Was Southern Secession and the U.S. Civil War Fought to Preserve Slavery?

An introduction by the author Jeb Smith: I have often engaged in discussions with both lay people and academics on the various causes of Southern secession. I have also read many books from both sides' perspectives of the war. I consistently hear the same arguments used to support the claim that the South left the Union to preserve slavery. I will respond here to the most common arguments and, hopefully, explain why the evidence does not support this conclusion.

This is the final part in a series of extended articles from the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here, part 3 on whether the Civil War was fought for slavery or States’ rights here, and part 4 on the Confederate Constitution here.

John S. Mosby.

Slave Owners Rebellion?

It is said that the most robust support for secession came from the areas that had the most slaveowners. Based on this information, some would argue that the cause of withdrawal was slavery. High federal support in areas with limited slaveowners, such as West Virginia, Western North Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee, are prime examples to support this claim. But first, we must ask the following questions: What about the non-slave owners in Eastern Virginia who supported the South? What about non-slaveholding Western Tennesseans and Deep South voters who supported secession? Should we claim they prove secession was in support of abolishing slavery? What about the slave states that stayed in the Union? 

 In Confederate Arkansas, 20% of their households were slave owners, while Kentucky, which remained primarily loyal to the Union, had 23% of their households that were slave owners. In North Carolina, near-unanimous support for secession was given after Lincoln's call for volunteers when only 27% of the households in the state were slave owners. Arkansas voted 65 to 5 for secession after Lincoln's call for volunteers, yet only 20% of households were slave owners. Although there were few Southern Jewish Confederates slave owners, a large portion of the group supported secession. Further, thirteen percent of the Virginia delegates from high slave-owning counties voted against secession.

A closer look shows that politics, not slavery, drove the secession movement. For example, in Western Virginia, many areas with a low percentage of slave owners supported secession, while many areas that were politically supporters of the Whigs did not. James McPherson , [who used the argument we are discussing] acknowledges, "A good many low slaveholding Democratic counties voted for immediate secession, while numerous high-slaveholding Whig counties cooperation." In his book, Reluctant Confederates, Daniel Crofts looks at this argument and finds that while slave ownership influenced secession votes, political party associations were far more critical.

"A high slave-owning country in eastern Virginia was far more likely to poll a strong secession vote than a low slave-owning county in western Virginia. But a whig county in eastern Virginia was more likely to show more union strength than a Breckinridge country, just as a Breckinridge county in western Virginia was more likely to show pockets of secession support than a whig county." 

-Daniel W. Crofts Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis University of North Carolina Press reprint 1993

Further, the area that would become West Virginia had long opposed unfair tax rates within Virginia.[1] West Virginia, like today, was more an extension of Pennsylvania and did not share the southern culture of Virginia. Immigrants from Pennsylvania mostly inhabited West Virginia. In Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee, Michael Korda wrote, "Mountainous northwestern Virginia...was largely populated by settlers from Pennsylvanian who were instinctively pro-union." The Appalachian areas of Western Virginia, Western North Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee had very different ethnic, political, and cultural histories. 

West Virginia supported the Confederacy more than commonly believed. Many of the Virginia votes against secession did come from the western part of the state, but that does not make them supporters of the Union. These counties were surrounded by federal territory and not so anxious to jump into a war. The most robust support for the Union came from the northern panhandle or around the railroads who had a financial interest in remaining in the Union. The rest of the state was decidedly pro-South. Further, many Ohio and Pennsylvania troops went to West Virginia recruiting stations [this was common] and formed union regiments, so the actual number of units supporting the North is inflated. 

Western Virginia's support for the Union is overstated for many reasons. Early in the conflict, much of western Virginia was controlled by the Union, and a pro-union "restored government of Virginia" was instituted. Elections were only held in areas of Union control, as pro south civilians and soldiers fled the state and thus, were not allowed to vote on whether or not to join the Union. Lincoln decided to recognize this pro north government that met in Wheeling. This Government was not officially recognized by the state of Virginia but was rather an unconstitutionally created, militarily controlled area. Therefore, basing conclusions on this occupied territory is not a fair judge of western Virginia's loyalties. 

The Union support in Tennessee seems to be exaggerated and possibly based on a limited number of Union newspapers during the war. As in Virginia, Daniel W. Crofts shows that counties that were "traditionally Democrat," the low-level slave-owning middle and western Tennessee counties, voted for secession. It was only in the Eastern area of the state where spare slave-owning counties held a strong pro-Union stance. 

Maryland's southern and eastern areas were similar in culture and politics to the rest of the South. In contrast, the pro northern areas of Maryland were heavily influenced by socialist immigrants from Europe and thus supported the North. Overall, support for the Union in Maryland also seems overstated.[2] The truth is that Eastern Tennessee, Western Virginia, and Western North Carolina remained Republican areas after the war. In contrast, the planter areas remained Democratic after the war.[3]

Lastly, if the Government did oppress a particular group, specifically slave owners, violating their rights, wouldn't we then expect strong resistance from that sector? For example, if today's politicians decided that pizza is unhealthy for us and outlawed it, then most pizza shop owners would likely be among those who would resist those efforts. Others may agree with the pizza owners but not be so willing to leave the country over it. So it should not be a surprise that slave owners were among the most dedicated secessionists. 

The Confederate Constitution did not allow States to abolish Slavery

The first argument one often hears is that the Confederate Constitution made it impossible to abolish slavery. It is true that the central Confederate government could not abolish slavery; however, neither could the federal government under the U.S. Constitution in 1861, as Lincoln accepted in his First Inaugural Address. Confederate Constitution scholar Marshall DeRosa points out that freeing slaves was a state issue in the C.S.A. just as it was in antebellum America. Some have misread Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4 of the C.S.A. Constitution, claiming it outlaws the freeing of slaves; however, this section applies only to Congress and not to the sovereign states.

As DeRosa argues that the clause even demonstrates that its authors believed non-slave states would join the Confederacy. This is also shown in Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 and Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1. Many in the Confederacy, including vice president Stephens, thought  the non-slaveholding upper Midwest would join the Confederacy because its free trade laws would encourage states connected to the Mississippi River to join. In his infamous Cornerstone Address on March 21, 1861, Alexander Stephens said, "We made ample provision in our Constitution for the admission of other States...Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way." 

Professor DeRosa shows that the South wanted border states and the free Midwest states to join the Confederacy. During the constitutional convention, the delegates rejected Howell Cobb of Georgia's proposal that all states be required to be slave-owning. Senator Albert Brown of Mississippi stated, "Each state is sovereign within its own limits, and each for itself can abolish or establish slavery for itself." The state of Georgia declared, "New States formed out of territory now belonging to the United States, or which may be hereafter acquired, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as the people thereof may determine at the time of admission." So while slavery was optional, states' rights were applied in the C.S.A., regardless of their choice. In The Confederate Constitution of 1861, DeRosa summarizes, "Thus, slavery was not a constitutional prerequisite for admission, and once admitted, a state could either reorganize or prohibit the institution." 

Slavery was the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy 

The first argument I am usually given is that Alexander Stephens declared slavery to be the "Cornerstone of the Confederacy." Although his speech has been named the "Cornerstone Speech, "he focuses also on tariffs, internal improvements, and economic issues. So why is most of his speech ignored and only a few sentences pulled out and attacked? The focus is on the portion that mentions slavery because slavery is what we want to be remembered as the primary cause of secession.

His speech was unprepared and given in the deep South state of Georgia. But I also think that there are other reasons to be cautious about the importance and understanding of the speech. 

For one, it is only a transcribed piece. According to the newspaper reporter who transcribed it, it "Is not a perfect report, but only a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens." It is simply an interpretation of a portion of his actual speech. According to Stephens, in writings after the war, the speech was misinterpreted and misunderstood. He claimed he was simply restating what Judge Baldwin of the United States Supreme Court had said. The following, written in 1884 by Richard M Johnson, summed up Stephens’ speech and his use of the term "cornerstone." 

"On the subject of slavery there was no essential change in the new Constitution from the old as Judge Baldwin [of Connecticut] of the U.S. supreme court had announced from the bench several years before, that slavery was the cornerstone of the old Constitution [1781-89], so it is of the new" [1833] .

-Quote in Lochlainn Seabrook , Everything You Were Taught About American Slavery Is Wrong Sea Raven Press 2014

Later, Stephens wrote that what caused secession was a dispute over  centralization. Stephens' speech simply clarified disputed subjects in the U.S. Constitution that are now clearly defined and beyond dispute in the C.S.A. Constitution. These subjects include tariffs, internal improvement, and slavery. He was trying to assure the audience that the states would decide on these issues, not the central government.

As the Kennedy twins argue, if anyone should have been seen as speaking for the whole country, it ought to have been the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis. His three most essential speeches (Farewell to Congress, First Inaugural in Montgomery, Second Inaugural in Richmond) all speak to the causes of secession. He mentioned that the reasons for secession were liberty, state's rights, tariffs, the Constitution, and preserving the Union from Northern Democracy. Jefferson Davis said, "I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." Davis does discuss slavery in the first of those speeches, but stresses more the sovereign right of his state, Mississippi, to secede.

Fugitive Slave Laws

Some critics claim that the South only cared for states' rights when slavery was involved. To support this claim, they point out that the South objected to Northern states nullifying the federal fugitive slave laws. This objection seems reasonable on the surface but stems from a misunderstanding of both the purpose of states' rights and the Union of 1860.

Even if we assume the premise for the sake of argument, it will only prove that the South did not care for the rights of the states in the North, not their state's rights. Since the rights of the people of each state were in place to secure its individual states citizen's rights and not another’s, this would make sense. And if one state decides not to follow the compact or contract [Constitution], disagreement will occur. This is also why the right to secession is vital to self-government. 

However, a proper understanding of states' rights is not lawlessness or states ignoring the Constitution; it is, in fact, the opposite. States' rights are in place to prevent the current politicians in power from violating the Constitution or overstepping its bounds. In this case, the northern states were violating the Constitution because, in their minds, slavery was wrong in God’s eyes. As William Seward put it, "There is a higher law than the constitution." 

Within the Constitution, southerners were already granted the right to have their property returned. Northern states were violating this. Therefore states’ rights, as Jefferson said, are the best way of preserving the authority of the Constitution over elected politicians in D.C. who would seek to abolish it. The Constitution, not men, was the authority. The wording of the United States "supremacy clause" is set out below, occurring in Article VI. The wording of the Confederate equivalent, also occurring in Article VI, is identical apart from the substitution of "Confederate" for "United."

This Constitution and the Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or to be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Only the Slave States joined the Confederacy

"Had Buchanan in 1860 sent armed forces to prevent the nullification of the fugitive slave law, as Andrew Jackson threatened to do so in 1833, there would have been a secession of fifteen northern states instead of thirteen southern states. Had the Democrats won in 1860, the northern states would have been the seceding states, not the southern." 

- James R. and Walter D. Kennedy, The South Was Right! Pelican Publishing Gretna 2008 

Some believe it is self-evident that slavery caused secession because only slave states joined the Confederacy. So if I am defending the causes of the South and saying slavery was not the sole cause of secession, then why didn't any free states join? 

Keep in mind that when the Confederacy was first formed, there were more slave states still in the Union. Furthermore, if secession was driven by slavery, why didn't all the slave states join the South? Many volunteers fought for the South from the non-slave state of California. New Jersey produced two Confederate generals, Gen. Samuel Gibbs French and Gen. Julius Adolphus de Lagnel.[4] 

Many free states nearly left the Union as well. NY almost left the Union, and a middle confederacy might have formed, which could have included Penn, NY, NJ, MD, and D.E. On March 13, 1861, a report from A R Wright Esq of Georgia said Gov Hicks of Maryland was already corresponding with New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey governors about forming a central confederacy. Delaware, Virginia, Missouri, and Ohio were also later mentioned. The rise of a radical Republican party[5] to national prominence caused all sorts of upheavals. 

The South originally planned for the northwest to join them. When Robert Smith addressed the citizens of Alabama, he believed Indiana and Illinois would join the Confederacy. He desired the entire Union (excluding New England) to eventually be drawn under the new Confederate Constitution, restoring the Union of the founders. However, when Lincoln called for war, many were unwilling to face an uphill battle against the might of the North. Further, nationalism and patriotism drove many to volunteer for the Union. 

Also, consider that the states most influenced by the Jeffersonian tradition did leave the Union. And we must not forget the North maintained slavery during the war in MO, KY, DE, Washington DC, MD, Western Virginia, northern controlled sections of the Indian territory, and Union-controlled LA and Virginia. 

John Mosby said Secession was about Slavery 

The "Grey Ghost" of the Confederacy, John Mosby, said that the South was on the side of slavery during the war. Here, critics say, we have an admission from a former confederate informing us of what we all already knew, the South left to preserve slavery. Yet we are also told that post-war southerners are part of the "lost cause" and should not be listened to. Unless, of course, it is Mosby who was telling certain historians what they wanted to hear. Highlighting one statement made after the war by a southerner turned Republican trying to gain favor does not negate the factual purposes of southern secession.

Another argument used is not historical but rather philosophical. The argument is that the South could not care for freedom since they denied that freedom to others. However, this at most shows inconsistency in how they apply liberty. It also seems to assume the South left to preserve slavery. 

In response, the South said that its citizens had more rights and were allowed more freedom than the North. The majority of states in the North did not allow individuals the freedom to own or buy human property as the "slave optional"[6] states did. All men were created equal; southerners had rights like anyone to own their property, including slaves. This is also why African-Americans, Native Americans, Jews, and others had equal rights to own slaves in the South. States had maintained legal slavery since before the Union was created. The world had accepted slavery for thousands of years. African slaves had no rights in Africa when they were enslaved.

Slavery also offered the owner freedom of another sort that we will discuss later. During an interview with historynet.com over his latest book on Lincoln, distinguished historian Eric Foner said, "To most white Southerners, owning a slave was not a contradiction to the idea of freedom, indeed rather the opposite, owning slaves made a person more free, it and enabled you to achieve the economic independence that all Americans thought was very important to freedom." 

States' Rights were just to protect Slavery

"The doctrine of States’ rights was never a mere pretense for slavery, but reflected a deep passion for self-government rooted in Southern culture as well as an earnest understanding of the Constitution rooted in Southern history."

-James Rutledge Rosch, From Founding Fathers to Fire Eaters; The Constitutional Doctrine of States Rights in the Old South Shotwell Publishing Columbia SC 2018

The claim that states' rights were just an excuse to preserve slavery is a common one. This claim was covered earlier, but additional information is needed since it is repeated so often. State's rights were vital to our Union, self-government, and our whole political system. Therefore, the next chapter also will be dedicated to this topic, and after reading it, this objection should dissipate. 

As with the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution did not allow the central Government to abolish slavery. If the South had left to preserve slavery alone, why did they also add additional powers to the states? If states' rights were to protect slavery, and slavery was protected, why the need for an even more decentralized Constitution? If the intention was to protect slavery, then the United States Constitution would have sufficed, and there would have been no need to create a document ensuring more vital states' rights.

When the Confederate government overreached into state matters on non-slavery issues during the civil war, states resisted it. This resulted in states like Georgia threatening to secede. After slavery had ended in the United States, the South still maintained the most robust states' rights philosophy in the country. 

The first state's rights advocates in the U.S., many of whom spoke out against slavery, were Southern men such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, St. George Tucker, George Mason, Patrick Henry, John Taylor of Caroline, and John Randolph. Patrick Henry called slavery "a lamentable evil,"but then said, "I deny that the general government ought to set them free." George Mason said, "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant." John Taylor of Caroline said, "The fact is that negro slavery is an evil which the United States must look in the face." 

 States' rights were also crucial to northern states before the civil war. There were Democrats in the North who were both for states' rights and against slavery. These two came together in the northern states' nullification of the fugitive slave laws. During the Civil War, Republicans wished to institute national banking, and many northern Democrats objected. Lazarus Powell stated, "The result of this course of legislation is to utterly destroy all the rights of the States. It is asserting a power which if carried out to its logical result would enable the national Congress to destroy every institution of the States and cause all power to be consolidated and concentrated here." No matter the issue, states had pushed back against federal overreach; slavery was simply one more area where the federal was intruding on the states' rights in 1860.

Preserving slavery was far from the primary goal of secessionists. During the war, Southern General Patrick Cleburne wanted to free all the slaves. Near the end of the war, Jefferson Davis sent diplomats to France and Britain, offering to end slavery if they would recognize the Confederacy.  Some Northern generals, like General George Thomas, were wealthy slave owners who fought for the North despite saying during the war, "I am wholly sick of states' rights." State's rights did not equal slavery. This misunderstanding comes from a post-war nationalistic approach to antebellum America. The next chapter will detail states' rights before the Civil War to help us understand why they were considered vital to self-government and the Union. 

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1]           See George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B McClellan 1864

[2]           For more info, see Jeb Stuart; The Last Cavalier by Burke Davis.

[3]           See "Man Over Money" the Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism by Bruce Palmer.

[4]           De Lagnel was appointed Brigadier General in the Confederate forces but for unknown reasons declined the rank, eventually rising to Lieutenant Colonel.

[5]           A party that has not changed in its modern form.

[6]           As the Kennedy’s described them.

The Confederate Constitution and the U.S. Civil War

During the U.S. Civil War, the Confederate States had their constitution. Here, Jeb Smith considers the constitution. He includes consideration of Confederate state sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and anti-discrimination.

This is part 4 in a series of extended articles from the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here, and part 3 on whether the Civil War was fought for slavery or States’ rights here.

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States, in 1862.

"When the dogmas of a sectional party...threatened to destroy the sovereign rights of the States, six of those States, withdrawing from the Union, confederated together to exercise the right and perform the duty of instituting a Government which would better secure the liberties for the preservation of which that Union was established."                   

-        Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address, Richmond, Virginia, 1862 

"It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholder's reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party."

-        Robert Divine, T.H Bren, George Fredrickson, and R Williams, America Past and Present, HarperCollins, 1995

The original states that left the Union did so as separate and sovereign republics but soon entered into a confederacy.[1] Their capital was located in Montgomery, Alabama. Delegates from the seceding states joined together and formed the Confederate Constitution on March 11, 1861. The South sought to restore the Constitution as the founders originally intended it to be. 

Confederate President Jefferson Davis said, "The constitution framed by our founders is that of these confederate states." When the state legislators of Texas joined the Confederacy, they informed the crowd gathered in Austin on April 1, 1861, that "The people will see that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America is copied almost entirely from the Constitution of the United States. The few changes made are admitted by all to be improvements. Let every man compare the new with the old and see for himself that we still cling to the old Constitution made by our fathers." As historian Marshall DeRosa summarized in Redeeming American Democracy, "The confederate revolution of 1861 was a reactionary revolution aimed at the restoration of an American democracy as embodied in the Constitution of 1789."

While the Confederate constitution was in many ways nearly identical to that of the old Union, the North had taught the South how a majority could eradicate constitutional liberty. Consequently, the Southern statesmen sought to prevent tyranny in their Confederacy. The Confederate Constitution differs from the United States constitution in various areas as the South sought to preserve self-government via diverse self-governing states. To accomplish this end, they strictly limited central powers. As a result, the differences between the documents can tell us about the causes that led to the Southern withdrawal. 

Confederate State Sovereignty

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America. 

-        Confederate Constitution Preamble 

The creators of the southern Constitution made it clear that the states were sovereign. In the Confederacy, no one would be able to claim that authority rested with the central government as Republicans had in the old Union. The United States Constitution reads, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." the Confederate version reads, "We the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character ..." 

As sovereign confederated states, they could exercise nullification or secession to protect their citizens from federal coercion. We will discuss nullification and secession in more detail in a later chapter, but they were the two antebellum modes of dealing with the federal government when it stepped past its delegated powers. In The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Confederate president Jefferson Davis wrote, "It was not necessary in the Constitution to affirm the right of secession, because it...was an attribute of sovereignty, and the states had reserved all which they had not delegated." The southern states that ratified the Confederate Constitution kept the right to secession in their state constitutions. For example, the Alabama state constitution reads:

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

According to a well-known secession document we call The Declaration of Independence, it is an inalienable right to have a government that represents you and not a distant majority or a powerful national party. Southerners believed this was no less true in 1861.

In response to claims made by Lincoln, the Confederate Constitution also declared that the people of the states had sovereignty and not the entirety of people. Each state was separate from the others and sovereign within its jurisdiction. Decentralization, or "states' rights," allowed multiple diverse sets of governments to coexist; it preserved self-governance and benefited "we the people." Decentralization, or localism, is based on populations creating laws organically for their benefit. To get a sense of what decentralization provides, imagine your preferred political party (not just your party, but your brand of the party) winning every election at every level. Not only that, you would not have to spend time and money fighting the other party to prevent men from gaining power that you don't want them to have. You could create unified blocs of society and live with like-minded people. 

On the other hand, centralization occurs when forces far from these self-governing localities impose their ways on numerous smaller localities because of their power and influence. In such a situation, the former free individuals, over time, lose their self-governance and ability to choose from a diverse set of customs. Instead, they become tools to benefit those in power in distant lands under the increasingly conformist policy. The only people decentralization harms are the powerful bureaucrats and politicians. They seek to plunder our wealth to redistribute it to friends and interest groups and purchase a voting bloc to maintain power. 

The Southern move towards decentralization is well known and widely accepted. For example, in Redeeming American Democracy, Confederate Constitution scholar Marshall DeRosa wrote, "The confederate framers placed the government firmly under the heads of the states." In The Confederate States of America, Southern historian E Merton Colter stated, "States rights dogma...produced secession and the confederacy." In his book Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E Lee, Michael Korda said the South's "first concern was states' rights." In Ken Burn's Civil War documentary, the narrator states, "The Confederacy was founded upon decentralization." Southern writer Lochlainn Seabrook, in his book The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, explained that the Confederacy put "emphasis on small government and states’ rights." Professor Marshall DeRosa quotes Judge Robertson of Confederate Virginia Supreme Court Case Burroughs v Peyton in 1864 as stating, "{The Confederate} Congress can have no such power over state officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states, the foundation of the Confederacy rests." 

The South removed the term "general welfare" from the preamble since Republicans used the term to claim the federal government had powers for their federally funded internal improvements. In the Confederate Constitution, the states had the right to recall powers delegated, not granted to Congress. The CSA's 10th amendment gave the state authority over the federal government. Due to the fact the states were sovereign, the Confederacy never even organized a supreme court.[2] When discussion in the South arose over a supreme court, William Yancy of Alabama said, "When we decide that the state courts are of inferior dignity to this court, we have sapped the main pillars of this confederacy." In The State Courts and the Confederate Constitution Journal of Southern History, J G DeRoulhac Hamilton wrote, "The fear of centralizing tendencies, past experiences under the federal supreme court, and a desire to protect states' rights led to the failure to establish a confederate supreme court." 

Further, the states, not Congress, had the power to amend the Constitution, and a state convention could occur to modify the Constitution without federal involvement. Just three states were needed to call a convention, so a minority section, as the South had been under the old Union, could prevent bullying by concentration of power within the Confederacy. 

The state officials elected senators to represent their states and appointed them to protect against federal officials, they were truly representing their states. They were not just another number to be counted in national party voting wars.[3] Confederate officials working in a state were subject to impeachment by that state. Even the country's capital would not be permanent but move from state to state to avoid centralizing power. 

There were no political parties within the Confederacy. Instead of power being handed over to bureaucrats, big industry, and private interest groups, the people would maintain control. The South, in general, disliked campaigns associated with elections, and the CSA Presidents could not be reelected for this reason. In 1861, Alexander Stephens told Virginians, "One of the greatest evils in the old government was the scramble for public offices—connected with the Presidential election. This evil is entirely obviated under the Constitution, which we have adopted."[4]

Fiscal Responsibility and Anti-Discrimination

"One leading idea runs through the whole—the preservation of that time-honored Constitutional liberty which they inherited from their fathers....the rights of the States and the sovereign equality of each is fully recognized—more fully than under the old Constitution...But all the changes—every one of them—are upon what is called the conservative side take the Constitution and read it, and you will find that every change in it from the old Constitution is conservative." 

-        Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, Speech to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861

The Confederate constitution was more libertarian economically than the U.S. version. In her article, Cash for Combat, published in the Americas Civil War magazine, Christine Kreiser wrote, "The Confederacy was founded on the proposition that the central government should stay out of its citizen's pockets." 

The federal government was extremely limited in its spending. The Constitution required fair trade, a uniform tax code, and omnibus bills to be restricted. Because subsidies and corporate bailouts were excluded, lobbyists and bureaucrats would struggle to advance their agendas. To avoid special favors for supporters and to disrupt the lifeblood of corruption and political parties, Congress would handle each bill separately to guarantee that politicians could not sneak in favors for their supporters. This would help encourage actual statesmen to represent their local communities (states) at the federal level instead of purchasing campaigning politicians working for political parties and capitalists. 

The post office had to be self-sufficient within two years of ratification. The CSA President had a line-item veto on spending, and no cost overruns were allowed on any contracts. These changes would help to hold elected officials accountable and keep them honest. Politicians would be forced to give an actual cost to a proposed bill, and if it were to exceed the price, they would be held accountable. A failed project due to cost overruns would not only devastate those who pushed for it, but would turn the voters against any future proposed endeavors. And a greater consensus was needed to pass expenditure bills in the first place.

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving an advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality."

-        Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21, 1861

Likewise, politicians could not steal from one section of the country and give to another; they could not set one section of people against another to plunder the despised section, and Congress could not foster any one branch of any industry over another. Speaking to the Virginia

Convention, Vice President Stephens said, "No money shall be appropriated from the common treasury for internal improvement, leaving all such matters for the local and state authorities. The tariff question is also settled." These changes would help stifle any internal hatred and anger caused by setting one section or party of the country against another. 

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.

[2]           Such was provided for in article III of the Confederate Constitution, but was never set up.

[3]           Of course this was also true of the United States at this time, the situation changing with the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.

[4]           For more examples of the CSA Constitution moving to decentralization, see Redeeming American Democracy Lessons From the Confederate Constitution by Professor Marshall DeRosa; The Confederate Constitution of 1861 An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism by Marshall DeRosa;; The Constitution of the Confederate States of America Explained, A Clause-by-Clause Study of the South's Magna Carta by Lochlainn Seabrook; and The Confederate States of America, 1861—1865 by E.Merton Coulter.

Bone Wars: The 19th Century’s Ruthless Competition for Dinosaur Fossils

Two paleontologists, one goal: to discover more species of dinosaurs than their opponent at all costs. The rivalry between Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope went down in history as the Bone Wars or the Great Dinosaur Rush. These names did not come from anywhere. As the conflict between paleontologists grew, a real hostility arose, which often pushed the rivals into unbecoming tricks for scientists. The ruthless fight for fossils was met with criticism from the American scientific community and fascination from the public opinion of the time. Through their persistence and determination, both scientists led to the discovery of a huge number of new species of dinosaurs, and the spectacle of their conflict made dinosaurs more popular than ever before.

Rafal Guminski explains

Othniel Charles Marsh & Edward Drinker Cope.

Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope: From friends to enemies

The participants in this unusual conflict came from very different backgrounds and had many differences. Othniel Charles Marsh was born on October 29, 1831, near Lockport, New York. He was the third child of Mary Gaines Peabody and Caleb Marsh, who were struggling with poverty. As a child, he began to show an interest in fossils and extinct species, influenced by the discovery of fossils during the expansion of the Erie Canal. Growing up, Othniel was unsure what career path he wanted to take, and his choices were limited by his family's financial problems.

The uncertain fate of the young man was changed by his uncle George Peabody, a financier and philanthropist, who financed his education at Phillips Academy. After graduation, Marsh enrolled at Yale, where he became deeply interested in vertebrate paleontology and published the first scientific papers on the minerals and fossils he discovered in Nova Scotia. Marsh turned down an offer of a professorship at Yale University and traveled around Europe, where he attended lectures and met eminent specialists in his field of science.

In 1863, while at the University of Berlin, Marsh met another American, Edward Drinker Cope, who was also on a scientific tour of Europe. Cope was born on July 28, 1840. He was the son of wealthy Quakers Alfred and Hannah Cope. He had a family reputation as a child prodigy with a talent for learning. This did not please his father, who would have preferred his son to follow the family tradition of farming. Edward intended to go his own way, which led him to the Academy of Natural Sciences, where he worked part-time cataloging specimens. In January 1859, Cope, barely 19, published his first scientific paper on the research he was developing. Alfred finally realized that there was no way he could have kept his son on the farm and decided to pay for his tuition at the University of Pennsylvania, as well as tutoring in German and French. Armed with a solid educational background, Cope became a member of the Academy of Natural Sciences, which opened the way to publish the results of his research.

Cope set off on a journey through European universities and museums at a similar time to Marsh. The scientists quickly took a liking to each other. They were united by their passion and the fact that they had avoided participation in the U.S. Civil War. Their backgrounds and scientific achievements were different – ​​Cope had no formal education and therefore no academic title. He would have been a paltry figure compared to his older colleague, except that the 25-year-old Cope already had 37 scientific papers to his name, while Marsh had only two. Cope was a violent and unpredictable man. Marsh was calmer and more thoughtful. However, both were equally quarrelsome and stubborn. The Americans spent several days together in Berlin, and after leaving the city, they exchanged letters, sent each other photos, and even found fossils.

The Bone Wars: Elasmosaurus and discoveries in Black Hills

At first, there was no indication that this friendship would turn into a deadly rivalry. After returning from Europe, Marsh convinced his wealthy uncle to fund the Peabody Museum of Natural History, of which he became director. Meanwhile, Cope became a professor of zoology at Haverford College. That all changed when the two scientists met at a dig in New Jersey, where some of the first dinosaur fossils in the United States were discovered. After the official dig was over, Marsh, using the fortune his deceased uncle left him, bribed workers at the marl pits to send him all the fossils they found. Soon the friends began to attack each other in publications, but it was Marsh who dealt the critical blow. He announced that Cope’s reconstruction of the skeleton of Elasmosaurus (a genus of plesiosaurus, a marine dinosaur) had one significant flaw. The head had been placed where the tail should have been and… he was right. Thus began a fierce and not always fair competition over which paleontologist would discover more new prehistoric species and put the other to shame.

Humiliated, Cope responded by conducting excavations in Kansas and Wyoming, which Marsh considered his territory. Any pretense of camaraderie and professionalism disappeared by 1873. The western United States was of great interest to paleontologists at that time, with reports of numerous finds coming from there. Marsh and Cope also discovered many fossils, but not all could be counted as "new." Many of the fossils were previously discovered specimens that had to be properly identified and classified. In this field, Marsh was the clear leader, who placed many completely unique species of mammals in a new order of mammals, which he called Cinocerea. Outclassed in the field of excavations, Cope decided to take the fight to the arena of nomenclature and proposed his own classification of mammals, which of course rejected his rival's proposal.

Marsh had no intention of accepting Cope's classification and once again took the fight to the excavations. He saw the opportunity for discovery in the Dakota Territory in the Black Hills, where gold had been discovered, which for a paleontologist meant a great chance of accidental finds. However, the tense relations between the government and the Native Americans living in the area proved to be a serious problem. Marsh, however, was determined to get involved in the conflict. He reached an agreement with Red Cloud, the chief of Oglala Lakota, to whom he promised that in return for permission to excavate, he would share with him the profit from the sale of fossils and support the Native American cause in Washington. Marsh obtained many valuable finds. He also fulfilled his part of the agreement and after the excavations were completed in 1875, he represented the Oglala Lakota and Red Cloud's cause to the Interior Department and President Ulysses S. Grant.

Como Bluff: Final showdown of the Bone Wars

Marsh's financial independence gave him a significant advantage over his rival. He could dig wherever and whenever he wanted. He also spared no penny for people who were the first to inform him about new discoveries. This is exactly what happened in 1877 in Wyoming, where during a hike on the Como Bluff ridge, Arthur Lakes, a teacher, noticed giant bones embedded in the rock. The discoverer reported the find to Marsh, who additionally paid him to keep it a secret. The excavations at Como Bluff turned out to be very successful for Marsh. In the December issue of the American Journal of Science, the scientist described, classified and named dinosaurs known to everyone today, such as: Stegosaurus, Allosaurus and Apatosaurus.

Such huge finds could not be kept a secret and eventually Cope also got his chance to discover. A real war broke out between teams of rival paleontologists. Bribery, espionage and theft were commonplace. There were also fights and throwing rocks at each other. Cope and Marsh were so eager to defeat their opponent that they would cover up explored areas to prevent their opponent from exploring them. Less significant or damaged fossils were destroyed just to prevent them from falling into the hands of their rival.

The excavations, carried out on a massive scale and without restraint, led to financial ruin for the rivals. The scientific world, tired of their spite and mockery damaging the reputation of American paleontology, turned its back on them. However, neither money nor the scientific community stopped Marsh and Cope from continuing their rivalry, which only ended with Cope's death in 1897. Even in the face of death, Cope decided to finally prove that he was better than Marsh, so he had his brain preserved and weighed in the hope that it would be larger than his rival's. Surprisingly, Marsh did not accept the challenge. He died two years later.

Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope left behind a huge scientific legacy. Although their hostile rivalry was senseless, it was also effective. Paleontologists discovered a total of 136 new species of dinosaurs including: Triceratops, Diplodocus, Camarasaurus and Coelophysis, 80 of which belong to Marsh. From the point of view of numbers, Marsh won the competition, but the contribution to the development and popularization of paleontology of both scientists is difficult to overestimate.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

·       Caparas G., The Bone Wars: How a Bitter Rivalry Gave the Spotlight to Paleontology, “Modern Sciences”, https://modernsciences.org/the-bone-wars-how-a-bitter-rivalry-gave-the-spotlight-to-paleontology/.

·       Colbert E. H., The Great Dinosaur Hunters and Their Discoveries, Dover Publications, Mineola 1984.

·       Jaffe M., The Gilded Dinosaur: The Fossil War Between E. D. Cope and O. C. Marsh and the Rise of American Science: Three Rivers Press, New York 2000.

·       Penick J., Professor Cope vs. Professor Marsh, “American Heritage” 22 (5), 2010.

·       Shor E., The Fossil Feud Between E. D. Cope and O. C. Marsh: Exposition Press, Detroit 1974.

·       Switek B., The Bone Wars: how a bitter rivalry drove progress in palaeontology, “Science Focus’, https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/the-bone-wars-how-a-bitter-rivalry-drove-progress-in-palaeontology.

·       Wallace D.R., The Bonehunters' Revenge: Dinosaurs, Greed, and the Greatest Scientific Feud of the Gilded Age, Houghton Mifflin Books, Boston 1999.

·       Wilford, J. N., The Fossil Wars, “New York Times”, 1999, November 7.

Andrew Johnson and The Reconstruction Fiasco

Andrew Johnson assumed the presidency of the United States shortly after the conclusion of the Civil War, following the tragic assassination of Abraham Lincoln. His sudden rise to power presented him with the daunting task of determining the fate of the former Confederacy, its people, and its leaders. This unexpected turn of events placed him in the midst of one of the most critical challenges in the nation's history, thrusting him into the spotlight despite his relatively obscure background. His lack of preparation has echoed down through the ages.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

An engraving of President Andrew Johnson.

Rise to the Presidency

Johnson was born into poverty and did not have the opportunity to attend school. Despite this, he apprenticed as a tailor and worked in various frontier towns before settling in Greeneville, Tennessee. Although he never received a formal education, he compensated by hiring others to read to him while he worked and his wife also assisted him in learning. Johnson possessed a remarkable memory and a talent for public speaking, qualities that were highly valued during that time and served as an advantage in his political career. He began his political journey as a town alderman and mayor, eventually moving on to serve in the state house and senate before being elected to Congress.

Johnson's stance during the secession of the Southern slave states, including Tennessee, demonstrated his unwavering loyalty to the Union. Despite the secession, he remained in his position as a senator, distinguishing himself as the only sitting senator from a Confederate state who did not resign upon secession. His commitment to the Union was further solidified when he was appointed as the Military Governor of Tennessee by Lincoln in 1862. Johnson's dedication to national unity was evident when he was chosen as Lincoln's running mate in the 1864 election, becoming vice president after a successful campaign that emphasized the importance of unity in a divided nation.

With the defeat of Lee's and Johnston's armies, along with the capture of Richmond and Jefferson Davis, the Union had prevailed in the war. But now the great question was how to craft a successful peace. The focus shifted to the challenging task of establishing a lasting peace. The tragic assassination of Abraham Lincoln added another layer of complexity to the situation, as Andrew Johnson assumed the Presidency amidst a nation grappling with grief and uncertainty.

Lincoln’s Concept of Reconstruction

The post-war period presented a multitude of complex issues for Lincoln and other leaders to address. Questions arose regarding the duration of the occupation, the terms for readmitting seceding states, and the division of responsibilities between the legislative and executive branches in shaping the future of the nation. Additionally, the status of newly emancipated Black citizens in the South and across the country posed significant legal and social challenges that demanded careful consideration.

Lincoln's approach emphasized the swift reintegration of the Southern states into the Union, recognizing the importance of jumpstarting the region's economy and avoiding prolonged occupation. While acknowledging the deep-seated racial tensions in the South, Lincoln believed in the potential for southern unionism to facilitate a speedy reconciliation. The abolition of slavery marked a significant moral victory, yet the practical implications of this monumental change required thoughtful deliberation to ensure a stable and just post-war society.

The "10% Plan" served as Lincoln’s initial policy principle, whereby once 10% of the voters in a state had pledged their allegiance to the United States and committed to emancipation, delegates could be elected to draft new state constitutions and establish state governments. This approach, first implemented in Louisiana during the autumn of 1862, granted a full pardon to most Southerners, excluding high-ranking Confederate army officers and government officials. General Benjamin Butler was tasked by Lincoln to oversee elections in New Orleans for the two seats in the US House of Representatives within the occupied territory.

The 10% Plan gained significant popularity due to its political astuteness. Radical Republicans supported it as it ensured emancipation, while conservative Republicans endorsed it for its potential to expedite reunification. As the New York Herald aptly noted, the art of balancing two opposing forces was exemplified: “… the trick of riding two horses wasn’t limited to the circus.”

With Union forces gradually gaining control over Southern regions, Lincoln implemented this wartime measure to reinstate state governments. The plan aimed to incentivize a swift end to the war and advance his emancipation objectives, as it offered protection for private property but not for slaves.

The Wade-Davis Agreement, or Congress's Response to the Ten Percent Plan

Congress felt that Lincoln's measures would allow the South to maintain life as it had before the war. Their measure required a majority – more than 50% not just 10% -- in former Confederate states to take an Ironclad Oath, which essentially said that they had never in the past supported the Confederacy. The bill passed both houses of Congress on July 2, 1864, but Lincoln pocket vetoed it, and it never took effect.

After Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865, Congress had the advantage in shaping policy regarding the South. It imposed the tougher requirements for re-admission advocated in the Wade-Davis Bill, resulting in a prolonged and unsuccessful Reconstruction era.

"Restoration": President Johnson's Plan for Reconstruction

Following Abraham Lincoln's death, President Johnson based his reconstruction plan on Lincoln's 10% plan. Johnson implemented his own form of Presidential Reconstruction, a series of proclamations directing the seceded states to hold conventions and elections to reform their civil governments. His plan called for granting amnesty and returning people's property if they pledged to be loyal to the United States. He issued the Amnesty Proclamation on May 29, 1865.

Southern states returned many of their old leaders and passed Black Codes to deprive the freedmen of many civil liberties, but Congressional Republicans refused to seat legislators from those states and advanced legislation to overrule the Southern actions. Johnson vetoed their bills, and Congressional Republicans overrode him, setting a pattern for the remainder of his presidency.

Johnson's concept of Reconstruction was characterized by a lenient approach towards the Southern states that had seceded during the Civil War. He aimed to restore the Southern states to the Union as quickly as possible. He believed that the states had never truly left the Union, and thus, their return should be relatively straightforward. He preferred minimal federal intervention in the South’s affairs. He granted widespread pardons to former Confederates who pledged loyalty to the Union, except for high-ranking officials and wealthy planters, although many of these were eventually pardoned as well. He also thought that Southern states should be allowed to manage their own Reconstruction, including the establishment of new governments and the creation of laws and constitutions. This allowed many pre-war political leaders and elites to regain power.

Johnson did not prioritize the protection or expansion of rights for newly freed African Americans. He opposed the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship and equal protection under the law to former slaves, and vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, though Congress overrode his veto. Johnson's opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves, further fueled the conflict with Congress.

Terms of the Amnesty

The Confederate states were required to uphold the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery; swear loyalty to the Union; and pay off their war debt. Then they could re-write their state constitutions, hold elections, and begin sending representatives to Washington.

Confederate leaders would have to apply directly to President Johnson in order to request pardon. Johnson issued over 13,000 pardons during his administration, and he passed several amnesty proclamations. The last one, issued Christmas Day 1868, granted sweeping pardons to former Confederates, including former Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

It required that half of all former Confederate states voters swear allegiance to the US and swear that they never supported the Confederacy.  It expressly said that “each officer and man will be allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside".

*********************************************************************************

There were 14 classes of exemption. These former political and military leaders had to apply to the president for a special pardon.

“The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation:

First – All who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers, or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended Confederate Government.

Second – All who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion.

Third – All who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate Government above the rank of Colonel in the army or Lieutenant in the navy.

Fourth – All who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion.

Fifth – All who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States, to evade duty in resisting the rebellion.

Sixth – All who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities.

Seventh – All persons who have been or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.

Eighth – All military and naval officers in the rebel service who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point, or the United States Naval Academy.

Ninth – All persons who held the pretended offices of Governors of States in insurrection against the United States.

Tenth – All persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the so-called Confederate States, for the purpose of aiding the rebellion.

Eleventh – All parties who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States.

Twelfth – All persons who at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military or naval authorities or agents of the United States, as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offences of any kind either before or after conviction.

Thirteenth – All persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars.

Fourteenth – All persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President's Proclamation of December 8, A.D., 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the Government of the United States since the dates of said proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate – provided that special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes, and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States.”

References:

https://thereconstructionera.com/pres-andrew-johnsons-proclamation-of-amnesty-and-reconstruction-may-1865/

https://www.nps.gov/anjo/andrew-johnson-and-reconstruction.htm

*********************************************************************************

Congressional Reconstruction, or the Military Reconstruction Acts

Johnson's policies brought him into conflict with the Radical Republicans in Congress, who sought harsher measures for Reconstruction and greater protections for freedmen. This opposition eventually led to his impeachment, though he was acquitted by a single vote in the Senate. Johnson's view was that the war had been fought to preserve the Union, as it was ant bellum. With the war over, he planned to rebuild the country as quickly as possible. He formulated a lenient plan, based on Lincoln's earlier 10% plan, to allow the Southern states to begin holding elections and sending representatives back to Washington.

His amnesty proclamations, however, emboldened former Confederate leaders to regain their former seats of power in local and national governments, fueling tensions with freedmen in the South and Republican lawmakers in the North.

Congressional opposition to Johnson’s policies was primarily the Radical Republicans, a faction within the Republican Party. The Radical Republicans were a group of legislators who advocated for a more stringent and transformative approach to Reconstruction compared to Johnson’s lenient policies. Key figures among his congressional opposition included:

·       Thaddeus Stevens: A powerful member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, Stevens was one of the leading Radical Republicans. He championed civil rights for freed slaves and was a principal architect of the Reconstruction Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment

·       Charles Sumner: A senator from Massachusetts, Sumner was another prominent Radical Republican. He was a strong advocate for equal rights and suffrage for African Americans and played a significant role in pushing for harsher measures against the former Confederate states

·       Benjamin Wade: As President pro tempore of the Senate, Wade was next in line for the presidency during Johnson’s impeachment trial. He was a firm supporter of Radical Reconstruction and believed in using federal power to enforce civil rights and rebuild the South

The Radical Republicans held several key principles that aimed to fundamentally reshape Southern society and ensure the rights of freed slaves. Their approach contrasted sharply with President Andrew Johnson’s lenient policies. There was also a desire among Radical Republicans to punish the former Confederacy and prevent its leaders from regaining power. This included disenfranchising many former Confederates and barring them from holding public office.

Republicans believed in securing civil rights for African Americans. This included passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted citizenship and equal protection under the law to former slaves. They also supported the Fourteenth Amendment, which enshrined these protections in the Constitution. Republicans advocated for the right to vote for African American men. The Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, prohibited denying a citizen the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Republicans sought to reshape Southern state governments to reflect loyalty to the Union and to ensure the participation of African Americans in the political process. This often meant displacing the pre-war Southern elite from power and instituting new state constitutions that guaranteed civil rights and suffrage for African Americans. They aimed to integrate African Americans into the economic and social fabric of the nation. This included support for institutions like the Freedmen’s Bureau, which assisted former slaves in the form of education, healthcare, and employment opportunities.

To enforce these policies and protect the rights of freedmen, Republicans supported the use of federal troops in the South. The Reconstruction Acts of 1867 divided the South into military districts, where the army oversaw the establishment of new state governments and ensured compliance with federal laws. Passed on March 2nd, 1867, the first Military Reconstruction Act divided the ex-Confederate states into five military districts and placed them under martial law with Union Generals governing. The act also directed that former Southern states seeking to reenter the Union must ratify the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to be considered for readmission. The 14th Amendment granted individuals born in the United States their citizenship, including nearly 4 million freedmen. The Military Reconstruction Act also protected the voting rights and physical safety of African Americans exercising their rights as citizens of the United States.

The Conflict

Andrew Johnson and Congress failed to reach an agreement on a strategy to rebuild the nation after the devastating Civil War. The disparity between Congressional Reconstruction, as detailed in the Military Reconstruction Acts, and Johnson's Presidential Restoration plan was evident. Johnson pursued his own version of Reconstruction, issuing proclamations instructing the seceded states to organize conventions and elections to establish new civil governments.

The Southern states, under Johnson's administration, reinstated many of their former leaders and enacted Black Codes that restricted the rights of freedmen. However, Congressional Republicans refused to recognize the legislators from these states and passed laws to counteract the Southern measures. Johnson consistently vetoed these bills, only to be overridden by Congress, leading to a contentious relationship between the branches of government throughout his presidency.

His attempts to remove Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, in defiance of the Tenure of Office Act, resulted in his impeachment by the House of Representatives. Although he narrowly escaped conviction in the Senate, the power struggle between Johnson and Congress continued to shape the Reconstruction era. Additionally, the establishment of the Freedmen's Bureau by the War Department played a crucial role in providing relief and support to refugees and freedmen in the aftermath of the war.

The establishment of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, commonly known as the Freedmen's Bureau, took place on March 3rd, 1865, under the War Department's jurisdiction. Its primary responsibilities included overseeing relief efforts and educational initiatives for refugees and freedmen. This encompassed the distribution of essential provisions such as food, clothing, and medicine. Additionally, the Bureau assumed control over confiscated lands and properties in various regions, including the former Confederate States, border states, the District of Columbia, and Indian Territory.

The Outcome

The Radical Republicans prevailed in implementing their vision of Reconstruction for the first few years after the war. They succeeded in passing significant legislation and constitutional amendments that reshaped the South and sought to protect the rights of African Americans. These included The Civil Rights Act of 1866, Reconstruction Acts of 1867, and other laws that aimed to rebuild the South and integrate African Americans into political and social life. Additionally, The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, which abolished slavery, granted citizenship and equal protection, and protected voting rights for African Americans were passed Military oversight and the Freedmen's Bureau played critical roles in enforcing these changes, and opposing violent groups in the South. The Congressional Plan of Reconstruction was eventually adopted and remained in effect until 1877.

However, in the longer term, the Radical Republicans' achievements were significantly rolled back during the late 1870s. The disputed 1876 presidential election resulted in a compromise in which Republican Rutherford B. Hayes became president in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South. This effectively ended Reconstruction. Southern white Democrats, known as "Redeemers," regained control of state governments. They systematically dismantled Reconstruction-era reforms and restored white supremacy through laws, violence, and intimidation. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the establishment of Jim Crow laws, which enforced racial segregation and disenfranchised African Americans. These laws undid many of the advances made during Reconstruction. In conclusion, while the Radical Republicans initially succeeded in imposing their Reconstruction policies, their gains were largely undone by the end of the 19th century, leading to nearly a century of segregation and disenfranchisement for African Americans in the South.

A Better Plan?

Extending the period of federal military presence and oversight in the South could have provided more protection for African Americans and ensured the implementation of Reconstruction policies. This would have helped prevent the rise of white supremacist groups and the rollback of civil rights gains.

Providing substantial economic support to freed slaves, such as land redistribution (e.g., the "40 acres and a mule" promise), would have given them a stronger economic foundation. This could have involved breaking up large plantations and distributing land to former slaves, ensuring they had the means to achieve economic independence. Investing more in education and social services for African Americans would have helped integrate them into American society and economy. The Freedmen's Bureau, which provided education and assistance, could have been expanded and extended. Ensuring the protection of African American voting rights through continued federal oversight and enforcement mechanisms would have been crucial. This could have included measures to prevent voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, such as federal oversight of elections and strict penalties for violations. Building broader political coalitions that included poor whites who might have also benefited from economic reforms could have helped sustain Reconstruction efforts. This would involve addressing class issues alongside racial issues to create more progressive change.

Ideally, a comprehensive land reform program should have been implemented, granting freed slaves their own plots of land for agricultural purposes. The planter class should have lost their privileges and influence. However, the Federal government was keen on expediting the recovery of the southern economy, often prioritizing revenue generation over social justice.

What followed the end of Reconstruction led to a regression in the limited progress achieved in terms of equality, and many of the issues surrounding Reconstruction continue to persist in American society today.

Find that piece of interest? If so, say ‘thank you’ for 12 years of great free content on the site by donating here.

The Moon Eyed People: Legends of Southern Appalachia

The legend of the moon eyed people of southern Appalachia has captivated the imaginations of Cherokee Native Americans as well as European settlers, and modern residents of the region alike. The Cherokee legend proclaims that long before the Cherokee people came to the mountains of the southeast, another race of people called the moon eyed people lived in caves and atop the mountains in large forts. Roy Williams explains.

John Sevier.

The moon eyed people were supposedly nocturnal and could not see well during the day, they also supposedly had pale skin due to their lack of exposure to sunlight. Certain stone structures such as the one at Fort Mountain in northwest Georgia are associated with this legend. The Cherokee legend claimed that the moon eyed people and the Cherokee went to war in the past and eventually the Cherokee drove them out from their mountainous territory. This myth captivated the minds of early European settlers who used this myth to claim the ahistorical connection that a previous white race had built the large stone structures in the Appalachian Mountains that the Cherokee claimed the moon eyed people had built.

The legend of the moon eyed people gives us a unique window into the minds of early European settlers in North America. The claim that a previous white race built the stone structures on the mountaintops of southern Appalachia such as the one at fort mountain spread like wildfire as it entered the public consciousness for Euro Americans. The legend was augmented and reconfigured to argue that the moon eyed people were a lost colony of Welsh men who were descendants of the Welsh prince Madoc who supposedly sailed to the Americas long before Christopher Columbus. This legend spread so prolifically that President Thomas Jefferson included correspondence to Lewis and Clarke indicating that they should keep their eyes open for evidence of “Welsh Indians” in their exploration of the territories included in the Louisiana Purchase.

John Sevier

John Sevier was the first governor of Tennessee between 1803 and 1809. Sevier fought in the Cherokee and Chickamauga wars as Euro-American settlers pushed further into Cherokee territory. Sevier supposedly interacted with a Cherokee chief named Ocotosota in the mid-1780s. The source claims that Ocotosota said that he, "told of the fort being built by white men from across the great water."  Ocotosota told him that the ruins atop fort mountain were built by white men known as the moon eyed people. This source however is difficult to determine in reliability since chief Ocotosota died in 1783, probably before governor Sevier ever interacted with him.

Benjamin Smith Barton’s book, New Views of the Origin of the Tribes and Nations of America (1797) is another source for these early interactions between the Cherokee and Euro-Americans settlers in describing the myth of the moon eyed people. Barton citing colonel Leonard Marbury describes the story in which the Cherokee expelled the moon eyed people from the mountains of southern Appalachia. Marbury recounts that, "the Cheerake tell us, that when they first arrived in the country which they inhabit, they found it possessed by certain 'moon-eyed-people,' who could not see in the day-time. These wretches they expelled." While this source has issues in determining its validity due to the separation of experience between Barton and Marbury, it does provide another clue into the legend of the moon eyed people and early Euro-American colonial thought.

Cultural significance

The legend of the moon eyed people should not be doubted when considering the cultural significance it plays to the Cherokee people. However, early Euro-American settlers’ perception of this myth should be scrutinized appropriately. The legend of the moon eyed people bears a striking resemblance to the mound builder myth which proliferated in early colonial America and into the 19th century. Native Americans told Euro-American settlers that they had not built the mounds throughout the United States. Archeological and historical research has proved the Mississippian civilization of North America built these structures hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before contemporary Native Americans came to live in these regions such as the Creek and Cherokee people. Euro-Americans settlers took this to mean that a previous advanced white civilization had constructed these structures. The legend of the moon eyed people follows the same trajectory. Euro-American used these structures to create a narrative, from the mounds built by the Mississippians to the enigmatic structures on Fort Mountain in Northwest Georgia to lay claim over the Americas in establishing their legitimacy as heirs to the lands. The mound builder myth has been refuted by archeological surveys proving that the Mississippian civilization built these structures. The ruins atop fort mountain will probably follow the same fate as a forgotten ceremonial or defensive structure built by Native Americans in the distant past. The legend of the moon eyed people endures as an important element of Cherokee culture, however any pseudohistorical claims about lost Welsh princes or ancient white civilizations in North America must be cast aside as a byproduct of the racial ideology of early European settlers.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

Tibbs, David (2008). "Legends of Fort Mountain: The Moon-Eyed People / Prince Madoc of Wales". Historical Marker Database. Retrieved April 30, 2013.

"Forsyth County News ('Fort Mountain')". Archived from the original on February 4, 2021. Retrieved February 4, 2021.

Barton, Benjamin Smith, M.D. (1797). New views of the origin of the tribes and nations of America. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Bioren for the author. p. xliv. at Internet Archive

Feder, Kenneth L. (2005). "The Myth of the Moundbuilders" (PDF). Frauds, Myths, And Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology. Central Connecticut State Univ: McGraw Hill. pp. 151–155, 159–160, 164–166. ISBN 978-0-07-286948-4. Retrieved May 19, 2012.

Was the U.S. Civil War Fought for Slavery or States’ Rights?

When it comes to slavery's involvement in secession, most everyone fits comfortably within one of two groups, neither of which is correct. The first argues that slavery had nothing to do with secession; the other claims slavery was the sole cause. Jeb Smith explains.

This is part 3 in a series of extended articles form the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, and part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here.

General John Gordon.

"Slavery is only one of the minor issues and the cause of the war, the whole cause, on our part is the maintenance of the independence of these states....neither tariffs, nor slavery, nor both together, could ever been truly called the cause of the secession.... the sovereign independence of our states. This, indeed, includes both these minor questions, as well as many others even greater and higher." 

-Daily Richmond Examiner August 2, 1864, quoted in Rosch, From Founding Fathers to Fire Eaters Shotwell Publishing 2018

"In his message, Mr. Lincoln announced a great political discovery. It was that all former statesmen of America had lived, and written, and labored under a great delusion that the States, instead of having created the Union, were its creatures; that they obtained their sovereignty and independence from it, and never possessed either until the Convention of 1787."

-Edward A Pollard The Lost Cause : A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates E. B. Treat & Co. Publishers NY 1866

Slavery had varying degrees of influence on the Deep South's decision to secede.[1] There is no question that some in the South were willing to leave the Union to preserve slavery if it came to that. Southern slave owners viewed northern abolitionists as foreign invaders dictating their lives. To Southerners, slavery was a constitutional, Biblical, and state right, and no Northern radical was to have greater authority. Thomas Jefferson said that slavery was "The exclusive right of every state." 

The Cotton States had great economic importance riding on slavery, Mississippi alone had four billion dollars’ worth of value invested in slaves, and almost the whole economic system of the state depended on slavery. They wished to defend the financial system that had brought them so much prosperity. Yet even in Mississippi, slavery was not the sole cause of secession. James McPherson quotes the Jackson Mississippian, "Let not slavery prove a barrier to our independence...although slavery is one of the principles that we started to fight for... if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it."

As I have already mentioned, I think that many causes led to the secession of the Deep South. Yet, I would not wholly disagree if someone were to say that slavery was the leading cause of withdrawal in the Deep South. But there is a vast difference between saying that the South left solely to keep slaves in bondage and saying that the federal intrusion on the states' rights over the issue of slavery was the leading cause of separation. Many overstate slavery's involvement in the Deep South secession because slavery was the "occasion" to which the fight over the nature of the Union was fought.

"That institution is not a cause of this war, but simply an occasion of it. It is only the object against which the radicalism of the North has arrayed itself in Abolitionism. Had not this object existed, that Dragon from the bottomless pit, would have discovered some other eminence of Southern life, on which to expend its fury. We are leading the great battle for the sum of modern history--for the regulated liberty and civilization of the age. It is conservative religion against atheism--constitutional law against fanatical higher law--social stability against destructive radicalism."

-Rev. William A. Hall, The Historic Significance of the Southern Revolution Printed by A. F. Crutchfield Petersburg Virginia 1864

The leading cause of separation was not preserving something these states already had legal protection for, that is, slavery. Instead, it was the federal expansion past its constitutional limits and encroachments upon the states' rights. Is the federal government restricted to the powers given in the Constitution? Or was it released to step outside of its delegated powers, thus nullifying the Constitution and limited government? In 1864 Confederate general Patrick Cleburne said, "Between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter. Give up the negro slave rather than be a slave himself."

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

-10th amendment U.S. Constitution

"The Constitution... contains no grant of power to the Federal Government to interfere with this species of property...slave property rests upon the same basis, and is entitled to the same protection, as every other description of property." 

-Isham G. Harris Call for a Referendum on a Tennessee Secession Convention January 7, 1861

In 1862 Rose Greenhow wrote, "Slavery, although the occasion, was not the producing cause of dissolution." R.L.Dabney wrote, "Slavery was not the cause, but the occasion of strife...Rights of the states were the bulwarks of the liberties of the people, but that emancipation by federal aggression would lead to the destruction of all other rights." Just as decades earlier, John Calhoun had identified the tariff of abominations as "The occasion, rather than the real cause" of dispute. The real issue was over a limited central government.

Where you stand on the "real cause" will necessarily cause disagreement on any issue that arises; a national bank, internal improvements, slavery and so on. If the two sides fundamentally disagreed on the Constitution and the purpose of the central government, they could then never agree on any of these side issues. In Virginia Iliad, H.V Traywick quotes an article in the N.Y. Times on April 8, 1861, saying, "Slavery has nothing whatever to do with the tremendous issues now awaiting decision...The question which we have to meet is precisely what it would be if there were not a negro slave on American soil." 

Since the ratification of the Constitution, a conflict had been fought over whether we were to maintain a federated republic as understood by the states or if we were to become a centralized nation to benefit the most powerful interests and political parties. This debate raged politically on many battlefields before 1860. However, slavery was the chosen battleground of the nationalists in the fight to transform the Union in 1860. Instead of just a political issue, they would transform it into a moral issue.

The Republicans violated the Constitution and the Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 Supreme Court ruling by trying to decide the fate of slavery by federal rather than state and individual control. Democratic plank 9 of the 1852 elections plainly stated that an attack on slavery was an attack on states' rights; you cannot separate the two issues. You cannot have the federal government decide on slavery without it greatly exceeding its original intent and purpose. 

That the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers. 

Democratic Plank 1 1852

That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences.  

Democrat Plank 9 1852 

The South viewed slaves the same way they did any other legal property. If the Government interfered with slaves, what would stop them from doing the same with any other property? If this violation by the Federal Government were allowed to happen, no rights would be safe: The Constitution would then be of no value. The Union of states that delegated certain limited powers to the Federal Government would be destroyed. And finally the Government would become limitless in power.

If the government was allowed to abandon any of its limitations, it would begin to dictate all manner of regulations and exert jurisdiction it previously was never considered to have. After a quick look at our lives today, who can say the South was incorrect in their assessment? The effects of the federal government stepping into areas past its jurisdiction delegated by the states are commonplace today. The Constitution is set aside so long as the masses' emotions are stirred over any one topic. Politicians and media provoke the mob, and no Constitution or ideas about limited Government can stop them. We have become an unlimited democracy ruled by a mob; the North destroyed the old Republic and Constitution in 1860. As a result, most outlaws in America today are found among elected officials and judges, and we simply accept their lawlessness because we have grown accustomed to servitude. 

Well before the war, on July 4 1854, famed abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison publicly burned a copy of the Constitution and spoke of it as a "Covenant with Death,  an agreement with Hell." Abolitionist John Brown seceded from the Union and created his own anti-slavery provisional Constitution. In the book, The South Vindicated from the Treason and Fanaticism of the Northern Abolitionists 1836; former South Carolinian congressman William Drayton wrote, "The abolitionists in urging their designs against the South, are guilty of infringing the acknowledged rights of those states ...it looks to revolution, it teaches that the constitution "is null and void" when opposed to their schemes." In other words, whatever the issue was, the Constitution could take a back seat if it impeded the political agenda of the day. 

An unregulated democracy, such as our Government today, has more power and violates our rights more than when we were under King George; it is not even comparable. In Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists, Al Benson Jr and Walter Kennedy write, "By focusing upon slavery, the bona fide story of the death of real states’ rights and the beginning of Imperial America is overlooked...we stand naked before the awesome power of our federal master."

Unlike today, antebellum America was a time when the federal government did not spread into the dominion of the states. Through the states, people were allowed self-rule and self-governance. Southerners understood that if the federal government was allowed to infringe on the states' rights on the issue of slavery, it would become an authoritarian body that no longer followed its limitations under the Constitution. These were the costs of the South's defeat in the Civil War; self-governance, and limited government. 

To desire a limited government and maintain the Constitution as handed down for generations, one did not need to be pro-slavery. Northerner writer Frederick Law Olmsted opposed slavery but objected to abolishing it "by federal edict." In 1864, Vermont Bishop John Henry Hopkins wrote, A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery, where he supported the South and the compact theory of the Union, arguing for gradual and consensual abolition.

Southerners heeded the warnings of the Founders. In a letter to Charles Hammond on August 18, 1821, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "When all Government domestic and foreign in little as in great things shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one Government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the Government from which we separated."

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries, thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

– Thomas Jefferson, "Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank" February 15, 1791 

A government of unlimited or undefined powers will eventually become totalitarian. This was widely known amongst Southerners. Thomas Jefferson believed that states' rights were the best protection to preserve liberty and a republican form of Government. John Taylor of Caroline warned, "If a government can take some, it may take all." St. George Tucker taught, "Power when undefined, soon becomes unlimited." In the first annals of Congress, James Jackson said, "We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government." James Rosch quotes John Randolph of Roanoke addressing Congress "If they begin with declaring one law of one state unconstitutional, where were they to stop? They might go on until the state governments, stripped of all authority...a great consolidated empire established upon their ruins...in such a contest the states must fall, and when they did fall, there was an end of all republican Government in the country." 

In other words, the only method to prevent an unlimited government is to counter all minor steps it takes beyond its authority. To do so, there must be a check from outside the government itself since it will not limit its own powers, only expand them. In our federated Republic, this check was the state governments who were to maintain the Founders’ principles for their peoples. Future president John Adams, a Massachusetts federalist, agreed that arbitrary power could not be left unchecked;

"Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterward. The nature of the encroachment upon the American Constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society. "

– John Adams, Novanglus Letters, 1774 

The claim that the Deep South left the Union to preserve slavery does not make sense; no one was trying to abolish slavery within those states. In his book, The Yankee Problem, Clyde Wilson quotes Horace Greeley at the 1860 Republican convention saying, "An anti-slavery man per se cannot be elected, but a tariff, river-and -harbor- Pacific Railroad, free homestead man, may succeed although he is anti-slavery." Historian David Donald wrote, "No responsible political body in the north in 1860 proposed to do anything at all about slavery where it actually existed." On Tuesday, March 5, 1861, the N.Y. Times editorial (which celebrated Lincoln's inaugural) said the president’s address was "explicit and emphatic in its guarantees to the alarming interest of the southern states." Lincoln "Disavowed all thought" of "interfering with slavery in any state where it exists."

On September 23, 1862, the N.Y. Times printed the preliminary emancipation proclamation with a headline that read, "the war still to be prosecuted for the restoration of the union." And in a letter to the federal minister in Paris, the secretary of the state William Seward wrote, "The condition of slavery in the several States will remain just the same, whether it succeeds or fails. The rights of the States, and the condition of every human being in them, will remain subject to exactly the same laws and form of administration, whether the revolution shall succeed or whether it shall fail." Union generals such as McClellan and McDowell returned fugitive slaves to their masters during the war.  

Since slavery wasn't being threatened where it existed in the Union, it would be hard to accept that Southerners would fight a war and leave the country just to have slavery extended into new territories. In fact, if slavery were extended, it would provide more competition to the southern slave state's monopoly on cotton. In 1843 many wealthy southern planters and men, such as John Calhoun, voted against Texas joining the Union because they said it would reduce the price of cotton. Furthermore, the South forfeited federal protection for their runaway slaves under the fugitive slave laws by leaving the Union. They were also giving up their right to bring slaves into the territories of the United States. 

If the South fought only to preserve slavery, with no regard for states' rights, they could have remained in the Union. During the war, Lincoln told southerners if they laid down arms, they could come back into the Union with slavery intact. Even the Emancipation Proclamation was an attempt to reconcile slave states back in the Union. John Cannan in The Peninsula Campaign writes, "The emancipation proclamation was actually an offer permitting the south to stop fighting and return to the union by January 1 and still keep its slaves," and the South understood it as such. In July 1863, a Raleigh newspaper stated, "Peace now would save slavery, while a continued war would obliterate the last vestiges of it." Confederate Major General John Gordon wrote, "At any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union" Yet, for other reasons mentioned, the South chose to continue the fight.

Slavery was permitted in the South, but that does not mean it was always celebrated. Today we have legalized abortion, perhaps some view abortion as many southerners viewed slavery, as a necessary evil. 

Virginia freed more slaves before the Civil War than New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New England combined. South Carolinian Mary Chestnut said that slavery was a curse, yet she supported secession. She and others hoped the war would end with a "Great independent country with no slavery." But for the typical Southerner, the issue over slavery was much more profound as it involved states' rights and the nature of the Union.

"When the Government of the United States disregarded and attempted to trample upon the rights of the States, Georgia set its power at defiance and seceded from the Union rather than submit to the consolidation of all power in the hands of the Central or Federal Government." 

-Joseph E Brown Georgia Governor to Jefferson Davis over the Conscription act 1862

In antebellum America, the states resisted federal expansion in various ways. The first issue between central and state governments arose over the alien and sedition acts. Later problems involved internal improvements, national banking, conscription, protective tariffs, land disputes, freedom of speech, free trade, state control of the militia, fugitive slave laws, etc. No matter the subject, states generally held firm and fought against federal expansions. The South was doing what states had done in antebellum America, resisting national expansion when it went past its constitutional bounds. The outcomes of the Republican victory have resulted in our current overbearing government, which has no regard for its ostensibly limited powers, proving the South correct.

"The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. With complete sincerity, the South fought to preserve its version of the republic of the Founding Fathers--a government of limited powers that protected the rights of property, including slave property, and whose constituency comprised an independent gentry and yeomanry of the white race undisturbed by large cities, heartless factories, restless free workers, and class conflict. The accession of the Republican party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian, free-labor capitalism, was a signal to the South that the Northern majority had turned irrevocably toward this frightening future."

-James M. McPherson  Ante-bellum Southern Exceptionalism A New Look at an Old Question Kent State U Press 1983

South Carolina Secession Document

"The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of confederated republics, but of a consolidated Democracy... the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away; and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations."

-Address of South Carolina to Slave-Holding States, Convention of South Carolina 1860

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union. If the state declaration of the causes of secession is read in full, it gives an excellent example of slavery as a state's rights issue. In the document, quoting from a resolution of the state convention of 1852, it was declared "That the frequent violations of the constitution by the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union." At that time they had refrained, but their situation had only worsened and they could no longer remain. In their declaration of the causes of independence, the writers wanted it known that state rights were the true motivator of secession. That is why at first glance through the text, you will see "FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES," with minor variations in the phrasing, capitalized three times in the document.

The document goes into the history of states' rights in America. It mentions the federal government's failure to uphold the Constitution and the government's interference with the rights of the states. South Carolina stated that if they were to stay in the Union, the "guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost" and that the federal government would become its enemy. While slavery is mentioned six times, states' rights, independent states, and state sovereignty are mentioned sixteen times. States' rights are discussed without any connection to slavery, yet slavery is always mentioned in connection with states' rights. Just as Southern democrats had been saying for decades in their political party planks, an attack on slavery was an attack on states' rights.

"For more than thirty years the people of South Carolina have been contending against the consolidation of the government of the United States...the United States Government has steadily usurped powers not granted- –progressively trenched upon States Rights." 

-Charleston Mercury South Carolina April 20, 1861

Slavery in the Territories

"The struggle in our territories...has not been a struggle for the emancipation of slaves. It has been a contest for power...The Northern people, in attempting to preclude the Southern people, by the legislation of Congress...a party hostile both to the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court, have been placed in control of the Government...Whether all the States composing the United States should be slaveholding or non-slaveholding States, neither the Northern nor Southern States ought to have permitted to be a question in the politics of the United States."

-Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs C.S.A 1861- Provided by the Abbeville Institute September 4, 2014

The fight over the expansion of slavery into the new western territories was a political battle. Were the states coming into the Union allowed their state rights as all previous states had been, or was the federal Government allowed to infringe on those rights and command them? Were states sovereign or subject to federal control? The South fought for these new states coming into the Union to be allowed to decide on their own about slavery regardless of the outcome. 

Further, was the federal Government allowed to command where slave owners were allowed to go within the Union? Could they prevent their migration to the western territories, thus giving political control to the Republican party? Were Southerners full citizens in their own country with the same rights as non-slave owners? Would the Federal Government be allowed to discriminate against any minority group that lacked the powers to defend themselves? 

But the southern objection was more than a fight for seats in Congress, as slavery was very unlikely to extend west. According to David Donald in Lincoln Reconsidered, "Slavery did not go into New Mexico or Arizona, Kansas, after having been opened to the peculiar institution for six years, had only two negro slaves." To many Southerners, the fight was to maintain states’ authority in the Union and preserve the Constitution and people's self-government.

That when the settlers in a Territory, having an adequate population, form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences and being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States, and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, whether its Constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery. [Emphasis added.]    

-Southern Democrat Party Platform 1860 

 

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.

The Disappeared Dead of Waterloo: Were Their Bones Sold?

On June 18, 1815, the fields near the small village of Waterloo in modern-day Belgium witnessed one of history's most significant and brutal battles. The conflict, which marked the final defeat of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, left an indelible mark on the landscape and history alike. Yet, despite the staggering death toll, estimates suggest around 50,000 soldiers were killed, wounded, or captured, the mass graves expected to hold the remains of these fallen warriors remain conspicuously absent. This mystery has led historians and archaeologists to a grim and unsettling theory: that the bones of Waterloo’s dead were harvested and sold for industrial purposes in the 19th century.

Richard Clements explains.

The morning after the Battle of Waterloo on June 19, 1815. By John Heaviside Clark.

The Carnage of Waterloo: A Battlefield of Corpses

The Battle of Waterloo was a clash of titans, with Napoleon's Armée du Nord pitted against the combined forces of the Seventh Coalition, led by the Duke of Wellington and Prussian Field Marshal von Blücher. The battle raged for eight grueling hours, culminating in a decisive victory for the Coalition. In the immediate aftermath, the battlefield was a harrowing sight. Contemporary accounts describe piles of corpses, wounded soldiers left untreated, and the pervasive stench of death.

Major W.E. Frye, who visited the battlefield just days after the fighting ceased, recounted "a sight too horrible to behold" with "heaps of wounded men with mangled limbs" and a multitude of carcasses. These vivid descriptions paint a picture of immense loss and devastation, yet they also underscore a mystery: where are all the bodies now?

The 19th Century Bone Rush: A Macabre Industry

In the decades following the battle, Europe experienced a peculiar and macabre industry boom, the trade of human bones. It was common practice to use bones as a source of phosphate fertilizer, a crucial component for the agricultural revolution of the 19th century. Historical records indicate that bones were collected from battlefields across Europe, ground into bone meal, and transported primarily to Britain, where they were in high demand.

The industrial use of bones extended beyond agriculture. The sugar industry, in particular, utilized bones in a process known as bone black or bone char filtration. This involved burning bones to create a porous, carbon-rich substance that could decolorize sugar during the refining process. The demand for bone char was significant, as it produced a higher quality of refined sugar, which was essential for the growing consumer markets in Europe and America.

Professor Tony Pollard of the University of Glasgow, a leading expert in battlefield archaeology, has extensively studied this phenomenon. Pollard's research, published in the Journal of Conflict Archaeology, suggests that Waterloo, with its high concentration of casualties, was a prime target for this gruesome trade. He points to newspaper articles from the 1820s, such as one from The London Observer, which reported that "more than a million bushels of ‘human and inhuman bones’" were imported from European battlefields into the port of Hull.

These bones likely served dual purposes: providing phosphate fertilizer for agriculture and supplying the bone char needed for sugar refining. This dual use underscores the macabre efficiency of the bone trade and highlights the economic incentives that drove the harvesting of human remains from battlefields like Waterloo.

A Missing Piece of History: The Search for Mass Graves

Pollard’s investigation into the Waterloo battlefield has been driven by a combination of historical accounts, memoirs, and early visitor descriptions. These sources frequently mention the presence of mass graves. For instance, several accounts describe mass burials at Hougoumont, a key location in the battle. Yet, despite these reports, no substantial human remains have been discovered in modern excavations.

In an attempt to uncover the truth, Pollard and his team, through the organization Waterloo Uncovered, have embarked on a multi-year geophysical survey. This initiative aims to locate grave sites that correspond with historical descriptions. The hope is that even if the bones were removed, there would still be archaeological evidence of the pits where they were buried.

Expert Opinions and Alternative Explanations

While Pollard's theory is compelling, it remains a topic of debate among historians and archaeologists. Some experts suggest alternative explanations for the missing bodies. For example, it is possible that many of the dead were buried in shallow graves, which over time, could have been disturbed by agricultural activity or natural decomposition processes. Others argue that some bodies may have been incinerated in the aftermath of the battle, a practice not uncommon in the Napoleonic Wars.

Dr. Dominique Bosquet, an archaeologist with the Walloon Heritage Agency, emphasizes the need for direct evidence. "While the theory of bone collection is plausible given the historical context, we need more concrete archaeological evidence to confirm it definitively," he says. This sentiment is echoed by other scholars who call for continued excavation and analysis.

Conclusion: A Tale Yet Unfinished

The mystery of Waterloo’s missing dead is a poignant reminder of the human cost of war and the complexities of historical research. While the theory that soldiers' bones were collected and sold as fertilizer is supported by compelling circumstantial evidence, definitive proof remains elusive. As Pollard and his team continue their work, the world watches with bated breath, hoping for answers to this macabre historical puzzle.

The investigation into the fate of Waterloo's fallen soldiers underscores the importance of interdisciplinary research, combining historical accounts with modern archaeological techniques. It is a journey into the past that may one day reveal the final resting places of those who gave their lives on that fateful day in June 1815.

Richard Clements in his own words:

I am a dedicated writer with a passion for history and uncovering its mysteries. I specialize in creating engaging and well-researched content that brings historical events and intriguing mysteries to life. With a keen eye for detail and a love for storytelling, I have written on various historical topics, from ancient civilizations to modern history. My work aims to captivate readers and provide them with a deeper understanding of the past and the mysteries that intrigue us. He posts on X/Twitter here.

References

Pollard, Tony. "The Archaeology of Waterloo: Mapping the Missing Mass Graves." Journal of Conflict Archaeology, vol. 6, no. 1, 2022.

Frye, Major W.E. Aftermath of Waterloo: An Eyewitness Account. Historical Press, 1817.

"More than a Million Bushels of Bones Imported into Hull." The London Observer, 1822.

Bosquet, Dominique. "Excavations at Waterloo: An Ongoing Search for Truth." Archaeology Today, vol. 12, no. 4, 2023.

University of Glasgow Press Release, 2015. "New Discoveries at the Waterloo Battlefield."

Did Sire Robert Peel Create 19th Century Social and Political Stability in Britain?

Sir Robert Peel (1788-1850) was one of the most dominant politicians of the nineteenth century in Britain. He is well-known for founding the Metropolitan Police Service in 1829 and repealing the unpopular Corn Laws in 1846. These measures were certainly instrumental in providing a degree of stability since they began the process of making streets safer and making bread cheaper for the people, respectively. Yet, Peel is also controversial. Whilst he has been widely accredited with bringing social and political stability to Victorian England for ordinary people, Peel had initially opposed some of the most progressive measures of his day. Furthermore, recent reappraisals of Peel have suggested that his efforts have been exaggerated. It is worth considering the extent to which Peel truly helped create mid-Victorian social and political stability.

Beth Ross explains.

Sir Robert Peel. Portrait by Thomas Lawrence.

Metropolitan Police, Corn Laws, and Social Stability

During his time as Home Secretary and Prime Minister, Peel brought in a series of reforms that intended to improve the condition of England. First and foremost was the 1829 Metropolitan Police Act. Prior to the Act’s passing, there was no organised police force in England. The only forces were the Manchester Police and Bow Street runners, who were considered corrupt or unable to prevent crime.[1] In London, the situation was worse; parishes reserved the right to manage their watches independently, and there were generally no police on patrol during the night.[2] An indication of the system’s incompetence before Peel lies in the fact that crime rates in London were increasing. At its peak, one in every 383 people was a criminal.[3] Riots, too, were becoming common. Imminent reform was evidently needed, prompting Peel to respond with a scheme that began in London. A new police force was set up, headed by two magistrates. To increase the morality and efficiency of this force, Peel ensured that the two senior magistrates were “of the highest capacity and character.”[4] It did not take long for their success to become apparent. During the mounting political unrest of the 1830s and 1840s, only London had any hope of maintaining a modicum of peace.[5]This was largely thanks to the establishment of the new police force, whereas other local authorities struggled. Furthermore, the police created by Peel also set a precedent for becoming the model other developing forces would follow over the next quarter of the century.[6] The new force was also instrumental in maintaining order. In 1848, with the Chartists marching on London, the upshot was astonishingly orderly and had a relatively low level of violence.[7] It was said that one of the main reasons for this outcome was the existence of Peel’s police.

Peel’s police force undeniably had a positive impact on maintaining social security and stability. What would essentially have been a chaotic situation was diffused by a police force constructed mainly by Peel. Urgent reform had obviously been needed in this area, and it can justifiably be argued that Peel certainly delivered it. The police force, alongside Peel’s criminal laws, have often been hailed for their contributions in creating social stability. So, too, was his repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846. Although this was a disastrous move for his party, it improved the hardships of ordinary workers. When the Corn Laws were in effect, employees had to pay extra for bread, a challenging burden in the current economic conditions.[8] The repeal of the Laws benefitted the bottom 90% of income earners, making the movement a very “pro-poor policy.”[9] Unsurprisingly, Peel was widely celebrated and fondly remembered by the people after his death, primarily for repealing the Corn Laws. High bread prices had been one of the most debilitating aspects of nineteenth-century England.[10] Peel had, in effect, taken one of the most significant burdens on low-income families and erased it completely, thus improving their standard of living to a degree.

Limitations of his Reforms

On the other hand, it is also possible that undue credit has been given to Peel for the changes his reforms instigated. With his criminal laws, Peel attempted to encourage juries to convict criminals by removing the death penalty for several offences, believing that juries were far less likely to make convictions for fear of condemning someone to death.[11] However, the reduction in death sentences only started after Peel left his office as Home Secretary in 1830, and noticeable law changes did not occur until the Whigs took power.[12] Executions, the very thing that Peel had sought to reduce, only decreased on a larger scale under Russell, the Whig who succeeded Peel as Prime Minister.[13] In another instance, Peel’s 1844 Banking Act created two separate departments within the Bank of England to maintain regulation. In reality, this had the opposite effect. Because the Bank now could issue loans on the market like many other banks, a surfeit of cheap money emerged. This, in turn, worsened over-speculation on the performance of railways, leading to a financial meltdown in 1847 (albeit a brief one).[14] Ultimately, the 1844 Banking Act was temporarily suspended, attesting to its failure. Peel has even been blamed for “the economic ruin of thousands.”[15]Admittedly, the Act would eventually lay the foundations for Britain’s financial policy up until the First World War,[16]but it cannot be denied that it was a failure in the short term. Therefore, it appears that the credit given to Peel for specific innovations has been over-emphasised.

A Progressive Politician?

As mentioned above, Peel was a controversial character. Earlier in his career, he had ardently opposed what was considered some of the “most great progressive movements of the age.”[17] These were votes for working men, Catholic Emancipation, and the 1832 Great Reform Bill. Regarding the Bill, Peel felt that it was extremist in nature and would threaten the current constitution.[18] Somewhat arrogantly, he thought it was wrong for the government to concede to public opinion. Although the Bill only had a limited impact, it did increase the electorate and lay the groundwork for further change.[19] Peel essentially opposed the beginnings of progressive change, which would potentially benefit society. Concerning Catholic Emancipation, he refused to support it at first because Catholics did not swear allegiance to the Crown.[20] While he eventually threw his support behind both causes, it is worth noting that he only supported Emancipation for fear of an Irish uprising in 1829.[21] Had this threat not existed, Peel probably would have remained firm in his original views, thus leaving Catholics vulnerable and without any political rights. Moreover, he also refused to support a bill proposing that working days be reduced to ten hours only. Yet when a twelve-hour bill was proposed in 1843, Peel threatened Parliament with his resignation if it did not go through.[22] He even accepted an amendment to the Mines Bill, which suggested that the age of exclusion from work be lowered from thirteen to ten.[23] Taking these instances into account portrays Peel in a new light. Rather than being the engineer of social stability, Peel instead emerges as a less progressive politician than is usually supposed. Technically, his refusal to support a bill that would reduce the hardships of a working day for ordinary people, alongside his initial opposition towards Catholic Emancipation, meant that Peel was working against creating mid-Victorian social stability.

Political Instability

Whilst it can be said that Peel at least contributed to social stability in part through his creation of the Metropolitan Police Force, it can be argued that he contributed to stability less on a political scale. During his term as Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister, relations between Peel and his party were fraught. In fact, the Conservatives had broken up when he resigned in 1846 and were to see limited power for the next thirty years.[24] Most Historians, by all accounts, blame Peel for this outcome, citing his arrogant and aloof nature as the primary cause. Even Norman Gash, a biographer of Peel known for his praise of the man, admitted that Peel demonstrated these qualities.[25] His relationship with his backbenchers was even worse. They usually received his scorn. Then, on the matter of the Corn Laws, Peel refused to discuss anything with them.[26]

His behaviour towards his backbenchers effectively destroyed the party’s loyalty to him after years of tension. 231 voted against Peel on the Corn Laws, whilst only 112 sided with him.[27] Many of the Tories felt deceived by Peel after he had fought the 1841 election by promising to defend agricultural protection.[28] Peel was hardly wrong for repealing the Corn Laws – on a social scale, they had quite a positive impact. However, from a political perspective, it had the opposite effect since his decision cost the Conservative Party its unity and resulted in its split. The repeal was a success for the nation, but Peel can and should still be held accountable for its lasting damage to his party. Had Peel communicated with his party more and showed more respect for his backbenchers, the general tensions and subsequent split of the party in 1846 may have been avoided.

Overall, Peel was indeed the engineer of social stability to an extent. The unrest that England had previously been dealing with gradually transformed into stability.[29] For the next 25 years after 1846, social discontent was far less prevalent than it had initially been.[30] However, Peel’s contribution should not be overstated. Whilst he undoubtedly played a role in ensuring stability in Victorian social life, he also blocked some of the most popular reforms of his time. He rejected the Chartists’ call for democracy in the early 1830s and late 1840s. Of the significant reforms he did enact, not all had as much impact as has previously been accepted. Besides, regarding political stability, it is difficult to argue that he brought much security to that area, if any. Peel was partially to blame for the Conservative Party’s split in 1846. A compromise may have been reached between Peel and the party had he not acted so coldly towards his backbenchers. As his repeal of the Corn Laws showcases, Peel was a Conservative devoted to acting in the nation’s interests above his own party’s. Whilst this helped to bring about a degree of social stability, it is clear that his efforts have previously been exaggerated and were also at the expense of the political stability of the Conservative party.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Bibliography

Adelman, P., Peel and the Conservative Party, 1830-1850 (London: Longman, 1989).

Beales, D., ‘Review: Peel, Russell, and Reform’, The Historical Journal, (1974), 17(4), pp.873-882. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2638561 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Briggs, A., The Age of Improvement, 1783-1867, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Routledge, 2014). Available at: https://www.vlebooks.com/Product/Index/2022035?page=0&startBookmarkId=-1 [Accessed 21 July 2024].

Cragoe, M., ‘Sir Robert Peel and the “Moral Authority” of the House of Commons, 1832-41’, The English Historical Review, (2013), 128(530), pp.55-77. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23362289 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Crosby, T. L., Sir Robert Peel’s Administration, 1841-1846 (Devon: David & Charles Ltd., 1976).

Evans, E. J., Sir Robert Peel: Statesmanship, power and party, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2006).

Evans, E. J., The Forging of the Modern State: Early Industrial Britain, 1783-1870, 4th ed. (Oxford: Routledge, 2019).

Gash, N., Mr Secretary Peel: The Life of Sir Robert Peel to 1830 (London: Longmans Green Ltd., 1961).

Gash, N., Sir Robert Peel: The Life of Sir Robert Peel after 1830 (London: Faber and Faber Ltd., 2011).

Gaunt, R. A., Sir Robert Peel: The Life and Legacy (London: I.B. Tauris and Company Ltd., 2010). Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/anglia/detail.action?docID=676745 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Hawkins, A., ‘“Parliamentary Government” and Victorian Political Parties, c.1830-c.1880’, The English Historical Review, (1989), 104(412), pp.638-669. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/570379 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Hilton, B., A Mad, Bad, Dangerous People?: England, 1783-1846 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Hurd, D., Robert Peel: A Biography (London: Phoenix, 2008).

Irwin, D. A., and Chepeliev, M. G., ‘The Economic Consequences of Sir Robert Peel: A Quantitative Assessment of the Repeal of the Corn Laws’, The Economic Journal, (2021), 131, pp.3322-3337. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueab029.

Morrow, J., ‘The Paradox of Peel as a Carlylean Hero’, The Historical Journal, (1997), 40(1), pp.97-110. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3020954 [Accessed July 21, 2024].

Ramsay, A. A. W., Sir Robert Peel, ed. by Basil Williams (London: Constable and Company Ltd., 1928).

Read, D., Peel and the Victorians (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1987).

[1] Ramsay, 87

[2] Ramsay, 87; Hurd, 103

[3] Ramsay, 87

[4] Ibid, 88

[5] Read, 103

[6] Gash 1961, 506

[7] Hurd, 106-7

[8] Evans 2006, 71

[9] Irwin and Chepeliev, 3324

[10] Evans 2006, 1

[11] Ibid., 16-17

[12] Beales, 880

[13] Evans 2006, 17

[14] Hilton, 549-550

[15] Ibid.

[16] Gaunt, 56

[17] Evans 2006, 2

[18] Adelman, 8; Hawkins, 652

[19] Cragoe, 56

[20] Evans 2006, 2; Hurd, 41

[21] Evans 2006, 2

[22] Adelman, 41

[23] Ibid., 39

[24] Evans 2006, 3

[25] Evans 2019, 332; Crosby, 148; Gash 2011, 708

[26] Morrow, 105

[27] Briggs, 294

[28] Evans 2019, 329

[29] Gash 2011, 714

[30] Evans 2019, 334

The Vicksburg Campaign: Part 2 - Grant Devises a Solution

The Vicksburg campaign was a key series battles from 1862 to 1863 in the US Civil War. The fighting was focused on Vicksburg, Mississippi. In part two of a two-part series, Lloyd W Klein looks at how Grant devised a solution.

See part 1 on the strategic problem of Vicksburg here.

The Battle of Big Black River Bridge, as shown in Harper’s Weekly in June 1863.

General Ulysses Grant had surreptitiously moved his army and navy south of Vicksburg and created diversions to keep the Confederate commander Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton from knowing his whereabouts. But now, he had to cross the Mississippi River to be on the same side of the river as Vicksburg. Porter effectively managed to relocate steamships and transport vessels from the northern region of Vicksburg to where Grant's troops were stationed, ready for transportation across the river. Grant's infantry had advanced southward, and with an abundance of supplies and river transports, the Union Army was finally able to cross the Mississippi River. The Federal landing at Bruinsburg, Mississippi, on April 30, 1863, and the ensuing victory at the Battle of Port Gibson the next day were the start of Grant’s movement toward Vicksburg.

However, the crossing did not unfold as smoothly as anticipated.

Grant's initial strategy to land at Grand Gulf was thwarted by a Confederate division that had fortified the area, and even a bombardment by Union ironclads failed to dislodge them. Consequently, Grant instructed Porter and McClernand to facilitate a crossing at Grand Gulf, Mississippi. On the morning of April 29, McClernand embarked his troops on transports at Hard Times, awaiting Porter's gunboats to weaken the Confederate stronghold. Following a five-hour battle, the Confederate forces emerged victorious as Porter's vessels retreated, sustaining casualties in the process. The Battle of Grand Gulf ended in a Confederate victory when Porter's vessels withdrew after losing 19 killed and 56 wounded.

McClernand unloaded his soldiers and marched them south to De Shroon's (or Disharoon) plantation, located about 5 miles north of Bruinsburg on the west bank of the Mississippi River. That night, Porter's gunboats and the transports ran the Grand Gulf batteries and joined McClernand's men at De Shroon's.  Grant arrived on April 29 and devised a new plan to disembark his soldiers at Rodney, Mississippi, located around 12 miles downstream. However, a fortuitous encounter with an escaped slave led Grant to Bruinsburg, a port with excellent steamboat facilities and a convenient road leading up the bluffs east of the river. Upon arrival, the soldiers found the port nearly deserted, with only a local farmer as a witness to their invasion.

Battle of Port Gibson

The Battle of Port Gibson began with the landing of 17,000 Union soldiers at Bruinsburg,  Grant's army, after successfully crossing the river, proceeded towards their initial target, Port Gibson, located approximately ten miles east of Bruinsburg. This strategic location held control over the local road network, making it a crucial objective for the advancing Union forces. The skirmishes between the Union army and Confederate outposts lasted for three hours on May 1, before escalating into a full-fledged battle at dawn.

The challenging terrain initially favored the Confederate defense, characterized by flat-topped ridges and steep ravines. The ridge-tops were devoid of trees, while the ravines were densely covered with vegetation, making off-road movements arduous. Centers Creek, situated between the Bruinsburg and Rodney roads, posed a significant obstacle due to its near-impassable nature. McClernand, overseeing the attack with Porter's assistance, navigated the challenging terrain to lead the Union forces toward their objective.

Under McClernand's command, the Union forces encountered solid Confederate defense, with Brig Gen Martin Green leading the main brigade. However, the tide turned when Logan managed to flank the Confederate right, compelling the defenders to retreat. The unexpected arrival of Union forces in the evening led to a rare night battle, with Green requesting support from the Rebel right flank. Just as reinforcements arrived from Vicksburg, Osterhaus launched an attack on the Confederate right flank, further destabilizing their defense. The Confederates continued to fall back and establish new defensive positions at different times during the day. Eventually, they conceded and left the field in the early evening. The collapse of the Confederate line following Logan's assault prompted a retreat, ultimately resulting in the fall of Port Gibson and Grant's subsequent advancement inland. Grant was now in control of Port Gibson and Grand Gulf.

Grant’s defeat of the garrison at Port Gibson forced the abandonment of the defenses at Grand Gulf. Pemberton was caught with his army scattered and could only oppose Grant with inferior forces at Port Gibson. The battle allowed control of the entire area where the Union army needed to cross the river and start its movement.

Grant was faced with a critical decision at this stage, as he had multiple options available to him. One possibility was to launch an attack on Vicksburg from both the south and the east. Another option was to collaborate with General Banks, seize Port Hudson, and then proceed to march on Vicksburg as a combined force. However, Grant was well aware of Banks' incompetence and had no intention of allowing him to disrupt their operations. If Grant had chosen to join forces with Banks, he would have been subordinate to him, which he strongly opposed.

Consequently, Grant had to carefully consider his next move. Although his orders, or at least Halleck’s plan, were to rendezvous with General Banks and capture Port Hudson before jointly assaulting Vicksburg, Grant decided to deviate from these instructions. Instead, he sent a message to Halleck, informing him that Banks was currently engaged in his own operations, and that waiting for him to finish would require waiting another month. Instead, Grant made the deliberate choice to advance independently, fully aware that it would take approximately 8 days for his message to be received and a response to be given. By avoiding the collaboration with Banks, Grant was able to pursue his own plans without any hindrance. As a result, he found himself in a favorable position to accept the surrender of Pemberton, while Banks remained stationed at Port Hudson.

The Move Inland

Once the areas on the river crossings were in Union control, Confederate forces situated between the Big Bayou Pierre and the Big Black River found themselves in a compromised position. Recognizing this vulnerability, the Confederate troops swiftly moved towards Hankinson's Ferry across the Big Black River. At this juncture, Grant's original plan was to feign a move north along the same path as a diversion to threaten a direct advance toward Vicksburg. However, reconnaissance revealed that Pemberton had established formidable defensive positions to the south of the city.

Consequently, on May 7th, Grant made a strategic decision that would later be regarded as one of the most brilliant maneuvers of the war. He opted to disrupt the city's supply line by capturing the railroad connecting Jackson to Vicksburg. This route involved a shift towards the east, with the ultimate objective of turning west to launch an assault on Vicksburg. By cutting off the town's supply lines, its strategic advantages were transformed into vulnerabilities.

Rather than taking a direct approach towards Vicksburg from the southern front, Grant led his army in a northeasterly direction, utilizing the protection of the Big Black River on his left flank. The plan was to target the Southern Railroad of Mississippi between Vicksburg and Jackson. Severing this vital transportation link would cut Pemberton's supply chains and communication networks, effectively isolating Vicksburg. As the Union forces advanced inland, each corps was strategically positioned, with McClernand's on the left, Sherman's in the center, and McPherson's on the right. However, the further Grant's army moved inland, the more susceptible they became to potential attacks.

The Supply Line

The crucial question of the whole campaign is how Grant would supply his army. Grant established a base at Grand Gulf on the Mississippi River to support the army's advancement inland. This supply base played a crucial role in sustaining the Union Army's movements in Mississippi. However, it is important to note that Grant did not completely sever his supply line when he reached Vicksburg and reconnected with the fleet on the Yazoo River. It is a misconception, often perpetuated by modern narratives, that Grant was without a supply line. Grant actually established and effectively maintained a main supply route throughout his movement toward Vicksburg.

General Sherman expressed apprehensions regarding Grant's logistical planning, deeming it insufficient and vulnerable to attacks. Grant, in opting for an indirect approach to Vicksburg by targeting the railroad east of the city. necessitated a longer and riskier supply route. This choice prompted Sherman to caution Grant about the potential challenges of maintaining such a large army with limited resources. Grant's response reflected his reliance on utilizing available provisions and sourcing the rest from the surrounding area. Sherman on May 9 warned Grant: "There are over 500 wagons across the river ... Stop all troops till your army is partially supplied with wagons, and then act as quickly as possible, for this road will be jammed as sure as life if you attempt to supply 50,000 men by one single road." Grant replied,  "I do not calculate the possibility of supplying the army with full rations from Grand Gulf ... What I do expect, however, is to get up what rations of hard bread, coffee, and salt we can, and make the country furnish the balance."

The myth of Grant's cutting loose from his supply base began when Charles Dana, a former reporter who accompanied Grant's army as an observer for the Secretary of War, wrote back to Washington on May 4, 1863: "As soon as Sherman comes up and the rations on the way arrive, he [Grant] will disregard his base and depend upon the country for meat and even for bread." In 1867 Adam Badeau, a former Grant staff officer, published the first volume of his three-volume Military History of General U. S. Grant. Badeau wrote that "[Grant] at once decided to abandon his base altogether, to plunge into the enemy's country with three days rations, trusting to the region itself for forage and supplies." A year later, in The Personal History of U. S. Grant, Albert Richardson compared Grant's Vicksburg Campaign with "Scott's brilliant campaign from Puebla to Mexico," and wrote that Grant "determined to abandon his base."

However, Grant himself refuted these claims during an interview in 1879 with a New York Herald reporter, clarifying that he did not sever ties with his supply base during the Vicksburg Campaign. Grant said that, as his troops crossed the Mississippi on April 29 and 30, he "had rations in abundance on board the transports, but no transportation for them into the interior." He said he did not abandon his base but "directed the officers to gather all the wagons and teams they could from the plantations as we moved on." He explained that while his troops had ample rations upon crossing the Mississippi, there was a lack of transportation for these supplies. Grant emphasized the importance of maintaining a supply line for essential items that could not be procured from the local environment, such as ammunition, coffee, bread, salt, and sugar.

But, when writing his Personal Memoirs in 1885, more than 22 years after the conclusion of the Vicksburg Campaign, his account of the supply line issue added to the confusion. Grant supported the myth that he had decided to abandon his supply base at Grand Gulf on May 3 by stating, "I determined to move independently of Banks, cut loose from my base, destroy the rebel force in Vicksburg and invest or capture the city." This statement was almost identical to one he had previously written for an article in Century magazine in July of 1884, which was published in 1885 and later included in the four-volume Battles and Leaders of the Civil War in 1887. Grant's use of the phrase "cut loose from my base" at Grand Gulf on May 3, often cited by authors and historians, contradicts his own words eight pages later. Grant recalled that on May 12, at Dillon's farm, he decided to redirect his columns towards Jackson. He wrote, "But by moving against Jackson, I uncovered my own communication. So I finally decided to have none — to cut loose altogether from my base and move my whole force eastward. I then had no fears for my communications, and if I turned quickly enough could turn upon Pemberton before he could attack me in the rear." Therefore, it becomes clear that Grant intended to secure his communications, rather than solely focusing on food supplies.

The Battle of Raymond

Grant devised a new strategy on May 7th, opting for an indirect approach rather than a direct assault on Pemberton's forces south of Vicksburg. Instead of crossing the Big Black River and heading north, Grant planned to reach the railroad east of Vicksburg and approach from that direction. This plan, however, came with its own set of risks and challenges, as it required a longer line of supply. Despite the potential difficulties, Grant's army continued to move northeastward towards the railroad on May 11th, while General McClernand expressed concerns about the enemy isolating the Union army by cutting off their supply line.

Grant intended to first cut off the railroad before launching an attack on Vicksburg. As his forces drew closer to the railroad, Grant discovered that Pemberton had already begun constructing fortifications to protect it. It became evident that Vicksburg had strong defenses in the southern part of the city and a well-established supply line from Jackson via the railroad. Grant believed that the enemy was positioned to the north, defending the railroad.

Pemberton suspected that Grant's primary target was the railroad. In response, he strategically positioned his troops along the entire line from Warrenton to Bovina, constructing fortifications at key points. As Grant's intentions became more apparent, Pemberton extended his line of defense to Edwards Station and fortified that area as well. However, this left the rail centers at Bolton and Clinton vulnerable. To address this, Pemberton ordered reinforcements arriving from the south and east to march to Raymond, where they would form the left wing of his army, guarding the north-south roads that connected the rail line from Jackson to Vicksburg. Pemberton planned to strike Grant in the flank if he attacked Edwards Station or the Big Black Bridge. If Grant turned toward Jackson, Pemberton would strike him in the flank and rear as he passed.

Many renderings of the Battle of Raymond suggest that Johnston was in command in Jackson at this time. In fact, on May 10, he is not present in the vicinity, having just been appointed commander. He was en route; Johnston wasn’t even appointed until May 9 and didn’t arrive until May 13; at that point, McPherson was already positioned between the two Confederate armies.

Pemberton knew that reinforcements were gathering in Jackson. So, on May 10 he ordered them all to a small town called Raymond about 20 miles southwest of Jackson.

General John Gregg led a brigade to Raymond with the intention of ambushing a Union advance party, despite his limited military experience as a Texas politician. However, faulty intelligence led him to believe he would only face a small contingent of Union troops. After an exhausting 200-mile march from Port Hudson, Gregg's 3,000-man brigade arrived in Jackson on May 9th, only to be ordered to march 19 miles to Raymond after a day of rest. Arriving late in the afternoon on May 11th, his men were so fatigued that they dropped to rest where they stood.

Meanwhile, Grant had authorized McPherson to begin his march toward Jackson on the same day. Gregg, under explicit orders to not engage a larger force, was supposed to withdraw slowly toward Jackson while alerting Pemberton for a coordinated strike. However, McPherson's strategic deployment of troops lured Gregg into a pitched battle by concealing his forces and showing only Logan's 2nd Brigade up the road. This tactical maneuver led to Gregg's brigade being drawn into a confrontation, McPherson then had the 1st and 3rd Brigades march through the woods unseen. Once Logan’s entire division was in place, he ordered the men forward.

At approximately 10:30 am, McPherson issued the command to move forward. The 23rd Indiana, known for their skills as skirmishers, defied orders and crossed the creek ahead of the federal line, unknowingly setting off the Confederate ambush. Overwhelmed by the two Confederate regiments, the Hoosiers fled with the Confederates in pursuit. The Confederates, in turn, chased the Indiana troops across the creek only to be met by a hidden federal infantry brigade. A complex and chaotic engagement developed as three Confederate regiments emerged from the woods after chasing away a cavalry picket only to find that the force they had been ordered to encircle was two federal brigades. Although some accounts suggest McPherson sent in his men in waves, perhaps due to weather conditions, others say he was hiding his deployment from Gregg to deceive him.

Gregg found himself in a challenging situation as he attempted to disengage from the fight. By 4 pm, he finally managed to regroup his forces and ordered a retreat. However, amid the chaos, Gregg failed to communicate the unfolding events to Pemberton, leaving a gap in the Confederate command structure and strategic coordination.

As Gregg retreated through Raymond, reinforcements began to arrive to cover his withdrawal, including cavalry regiments, infantry units, and a brigade from Georgia. With approximately 5,000 men on the field, McPherson's forces were consolidating towards the fortifications being constructed in Jackson. The opposing forces clashed at Fourteen Mile Creek, where Gregg attempted to halt the Union army's advance. Despite initial success in causing heavy casualties, the Confederate troops were eventually outmatched by the Union's superior numbers and firepower, leading to a strategic retreat back to Jackson.

General Joseph Johnston and Jackson MS

Grant's strategic plan revolved around disrupting the railway supply route that connected Vicksburg to Jackson. The primary objective was to prevent potential attacks from General Johnston, who was stationed in Jackson, that could have resulted in Grant's forces being trapped between Johnston and Pemberton. To execute this plan, Grant made adjustments by instructing McClernand and Sherman to hold Pemberton in position while McPherson swiftly advanced from the rear to capture the state capital. This tactical maneuver aimed to sever Pemberton's supply line and weaken the defenses of Vicksburg, ultimately allowing McPherson to rejoin Grant's forces.

On May 14, 1863, Grant redirected his army towards the east to force General Johnston's forces away from Jackson. Johnston, with the majority of his army, retreated along the Canton Road. This retreat prevented Johnston from joining forces with Pemberton, who was now isolated in Vicksburg. With Johnston out of the picture, Grant shifted his focus back to Vicksburg. Once the Union forces gained control of the capital, communication between Pemberton and General Johnston was severed, further isolating Pemberton's troops.

In response to Johnston's orders, Pemberton, commanding approximately 23,000 men divided into three divisions, was instructed to leave Edwards Station and launch an attack on the Union troops at Clinton. However, Pemberton and his generals believed that Johnston's plan would likely lead to disaster. Instead, they decided to divert their attention and attack the Union supply trains en route from Grand Gulf to Raymond. On May 16, Pemberton received another message from Johnston reiterating his previous orders. Unfortunately, Pemberton had already set off after the supply trains and found himself on the Raymond-Edwards Road, with his rear positioned at a crossroads just south of the crest of Champion Hill. As a result, when Pemberton obediently ordered a countermarch, his rear, including the supply wagons, inadvertently became the vanguard of his attack.

Battle of Champion Hill

The Battle of Champion Hill, which took place on May 16, 1863, marked a significant turning point in the Vicksburg Campaign. It was a critical moment for Pemberton, as he had one last opportunity to fend off Grant's forces. However, his confusion during this crucial juncture ultimately sealed his fate. With his troops outnumbered 32,000 to 22,000, Pemberton formed a defensive line along a ridge that overlooked Jackson Creek. This defensive position covered the Middle Road and Raymond Road to the south.

In the early morning of May 13, the three divisions of Generals Bowen, Loring, and Stevenson marched out from the Black River fortifications and began their strike toward what Pemberton hoped was the rear supply line of the Federal Army. More importantly, Grant knew Pemberton was coming. One of the messengers between Johnston and Pemberton was actually a Union operative who turned over his messages to General McPherson, who in turn reported the information to Grant. On the morning of May 16, 1863, the rebels met, not Grant’s supply line as expected, but most of his Federal Army at a place known as Champion’s Hill.

The situation became precarious for Pemberton when General Stephen D. Lee, stationed atop Champion Hill, alerted him to a Union column advancing on the Jackson Road. This Union movement threatened to cut off the Southern forces from Edwards Station and the vital route to Vicksburg. In response, Pemberton shifted his troops northward to protect the hill and the Jackson Road.

Grant, on the other hand, ordered attacks by Logan and Hovey, while John A. McClernand's corps launched an assault on Pemberton's left flank, and James B. McPherson's corps attacked from the right. Despite the excellent defense provided by Stephen Lee, the Union forces managed to seize the crest of the hill around 1 PM. McPherson's corps continued to advance, capturing a crucial crossroads and effectively closing off the escape route via the Jackson Road.

Although a counterattack by Bowen's division briefly pushed the Federals back beyond the Champion Hill crest, they were unable to maintain their position due to insufficient numbers. Recognizing the dire situation, Grant launched a counterattack, committing all of his forces. Pemberton's men were unable to withstand this assault, prompting him to order his troops to utilize the only remaining escape route, the Raymond Road crossing of Bakers Creek.

McPherson on the right (north) flank fought the lion’s share of the battle. His casualties constituted the bulk of the Union losses, about 2,500. The Confederates suffered about 3,800 casualties, perhaps half were captured. Grant criticized the lack of fighting spirit of McClernand, his rival for Union Army leadership. McClernand had delayed his attack and then was stopped by a smaller force. McClernand's casualties were low on the Union left flank (south). Sherman and the others wanted to see him gone, but Grant counseled a different course of action.

The decision made by General Pemberton regarding the abandonment of Vicksburg, as ordered by General Johnston, remains a pivotal question in the context of the entire war. This question not only fueled a post-war dispute between Pemberton and Johnston but also subjected Pemberton to enduring criticism. On one hand, General Johnston displayed little confidence in defending Vicksburg and instead advocated for the merging of Pemberton's forces with his own. By uniting their armies, Johnston believed they could confront Grant's troops in an open battle and subsequently allocate their forces to other vulnerable areas of the Confederacy. Conversely, Confederate President Jefferson Davis consistently emphasized the importance of safeguarding Vicksburg at all costs, leaving Pemberton torn between conflicting directives. It is crucial to acknowledge the challenging position Pemberton found himself in, torn between the expectations of his military and civilian superiors.

However, fair criticism can be directed towards Pemberton for his slow response, failure to anticipate Grant's movements and lack of coordination with Johnston. Attempting to appease both his military and civilian superiors proved to be an impossible mission. The complexities of the situation, coupled with the pressure to please conflicting authorities, hindered Pemberton's ability to make swift and strategic decisions. While it is understandable that he could not simply disregard the orders of his president, the consequences of his indecisiveness and lack of proactive measures were significant. Pemberton's retreat from Vicksburg ultimately resulted in continuing censure and placed him at the center of scrutiny for years to come.

Battle of Big Black River Bridge

Pemberton realized that his army was at a numerical disadvantage, prompting him to make the strategic decision to retreat towards the Big Black River Bridge. To buy time for the Confederate army to regroup, he assigned General William W. Loring's division to hold Raymond Road while the rest of the troops moved north. The division under Bowen and the brigade of John C Vaughn were tasked with defending the works at the bridge, with the advantage of natural barriers such as swampy terrain and a bayou in front of them.

On the Union side, Major General John McClernand led the pursuit of the Confederates and engaged Bowen's rear guard. A swift Union charge managed to break the Confederate position, leading to a rout during the retreat and river crossing. Many Confederate soldiers were captured in the process, while the remaining troops sought refuge within the fortifications at Vicksburg, Mississippi, marking the beginning of the siege of Vicksburg the following day.

Grant had initially planned for General Sherman to surprise Bowen and Vaughn at the Big Black River crossing at Bridgeport, seven miles away, where he could reach the west bank of the Big Black River and take Bowen and Vaughn by surprise. Meanwhile, his subordinate Gen. Michael K. Lawler had a different idea.

Martin Green’s Brigade held the Confederate left without any artillery support, while Lawler’s brigade was positioned nearby in the tree line. A scout informed Lawler of a sunken area close to the Rebel line, allowing his men to charge across open ground with minimal risk from artillery fire. Recognizing a strategic opportunity – no one was covering the river – his brigade charged a sunken area that was bisected by a marsh.

The following morning, Lawler’s Brigade took the initiative to charge the Confederate lines without explicit orders, disappearing from view after advancing 50 yards. During the charge, both sides engaged in intense artillery exchanges, resulting in General Osterhaus of Grant’s command being wounded by a Confederate shell. Meanwhile, Gen. Eugene Carr’s Division began to assemble opposite the Confederate lines.

By 9 o’clock, Lawler identified an opportune location to strike the Rebel defenses and ordered his men to charge. The Federal troops, who had seemingly vanished from sight, reemerged and swiftly advanced the remaining 50 yards to assault the gap between Martin Green’s Arkansas Brigade and Vaughn’s Tennessee Brigade. Despite facing fire from infantry and artillery as they crossed the bayou, the Federal soldiers managed to breach the Confederate breastworks and engage in close combat. Witnessing the success of Lawler’s charge, the rest of the Union line followed suit and joined the assault. Overwhelmed by the increasing number of Union infantry, the Confederates retreated, leaving behind their cannons and approximately 1,700 men who surrendered.

The significance of this small battle cannot be understated. The Confederates suffered heavy losses, with 1,751 men killed or captured, the majority of which were taken as prisoners. On the other hand, the Union casualties were relatively low, totaling around 235. This defeat at the Big Black River Bridge marked the beginning of the siege of Vicksburg.

Brig. Gen. Lloyd Tilghman was killed in this action. To help save the army, Pemberton tasked Lloyd Tilghman's brigade to provide a rear-guard action that cost Tilghman his life. However, this action allowed Pemberton to retreat from the area.

The general was killed by artillery fire. His teenage son was on the field and hugged his father as he died.

Following their defeat at Champion Hill, General John C. Pemberton's forces retreated to the bridge at Big Black River, just before reaching Vicksburg. During the battle at Champion Hill, General William Loring disobeyed orders to advance, resulting in his separation from the main Confederate troops. Loring attempted to rejoin his comrades at the bridge, but the difficult terrain forced him to abandon most of his supplies and artillery. Local civilians warned Loring that a large Union force stood between him and the rendezvous point at Big Black. Instead of engaging Grant's forces, Loring decided to redirect his path and join the Confederate forces at Canton. Unbeknownst to Pemberton, who was unaware of Loring's change in direction, he ordered John Bowen's Division and John Vaughn's Brigade to defend the works at Big Black River Bridge, to buy time. Had Pemberton been aware of Loring's retreat, he may have reconsidered engaging in battle at that location, as it was intended to serve as a rear guard action for Loring. Loring's strained relationship with Pemberton was well-known, as he had difficulty working with his superiors. Despite this, Loring consistently displayed courage and honor in battle, proving himself time and time again. Instead of retreating to Vicksburg, Loring eventually reached Johnston's army. The feud between Loring and Pemberton over these actions persisted long after the war had ended.

Retreat into Vicksburg

Following the resounding Union victories at the Battle of Champion Hill and the Battle of Big Black River Bridge, Pemberton found himself cornered within the City of Vicksburg. With Sherman's corps threatening to flank him from the north, Pemberton had no choice but to either engage in battle or entrench himself within the city. The siege of Vicksburg commenced on May 18 and lasted about 6 weeks.

As the Confederates retreated, they resorted to burning the railroad bridge over the Big Black River and a steamboat serving as a bridge. By detonating incendiary devices on the bridges, they thwarted Grant's pursuit attempts. Although Vicksburg had not yet fallen to Grant's forces, the city was effectively cut off from the outside world. Pemberton and his troops were trapped within the confines of Vicksburg, buying them time but offering no escape route.

With dwindling troops and no external connections, Pemberton's situation grew increasingly dire. Grant's superior numbers and strategic control over supply lines posed a significant challenge to the Confederate forces. Despite hopes of Johnston launching an attack from the east, the advice to surrender the town and save the troops prevailed. Grant's decision to initiate a prolonged siege, following unsuccessful frontal assaults, marked the beginning of a grueling period of bombardment for Vicksburg.

Grant initially attempted to overpower the Confederate army by leveraging his larger numbers. Despite Grant's efforts to assault the trenches on May 19 and May 22, these two frontal assaults aimed at capturing the city proved unsuccessful. The defensive line surrounding Vicksburg spanned approximately six and a half miles, taking advantage of the varying terrain that included hills and knobs with steep slopes. These natural features posed a challenge for attackers, who would have to ascend them while under enemy fire. The formidable perimeter of the defensive line consisted of numerous gun pits, forts, trenches, redoubts, and lunettes, which perfectly took advantage of the natural features.

The failure to take the Confederate works by assault led Grant to initiate a prolonged siege on May 25. As part of the siege, a significant bombardment was conducted. Union forces constructed their own network of earthworks and trenches that ran parallel to it. These trenches, referred to as ditches, marked the beginning of trench warfare. The situation within the besieged city worsened as the air became polluted by the stench of dead horses and soldiers, while the wounded often lay in the space between the opposing lines. Eventually, Grant agreed to a truce in order to clear the resulting mess. Recognizing that even with 50,000 soldiers, he would be unable to fully encircle Vicksburg due to unguarded roads leading south, Grant sought assistance from Major General Henry W. Halleck. Union troops in the West were subsequently shifted, and the front line was reinforced not only with heavy artillery from massive cannons but also with naval guns that targeted the city from the river.

Grant had expressed his dissatisfaction with McClernand's lack of determination at Champion Hill, as he had failed to eliminate or capture Pemberton's entire force. McClernand's casualties were minimal on the Union's southern flank, suggesting a lack of engagement, Sherman and others believed it was time for him to be removed from his position. Grant firmly believed that if the XIII Corps had launched a vigorous attack, Pemberton's army could have been annihilated and the Siege of Vicksburg could have been avoided. However, Grant advised a different approach from his subordinates. Then, a newspaper article published an order in which McClernand praised his troops despite their unsuccessful assaults on Vicksburg. Grant saw this as an opportunity and seized it. While the order itself was acceptable, it undermined the efforts of others and contradicted both a departmental order and one issued by Grant, which stated that official papers should not be published. Consequently, Grant relieved McClernand of his duties on June 19th.

The Siege of Vicksburg

Daily bombardments began and were devastating. Union gunboats lobbed over 22,000 shells into the town and army artillery fire was even heavier. As the barrages continued, suitable housing in Vicksburg was reduced to a minimum. A ridge, located between the main town and the rebel defense line, provided lodging for the duration. The citizens of the city were unable to walk the streets or live in their houses. All above-ground homes and shelters were unsafe or destroyed.

Over time, Grant moved 77,000 Union soldiers into positions completely encircling Vicksburg, cutting off their supply line. Although surrounded and without access to food, weapons, and ammunition, Vicksburg’s Confederate soldiers and civilians continued their defense.

Confederate troops ate horses, dogs, and vegetables from the gardens of Vicksburg residents.  Towards the end, some were eating rats and tree bark.  As the siege wore on, fewer and fewer horses, mules, and dogs were seen wandering about Vicksburg. Shoe leather became a last resort of sustenance for many adults.

By the end of June, half of all of the Confederate soldiers were suffering from malnutrition including scurvy, caused by lack of Vitamin C. Others suffered from unsanitary conditions and developed dysentery, diarrhea, dehydration, and malaria. The lack of food, combined with the epidemics of malaria and dysentery, took a heavy toll on the Confederate forces. By the end of June, half were unable to report for duty and were sick or hospitalized. The poor diet was telling on the Confederate soldiers.

The townspeople were forced to build and live in caves.  Many of their homes were destroyed by artillery bombardment, and those that remained were targets. Residents and soldiers dug over 500 caves into the hillside to escape the bombardment, hiding in their basements.  During the 47-day siege, May 23-July 4, the Union Over 500 caves, known locally as "bombproofs", were dug into the yellow clay hills of Vicksburg. Both soldiers and citizens were boxed in with plentiful munitions but little food.

During the 47-day siege, May 23-July 4, the Union experienced 638 casualties with 94 deaths, vs. the Confederate loss of 3202 casualties with 875 deaths. Additionally, there were 380 deaths at the Battle of Champion Hill on May 16. More than 10,000 of Pemberton’s soldiers were rendered unfit for duty as a consequence of various illnesses, combat wounds, and malnutrition by the end of June. There was essentially no functional army by early July.

The Confederate Army’s struggle with malaria was a significant contributing factor to the outcome of the Vicksburg campaign and hence the war. One of the reasons the Union siege of Vicksburg was successful was because the Confederates were debilitated by an outbreak of malaria, without access to quinine. It has been estimated that 3900-8850 of Pemberton’s 30,000 men were suffering from active cases of malaria, and minimally over 200 died directly from this disease. An illness of this severity experienced in this magnitude would have rendered the Confederate military combat ineffective.

On June 28, Pemberton received a petition from his troops which stated in part, “If you cannot feed us you had better surrender.” On July 1, he queried his division commanders whether they should surrender or attempt an evacuation. All 4 of his corps commanders wrote to him of the need to surrender. The Confederates, after a long siege, beset with malnutrition and disease, were not in a condition to fight. The consensus was that disease and starvation had physically impaired so large a number of the defending army that an attempt to cut through the Union line would be disastrous; the men were too “enfeebled” to attempt an evacuation. On July 4, 1863, after a 47-day siege, Pemberton surrendered to Grant.

General Ulysses S Grant: An Analysis

The fall of Vicksburg on July 4, 1863, just a day after Pickett’s Charge, certainly seems in combination to represent a catastrophic turn of events for the Confederacy that summer after victories that winter and spring seemed to hold so much promise.

General Grant has been demeaned as the worst POTUS in history, a drunkard, a dimwit, and most incorrectly, a butcher. While his reputation has improved lately thanks in large part to Ron Chernow’s biography and Donald Miller’s book about Vicksburg, he is routinely ranked behind Lee, Jackson, and Forrest as a Civil War general by many. Yet the truth is, General Grant did more to win the Civil War than anyone not named Abraham Lincoln.  The story of how Grant solved the conundrum that was Vicksburg should convince even the most cynical LCer of his imagination, willpower, and perspicacity. Grant tried myriad strategies before finding the one that worked. The Vicksburg campaign was an unmistakable sign of the man’s steely determination and shrewd mind. Grant failed over and over, but he never gave up.

Practically everything about the campaign was innovative. Practically everything about it. James M. McPherson has called it “the most brilliant and innovative campaign of the Civil War” and T. Harry Williams called it “one of the classic campaigns of the Civil War and, indeed, of military history.” The U.S. Army Field Manual 100-5 (May 1986) describes the Vicksburg campaign as “the most brilliant campaign ever fought on American soil,” one which “exemplifies the qualities of a well-conceived, violently executed offensive plan.” Edwin C. Bearss has said. “Failure in this venture would entail little less than total destruction. If it succeeded, however, the gains would be complete and decisive.”

It was definitely a risky plan. But we can see retrospectively that it makes perfect sense. Grant made the connection that the way to attack Vicksburg was by the train route west from Jackson, which was also the target of his Autumn foray on the Mississippi Central RR route. Then he combined that with the fact that he couldn’t maneuver on the east bank north of the town due to swamps and bayous, and after Arkansas Post, he’s on the west side. So, then it’s “just” a matter of technical procedure: you have to cross someplace and you have to head to Jackson first.  When to do it? Well, he knows he’s got ground to cover and will need supplies. He has to calculate river level, rain and muddy roads, and foraging. But before mosquito season. Winter isn’t a good time. Late spring is.

Grant had endured repeated political and military setbacks, watched his soldiers and sailors sicken and die by the thousands in the malarial lower Mississippi Valley, faced two armies at the same time, and solved incredible technical and logistical obstacles. He was now the top Union general, and his self-confidence as well as what others thought would carry him to fame. It’s inconceivable to me that his reputation as a general was denigrated for 120 years.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Further Reading:

·       Donald L Miller, Vicksburg: Grant's Campaign That Broke the Confederacy. Simon and Schuster, 2019.

·       Grant’s Memoirs

·       Sherman’s Memoirs

·       Grant by Chernow

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/vicksburg

·       https://www.historynet.com/battle-of-vicksburg

·       https://civilwarmonths.com/2023/04/15/vicksburg-grant-and-porter-assemble/amp/

·       https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/achenblog/wp/2014/04/25/ulysses-s-grant-hero-or-butcher-great-man-or-doofus/

·       https://www.historynet.com/vicksburg-the-campaign-that-confirmed-grants-greatness/

·       https://www.vicksburgpost.com/2003/01/27/water-returned-to-citys-doorstep-100-years-ago/?fbclid=IwAR1X5nFZ8F-l_0sbr3Ki1HBygBiPb-GCgxl4aBCznjSOgKAvVdURVJUvJDA

·       https://www.nps.gov/vick/learn/nature/river-course-changes.htm?fbclid=IwAR3mflQUgR8JaUEIcrm2v_lLlfdGup44_XwzxIcJ1mTAyyCT2h_umfcT2Sc

·       https://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-colonel-benjamin-griersons-cavalry-raid-in-1863/

·       https://www.historynet.com/griersons-raid-during-the-vicksburg-campaign/

·       https://www.thoughtco.com/major-general-benjamin-grierson-2360423

·       https://emergingcivilwar.com/2021/04/29/that-other-cavalry-guy-benjamin-h-grierson/

·       https://www.historyonthenet.com/grant-vicksburg

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/port-gibson

·       https://www.americanhistorycentral.com/entries/battle-of-port-gibson/

·       https://www.nps.gov/vick/learn/historyculture/battleportgibson.htm

·       https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/grants-vicksburg-supply-line

·       https://www.historynet.com/mississippi-nightmare/

·       https://www.thoughtco.com/battle-of-champion-hill-2360280

·       https://www.rebellionresearch.com/battle-of-raymond?fbclid=IwAR1L1PcCwGRCFLg-Bv7neO1tG6cv7RsnmZO8kNvv5XVjUBkM6t3CiPtu96c_aem_th_AaSypV4shWeio-QbLLXIuILea41vtkZsruFEMGykenl_kK8dPEuWWYZiUP44s9G8ws4&mibextid=Zxz2cZ

·       Klein LW, Wittenberg EJ. The decisive influence of malaria on the outcome of the Vicksburg campaign. Surgeon’s Call: The Journal of the National Civil War Medicine Museum. 2023; 28(1): 4 – 14.

Causes of Southern Secession in the U.S. Civil War - The Upper South

The second wave of states to leave the Union were the Upper South states. These included Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and pro-confederate Kentucky and Missouri, who held divided loyalties. The Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas had a more extensive free population than the deep South and made up most of the Confederacy. Here, Jeb Smith looks at the causes for the seccession of these states.

This is part 2 in a series of extended articles form the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here.

Henry Massey Rector, Governor of Arkansas at the time of secession.

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

-Alexander Stephens  

In general, there was a difference in the causes of secession between the original seven seceding "Cotton States" of the Deep South and the remaining Upper South.[1] When the Cotton States left the Union, the Upper South either turned down voting on withdrawal from the Union or voted against secession. Historian E. Merton Coulter writes, "The Majority sentiment in the Upper South had been unionist until Lincoln's call for troops...Upper South…had cried equally against coercion as secession." 

When many historians talk about secession, they almost always ignore the Upper South; they unanimously point instead to the Cotton States. I believe this omission is because connecting slavery as a cause with the Upper South would be much more difficult. Further, looking at their causes of secession exposes the transformation of our Union into a centralized nation under Lincoln. 

Lincoln's Call for Volunteers

"The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State."

-Confederate General John B. Gordon Reminiscences of the Civil War New York Charles Scribner's Sons Atlanta The Martin  & Hoyt Co.1904

Like the Cotton States, the Upper South saw itself as a collection of sovereign states joined by a contract, the Constitution; if that contract was violated or not upheld, it could and should be discarded. Many believed that peaceful secession would be allowed to occur and that the principles of the Declaration of Independence would be allowed to play out peacefully. DiLorenzo quotes the reactions of multiple northern newspapers as showing substantial support for secession. Many in the North perceived that this war was one of the self-governing states versus a controlling central federal government. In Lincoln Unmasked, DiLorenzo tells us that before being deported by Lincoln, northern politician Clement Vallandigham accurately describes Lincoln's purpose for war.

"Overthrow the present form of Federal-republican government, and to establish a strong centralized government in its stead...national banks, bankrupt laws, a vast and permanent public debt, high tariffs, heavy direct taxation, enormous expenditure, gigantic and stupendous peculation . . . No more state lines, no more state governments, but a consolidated monarchy or vast centralized military despotism." 

-Clement L. Vallandigham D-Ohio 

The North's support for secession was strong before it became clear how much of an impact secession would have on government funding, as the South was the North's "piggy bank." Further, free trade policies in the South would dominate the transatlantic trade since the North desired higher tariffs. If the South had been allowed to form their Confederacy, free trade policies in the South would have drawn even more commerce to Southern ports rather than Northern. So the North would lose the primary contributor to their economic plans, and they would lose out further due to their higher tax rates, and Europeans would trade with the free trade Confederacy. Not a good situation when you are looking to expand central spending. 

Lincoln's call for volunteers to suppress the "rebellion" of the Cotton States caused the secession of the Upper South. The Cotton States felt that the federal government violated their agreement, and the Upper South believed that they had every right to leave, even if the Upper South disagreed with their reasons for leaving. As R. L. Dabney explained, "However wrongfully any State might resume its Independence without just cause, the only remedy was conciliation, and not force, that therefore the coercion of a sovereign State was unlawful, mischievous, and must be resisted. There Virginia took her stand."

According to many Republican politicians, the Union was not a voluntary contract between sovereign self-governing states governed by a constitution, but rather a centralized nation. Washington D.C., rather than "we the people," was the authority. The states, the people, were subjects, servants, and pupils of the state. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said that the Union predated the Constitution. He referred to the Union as a "national government," and a "government proper," a "national union." Lincoln said, "The Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it." He argued that the Union was not "an association of States in the nature of contract." His opinion was that "No State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union." 

The choice given to the Upper South was clear. They could either remain under the Republican-ruled coercive national government or join the Confederacy, whose Constitution maintained the Union and a compact of sovereign states. On June 4, 1861, The Western Democrat of Charlotte, North Carolina, said the Confederacy was "The only Republic now existing in America." The old Republic had become a democracy ruled by King Numbers. This was an easy choice for the Upper South. 

The Upper South saw Lincoln's call for volunteers as a violation of the Constitution, a metamorphosis in government, and a violation of their states’ sovereignty. In 1863, the Address to Christians Throughout the World by the Clergy of the Confederate States of America suggested that the yankees, "Fight not to recover seceding states, but to subjugate them." This was a war of self-governing sovereign states versus a federal government that was willing to use military force against its own population to keep them under its jurisdiction. The Union was no longer a collection of self-governing bodies based on consent but a nation controlled by a dictatorial oligarchy. Consent of the governed was eliminated. The Upper South could not go along with what they viewed as oppressive actions by Lincoln and this transformation of the Republic.

"Subjection under an arbitrary and military authority, there being no law of Congress authorizing such calling of troops, and no constitutional right to use them....it is the fixed purpose of the government…to wage a cruel war against the seceding states...to reduce its inhabitants to absolute subjection and abject slavery...Lincoln...is now governing by military rule alone ...without any authority of law, having set aside all constitutional and legal restraints, and made all constitutional and legal rights dependent upon his mere pleasure...all his unconstitutional illegal and oppressive acts, all his wicked and diabolical purposes...in his present position of usurper and military dictator, he has been and is encouraged and supported by the great body of the people of the non slave holding States." 

-Journal of the Convention of the People of North Carolina May 20, 1861, pp11-12

Professor of History at Longwood University Bevin Alexander wrote in his book, Such Troops as These, "Forced to choose between Lincoln's demand and what they believed to be morally correct and honorable, four Upper South states…seceded as well." The Upper South refused to become slaves to any government of unlimited power. In State Sovereignty and the Doctrine of Cohesion, J. K Spaulding wrote in 1860, "Hapless would be the condition of these states if their only alternative lay between submission to a self-construed  government, or, in other words, unlimited powers and the certainty of coercion."

"Virginia...was not willing to secede hastily; but the demand of President Lincoln that she furnish troops to fight her sister States, ended all hesitation...preferring to fight in defence of liberty...to place themselves as barriers in the way of a fanatical Administration, and, if possible, stay the bloody effort to coerce independent states to remain in the Union." 

-Address to Christians Throughout the World by the Clergy of the Confederate States of America Assembled at Richmond, VA April 1863

Preserving the Constitutional Republic

"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."

 -Gen. Robert E. Lee quoted in The Enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee The Ideological Warfare Underpinning the American Civil War, Marshall DeRosa, Lexington Books 2014

"It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties." 

-Confederate General Patrick Cleburne 1864 

Lincoln and the Republican party had transformed the Union from a confederation of sovereign states to a centralized nation controlled by the majority. He endeavored to expand the central Government beyond its scope in order to achieve a political agenda. The North had abandoned the Constitution and the Republic and replaced them with a centralized democracy; in other words, a limitless government. The Upper South had no choice but to join the Confederate Constitution, which maintained the "original compact" theory of the Union. 

It was believed in the South that it was the North that should secede. Quoting Henry Wise of Virginia, historian James McPherson  says, "Logically the union belongs to those who have kept, not those who have broken, its covenants...the North should do the seceding for the South represented more truly the nation which the federal government had set up in 1789." The South saw the growing majority of the North interfering with the culture within their states and violating the Constitution. They observed that democracy and mob rule would take over America. The South wished to restore America to its original Constitution, a Republic of confederated states, in order to preserve liberty and self-government.

"If they [the North] prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its powers from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God...They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions."

-Dr. James Henley Thornwell of South Carolina, Our Danger and our Duty Columbia, S. C.: Southern Guardian Steam-power Press, 1862

True unreconstructed Southerners carried no blind patriotism for a tyrannical democracy like "America." In a Democracy, not even the Constitution or the Declaration could protect people from the mob. Decades after the war, Major James Randolph wrote the popular southern folk song, "I'm a good old rebel." Here are some of the lyrics. 

O I'm a good old rebel,

Now that's just what I am.

For this "fair land of freedom"

I do not care a damn...

I hates the Constitution,

This great republic too,...

I hates the Yankees nation

And everything they do,

I hates the Declaration,

Of Independence, too.

I hates the glorious Union-

'Tis dripping with our blood-

I hates their striped banner,

...

And I don't want no pardon

For what I was and am.

I won't be reconstructed,

And I don't care a damn

That was the old southerner. Propaganda like "land of the free," "home of the brave," meant nothing to a people who had their government toppled, their self-governance eradicated, their former ways of life destroyed.

State Secession Documents

With their actions and words, the states of the Upper South made it clear that Lincoln's call for volunteers, state sovereignty, and self-government were the primary causes of secession. 

Arkansas

"If we go to the North we become instruments in the hands of Lincoln to coerce the seceding states. To this a large number of the people will never consent." 

-The True Democrat Little Rock Arkansas March 15, 1861

Before Lincoln's call for volunteers, the people of Arkansas voted to stay in the Union by a vote of 23,626 to 17,927. On March 4, 1861, the Arkansas convention, led by a unionist president, voted to remain in the Union. However on March 12, 1861, The True Democrat Little Rock Arkansas warned "If Lincoln attempts to carry out the doctrines of his inauguration and to coerce the seceding states, that forces us at once to take our position by their side."

On May 6, 1861, after Lincoln's call for men, Arkansas officials gathered to revote. This time the result was 65-5 in favor of secession. In response to Lincoln's call for volunteers, Henry Rector, the Governor of Arkansas, said, "The people of this commonwealth are free men, not slaves, and will defend to the last extremity, their honor, lives, and property, against northern mendacity and usurpation." Arkansans' before and after votes and their declaration for secession demonstrate their motives for joining the Confederacy. The relevant section of the secession ordinance reads:

Whereas…Lincoln…has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention, pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas. 

-Arkansas State Convention

Virginia

"Secession placed no State in so embarrassing a position as the great Commonwealth of

Virginia…There is no doubt that the great body of its citizens were opposed to the state’s seceding, but they were equally opposed to the coercion of the States which had already seceded." 

-George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B McClellan 1864 BiblioBazaar 2008

After the secession of South Carolina, Virginia stayed in the Union working to restore the seceding states back into the Union. However, on January 7, 1861, Virginia passed an anti-coercion resolution, by a vote of 112-5, describing the right of secession and state sovereignty. This declared that Virginia would oppose any attempt at coercion by the federal government. The resolution declares, "We will resist the same by all the means in our power." The state Governor declared, "I will regard an attempt to pass federal troops across the territory of Virginia, for the purpose of coercing a southern seceding state, as an act of invasion, which should be met and repelled." The general assembly "Resolved... that the basis of all just government is the "consent of the governed," and that such consent is the sanction of free, as force is the sanction of despotic, governments. That where this consent exists, there, whatever the form of the government, is liberty, and where it is wanting, there, whatever the form of the government, is tyranny." However, on April 4, 1861, Virginia voted to stay in the Union by a 2-1 margin. 

Likewise, decades earlier, during the tariff controversy between South Carolina and the federal government the then Governor of Virginia said if any federal soldiers were to step on the soil of Virginia to coerce South Carolina to obey the federal tariffs they had nullified, it would happen only over his dead body. Such was the conviction of Virginian men against tyranny; it was no different in 1860. By calling for volunteers, Lincoln was ignoring Virginia's stance and resolve. 

So when Lincoln called upon Virginia to supply troops to invade the Cotton States, Virginia's decision was predictable. Like most Virginians, Robert E Lee expressed his distaste for coercion when he wrote to his son George Washington Custis Lee in 1861, "A union that can be only maintained by swords and bayonets...has no charm for me." To Virginians, it was a clear distinction between government cohesion and liberty.

"As soon as it was known, that it was the intention of the northern president to usurp war-making powers, and wage war against sovereign states of the confederacy and that Virginia was called on to contribute men and money....no one doubted what her action would be...when the union became an engine for oppression...she could not hesitate to throw herself on the side of freedom."

-Richmond Whig Editorial April 19, 1861, Sic Semper Tyrannis State Independence Quoted in Virginia Iliad H.V Traywick, Jr Dementi Milestone Publishing INC 2016

Virginia voters gathered again after Lincoln's call for troops, and by a vote of 126,000 to 20,400, they left the Union. In his book, Reluctant Confederates, Daniel Crofts shows the great impact Lincoln's call for volunteers had on Virginians. Croft reports on the celebration of Virginians in Rockbridge County, who, after Fort Sumter, put up a confederate flag in celebration. In response, pro-unionist Virginians, who were by far the more numerous, erected a new, more enormous flagpole and put an American eagle on it. However, after Lincoln's call for volunteers, those same Unionists who had put the pole up with the American eagle threw it down. Rockbridge County, which had been majority unionist, then voted 1,728 to 1 for secession.

In the book, Three Months in the Southern States, Englishman Lt.-Colonel Arthur J. Fremantle wrote about a conversation he had with a Virginia woman who said that: "She had stuck fast to the Union until Lincoln's proclamation calling out 75,000 men to coerce the South, which converted her and such a number of others into strong Secessionists." Likewise, confederate artilleryman William Thomas Poague wrote, "Had Lincoln not made war upon the south, Virginia would not have left the union."

"Let us consider for a moment the results of a consolidated government, resting on force, as proposed by the dominant party at the north....a consolidated despotism, upheld by the sword and cemented by fear....now it [the union] has been seized upon by a sectional party, it is claimed that its powers are omnipotent, its will absolute, and it must and will maintain its supremacy, in spite of states and people, at the point of the sword." 

-Richmond Whig Editorial A Government of Force April 10 1861 Quoted in Virginia Iliad H.V Traywick, Jr Dementi Milestone Publishing INC

Moreover, Governor John Letcher, (who wanted Virginia to abolish slavery) opposed secession before Lincoln's call for volunteers. After Lincoln's call, however, he became a firm secessionist.  

"The President of the United States, in plain violation of the Constitution, issued a proclamation calling for a force of seventy-five thousand men, to cause the laws of the United states to be duly executed over a people who are no longer a part of the Union, and in said proclamation threatens to exert this unusual force to compel obedience to his mandates; and whereas, the General Assembly of Virginia, by a majority approaching to entire unanimity, declared at its last session that the State of Virginia would consider such an exertion of force as a virtual declaration of war, to be resisted by all the power at the command of Virginia."

-John Letcher Governor of Virginia 

Virginia did not give a lengthy declaration of why it left the Union, just a short ordinance of secession and a mention of Lincoln's call for men.

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America…declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States."

It was not northern coercion alone that Virginia objected to. When South Carolina and Mississippi were considering passing laws that would negatively affect Virginia financially unless they joined the Confederacy, Governor Letcher said, "I will resist the coercion of Virginia into the adoption of a line of policy, whenever the attempt is made by northern or southern states."

Tennessee

On February 9, Tennessee voters turned down secession by a 4-1 margin. However, things transformed radically after Lincoln's call for volunteers. Governor Isham Harris wrote President Lincoln saying that if the Federal Government would "coerce" the seceded states into returning, Tennessee had no choice but to join its Southern neighbors. He wrote "Tennessee will not furnish a single man for purposes of coercion, but 50,000 if necessary for the defense of our rights, and those of our southern brothers." 

Harper’s Weekly quotes the Nashville Dispatch on April 13, saying, "An enthusiastic public meeting was held here tonight. Resolutions were unanimously adopted, condemning the Administration for the present state of affairs, and sympathizing with the South." Harper’s Weekly also quoted a Memphis paper saying, "There are no Union men now here." On May 9, in an address to the people of Tennessee, Governor Harris said, "Force, when attempted, changes the whole character of the Government; making it a military despotism, and those that submit become the abject slaves of power. The people of Tennessee have fully understood this important fact, and hence their anxiety to stay the hand of coercion. They well know that the subjugation of the seceded States involved their own destruction." 

Harris and the people of Tennessee realized that cooperating in the subjugation of the Cotton States meant accepting their own future subjugation. Governor Harris recalled the Tennessee legislature on May 6 for another vote; voters would then approve secession on June 8 by a 2-1 margin. Reconciliation with a coercive government was out of the question; the Union was no longer. The founder's republic had vanished.

"If ever thus restored, it must, by the very act, cease to be a Union of free and independent States, such as our fathers established. It will become a consolidated centralized Government, without liberty or equality, in which some will reign and others serve the few tyrannize and the many suffer. It would be the greatest folly to hope for the reconstruction of a peaceful Union…The Federal Union of the States, thus practically dissolved, can never be restored."

-Isham G Harris, Senate Journal of the Second Extra Session of the Thirty-Third General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, which Convened at Nashville on Thursday, the 25th day of April, A.D 1861 Nashville J.O Griffith and Company, Public Printers 1861

North Carolina

"I have to say in reply that I regard the levy of troops made by the Administration for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South, as in violation of the Constitution and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina."

-John Ellis, Governor of North Carolina Raleigh April 15, 1861, quoted in Harper's Weekly April 27, 1861

Before Lincoln's call to invade the Cotton States, support for the Union was overwhelming in North Carolina; they did not even vote on secession. However, after Lincoln's call for war, they unanimously adopted a secession ordinance. The same issue of Harper's Weekly quoted a dispatch from Wilmington North Carolina; "The Proclamation is received with perfect contempt and indignation. The Union men openly denounce the Administration. The greatest possible unanimity prevails." The effects were felt across political lines. McPherson  writes, "Even the previously unionist mountain counties, seemed to favor secession." 

Governor Ellis' proclamation on April 17 clarified why North Carolina stood with the South; "Lincoln has made a call for 75,000 men to be employed for the invasion of the peaceful homes of the South, and for the violent subversion of the liberties of a free people…this high-handed act of tyrannical outrage is not only in violation of all constitutional law, in utter disregard of every sentiment of humanity and Christian civilization…but is a direct step towards the subjugation of the whole South, and the conversion of a free Republic, inherited from our fathers, into a military despotism." 

Missouri

"Sir...Your requisition, in my judgment, is illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in its objects, inhuman and diabolical, and can not be complied with. Not one man will, of the State of Missouri, furnish or carry on such an unholy crusade."

-Missouri Governor Claiborne Jackson Jefferson City April 17, 1861 Quote in Harper's Weekly April 27, 1861

Missouri was almost entirely pro-union. When confederates sent delegates to Missouri to convince the state to join the South, they were booed and jeered so loudly that none could hear them. On March 21, 1861, the Missouri convention voted 98-1 against secession, but they, like Kentucky, kept their neutrality. 

However, many in the state became outraged that their state sovereignty had been violated during the "Camp Jackson Affair." Union commander Nathaniel Lyon arrested the Missouri State Brigade, whom he feared were planning to seize the arsenal in St. Louis, and federal soldiers killed dozens of citizens during ensuing riots. Since the federal government violated the state's neutral position, support for secession grew within the state. James McPherson  wrote, "The events in St Louis pushed many conditional unionists into the ranks of secessionists." Lyon then pushed the Governor and state legislature out of Jefferson City, creating more anti-union sentiment. These events led to the end of neutrality, which resulted in both a pro-confederate and pro-union government within the state. On November 28, the Confederate Congress accepted Missouri as the 12th confederate state. Pro-confederate Missouri's reasons for secession centered around constitutional violations by the Lincoln administration.

Whereas the Government of the United States…has wantonly violated the compact originally made between said Government and the State of Missouri, by invading with hostile armies the soil of the State, attacking and making prisoners the militia while legally assembled under the State laws, forcibly occupying the State capitol, and attempting through the instrumentality of domestic traitors to usurp the State government, seizing and destroying private property, and murdering with fiendish malignity peaceable citizens, men, women, and children, together with other acts of atrocity, indicating a deep-settled hostility toward the people of Missouri and their institutions; and Whereas the present Administration of the Government of the United States has utterly ignored the Constitution, subverted the Government as constructed and intended by its makers, and established a despotic and arbitrary power instead thereof. 

-Missouri Causes of Secession 

Kentucky

By a 3 to 1 margin, Kentucky voted to remain neutral, but after Lincoln's call for volunteers, support for the South began to spread. The Kentucky Governor wrote, "President Lincoln, I will send not a man nor a dollar for the wicked purpose of subduing my sister southern states." On April 16, 1861 Governor B. Magoffin wrote to Simon Cameron, Secretary of War saying "Your dispatch is received. In answer, I say emphatically that Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States."

However, the state's neutrality stance was violated by southern troops. In reaction, Kentucky would officially support the Union. Yet a pro-confederate government was established on December 10, 1861, and was accepted into the Confederacy by President Jefferson Davis as the 13th Confederate state. This Confederate government gave its causes of secession centered on limited government, Northern violations of the Constitution, and states’ rights. 

Whereas, the Federal Constitution, which created the Government of the United States, was declared by the framers thereof to be the supreme law of the land, and was intended to limit and did expressly limit the powers of said Government to certain general specified purposes, and did expressly reserve to the States and people all other powers whatever, and the President and Congress have treated this supreme law of the Union with contempt and usurped to themselves the power to interfere with the rights and liberties of the States and the people against the expressed provisions of the Constitution, and have thus substituted for the highest forms of national liberty and constitutional government a central despotism founded upon the ignorant prejudices of the masses of Northern society, and instead of giving protection with the Constitution to the people of fifteen States of this Union have turned loose upon them the unrestrained and raging passions of mobs and fanatics, and because we now seek to hold our liberties, our property, our homes, and our families under the protection of the reserved powers of the States, have blockaded our ports, invaded our soil, and waged war upon our people for the purpose of subjugating us to their will; and Whereas, our honor and our duty to posterity demand that we shall not relinquish our own liberty and shall not abandon the right of our descendants and the world to the inestimable blessings of constitutional government.: therefore, be it ordained, that we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States.

 -Declaration of Causes of Secession Kentucky 

Slavery's Impact on the Secession of the Upper South

"It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against States fighting for their Independence into a war waged against States fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South."

-Woodrow Wilson, "A History of The American People" HardPress Publishing 2013

Slavery's involvement as a cause for secession in the Upper South is overstated. The states of the Upper South had protection for their slave property whether they stayed in the Union or joined the Confederacy. When the Deep South states left the Union, more slave states remained in the Union than joined the Confederacy. Most Upper South state declarations did not even mention slavery; if they did, it was only in passing and usually associated with violations of state's rights or the Constitution. Instead, they heavily spoke on state's rights, state sovereignty, and Lincoln's call for volunteers as the reasons for secession. Those states had previously chosen to stay with the Union before Lincoln's call but could no longer remain under a government of force. 

Slavery was Safer in the Union Than the Confederacy 

"Seven-tenths of our people owned no slaves at all, and to say the least of it, felt no great and enduring enthusiasm for its preservation, especially when it seemed to them that it was in no danger.'" 

-John G. Barrett, The Civil War in North Carolina U of North Carolina Press 1995

The Union would protect slavery better than a Confederacy. Slavery was constitutionally protected in both the northern and southern states for the entirety of the civil war. Moreover, Lincoln and the North supported the Corwin Amendment, which would permanently enshrine slavery in the U.S. Constitution. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said this of the proposed amendment, "To the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service...holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

-Corwin Amendment 

The U.S. supreme court supported the fugitive slave laws, allowing federally funded agents to return runaway slaves to their masters. On the other hand, the Confederacy was unable to protect slaveowners when slaves fled to the North. In his inaugural address, Lincoln pointed this out, saying, "while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other." 

The 1860 Republican platform Plank 4 said that slavery was a state issue, and they would not interfere with it in states that already had slaves. In his inaugural address, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Likewise, on May 26, 1861, General MClellan said, "Not only will we abstain from all such interference (with slaves), we will, on the contrary, with an iron hand crush any attempt at insurrection on their part." It is no wonder a leader of the Whig Party in Missouri said, "Howard County is true to the Union. Our slaveholders think it is the sure bulwark of our slave property."

Even after the deep South left the Union, the federal government decided it would not end slavery, in the House in February and the Senate on March 2, 1861. On July 22, 1861, Congress declared, "This war is not waged, nor (the) purpose of overthrowing… the rights or established institutions of those states." On October 8, 1861, the Washington D.C. newspaper, The National Intelligencer, said, "The existing war had no direct relation to slavery." On November 7, 1861, Commanding General McClellan said, "The issue for which we are fighting, that issue is the preservation of the Union... I express the feelings and opinions of the president when I say that we are fighting only to preserve the integrity of the Union." On August 15, 1864, long after the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln said, "So long as I am President. It shall be carried on for the sole purpose of restoring the Union." 

This is not to say that no one in the Upper South was upset over the Republican's intrusion into the states' rights on this issue in the western territories. There was a minor secession movement within the Upper South on the issue of slavery, especially in Virginia and Arkansas, but they were a minority. In fact, after Lincoln's call for troops, many slave owners in the Upper South argued to stay in the Union since Lincoln was powerless to interfere with slavery. 

"Is there any good reason why we should change our position? I believe that so far as the North is concerned, the prospect for the full recognition of Southern rights is better than it was at the time of Lincoln's election, or at any time within several years before. The Governors of several Northern States, including the great States of New York and Pennsylvania, have recommended the faithful observance of all the laws intended for the protection of slave property, and the repeal of all the personal liberty bills... Lincoln's administration is powerless to harm us. Before its close, his party will be scattered into fragments."

-Rep. Thomas N. Crumpler of Ashe County N.C to the House of Commons on January 10, 1861

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.