be welcome to remain.


From my college courses in Colonial and Revolutionary America, which covered Indentured Servants and early forms of slavery in what was called the "Upper South," I discovered the North's profit from, indeed, dependence on, slavery, has mostly been a shameful and well-kept secret.  The "devil is definitely in the details" of this story about the lucrative Triangle Trade of molasses, rum, and slaves that linked the North to the West Indies, and Africa.  The reality is that Northern empires were built on tainted profits, run in some cases, by abolitionists, and thousand-acre plantations (yes, plantations in the North) that existed in towns such as Salem, Connecticut.

And what happened in the North after federal law banned the importation of African slaves took effect on January 1, 1808?  By 1860, the importation of slaves was alive and well.  New York was the hub of an international illegal slave trade that, like the latter-day traffic in drugs, was too lucrative and too corrupt to stop.  Ships were still being built and sold in New York to carry slaves, while customs agents, uncaring or bribed, looked the other way, as these slave ships sailed from New York harbor under thin disguises.  Fake owners, fake and forged documents, use of the American flag with it's guarantee of immunity from seizure by foreign nations, completed the modus operandi.

It was a virtual shell game: from voyage  to voyage, ship might switch from legitimate merchant vessel to slave ship and back again.  While crossing the Atlantic, slavers would carry duplicate sets of ownership papers, duplicate captains and crews, one American and one foreign.


So often Northerners liked to believe slavery in America was strictly a Southern sin, to which Yankees rarely yielded.

"The Northern slaveholder traded in men and women whom he never saw, and of whose separations, tears, and miseries he determined never to hear."


-Harriet Beecher Stowe

("The Education of Freedmen," The North American Review, June 1879.)  And author of "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

What school children are taught is the South's story is set on a plantation in Mississippi, South Carolina, or some other Southern state, where, with stories embellished and magnified 10-fold, of overseers brandishing whips over slaves picking cotton. 


By contrast, the North's story is thought to be heroic, filled with abolitionists running that Underground Railroad Train.  The few slaves who may have lived in the North, it has been believed, were treated like members of the family.  And, of course, the Northerners were the good guys in the War Between the States.  They freed the slaves.  That's not all mythology, but it is a convenient and whitewashed shorthand.


That's where most readers of history go wrong: trying to read the story backward; explaining to our current generation how their country grew to be the way it is.   In such a story, slavery is a single chapter in a history book; a background event limited to one region of the country and overwhelmed by the more recent events of Western Expansion, etc.


People who read the military history of the War Between the States, often have what we historians call the "Appomattox Syndrome."  They start at the end, thinking, "OK, now we know the South surrendered in April 1865, so those folks simply had to live with the outcome they knew was coming."  No.  The South had a very good chance to have won their independence on two occasions: one in 1862 and late 1864; and Gettysburg, contrary to what you may have been taught, was NOT the turning point of the war.


A history told forward; you always read in the evidence forward, not backward; which pushes slavery into the foreground, inserting it into nearly every chapter.  The truth is that slavery was a national phenomenon.

Slavery has long been identified in the national consciousness as a Southern institution.  The time to bury that myth is overdue.


Slavery is a story about all of America:  the nation’s wealth, from the very beginning, depended upon the exploitation of black people on three continents.  Together, over the lives of enslaved men and women, Northerners and Southerners shook hands and made a country.  Keep in mind: the Constitution protected slavery.


Before the War Between the States, the North grew rich with slavery:

1.    In the 18th Century after the Revolutionary War, thousands of black people were enslaved in the North.  In fact, they made up nearly 1/5 of the population of New York City.

2.    Two major slave revolts occurred in New York City.

3.    The North sold food and other supplies to sugar plantations in the Caribbean.  Thousands of acres of Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island had plantations that used slave labor.

4.    Rhode Island was America’s leader in the transatlantic trade: almost 1,000 voyages to Africa, carrying at least 100,000 captives back across the Atlantic.

5.    New York City was the seaport hub of a lucrative illegal slave trade.  Manhattan shipyards built ships to carry to carry captive Africans with these ships outfitted with crates of shackles and huge water tanks needed for their human cargo.  During the peak years between 1859 and 1860, at least 2 slave ships, each built to hold between 600-1,000 slaves, left lower Manhattan every month!

Fernando Wood,
Mayor of New York City

With the Southern secession movement underway, Mayor Wood proposed that New York City should also secede from the United States.
Why would New York City even consider leaving the Union?  The financial underpinning of the city was the Cotton trade.  Cotton was the root of the entire State of New York's wealth.  It wasn't just a crop, it was the national currency and responsible for America's growth in the decades before the War Between the States.  And, slave labor was what raised it.

Hundreds of merchants  made their fortunes off the cotton industry before the War Between the States, including:  Lehman Brothers, Junius Morgan, father of J.Pierpont Morgan, John Jacob Astor, Charles L. Tiffany, Archibald Gracie, to name a few.

The cultural context in the North is key to understanding, especially the economic climate....the wealth that the cotton trade created; New York was interlocked with the South.

Secession was not an original thought with Fernando Wood: all manner of politicians, watching the Union unravel over the slavery issue, wanted to partner with their Southern planter friends.  Much of the cotton in 1860, was brought to the 472 cotton mills in New England.

For 50 years before the War Between the States, cotton was the backbone of the American economy.  It was king, and the North ruled the kingdom.  From seed to cloth, it was the Northern merchants, shippers, and financial institutions, many based in New York, who controlled nearly every aspect of cotton production and trade.  It was the large banks, most located in Manhattan, or in London, who extended credit to the plantation owners, between planting and selling their crop.  Slaves were usually bought on credit. 

The Middleman was important to king cotton economy.  The cotton "factor," were Northerners who linked the plantation owner with the Northern manufacturer.   These mostly New Englanders, were brokers or agents and bought a planter's supplies, advised him, and took charge of his finances.  He had to present himself to the planter as indispensable in return for his commission on the sale of cotton.

Northern influence was felt in every part of the cotton trade/industry.  Most of the ships that carried the cotton from plantation to market were built and operated by men of the North.  The provided the insurance to protect the cotton crop; and even produced coarse clothing for slaves called "negro cloth."

Consider the cotton season that ended on August 31, 1860:  America had produced 5 million bales of cotton, which translates to 2.3 billion pounds.  Of that amount, 1/2 or more than 1 billion pounds was exported to Great Britain's 2,650 cotton factories.

It has been estimated that the North took 40 cents of every dollar a planter earned from cotton.  No wonder that many were worried about the pending storm of session talk.

By 1860, mills in Massachusetts and Rhode Island manufactured almost 50% of all the textiles produced in America.  In that year, New England mills produced 75% of the nation's total: 850 million yards of cloth.

And the number of slaves involved in cotton production had growth to meet demand:  the first US Census in 1790, (3 years before Eli Whitney's invention of the Cotton Gin) recorded just under 700,000 slaves.  But 1861, there were almost 4 million slaves, with 2 1/4 million involved directly or indirectly, in growing cotton.  The 10 major cotton states were producing 66% of the world's cotton; and raw cotton accounted for more than 1/2 of all US exports.
The Cause of the
War Between the States:
a discussion with Judge Napolitano

Recent and Recommended:

 The book "Complicity" may be an eye-opener
for finger-pointing Northerners who like to believe slavery was strictly a Southern sin, to which Yankees rarely yielded.

It details the North's profit from....indeed, dependence on....slavery has mostly been a shameful and well-kept secret.  This book reveals the cruel truth about the lucrative Triangle Trade of molasses, rum, and slaves that linked the North to the West Indies and Africa. 

It discloses the reality of Northern empires built on tainted profits...run, in some cases, by Abolitionists...and exposes the thousand-acre plantations that existed in towns such as Salem, Connecticut. 

This book includes eye-opening accounts of the individuals who profited directly from slavery far from the Mason-Dixon line.  It is a fascinating and sobering work that actually does what so many books pretend to do: shed light on America's past.

The PDF file below is a Teachers' Guide and has a synopsis of the "Complicity" book which gives excellent insight into the research written by the three reporters.
You can find the authors' complete presentation on C-SPAN from their web-link https://www.c-span.org/video/?190396-1/complicity-north-profited-slavery-america). You can copy and paste it into your search bar.
But be forewarned: one thing I noticed during the Q&A at the end: all the questions from the New Yorker's in the audience (it was filmed at the New York Historical Society, NYC) expressed skepticism about the validity of their evidence. One audience member tried to blame the problem on the British; another wanted to know how their body of research could be connected to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, and suggested that all Blacks in New Orleans should receive some type of compensation, say, free college tuition.  Suffice to say, the authors seemed unprepared for the vitriolic response from the audience, as if they should be ashamed to be letting the proverbial skeleton out of the family closet.
Complicity: How the North Profited
from Slavery in America

On National Public Radio:

Slavery in the North during the War Between the States? Yes, and in the following program, you will see many who still live in the Northern states, who are in denial:

from The Medford Historical Society:

Slaves in New England

The First African Immigrants

A central fact obscured by post-Civil War mythologies is that the northern U.S. states were deeply implicated in slavery and the slave trade right up to the war.

Contrary to popular belief:

  • Slavery was a northern institution
    • The North held slaves for over two centuries
    • The North abolished slavery only just before the Civil War
    • The North dominated the slave trade
    • The North built its economy around slavery
    • The North industrialized with slave-picked cotton and the profits from slavery
  • Slavery was a national institution
    • Slavery was practiced by all thirteen colonies
    • Slavery was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and practiced by all thirteen original states
    • The slave trade was permitted by the federal government until 1808
    • Federal laws protected slavery and assisted slave owners in retrieving runaway slaves
    • The Union was deeply divided over slavery until the end of the Civil War
  • Slavery benefited middle-class families
    • Slavery dominated the northern and southern economies during the colonial era and up to the Civil War
    • Ordinary people built ships, produced trade goods, and invested in shares of slave voyages
    • Workers in all regions benefited economically from slavery and slavery-related businesses
    • Consumers bought and benefited from lower prices on goods like coffee, sugar, tobacco, and cotton
  • Slavery benefited immigrant families
    • Immigrants who arrived after the Civil War still benefited from slavery and its aftermath
    • Immigrants flocked to the “land of opportunity” made possible by the unpaid labor of enslaved people
    • Immigrants found routes to prosperity which were closed to the families of former slaves
    • Federal programs in the 20th century provided white families with aid for education, home ownership, and small businesses

Following the abolition of slavery in New England, white citizens seemed to forget that it had ever existed there. Drawing on a wide array of primary sources—from slaveowners' diaries to children's daybooks to racist broadsides—Joanne Pope Melish reveals not only how northern society changed but how its perceptions changed as well. Melish explores the origins of racial thinking and practices to show how ill-prepared the region was to accept a population of free people of color in its midst. Because emancipation was gradual, whites transferred prejudices shaped by slavery to their relations with free people of color, and their attitudes were buttressed by abolitionist rhetoric which seemed to promise riddance of slaves as much as slavery.

Melish tells how whites came to blame the impoverished condition of people of color on their innate inferiority, how racialization became an important component of New England ante-bellum nationalism, and how former slaves actively participated in this discourse by emphasizing their African identity. Placing race at the center of New England history, she contends that slavery was important not only as a labor system but also as an institutionalized set of relations. The collective amnesia about local slavery's existence became a significant component of New England regional identity.

In the long and rich historiography of North American slavery, relatively few scholars have explored the subject of slavery in New England or the impact of slavery and emancipation in the region on the racial attitudes of New Englanders. Joanne Pope Melish's book Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and "Race" in New England, 1780-1860 seeks, in her words, to put "slavery and the painful process of gradual emancipation back into the history of New England (p. 200)." Melish views as a blind spot the assumption by previous scholars that slavery in New England was peripheral to the economic, social, or political development of the region. She argues that New England slavery had a far more powerful impact on the thinking of New Englanders than they wanted to believe, and their longstanding view of the region as "free and white" has been a kind of historical amnesia, an effort to erase slavery and black people from the history of the region. That erasure of black people, she argues, resulted directly from white anxiety and confusion about how to view free blacks in their midst and what to do with or about them.

Melish maintains that white New Englanders' views of black people emerged directly from their experiences with blacks living in bondage and from their association of blackness with slavery. She writes that the unsettling process of gradual emancipation in the region after the American Revolution stirred white fears that disorderly blacks would threaten the new republic. Whereas blacks assumed that they would become free and independent citizens, whites assumed that blacks still needed to be controlled. She also argues that white people experienced anxiety about racial identity, freedom, and servitude, wondering if freedom would turn black people white and if white people could become slaves.

Beginning in the late eighteenth century, Melish writes, New England whites gradually resolved these questions by coming to regard blacks as inherently inferior and in need of control. She argues that a clear ideology of race thus first emerged in late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century New England, in response to gradual emancipation. New Englanders, she argues, gradually came to view "racial" characteristics as immutable, inherited, and located in the body, and to view the black and white "races" as hierarchical and largely opposite in nature. Such a view permitted white New Englanders to seek to expell or erase black people, both literally and figuratively, from their region.

Melish's book makes an important contribution to the literature on slavery and abolition and fills a significant gap in our understanding of how slavery in New England affected both that region and the nation. Through her use of various local sources including town records, court records, slaveholders' diaries, and the letters, narratives, and freedom petitions of slaves, Melish brings the reader into the world of Revolutionary-era New England masters and slaves. She illuminates their daily interactions and offers insightful interpretations of how masters and slaves each understood the meaning of slavery and emancipation. She makes a compelling case that slavery was indeed significant in the New England economy and society. Using, among other evidence, racist broadsides from the region, she also illustrates clearly the willingness of many white New Englanders to denigrate, harass, and seek to erase black people in the decades after the Revolution.

While Melish is right that most white New Englanders probably did wish black people would go away in the years of the early republic, she may overstate the extent to which New England whites were in agreement on this. She correctly observes that many white New Englanders supported the movement to colonize blacks outside the United States, particularly in Africa. But New England also produced a movement for immediate abolition that was explicitly opposed to colonization and demanded the right of free blacks to live as free and equal citizens of the United States. William Lloyd Garrison of Boston was probably the best-known white abolitionist in the country after 1830, and he was also a passionate opponent of colonization and a strong champion of the rights of free blacks in North America. Free blacks loved Garrison. A host of other New England activists stood with him, demanding the inclusion of free blacks as equal citizens. If most New Englanders sought to expell or eliminate blacks from their midst, these radical abolitionists often embraced the freed slaves, sought to educate them, published their narratives, and even, as in the case of Frederick Douglass, hired them as abolitionist speakers. One goal of the abolitionist efforts was to show the public that black people were fully human, able to be educated, and deserving of all the rights that whites had. Thus, well into the nineteenth century, a segment of white New Englanders actively resisted the view that blacks were inherently inferior and different from whites, and they fought to educate blacks for life as full American citizens. If, as Melish argues, New England whites sought to eradicate blacks, this process was contested by some whites as well as blacks.

Melish's most important contribution may be to the emerging body of literature on how North Americans constructed and made use of an ideology of race. Here she pushes to locate precisely when and how Americans racialized difference and came to define blackness and whiteness as fixed, immutable, biological categories. Her answer, that this process took place in New England during gradual emancipation, is new and surprising.

Melish suggests that New England was first in developing a new ideology of race because of its early experience with slave emancipation. However, the struggle to define the meaning of emancipation and the fundamental nature and place of blacks was also going on in the upper South. There, manumissions increased during and after the American Revolution, and the growing numbers of free blacks increased white anxiety. Indeed, anxiety there was more pronounced than in New England, because of the larger black population. Colonization was also very popular in the upper South, and much of the strongest and most persistent support for colonization came from that region. In contrast to New England, opponents of slavery in the upper South never embraced the idea that freed slaves ought to remain in the United States, and antislavery activists in the upper South always combined efforts at gradual emancipation with plans for colonization. The process that Melish describes of racializing identity and seeking to expell blacks may thus have been taking place simultaneously in New England and the upper South. A comparative study of emancipation efforts in the two regions would be illuminating. Of course, the upper South did not achieve gradual emancipation, and over time, antislavery activism and even voluntary manumission there were largely choked off.

Melish's book takes the reader through the process by which white New Englanders, through their responses to slavery, emancipation, and black people, created the myth of themselves and their region as free and white. Melish's angle of vision and her argument are both fresh, and she offers new insights and raises new questions about how the end of slavery led to a new construction of race in North America. This is a terrific book, one that all scholars of slavery, abolition, and the early republic absolutely must read. Enjoy this one; I certainly did.

-Reviewed by Vivien Sandlund (Hiram College)

Pot, meet kettle

-online amazon reviewer

By now, it should be general knowledge among anyone presuming to comment on American race relations and the Civil/War Between the States that the Northern states did not exactly have clean hands when it came to keeping African (and then African-American) slaves. Works like "Complicity" attest to the element of discovery that recent academic research and journalism have made possible. Nonetheless, it is taken as common knowledge that the Northern states achieved emancipation reasonably quickly after the Revolution, even if motivated chiefly by economics. It is still widely presumed that people in the Northern states, the New England states in particular, were particularly enlightened about slavery/emancipation and race, and therefore morally superior to Southerners.

For this reason, this book is shocking: while it delineates the gradual, compensated emancipation that was a feature of England's vaunted anti-slavery laws, and thus outlines an alternative method that could have been used to end slavery in all states, it demonstrates that this process coexisted with the kind of racism people routinely associate with the South and the South only. Dialect humor, "darkie" cartoons, and the lingering assumption that Black people owed labor to whites go against the cultivated image of enlightened New England. Even those already skeptical of such claims to Northern moral superiority cannot but find themselves taken aback by Melish's illustrations of Northern prejudice and dismissiveness. For one thing, she hauls a carefully cultivated image up short. For another, the attitudes she demonstrates among Northerners are those that give modern readers pause and cause them to react with distaste.

I sense that, down the road, there will or should be a national dialog about the received narrative of Northern clean hands/Southern dirty hands, based on the new expositions and explorations of the history of racial relations in America. This book should help facilitate that dialog.


As the reality of slavery in the North faded, and a strident anti-Southern abolitionism arose there, the memory of Northern slaves, when it surfaced at all, tended to focus on how happy and well-treated they had been, in terms much reminiscent of the so-called "Lost Cause" literature that followed the fall of the Confederacy in 1865.

"The slaves in Massachusetts were treated with almost parental kindness. They were incorporated into the family, and each puritan household being a sort of religious structure, the relative duties of master and servant were clearly defined. No doubt the severest and longest task fell to the slave, but in the household of the farmer or artisan, the master and the mistress shared it, and when it was finished, the white and the black, like the feudal chief and his household servant, sat down to the same table, and shared the same viands." [Reminiscence by Catharine Sedgwick (1789-1867) of Stockbridge, Mass.]

Yet the petitions for freedom from New England and Mid-Atlantic blacks, and the numbers in which they ran off from their masters to the British during the Revolution, suggest rather a different picture.

Early 19th century New Englanders had real motives for forgetting their slave history, or, if they recalled it at all, for characterizing it as a brief period of mild servitude. This was partly a Puritan effort to absolve New England's ancestors of their guilt. The cleansing of history had a racist motive as well, denying blacks -- slave or free -- a legitimate place in New England history. But most importantly, the deliberate creation of a "mythology of a free New England" was a crucial event in the history of sectional conflict in America. The North, and New England in particular, sought to demonize the South through its institution of slavery; they did this in part by burying their own histories as slave-owners and slave-importers. At the same time, behind the potent rhetoric of Daniel Webster and others, they enshrined New England values as the essential ones of the Revolution, and the new nation. In so doing, they characterized Southern interests as purely sectional and selfish. In the rhetorical battle, New England backed the South right out of the American mainstream.

The attempt to force blame for all America's ills onto the South led the Northern leadership to extreme twists of logic. Abolitionist leaders in New England noted the "degraded" condition of the local black communities. Yet the common abolitionist explanation of this had nothing to do with northerners, black or white. Instead, they blamed it on the continuance of slavery in the South. "The toleration of slavery in the South," Garrison editorialized, "is the chief cause of the unfortunate situation of free colored persons in the North."[1]

"This argument, embraced almost universally by New England abolitionists, made good sense as part of a strategy to heap blame for everything wrong with American society on southern slavery, but it also had the advantage, to northern ears, of conveniently shifting accountability for a locally specific situation away from the indigenous institution from which it had evolved."[2]

Melish's perceptive book, "Disowning Slavery," argues that the North didn't simply forget that it ever had slaves. She makes a forceful case for a deliberate re-writing of the region's past, in the early 1800s. By the 1850s, Melish writes, "New England had become a region whose history had been re-visioned by whites as a triumphant narrative of free, white labor." And she adds that this "narrative of a historically free, white New England also advanced antebellum New England nationalism by supporting the region's claims to a superior moral identity that could be contrasted effectively with the 'Jacobinism' of a slave-holding, 'negroized' South." The demonizing adjective is one she borrows from Daniel Webster, who used it in the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830.

The word is well-chosen. Webster's "Second Reply," given in January 1830 during his debate with Robert Young Hayne of South Carolina -- the most famous speech in a famous clash of North and South -- shows the master orator of his time at the peak of his powers. In these speeches Webster compellingly turned New England sectional values into the supreme national values, while at the same time playing on the racist fears of the average Northerner, who loathed slavery less for its inherent injustice and more because it flooded the country with blacks.

Webster "articulated a clear and compelling vision of an American nation made up of the union of northern and western states, bonded by an interpretation of the origin and meaning of the union and the U.S. Constitution and reflecting the core values of New England political culture and history. Coded implicitly among those essential values were claims to historical freedom and whiteness, against which Webster could effectively contrast a South isolated by its historical commitment to slavery. Such an interpretation, appealing as it did to the widespread desire among northern states outside New England to eradicate their black populations and achieve a 'whiteness' like that of New England, could rally and solidify northern opposition to Slave Power."[3]

In the speech, Webster, like Pilate, washes his hands of anything to do with American slavery. "The domestic slavery of the Southern States I leave where I find it, -- in the hands of their own governments. It is their affair, not mine."

This allows him to keep within the frame of the Constitution, and at the same time cleverly disavow more than a century and a half of New England slavery and slave-trading, which had financed the first families and institutions of his home district.

After this contemptuous dismissal, he holds forth on the glories of pure Massachusetts, which he apotheosizes, above Philadelphia and Virginia, till it becomes the true genius of independence. "There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill; ... where American liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives in the strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit."

This was the opening salvo. Within a few months, Webster's speech had been reprinted whole in newspapers across the country and published in pamphlets that ran through 20 editions. A single printing of it churned out 40,000 copies. Other Northern speakers and writers picked up the tone and carried it like a battle-flag down the years to the Civil War.

"Indeed, by the outset of the actual war in 1861 the New England nationalist trope of virtuous, historical whiteness, clothed as it was in a distinctive set of cultural, moral, and political values associated with New England's Puritan mission and Revolutionary struggle, had come to define the Unionist North as a whole."[4]

Nothing illustrates this process better, perhaps, than the semantic development of the word "Yankee," which, in United States usage, always meant "a New Englander" before the Civil War. But within a decade of Appomattox, it was being used generically by Americans to mean "an American, regardless of place of residence."


1. "Liberation," Jan. 8, 1831.
2. Joanne Pope Melish, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and 'Race' in New England 1780-1860, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998, pp. 222-223.
3. ibid., p.230.
4. ibid., p.224.

"It’s not Dixie’s fault"

By Thomas J. Sugrue July 17, 2015

The Washington Post

Many of the racial injustices we associate with the South are actually worse in the North. (AP Photo/Dave Martin, File) (Dave Martin/AP)

The tragic Charleston, S.C., church shooting, in which nine black worshipers were killed, allegedly by a Confederate-flag-supporting white supremacist, has unleashed a new battle over Southern culture. Confederate monuments have been defaced; leaders have demanded that emblems of the Confederacy be erased from license plates and public parks; schools in Texas, Louisiana and Alabama are struggling to defend their “rebel” mascots. Most predictably, pundits have renewed their characterization of Southern states as the ball and chain of America. If all those backward rednecks weren’t pulling us down, the story goes, the United States would be a progressive utopia, a bastion of economic and racial equality. “Much of what sets the United States apart from other countries today is actually Southern exceptionalism,” Politico contributor Michael Lind wrote this month in an essay called “How the South Skews America.” “I don’t mean this in a good way.”

This argument recapitulates an old, tired motif in American journalism that the South is the source of our nation’s social ills. It has been blamed for our obesity problem (“Why Are Southerners So Fat? ” Time asked in 2009), persistent poverty (“The South Is Essentially A Solid, Grim Block Of Poverty,” the Huffington Post asserted in 2014) and general stupidity (“What’s Wrong with the South?” the Atlantic scoffed in 2009). This time, in the wake of the church shooting, the states of the old Confederacy have become a national scapegoat for the racism that underpinned the massacre. If only they would secede again, Lind and others suggest, the nation would largely be free from endemic prejudice, zealotry and racist violence.

Not even close. These crude regional stereotypes ignore the deep roots such social ills have in our shared national history and culture. If, somehow, the South became its own country, the Northeast would still be a hub of racially segregated housing and schooling, the West would still be a bastion of prejudicial laws that put immigrants and black residents behind bars at higher rates than their white neighbors and the Midwest would still be full of urban neighborhoods devastated by unemployment, poverty and crime. How our social problems manifest regionally is a matter of degree, not kind — they infect every region of the country.

In fact, many of the racial injustices we associate with the South are actually worse in the North. Housing segregation between black and white residents, for instance, is most pervasive above the Mason-Dixon line. Of America’s 25 most racially segregated metropolitan areas, just five are in the South; Northern cities — Detroit, Milwaukee and New York — top the list. Segregation in Northern metro areas has declined a bit since 1990, but an analysis of 2010 census data found that Detroit’s level of segregation, for instance, is nearly twice as high as Charleston’s.


The division between black and white neighborhoods in the North is a result of a poisonous mix of racist public policies and real estate practices that reigned unchecked for decades. Until the mid-20th century, federal homeownership programs made it difficult for black Americans to get mortgages and fueled the massive growth of whites-only suburbs. Real estate agents openly discriminated against black aspiring homeowners, refusing to show them houses in predominately white communities.

When all else failed, white Northerners attacked blacks who attempted to cross the color line, using tactics we typically associate with the Jim Crow South. They threw bricks through the windows of their black neighbors’ homes, firebombed an integrated apartment building and beat black residents in the streets. In Detroit, to name one example, whites launched more than 200 attacks on black homeowners between 1945 and 1965. In Levittown, Pa., hundreds of angry whites gathered in front of the home of the first black family to move there and threw rocks through the windows. Racists burned crosses in the yards of the few white neighbors who welcomed the new family. That violence occurred in 1957, the same year whites in Little Rock attacked black students integrating Central High School, yet it’s that story — of racial bias in the South — that dominates our narrative of America’s civil rights struggle.

Passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968 didn’t eliminate racist real estate practices. A recent National Fair Housing Alliance investigation found that in 87 percent of test cases, agents steered customers to neighborhoods where existing homeowners were predominantly of the customers’ own race. And while Southern states are home to a larger portion of the nation’s minority residents, nearly half of all fair-housing complaints during the 2012-2013 fiscal year were filed in the Northeast and the Midwest.

Economic segregation is most severe in America’s Northern metropolitan areas, as well, with Milwaukee; Hartford, Conn.; Philadelphia; and Detroit leading large cities nationwide, according to an analysis of 2010 census data by the Atlantic. White suburbanites across the North — even in Bill and Hillary Clinton’s adopted home town, Chappaqua, N.Y. — have fought the construction of affordable housing in their neighborhoods, trying to keep out “undesirables” who might threaten their children and undermine their property values. The effects of that segregation are devastating. Where you live in modern America determines your access to high-quality jobs (which are mostly in suburban places), healthy food (many urban areas are food deserts) and, perhaps most important, educational opportunities.

Education remains separate and unequal nearly everywhere in the United States, but Confederate-flag-waving Southerners aren’t responsible for the most racially divided schools. That title goes to New York, where 64 percent of black students attend schools with few, if any, white students, according to a recent report by the Civil Rights Project. In fact, the Northeast is the only region where the percentage of black students in extremely segregated schools — those where at least 90 percent of students are minorities — is higher than it was in the 1960s. Schools in the South, on the other hand, saw the segregation of black students drop 56 percent between 1968 and 2011.

White Southerners fought tooth and nail to prevent desegregation, using protests and violence to keep black children out of all-white schools. But federal courts came down hard on districts that had a history of mandated segregation, and federal troops and law enforcement officers escorted Little Rock and New Orleans students through angry white mobs in front of their new schools.

White parents in the North also fought desegregated schools but used weapons that seemed race-neutral. Black and white students above the Mason-Dixon line attended different schools not by law but simply by nature of where they lived. This de facto school segregation appeared untainted by racist intent, but, as noted earlier, housing practices in the North were fraught with conscious racial injustice. Further, metropolitan areas like Philadelphia and Detroit contained dozens of suburban school districts, making it easy for white families to jump across district boundaries when black neighbors moved in. (Often, Southern districts, as in Charlotte, encompassed the inner city, outlying suburbs and even some rural areas, making it more difficult to flee desegregation. As a result, Charlotte became one of the most racially integrated school districts in country.) Unlike in the South, it was nearly impossible for civil rights litigators to prove that all-white schools in the North were a result of intentional discriminatory policies.

None of this denies that the South is, in many ways, shaped by its unique history. It broke from the union over slavery, and its economy was indelibly shaped by that peculiar institution. After emancipation, it took a century of grass-roots activism and public policy to break down the legal barriers that limited Southern blacks’ economic opportunities. But the South is not timeless and unchanging. The region’s per capita income began to converge with the rest of the nation’s during World War II and accelerated in the decades after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, according to Stanford economist Gavin Wright. The South is still at the bottom economically, but the regional gaps have narrowed considerably, especially for African Americans. By the 1990s, Southern black men earned as much as their counterparts in other regions. Now, Northern blacks are migrating South in search of better economic opportunities, reversing historic trends.

The South has become an increasingly heterogeneous place, home to the fastest-growing immigrant populations in the country, led by North Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas and Tennessee. Immigration has remade Southern big cities and small towns alike: North Carolina chicken-processing centers have attracted Guatemalan immigrants. Suburban Atlanta is dotted with panaderias and taco shops catering to the rapidly growing Mexican population. And Vietnamese-born shrimpers are working the Gulf of Mexico’s shores in Texas and Louisiana. In the past decade, immigrants have accounted for half of the growth of country-music capital Nashville, with large numbers of Latinos as well as Kurds, Bosnians and Somalis.

It’s reassuring for Northerners to think that the country’s problems are rooted down South. But pointing our fingers at Dixie — and, by implication, reinforcing the myth of Northern innocence — comes at a cost. As federal troops and Supreme Court decisions forced social change in the states of the old Confederacy during the 20th century, injustices in the North were allowed to fester. That trend continues, as Northerners seek to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own sins by holding aloft an outdated and inaccurate caricature of a socially stunted South. In 1960, Martin Luther King Jr. said: “Another group with a vital role to play in the struggle for racial justice and equality is the white northern liberals. The racial issue that we confront in America is not a sectional but a national problem.” That holds true for most of America’s troubles today. Enough finger-wagging at Dixie. Change begins at home.


Jay Fayza uses facts and statistics to show that whites and western nations are the least racist and bigoted people on earth, contrary to lies told by liberal media and academia:

Why the War Between the States was not only fought over Slavery, but for a variety of reasons
On the evening of October 11, 1858, a standing-room-only crowd of politicians and businessmen honored a visitor at Faneuil Hall, Boston, Mass.
The wealthy merchants and bankers, the powerful of this premier city in Massachusetts, lauded the intellectual cultivation and eloquence of the senator from Mississippi; and when Jefferson Davis walked onto the stage, the Brahmins of Boston gave him a standing ovation.

The Anti-Secessionist Jefferson Davis

(source: National Park Service, Boston, Mass.)

The senator from Mississippi stood in front of a crowd of Democrats in the "Cradle of Liberty" - Faneuil Hall. He was just starting his second term as a senator after completing a stint as Secretary of War. It was 1858 and the United States was tearing apart at the seams. The question of slavery had been an issue since 1787 when the United States Constitution was signed. In the 1850s, some called for the abolition of slavery while others began calling for secession. In front of a packed room he declared, "My friends, my brethren, my countrymen...I feel an ardent desire for the success of States' Rights Democracy...alone I rely for the preservation of the Constitution, to perpetuate the Union and to fulfill the purpose which it was ordained to establish and secure." Advocating for a States' Rights Democracy while disagreeing with the idea or need for secession in the same speech, Jefferson Davis sat down.


Born in what is now Todd County, Kentucky (and only about 100 miles from the birthplace of his famous contemporary, Abraham Lincoln), Jefferson Davis moved to Mississipi around 1810. He graduated from West Point Military Academy in 1828. By 1836 Davis was a plantation owner, and in the 1840s he owned over 70 slaves. He became involved in local Mississippi politics in the early 1830s, but really made a name for himself fighting in the Mexican-American War.


Using his new found fame, he was appointed a United States Senator from Mississippi in 1848, finishing out someone else's term. He used his new position to propose annexing more territoy from Mexico (which later became the Gadsden Purchase), as well as from Cuba for the expansion of "slaveholding constituencies." He resigned to run for governor of Mississippi on an anti- Compromise of 1850 platform and started to attend states' rights conventions. In 1853 he was appointed Secretary of War by President Franklin Pierce. His time during this appointment gave him a better perspective about the location of railway lines and the military strengths of the country - where the southern states were at a distinct disadvantage. Following his 4 years as Secretary of War, he was elected to a second term as senator for the state of Mississippi.

By this point, the country had nearly broken apart many times, mostly in 1850. The Compromise of 1820 and 1850 had put some Band-Aids on the wound, but like a virus the problems began to aggressively spread. The arguments between abolition vs. slave-holding, state's rights vs. a strong federal government were getting more frequent and more violent. These issues threatened to destroy the great experiment that was America. It is with this backdrop that Jefferson Davis spoke at a convention of Democrats in Faneuil Hall.


In choosing Boston, and more importantly Faneuil Hall, to give his speech, Davis drew comparisons between the founders of America and the struggle of his time. In his speech, he frequently made comparisons between the Founding Fathers and States Rights advocates, comparing the great voices that echo in Faneuil Hall to the disgruntled voices of his day. Simultaneously, while comparing his party to the revolutionaries of the previous generation, he stated the United States, unlike Britain and the colonies, needed to stay together. "...[Y]ou see agitation, tending slowly and steadily to that separation of the states, which, if you have any hope connected with the liberty of mankind... if you have any sacred regard for the obligation which the acts of your fathers entailed upon you,--by each and all of these motives you are prompted to united an earnest effort to promote the success of that great experiment which your fathers left it to you to conclude."


Davis, a Mississippian at heart, reminded Northerners that their economy relied on the South. "Your prosperity is to receive our staple and to manufacture it, and ours to sell it to you and buy the manufactured goods. This is an interweaving of interests, which makes us all the richer and all the happier." This interdependent relationship would be interrupted by the abolition of slavery. Even worse, this would be interrupted if the country split. The economy of both the North and South would suffer if this flow of trade were interrupted.


In the end, Davis made a passionate plea for unity. "[W]e should increase in fraternity; and it would be no longer a wonder to see a man coming from a southern state to address a Democratic audience in Boston." While Boston did have a Democratic Faction, it was also the heart of the abolition movement in America (coincidentally, Faneuil Hall was used by abolitionists as well). After all, everyone belonged to the great experiment that was the United States. Both sides wanted to continue what the Founding Fathers had started.


At the heart of this debate over slavery and state's rights was the idea of property. Can a human being be someone else's property? To Democrats, that's what the slaves were, and as such they had rights as slave owners. "The Constitution recognizes the property in many forms, and imposes obligations in connection with that recognition." It was not the right of any other person, despite political party, to take away someone's personal property. These were the very values that were fought for in Faneuil Hall itself during the Revolutionary era, according to Davis.


Davis may have had practical reasons for arguing against secession and preservation of the union. He would have known as a result of his term as Secretary of War that the South was ill equipped to fight a war against the North. The weapons manufacturing was in the north as were most of the railroad lines and the majority of the male population. While he knew the people he represented were passionate, they were also unprepared. It's possible that his passionate pleas to save the union may have been an effort to peacefully save the South. Either way, in the building where America began he argued for its preservation.


That was Jefferson Davis's last trip to Boston. Following his speech, which was received with great reception by Massachusetts Democrats, Davis returned to the United States Senate where he continued to be a proponent of state's rights. Following the election of Abraham Lincoln, many in the South had had enough. South Carolina seceded from the union on December 20, 1860 and other states soon followed. Mississippi followed suit on January 9, 1861. Davis resigned his senate seat twelve days later, reportedly "the saddest day of [his] life." On February 18, 1861, Jefferson Davis was sworn in as the President of the Confederate States of America.


Rice University. "The Papers of Jefferson Davis." © 2011

Special Section:
After this web page was first inaugurated, we noticed an upturn in violence by individuals who are still fighting the Civil War.

This brief section will examine "the why" and explore "the effects" it is having on the historical landscape.

Also included, is a brief history about how a previous U.S. President, Calvin Coolidge, handled the issue of Confederate heritage.

One has to wonder what the Read and Wauchope families would have thought of the current turmoil over statues.
A flash point of violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, has resulted in the deaths of two of our fine Virginia State Troopers.
How did the controversy start in Charlottesville?

The admitted anti-White, Wes Bellamy, Vice Mayor of Charlottesville, Virginia,

has been THE long-standing proponent of taking down monuments, not only Confederate, but also any statues of Thomas Jefferson. 

This man was on the Virginia State Board of Education and was fired from that job; he had been a Albemarle High School teacher, but was suspended from that job; and then forced to resign.

He is discussed in this telling interview which reveals what the college students in Charlottesville really think about the situation. 

Documentation is presented that proves that

Wes Bellamy was racially biased and anti-white.

Bellamy was active in counter-protests to the white supremacist rally throughout the weekend that saw violence and the death of two state police officers and a 32-year-old woman after a car plowed into counter-protesters during Saturday's rally, seen in picture below with a megaphone.

After the rally, he dissed the President, calling him 'Number 45', and in City Council on the next day, proposed the city park in question be re-named Emancipation Park. Angry rhetoric from an admitted racist helps nothing in restoring peace and harmony in a difficult situation.

Wes Bellamy, the racist and anti-White Vice-Mayor of Charlottesville, wore a Black Panther backpack on the way to closed door meeting on Unite The Right rally:

In September 2017, Wes Bellamy was caught on camera during a Charlottesville City Council meeting, demeaning a white man who spoke in favor of conciliation and compromise.  Bellamy was immediately reprimanded by a white female on Council.

Should monuments to the U.S. Confederacy be destroyed or removed to museums? It’s a question cities and towns across the South are now faced with. A question perpetrated by liberal and in some cases, racist politicians, who have sub rosa agendas.

Two City Councilors in Charlottesville, Virginia have called for the removal of a statue to Robert E. Lee from a downtown park. Award-winning journalist Coy Barefoot explores the debate with preeminent Civil War Historian Gary Gallagher of the University of Virginia.



Professor Gary Gallagher, Professor of Civil War History at the University of Virginia, correctly assesses the Confederate monument removal controversy in Charlottesville and elsewhere.  He made a presentation to City Council.....but his advice was ignored.

Virginia City Sued for Removing 100-Year-Old Confederate Monument

(Reported by Warner Todd Houston, March 2017)

Early in February, the City of Charlottesville, Virginia voted to remove several statues commemorating Confederate generals Lee and Jackson that stood in the town for nearly 100 years. Now the town is being sued to prevent the removal.

In a three to two vote on February 6, the Charlottesville City Council moved to eliminate the equestrian statue memorializing Confederate General Robert E. Lee that was first erected 93 years ago in the city’s Lee Park. After the vote, city leaders also vowed to erase Lee’s name from the park.

The decision sparked several weeks of protests and meetings of those both in favor of and in opposition to the plan that the city said would cost up to $300,000 to complete.

Now two organizations and 11 local citizens have joined together to file a lawsuit against the city to stop the removal of the statues, according to The Cavalier Daily of the University of Virginia.

The plaintiffs, including the Virginia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. and the Monument Fund, Inc., cited a number of reasons for filing the lawsuit. Chief among those reasons is their contention that the city is in violation of a state law preventing alteration of such monuments.

According to state law, it is illegal for local officials to tear down memorials to war veterans.

Virginia code 15.2-1812 reads, “If such [memorials for war veterans] are erected, it shall be unlawful for the authorities of the locality, or any other person or persons, to disturb or interfere with any monuments or memorials so erected, or to prevent its citizens from taking proper measures and exercising proper means for the protection, preservation, and care of same.”

In addition, the lawsuit claims that the city is violating the deed written in 1918 by the McIntire family granting permission to create Lee Park.

One editorial recently stated this:

620,000 people (Americans) died in the Civil War. Roughly 2% of the population. No matter which version of history you have been taught, the bottom line is these soldier's were your average man. On either side of the war these men were still Americans and should have their memories honored. This hysteria of removing monuments, digging up graves, not allowing flags on graves is sad. It was a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight. Just as most Northerners did not fight to end slavery, most Southerners did not fight to preserve it.


In 1904, the Confederate monument in Gainesville, Georgia was erected. In attendance were UNION and Confederate Veterans who both supported the monument. They showed each other respect as fellow Americans. They honored each other’s dead. Now there is a media fueled history witch-hunt to remove historical monuments. Removing monuments does not end racism; it only dishonors the American soldier’s who died. We can learn a lot from history and learn nothing by erasing it.

Leading Civil War Historians weigh-in on the Monument removal controversy, courtesy of "Civil War Times," Oct. 2017:
View from the "North"... Why we should keep the Confederate Statues:
H.K. Egerton, former President of the NAACP, speaks at the Hollywood, Florida
City Commission:

Predominantly Black Dallas Group Forms To Protect Confederate Monuments:

An excerpt from the Mississippi Public Broadcasting report on the Confederate monuments in that state:
Concerning Confederate Monument Desecration.....................
August 2017 saw the rise of violence:

*Defacing the Lincoln Memorial
*Call by Maryland Governor for removal of the statue of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in that state
*Removal by mob violence, of a Confederate statue in Durham, NC, while the police stood by and did nothing.
People who came to Charlottesville with wrong motives, are at fault, as seen in one of many pictures: a Counter-Protester strikes a White Nationalist with a baton during the violence, which went unchecked by local city police.
Notice carefully, the sign carried by one member of the unrestrained mob in Durham, North Carolina, next to the toppled statue:
This shows clear hatred for police authority:
They should have seen this coming.........local city police leadership was interviewed: told to stand down........who ordered that? The Mayor or Vice-Mayor of Charlottesville?
On the night before the riot:
A Nazi-styled torch-light parade on the UVA Campus:
The disgusting image of giving a Nazi salute in front of the Thomas Jefferson statue on campus:

University of Virginia president Teresa A. Sullivan condemned

the protesters in a statement issued late Friday night.

As President of the University of Virginia, I am deeply saddened and disturbed by the hateful behavior displayed by torch-bearing protestors that marched on our Grounds this evening. I strongly condemn the unprovoked assault on members of our community, including University personnel who were attempting to maintain order.

Law enforcement continues to investigate the incident, and it is my hope that any individuals responsible for criminal acts are held accountable. The violence displayed on Grounds is intolerable and is entirely inconsistent with the University's values.​​​​​​

Another key figure in the ongoing UVA racial unrest was a member of their student Honor Committee.  Martese Johnson, seen in the next two photos, is shown holding a sign protesting the fact that he is "the only Black member of the Honor Committee."  Then, low and behold, he is arrested for being drunk and disorderly: he was under 21 and in violation of civil law and UVA honor code standards in attempting to enter a bar in the downtown district. 

As a former Judicial Vice-President of the Old Dominion University Honor Council, elected by their student body, and having dealt with other Virginia college and university Honor Councils, I must say that this young man has brought disgrace to the organization he is suppose to be representing.  Thankfully, he is no longer on their Committee.
Which Statues are Next?
(As a trained historian and former History teacher in Virginia, I agree with Tucker Carlson's appraisal)

A statue of Lincoln has been torched; the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. has been defaced:
The Lincoln Memorial vandalized:
Governor Vance statue in North Carolina, vandalized:
In Memory of Lieutenant H. Jay Cullen and Trooper Berke M.M. Bates
I share with you the following excellent statement from the Sons of Confederate Veterans:


Sons of Confederate Veterans support for our nation and the rule of law

(Elm Springs, TN) 14 August 2017 – The Sons of Confederate Veterans opposes the KKK and other racist organizations. The SCV condemns in the strongest possible way the actions, words, and beliefs of any racist group. These groups are filled with hatred and bigotry, and their espoused principles are counter to the American principles of freedom for all citizens. Neither white supremacists nor any other racist group represent true Southern Heritage or the Confederate Soldier, Sailor, or Marine. In like manner, the SCV condemns the actions of the “Antifa” counter-protestors whose role was to meet violence with violence and to answer hate with hate. The SCV also condemns the Alt-Left’s attempts to attack Confederate monuments and other war memorials in an attempt to tarnish the true history of our great nation and to further their modern socialist political agenda.

The clash in Charlottesville, Virginia on 12 August between the “Antifa” and “Alt Right” has nothing to do with the Confederacy, the SCV, nor Southern history. Antifa and the Alt-Right are opposing political perversions which chose a hallowed historical monument as the location for their vile criminal acts. There is no link between these criminal elements and Confederate history, and to try to create one is ridiculous. Leave history to history.

The SCV has a strict policy which forbids SCV members from associating with the Klan or any other racist organizations. The SCV supports and promotes a unity and respect. The U.S. is a nation of laws, and the SCV respects the Constitution our forefathers wrote and the government of our reunited country. There are no classes of citizens and the SCV is no different. We expect and demand that all Americans respect each other’s perspectives with civility, regardless of demographics.

As an organization, the SCV goal is to follow the direction of the Apostle Paul and "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:16). There is no place for violence and hatred. All individuals are created in the image of God and worthy of acceptance and respect. The SCV condemns all acts of hatred and the improper use of our ancestors’ battle flag, which they nobly carried into battle for their own political independence. The Battle Flag was not and never has been a legitimate symbol of racism; it is a soldier’s battle flag given to the SCV by the Confederate veterans themselves. The KKK, nor any other group, has legitimate use of our Confederate symbol.

Thos. V. Strain Jr


Rev. Franklin Graham:

Franklin Graham

August 13 at 3:20pm ·


Shame on the politicians who are trying to push blame on President Trump for what happened in #Charlottesville, VA. That’s absurd. What about the politicians such as the city council who voted to remove a memorial that had been in place since 1924, regardless of the possible repercussions? How about the city politicians who issued the permit for the lawful demonstration to defend the statue? And why didn’t the mayor or the governor see that a powder keg was about to explode and stop it before it got started? Instead they want to blame President Donald J. Trump for everything. Really, this boils down to evil in people’s hearts. Satan is behind it all. He wants division, he wants unrest, he wants violence and hatred. He’s the enemy of peace and unity. I denounce bigotry and racism of every form, be it black, white or any other. My prayer is that our nation will come together. We are stronger together, and our answers lie in turning to God. It was good to hear that several Virginia and Charlottesville leaders attended church today at Mt. Zion. CNN said, “The racial divides that fueled Saturday’s violence were replaced by unity Sunday…” Continue to pray for peace and for all those impacted by Saturday’s tragedies.

Dr. John MacArthur on Charlottesville
Dr. Alveda King, Niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: If you remove our History, people will forget about it.

Former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice

blasts efforts to ‘sanitize history’

by removing historic monuments

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized efforts to tear down southern monuments to Confederate leaders because she doesn't believe in sanitizing history.

"I am a firm believer in 'keep your history before you' and so I don't actually want to rename things that were named for slave owners," she said Monday on Fox News.

"I want us to have to look at those names and recognize what they did and to be able to tell our kids what they did and for them to have a sense of their own history. When you start wiping out your history, sanitizing your history to make you feel better it's a bad thing," she said.

Rice said instead it should be celebrated that the country has come a long way from the times when the founders agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person or when black men in Alabama wouldn't be allowed to register to vote in the 1950s. Rice pointed to her father's troubles registering to vote in 1952 as a marker of how far the country has come.

She said it was about 50 years later that she was sworn in as secretary of state, becoming the first black woman to hold that position.

"The long road to freedom has indeed been long, it's been sometimes violent, it's had many martyrs but ultimately has been Americans claiming those institutions for themselves and expanding the definition of we the people," she said.

She said the founders should be viewed in the context of their time instead of through the prism of modern values.

"They were people of their times. I wish they had been like John Adams, who did not believe in slavery. I wish they had been like Alexander Hamilton, who was an immigrant by the way, a child of questionable parentage from the Caribbean," she said. "I wish all of them had been like that and Jefferson in particular, a lot of contradictions in Jefferson but they were people of their times and what we should celebrate is that from the Jefferson's and the Washington's as slave owners, look at where we are now."

"My fellow blacks, please: Stop wasting time on statues and solve today's problems"

-Herman Cain

This is insane.

Atlanta’s Bishop Jerome Dukes was quoted widely in the media last week explaining why he thinks we should be spending time protesting statues of people from the Confederacy, and ultimately having them taken down.

He explains that some of our nation’s founders may have seemed like visionaries and trailblazers to some, but to African-Americans all that matters is that they owned hundreds of slaves.

Let’s talk about that.

I am an African-American. I hate the institution of slavery as much as Bishop Dukes does. But I have noticed something he seems to have missed. I am not a slave! And neither is he.

Slavery was an awful historical injustice, and it helped set in motion many of the problems the black community faces today. But it is not the problem we need to solve today. Those problems are poverty, illiteracy, drugs, crime and violence.

Tearing down statues doesn’t solve any of those problems, and solving those problems is what we need to be focused on.

It might create a problem, though. Tearing down statues that represent history is like pretending history didn’t happen. It did. And not everything that results from history is something you will like. We need to remember all of it, even (and perhaps especially) the parts that bother us because this is what we learn from.

Now we’re hearing that it’s not enough to tear down statues of Confederate soldiers, because having fought for the slave-owning Confederacy is not the only sin that needs to be erased from history. Now some want to tear down memorials to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson too, because they also owned slaves.

Tell you what: Why don’t you erase from history every reference to a person who had a serious character flaw? Do that and you’ll have very short history books. You’ll be able to get through a semester in a day or two. There’d be almost nothing you would be able to teach.

Or we could just tell the whole story. Yes, these men had an amazing vision and used it to create the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Yes, they gave us a political system that has protected freedom and prosperity like nothing we’ve ever seen.

Also, they were participants in an institution that was evil, if very common for wealthy men of their day. They might have been better men if they had rid the world of that institution, and they did not do that. But they did create the political system through which it would be eliminated less than a century later. That is not nothing.

So how do you regard them? As heroes or as villains? It’s the wrong question. The right question is how to ensure that people know the full story. Maybe one of the things we can learn from this is that history has offered us very few people who had no character flaws at all. I can think of only one, probably the same one you’re thinking of.

But flawed men and women have given us quite a world, and we should know as much about it as we can. Maybe the lessons they teach can even help us solve the problems we face today.

Or we can waste our time tearing down statues, which solves nothing, nor does it make history go away. It just makes us ignorant of it.

Karen Cooper discusses why she supports the Confederate Battle Flag:
This week's Confederate flag and statue
Ole Miss goes Bananas
By Rod Dreher

I wondered how long it would take our crackpot culture to come up with a Politically Correct outrage more stupid than ESPN from pulling an Asian announcer named Robert Lee from calling a UVA game.
The Banana in question:
Now the idiots are vandalizing our U.S. Servicemen's graves and desecrating National Parks.

A national disgrace: Fury as vandals and looters desecrate veterans graveyards and historic battlefields across three states on Memorial Day weekend


    A Vietnam War memorial in the Venice area of Los Angeles has been extensively defaced by graffiti

    In Kentucky, a driver deliberately drove across grave sites marked by white wooden crosses

    Looters ripped up parts of Virginia's Petersburg National Battlefield in an apparent search for relics

Anger as remains of soldiers from Revolutionary and Civil war are dug up and their bones spilled throughout historic cemetery

Historical cemetery dating back to 1758 holds graves of veterans from the Revolutionary War, Civil War and World World I

Among those dug up was the grave of 14-month Emma Jane McElmurray who was buried in 1884

News from Memphis...............................
Vandals destroy monument at Camp Chase, Ohio, Civil War cemetery, where Rita Hughes' Great-Great Grandfather is buried:

Columbus Mayor Andrew Ginther issued this statement today:

“I understand that markers of the Confederacy bring pain to those fighting persistent racism in our community and across our country, but the destruction of property — and the desecration of any grave site — is unacceptable regardless who was interred. We must remain focused on productive, not destructive, action to bring about the change we seek and to further the fight for equality.”

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs also issued a statement:

“Destruction and defacement of federal property is a serious crime, and VA is working with law enforcement officials to identify those responsible.  VA is committed to maintaining our cemeteries as national shrines, and that includes repairing this statue, which was erected in 1902 as part of a peace and reconciliation effort led by wounded Union soldier William Knauss.”

From the "Dally Times," September 2017:
A Lesson in Christian morality and decency in the North, during the
War Between the States:


A Confederate flag was removed from the grave of a Civil War solider at a cemetery in Gray. WMTW News 8's Kyle Jones has more, including how the Confederate soldier's body ended up buried in Maine more than 150 years ago.

As my Father once said, when you are pastor of a church, you need to leave politics out of the pulpit.  There is a lot more in the Bible to preach on than politics. When a pastor preaches, as we say, "the whole counsel of God," he will eventually go through a text of scripture that will address the needs and issues of the hour.

Unfortunately, some ministers, as seen in the next article, don't understand their calling to the ministry and bring politics into a Sunday or Wednesday night service;  or on prime-time television.  This does not mean we condone racism, but a pastor needs to be careful when in public not to take sides in politically-charged issues; the pulpit is not the place for politics. Period.
And then, in September 2017, some of the idiot students at the University of Virginia, now want to remove the statue, of all things, the founder of their college.  They protested by placing a black shroud over the statue of Thomas Jefferson, and attaching racist/rape signs.
From the Richmond-Times Dispatch:
(Andrew Cain, Sept. 13, 2017)

University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan on Wednesday rebuked protesters who shrouded a statue of Thomas Jefferson on the north side of the school’s Rotunda on Tuesday night, saying they were “desecrating ground that many of us consider sacred.”

“I strongly disagree with the protesters’ decision to cover the Jefferson statue,” Sullivan wrote in an email to alumni.

Protesters at the Rotunda covered the U.Va. founder’s statue in black on the one-month anniversary of the white nationalist rally Aug. 12 that led to the death of Heather Heyer, a protester against racism.

The latest development — coupled with a Confederate heritage group’s planned demonstration Saturday at Richmond’s Robert E. Lee monument in defiance of Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s temporary ban — stoked anew an issue that continues to ripple through Virginia’s race for governor about eight weeks ahead of the election.

The Republican Party of Virginia on Wednesday urged U.Va. to prevent the “defacing” of historical monuments.

“The vandalism of the Thomas Jefferson statue at the University of Virginia is the next step in the extreme left’s movement to erase our history,” John Whitbeck, chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, said in a statement.

Ralph Northam, the Democratic nominee for governor, issued a mild criticism of the protesters. “There are more appropriate ways to have a discussion about our complex history,” he tweeted Wednesday afternoon. “Let’s be civil and respect each other.”

Sullivan said that university personnel removed the shroud and that one person was arrested Tuesday night on a charge of public intoxication. The Daily Progress reported that university police arrested Brian Lambert of Charlottesville on the public intoxication charge. Authorities said Lambert, who is not affiliated with the school, was legally open-carrying a firearm.

In her message to alumni, Sullivan alluded to white nationalists’ torchlit march on the U.Va. campus the night before the Unite the Right rally.

“Coming just one month after the August 11 torchlight march by 300 racist and anti-Semitic protesters, a march that became violent, this event has reminded us that there are critical and sometimes divisive issues related to the exercise of free expression in an inclusive community,” Sullivan wrote.

Sullivan said Jefferson “was an ardent believer in freedom of expression, and he experienced plenty of abusive treatment from the newspapers of his day.” Jefferson likely would not be surprised to find expressions about “critical disagreements in the polity” at U.Va., Sullivan added.

Sullivan said many alumni “experienced protests and activism” during their college days at U.Va.

“I prefer the process of discussion and debate,” she said, adding that “the debate is happening here” at U.Va. “That there is also activism should not be a surprise to any of us.”

Protesters who climbed the Jefferson statue Tuesday night added signs that referred to Jefferson as a “racist” and a “rapist.”

In a separate statement to the university community Wednesday, Sullivan noted that Jefferson owned slaves.

She wrote that Jefferson “made many contributions to the progress of the early American Republic: he served as the third president of the United States, championed religious freedom, and authored the Declaration of Independence.”

She added: “In apparent contradiction to his persuasive arguments for liberty and human rights, however, he was also a slave owner.”

Sullivan note, “In its early days the University of Virginia was dependent upon the institution of slavery. Enslaved people not only built its buildings, but also served in a wide variety of capacities for U.Va.’s first fifty years of existence. After gaining freedom, African Americans continued to work for the university, but they were not allowed to enroll as students until the mid-twentieth century.”

Whitbeck, chairman of the state GOP, said in his statement that “the defacing of our historical monuments is not free speech, it is a criminal offense, plain and simple.”

There have been no reports that the protesters damaged the Jefferson statue.

On Tuesday, Virginia Military Institute announced that it is keeping its Confederate statues, including one of Stonewall Jackson, who served on the school’s faculty before the Civil War, and will consider adding more historical context.

Northam, a VMI graduate, has said he backs the removal of Confederate statues from prominent public spaces. He has said that he would do “everything” in his authority to remove statues at the state level, but he gave no indication Tuesday that he would press the issue at VMI.

David Abrams, a spokesman for Republican nominee Ed Gillespie, said VMI’s decision is “consistent with Ed’s view that we should add historic context to monuments.”

Corey Stewart, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors chairman who made protecting Confederate statues a key to his bid for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, also decried Tuesday’s protest at the Jefferson statue at U.Va., issuing a series of tweets.

“It was never just about Lee,” he said in the first tweet. “We warned of this in Feb. They’re going after the Founders, then the founding documents.”

In another tweet, Stewart said: “@UVA must expel students and fire any faculty responsible. Anything less is acceptance.”

Stewart is seeking the Republican nomination to run next year against U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.

Congress this week passed a bipartisan resolution decrying the violence at the Aug. 12 rally in Charlottesville and urging President Donald Trump to speak out against “hate groups.” The resolution was introduced in the House by Reps. Thomas A. Garrett Jr., R-5th, and Gerald E. Connolly, D-11th, and in the Senate by Kaine and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said on Wednesday that the president plans to sign the resolution as soon as it reaches his desk.

Governor Mike Huckabee puts the latest student idiots at UVA into context:
A different story in Richmond, Virginia, September 16, 2017.  With excellent work by the Virginia State Police, the Richmond City Police, the Capitol Police, and the Governor, the protest/counter-protest was a non-violent affair.  Thanks also to First Baptist Church, where my wife and I used to attend church, located on Monument Avenue, for hosting a community briefing/meeting.

And then, this story, which shows what could happen when dialogue takes place:

Away from shouting over Confederate history, a basketball coach and a plumber take time to talk it out

By GRAHAM MOOMAW Richmond Times-Dispatch

Richard Mason (left), a youth basketball coach and entrepreneur from Chesterfield County, spoke with Robert Kilpatrick, a plumber from Mathews County, during a pro-Confederate rally and counter-protest Saturday.

It wasn’t as dramatic as the yelling matches over Confederate history and the Black Lives Matter movement. But for two men at Saturday’s rally on Monument Avenue, one black and one white, a calm conversation, a handshake and a quick embrace meant something more.

Standing in the shade on the city’s iconic boulevard, Richard Mason, a youth basketball coach and entrepreneur from Chesterfield County, talked with Robert Kilpatrick, a plumber from Mathews County wearing a Confederate flag shirt and a gun on his hip.

They may not have agreed on everything as they explained their perspectives on history and race over the course of 15 minutes. Still, they walked away convinced that the social divides roiling America in 2017 probably aren’t going to be solved at high volume.

“Whatever the next man’s views are, because of freedom of speech, I’m open to it,” Mason said. “There’s nothing someone can say derogatory toward me because I know who I am.”

“We’re lucky to be having this conversation right now,” Kilpatrick said.

The exchange drew a crowd of onlookers and reporters, some of whom asked Kilpatrick why he had brought a gun. He said he’s not “paranoid” and doesn’t usually wear one, but he’s “not usually in a place where there are this many people.”

“I don’t want violence. And this is a deterrent,” said Kilpatrick, who stressed that he had no connection to the group that organized the rally and just came to watch.

Kilpatrick and Mason were in full agreement on one point: that division comes from the top down, not the bottom up.

“We’re sitting here arguing about the top guys. We don’t realize they’re all friends,” Mason said. “You think Obama and Trump ain’t sat down and drank a beer?”

After seeing what was happening, one young attendee asked the two men for their thoughts on how he could create more civil dialogue among his peers.

“Everyone has a common denominator,” Mason said. “Sports. Theater. Literature. I just never divide people.”

The answer won’t be found above the noise at street rallies, Kilpatrick said, but in smaller group discussions.

“It can’t be people that have the Ph.D.s and the psychiatrists and all of that,” Kilpatrick said. “It has to be everyday people like you and me having conversations.”

Nationally, majority favors keeping Confederate monuments, poll finds

By ANDREW CAIN Richmond Times-Dispatch

Sep 14, 2017

A clear majority of respondents say Confederate monuments should remain in all public spaces, according to a national poll out Thursday morning.

The Ipsos poll on racial issues, conducted Aug. 21-Sept. 5 on behalf of Thomson Reuters and the University of Virginia Center for Politics, also found broad agreement on racial equality.

But it spotlighted vestiges of what the pollsters termed “troubling levels of support for certain racially charged ideas and attitudes frequently expressed by extremist groups.”

On Confederate monuments, 57 percent said they should remain in public spaces, while 26 percent said they should be removed and 17 percent said they don’t know. Among African-Americans, 54 percent said all of the monuments should be removed. Among whites, 67 percent said the monuments should remain in place.

The survey gauged attitudes on race by asking respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with certain statements.

Eighty-nine percent agreed that “all races should be treated equally,” 85 percent agreed that “people of different races should be free to live wherever they choose” and 82 percent agreed that “all races are equal.”

• Thirty-one percent said they agree that “America must protect and preserve its white European heritage,” while 34 percent disagreed, 29 percent had neither opinion and 5 percent said they don’t know.

• While 78 percent agreed that “America must protect and preserve its multi-cultural heritage,” 5 percent disagreed, 14 percent held neither view and 4 percent didn’t know.

• Most respondents — 65 percent — disagreed with the statement: “Marriage should only be allowed between people of the same race.” But 50 years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loving v. Virginia decision struck down laws barring interracial marriage, 16 percent said they agree with the statement. Fourteen percent held neither view and 4 percent said they don’t know.

• Fifty-five percent agreed with the statement: “Racial minorities are currently under attack in this country,” while 22 percent disagreed, 19 percent held neither view and 5 percent did not know.

• A plurality — 39 percent — agreed with the statement: “White people are currently under attack in this country,” while 38 percent disagreed, 19 percent had neither view and 4 percent did not know.

In separate questions, the poll found scant support for the “alt-right” (6 percent), white nationalism (8 percent) and neo-Nazism (4 percent.)

“Let’s remember, there are nearly 250 million adults in the United States, so even small percentages likely represent the beliefs of many millions of Americans,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at U.Va.

The pollsters surveyed 5,360 adults online from the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii. Ipsos said the survey has a “credibility interval” of plus or minus 1.5 percentage points. In some instances responses do not total 100 percent due to rounding. The sample had 2,255 Democrats, 1,915 Republicans and 689 independents.

President Calvin Coolidge:
Remembering our Shared Fallen.

The Confederate Monument today, looking south at Arlington National Cemetery, Washington, D. C.

“If I am correctly informed by history, it is fitting that the Sabbath should be your Memorial Day. This follows from the belief that except for the forces of Oliver Cromwell no army was ever more thoroughly religious than that which followed General Lee. Moreover, these ceremonies necessarily are expressive of a hope and a belief that rise above the things of this life. It was Lincoln who pointed out that both sides prayed to the same God. When that is the case, it is only a matter of time when each will seek a common end. We can now see clearly what that end is. It is the maintenance of our American form of government, of our American institutions, of our American ideals, beneath a common flag, under the blessings of Almighty God.

“It was for this purpose that our Nation was brought forth. Our whole course of history has been proceeding in that direction. Out of a common experience, made more enduring by a common sacrifice, we have reached a common conviction. On this day we pause in memory of those who made their sacrifice in one way. In a few days we shall pause again in memory of those who made their sacrifice in another way. They were all Americans, all contending for what they believed were their rights. On many a battlefield they sleep side by side. Here, in a place set aside for the resting place of those who have performed military duty, both make a final bivouac. But their country lives."

Americans North and South gather with Coolidge, in the above photo, to honor all who fought and died for our ideals, but especially those who wore the gray, 1924. Coolidge could have used Presidential rhetoric to withhold recognition, instead he upheld the honor and importance of what they died to preserve. He helped to heal, not inflame, division and to reunite all Americans around our love of country founded on principles we share in common.

“The bitterness of conflict is passed. Time has softened it; discretion has changed it. Your country respects you for cherishing the memory of those who wore the gray. You respect others who cherish the memory of those who wore the blue. In that mutual respect may there be a firmer friendship, a stronger and more glorious Union…

“…A mightier force than ever followed Grant or Lee has leveled both their hosts, raised up an united Nation, and made us all partakers of a new glory. It is not for us to forget the past but to remember it, that we may profit by it. But it is gone; we cannot change it. We must put our emphasis on the present and put into effect the lessons the past has taught us. All about us sleep those of many different beliefs and many divergent actions. But America claims them all…” — President Calvin Coolidge, May 25, 1924


The Confederate Memorial at Arlington in 1922, (seen in the next photo) two years before President Coolidge spoke the words above.  In the years to follow, the markers of those who wore the gray would multiply as the great warriors of the South shed mortality.

In the next picture, below, we see the return of the Confederate battle and regimental flags to Virginia, North Carolina and Texas on December 16, 1927, on the White House grounds. An earlier attempt by President Cleveland in 1887, met with successful opposition by the Grand Army of the Republic (Union veterans) as “trophies” of the Civil War that should not be returned. It would be “treasonous” according to the large body of obstinate veterans.  These were Confederate flags which had been captured by Union soldiers during battles and represented "trophies" of their victory on the battlefield.  Thus, the Union veterans did not want to return them to the Southern states.  They were not ready to forgive their Southern brothers.


President Theodore Roosevelt, through a careful coordination with Congress, restored a partial collection of battle flags to the Southern states in 1905, taking them from storage by the War Department in Washington.


Like so many old wounds, however, President Coolidge did not evade the controversy for fear that it would cost political support. Coolidge upheld just dealings toward all, whether it was the full citizenship for all Native American tribes or fair honor due Southern Americans who fought just as valiantly as the Yankees did for principled reasons. It was overdue and time to lay aside hostility, heal old grievances, and reestablish peace between Americans, North and South.


He recognized that his duty included leadership by example to help reunite the country around the essentials we share as Americans. It would not be right to misuse a President’s influence by keeping us divided and at war with one another. He was as much an advocate of peace at home as he was abroad.

You may be wondering why these Battle Flags were so hotly contested in the 1920s.

These Civil War reenactors, pictured below, illustrate what you didn't want to happen: the enemy capturing your Regimental Battle Flag. The Color Bearer was an important individual on the battlefield, both North and South.  It was a very heroic thing for one of the Read family members, Joe Read, to do, in picking up the colors when the Color Bearer was killed.

Why did Civil War soldiers placed so much importance on the flags of their regiments?


The devotion to a flag was not merely an emotional matter.  Men would sacrifice their lives defending a regimental flag simply to protect it from being captured by the enemies.  Clearly, Civil War regimental flags played a vital part in the outcomes of Civil War battles and it is important to note why.

1. Flags were valuable morale builders.

Civil War armies on both sides of the battles were organized by regiments from particular states and regions.  Soldiers tended to feel their first loyalty toward their regiment – similar to that of local sports teams. Each state regiment typically carried its own flag into battle.  Soldiers tended to take a great deal of pride in their flags, in which case they were treated with reverence.  Many ceremonies were held as a sort of morale builder so the soldiers knew what/who they were fighting for.  Some may find this hard to believe, but some Federals won the Medal of Honor for simply capturing a Confederate flag.


Civil War Color Bearers played an important role in the outcome of battles.

2. Flags helped with drawing practical battle lines.

Among all the smoke of the battles and noise around, the lines of battle tended to become very unclear.  Flags were used as a visual rallying point, of which soldier were trained to follow the flag.  Because the regimental flags had genuine strategic importance in battle, certain soldiers, known as the color guards, were designated to hold and guard the flags.  Being a color bearer was considered a mark of great distinction.


3. Protecting the regimental flag was of great importance.

The Civil War produced countless tales of regimental flags being protected during the battle.  Many stories were told of common soldiers protecting the flag if/when the color bearer became injured or died in battle.

Examples of actual Battle Flags:

After watching a 2013 symposium led by Dr. Gary W. Gallagher, the John L. Nau III Professor in the History of the Civil War, University of Virginia (Pictured below, courtesy of the UVA website), concerning the Battle at Gettysburg, I came to realize how central a role Joseph D. Read played in picking up the regimental battle flag.  It was no small thing for him to pick up the battle flag when the assigned Color Bearer fell; it had enormous consequences.  I now understand why he was so brave, so commended, (in writing), by his Regimental Commander for his heroic efforts on the battlefield.


I have included a short clip from Dr. Gallagher's lecture below, as he discusses the importance of the Color Bearer:

Coolidge spoke out in favor of civil rights. He refused to appoint any known members of the Ku Klux Klan to office, appointed African Americans to government positions and advocated for anti-lynching laws. In 1924, Coolidge signed the Indian Citizenship Act, granting full citizenship to all Native Americans while permitting them to retain tribal land rights.

President Coolidge believed in equality for all. Seen here with American Indians at the White House; he had just signed into law, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Coolidge, in the next photo, wears the headdress presented to him by the Sioux tribe:
President Coolidge was a morally upright man who lived his Christian principles at home as well as in public.  On his first week at the White House, he and his family attended church on Sunday.  He believed in and read the Bible, and kept one by his bedside all his life.  The following two pictures show the church in Plymouth Notch, Vermont where he attended; and also the pew where he sat, marked today with an American flag.
Calvin Coolidge attended the Edwards Congregational Church in Northampton, Mass. (seen in the next photograph) when he lived there.  His funeral was held in this church.
President and Mrs. Coolidge, seen leaving First Congregational Church, Washington, D.C.
President Coolidge also believed in hard work and responsible citizenship.  In the next photos, we see his family, and his children working on their grandfather's farm.  While away from the White House, he worked on the farm himself, to help his father.

In the next photo, Left to Right: President Coolidge, his son John, son Calvin, Jr. on the hay wagon; Coolidge's father John, standing below.

A film about Calvin Coolidge, courtesy of the Coolidge Presidential Foundation:
Calvin, Jr. at work:
John Coolidge at work:
The Coolidge family was close-knit.  Here President Coolidge helps his son build a cart:
President Coolidge and wife Grace, with the family dog:
Coolidge family formal portrait: L-R: Calvin, Jr, President, Mrs. Coolidge, John, and father, John, Sr.  Notice the well-groomed President and sons with polished shoes.  This shows good upbringing.
Coolidge family seen outside their "duplex" rented Northampton, Mass. house; L-R: John, Mrs. Grace Coolidge, President Coolidge, Calvin, Jr.
I hope the reader of this page will see that this was a very happy family that worked, played, went to church together, and believed in and practiced Christian values that are often missing in today's 21st Century society.  I strongly identify with this family, as this is how my brother and I were brought up by our own father and mother.
-Joe Hughes

Calvin Coolidge is one of the more maligned presidents in American history. I rank him as one of the best in my “9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America.”  Coolidge should be commended for his executive restraint and homespun honesty, two character traits that have escaped the modern American executive.  He was a throwback to the nineteenth century when the president (save Lincoln and Jackson) was expected to merely execute the laws of Congress.  This was the correct position constitutionally.  Coolidge himself believed he was a “dinosaur” who could not adapt to modern conceptions of executive power.

Coolidge should also be admired for his willingness to include Southern history into the fabric of the American story.  Though Coolidge was a Vermont Puritan bred on New England history and sensibilities, he nevertheless believed that American history was a complex quilt of interpretations woven together in a “Union” of common interests.  No speeches better exemplify this belief than two he made at Arlington National Cemetery in May 1924. 

Reprinted below are the texts of both addresses. Coolidge lavished praise on both Lee and the Confederate soldier for their heroism and determination, and he emphasized that the War did not destroy the constitutional role of the States within the American Union.  To Coolidge, the Southern position of self-determination and federalism still had a place in the Union of the twentieth century.

If only our modern “politicians” would be so bold.

Address at the Confederate Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery: “The United Nation”
May 25, 1924

"If I am correctly informed by history, it is fitting that the Sabbath should be your Memorial Day. This follows from the belief that except for the forces of Oliver Cromwell no army was ever more thoroughly religious than that which followed General Lee. Moreover, these ceremonies necessarily are expressive of a hope and a belief that rise above the things of this life. It was Lincoln who pointed out that both sides prayed to the same God. When that is the case, it is only a matter of time when each will seek a common end. We can now see clearly what that end is. It is the maintenance of our American form of government, of our American institutions, of our American ideals, beneath a common flag, under the blessings of Almighty God.

"It was for this purpose that our Nation was brought forth. Our whole course of history has been proceeding in that direction. Out of a common experience, made more enduring by a common sacrifice, we have reached a common conviction. On this day we pause in memory of those who made their sacrifice in one way. In a few days we shall pause again in memory of those who made their sacrifice in another way. They were all Americans, all contending for what they believed were their rights. On many a battle field they sleep side by side. Here, in a place set aside for the resting place of those who have performed military duty, both make a final bivouac. But their country lives.

The bitterness of conflict is passed. Time has softened it; discretion has changed it. Your country respects you for cherishing the memory of those who wore the gray. You respect others who cherish the memory of those who wore the blue. In that mutual respect may there be a firmer friendship, a stronger and more glorious Union.

"When I delivered the address dedicating the great monument to General Grant in the city of Washington, General Carr was present, with others of his comrades, and responded for the Confederacy with a most appropriate tribute. He has lately passed away, one of the last of a talented and gallant corps of officers. To the memory of him whom I had seen and heard and knew as the representative of that now silent throng, whom I did not know, I offer my tribute. We know that Providence would have it so. We see and we obey. A mightier force than ever followed Grant or Lee has leveled both their hosts, raised up an united Nation, and made us all partakers of a new glory. It is not for us to forget the past but to remember it, that we may profit by it. But it is gone; we cannot change it. We must put our emphasis on the present and put into effect the lessons the past has taught us. All about us sleep; those of many different beliefs and many divergent actions. But America claims them all. Her flag floats over them all. Her Government protects them all. They all rest in the same divine peace."

Address at Arlington National Cemetery: “Freedom and Its Obligations”
May 30, 1924

"We meet again upon this hallowed ground to commemorate those who played their part in a particular outbreak of an age old conflict. Many men have many theories about the struggle that went on from 1861 to 1865. Some say it had for its purpose the abolition of slavery. President Lincoln did not so consider it. There were those in the South who would have been willing to wage war for its continuation, but I very much doubt if the South as a whole could have been persuaded to take up arms for that purpose. There were those in the North who would have been willing to wage war for its abolition, but the North as a whole could not have been persuaded to take up arms for that purpose. President Lincoln made it perfectly clear that his effort was to save the Union, with slavery if he could save it that way; without slavery if he could save it that way. But he would save the Union. The South stood for the principle of the sovereignty of the States. The North stood for the principle of the supremacy of the Union.

"This was an age old conflict. At its foundation lies the question of how can the Government govern and the people be free? How can organized society make and enforce laws and the individual remain independent? There is no short sighted answer to these inquiries. Whatever may have been the ambiguity in the Federal Constitution, of course the Union had to be supreme within its sphere or cease to be a Union. It was also certain and obvious that each State had to be sovereign within its sphere or cease to be a State. It is equally clear that a government must govern, must prescribe and enforce laws within its sphere or cease to be a government. Moreover, the individual must be independent and free within his own sphere or cease to be an individual. The fundamental question was then, is now, and always will be through what adjustments, by what actions, these principles may be applied.

"It needs but very little consideration to reach the conclusion that all of these terms are relative, not absolute, in their application to the affairs of this earth. There is no absolute and complete sovereignty for a State, nor absolute and complete independence and freedom for an individual. It happened in 1861 that the States of the North and the South were so fully agreed among themselves that they were able to combine against each other. But supposing each State of the Union should undertake to make its own decisions upon all questions, and that all held divergent views. If such a condition were carried to its logical conclusion, each would come into conflict with all the others, and a condition would arise which could only result in mutual destruction. It is evident that this would be the antithesis of State sovereignty. Or suppose that each individual in the assertion of his own independence and freedom undertook to act in entire disregard of the rights of others. The end would be likewise mutual destruction, and no one would be independent and no one would be free. Yet these are conflicts which have gone on ever since the organization of society into government, and they are going on now. To my mind this was fundamental of the conflict which broke out in 1861.

"The thirteen Colonies were not unaware of the difficulties which these problems presented. We shall find a great deal of wisdom in the method by which they dealt with them. When they were finally separated from Great Britain, the allegiance of their citizens was not to the Nation for there was none. It was to the States. For the conduct of the war there had been a voluntary confederacy loosely constructed and practically impotent. Continuing after peace was made, when the common peril which had been its chief motive no longer existed, it grew weaker and weaker. Each of the States could have insisted on an entirely separate and independent existence, having full authority over both their internal and external affairs, sovereign in every way.

"But such sovereignty would have been a vain and empty thing. It would have been unsupported by adequate resources either of property or population, without a real national spirit, ready to fall prey to foreign intrigue or foreign conquest. That kind of sovereignty meant but little. It had no substance in it. The people and their leaders naturally sought for a larger, more inspiring ideal. They realized that while to be a citizen of a State meant something, it meant a great deal more if that State were a part of a national union. The establishment of a Federal Constitution giving power and authority to create a real National Government did not in the end mean a detriment, but rather an increment to the sovereignty of the several States. Under the Constitution there was brought into being a new relationship, which did not detract from but added to the power and the position of each State. It is true that they surrendered the privilege of performing certain acts for themselves, like the regulation of commerce and the maintenance of foreign relations, but in becoming a part of the Union they received more than they gave.

"The same thing applies to the individual in organized society. When each citizen submits himself to the authority of law he does not thereby decrease his independence or freedom, but rather increases it. By recognizing that he is a part of a larger body which is banded together for a common purpose, he becomes more than an individual, he rises to a new dignity of citizenship. Instead of finding himself restricted and confined by rendering obedience to public law, he finds himself protected and defended and in the exercise of increased and increasing rights. It is true that as civilization becomes more complex it is necessary to surrender more and more of the freedom of action and live more and more according to the rule of public regulation, but it is also true that the rewards and the privileges which come to a member of organized society increase in a still greater proportion. Primitive life has its freedom and its attraction, but the observance of the restrictions of modern civilization enhances the privileges of living a thousand fold.

"Perhaps I have said enough to indicate the great advantages that accrue to all of us by the support and maintenance of our Government, the continuation of the functions of legislation, the administration of justice, and the execution of the laws. There can be no substitute for these, no securing of greater freedom by their downfall and failure, but only disorganization, suffering and want, and final destruction. All that we have of rights accrue from the Government under which we live.

"In these days little need exists for extolling the blessings of our Federal Union. Its benefits are known and recognized by all its citizens who are worthy of serious attention. No one thinks now of attempting to destroy the Union by armed force. No one seriously considers withdrawing from it. But it is not enough that it should be free from attack, it must be approved and supported by a national spirit. Our prime allegiance must be to the whole country. A sentiment of sectionalism is not harmless because it is unarmed. Resistance to the righteous authority of Federal law is not innocent because it is not accompanied by secession. We need a more definite realization that all of our country must stand or fall together, and that it is the duty of the Government to promote the welfare of each part and the duty of the citizen to remember that he must he first of all an American.

"Only one conclusion appears to me possible. We shall not promote our welfare by a narrow and shortsighted policy. We can gain nothing by any destruction of government or society. That action which in the long run is for the advantage of the individual, as it is for the support of our Union, is best summed up in a single word; renunciation. It is only by surrendering a certain amount of our liberty, only by taking on new duties and assuming new obligations, that we make that progress which we characterize as civilization. It is only in like manner that the citizens and the States can maintain our Federal Union and become partakers of its glory. That is the answer to every herald of discontent and to every preacher of destruction. While this is understood, American institutions and the American Union are secure.

"This principle can not be too definitely or emphatically proclaimed. American citizenship is a high estate. He who holds it is the peer of kings. It has been secured only by untold toil and effort. It will be maintained by no other method. It demands the best that men and women have to give. But it likewise awards to its partakers the best that there is on earth. To attempt to turn it into a thing of ease and inaction would be only to debase it. To cease to struggle and toil and sacrifice for it is not only to cease to be worthy of it but is to start a retreat toward barbarism. No matter what others may say, no matter what others may do, this is the stand that those must maintain who are worthy to be called Americans.

"But that great struggle was carried on by those whom this day is set apart to commemorate, not only for the preservation of the Union. The authority of the Federal Government had been resisted by armed force. They were also striving to restore peace. It must be remembered that our Republic was organized to avoid and discourage war, and to promote and establish peace. It is the leading characteristic of our national holidays that they are days of peace. The ways of our people are the ways of peace. They naturally seek ways to make peace more secure.

"It is not to be inferred that it would be anything less than courting national disaster to leave our country barren of defense. Human nature is a very constant quality. While there is justification for hoping and believing that we are moving toward perfection, it would be idle and absurd to assume that we have already reached it. We can not disregard history. There have been and will be domestic disorders. There have been and will be tendencies of one nation to encroach on another. I believe in the maintenance of an Army and Navy, not for aggression but for defense. Security and order are our most valuable possessions. They are cheap at any price. But I am opposed to every kind of military aggrandizement and to all forms of competitive armament. The ideal would be for nations to become parties to mutual covenants limiting their military establishments, and making it obvious that they are not maintained to menace each other. This ideal should be made practical as fast as possible.

"Our Nation has associated itself with other great powers for the purpose of promoting peace in the regions of the Pacific Ocean. It has steadily refused to accept the covenant of the League of Nations, but long before that was thought of, before the opening of the present century, we were foremost in promoting the calling of a conference at The Hague to provide for a tribunal of arbitration for the settlement of international disputes. We have made many treaties on that basis with other nations.

"But we have an opportunity before us to reassert our desire and to lend the force of our example for the peaceful adjudication of differences between nations. Such action would be in entire harmony with the policy which we have long advocated. I do not look upon it as a certain guaranty against war, but it would be a method of disposing of troublesome questions, an accumulation of which leads to irritating conditions and results in mutually hostile sentiments. More than a year ago President Harding proposed that the Senate should authorize our adherence to the protocol of the Permanent Court of International Justice, with certain conditions. His suggestion has already had my approval. On that I stand. I should not oppose other reservations, but any material changes which would not probably receive the consent of the many other nations would be impracticable. We can not take a step in advance of this kind without assuming certain obligations.

"Here again if we receive anything we must surrender something. We may as well face the question candidly, and if we are willing to assume these new duties in exchange for the benefits which would accrue to us, let us say so. If we are not willing, let us say that. We can accomplish nothing by taking a doubtful or ambiguous position. We are not going to be able to avoid meeting the world and bearing our part of the burdens of the world. We must meet those burdens and overcome them or they will meet us and overcome us. For my part I desire my country to meet them without evasion and without fear in an upright, downright, square, American way.

"While there are those who think we would be exposed to peril by adhering to this court, I am unable to attach great weight to their arguments. Whatever differences, whatever perils exist for us in the world, will come anyway, whether we oppose or support the court. I am one of those who believe we would be safer and that we would be meeting our duties better by supporting it and making every possible use of it. I feel confident that such action would make a greater America, that it would be productive of a higher and finer national spirit, and of a more complete national life.

"It is these two thoughts of union and peace which appear to me to be especially appropriate for our consideration on this day. Like all else in human experience, they are not things which can be set apart and have an independent existence. They exist by reason of the concrete actions of men and women. It is the men and women whose actions between 1861 and 1865 gave us union and peace that we are met here this day to commemorate. When we seek for the chief characteristic of those actions, we come back to the word which I have already uttered; renunciation. They gave up ease and home and safety and braved every impending danger and mortal peril that they might accomplish these ends. They thereby became in this Republic a body of citizens set apart and marked for every honor so long as our Nation shall endure. Here on this wooded eminence, overlooking the Capital of the country for which they fought, many of them repose, officers of high rank and privates mingling in a common dust, holding the common veneration of a grateful people. The heroes of other wars lie with them, and in a place of great preeminence lies one whose identity is unknown, save that he was a soldier of this Republic who fought that its ideals, its institutions, its liberties, might be perpetuated among men. A grateful country holds all these services as her most priceless heritage, to be cherished forevermore.

"We can testify to these opinions, not by our words but by our actions. Our country can not exist on the renunciation of the heroic souls of the past. Public service, from the action of the humblest voter to the most exalted office, can not be made a mere matter of hire and salary. The supporters of our institutions must be inspired by a more dominant motive than a conviction that their actions are going to be profitable. We can not lower our standards to what we think will pay, but we must raise them to what we think is right. It is only in that direction that we shall find true patriotism. It is only by that method that we can maintain the rights of the individual, the sovereignty of the States, the integrity of the Union, the permanency of peace, and the welfare of mankind. You soldiers of the Republic enrolled under her banner that through your sacrifices there might be an atonement for the evils of your day. That is the standard of citizenship for all time. It is the requirement which must be met by those who hold public place. That must be the ideal of those who are worthy to share in the glory which you have given to the name of America, the ideal of those who hold fellowship with Washington and Lincoln."

Source: Brion McClanahan

Brion McClanahan is the author or co-author of five books, 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America and Four Who Tried to Save Her (Regnery History, 2016), The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers, (Regnery, 2009), The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution (Regnery History, 2012), Forgotten Conservatives in American History (Pelican, 2012), and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Real American Heroes, (Regnery, 2012). He received a B.A. in History from Salisbury University in 1997 and an M.A. in History from the University of South Carolina in 1999. He finished his Ph.D. in History at the University of South Carolina in 2006, and had the privilege of being Clyde Wilson’s last doctoral student. He lives in Alabama with his wife and three daughters.

President Coolidge at the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, silent film:

Have you ever thought about "reading" a monument? In this presentation, Museum Historian John Coski demonstrates how Virginia's Confederate monuments reveal the choices made by memorialists as they decided how and what to remember about the Civil War--and what to forget. Find out how the Lost Cause was shaped in part by these works in stone.

Virginia's Confederate Memorials

Hundreds of memorials in stone commemorate the Civil War in Virginia at courthouses, cemeteries, town squares, and battlefields. With An Illustrated Guide to Virginia's Confederate Monuments, Timothy S. Sedore presents the first comprehensive handbook of this legacy of America's greatest national trauma in the Old Dominion. Timothy S. Sedore is a professor of English at The City University of New York, Bronx Community College. (Introduction by Paul Levengood).

NOTE:  The video will loop and replay.  To stop the video from replaying, hit or tap the arrow/pause button on the lower left of the screen.

End of special section on individuals fighting the Civil War today.

Abraham Lincoln held racist views and wanted to deport

slaves and freed blacks

to new colonies abroad

Abraham Lincoln is frequently voted America's greatest President due to his perceived stance on slavery.
General James Samuel Wadsworth,
who saw Lincoln almost every day at the height of the crisis, and was with him "frequently for 5 or 6 hours at the War Department," was shocked by the racism in the Lincoln White House, where Lincoln "frequently" spoke of "the nigger question" and debated whether this or that act would "touch the nigger."

On a typical occasion, Wadsworth was, he said, "talking against (General George) McClellan with (Postmaster General Montgomery) Blair, in Lincoln's presence," when he was "met by Blair with the remark, 'He'd have been all right if he'd stolen a couple of n---rs.'  A general laugh, in which Lincoln laughed, as if it were an argument." General Wadsworth said that Lincoln was contemptuous of abolitionists and "spoke often of the slaves as cattle."
Colonel Donn Piatt
said that Lincoln expressed "no sympathy for the slave" and no dislike for slave owners, and "laughed at the Abolitionists as a disturbing element easily controlled."
Eli Thayer,
a member of the House of Representatives from Massachusetts, is chiefly remembered for his connection with the "Kansas Crusade," the purpose of which was to secure the admission of Kansas to the Union as a free state.  He organized an Emigrant Aid Company, to send anti-slavery settlers to the Kansas Territory.

But about Lincoln, he had this to say:  Lincoln spoke of abolitionists "in terms of contempt and derision."

Ralph Waldo Emerson
said in his "Journal" that Lincoln "Thinks Emancipation almost morally wrong and resorts to it only as a desperate measure."
Jessie Ann Benton Fremont
was the daughter of Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton and wife of military officer/explorer/politician, John C. Fremont.  She was anti-slavery.

But, she called Lincoln "the Pontius Pilate of the Slaves."

Frederick Douglass, the only Black leader who knew Lincoln well, said that Lincoln was a racist who revealed “his pride of race and blood, his contempt for Negroes and his canting hypocrisy.”


In a July 4, 1862 speech, he said “our weak, paltering and incompetent rulers in the Cabinet…and our rebel worshipping Generals in the field” were ”incomparably more dangerous to the country than dead traitors like former President James Buchanan…”


This was a direct attack on a president by a Black leader…and it caused an uproar.  In the August 1862 edition of “Douglass’ Monthly,” he stated, “that Abraham Lincoln is no more fit for the place he holds than was James Buchanan, and that the latter was no more the miserable tool of traitors and rebels than the former is allowing himself to be.”


Douglass went public against the renomination of Lincoln for President.    He said that the so-called emancipation was a fraud and that Lincoln was neither an emancipator nor a great leader.  He accused Lincoln of betrayal and charged his handpicked military commanders were “practically re-establishing” the slave system in Louisiana.

Ralph Nader interviews Judge Napolitano
American Colonization Society:
Abraham Lincoln was a member

When did Lincoln join the

American Colonization Society?

(Source: Professor Phillip W. Magness)


Abraham Lincoln’s interest in the policy of colonization likely dates at least to the mid 1840s when he picked it up from his political hero Henry Clay. He also delivered at least two speeches to the state colonization society in Illinois and was elected one of its managers in 1857. It might therefore come as some surprise that very little evidence has ever emerged formally connecting Lincoln to the better known national face of the antebellum colonization movement: the American Colonization Society.


It turns out that Lincoln was indeed a member of the ACS, as shown by his appearance on their subscriber list in 1856.

Sure enough, he actually joined the organization on August 14 of that year when an ACS recruiter named James C. Finley visited Springfield. Finley in turn collected a membership fee from Lincoln and forwarded his name to the organization’s longtime secretary, Ralph R. Gurley. Finley’s letter to Gurley appears below, including the list of new members and Lincoln’s name (fifth line from the bottom).

The American Colonization Society was founded in Liberia 1816 by Robert Finley. Finley and Samuel John Mills organized the National Colonization Society of America and the American Colonization Society at Washington, D.C. in 1816 and 1817. The founding purpose of the societies was to assist freed Southern American slaves to emigrate to Liberia, in an effort to remove them from the United States. Beginning in the early nineteenth century, there was a gathering public opinion that freed slaves would be unable to assimilate into the predominantly white society of 1800 America. Freedmen often found that they were still treated as if they were slaves. Other freedmen felt adrift in America, lacking any real identity. Henry Clay, a senator from Kentucky and supporter of rights of free blacks, felt that because of "unconquerable prejudice resulting from their color, they never could amalgamate with the free whites of this country."

"Lincoln and Colonization"
an Interview with Dr. Phillip Magness

The Lincoln Myth Exposed
(Judge Andrew Napolitano, Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, and Professor Tom Woods).
"The Real Lincoln....not taught in School"
Lincoln's Panama Plan

by Rick Beard, an independent historian and coordinator of the Civil War Sesquicentennial for the American Association for State and Local History.

On Aug. 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln hosted a “Deputation of Free Negroes” at the White House, led by the Rev. Joseph Mitchell, commissioner of emigration for the Interior Department. It was the first time African Americans had been invited to the White House on a policy matter. The five men were there to discuss a scheme that even a contemporary described as a “simply absurd” piece of “charlatanism”: resettling emancipated slaves on a 10,000-acre parcel of land in present-day Panama.

Lincoln immediately began filibustering his guests with arguments so audacious that they retain the ability to shock a reader 150 years later. “You and we are different races,” he began, and “have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races.” The African-American race suffered greatly, he continued, “by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence.” Lincoln went on to suggest, “But for your race among us, there could not be war,” and “without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.” The only solution, he concluded, was “for us both … to be separated.”

The president next turned to what he wanted from the five-man delegation. It was selfish, he suggested, that any of them should “come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country.” They must “do something to help those who are not so fortunate as yourselves,” for the colonization effort needed “intelligent colored men” who are “capable of thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematically oppressed.” In asking them to “sacrifice something of your present comfort,” Lincoln invoked George Washington’s sacrifices during the American Revolution. He then asked for volunteers. “If I could find twenty-five able-bodied men, with a mixture of women and children,” he said, “I think I could make a successful commencement.”

It is hard to imagine what Lincoln’s guests, all well-educated, well-to-do leaders of Washington’s African-American community, made of this presidential monologue. Edward Thomas, the delegation’s chairman, merely promised to “hold a consultation and in a short time give an answer,” to which Lincoln replied: “Take your full time — no hurry at all.”

Lincoln, like several other antislavery Republicans and activists, had a long, deep attachment to colonization. Proponents of colonization included two of Lincoln’s political heroes, Thomas Jefferson and Henry Clay, as well as John Marshall, James Madison, Daniel Webster and even Harriett Beecher Stowe. Since its founding in 1816, the American Colonization Society had sought to relocate free blacks to Africa, where, it was argued, they would enjoy greater freedom.

Dominated by planters and politicians from the Upper South whose commitment to slavery was suspect, the A.C.S. enjoyed only modest success: between 1816 and 1860, the organization transported around 11,000 blacks, most of them manumitted slaves, to Africa. By contrast, as many as 20,000 African-Americans left of their own accord during the American Revolution and thousands more found their way along the Underground Railroad to Canada during the first half of the 19th century.

“For many white Americans,” the historian Eric Foner has written, “colonization represented a middle ground between the radicalism of the abolitionists and the prospect of the United States’ existing permanently half slave and half free.” Needless to say, few blacks agreed, seeing colonization efforts as, at best, a distraction from abolition and, at worst, a form of slavery by other means.

Opposition did nothing to diminish Lincoln’s belief in the merits of colonization. As early as April 10, 1861, two days before the bombardment of Fort Sumter, the new president met with Ambrose W. Thompson, head of the Chiriquí Improvement Association, to explore the creation of a colony for emigrants in Panama, where newly arrived emancipated slaves would earn a living by mining coal for the Navy. Gideon Welles, the secretary of the navy, opposed Lincoln’s scheme, but three other members of the cabinet — Interior Secretary Caleb Smith, Postmaster General Montgomery Blair and Attorney General Edward Bates — supported the plan.

As the war progressed, Union policy makers faced increased pressure to develop strategies for how to manage the growing number of slaves who fled to Union lines, were freed by the advancing federal armies or were emancipated by federal legislation, like the two confiscation acts or the abolition of slavery in the nation’s capital and the federal territories.

When Congress passed the District of Columbia Act emancipating slaves in Washington in April 1862, it also appropriated $100,000 to resettle “such free persons of African descent now residing in said District, including those liberated by this act, as may desire to emigrate.” Two months later, Congress appropriated an additional $500,000 to colonize slaves whose masters were disloyal to the United States. And on July 16, the House Select Committee on Emancipation and Colonization recommended $20 million for settling confiscated slaves beyond United States borders.

No doubt buoyed by these signs of Congressional support, Lincoln pushed forward with the Chiriquí plan and instructed Mitchell to arrange the Aug. 14 meeting. The five delegates included Edward Thomas, the delegation chair and a prominent black intellectual and cultural leader; John F. Cook Jr., an Oberlin-educated teacher who ran a church-affiliated school; Benjamin McCoy, a teacher and the founder of an all-black congregation; John T. Costin, a prominent black Freemason; and Cornelius Clark, a member of the Social, Civil, and Statistical Association, an important black social and civic organization that had recently sought to banish several emigration promoters from Washington.

Mitchell’s own views on the desirability of colonization mirrored those of the president he served. The delegates he recruited were not at all convinced. The men had been wary of the president’s intentions and had agreed to attend only after adopting two resolutions criticizing the plans, as a way to provide political cover. Lincoln’s strategy at the meeting prevented any of these men from voicing their own opinions on the matter of colonization, and the delegation never responded formally to Lincoln’s plan.

Nevertheless, the publication of Lincoln’s remarks at the meeting generated a furious response from all corners of the anti-slavery world. To Senator John P. Hale, a Radical Republican from New Hampshire, “The idea of removing the whole colored population from this country is one of the most absurd ideas that ever entered into the head of man or woman.” Lincoln’s treasury secretary, Salmon P. Chase, wrote in his diary, “How much better would be a manly protest against prejudice against color! — and a wise effort to give freemen homes in America!” On Aug. 22 William Lloyd Garrison editorialized that “the nation’s four million slaves are as much the natives of this country as any of their oppressors,” and two weeks later The Pacific Appeal noted that Lincoln’s words “made it evident that he, his cabinet, and most of the people, care but little for justice to the negro.” And Frederick Douglass said that “the President of the United States seems to possess an ever increasing passion for making himself appear silly and ridiculous, if nothing worse.”

Lincoln’s hopes for the Chiriquí venture barely outlasted the summer. On Aug. 28, he accepted an offer from Kansas Senator Samuel C. Pomeroy to organize black emigration parties to Central America, and on Sept. 11 he authorized Caleb Smith to sign an agreement with Thompson advancing money to develop the mines. But on Sept. 24, two days after issuing the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln abruptly suspended Pomeroy’s operation.

The Chiriquí venture was, in retrospect, doomed from the start. Ambrose Thompson’s title to the coal lands proved questionable, and a report by the Smithsonian Institution’s Joseph Henry found that the Chiriquí coal was almost worthless as fuel. Several Central American governments also opposed the plan: Luis Molina, a diplomat representing Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, characterized the plans as a thinly disguised effort to make Central America the depository for “a plague of which the United States desired to rid itself.”

The failed venture hurt hundreds of people who had volunteered to go on the first trip. “Many of us have sold our furniture” and “have given up our little homes to go,” wrote one emigrant. The uncertainty and delay are “reducing our scanty means” and “poverty in a still worse form than has yet met us may be our winter prospect.” In response, Lincoln could do no more than ask for their forbearance. After issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, the president never again issued any public statements on colonization.

Sources: Frederick Douglass, “The President and His Speeches,” Douglass Monthly, September 1862; Paul D. Escott, “What Shall We Do With the Negro? Lincoln, White Racism, and Civil War America”; Eric Foner, “Lincoln and Colonization” in “Our Lincoln: New Perspectives on Lincoln and His World”; Doris Kearns Goodwin, “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln”; Harold Holzer, “Emancipating Lincoln: The Proclamation in Text, Context, and Memory”; Abraham Lincoln, “Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes, August 14, 1862” in “Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln,” vol. 5; Kate Masur, “The African American Delegation to Abraham Lincoln: A Reappraisal,” in Civil War History, vol. 56, no. 2; James Oakes, “The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics”; Benjamin Quarles, “The Negro in the Civil War”; Michael Vorenberg, “Abraham Lincoln and the Politics of Black Colonization,” in Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, vol. 14, Issue 2, Summer 1993.

Abraham Lincoln wanted to ship freed black slaves away from the U.S., to British colonies in the Caribbean, even in the final months of his life, it has emerged.

(Abraham Lincoln is frequently voted America's greatest President due to his stance on slavery.)


By Jon Swaine, New York, 11 FEB 2011, The Telegraph, UK

A new book on the celebrated U.S. president and hero of the anti-slavery movement, who was born 202 years ago on Saturday, argues that he went on supporting the highly controversial policy of colonisation.

It was favoured by U.S. politicians who did not believe free black people should live among white Americans, and had been backed by prominent abolitionists like Henry Clay as far back as 1816.

Mr Lincoln also favoured the idea. But he was believed to have denounced it after signing the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed of most of America’s four million slaves, in January 1863.

The notion that he came to regard it as unacceptable contributed to the legend of the 16th president, who is frequently voted America’s greatest, and is held by some to have left an impeccable record.

Yet Phillip Magness and Sebastian Page, the authors of Colonisation After Emancipation, discovered documents in the National Archives in Kew in Great Britain, and in the U.S., that will significantly alter his legacy.

They found an order from Mr Lincoln in June 1863, authorising a British colonial agent, John Hodge, to recruit freed slaves to be sent to colonies in what are now the countries of Guyana and Belize.

“Hodge reported back to a British minister that Lincoln said it was his ‘honest desire’ that this emigration went ahead,” said Mr Page, a historian at Oxford University.

The plan came despite an earlier test shipment of about 450 freed slaves to Haiti resulting in disaster. The former slaves were struck by smallpox and starvation, and survivors had to be rescued.

Mr Lincoln also considered sending freed slaves to what is now Panama, to construct a canal — decades before work began on the modern canal there in 1904.

The colonisation plan collapsed by 1864. The British were fearful the confederate states of the American south may win the civil war, reverse emancipation, and regard British agents as thieves. Congress also voted to remove funding.

Yet as late as that autumn, a letter sent to the president by his attorney-general showed he was still actively exploring whether the policy could be implemented, Mr Page said.

“It says ‘further to your question, yes, I think you can still pursue this policy of colonisation even though the money has been taken away’,” he said.  Mr Lincoln was assassinated in April 1865.

Dr Magness said the book would change readers’ views of Mr Lincoln. Amid sharp political division, he is repeatedly championed by modern-day politicians, including Barack Obama, as a great unifier.

“Looking back from modern perspectives, we see colonisation as a very bigoted idea,” said Dr Magness, of the American University in Washington.

“So it’s a tough issue to integrate in to Lincoln’s story.

“It’s a tough racial issue, and it raises a lot of emotional issues. It doesn’t mesh well with the emancipation legacy, and it doesn’t mesh well with Lincoln’s image as an iconic figure.”

Newly discovered documents explodes Lincoln myth:

Lincoln sought to deport freed slaves

Book: Lincoln sought to deport freed slaves

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Wednesday, February 9, 2011


The Great Emancipator was almost the Great Colonizer: Newly released documents show that to a greater degree than historians had previously known, President Lincoln laid the groundwork to ship freed slaves overseas to help prevent racial strife in the U.S.


Just after he issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, Lincoln authorized plans to pursue a freedmen’s settlement in present-day Belize and another in Guyana, both colonial possessions of Great Britain at the time, said Phillip W. Magness, one of the researchers who uncovered the new documents.


Historians have debated how seriously Lincoln took colonization efforts, but Dr. Magness said the story he uncovered, to be published next week in a book, “Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement,” shows the president didn’t just flirt with the idea, as historians had previously known, but that he personally pursued it for some time.


“The way that Lincoln historians have grappled with colonization has always been troublesome. It doesn’t mesh with the whole ‘emancipator,’ ” Dr. Magness said. “The revelation of this story changes the picture on that because a lot of historians have tended to downplay colonization. … What we know now is he did continue the effort for at least a year after the proclamation was signed.”


Dr. Magness said the key documents he and his co-author, Sebastian N. Page, a junior research fellow at Oxford, found were in British archives, and included an order authorizing a British colonial agent to begin recruiting freed slaves to be sent to the Caribbean in June 1863.


By early 1864, the scheme had fallen apart, with British officials fretting over the legality of the Emancipation Proclamation and the risk that the South could still win the war, and with the U.S. Congress questioning how the money was being spent.


Roughly a year later, Lincoln was assassinated.


The Belize and Guyana efforts followed other aborted colonization attempts in present-day Panama and on an island off the coast of Haiti, which actually received several hundred freed slaves in 1862, but failed the next year.


Michael Burlingame, chair of Lincoln Studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield, said there are two ways to view Lincoln’s public support for colonization.


One side holds that it shows Lincoln could not envision a biracial democracy, while the other stance — which Mr. Burlingame subscribes to — says Lincoln’s public actions were “the way to sugarcoat the emancipation pill” for Northerners.


“So many people in the North said we will not accept emancipation unless it is accompanied by colonization,” said Mr. Burlingame, adding that Lincoln himself had always made clear colonization would be voluntary and nobody would be forced out of the United States.


The newly released documents underscore just how hot a topic colonization was in the 1800s, when prominent statesmen debated whether blacks and whites could ever live together in a functioning society.


Earlier in the century, the American Colonization Society already had organized efforts to ship thousands of black Americans to Africa to the colony of Liberia, and the debate over colonization raged even within the black community.


Frederick Douglass, one of the country’s most prominent free blacks, generally opposed colonization, though Mr. Burlingame said on a couple of occasions he showed signs he might embrace it — including appearing open to a venture in Haiti during the Civil War.


Still, Douglass also rejected the argument that blacks and whites couldn’t live together, and he pointed to places in the North as examples of where it already was happening.


Mr. Burlingame said some abolitionists viewed colonization as a plot to preserve slavery by getting rid of free blacks in the North, while others saw it as a way to undermine slavery by fundamentally questioning the principles slavery was based on.


Dr. Magness, a researcher at the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, said he first got wind of Lincoln’s efforts while researching a meeting between the 16th president and Union Gen. Benjamin Butler in the waning days of the war, at which colonization had been discussed.


Most of the U.S. documents about the Belize and Guyana deals have gone missing, but Dr. Magness and his co-author tracked down what he called an “almost untapped treasure cache of Civil War-era records” from the British side that showed Lincoln’s deep involvement in the planning and authorization.


With 4 million blacks in the U.S. at the time of the war, colonization would have been a tricky and pricey move.


The Belize project’s first shipment of laborers would have only been 500, and even if the project had been seen through to fruition, it would have accommodated just 50,000.

Lincoln's Plan for Colonizing the Emancipated Negroes:  according to the Journal of Negro History
The Emancipation Proclamation, if you have never read the document, along with the other proposed Congressional acts, including the Confiscation Act, you will find that it did not do what everyone thinks it did.  They were not freed until the 13th Amendment.  Lerone Bennett, Jr.'s book, "Forced into Glory" outlines precisely what it was and was not.

Lincoln didn't free the slaves.  If it had been left up to him, Blacks would have remained in slavery to 1900 or longer. If he had had his way, millions of 20th Century Whites would have been in "Gone With the Wind," instead of watching it. 

It was a limited document with devious aims.  The men around Lincoln who knew him best, tell us, almost without exception, that the document was the incidental, accidental effort of a man who did everything he possibly could to avoid it.

As Professors Richard Current and Ralph Korngold have discovered, the Proclamation had as it's purpose and effect the checking of the Radical congressional program; that is to say, the program of immediate emancipation.  Lincoln wanted to gain time to work on his own plan to free Blacks gradually, and to ship them out of the country in a colonization program.  Part of his program included the payment of funds to slaveholders in exchange for their slaves, who would be shipped off to colonies away from the United States.  He even proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would provide for the funding!

Put another way,  on January 1, 1863, Lincoln re-enslaved and/or condemned to extended slavery more Blacks than he ever freed.
Consider Lincoln's "slow-walking" emancipation
in the District of Columbia. 

In the Spring of 1862, he sat on the bill for 2 nights.  Why?  Believe it or not, it is because he had promised an old Kentucky friend that he wouldn't sign the bill until the friend could leave town with two of his slaves.  In a startling and revealing statement, Lincoln said he regretted that District of Columbia slaves had been freed at once, "that it should have been for gradual emancipation," and "that now families would at once be deprived of cooks, stable boys etc. and they of their protectors without any provision for them." 
++When General John C. Fremont freed Missouri slaves,  Lincoln re-enslaved them, pleading Kentucky and the need to assuage the fears and interests of slaveholders and supporters of slaveholders.

++When Major General David Hunter freed slaves in Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina, Lincoln re-enslaved them.

++When Major General Benjamin Franklin "Spoons" Butler moved too forcefully against slavery in Louisiana, he was sacked and put on Lincoln's
'white list' of troublesome antislavery generals.

++When John W. Phelps, Donn Piatt and other Union officers threatened the interests of slave owners, they were either sacked, denied promotion, or cashiered out of the service.

Setting the Record straight: Deportation of the slaves was connected with his Emancipation policy. 

On December 1, 1862, precisely 1 month before the scheduled signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, a State of the Union message that called for 3 constitutional amendments to complete a national plan of gradual compensated emancipation and colonization.  Lincoln wanted a transitional period of quasi freedom followed by the deportation of the freedmen:
"Heretofore colored people, to some extent, have fled north from bondage and destitution.  But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted, they will have neither to flee from.  Their old masters will give them wages at least until new laborers can be procured; and the freed men, in turn, will gladly give their labor for the wages till new homes can be found for them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race."
Lincoln's official plan for a new, all-White America, unfolded in his State of the Union message, on Monday, December 1, 1862.  It included 3 Constitutional Amendments, which he asked the Congress to pass "as permanent constitutional law" one month before he signed the Emancipation Proclamation.
The first amendment, Lincoln's proposed 13th Amendment, called for the ending of slavery, not on January 1, 1863, but by January 1, 1900.  "Every State, wherein slavery now exists, which shall abolish the same therein, at any time, or times, before the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand and nine hundred, shall receive compensation from the United States..."
The Second Amendment, Lincoln's proposed 14th Amendment, discussed actual freedom and the compensation to loyal slaveowners.
"All slaves who shall have enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of war, at any time before the end of the rebellion, shall be forever free; but all owners of such who shall not have been disloyal, shall be compensated for them..."
The 3rd Amendment, Lincoln's proposed 15th Amendment, called for the ethnic cleansing of the United States of America.
"Congress may appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons, with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States."
And what would happen if Congress refused to accept Lincoln's God-ordained way, "peaceful, generous, just," of buying slaves over a 37 year period and deporting them to a place "without the United States" in "congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race?"

We shall lose, Lincoln said, "the last best, hope of earth."  What did Lincoln mean by that phrase that everybody praises and nobody questions?  The "last best hope of earth" was a Union of White people purified and brought together by the deportation of Blacks.
On April 14, 1876, the 'mythical' "Emancipation Memorial" was unveiled on East Capitol Avenue & 12th Street, Capitol Hill Washington, D.C.  Frederick Douglass gave the dedication address; but notice what he said:

“Truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places, and it is never more proper and beautiful in any case than when speaking of a great public man whose example is likely to be commended for honor and imitation long after his departure to the solemn shades, the silent continent of eternity.


“It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model.  In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.  He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men.”


(Source: “The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass,” edited by Philip S. Foner, N.Y., 1955; Vol. 4, page 312, italics added).

Lerone Bennett, Jr., a Black historian,
discusses Lincoln's racial prejudice, the Emancipation 'smokescreen' and his deportation agenda, in the following interview.

"The Land of Lincoln".......where slavery was alive and well.

From the time Lincoln settled in New Salem in 1831, until he left Illinois in 1861 for the White House, slaves and quasi-slaves were held, whipped, hunted, litigated and terrorized in that state.

Although there were few Blacks in the state...747 slaves and 1,637 free Blacks in 1830, Illinois Whites seemed to be obsessed by the subject of race.  They adopted a comprehensive Black Code in 1819; and the Illinois legislature returned to the subject in 1825, 1831, 1833, 1841, and 1845.

These Black Codes or Laws would not be repealed until 1865.  Blacks had no legal rights; it was a crime for them to settle in Illinois unless they could prove their freedom and post a $1,000 bond.  Blacks found without a certificate of freedom was considered a runaway slave and could be apprehended by any White and auctioned off by the sheriff to pay the cost of his confinement.  If a Black had a certificate, he and his family were required to meet reporting and registration procedures.  The head of household had to register all family members and provide detailed descriptions to the supervisor of the poor, who could expel the whole family at any moment.

By the 1850s, especially after passage of the Compromise of 1850, which Lincoln voted for, kidnapping of Negroes with the aid and support of the state and White population, had become a profitable business.

Most trades and occupations were closed to Blacks.  Real Estate was difficult to obtain.  A law on the apprenticeship of children said "that the master or mistress to whom such child shall be bound as aforesaid shall cause such child to be taught to read and write and the ground rules of arithmetic...except when such apprentice is a negro or mulatto."

The state also taxed Blacks to support public schools that were closed by law, and by the vote of Lincoln, to Black children.

They could not play percussion instruments, could be apprehended for "riots, routs, unlawful assemblies, trespasses and seditious speeches."  It was a crime for any person to permit "any slave or slaves, servant or servants of color, to the number of three or more, to assemble in his, her or their house, out house, yard or shed for the purpose of dancing or revelling, either by night or by day..."

A revised Illinois constitution in 1848, denied Blacks the right to vote and to serve in the state militia.  The Negro Exclusion Law forbid slaves and free Negroes from settling in the state.

And where was Lincoln in all this?  Silent.  Lincoln was no emancipationist; he was scared to death of emancipation.  He was scared of Black economic competition, Black and White voters and officeholders, and Black and White sex....I'm quoting Abraham Lincoln, and if you don't believe me, read pages 405, 407-409, and 541 of Volume 2; and pages 146, 234-5 of "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln."
Abraham Lincoln: What he really believed about Slavery and the
War Between the States:

Q&A with Professor Thomas DiLorenzo

Thomas DiLorenzo spoke about his interests in economics and Abraham Lincoln, and his investigations into the two areas through his books, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Prima Lifestyles, 2002); and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe (Crown Forum, 2006).

He spoke about his research and methods, as well as many of the results he uncovered during the research. Professor DiLorenzo not only criticizes President Lincoln’s handling of the Civil War, he also criticizes current day historians who, he says, belong to the “church of Lincoln.” Those include James McPherson, Harold Holzer, Harry Jaffa, Eric Foner, and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Professor DiLorenzo also contends that academic historians critical of Lincoln have difficulties getting university level jobs.

Historian Harold Holzer's Lecture: Lincoln and The Emancipation Proclamation on "The Gist of Freedom" 
from Long Island University at it's 150th Emancipation Proclamation Celebration.
Yale History Professor David Davis explores the movement to colonize American blacks in Africa and many African-American leaders' advocacy of "returning to Africa." He argues that this must be understood in reference to the biblical Exodus from Egypt and within the context of the voluntary or involuntary "removal/freeing" of such oppressed groups as Jews, Huguenots, and others. But white demands for black colonization, whatever the motives, had the psychological effect of expatriating and "deporting" a people who played an integral part in creating America. Presented by the UC Berkeley Graduate Council. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism presents".
A new film documentary has been released featuring newly uncovered research by historians concerning Abraham Lincoln.  It tells the true story of how he was elected president.

"The Truth about Abraham Lincoln"

Run-up to the War Between the States:
Popular Sovereignty and
Westward Expansion
Lecture by Professor William Marvel
at the Virginia Historical Society,
Richmond, Virginia
Lincoln's Terrible War

Furling the Flag by Richard Norris Brooke. Dispirited Confederates are depicted here at Appomattox Court House, VA., during the surrender ceremony on April 13, 1865. Historian Paul H. Buck wrote of the Southern soldier: "He experienced a warm glow of affection for the banner furled forever in defeat and for associations it recalled." After the war, a Southern newspaper would proclaim: "We honor the furled under the unfurled flag."

As the sun set on the War Between the States.............
...........Reconstruction would begin.....and the South would face the reality and results of war crimes committed by Union soldiers; most of whom were very young.  So hard to believe, as seen in some of the next photos.
Just after the surrender of Lee at Appomattox, and as Reconstruction began, it was a time of near-starvation in most of the South. I have seen letters written by Lillah Porter, future wife of John Jeremiah Read, detailing the lack of food in Selma, Alabama, and the destruction of property.
In addition to the diaries written at the time of the war by White and Black Southerners, a careful reading of the "Slave Narratives" which contain interviews of actual former slaves, in the 1920s and 1930s by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and stored in the archives of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, is an eye-opener.  Page after page detail the wanton destruction of property and abuse, not only to White Southerners, but also to Black slaves/former slaves.  Crimes of rape, arson, murder, burning of houses, churches, crops; outright killing of farm and domestic animals (dogs and cats) with no feeling of remorse by either the Union soldiers committing the acts, nor their commanders.

There are also personal diaries and letters written by Union soldiers who tell of their own hand in the destructive acts; most with no feeling of shame.  Reading these is not for the faint-hearted.

It was difficult to read these original manuscripts and documents without feeling some empathy for my Read and Wauchope relatives who had to endure suffering at the hands of the Union invaders.
Civil War Atrocities
(What the Read soldiers, sailors, and their families saw and experienced, during and after the war)
The Unconstitutional Destruction of Georgia
Churches were sacked, Communion service ware was destroyed or stolen, and yes, some ministers were murdered.

Virginia Military Institute After Hunter's Raid

(Seen in the picture below)

The charred ruins of the Virginia Military Institute Barracks in Lexington, Virginia, remain behind in the aftermath of the Civil War. For four days in June 1864, Union troops under the command of General David Hunter occupied the small Shenandoah Valley town, burning the home of former Virginia governor John Letcher and destroying most of the buildings at the military school. The superintendent of VMI, Francis H. Smith, wrote to Confederate adjutant general William Richardson about the devastation: "On Sunday the 12 June all the public buildings of the Institute were burnt by the order of Major General D. Hunter, except my quarters and the quarters of the ordnance Sergeant. The peculiar condition of my daughter, with a child only 48 hours old, induced my wife [Sarah Henderson Smith] to throw herself upon the courtesy of the commanding General. The appeal was not in vain; and I acknowledge with pleasure, this relaxation of the devastation which was unsparingly applied to every species of property owned by the state at the V.Mil. Institute, which we were unable to remove…. [W]hen the clouds of heaven reflected the conflagration lighted by the torch of the invader, every eye was moistened that the home of the V.M.I. cadet was gone!"

The distinctive Gothic Revival Barracks used by the cadets had been designed by the renowned New York architect Alexander Jackson Davis in 1851. The building also included classrooms, one of which was used before the Civil War by then-Major Thomas J. Jackson who was a professor of Natural Philosophy at the school. In addition to damaging the Barracks and other VMI buildings, Union troops looted the town. Among the war trophies carted off was VMI's prized statue of George Washington which was taken by Union troops to Wheeling, West Virginia. (The statue was returned in 1866.) In the wake of the destruction VMI was temporarily headquartered in Richmond; in October 1865, VMI re-opened in Lexington and the Barracks were subsequently rebuilt.

Washington College sacked
On Sunday morning, June 12, 1864, Union General David Hunter led his army on a raid into the town of Lexington.  Troops sacked the town, but paid special destructive attention to the buildings of Washington College and VMI.  Union troops prepared to burn them to the ground.  When Wash8ington College's trustees arrived they pleaded that their institution was strictly a civil organization and that George Washington had provided the funds to start it.  These arguments saved the buildings from destruction.  Nevertheless, Federal troops destroyed all scientific apparatus and burned books and papers from both institutions, resulting in the need for the schools to be restored before another class would ever again be held at either.
Recent and Recommended:

"...blows the lid off the conspiracy of silence about the violent, mass-murdering origins of the American Leviathan state..." -- -Thomas J. DiLorenzo

"Of all the enormities committed by Americans in the nineteenth century--including slavery and the Indian wars--the worst was the invasion of the South, which destroyed some twenty billion dollars of private and public property and resulted in the deaths of some two million people, most of whom were civilians--both white and black."
--David Aiken, editor of A City Laid Waste: The Capture, Sack, and Destruction of the City of Columbia

This recently released book details information about Union soldiers' war crimes across the South, in direct violation of orders issued by Chief of Staff, General Henry Halleck, US Army.  Well-written with footnotes and citation of original source materials included how churches were sacked, burned, and some had profanity written on their sanctuary walls by Union soldiers. 

Finally, here is the first book-length survey of the Union's "hard war" against the people of the Confederacy--one that included the shelling and burning of cities, systematic destruction of entire districts, mass arrests, forced expulsions, wholesale plundering, and murder.

In a series of compelling chapters, Cisco chronicles the St. Louis massacre, where Federal authorities proceeded to impose a reign of terror and dictatorship in Missouri. He tells of the events leading to, and the suffering caused by, the Federal decree that forced twenty thousand Missouri civilians into exile. The arrests of civilians, the suppression of civil liberties, theft, and murder to "restore the union" in Tennessee are also examined.

Women and children were robbed, brutalized, and left homeless in Sherman's infamous raid through Georgia. In South Carolina, homes, farms, churches, and whole towns disappeared in flames. Civilians received no mercy at the hands of the Union invaders.

Thoroughly researched from sources including letters, diaries, and newspaper accounts of the time, Walter Brian Cisco's exhaustive book notably pays careful attention to the suffering of African-American victims of Federal brutality, revealing that wherever Federal troops encountered Southern blacks, whether free or slave, they were robbed, brutalized, belittled, kidnapped, threatened, tortured, and sometimes raped or killed by their blue-clad "liberators."

Apologists for Lincoln's hard war, including some professors who are currently teaching Civil War history, continue to downplay the suffering endured and the damage done, blame the victims, or call some of the above incidents "accidents" or "mistakes." Many also cling to the Lincolnian myth that only by the most horrendous of wars could the slaves be freed, ignoring the fact that the rest of the Western world managed to bring an end to the institution without bloodshed. This book serves to set the record straight and to show that the war on Southern civilians was not justified, despite the convictions by many that such a war was necessary to save the union.

Walter Brian Cisco's first book, States Rights Gist: A South Carolina General of the Civil War, a biography of the little-known general, was a 1992 selection of the History Book Club. He is also the author of Taking a Stand: Portraits from the Southern Secession Movement, Henry Timrod: A Biography, and Wade Hampton: Confederate Warrior, Conservative Statesman, considered the definitive biography of Hampton and the 2006 winner of the Douglas Southall Freeman History Award. He lives in Orangeburg, South Carolina.

"Millions of Americans in the 21st Century devoutly believe that Abraham Lincoln's war 'to preserve the union and free the slaves' was a righteous mission that forms the high point of our country's history.  Yet, Walter Cisco, concisely and without emotion, portrays the extent to which that war was waged with gratuitous brutality, persecution, terror, destruction, and murder against the civilian population of the South....free and slave, black and white, rich and poor.  And he leaves no doubt that these war crimes were not incidental and accidental but were deliberate, pervasive, and sanctioned at the highest level with malice aforethought.  Americans who read War Crimes Against Southern Civilians will have a more sober and true, and less self-righteous, understanding of our country."  -Clyde N. Wilson, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History, University of South Carolina.

"Sherman's March: Final Revenge"
is a short 5-part video documentary using first-hand accounts of General William Sherman's Union troops marching from Savannah to Columbia, SC, and the burning of that city in February of 1865.
A complete transcript with footnotes from primary sources can be obtained at www.shermansmarch.com.
Two examples of church desecration:
Rev. Peter Johnson Shand
reported that a black woman who worked as a paid servant for his Columbia, S.C. church, was raped by seven Union soldiers.  She then had her face forced down into a shallow ditch and was held there until she drowned.
William Gilmore Simms
reported how "regiments, in successive relays," committed gang rape in Columbia, S.C. on scores of slave women.

His own house was burned; twice...once in 1862, and again by Sherman's men in 1865; and his famous 10,000 volume library was lost.
"What does this mean, boys?" asked General Sherman, coming upon a young African-American man dead on a Columbia, S.C. street.  "The da-ned black rascal gave us his impudence, and we shot him," calmly replied a soldier.  "Well, bury him at once!" ordered Sherman.  "Get him out of sight!"
When asked about the matter, Sherman said ethat "we have no tiome for courts-martial and things of that sort!"
The bodies of 18 black women were discovered on the John Frierson (photo at left) plantation.  Each had been stabbed in the chest with a bayonet, after being raped.
Newspaper artist drawing of the Burning of Columbia, South Carolina, as it happened:
For first-person interviews with Slaves who were raped, tortured, and beaten by Union soldiers, the "Slave Narratives" is an excellent resource:
One of the official reports issued by the Federal Government as to the extent of brutality by Federal troops:
Desecration also extended to the Confederate dead
I have personally toured the Shiloh National Battlefield Park and seen row upon row of Union troops buried in individual graves in the "National Cemetery."  
And then, I saw this:
This is one of 5 such burial trenches marked where hundreds of Confederate dead were simply tossed unceremoniously into a trench, and then covered with dirt.  Other than the small stone monument provided by the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the marker provided by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which date back to the early decades of the 20th Century, nothing other than these simple markers indicate the trench's existence.  The trench is outlined by cannon balls.

As many as 12 such burial trenches exist at Shiloh, yet not all the locations are marked or known.  Early park historians knew the locations of 9 such trenches, but the park only currently knows the exact marked location of 5; the others all being lost to time.  These burial trenches serve as a reminder of the enormous and often forgotten sacrifices made by Confederate soldiers during the war.
After the Battle of South Mountain, Maryland (which was part of the Sharpsburg/Antietam Campaign), the Union burial detail took care of their own....but for the Confederate dead, it was a different story.

The battle for Fox’s Gap was a short affair, lasting only about two hours, but it was no less bloody for its brevity. By the time the Federals occupied the pass, hundreds of dead bodies lay thick over Wise’s fields. The mountain pass was turned into a landscape of death, with soldiers shot, stabbed or blown to pieces by artillery.

The soldiers from Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan slept next to the bodies of dead Confederates that night. The dead were clustered around a stone fence that formed their defense line.

A number of Union soldiers recorded a ghastly sight in their diaries. An unnamed North Carolinian was killed while crossing a stone fence with a wooden railing. His stiffened corpse straddled the fence with hands outstretched and mouth hung open.

Passing Union soldiers put biscuits in his mouth and hands and jokes circulated about the hungry Johnnie Reb.

Union soldiers were the ones standing wearily over the battlefield after the smoke had cleared, but an onerous duty came along with victory. For though the field was theirs, so too were the fallen that covered it, and the task of burying the dead fell on their shoulders. It was hard, ugly work, made worse by the rocky ground at Fox’s Gap that made the digging especially difficult. Eventually, the Union men, demoralized, disgusted and exhausted by their nightmarish detail, decided they had had enough. Eager to finish their burial detail, they gathered the last 58 Confederate bodies and threw them into Daniel Wise’s well, which was 60 feet deep.  After they were done their grisly work, the Union soldiers finally moved on. A few days later, on September 18, Daniel Wise and his two children returned home.

The Wise family home, as seen just after the battle ended:

The Wise family couldn’t have dreamed up a more horrific sight. The fertile fields they once knew were now unrecognizable, made into a surreal harvest of devastation by the numberless Union burial mounds in Wise’s fields. Dead Confederates were buried in shallow trenches that were dug right up against the bullet-riddled walls of the Wise farmhouse. Death hung over the entire area, and there was no escaping the stench of rot, which was just as thick outside Daniel Wise’s cabin as it was within. But the worst of it lay at the bottom of the Wise well, where 58 dead Southerners lay decomposing in the festering darkness of the dank pit.

The Civil War continued on its bloody course, leaving Daniel Wise and his ruined farm to be forgotten in the backwaters of Maryland’s local history.

A day earlier before Daniel Wise had returned to his farm, the Union burial detail had respectfully buried their own dead with headboards of scrap wood or buried a bottle containing a note with them.  But the Confederate dead were just tossed into mass grave trenches, such as the ones discovered at Shiloh Battlefield Park.

The Confederate soldiers' remains would not be exhumed from the well at Daniel Wise's farm farm
until 12 years after the battle!!

The 58 bodies, by then bones and nothing else, were exhumed from the well in 1874, by a man under contract to the Washington Confederate Cemetery in Hagerstown. Henry C. Mumma was paid $1.65 for each body taken to the cemetery for proper burial.

The Battle of South Mountain was part of the Sharpsburg Battle campaign in Maryland.  And there is photographic proof of the desecration of Confederate dead, because Matthew Brady and Alexander Gardner sent some of their photographers to the Battle of Sharpsburg site, and they accurately labeled the pictures they took.

Here is some of their work.  The first picture was identified as showing a dead Confederate soldier left unburied laying next to the burial plot of a Union soldier with a wooden headboard identifying him.  The second picture is identified as showing an individual Confederate soldier left for dead in a field.
More information about the 58 Confederate bodies tossed into the well by Union soldiers:
Reconstruction Plans
President Andrew Johnson on Reconstruction
"The South During Reconstruction" 
an original term paper written and read for a radio broadcast by
Jim Hughes:

"The Reconstruction years in the South and the same years in the North, were somewhat a period of crime, intolerant mass psychology, business depression, moral slump, official sinning, and the launching of a new party in opposition to the Republican."
Between 10-30,000 Confederates left the United States after the War Between the States for Mexico, Central America, and South American countries. 

Rev. Abner Addison Porter, father of
Lillah Porter, who married John Jeremiah Read (who are all discussed on the "Read Family Story" web page) was one who considered leaving the U.S., after the Appomattox surrender, in newly discovered information.

The first Baptist Church was established in Brazil by the Confederates who left America.
The General Assembly of the Southern Presbyterians, meeting in 1866, explicitly refused a request from the Synod of South Carolina to send a missionary for the Southerners in Brazil.  In spite of the support voiced for the motion by the powerful Robert Dabney, and for emigration in general from the Reverend A.A. Porter, who was the wartime editor of the "Southern Presbyterian," the assembly decided that "All action on our part in that direction would be at this time premature."
(Source: "The Confederados: Old South Immigrants in Brazil," Edited by Cyrus B. Dwsey and James M. Dawsey.  (See also: Ernest Trice Thompson, "Presbyterians in the South;" vol. 2:1861-1890, Richmond: John Knox Press, 1973, 110-111).
Rev. A.A. Porter, one of my relatives pictured below, wrote how he was devastated on seeing the destruction of his native state of North Carolina and the area of Alabama where he lived: left in ruins by occupying Federal troops.

"Thousands of Southerners Fled the U.S. after the Civil War and Ended Up in this Country"

By Dariusz Stusowski

"Villa American" seen in 1906; now called "Americana," located in Sao Paulo, Brazil

The American Civil War left large regions of the United States utterly devastated. Most of that devastation was located in the Southern states that made up the Confederacy. Many cities like Richmond and Vicksburg were captured by Union armies through siege warfare, which involved massive bombardment and prolonged isolation that destroyed infrastructure, crippled industry, and caused severe hunger and even starvation. Widespread societal disintegration soon led to outbreaks of disease.


Collapsed urban centers were not the only problem facing Southerners during this time. Social upheaval brought on by the elimination of slavery led to economic chaos. As if all of these catastrophes were not enough, some in the South felt the imposition of what is now known as Reconstruction (1865-1877) to be completely intolerable. Many believed that Reconstruction would transform the South into a socially unrecognizable place, and that it would last indefinitely. Some who felt this way decided the best course of action was to leave their war-ravaged homes and begin their lives in a new place.

The vast majority of those who made the choice to leave the South stayed within the U.S. Most moved to the American West, where land was plentiful, government impositions were scarce or even functionally nonexistent, and where people with a dark past could start anew, as could those who were just looking for a new beginning. It was during this time that the West became wild. Flooded with battle-hardened soldiers, poverty-stricken farmers and former slaves all looking to escape a ruined South, unorganized territories west of the Mississippi became chaotic amalgams of peoples and cultures for decades to come.

But not everyone who no longer felt the South could be their home sought their fortunes in the American West. Some saw the situation so dire that they decided to leave the United States forever. Most that did settled in various places within South America. A few American emigrants who settled in Latin America became famous, such as the fugitives popularly known as “Butch Cassidy” and his partner, the “Sundance Kid”. However, most Americans who resettled in Latin America were simply looking to escape the effects of a devastating war and were not looking to escape justice.

Most Southerners who left the U.S. after the Civil War settled in Brazil. At the end of Civil War, Emperor Dom Pedro II, ruler of Brazil, expressed serious interest in Americans that could bring with them knowledge of modern agricultural techniques, and an understanding of how to grow cotton, which was still a profitable cash crop. Also, it did not hurt that the Southerners were aware of how slave-based agriculture operated, as slavery was still legal and fully functional in Brazil.  Slavery would not be abolished there until 1888.

W. Frank Shippey, who served with Charles "Savez" Read in the Confederate Navy, emigrated to Brazil and established a plantation there. 
His exploits, detailed in "A Leaf from My Logbook," can be found on the "Read Family Story" web page.  Also included is the story of his assistance to Read in giving him advance information about a traitor who had given information about Read's whereabouts; thus saving Read from the Federals.
Confederado descendants tell their story:

The world of the ‘Confederados’

Courtesy of Ronan Farrow Daily

Ronan Farrow presents a Vocativ story on the mass exodus of Confederate soldiers to Brazil following the end of the Civil War – and while things have changed over the years, Confederate culture remains prevalent in many parts of the South American country. Craig Melvin and Melissa Harris-Perry join to discuss.

Meet Brazil's 'Confederados': They've forgotten how to speak English but the South American descendants of rebels who fled US after the War Between the States, still turn out by the thousands to celebrate their Dixie roots.

(Source: The Daily Mail, 2015)

  • Sunday's party marked the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War and was held in a rural Brazilian town colonized by families fleeing Reconstruction
  • Thousands turn out every year, including many who trace their ancestry back to the dozens of families who, enticed by the Brazilian government's offers of land grants, settled here from 1865 to around 1875
  • Amid food and beer stands bedecked with red-white-and-blue ribbons, extended families tucked into diet-busting barbecue and hamburger lunches as 'Dixie' played on a loop

It had all the trappings of a down-home country fair somewhere well below the Mason-Dixon line: Lynyrd Skynyrd medleys, mile-long lines for fried chicken, barbecue and draft beer, and a plethora of Confederate flags emblazoning everything from belt buckles to motorcycle vests to trucker caps.

But Sunday's party marking the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War took about 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers) south of the South, in a rural Brazilian town colonized by families fleeing Reconstruction.

For many of the residents of Santa Barbara d'Oeste and neighboring Americana in Brazil's southeastern Sao Paulo state, having Confederate ancestry is a point of pride that's celebrated in high style at the annual 'Festa dos Confederados,' or 'Confederates Party' in Portuguese.


The American South became an unfamiliar place, in some respects, to many Sons of Dixie during Reconstruction.

In those years following the Civil War, many northerners flowed south of the Mason-Dixon in search of economic gain.

These so-called 'carpetbaggers' were seen as opportunistic by many poor southerners who believed they were being used and their land stolen with the help of northern capital.

Also seen as the enemy to some Confederate loyalists in the postbellum South were the scalawags.

These were the Southerners who saw more of an advantage in backing the Yankee policies governing the reconstruction than in opposing them in favor of the throwback policies of the old guard.

Many of them supported giving rights to African Americans and supported the influx of northern investors.


As they watched Dixie change during the federal occupation--and watched the emancipation of black slaves--some Southerners chose to leave.

Many fled west. A select few were enticed into settling the wild interiors of South America by the Brazilian government.

Most were lured by newspaper ads placed in the wake of the war by the government of Brazil's then-emperor, Dom Pedro II, promising land grants to those who would help colonize the South American country's vast and little-explored interior.

It's not even known for sure how many people made the arduous journey. Some historical accounts suggesting as few as 3,000, while others say there were as many as 10,000, predominantly from deep south states like Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia.

The fact that slavery was still legal in Brazil, where it was outlawed only in 1888, may also have been a factor, though Clabough said it was doubtful many of the Confederados would have been able to afford slaves either in the U.S. or in Brazil.


The history of the Confederate migrants is one of the lesser-known stories of the Civil War, said Casey Clabough, author of the 2012 historical novel 'Confederados.' It's not even known for sure how many people made the arduous journey, Clabough said, with some historical accounts suggesting as few as 3,000, while others say there were as many as 10,000, predominantly from deep south states like Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia.

Most were lured by newspaper ads placed in the wake of the war by the government of Brazil's then-emperor, Dom Pedro II, promising land grants to those who would help colonize the South American country's vast and little-explored interior.

'They were seen as desirable, educated colonists,' said Clabough, adding the Confederados introduced the bull-tongue plow and other agricultural innovations to Brazil. 'And from the point of view of American Southerners who had just gone through this catastrophic conflict and were looking toward an uncertain reconstruction period, it certainly seemed attractive.'

The fact that slavery was still legal in Brazil, where it was outlawed only in 1888, may also have been a factor, though Clabough said it was doubtful many of the Confederados would have been able to afford slaves either in the U.S. or in Brazil.

Legend has it that Dom Pedro himself was on hand at Rio's port to greet the first batch of Confederados, mostly enlisted men and small family farmers who were then dispatched to rural areas of the surrounding states.

Difficult conditions in Brazil swiftly took their toll. Many succumbed to tropical diseases, while others were felled by sheer exhaustion. About half gave up and returned to the U.S., said Clabough.

Those who stayed ended up assimilating into Brazilian society, and very few of the Confederados' descendants speak English today. Some are racially mixed — as is common in this majority Black and multiracial nation.

Mixed-race guests at Sunday's party seemed unruffled by the omnipresent Confederate flag.

'To me it's a positive symbol of my heritage,' said Keila Padovese Armelin, a 40-year-old mother of two who describes herself as a 'racial milkshake.' ''For us, it doesn't have a negative connotation at all.'


Proud heritage: Descendants of American Southerners wearing Confederate-era uniforms pose for pictures as they attend a party to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War in Santa Barbara d'Oeste, Brazil on Sunday.

Descendants of American Southerners Philip Logan and his wife Eloiza Logan, pose for pictures during the Festa dos Confederados where thousands turn out every year, including many of those who trace their ancestry back to the dozens of families who left Dixie for points far south between 1865 to around 1875.


Descendants of American Southerners Wearing Confederate-era dresses dance as teenage girls pulled hoop skirts over their cut-off short-shorts and wiggled into bustier tops, taking to the stage painted with a giant Confederate flag on the arms of young men in gray and yellow uniforms.

Point of pride: For many of the residents of Santa Barbara d'Oeste and neighboring Americana, in Brazil's southeastern Sao Paulo state, having Confederate ancestry is a point of pride and is celebrated in high style at the annual Festa dos Confederados, or Confederates Party in Portuguese.

From the very old to the very young, descendants of American Southerners Wearing Confederate-era dresses and uniforms dance during the party to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War.

Long history: A man walks in a cemetery where American Southern immigrants are buried in tombs adorned with the confederate flag. The party takes place up a dusty dirt road flanked on both sides by sugarcane plantations, in a field that abuts on the Cemiterio dos Americanos, or American Cemetery, which began as the resting place of the wife and two daughters of one of the initial Confederados and still serves their descendants today.

'Cemiterio dos Americanos': A man wearing a shirt with an image of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln looks at the tombs of his American Southern relatives at the Cemiterio dos Americanos.

Young and old: A child wearing Confederate-era uniform covers his ears from the noise during Festa dos Confederados. Legend has it that Dom Pedro himself was on hand at Rio's port to greet the first batch of Confederados, mostly enlisted men and small family farmers who were then dispatched to rural areas of the surrounding states.

A woman buys beverages in a cashier decorated with American, Brazilian, and Confederate flags during a party to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the end of the American Civil War in Santa Barbara d'Oeste, Brazil, Sunday, April 26, 2015. Amid food and beer stands bedecked with red-white-and-blue ribbons, extended families tuck into diet-busting barbecue and hamburger lunches as Dixie plays on a loop.

The party marks the end of the American Civil War and it took place not in the deep south, but rather some 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometers) south of there _ in a town in rural Brazil colonized by families fleeing Reconstruction. Those who stayed ended up assimilating into Brazilian society, and very few of the Confederados' descendants speak English today. Some are racially mixed — as is common in this majority Black and multiracial nation.

"The Confederados Become Brazilian, but Honor Their Southern Roots"

by Kathy Warnes


In August 1865, Dr. George Scarborough Barnsley gazed at the ruins of his Georgia plantation that he had named “Woodlands,” pondering what to do next. He had served as a doctor in the Eighth Georgia Regiment in the Confederate Army and he had intended to practice medicine and farm at the end of the War, but the Union Army had damaged Woodlands so extensively that he didn’t think he could salvage his plantation.


What would he do now? He needed to provide a home for his wife and he believed that the South that he fought for the four years had disappeared with the cannon smoke. He had to find a new place for his family to live, somewhere outside of the United States welded together by war.


Why Should I Remain to Weep Over War-Torn Graves?


Writing to his father, Dr. Barnsley said: “I have no other hope but emigration. I cannot conscientiously take an oath to the U.S. Govmt. For now I have not the shadow of an excuse. I am utterly ruined – in hopes, in fortune, and all save honor gone – then why should I remain to weep over war-torn graves. No, I must go.”


Although he didn’t know where he was going, Dr. Barnsley wanted to leave the South as quickly as possible. He thought Brazil might be a good place to settle or Brazil didn’t work out he thought he would do well in Mexico, perhaps get an Army position. His letter reflected the bitter resignation that many other Southerners felt. The stark truth that the South had been conquered and in their view, there was nothing left of their Southern homeland to salvage.


Dr. Barnsley joined the stream of Confederates, still clinging to their ideas of Confederate Nationalism to flee from the defeated South, to South America and other countries. To them, the Confederacy was an ideal, a way of living, not necessarily a location. An ideal and a culture could be transplanted.


Former Confederates Plan to Emigrate to Mexico and Brazil


Some historians estimate that as many as 10,000 Southerners emigrated to foreign countries after the Civil War and other say 20,000, although the lack of emigration records makes arriving at exact number impossible. As his letter suggests, most of the Confederates went to Mexico and Brazil, but the location and resources of the émigrés usually determined their destination.


In the western war theater of the Civil War, Confederate soldiers fled the advancing Union armies for the relative safety of Mexico. Brazil posed a more challenging destination since a soldier and his family could not simply gallop to South American on horseback. Arriving safely in Brazil took planning. Confederates emigrating to Brazil were usually civilians or non combat soldiers like Dr. Barnsley who didn’t have to worry about Union revenge for being part of a defeated army. Most of them weren’t planters, at least not until they arrived in Brazil. Most of them came from middle class professional families scattered across the war ravaged South. They organized themselves into colonizing groups after the Civil War and prepared to move from the American south to South America.


Saving the South by Transplanting it to South America


To Dr. Barnsley and the other Confederate exiles, Brazil seemed like an ideal place to rebuild their society. In tropical Brazil, planters were free to cultivate their crops and the imperial government still endorsed slavery. The former Confederates believed that colonies in Brazil and Mexico would give them a chance to rebuild the plantation society of the Old South and preserve the Southern culture that Yankee occupation was destroying.


Dr. Barnsley and his fellow Confederates dismissed any idea of rebuilding the South through compromise, accommodation, and further clashes with the North. Why waste years in continuous conflict with the North when the South could rise again in Brazil without a fight? By leaving their defeated homeland, these Confederates – and they were not ex-Confederates, they were CONFEDERATES- practiced their Confederate nationalism in its purest form. Their nationalism was based on the belief that the Southern character could exist only within a society that cherished and protected two critical parts of antebellum Southern identity:  plantation agriculture and white supremacy.


Confederates like Dr. Barnsley and his colleagues knew that they would have to pay a heavy price to establish their new South in foreign lands. Inspired by the promise of a Southern culture as they envisioned it away from a defeated South, they ignored the realities in their destination countries, although yet another insurrection tore Mexico apart and a liberal reform movement was sweeping across Brazil. Both countries lacked internal structure and race relations in both were murky and volatile.


Many of the male Confederate émigrés succumbed to the ideal of combining the identities of the planter and the pioneer. Tropical colonies in Brazil and Mexico would give Southern men the opportunity to tame the wilderness and resume the paternal role of plantation owner. The elements of Southern manliness that the Confederate defeat at home could be resurrected in Mexico and Brazil.   The horror of Yankee control of their beloved South closed the eyes of the emigrating Confederates to equally unpleasant realities in their chosen new countries as they prepared to travel.


The Confederados


By the late 1860s, these Southern expatriates to Brazil who called themselves Confederados had settled in six locations in Brazil. Most of the Confederados were white Anglo Americans, but their number also included slave owning Cherokee, Choctaw and Muscogee Indians who were invited to settle in Brazil because of their advanced farming skills. The names of their colonies symbolized the meeting of Confederate and South American cultures.


Santarem was located on the Amazon; Linhares on the Rio Doce; New Texas near the port of Iguape; Lizzieland near Iguape; Xiririca near Iguape; and Santa Barbara north of Sao Paulo City. For the Confederados, emigration was a second and perhaps their last chance to reestablish Southern cultural hierarchy. Still fervently believing in their cause and strengthened by their confidence in it, Dr. Barnsley and the rest of the émigrés bravely moved forward in their quest to save the South by transplanting it to South America.


Dr. James McFadden Gaston, a Confederate searching for new homes for his family and other Southern émigrés , arrived in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in September 1865. Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil wanted to facilitate producing more cotton because of the high prices it brought and sought experienced cotton farmers to come to Brazil, offering them financial incentives.


Alienated Southerners Decide to Emigrate to Brazil


The Brazilian government helped Dr. Gaston set up a commission to facilitate his search for property. The Liberal Party, which was the political arm of the republican reform movement and a rising power in the imperial parliament, advocated an open immigration policy to alleviate the national labor shortage.


Slaves had historically been the primary labor force in Brazil, but it had been steadily declining for decades. In 1822, slaves made up more than 50 percent of the population, but by the end of the 1860s, only about 20 percent of the population was slaves. Slavery legally ended in Brazil in May 1888, partially as a result of the emancipation movement across the Atlantic World.


 The Confederados Arrive in Brazil


In 1865, hundreds of small ships and sailboats arrived in Brazil, carrying depressed, injured, sick and exhausted Confederate men, women and children determined to rebuild their lives. Between 1865 and 1885, between 10,000 and 20,000 of these Confederates arrived, primarily from Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia,  and Virginia. They stepped ashore in ports like Santo, Belem, Vitoria, and Rio de Janeiro.


On board ship they had tried to adjust themselves to the trauma of defeat in war and a lost cause and being uprooted from the only lives they had ever known. On shore, they gathered their scattered energies and prepared to make faraway and hazardous trips around a strange land to reach the Campinas region which contained climate and land similar to the Southern United States. They pressed on, strong in their belief that life in any country was better than life under the Yankees.