Confederate States of America – Wikipedia

Unrecognized breakaway state in North America, 18611865

Confederate States of America

The Confederate States in 1862

Claims made and under partial control for a time by the Confederacy

Contested Native American territory

18611865

18611865

18601

Slaves2

The Confederate States of America (CSA), commonly referred to as the Confederate States or simply the Confederacy, was an unrecognized breakaway[1] republic in North America that existed from February 8, 1861, to May 9, 1865.[6] The Confederacy comprised U.S. states that declared secession and warred against the United States (the Union) during the American Civil War.[6][7] Eleven U.S. states, nicknamed Dixie, declared secession and formed the main part of the CSA. They were South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. Kentucky and Missouri also had declarations of secession and full representation in the Confederate Congress during their Union army occupation.

The Confederacy was formed on February 8, 1861, by seven slave states: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.[8] All seven of the states were located in the Deep South region of the United States, whose economy was heavily dependent upon agricultureparticularly cottonand a plantation system that relied upon enslaved Americans of African descendent for labor.[9][10] Convinced that white supremacy and slavery were threatened by the November 1860 election of Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln to the U.S. presidency, on a platform which opposed the expansion of slavery into the western territories, the Confederacy declared its secession from the United States, with the loyal states becoming known as the Union during the ensuing American Civil War.[7][8][5] In the Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens described its ideology as centrally based "upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."[11]

Before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861, a provisional Confederate government was established on February 8, 1861. It was considered illegal by the United States federal government, and Northerners thought of the Confederates as traitors. After war began in April, four slave states of the Upper SouthVirginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolinaalso joined the Confederacy. The Confederacy later accepted the slave states of Missouri and Kentucky as members, accepting rump state assembly declarations of secession as authorization for full delegations of representatives and senators in the Confederate Congress; they were never substantially controlled by Confederate forces, despite the efforts of Confederate shadow governments, which were eventually expelled. The Union rejected the claims of secession as illegitimate.

The Civil War began on April 12, 1861, when the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter, a Union fort in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. No foreign government ever recognized the Confederacy as an independent country, although Great Britain and France granted it belligerent status, which allowed Confederate agents to contract with private concerns for weapons and other supplies.[1][12][13] By 1865, the Confederacy's civilian government dissolved into chaos: the Confederate States Congress adjourned sine die, effectively ceasing to exist as a legislative body on March 18. After four years of heavy fighting, nearly all Confederate land and naval forces either surrendered or otherwise ceased hostilities by May 1865.[14][15] The war lacked a clean end, with Confederate forces surrendering or disbanding sporadically throughout most of 1865. The most significant capitulation was Confederate general Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox on April 9, after which any doubt about the war's outcome or the Confederacy's survival was extinguished, although another large army under Confederate general Joseph E. Johnston did not formally surrender to William T. Sherman until April 26. Contemporaneously, President Lincoln was assassinated by Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth on April 15. Confederate President Jefferson Davis's administration declared the Confederacy dissolved on May 5, and acknowledged in later writings that the Confederacy "disappeared" in 1865.[16][17][18] On May 9, 1865, U.S. president Andrew Johnson officially called an end to the armed resistance in the South.

After the war, Confederate states were readmitted to the Congress during the Reconstruction era, after each ratified the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawing slavery. Lost Cause ideology, an idealized view of the Confederacy valiantly fighting for a just cause, emerged in the decades after the war among former Confederate generals and politicians, as well as organizations such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Intense periods of Lost Cause activity developed around the time of World War I, and during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s in reaction to growing support for racial equality. Advocates sought to ensure future generations of Southern whites would continue to support white supremacist policies such as the Jim Crow laws through activities such as building Confederate monuments and influencing textbooks to portray the Confederacy in a favorable light.[19] The modern display of Confederate flags primarily started during the 1948 presidential election, when the battle flag was used by the Dixiecrats, who opposed the Civil Rights Movement; more recently, segregationists have continued the practice, using it for demonstrations.[20][21]

On February 22, 1862, the Confederate States Constitution of seven state signatories Mississippi, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas replaced the Provisional Constitution of February 8, 1861, with one stating in its preamble a desire for a "permanent federal government". Four additional slave-holding states Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina declared their secession and joined the Confederacy following a call by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln for troops from each state to recapture Sumter and other seized federal properties in the South.[22]

Missouri and Kentucky were represented by partisan factions adopting the forms of state governments without control of substantial territory or population in either case. The antebellum state governments in both maintained their representation in the Union. Also fighting for the Confederacy were two of the "Five Civilized Tribes" the Choctaw and the Chickasaw in Indian Territory, and a new, but uncontrolled, Confederate Territory of Arizona. Efforts by certain factions in Maryland to secede were halted by federal imposition of martial law; Delaware, though of divided loyalty, did not attempt it. A Unionist government was formed in opposition to the secessionist state government in Richmond and administered the western parts of Virginia that had been occupied by Federal troops. The Restored Government of Virginia later recognized the new state of West Virginia, which was admitted to the Union during the war on June 20, 1863, and relocated to Alexandria for the rest of the war.[22]

Confederate control over its claimed territory and population in congressional districts steadily shrank from three-quarters to a third during the American Civil War due to the Union's successful overland campaigns, its control of inland waterways into the South, and its blockade of the southern coast.[23] With the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, the Union made abolition of slavery a war goal (in addition to reunion). As Union forces moved southward, large numbers of plantation slaves were freed. Many joined the Union lines, enrolling in service as soldiers, teamsters and laborers. The most notable advance was Sherman's "March to the Sea" in late 1864. Much of the Confederacy's infrastructure was destroyed, including telegraphs, railroads, and bridges. Plantations in the path of Sherman's forces were severely damaged. Internal movement within the Confederacy became increasingly difficult, weakening its economy and limiting army mobility.[24]

These losses created an insurmountable disadvantage in men, materiel, and finance. Public support for Confederate President Jefferson Davis's administration eroded over time due to repeated military reverses, economic hardships, and allegations of autocratic government. After four years of campaigning, Richmond was captured by Union forces in April 1865. A few days later General Robert E. Lee surrendered to Union General Ulysses S. Grant, effectively signaling the collapse of the Confederacy. President Davis was captured on May 10, 1865, and jailed for treason, but no trial was ever held.[25]

The Confederacy was established by the Montgomery Convention in February 1861 by seven states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, adding Texas in March before Lincoln's inauguration), expanded in MayJuly 1861 (with Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina), and disintegrated in AprilMay 1865. It was formed by delegations from seven slave states of the Lower South that had proclaimed their secession from the Union. After the fighting began in April, four additional slave states seceded and were admitted. Later, two slave states (Missouri and Kentucky) and two territories were given seats in the Confederate Congress.[26]

Southern nationalism was rising and pride supported the new founding.[27][28] Confederate nationalism prepared men to fight for "The Southern Cause". For the duration of its existence, the Confederacy underwent trial by war.[29] The Southern Cause transcended the ideology of states' rights, tariff policy, and internal improvements. This "Cause" supported, or derived from, cultural and financial dependence on the South's slavery-based economy. The convergence of race and slavery, politics, and economics raised almost all South-related policy questions to the status of moral questions over way of life, merging love of things Southern and hatred of things Northern. Not only did political parties split, but national churches and interstate families as well divided along sectional lines as the war approached.[30] According to historian John M. Coski,

The statesmen who led the secession movement were unashamed to explicitly cite the defense of slavery as their prime motive... Acknowledging the centrality of slavery to the Confederacy is essential for understanding the Confederate.[31]

Southern Democrats had chosen John Breckinridge as their candidate during the U.S. presidential election of 1860, but in no Southern state (other than South Carolina, where the legislature chose the electors) was support for him unanimous, as all of the other states recorded at least some popular votes for one or more of the other three candidates (Abraham Lincoln, Stephen A. Douglas and John Bell). Support for these candidates, collectively, ranged from significant to an outright majority, with extremes running from 25% in Texas to 81% in Missouri.[32] There were minority views everywhere, especially in the upland and plateau areas of the South, being particularly concentrated in western Virginia and eastern Tennessee.[33]

Following South Carolina's unanimous 1860 secession vote, no other Southern states considered the question until 1861, and when they did none had a unanimous vote. All had residents who cast significant numbers of Unionist votes in either the legislature, conventions, popular referendums, or in all three. Voting to remain in the Union did not necessarily mean that individuals were sympathizers with the North. Once fighting began, many of these who voted to remain in the Union, particularly in the Deep South, accepted the majority decision, and supported the Confederacy.[34]

Many writers have evaluated the Civil War as an American tragedya "Brothers' War", pitting "brother against brother, father against son, kin against kin of every degree".[35][36]

According to historian Avery O. Craven in 1950, the Confederate States of America nation, as a state power, was created by secessionists in Southern slave states, who believed that the federal government was making them second-class citizens.[37] They judged the agents of change to be abolitionists and anti-slavery elements in the Republican Party, whom they believed used repeated insult and injury to subject them to intolerable "humiliation and degradation".[37] The "Black Republicans" (as the Southerners called them) and their allies soon dominated the U.S. House, Senate, and Presidency. On the U.S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (a presumed supporter of slavery) was 83 years old and ailing.

During the campaign for president in 1860, some secessionists threatened disunion should Lincoln (who opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories) be elected, including William L. Yancey. Yancey toured the North calling for secession as Stephen A. Douglas toured the South calling for union if Lincoln was elected.[38] To the secessionists the Republican intent was clear: to contain slavery within its present bounds and, eventually, to eliminate it entirely. A Lincoln victory presented them with a momentous choice (as they saw it), even before his inauguration "the Union without slavery, or slavery without the Union".[39]

The new [Confederate] Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutionsAfrican slavery as it exists among usthe proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon itwhen the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Alexander H. Stephens, speech to The Savannah Theatre. (March 21, 1861)

The immediate catalyst for secession was the victory of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln as president in the 1860 elections. American Civil War historian James M. McPherson suggested that, for Southerners, the most ominous feature of the Republican victories in the congressional and presidential elections of 1860 was the magnitude of those victories: Republicans captured over 60 percent of the Northern vote and three-fourths of its Congressional delegations. The Southern press said that such Republicans represented the anti-slavery portion of the North, "a party founded on the single sentiment ... of hatred of African slavery", and now the controlling power in national affairs. The "Black Republican party" could overwhelm conservative Yankees. The New Orleans Delta said of the Republicans, "It is in fact, essentially, a revolutionary party" to overthrow slavery.[40]

By 1860, sectional disagreements between North and South concerned primarily the maintenance or expansion of slavery in the United States. Historian Drew Gilpin Faust observed that "leaders of the secession movement across the South cited slavery as the most compelling reason for southern independence".[41] Although most white Southerners did not own slaves, the majority supported the institution of slavery and benefited indirectly from the slave society. For struggling yeomen and subsistence farmers, the slave society provided a large class of people ranked lower in the social scale than themselves.[42] Secondary differences related to issues of free speech, runaway slaves, expansion into Cuba, and states' rights.

Historian Emory Thomas assessed the Confederacy's self-image by studying correspondence sent by the Confederate government in 186162 to foreign governments. He found that Confederate diplomacy projected multiple contradictory self-images:

The Southern nation was by turns a guileless people attacked by a voracious neighbor, an 'established' nation in some temporary difficulty, a collection of bucolic aristocrats making a romantic stand against the banalities of industrial democracy, a cabal of commercial farmers seeking to make a pawn of King Cotton, an apotheosis of nineteenth-century nationalism and revolutionary liberalism, or the ultimate statement of social and economic reaction.[43]

In what later became known as the Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens declared that the "cornerstone" of the new government "rest[ed] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth".[44] After the war Stephens tried to qualify his remarks, claiming they were extemporaneous, metaphorical, and intended to refer to public sentiment rather than "the principles of the new Government on this subject".[45][46]

Four of the seceding states, the Deep South states of South Carolina,[47]Mississippi,[48] Georgia,[49] and Texas,[50] issued formal declarations of the causes of their decision; each identified the threat to slaveholders' rights as the cause of, or a major cause of, secession. Georgia also claimed a general Federal policy of favoring Northern over Southern economic interests. Texas mentioned slavery 21 times, but also listed the failure of the federal government to live up to its obligations, in the original annexation agreement, to protect settlers along the exposed western frontier. Texas resolutions further stated that governments of the states and the nation were established "exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity". They also stated that although equal civil and political rights applied to all white men, they did not apply to those of the "African race", further opining that the end of racial enslavement would "bring inevitable calamities upon both [races] and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states".[50]

Alabama did not provide a separate declaration of causes. Instead, the Alabama ordinance stated "the election of Abraham Lincoln... by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security". The ordinance invited "the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as a permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States" to participate in a February 4, 1861 convention in Montgomery, Alabama.[51]

The secession ordinances of the remaining two states, Florida and Louisiana, simply declared their severing ties with the federal Union, without stating any causes.[52][53] Afterward, the Florida secession convention formed a committee to draft a declaration of causes, but the committee was discharged before completion of the task.[54] Only an undated, untitled draft remains.[55]

Four of the Upper South states (Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) rejected secession until after the clash at Ft. Sumter.[34][56][57][58][59] Virginia's ordinance stated a kinship with the slave-holding states of the Lower South, but did not name the institution itself as a primary reason for its course.[60]

Arkansas's secession ordinance encompassed a strong objection to the use of military force to preserve the Union as its motivating reason.[61] Before the outbreak of war, the Arkansas Convention had on March 20 given as their first resolution: "The people of the Northern States have organized a political party, purely sectional in its character, the central and controlling idea of which is hostility to the institution of African slavery, as it exists in the Southern States; and that party has elected a President ... pledged to administer the Government upon principles inconsistent with the rights and subversive of the interests of the Southern States."[62]

North Carolina and Tennessee limited their ordinances to simply withdrawing, although Tennessee went so far as to make clear they wished to make no comment at all on the "abstract doctrine of secession".[63][64]

In a message to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861 Jefferson Davis cited both the tariff[clarification needed] and slavery for the South's secession.[65]

The pro-slavery "Fire-Eaters" group of Southern Democrats, calling for immediate secession, were opposed by two factions. "Cooperationists" in the Deep South would delay secession until several states left the union, perhaps in a Southern Convention. Under the influence of men such as Texas Governor Sam Houston, delay would have the effect of sustaining the Union.[66] "Unionists", especially in the Border South, often former Whigs, appealed to sentimental attachment to the United States. Southern Unionists' favorite presidential candidate was John Bell of Tennessee, sometimes running under an "Opposition Party" banner.[66]

Many secessionists were active politically. Governor William Henry Gist of South Carolina corresponded secretly with other Deep South governors, and most southern governors exchanged clandestine commissioners.[67] Charleston's secessionist "1860 Association" published over 200,000 pamphlets to persuade the youth of the South. The most influential were: "The Doom of Slavery" and "The South Alone Should Govern the South", both by John Townsend of South Carolina; and James D. B. De Bow's "The Interest of Slavery of the Southern Non-slaveholder".[68]

Developments in South Carolina started a chain of events. The foreman of a jury refused the legitimacy of federal courts, so Federal Judge Andrew Magrath ruled that U.S. judicial authority in South Carolina was vacated. A mass meeting in Charleston celebrating the Charleston and Savannah railroad and state cooperation led to the South Carolina legislature to call for a Secession Convention. U.S. Senator James Chesnut, Jr. resigned, as did Senator James Henry Hammond.[69]

Elections for Secessionist conventions were heated to "an almost raving pitch, no one dared dissent", according to historian William W. Freehling. Even oncerespected voices, including the Chief Justice of South Carolina, John Belton O'Neall, lost election to the Secession Convention on a Cooperationist ticket. Across the South mobs expelled Yankees and (in Texas) executed German-Americans suspected of loyalty to the United States.[70] Generally, seceding conventions which followed did not call for a referendum to ratify, although Texas, Arkansas, and Tennessee did, as well as Virginia's second convention. Kentucky declared neutrality, while Missouri had its own civil war until the Unionists took power and drove the Confederate legislators out of the state.[71]

In the antebellum months, the Corwin Amendment was an unsuccessful attempt by the Congress to bring the seceding states back to the Union and to convince the border slave states to remain.[72] It was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution by Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin that would shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress.[73][74]

It was passed by the 36th Congress on March 2, 1861. The House approved it by a vote of 133 to 65 and the United States Senate adopted it, with no changes, on a vote of 24 to 12. It was then submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.[75] In his inaugural address Lincoln endorsed the proposed amendment.

The text was as follows:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to 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.

Had it been ratified by the required number of states prior to 1865, it would have made institutionalized slavery immune to the constitutional amendment procedures and to interference by Congress.[76][77]

The first secession state conventions from the Deep South sent representatives to meet at the Montgomery Convention in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4, 1861. There the fundamental documents of government were promulgated, a provisional government was established, and a representative Congress met for the Confederate States of America.[78]

The new 'provisional' Confederate President Jefferson Davis issued a call for 100,000 men from the various states' militias to defend the newly formed Confederacy.[78] All Federal property was seized, along with gold bullion and coining dies at the U.S. mints in Charlotte, North Carolina; Dahlonega, Georgia; and New Orleans.[78] The Confederate capital was moved from Montgomery to Richmond, Virginia, in May 1861. On February 22, 1862, Davis was inaugurated as president with a term of six years.[79]

The newly inaugurated Confederate administration pursued a policy of national territorial integrity, continuing earlier state efforts in 1860 and early 1861 to remove U.S. government presence from within their boundaries. These efforts included taking possession of U.S. courts, custom houses, post offices, and most notably, arsenals and forts. But after the Confederate attack and capture of Fort Sumter in April 1861, Lincoln called up 75,000 of the states' militia to muster under his command. The stated purpose was to re-occupy U.S. properties throughout the South, as the U.S. Congress had not authorized their abandonment. The resistance at Fort Sumter signaled his change of policy from that of the Buchanan Administration. Lincoln's response ignited a firestorm of emotion. The people of both North and South demanded war, with soldiers rushing to their colors in the hundreds of thousands. Four more states (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas) refused Lincoln's call for troops and declared secession, while Kentucky maintained an uneasy "neutrality".[78]

Secessionists argued that the United States Constitution was a contract among sovereign states that could be abandoned at any time without consultation and that each state had a right to secede. After intense debates and statewide votes, seven Deep South cotton states passed secession ordinances by February 1861 (before Abraham Lincoln took office as president), while secession efforts failed in the other eight slave states. Delegates from those seven formed the CSA in February 1861, selecting Jefferson Davis as the provisional president. Unionist talk of reunion failed and Davis began raising a 100,000 man army.[80]

Initially, some secessionists may have hoped for a peaceful departure.[81] Moderates in the Confederate Constitutional Convention included a provision against importation of slaves from Africa to appeal to the Upper South. Non-slave states might join, but the radicals secured a two-thirds requirement in both houses of Congress to accept them.[82]

Seven states declared their secession from the United States before Lincoln took office on March 4, 1861. After the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter April 12, 1861, and Lincoln's subsequent call for troops on April 15, four more states declared their secession:[83]

Both sides honored George Washington as a Founding Father (and used the same Gilbert Stuart portrait).

Kentucky declared neutrality but after Confederate troops moved in, the state government asked for Union troops to drive them out. The splinter Confederate state government relocated to accompany western Confederate armies and never controlled the state population. By the end of the war, 90,000 Kentuckians had fought on the side of the Union, compared to 35,000 for the Confederate States.[84]

In Missouri, a constitutional convention was approved and delegates elected by voters. The convention rejected secession 891 on March 19, 1861.[85] The governor maneuvered to take control of the St. Louis Arsenal and restrict Federal movements. This led to confrontation, and in June Federal forces drove him and the General Assembly from Jefferson City. The executive committee of the constitutional convention called the members together in July. The convention declared the state offices vacant, and appointed a Unionist interim state government.[86] The exiled governor called a rump session of the former General Assembly together in Neosho and, on October 31, 1861, passed an ordinance of secession.[87][88] It is still a matter of debate as to whether a quorum existed for this vote. The Confederate state government was unable to control very much Missouri territory. It had its capital first at Neosho, then at Cassville, before being driven out of the state. For the remainder of the war, it operated as a government in exile at Marshall, Texas.[89]

Neither Kentucky nor Missouri was declared in rebellion in Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. The Confederacy recognized the pro-Confederate claimants in both Kentucky (December 10, 1861) and Missouri (November 28, 1861) and laid claim to those states, granting them Congressional representation and adding two stars to the Confederate flag. Voting for the representatives was mostly done by Confederate soldiers from Kentucky and Missouri.[90]

The order of secession resolutions and dates are:

In Virginia, the populous counties along the Ohio and Pennsylvania borders rejected the Confederacy. Unionists held a Convention in Wheeling in June 1861, establishing a "restored government" with a rump legislature, but sentiment in the region remained deeply divided. In the 50 counties that would make up the state of West Virginia, voters from 24 counties had voted for disunion in Virginia's May 23 referendum on the ordinance of secession.[103] In the 1860 Presidential election "Constitutional Democrat" Breckenridge had outpolled "Constitutional Unionist" Bell in the 50 counties by 1,900 votes, 44% to 42%.[104] Regardless of scholarly disputes over election procedures and results county by county, altogether they simultaneously supplied over 20,000 soldiers to each side of the conflict.[105][106] Representatives for most of the counties were seated in both state legislatures at Wheeling and at Richmond for the duration of the war.[107]

Attempts to secede from the Confederacy by some counties in East Tennessee were checked by martial law.[108] Although slave-holding Delaware and Maryland did not secede, citizens from those states exhibited divided loyalties. Regiments of Marylanders fought in Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.[109] But overall, 24,000 men from Maryland joined the Confederate armed forces, compared to 63,000 who joined Union forces.[84]

Delaware never produced a full regiment for the Confederacy, but neither did it emancipate slaves as did Missouri and West Virginia. District of Columbia citizens made no attempts to secede and through the war years, referendums sponsored by President Lincoln approved systems of compensated emancipation and slave confiscation from "disloyal citizens".[110]

Citizens at Mesilla and Tucson in the southern part of New Mexico Territory formed a secession convention, which voted to join the Confederacy on March 16, 1861, and appointed Dr. Lewis S. Owings as the new territorial governor. They won the Battle of Mesilla and established a territorial government with Mesilla serving as its capital.[111] The Confederacy proclaimed the Confederate Arizona Territory on February 14, 1862, north to the 34th parallel. Marcus H. MacWillie served in both Confederate Congresses as Arizona's delegate. In 1862 the Confederate New Mexico Campaign to take the northern half of the U.S. territory failed and the Confederate territorial government in exile relocated to San Antonio, Texas.[112]

Confederate supporters in the trans-Mississippi west also claimed portions of the Indian Territory after the United States evacuated the federal forts and installations. Over half of the American Indian troops participating in the Civil War from the Indian Territory supported the Confederacy; troops and one general were enlisted from each tribe. On July 12, 1861, the Confederate government signed a treaty with both the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indian nations. After several battles Union armies took control of the territory.[113]

The Indian Territory never formally joined the Confederacy, but it did receive representation in the Confederate Congress. Many Indians from the Territory were integrated into regular Confederate Army units. After 1863 the tribal governments sent representatives to the Confederate Congress: Elias Cornelius Boudinot representing the Cherokee and Samuel Benton Callahan representing the Seminole and Creek people. The Cherokee Nation aligned with the Confederacy. They practiced and supported slavery, opposed abolition, and feared their lands would be seized by the Union. After the war, the Indian territory was disestablished, their black slaves were freed, and the tribes lost some of their lands.[114]

First Capitol, Montgomery, Alabama

Second Capitol, Richmond, Virginia

Montgomery, Alabama, served as the capital of the Confederate States of America from February 4 until May 29, 1861, in the Alabama State Capitol. Six states created the Confederate States of America there on February 8, 1861. The Texas delegation was seated at the time, so it is counted in the "original seven" states of the Confederacy; it had no roll call vote until after its referendum made secession "operative".[115] Two sessions of the Provisional Congress were held in Montgomery, adjourning May 21.[116] The Permanent Constitution was adopted there on March 12, 1861.[117]

The permanent capital provided for in the Confederate Constitution called for a state cession of a ten-miles square (100 square mile) district to the central government. Atlanta, which had not yet supplanted Milledgeville, Georgia, as its state capital, put in a bid noting its central location and rail connections, as did Opelika, Alabama, noting its strategically interior situation, rail connections and nearby deposits of coal and iron.[118]

Richmond, Virginia, was chosen for the interim capital at the Virginia State Capitol. The move was used by Vice President Stephens and others to encourage other border states to follow Virginia into the Confederacy. In the political moment it was a show of "defiance and strength". The war for Southern independence was surely to be fought in Virginia, but it also had the largest Southern military-aged white population, with infrastructure, resources, and supplies required to sustain a war. The Davis Administration's policy was that, "It must be held at all hazards."[119]

The naming of Richmond as the new capital took place on May 30, 1861, and the last two sessions of the Provisional Congress were held in the new capital. The Permanent Confederate Congress and President were elected in the states and army camps on November 6, 1861. The First Congress met in four sessions in Richmond from February 18, 1862, to February 17, 1864. The Second Congress met there in two sessions, from May 2, 1864, to March 18, 1865.[120]

As war dragged on, Richmond became crowded with training and transfers, logistics and hospitals. Prices rose dramatically despite government efforts at price regulation. A movement in Congress led by Henry S. Foote of Tennessee argued for moving the capital from Richmond. At the approach of Federal armies in mid-1862, the government's archives were readied for removal. As the Wilderness Campaign progressed, Congress authorized Davis to remove the executive department and call Congress to session elsewhere in 1864 and again in 1865. Shortly before the end of the war, the Confederate government evacuated Richmond, planning to relocate farther south. Little came of these plans before Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House, Virginia on April 9, 1865.[121] Davis and most of his cabinet fled to Danville, Virginia, which served as their headquarters for eight days.

Unionismopposition to the Confederacywas widespread in the mountain regions of Appalachia and the Ozarks.[122] Unionists, led by Parson Brownlow and Senator Andrew Johnson, took control of eastern Tennessee in 1863.[123] Unionists also attempted control over western Virginia but never effectively held more than half of the counties that formed the new state of West Virginia.[124][125][126] Union forces captured parts of coastal North Carolina, and at first were welcomed by local unionists. That changed as the occupiers became perceived as oppressive, callous, radical and favorable to the Freedmen. Occupiers pillaged, freed slaves, and evicted those who refused to swear loyalty oaths to the Union.[127]

Support for the Confederacy was perhaps weakest in Texas; Claude Elliott estimates that only a third of the population actively supported the Confederacy. Many Unionists supported the Confederacy after the war began, but many others clung to their Unionism throughout the war, especially in the northern counties, the German districts, and the Mexican areas.[128] According to Ernest Wallace: "This account of a dissatisfied Unionist minority, although historically essential, must be kept in its proper perspective, for throughout the war the overwhelming majority of the people zealously supported the Confederacy ..."[129] Randolph B. Campbell states, "In spite of terrible losses and hardships, most Texans continued throughout the war to support the Confederacy as they had supported secession".[130] Dale Baum in his analysis of Texas politics in the era counters: "This idea of a Confederate Texas united politically against northern adversaries was shaped more by nostalgic fantasies than by wartime realities." He characterizes Texas Civil War history as "a morose story of intragovernmental rivalries coupled with wide-ranging disaffection that prevented effective implementation of state wartime policies".[131]

In Texas, local officials harassed and murdered Unionists and Germans. In Cooke County, 150 suspected Unionists were arrested; 25 were lynched without trial and 40 more were hanged after a summary trial. Draft resistance was widespread especially among Texans of German or Mexican descent; many of the latter went to Mexico. Confederate officials hunted down and killed potential draftees who had gone into hiding.[128]

Civil liberties were of small concern in both the North and South. Lincoln and Davis both took a hard line against dissent. Neely explores how the Confederacy became a virtual police state with guards and patrols all about, and a domestic passport system whereby everyone needed official permission each time they wanted to travel. Over 4,000 suspected Unionists were imprisoned without trial.[132]

During the four years of its existence under trial by war, the Confederate States of America asserted its independence and appointed dozens of diplomatic agents abroad. None were ever officially recognized by a foreign government. The United States government regarded the Southern states as being in rebellion or insurrection and so refused any formal recognition of their status.

Even before Fort Sumter, U.S. Secretary of State William H. Seward issued formal instructions to the American minister to Britain, Charles Francis Adams:

[Make] no expressions of harshness or disrespect, or even impatience concerning the seceding States, their agents, or their people, [those States] must always continue to be, equal and honored members of this Federal Union, [their citizens] still are and always must be our kindred and countrymen.[133]

Seward instructed Adams that if the British government seemed inclined to recognize the Confederacy, or even waver in that regard, it was to receive a sharp warning, with a strong hint of war:

[if Britain is] tolerating the application of the so-called seceding States, or wavering about it, [they cannot] remain friends with the United States... if they determine to recognize [the Confederacy], [Britain] may at the same time prepare to enter into alliance with the enemies of this republic.[133]

The United States government never declared war on those "kindred and countrymen" in the Confederacy, but conducted its military efforts beginning with a presidential proclamation issued April 15, 1861.[134] It called for troops to recapture forts and suppress what Lincoln later called an "insurrection and rebellion".[135]

Mid-war parleys between the two sides occurred without formal political recognition, though the laws of war predominantly governed military relationships on both sides of uniformed conflict.[136]

On the part of the Confederacy, immediately following Fort Sumter the Confederate Congress proclaimed that "war exists between the Confederate States and the Government of the United States, and the States and Territories thereof". A state of war was not to formally exist between the Confederacy and those states and territories in the United States allowing slavery, although Confederate Rangers were compensated for destruction they could effect there throughout the war.[137]

Concerning the international status and nationhood of the Confederate States of America, in 1869 the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869) ruled Texas' declaration of secession was legally null and void.[138] Jefferson Davis, former President of the Confederacy, and Alexander H. Stephens, its former vice-president, both wrote postwar arguments in favor of secession's legality and the international legitimacy of the Government of the Confederate States of America, most notably Davis' The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

Once war with the United States began, the Confederacy pinned its hopes for survival on military intervention by Great Britain and/or France. The Confederate government sent James M. Mason to London and John Slidell to Paris. On their way to Europe in 1861, the U.S. Navy intercepted their ship, the Trent, and forcibly took them to Boston, an international episode known as the Trent Affair. The diplomats were eventually released and continued their voyage to Europe.[139] However, their mission was unsuccessful; historians give them low marks for their poor diplomacy.[140][pageneeded] Neither secured diplomatic recognition for the Confederacy, much less military assistance.

The Confederates who had believed that "cotton is king", that is, that Britain had to support the Confederacy to obtain cotton, proved mistaken. The British had stocks to last over a year and had been developing alternative sources of cotton, most notably India and Egypt. Britain had so much cotton that it was exporting some to France.[141] England was not about to go to war with the U.S. to acquire more cotton at the risk of losing the large quantities of food imported from the North.[142][pageneeded][143]

Aside from the purely economic questions, there was also the clamorous ethical debate. Great Britain took pride in being a leader in suppressing slavery, ending it in its empire in 1833, and the end of the Atlantic slave trade was enforced by British vessels. Confederate diplomats found little support for American slavery, cotton trade or not. A series of slave narratives about American slavery was being published in London.[144] It was in London that the first World Anti-Slavery Convention had been held in 1840; it was followed by regular smaller conferences. A string of eloquent and sometimes well-educated Negro abolitionist speakers crisscrossed not just England but Scotland and Ireland as well. In addition to exposing the reality of America's shameful and sinful chattel slaverysome were fugitive slavesthey rebutted the Confederate position that negroes were "unintellectual, timid, and dependent",[145] and "not equal to the white man...the superior race," as it was put by Confederate Vice-president Alexander H. Stephens in his famous Cornerstone Speech. Frederick Douglass, Henry Highland Garnet, Sarah Parker Remond, her brother Charles Lenox Remond, James W. C. Pennington, Martin Delany, Samuel Ringgold Ward, and William G. Allen all spent years in Britain, where fugitive slaves were safe and, as Allen said, there was an "absence of prejudice against color. Here the colored man feels himself among friends, and not among enemies".[146] One speaker alone, William Wells Brown, gave more than 1,000 lectures on the shame of American chattel slavery.[147]:32

Lord John Russell, British foreign secretary and later PM, considered mediation in the 'American War'

French Emperor Napoleon III sought joint FrenchBritish recognition of CSA

Throughout the early years of the war, British foreign secretary Lord John Russell, Emperor Napoleon III of France, and, to a lesser extent, British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, showed interest in recognition of the Confederacy or at least mediation of the war. British Chancellor of the Exchequer William Gladstone, convinced of the necessity of intervention on the Confederate side based on the successful diplomatic intervention in Second Italian War of Independence against Austria, attempted unsuccessfully to convince Lord Palmerston to intervene.[148] By September 1862 the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln's preliminary Emancipation Proclamation and abolitionist opposition in Britain put an end to these possibilities.[149] The cost to Britain of a war with the U.S. would have been high: the immediate loss of American grain-shipments, the end of British exports to the U.S., and the seizure of billions of pounds invested in American securities. War would have meant higher taxes in Britain, another invasion of Canada, and full-scale worldwide attacks on the British merchant fleet. Outright recognition would have meant certain war with the United States; in mid-1862 fears of race war (as had transpired in the Haitian Revolution of 17911804) led to the British considering intervention for humanitarian reasons. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not lead to interracial violence, let alone a bloodbath, but it did give the friends of the Union strong talking points in the arguments that raged across Britain.[150]

John Slidell, the Confederate States emissary to France, did succeed in negotiating a loan of $15,000,000 from Erlanger and other French capitalists. The money went to buy ironclad warships, as well as military supplies that came in with blockade runners.[151] The British government did allow the construction of blockade runners in Britain; they were owned and operated by British financiers and ship owners; a few were owned and operated by the Confederacy. The British investors' goal was to get highly profitable cotton.[152]

Several European nations maintained diplomats in place who had been appointed to the U.S., but no country appointed any diplomat to the Confederacy. Those nations recognized the Union and Confederate sides as belligerents. In 1863 the Confederacy expelled European diplomatic missions for advising their resident subjects to refuse to serve in the Confederate army.[153] Both Confederate and Union agents were allowed to work openly in British territories. Some state governments in northern Mexico negotiated local agreements to cover trade on the Texas border.[154] The Confederacy appointed Ambrose Dudley Mann as special agent to the Holy See on September 24, 1863. But the Holy See never released a formal statement supporting or recognizing the Confederacy. In November 1863, Mann met Pope Pius IX in person and received a letter supposedly addressed "to the Illustrious and Honorable Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America"; Mann had mistranslated the address. In his report to Richmond, Mann claimed a great diplomatic achievement for himself, asserting the letter was "a positive recognition of our Government". The letter was indeed used in propaganda, but Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin told Mann it was "a mere inferential recognition, unconnected with political action or the regular establishment of diplomatic relations" and thus did not assign it the weight of formal recognition.[155][156]

Nevertheless, the Confederacy was seen internationally as a serious attempt at nationhood, and European governments sent military observers, both official and unofficial, to assess whether there had been a de facto establishment of independence. These observers included Arthur Lyon Fremantle of the British Coldstream Guards, who entered the Confederacy via Mexico, Fitzgerald Ross of the Austrian Hussars, and Justus Scheibert of the Prussian Army.[157] European travelers visited and wrote accounts for publication. Importantly in 1862, the Frenchman Charles Girard's Seven months in the rebel states during the North American War testified "this government ... is no longer a trial government ... but really a normal government, the expression of popular will".[158]Fremantle went on to write in his book Three Months in the Southern States that he had

not attempted to conceal any of the peculiarities or defects of the Southern people. Many persons will doubtless highly disapprove of some of their customs and habits in the wilder portion of the country; but I think no generous man, whatever may be his political opinions, can do otherwise than admire the courage, energy, and patriotism of the whole population, and the skill of its leaders, in this struggle against great odds. And I am also of opinion that many will agree with me in thinking that a people in which all ranks and both sexes display a unanimity and a heroism which can never have been surpassed in the history of the world, is destined, sooner or later, to become a great and independent nation.[159]

French Emperor Napoleon III assured Confederate diplomat John Slidell that he would make "direct proposition" to Britain for joint recognition. The Emperor made the same assurance to British Members of Parliament John A. Roebuck and John A. Lindsay.[160] Roebuck in turn publicly prepared a bill to submit to Parliament June 30 supporting joint Anglo-French recognition of the Confederacy. "Southerners had a right to be optimistic, or at least hopeful, that their revolution would prevail, or at least endure."[161] Following the double disasters at Vicksburg and Gettysburg in July 1863, the Confederates "suffered a severe loss of confidence in themselves", and withdrew into an interior defensive position. There would be no help from the Europeans.[162]

By December 1864, Davis considered sacrificing slavery in order to enlist recognition and aid from Paris and London; he secretly sent Duncan F. Kenner to Europe with a message that the war was fought solely for "the vindication of our rights to self-government and independence" and that "no sacrifice is too great, save that of honor". The message stated that if the French or British governments made their recognition conditional on anything at all, the Confederacy would consent to such terms.[163] Davis's message could not explicitly acknowledge that slavery was on the bargaining table due to still-strong domestic support for slavery among the wealthy and politically influential. European leaders all saw that the Confederacy was on the verge of total defeat.[164]

See the article here:

Confederate States of America - Wikipedia

Confederate States dollar – Wikipedia

Series/DateType[n 4]ValueImageComments[n 5]1First SeriesT15 Apr 186121 Jun 18611000$1,000John C. Calhoun, Andrew JacksonNational Bank Note Company(607 issued)T28 Apr 186123 Jul 18610500$500Ceres,The Crossing (by James Smillie)National Bank Note Company(607 issued)T35 Apr 186121 Jun 18610100$100Minerva, railroadNational Bank Note Company(1,606 issued)T45 Apr 186121 Jun 18610050$50Slaves working in the fieldNational Bank Note Company(1,606 issued)T525 Aug 186123 Sep 18610100$100Justice, Hudson River Railroad, MinervaSouthern Bank Note Company(5,798 issued)T625 Aug 186123 Sep 18610050$50Justice, Agriculture and Industry, George WashingtonSouthern Bank Note Company(5,798 issued)2Second SeriesT729 Jul 186122 Oct 18610100$100George Washington, Ceres and ProserpinaHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(37,155 issued)[n 6]T829 Jul 186122 Oct 18610050$50Tellus, George WashingtonHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(123,564 issued)T925 Jul 186126 Oct 18610020$20Sailing shipHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(264,988 issued)T1025 Jul 18612 Nov 18610010$10Liberty (seated), Liberty (leaning on shield)Hoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(170,994 issued)T1129 Jul 18617 Sep 18610005$5Sailor (leaning), Liberty (seated)Hoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(73,355 issued)T120005$5"Confederate States of America"Jules Manouvrier (New Orleans, LA)(15,556 issued)3Third SeriesT1322 Oct 186116 Apr 18620100$100Sailor (standing), slaves loading cottonHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(629,284 issued)T1422 Oct 186116 Apr 18620050$50Sailors, Moneta with treasure chestHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(469,660 issued)T158 Jan 186215 May 18620050$50Hope, Hudson River Railroad, JusticeSouthern Bank Note Company(14,860 issued)T1617 Apr 186210 Dec 18620050$50Jefferson DavisKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(425,944 issued)T1714 Sep 18615 Nov 18610020$20Liberty, Ceres between Commerce and NavigationHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(43,732 issued)T1824 Oct 186116 Aug 18620020$20Sailor, Sailing shipHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(2,366,486 issued)T198 Jan 186215 May 18620020$20Minerva, Navigation, BlacksmithSouthern Bank Note Company(14,860 issued)T2021 Jun 18628 Dec 18620020$20Alexander H. Stephens, Industry between Commerce and beehiveB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(2,834,251 issued)T2128 Jun 186215 Nov 18620020$20Alexander H. StephensKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(164,248 issued)T2213 Nov 186115 May 18620010$10Thetis, Native Americans, Female with XSouthern Bank Note Company(58,860 issued)T2315 Nov 186130 Dec 18610010$10John E. Ward, Wagon of cotton, Corn gathererLeggett, Keatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(20,333 issued)T2420 Feb 18628 Dec 18620010$10Robert M.T. Hunter (left); Reverend Alfred L. Elwyn (vignette, as child)Leggett, Keatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(278,400 issued)T2512 May 18629 Aug 18620010$10Robert M.T. Hunter (left); Hope; C.G. MemmingerKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(178,716 issued)T2612 Jul 18628 Dec 18620010$10Robert M.T. Hunter (left); Hope; C.G. MemmingerKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(514,400 issued)T2726 Nov 18615 Dec 18610010$10Liberty; TrainHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(8,576 issued)T2823 Jan 186213 Dec 18620010$10Ceres and Commerce; TrainHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)J.T. Patterson (Columbia, S.C.)(1,074,980 issued)T2917 Mar 186213 Sep 18620010$10Slave picking cotton; canalB. Duncan (Richmond, VA)(286,627 issued)T3014 Jun 18623 Jan 18630010$10Robert M.T. Hunter (left); engraving of the painting General Marion Inviting a British Officer to Share His Meal by John Blake White; MinervaB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(1,939,810 issued)T3113 Nov 186115 May 18620005$5Navigation; Commerce, Agriculture, Justice, Liberty, and Industry; George Washington statueSouthern Bank Note Company(58,860 issued)T3215 Nov 186130 Dec 18610005$5Boy; Machinist with hammerLeggett, Keatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(20,333 issued)T3313 Mar 186219 Jun 18620005$5C.G. Memminger; MinervaLeggett, Keatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(136,736 issued)T3412 May 18628 Dec 18620005$5C.G. Memminger; MinervaKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(228,644 issued)T3526 Nov 18615 Dec 18610005$5Slaves load cotton; Indian princessHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)(7,160 issued)T3631 Mar 18623 Jan 18630005$5Sailor; Commerce (seated)Hoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)J.T. Patterson (Columbia, S.C.)(3,694,890 issued)T377 Apr 186213 Sep 18620005$5C.G. Memminger; Sailor (seated); Justice and CeresB. Duncan (Richmond, VA)(1,002,478 issued)4Fourth SeriesT380002$2Judah P. Benjamin; The South striking down the UnionB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(~36,000 issued)T390100$100Milkmaid; train with straight steamHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA)J.T. Patterson (Columbia, S.C.)(284,000 issued)T400100$100Milkmaid; train with diffused steamJ.T. Patterson & Co. (Columbia, S.C.)(214,400 issued)T410100$100John C. Calhoun; Slaves working; ConfederacyKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(670,400 issued)T420002$2Judah P. Benjamin; The South striking down the UnionB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(1,520,000 issued)T430002$2Judah P. Benjamin; The South striking down the UnionB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(194,900 issued)T440001$1Liberty; Steamship at sea; Lucy PickensB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(1,689,860 issued)T450001$1Liberty; Steamship at sea; Lucy PickensB. Duncan (Columbia, S.C.)(412,500 issued)T460010$10Ceres; Robert M.T. HunterHoyer & Ludwig (Richmond, VA) (635,250 issued)T470020$20Ceres; Robert M.T. HunterTest pattern or fantasy noteT480010$10Ceres; Robert M.T. HunterTest pattern or fantasy note5Fifth SeriesT490100$100Soldiers; Lucy Pickens; George W. RandolphKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA)(628,640 issued)T500050$50Jefferson DavisKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA & Columbia, S.C.)(414,200 issued)T510020$20Tennessee State Capitol; Alexander H. StephensKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(776,800 issued)T520010$10Proposed state capitol (Columbia, S.C.); Robert M.T. HunterKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(3,060,000 issued)T530005$5Virginia State Capitol; C.G. MemmingerKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(2,833,600 issued)T540002$2Judah P. BenjaminKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(607,000 issued)T550001$1Clement Claiborne ClayKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(1,141,200 issued)6Sixth SeriesT560100$100Soldiers; Lucy Pickens; George W. RandolphKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(1,950,400)T570050$50Jefferson DavisKeatinge & Ball (Richmond, VA and Columbia, S.C.)(2,349,600 issued)T580020$20Tennessee State Capitol; Alexander H. StephensKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(4,429,600 issued)T590010$10Proposed state capitol (Columbia, S.C.); Robert M.T. HunterKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(7,420,800 issued)T600005$5Virginia State Capitol; C.G. MemmingerKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(7,745,600 issued)T610002$2Judah P. BenjaminKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(689,200 issued)T620001$1Clement Claiborne ClayKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(1,645,600 issued)T630000.50$0.50Jefferson DavisArcher & Daly (Richmond, VA)(1,831,517 issued)7Seventh SeriesT640500$500Confederate seal and second national flag; Stonewall JacksonKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~154,000 issued)T650100$100Soldiers; Lucy Pickens; George W. RandolphKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.) (~964,000 issued)T660050$50Jefferson DavisKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.) (1,671,444 issued)T670020$20Tennessee State Capitol; Alexander H. StephensKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~4,150,000 issued)T680010$10Horses pulling cannon; Robert M.T. HunterKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~9,071,000 issued)T690005$5Virginia State Capitol; C.G. MemmingerKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~5,526,100 issued)T700002$2Judah P. BenjaminKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~944,000 issued)T710001$1Clement Claiborne ClayKeatinge & Ball (Columbia, S.C.)(~681,500 issued)T720000.50$0.50Jefferson DavisArcher & Halpin (Richmond, VA)(~1,100,000 issued)

See the rest here:

Confederate States dollar - Wikipedia

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America – Wikipedia

2004 mockumentary directed by Kevin Willmott

Theatrical release poster

Productioncompany

Release dates

Running time

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America is a 2004 American mockumentary written and directed by Kevin Willmott. It is an account of an alternate history, wherein the Confederacy wins the American Civil War and establishes a new Confederate States of America that incorporates the majority of the Western Hemisphere, including the former contiguous United States, the "Golden Circle", the Caribbean, and South America. The film primarily details significant political and cultural events of Confederate history from its founding until the early 2000s. This viewpoint is used to satirize real-life issues and events, and to shed light on the continuing existence of racism against Black Americans.

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America is presented as if it were a British documentary being broadcast on a Confederate television network in San Francisco, California, including fictional advertisements between segments. It opens with a fictional disclaimer that suggests that censorship came close to preventing the broadcast, that its point of view might not coincide with that of the TV network, and that it might not be suitable for viewing by children and "servants". It purports to disagree with an orthodox Confederate interpretation of American history.

The film portrays two historians: Sherman Hoyle, a conservative Southerner (a parody of Shelby Foote); and Patricia Johnson, a black Canadian, as talking heads, providing commentary. Throughout the documentary, Confederate politician and Democratic presidential candidate, John Ambrose Fauntroy V (the great-grandson of one of the men who helped found the C.S.A.), is interviewed. Narration explains fake historical newsreel footage, which is either acted for the production or made of genuine archival footage dubbed with fictional narration.

Racialist adverts aimed at white, slave-owning families appear throughout the movie, including an electronic shackle for tracking runaway slaves, television programs such as Runaway (parodying Cops), Leave it to Beaulah (parodying Leave it to Beaver and Beulah), Better Homes and Plantations (parodying Better Homes and Gardens), Meet the Nation (parodying Meet the Press) and That's My Boy, Sambo X-15 Axle Grease, Darkie Toothpaste, Gold Dust washing powder, Niggerhair cigarettes, and the Coon Chicken Inn restaurant. Confederate films shown included The Hunt For Dishonest Abe (parodying the famous 1915 film The Birth of a Nation), A Northern Wind (parodying the famous 1939 film Gone with the Wind), I Married an Abolitionist (parodying the 1949 film I Married a Communist), The Dark Jungle and The Jefferson Davis Story. Additional advertisements were produced but deleted from the film's final cut, including several for the Confederate States Air Force and a children's show, Uncle Tom and Friends, which features various classic cartoons: Pixie and Dixie and Mr. Jinks, and Yogi Bear. Also shown is a slave auction held online, with the Internet replacing the traditional slave market.

At the film's end, titles note that parts of the alternate timeline are based on real history and that some of the racist products depicted did actually exist, in addition to citing Uncle Ben's and Aunt Jemima as contemporary examples. (Both products were rebranded following the George Floyd protests in 2020.[2][3])

In 1862, following the Union victory in the Battle of Antietam, President Abraham Lincoln issues the "Emancipation Proclamation", but the attempt fails. Confederate President Jefferson Davis takes the opportunity to secure British and French aid for the Confederacy, allowing Confederate forces to win the Battle of Gettysburg, besiege Washington, D.C., and take over the White House a few months later.[4] In 1864, Union General Ulysses S. Grant surrenders to Robert E. Lee, ending The War of Northern Aggression.[4] Lincoln is captured and imprisoned for war crimes before ultimately being exiled to Canada, while abolitionist Harriet Tubman is executed. In an interview given shortly before his death, Lincoln laments his failure to make the abolition of slavery the primary aim of the Civil War, and expresses his hopes that it will one day be achieved.

The Confederacy annexes the remainder of the United States, moving its capital to Washington, D.C., and introduces a tax on non-slaveowners in order to spread the institution in the North. Influential scientist Samuel A. Cartwright "discovers" a supposed disease that causes slaves to run away, and declares slaves to be livestock. Canada becomes a haven for exiled abolitionists and runaway slaves, with relations with the Confederacy remaining peaceful but tense. The Confederacy sends a delegation demanding the return of all escaped slaves in Canada, but a passionate speech by Frederick Douglass, a former slave and elected member of the House of Commons of Canada, sways enough votes to prevent the deportation of the escapees back to the Confederacy. In the Confederacy, most slaves are cowed into submission by a campaign of torture and executions. The last free Plains Indians nation falls to the Confederacy in 1890, and Native American children are forcibly removed from their families and sent to boarding schools intended to strip them of their culture and assimilate them into white American society, while Chinese migrant workers on the West Coast are made slaves. In 1895, the Confederacy adopts Christianity as the state religion and bans all other religions in an attempt to quash religious influence among foreign slaves. After some debate, Catholics are accepted as Christians, but it is decided that the Jews will be asked to leave. Before his own death, Jefferson Davis, citing Judah P. Benjamin's contributions to the Confederate cause, secures a reservation for Jews on Long Island. Meanwhile, in a parallel to the SpanishAmerican War, the Confederacy embarks on a prolonged expansionist campaign to conquer the Caribbean and all of Latin America as part of their "Golden Circle".[5] After decisively defeating Spain and conquering Cuba and the Caribbean, the Confederacy invades and conquers Mexico. White settlers and their slaves are subsequently settled in plantations in Mexico, while a system called apartness is imposed on native Mexicans, segregating them from white society. The Confederacy goes on to invade Central and South America, taking advantage of local political divisions as part of a divide and conquer strategy. Although the locals resist fiercely, the Confederacy is ultimately successful in conquering them.

In response to the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the Confederacy revives the trans-Atlantic slave trade from its state of Liberia. While maintaining neutrality in European affairs, it becomes friendly with Nazi Germany, although it disapproves of the Final Solution due to a preference for enslavement over extermination. Seeing Japanese expansionism as a threat, however, it launches a preemptive strike against two naval bases and the city of Kyoto on December 7, 1941. With the conflict proving far longer and bloodier than anticipated, the Confederacy recruits slaves voluntarily released by their owners for military service as soldiers, promising them their freedom after the war in exchange for fighting, a promise which turns out to be a lie. Japan is ultimately defeated by the use of the atomic bomb, while the Soviet Union conquers Germany and all of Europe and its colonies except the British Empire. Due to a Red Scare-like panic over abolitionism, an insurgency against the Confederacy by a black underground group based in Canada called the John Brown Underground, and Canada's refusal to extradite members of the John Brown Underground, the Confederacy erects a wall called the Cotton Curtain along the border with Canada, while much of the rest of the world refuses to trade with it due to its relations with the former Nazi Germany. The Confederacy conducts airstrikes against Canada after the John Brown Underground assassinates the Confederate President.

Republican John F. Kennedy is elected President in 1960, dealing with foreign policy issues such as the Newfoundland Missile Crisis[6] and the Vietnam War. Canada becomes increasingly dominant in culture and sports; the Confederacy is forced to allow slaves to compete in the Olympic Games, but Kennedy is assassinated before he can follow through on reforms for racial and gender equality. Two major slave rebellions, one in Watts and another in Newark, are suppressed. The institution of slavery remains in place up through 2002, when allegations that Democratic presidential candidate John Ambrose Fauntroy V has black ancestry cost him the election and led to his suicide.

The film's official website contains an expanded timeline of the history of the C.S.A., which features events not covered in the documentary. The timeline identifies President William McKinley's assassin as an abolitionist rather than Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist. The C.S.A. manages to advance in space technology by smuggling former Nazi scientists out of Germany before its occupation by the Soviet Union.[7] Rosa Parks is identified as a Canadian terrorist and a member of the Black Panthers. Richard Nixon is eventually elected Confederate President in his own right after losing the 1960 election to Kennedy. During his presidency, Nixon travels to China in 1972, talks with the Chinese government which opens the way for Confederate-run labor camps to be run in China, which in turn results in cheaper goods being made and imported from China. However, Nixon is forced to resign due to the Watergate scandal, reminding the public that I am not a Negro!.[8] The failed assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981 occurs in New York City instead of St. Peter's Square, with the assailant being a Southern Baptist from Tennessee named Maynard Brimley, who is tried and executed.[9] The Gulf War results in Kuwait becoming a Confederate territory. In 1995, Tim McVeigh blows up the Jefferson Memorial instead of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City; his execution is broadcast on pay-per-view to high viewership.[4] The War in Afghanistan and subsequent American interventions in the Middle East are known as the "1st and 2nd Crusades", with the goal of eradicating the "Muslim Menace" by overthrowing the Islamic governments, taking over their oil reserves, and converting the entire Middle Eastern populace to Christianity.[10]

Kevin Wilmott began production on the film with a funding from the National Black Programming Consortium (NBPC) and wrote its first draft in 1997.[11]

Willmott, who had earlier written a screenplay about abolitionist John Brown, told interviewers he was inspired to write the story after seeing an episode of Ken Burns' 1990 television documentary The Civil War.[12] It was produced by Hodcarrier Films.

The film was filmed in Humboldt, Newton and Lawrence cities in Kansas, with a cast and crew coming from the U.S. states of Kansas, Missouri and Iowa as well as Colombia.[13]

The film grossed $744,165 worldwide in limited release.[1]

On Rotten Tomatoes the film has an approval rating of 80% based on reviews from 66 critics.[14] On Metacritic the film has a score of 62 out of 100 based on reviews from 22 critics, indicating "Generally favorable reviews".[15] Most critics were intrigued by the film's premise, but some found the execution to be lacking primarily due to a low budget.[16][17][18] In 2018 James Berardinelli wrote: "The movie is ultimately more interesting in satire than the presentation of a legitimate alternate timeline. This doesn't invalidate C.S.A.'s approach but it limits its effectiveness as a sort of Twilight Zone look at the last 150 years."[19]

An earlier version of the film premiered on February 21, 2003 at Liberty Hall in Lawrence, Kansas,[20] while the film premiered for the second time, at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2004.

In January 2004, after the film's premiere at the Sundance Film Festival, IFC Films acquired the distribution rights to the film in the United States.[21]

The film received a limited theatrical release in some Southern cities on October 7, 2005, and later received a wide theatrical release on February 15, 2006.[22]

The film was released on DVD by IFC Films (distributed by Genius Products) on August 8, 2006.

Follow this link:

C.S.A.: The Confederate States of America - Wikipedia

Constitution of the Confederate States – Wikipedia

Supreme law of the Confederate States of America

The Constitution of the Confederate States was the supreme law of the Confederate States of America. It was adopted on March 11, 1861, and was in effect from February 22, 1862, to the conclusion of the American Civil War (May 1865). The Confederacy also operated under a Provisional Constitution from February 8, 1861, to February 22, 1862.[1] The original Provisional Constitution is located at the American Civil War Museum in Richmond, Virginia,[2] and differs slightly from the version later adopted. The final, handwritten Constitution is located in the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library at the University of Georgia.[2] Most of its provisions are word-for-word duplicates from the United States Constitution; however, there are crucial differences between the two documents in tone and legal content, primarily regarding slavery.

The Confederate Constitution followed the U.S. Constitution for the most part in the main body of the text but with some changes:

Article I Section 8(3) added quite a bit to the U.S. Constitution in an attempt to block the Confederate Congress from passing laws to "facilitate commerce,"[11] with some exceptions allowing for safety and improvement to waterways.

Then in Section 10:

Changes to Article III

Changes to Article IV

Other states may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by states; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.[19]

Changes to Article V

Changes to Article VI

Article VI Section 1(1)

Changes to Article VII

When five states shall have ratified this Constitution, in the manner before specified, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution, shall prescribe the time for holding the election of President and Vice President; and, for the meeting of the Electoral College; and, for counting the votes, and inaugurating the President. They shall, also, prescribe the time for holding the first election of members of Congress under this Constitution, and the time for assembling the same. Until the assembling of such Congress, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution shall continue to exercise the legislative powers granted them; not extending beyond the time limited by the Constitution of the Provisional Government.[25]

There were several major differences between the constitutions concerning slavery.

The Confederate Constitution's preamble included the phrase "each State acting in its sovereign and independent character," which focused the new constitution on the rights of the individual states.

States of the Confederacy gained several rights that states of the Union do not have, such as the right to impeach federal judges and other federal officers if they worked or lived solely in their state.

The Confederate States lost a few rights that the Union states retained.

The signers and the states they represented were:

Congress began to move for ratification of the Confederate States Constitution on March 11, 1861:

Although the Confederate States Supreme Court was never constituted, the supreme courts of the various Confederate states issued numerous decisions interpreting the Confederate Constitution. Unsurprisingly, since the Confederate Constitution was based on the United States Constitution, the Confederate State Supreme Courts often used United States Supreme Court precedents. The jurisprudence of the Marshall Court thus influenced the interpretation of the Confederate Constitution. The state courts repeatedly upheld robust powers of the Confederate Congress, especially on matters of military necessity.[42]

Contemporary historians overwhelmingly agree that secession was motivated by the preservation of slavery. There were numerous causes for secession, but the preservation and the expansion of slavery were easily the most important of them. The confusion may come from blending the causes of secession with the causes of the war, which are separate but related issues. (Lincoln entered a military conflict not to free the slaves but to put down a rebellion.) According to the historian Kenneth M. Stampp, each side supported states' rights or federal power only when it was convenient to do so.[43] Stampp also cited Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens's A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began but, after the Southern defeat, said that the war had been instead about states' rights.[44]

According to an 1861 speech delivered by the Alabama politician Robert Hardy Smith, the State of Alabama declared its secession from the United States to preserve and to perpetuate the practice of slavery, the debate over which he referred to as the "Negro quarrel." In his speech, Smith praised the Confederate constitution for its lack of euphemisms and its succinct protections of the right to own "Negro" slaves:

We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel. Now, is there any man who wished to reproduce that strife among ourselves? And yet does not he, who wished the slave trade left for the action of Congress, see that he proposed to open a Pandora's box among us and to cause our political arena again to resound with this discussion. Had we left the question unsettled, we should, in my opinion, have sown broadcast the seeds of discord and death in our Constitution. I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property.

The Georgia Democrat Alexander H. Stephens, who would become the Confederate vice president, stated within his Cornerstone Speech that the Confederate constitution was "decidedly better than" the American one, as the former "put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us; the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the 'rock upon which the old Union would split.' He was right."[48]

More here:

Constitution of the Confederate States - Wikipedia

The Confederate States of America – InfoPlease

Following the election of Abraham Lincoln on an anti-slavery platform, the major slave-holding states declared their secession from the United States one after another. They formed the Confederate States of America (commonly called the Confederacy) under their own president Jefferson Davis. Below is a list of the 11 seceding states during the American Civil War, along with the date of secession and when they were readmitted.

NOTE: Four other slave states?Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri?remained in the Union. The latter two were actually represented on the Confederate flag, which, like the Stars and Stripes, featured a star for every state.

1. Date of readmission to representation in U.S. House of Representatives.

2. Second readmission date. First date was July 21, 1868, but the representatives were unseated March 5, 1869.

Although more than a century of states' rights debates have muddied the waters, the reasons for secession are actually quite clear. All eleven states declared slavery as one of the primary motivators for their secession; they believed that their livelihoods were tied up with the institution of slavery, and that they could no longer be part of a country that might force them to abandon slavery. The declarations of secession all contain similar messages. Of all of the many rights they felt the federal government might strip away from them, slavery was the biggest.

But, the situation is a bit more complicated in terms of why they finally seceded when they did.

Let's take the example of Georgia. The secessionists there wrote:

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic...

...While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen...

...For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us."

Georgia's declaration elaborates a description of the history of slavery and economy in the century before their secede. But, in terms of timing, their issues are specific. What exactly are they referring to with their "serious causes of complaint?"

In essence, it all comes down to the abolitionist movement. In the South, there were numerous uprisings against slavery by black people. This was a cause of great concern to slaveholders, especially in states where the slave population was a near-majority (or was a majority). It was a source of fear and anxiety, and one that they kept in check through restrictive laws and the threat of military force. These laws were opposed by many groups, especially by free black people living beyond the immediate influence of slaveholders.

Northern abolitionists actively opposed these laws meant to keep the enslaved population oppressed. They refused to return escaped slaves or report on them. They helped more people escape slavery. They opposed attempts to expand slavery or support it at a federal level. They generated a great deal of anger and paranoia among slaveholders that exploded when abolitionist John Brown actively armed and incited an uprising in Harper's Ferry, Virginia.

People across the South feared that Northerners would incite violence and terror to get rid of slavery in their states. They refused to even put the Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln on their ballots. But, despite their effort to keep him out of the White House, Lincoln prevailed on the back of overwhelming Northern support. The Southern states claimed that their will had been entirely subverted, and that the system favored northern extremists who influenced the government. Their answer to their claim was to create their own government.

The confederate government established a government in Richmond, just 100 miles from the Capitol in D.C., with their own Confederate constitution. There were initial hopes that the CSA could be peacefully reintegrated back into the USA. But, the cultivated fear of northern agitation led the Confederate army to be wary of U.S. activities. When the USA sent troops to secure the federal territory of Fort Sumter, the confederates demanded that the army retreat. After a lengthy standoff, the Confederates attacked the fort. This act of aggression ended hopes of a peaceful resolution and led to the Civil War.

Excerpt from:

The Confederate States of America - InfoPlease

General officers in the Confederate States Army – Wikipedia

Senior military leaders of the Confederate States of America

The general officers of the Confederate States Army (CSA) were the senior military leaders of the Confederacy during the American Civil War of 18611865. They were often former officers from the United States Army (the regular army) prior to the Civil War, while others were given the rank based on merit or when necessity demanded. Most Confederate generals needed confirmation from the Confederate Congress, much like prospective generals in the modern U.S. armed forces.

Like all of the Confederacy's military forces, these generals answered to their civilian leadership, in particular Jefferson Davis, the South's president and therefore commander-in-chief of the Army, Navy, and the Marines of the Confederate States.

Much of the design of the Confederate States Army was based on the structure and customs of the U.S. Army[1] when the Confederate Congress established their War Department on February 21, 1861.[2] The Confederate Army was composed of three parts; the Army of the Confederate States of America (ACSA, intended to be the permanent, regular army), the Provisional Army of the Confederate States (PACS, or "volunteer" Army, to be disbanded after hostilities), and the various Southern state militias.

Graduates from West Point and Mexican War veterans were highly sought after by Jefferson Davis for military service, especially as general officers. Like their Federal counterparts, the Confederate Army had both professional and political generals within it. Ranks throughout the CSA were roughly based on the U.S. Army in design and seniority.[3] On February 27, 1861, a general staff for the army was authorized, consisting of four positions: an adjutant general, a quartermaster general, a commissary general, and a surgeon general. Initially the last of these was to be a staff officer only.[2] The post of adjutant general was filled by Samuel Cooper (the position he had held as a colonel in the U.S. Army from 1852 until resigning) and he held it throughout the Civil War, as well as the army's inspector general.[4]

Initially, the Confederate Army commissioned only brigadier generals in both the volunteer and regular services;[2] however, the Congress quickly passed legislation allowing for the appointment of major generals as well as generals, thus providing clear and distinct seniority over the existing major generals in the various state militias.[5] On May 16, 1861, when there were only five officers at the grade of brigadier general, this legislation was passed, which stated in part:

That the five general officers provided by existing laws for the Confederate States shall have the rank and denomination of 'general', instead of 'brigadier-general', which shall be the highest military grade known to the Confederate States ...[6]

As of September 18, 1862, when lieutenant generals were authorized, the Confederate Army had four grades of general officers; they were (in order of increasing rank) brigadier general, major general, lieutenant general, and general.[7] As officers were appointed to the various grades of general by Jefferson Davis (and were confirmed), he would create the promotion lists himself. The dates of rank, as well as seniority of officers appointed to the same grade on the same day, were determined by Davis "usually following the guidelines established for the prewar U.S. Army."[8]

These generals were most often infantry or cavalry brigade commanders, aides to other higher ranking generals, and War Department staff officers. By war's end the Confederacy had at least 383 different men who held this rank in the PACS, and three in the ACSA: Samuel Cooper, Robert E. Lee, and Joseph E. Johnston.[9] The organization of regiments into brigades was authorized by the Congress on March 6, 1861. Brigadier generals would command them, and these generals were to be nominated by Davis and confirmed by the Confederate Senate.[2]

Though close to the Union Army in assignments, Confederate brigadiers mainly commanded brigades while Federal brigadiers sometimes led divisions as well as brigades, particularly in the first years of the war. These generals also often led sub-districts within military departments, with command over soldiers in their sub-district. These generals outranked Confederate Army colonels, who commonly led infantry regiments.

This rank is equivalent to brigadier general in the modern U.S. Army.

These generals were most commonly infantry division commanders, aides to other higher ranking generals, and War Department staff officers. They also led the districts that made up military departments and had command over the troops in their districts. Some Major generals also led smaller military departments. By war's end, the Confederacy had at least 88 different men who had held this rank, all in the PACS.[10]

Divisions were authorized by the Congress on March 6, 1861, and major generals would command them. These generals were to be nominated by Davis and confirmed by the Senate.[2] Major generals outranked brigadiers and all other lesser officers.

This rank was not synonymous with the Union's use of it, as Northern major generals led divisions, corps, and entire armies. This rank is equivalent in most respects to major general in the modern U.S. Army.

Not further promoted

Evander Mclver Law was promoted to the rank of Major General on March 20, 1865; on the recommendation of Generals Johnston and Hampton just before the surrender. The promotion was too late to be confirmed by the Confederate Congress however.

There were 18 lieutenant generals in the Confederate Army, and these general officers were often corps commanders within armies or military department heads, in charge of geographic sections and all soldiers in those boundaries. All of the Confederacy's lieutenant generals were in the PACS.[10] The Confederate Congress legalized the creation of army corps on September 18, 1862, and directed that lieutenant generals lead them. These generals were to be nominated by President Davis and confirmed by the C.S. Senate.[7] Lieutenant generals outranked major generals and all other lesser officers.

This rank was not synonymous with the Federal use of it; Ulysses S. Grant (18221885) was one of only two Federal lieutenant generals during the war, the other being Winfield Scott (17861866), General-in-Chief of the United States Army 18411861, at the beginning of the American Civil War who also served in the War of 1812 (18121815), and led an army in the field during the MexicanAmerican War (18461849), received a promotion to brevet lieutenant general by a special Act of Congress in 1855. Gen. Grant was by the time of his promotion, March 9, 1864, the only Federal lieutenant general in active service. Grant became General-in-Chief, commander of the United States Army and of all the Union armies, answering directly to President Abraham Lincoln and charged with the task of leading the Federal armies to victory over the southern Confederacy. The CSA lieutenant general rank is also roughly equivalent to lieutenant general in the modern U.S. Army.

The Congress passed legislation in May 1864 to allow for "temporary" general officers in the PACS, to be appointed by President Jefferson Davis and confirmed by the C.S. Senate and given a non-permanent command by Davis.[12] Under this law, Davis appointed several officers to fill open positions. Richard H. Anderson was appointed a "temporary" lieutenant general on May 31, 1864, and given command of the First Corps in the Army of Northern Virginia commanded by Gen. Lee (following the wounding of Lee's second-in-command, Lt. Gen. James Longstreet on May 6 in the Battle of the Wilderness.) With Longstreet's return that October, Anderson reverted to a major general. Jubal Early was appointed a "temporary" lieutenant general on May 31, 1864, and given command of the Second Corps (following the reassignment of Lt. Gen. Richard S. Ewell to other duties) and led the Corps as an army into the third Southern invasion of the North in July 1864 with battles at the Monocacy near Frederick, Maryland and Fort Stevens outside the Federal capital city of Washington, D.C., until December 1864, when he too reverted to a major general. Likewise, both Stephen D. Lee and Alexander P. Stewart were appointed to fill vacancies in the Western Theater as "temporary" lieutenant generals and also reverted to their prior grades as major generals as those assignments ended. However, Lee was nominated a second time for lieutenant general on March 11, 1865.[13]

Originally five officers in the South were appointed to the rank of general, and only two more would follow. These generals occupied the senior posts in the Confederate Army, mostly entire army or military department commanders, and advisers to Jefferson Davis. This rank is equivalent to the general in the modern U.S. Army, and the grade is often referred to in modern writings as "full general" to help differentiate it from the generic term "general" meaning simply "general officer".[15]

All Confederate generals were enrolled in the ACSA to ensure that they outranked all militia officers,[5] except for Edmund Kirby Smith, who was appointed general late in the war and into the PACS. Pierre G.T. Beauregard, had also initially been appointed a PACS general, was elevated to ACSA two months later with the same date of rank.[16] These generals outranked all other grades of generals, as well as all lesser officers in the Confederate States Army.

The first group of officers appointed to general was Samuel Cooper, Albert Sidney Johnston, Robert E. Lee, Joseph E. Johnston, and Pierre G.T. Beauregard, with their seniority in that order. This ordering caused Cooper, a staff officer who would not see combat, to be the senior general officer in the CSA. That seniority strained the relationship between Joseph E. Johnston and Jefferson Davis. Johnston considered himself the senior officer in the Confederate States Army and resented the ranks that President Davis had authorized. However, his previous position in the U.S. Army was staff, not line, which was evidently a criterion for Davis regarding establishing seniority and rank in the subsequent Confederate States Army.[17]

On February 17, 1864, legislation was passed by Congress to allow President Davis to appoint an officer to command the Trans-Mississippi Department in the Far West, with the rank of general in the PACS. Edmund Kirby Smith was the only officer appointed to this position.[18] Braxton Bragg was appointed a general in the ACSA with a date of rank of April 6, 1862, the day his commanding officer Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston died in combat at Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing.[19]

The Congress passed legislation in May 1864 to allow for "temporary" general officers in the PACS, to be appointed by Davis and confirmed by the C.S. Senate and given a non-permanent command by Davis.[12]John Bell Hood was appointed a "temporary" general on July 18, 1864, the date he took command of the Army of Tennessee in the Atlanta Campaign, but this appointment was not later confirmed by the Congress, and he reverted to his rank of lieutenant general in January 1865.[20] Later in March 1865, shortly before the end of the war, Hood's status was spelled out by the Confederate States Senate, which stated:

Resolved, That General J. B. Hood, having been appointed General, with temporary rank and command, and having been relieved from duty as Commander of the Army of Tennessee, and not having been reappointed to any other command appropriate to the rank of General, he has lost the rank of General, and therefore cannot be confirmed as such.[21]

Note that during 1863, Beauregard, Cooper, J. Johnston, and Lee all had their ranks re-nominated on February 20 and then re-confirmed on April 23 by the Confederate Congress.[13] This was in response to debates on February 17 about whether confirmations made by the provisional legislature needed re-confirmation by the permanent legislature, which was done by an Act of Congress issued two days later.[22]

The position of General in Chief of the Armies of the Confederate States was created on January 23, 1865. The only officer appointed to it was Gen. Robert E. Lee, who served from February 6 until April 12.

The Southern states had had militias in place since Revolutionary War times consistent with the U.S. Militia Act of 1792. They went by varied names such as State "Militia" or "Armies" or "Guard" and were activated and expanded when the Civil War began. These units were commanded by "Militia Generals" to defend their particular state and sometimes did not leave native soil to fight for the Confederacy. The Confederate militias used the general officer ranks of Brigadier General and Major General.

The regulations in the Act of 1792 provided for two classes of militia, divided by age. Class one was to include men from 22 to 30 years old, and class two would include men from 18 to 20 years as well as from 31 to 45 years old.[23] The various southern states were each using this system when the war began.

All Confederate generals wore the same uniform insignia regardless of which rank of general they were,[24] except for Robert E. Lee who wore the uniform of a Confederate colonel. The only visible difference was the button groupings on their uniforms; groups of three buttons for lieutenant and major generals, and groups of two for brigadier generals. In either case, a general's buttons were also distinguished from other ranks by their eagle insignia.

To the right is a picture of the CSA general's full uniform, in this case of Brig. Gen. Joseph R. Anderson of the Confederacy's Ordnance Department. All of the South's generals wore uniforms like this regardless of which grade of general they were, and all with gold-colored embroidering.

The general officers of the Confederate Army were paid for their services, and exactly how much (in Confederate dollars (CSD)) depended on their rank and whether they held a field command or not. On March 6, 1861, when the army only contained brigadier generals, their pay was $301 CSD monthly, and their aide-de-camp lieutenants would receive an additional $35 CSD per month beyond regular pay. As more grades of the general officer were added, the pay scale was adjusted. By June 10, 1864, a general received $500 CSD monthly, plus another $500 CSD if they led an army in the field. Also, by that date, lieutenant generals got $450 CSD and major generals $350 CSD, and brigadiers would receive $50 CSD in addition to regular pay if they served in combat.[25]

The CSA lost more general officers killed in combat than the Union Army did throughout the war, in the ratio of about 5-to-1 for the South compared to roughly 12-to-1 in the North.[26] The most famous of them is General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, probably the best known Confederate commander after General Robert E. Lee.[27] Jackson's death was the result of pneumonia which emerged subsequently after a friendly fire incident had occurred at Chancellorsville on the night of May 2, 1863. Replacing these fallen generals was an ongoing problem during the war, often having men promoted beyond their abilities (a common criticism of officers such as John Bell Hood[28] and George E. Pickett,[29] but an issue for both armies), or gravely wounded in combat but needed, such as Richard S. Ewell.[30] The problem was made more difficult by the South's depleting manpower, especially near the war's end.

The last Confederate general in the field, Stand Watie, surrendered on June 23, 1865, and the war's last surviving full general, Edmund Kirby Smith, died on March 28, 1893.[31] James Longstreet died on January 2, 1904, and was considered "the last of the high command of the Confederacy".[32]

The Confederate Army's system of using four grades of general officers is currently the same rank structure used by the U.S. Army (in use since shortly after the Civil War) and is also the system used by the U.S. Marine Corps (in use since World War II).

View original post here:

General officers in the Confederate States Army - Wikipedia

1836, the Slaveholder Republic’s Birthday – The Texas Observer

History, its often said, is written by the victors. While that isnt always true, its certainly borne out by many popular accounts of the Texas Revolution of 1835-36, which often tell a very black-and-white story of the virtuous Texansthe victorsfighting against the evil Mexicans. The San Jacinto Monument inscription, for instance, blames the rebellion on unjust acts and despotic decrees of unscrupulous rulers in Mexico. A pamphlet produced by the Republican Party-sponsored 1836 Project says that Anglo settlers fought to preserve constitutional liberty and republican government.

University of Houston history professor Gerald Horne tells a very different story. In The Counter-Revolution of 1836: Texas Slavery & Jim Crow and the Roots of American Fascism, published earlier this year, Horne contends that the motivation behind the Anglo-American rebellion was anything but virtuous: to make Texas safe for slavery and white supremacy. For othersBlacks, the Indigenous peoples, and many Tejanosthe Anglo victory meant slavery, oppression, dispossession, and in many cases, death.

The Counter-Revolution of 1836 is a big, sprawling book (over 570 pages), as befits its scope: It takes the reader from the lead-up to the Texas rebellion, through independence, annexation, the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow, to the early 1920s. It is scrupulously researched, drawing not only on other scholars but also on a wide range of sources from the times, including letters, speeches, newspaper articles, and diplomatic posts.

Given current right-wing efforts to expel discussions of systemic racism from Texas classrooms, Hornes book is an important contribution to the ongoing debate over our collective history.

Recently, Horne discussed the book and its implications with the Texas Observer via email.

As the title indicates, you contend that the Texas Revolution was in fact a counter-revolution. What does counter-revolution mean to you, and why do you think its a more accurate designation?

The title suggests that the 1836 revolt was in response to abolitionism south of the border and thus was designed to stymie progress. A revolution, properly understood, should advance progress. [The] counter-revolution in 1836 assuredly was a step forward for many European settlersnot so much for Africans and the Indigenous.

This book continues the story you begin in your 2014 book on the American rebellion against England (1775-83). In that book, you similarly contend that the American Revolution was a counter-revolution. Why do you think so?

Similarly, 1776 was designed to stymie not only the prospect of abolitionism, but as well to sweep away what was signaled by the Royal Proclamation of 1762-3 which expressed Londons displeasure at continuing to expend blood and treasure ousting Indigenous peoples for the benefit of real estate speculators, e.g., George Washington. Not coincidentally, nationals from the post-1776 republic [the United States] were essential to the success of the 1836 counter-revolution.

You refer to the pre-emancipation United States and the pre-annexation Republic of Texas as slaveholder republics. Some readers may bristle at this label, especially those who believe, as anti-critical race theory Senate Bill 3 puts it, that slavery was not central to the American founding, but was merely a failur[e] to live up to the authentic founding principles of the United States. Why do you think the term slaveholder republic is a more accurate description?

Slaveholding republic is actually a term popularized by the late Stanford historianand Pulitzer Prize winnerDon Fehrenbacher. It is an indicator of regressionan offshoot of counter-revolutionthat this accurate descriptor is now deemed to be verboten. This ruse of suggesting that every blemishor atrocityis inconsistent with founding principles is akin to the thief and embezzler telling the judge when caught red-handed, Your honor, this is not who I am. Contrary to the delusions of the delirious, slaveholding was not an accident post-1776: How else to explain the exponential increase in the number of enslaved leading up to the Civil War? How else to explain U.S. and Texiannationals coming to dominate the slave trade in Cuba, Brazil, etc.?

You write that 1836 was a civil war over slavery and, like a precursor of Typhoid Mary, Texas seemed to bring the virulent bacteria that was war to whatever jurisdiction it joined. Of course, Texas ultimately joined the United States. How did slave-owning Texas infect the United States?

Texas was a bulwark of the so-called Confederate States of America which seceded from the U.S. in 1861 not least to preserveand extendenslavement of Africans in the first place. The detritus of Texas slaveholders became a bulwark of the Ku Klux Klan which served to drown Reconstructionor the post-Civil War steps to deliver a measure of freedom to the formerly enslavedin blood. This Texas detritus were stalwart backers in the 20th century of the disastrous escapades of McCarthyism, which routed not just communists but numerous labor organizers and anti-Jim Crow advocates. Texas also supplied a disproportionate percentage of the insurrectionists who stormed Capitol Hill on 6 January 2021.

Your book is subtitled The Roots of U.S. Fascism. Theres a growing awareness among pundits and some political leaders, President Biden, for instance, of the rise of fascist or fascist-like politics in the United Statesa politics of racist nationalism, trading in perceived grievances and centered on devotion to an autocratic leader. Your book argues that todays American fascism has roots as far back as the Anglo settlement of Mexican Texas. Why do you think so?

The genocidal and enslaving impulse has been essential to fascism whenever it has reared its ugly head globally. In Texasas in the wider republicthis involved class collaboration between and among a diverse array of settlers for mutual advantage. This class collaboration persists to this very day and can be espied on 6, January 2021 and thereafter.

Read more:

1836, the Slaveholder Republic's Birthday - The Texas Observer

Inside Lake Lanier’s Deaths And Why People Say It’s Haunted – All That’s Interesting

Constructed right atop the historically Black town of Oscarville, Georgia in 1956, Lake Lanier has become one of the most dangerous bodies of water in America with the remains of buildings just below the surface ensnaring hundreds of boats and swimmers.

Each year, more than 10 million people visit Lake Lanier in Gainesville, Georgia. Though unsuspecting the massive, placid lake might look, its considered one of the deadliest in America indeed, there have been 700 deaths at Lake Lanier since its construction in 1956.

This shocking number of accidents at the lake have led many to theorize that the site may, in fact, be haunted.

And given the controversial circumstances surrounding the lakes construction and a history of racial violence in the ruins of the former town of Oscarville that lie beneath the lakes surface, there might be some truth to this idea.

In 1956, the United States Army Corps of Engineers was tasked with creating a lake to provide water and power to parts of Georgia and help to prevent the Chattahoochee River from flooding.

They chose to construct the lake near Oscarville, in Forsyth County. Named after the poet and Confederate soldier Sidney Lanier, Lake Lanier has 692 miles of shoreline, making it the largest in Georgia and far, far larger than the town of Oscarville, which the Corps of Engineers forcefully emptied so that the lake could be built.

In total, 250 families were displaced, roughly 50,000 acres of farmland were destroyed, and 20 cemeteries were either relocated or otherwise engulfed by the lakes waters over its five-year construction period.

The town of Oscarville, however, was strangely not demolish before the lake was filled, and its ruins still rest at the bottom of Lake Lanier.

Divers have reported finding fully intact streets, walls, and houses, making it the single most dangerous underwater surface in the United States.

The flooded structures, coupled with declining water levels, are presumed to be a major factor in the high number of deaths that occur yearly at Lake Lanier, catching swimmers and holding them under or damaging boats with debris.

The deaths at Lake Lanier arent the typical sort, though. While there are many instances of people drowning, there are also reports of boats randomly going up in flames, freak accidents, missing persons, and inexplicable tragedies.

Some believe the regions dark past is responsible for these incidents. Legend asserts that vengeful and restless spirits of those whose graves were flooded many of whom were Black or persecuted and driven out by violent white mobs is behind this curse.

The town of Oscarville was once a bustling, turn-of-the-century community and a beacon for Black culture in the South. At the time, 1,100 Black people owned land and operated businesses in Forsyth County alone.

But on Sept. 9, 1912, an 18-year-old white woman named Mae Crow was raped and murdered near Browns Bridge on the Chattahoochee River banks, right by Oscarville.

According to the Oxford American, Mae Crows murder was pinned on four young Black people who happened to live in the area nearby; siblings Oscar and Trussie Jane Daniel, only 18 and 22 respectively, and their 16-year-old cousin Ernest Knox. With them was Robert Big Rob Edwards, 24.

Edwards was arrested for Crows rape and murder and taken to jail in Cumming, Georgia, the seat of Forsyth County.

A day later, a white mob invaded Edwards jail cell. They shot him, dragged him through the streets, and hanged him from a telephone pole outside the courthouse.

A month later, Ernest Knox and Oscar Daniel appeared in court for the rape and murder of Mae Crow. They were found guilty by the jury in just over an hour.

Some 5,000 people gathered to watch the teenagers be hanged.

Trussie Daniels charges were dismissed, but its widely believed that all three boys were innocent of the crimes.

Following Edwards lynching, white mobs known as night riders started going door to door across Forsyth County with torches and guns, burning down Black businesses and churches, demanding that all Black citizens vacate the county.

As Narcity reported, to this day less than five percent of Forsyth Countys population is Black.

But perhaps Lake Lanier is haunted by some other force?

The most popular legend surrounding Lake Lanier is called The Lady of the Lake.

As the story goes, in 1958, two young girls named Delia May Parker Young and Susie Roberts were at a dance in town but had decided to leave early. On the way home, they stopped to get gas and then left without paying for it.

They were driving across a bridge over Lake Lanier when they lost control of the car, spiraling off the edge and crashing into the dark waters below.

A year later, a fisherman out on the lake came across a decomposed, unrecognizable body floating near the bridge. At the time, no one could identify who it belonged to.

It wasnt until 1990 when officials discovered a 1950s Ford sedan at the bottom of the lake with the remains of Susie Roberts inside, that they were able to identify the body found three decades earlier as Delia May Parker Youngs.

But locals already knew who she was. They had reportedly seen her, still in her blue dress, wandering near the bridge at night with handless arms, waiting to drag unsuspecting lake-goers to the bottom.

Other people have reported seeing a shadowy figure sitting on a raft, inching himself across the water with a long pole and holding up a lantern to see.

Besides these ghost stories of yore, there are those who claim that the lake is haunted by the spirits of the 27 victims who have died in Lake Lanier over the years, but whose bodies were never found.

In the end, though, ghost stories are perhaps nothing more than a fun way to write off an otherwise tragic history littered with racist violence as well as unsafe and poorly planned construction.

Regardless of its size, for 700 people to have died in the lake in less than 70 years, something must be wrong. The Army Corps of Engineers initially believed that the submerged town of Oscarville wouldnt cause any harm, but the lake also wasnt constructed to be recreational it was meant to supply water from the Chattahoochee River to towns and cities in Georgia.

Many of the deaths can likely be attributed to things as simple as not wearing a life jacket, drinking alcohol while out on the lake, accidents, or incorrectly assuming that shallow water is always safe.

Perhaps the only thing that truly haunts Lake Lanier is its bigoted past.

After reading about the deaths at Lake Lanier and the history of Lake Lanier, learn about Ohios Franklin Castle, which quickly became a house of horrors. Then, see the twisted, dark history of the Myrtles Plantation in Louisiana.

Read this article:

Inside Lake Lanier's Deaths And Why People Say It's Haunted - All That's Interesting

President Biden Announces Key Appointments to Boards and Commissions – The White House

WASHINGTON Today, President Biden announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to serve in key roles:

Council of the Administrative Conference of the United StatesAdministrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is an independent federal agency charged with convening expert representatives from the public and private sectors to recommend improvements to administrative process and procedure. ACUS initiatives promote efficiency, participation, and fairness in the promulgation of federal regulations and in the administration of federal programs. The ten-member ACUS Council is composed of government officials and private citizens.

Kristen Clarke, Member, Council of the Administrative Conference of the United StatesKristen Clarke is the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice. In this role, she leads the Justice Departments broad federal civil rights enforcement efforts and works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all who live in America. Clarke is a lifelong civil rights lawyer who has spent her entire career in public service. She most recently served as President and Executive Director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, one of the nations leading civil rights organizations founded at the request of John F. Kennedy.

Fernando Raul Laguarda, Member, Council of the Administrative Conference of the United StatesFernando Laguarda is General Counsel at AmeriCorps. Prior to his current role, he was Faculty Director of the Program on Law and Government and a Professor at American University Washington College of Law, where he taught and developed courses in administrative law, legislation, and antitrust, and launched the law schools LLM in Legislation. Laguarda also founded the nations first student-centered initiative to study the work of government oversight entities and was faculty advisor to the Latino Law Students Association. Fernando has worked in the telecommunications industry and as a partner at two different Washington, D.C. law firms focusing on technology and competition law. He was a Founder, served as General Counsel, and eventually became Board Chair, of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Laguarda has also served as a member of numerous non-profit, civil rights, academic, and advisory boards. Laguarda received his J.D. cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center and his A.B. cum laude in government from Harvard College.

Anne Joseph OConnell, Member, Council of the Administrative Conference of the United StatesAnne Joseph OConnell, a lawyer and social scientist, is the Adelbert H. Sweet Professor of Law at Stanford University. Her research and teaching focuses on administrative law and public administration. She is a three-time recipient of the American Bar Associations Scholarship Award in Administrative Law for the best article or book published in the preceding year, and a two-time winner of the Richard D. Cudahy Writing Competition on Regulatory and Administrative Law from the American Constitution Society. OConnell joined the Gellhorn and Byses Administrative Law: Cases and Comments casebook as a co-editor with the twelfth edition. Most recently, her work has focused on acting officials and delegations of authority in federal agencies. Her research has been cited by Congress, the Supreme Court, lower federal courts, and the national media. She is an elected fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration.

Before entering law school teaching, OConnell clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Judge Stephen F. Williams and served as a trial attorney for the Federal Programs Branch of the Department of Justices Civil Division. A Truman Scholar, she worked for a number of federal agencies in earlier years. OConnell received a B.A. in Mathematics from Williams College, an M.Phil. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University, a J.D. from Yale Law School, and a Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard University.

Jonathan Su, Member, Council of the Administrative Conference of the United StatesJonathan Su most recently served as Deputy Counsel to the President. Prior to his service at the White House, Su was the Deputy Office Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C. office of Latham & Watkins LLP, where he was also a partner in the White Collar Defense & Investigations practice. During the Obama-Biden Administration, Su served as Special Counsel to the President. Su was also a federal prosecutor at the United States Attorneys Office for the District of Maryland. He served as a law clerk for U.S. Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould and U.S. District Judge Julian Abele Cook, Jr. Su is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley and Georgetown University Law Center.

National Capital Planning CommissionEstablished by Congress in 1924, the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) is the federal governments central planning agency for the National Capital Region. Through planning, policymaking, and project review, NCPC protects and advances the federal governments interest in the regions development. The Commission provides overall planning guidance for federal land and buildings in the region by reviewing the design of federal and certain local projects, overseeing long-range planning for future development, and monitoring capital investment by federal agencies. The 12-member Commission represents federal and local constituencies with a stake in planning for the nations capital.

Bryan Clark Green, Commissioner, National Capital Planning CommissionBryan Green leverages his expertise as an educator, writer, and practicing preservationist to embrace the role of architecture in Americas larger story. He began his career at the Virginia Historical Society, worked for the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, was a Senior Associate and Director of Historic Preservation at Commonwealth Architects. He later joined the Tidewater and Big Bend Foundation as Executive Director. Green is the author of the forthcoming work, In Jeffersons Shadow: The Architecture of Thomas R. Blackburn, co-author of Lost Virginia: Vanished Architecture of the Old Dominion, After the Monuments Fall: The Removal of Confederate Monuments from the American South (LSU Press), with Kathleen James-Chakraborty and Katherine Kuenzli. Green graduated from the University of Notre Dame with a Bachelors in History and obtained his Masters and Ph.D. in Architectural History at the University of Virginia.

He serves as Chair, Preservation Officer, and ex officio member the Board at the Heritage Conservation Committee of the Society of Architectural Historians. He co-chairs the Publications Committee of the Association Preservation Technology International and serves on the Commonwealth of Virginias Citizens Advisory Council on Furnishing and Interpreting the Executive Mansion, and formerly served on the City of Richmond Commission of Architectural Review and Urban Design committees. Greens longstanding commitment to this work led him to Honorary Membership in both the Virginia Society and the Richmond Chapter of the American Institute of Architects.

Elizabeth M. Hewlett, Commissioner, National Capital Planning CommissionElizabeth M. Hewlett is an attorney and servant of the public interest. She recently retired from her second tenure as the Chairman of the Prince Georges County Planning Board and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. She has represented Maryland on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and served as a Principal at Shipley, Horne and Hewlett, P.A., a law firm where she represented individuals, businesses, and real estate clients while also rendering many community-centric pro bono services. Hewlett has participated in or led dozens of public boards, civic groups, and key initiatives, including the Prince Georges County Census effort, the Maryland State Board of Law Examiners, and as a member of the Governors Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission.

Throughout her career, Hewlett has also been a contributor to several legal and professional organizations, including: National Bar Association, Womens Bar Association of Maryland, the J. Franklyn Bourne Bar Association, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. She has been awarded many awards, including the Wayne K. Curry Distinguished Service Award, the National Bar Association Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award, and the J. Joseph Curran Award for Public Service. She is a graduate of Tufts University, Boston College Law School, and the John F. Kennedy School of Government Executive Program at Harvard University.

Presidents Intelligence Advisory BoardThe Presidents Intelligence Advisory Board is an independent element within the Executive Office of the President. The Presidents Intelligence Advisory Board exists exclusively to assist the President by providing the President with an independent source of advice on the effectiveness with which the Intelligence Community is meeting the nations intelligence needs and the vigor and insight with which the community plans for the future. The President is able to appoint up to 16 members of the Board.

Anne M. Finucane, Member, Presidents Intelligence Advisory BoardAnne Finucane currently serves as Chairman of the Board for Bank of America Europe. She also serves on the board of Bank of America Securities Europe SA, the banks EU broker-dealer in Paris. Finucane served as the first woman Vice Chairman of Bank of America. She led the companys strategic positioning and global sustainable and climate finance work, environmental, social and governance (ESG), capital deployment and public policy efforts. She is widely recognized for pioneering sustainable finance in the banking industry. For most of her career, Finucane also oversaw marketing, communications, and data and analytics at the company, and is credited with leading Bank of Americas successful efforts to reposition the company and repair its reputation after the 2008 financial crisis.

Finucane serves on a variety of corporate and nonprofit boards of directors, including CVS Health, Williams Sonoma, Mass General Brigham Healthcare, Special Olympics, the (RED) Advisory Board, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She previously served on the U.S. State Departments Foreign Affairs Policy board and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Finucane has consistently been highlighted in most powerful women lists, including in the American Banker, Fortune, and Forbes. In 2021, she received the Carnegie Hall Medal of Honor, and in 2019 she was inducted into the American Advertising Federations Advertising Hall of Fame, and received the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for Inspired Leadership.

###

Continued here:

President Biden Announces Key Appointments to Boards and Commissions - The White House

8 Best Canadian Whiskies of 2022 – HICONSUMPTION

In a world of whiskies where identity is key, Canadian whisky might just suffer by its ability to do everything. From making a Scotch-style single malt to an American-style bourbon, distilleries from our northern neighbors thrive of that very versatility, opening the doors to creativity and innovation. Luckily, in recent years, Canadian liquor has been on the rise Stateside. Its yet to build up the exotic cachet of Scotch or Japanese whisky, but were confident that its only a matter of time. To help you get started, weve compiled a guide to the best Canadian whiskies to drink right now.

And Rye Is It So Good?

Although its often called rye whisky, Canadian rye whisky is much different than American rye whiskey (other than the added e), which can contain as much as 100% rye in the mashbill. For one, the rye in Canadian whisky refers to the grain being added to a predominantly-corn mashbill. Whereas most popular whisky-making regions (think Scotland, Ireland, Japan, and the United States) specialize in a certain style or styles brought on by the prominence of a specific grain or still type Canada is known for its eclectic variety and is frequently blended from different styles.

That said, there are some legal stipulations pinned to making Canadian whisky thanks to the nations Food and Drug Act. Most importantly, the liquor is required to be mashed, distilled, and aged in Canada. Additionally, it must be aged in small wood vessels for at least three years and bottled at 40% ABV. Unlike many other regions, caramel may be added for flavoring as long as it doesnt lose the aroma and taste generally attributed to Canadian whisky.

Slow But Steady

Around since the 1700s, Canadian whisky mostly began as a wheat spirit, since thats what primarily grew in the country at the time. Rye was added for flavor, thus creating what would become the profile and identity of the spirit for some time. The liquor really started to boom in the 19th century in England, who was having trouble sourcing their whisky elsewhere. Later on, during the Civil War in the United States, the North looked to Canada to supply them with their liquor since they refused to buy products from the Confederate states, which happened to be the source of most of the whiskey in the country.

The first real nation to enact an aging requirement, which was only one year in 1887 before eventually increasing to three, Canadian whisky was able to capitalize on the repeal of Prohibition since many U.S. distilleries had shut down and consumers wanted something besides the bootleg whiskey they had been drinking for 13 years. Likewise, a lot of their products had been aging in barrels waiting for the demand to return. Like most spirits (other than vodka), wine and beer were the favored alcoholic drink throughout the 70s and 80s until 1992 when Forty Creek reclaimed what Canadian whisky could be.

Launched in 1946, Albert Distillers started making rye whisky a couple decades after it went out of style and long before it was cachet again. A few years ago, the number-one rye producer in North America decided to do something a little different. Where its contemporaries were finishing their whiskies in former wine casks, Alberta was putting it straight in the batch, blending 91% rye, 8% bourbon, and 1% sherry to make its Dark Batch, which rides on a profile of vanilla, oak, dried stone fruit, citrus, and baking spices.

Lot 40 was created by Corby Spirit and Wine in 1998 as a limited-edition homage to pre-Prohibition-style rye whisky. After the resurgence of rye, it was launched as its own brand in 2012 and has since become one of the most decorated Canadian whiskies. Utilizing a mashbill of 100% unmalted rye, Lot 40, which gets its namesake from the plot of land owned by one of its founders, is distilled in copper pot stills one batch at a time and aged in new American oak barrels much similar to bourbon. The result is a dry and complex profile of spice, dark fruit, and citrus.

Since 2011, British Columbia-based distillery Shelter Point has made all of its whiskies with the barley thats grown on its own 380-acre property and water from a river that runs through its estate. Its highly-popular small-batch Smoke Point expression takes after the peated single malts from Scotland. Made from pot stills, Batch #3 has already won a plethora of awards this year, including Double Gold at the San Francisco World Spirits Competition and Best Single Malt at the Canadian Whisky Awards.

With 165 years of whisky-making experience, J.P. Wisers is one of the oldest operating distilleries in the nation. Thanks to the low-rye mashbill, this 18-year-old corn whisky the brands highest age statement is double column distilled, blended, and aged for nearly two decades in Canadian oak casks. Perfect for sipping neat, this expression goes down super smooth with a dynamic palate of pine, oak, apple, and floral notes with a long finish. And with a sub-$60 price point, this is one of the best deals youll find in any liquor category.

What Jack Daniels is to American whisky, Crown Royal is to our neighbors to the north. Easily Canadas most recognizable brand, the Gimli giant has been heading in a new premium direction as of late. However, that purple bag and picturesque bottles have always come underpinned with an air of elegance. This most recent version of the Noble Collections Winter Wheat Blended whisky has been the brands hottest batch as of late, even winning Best Whisky Overall at the Canadian Whiskey Awards back in February.

Since its launch in 1992, Forty Creek has been paving the way for Canadian whisky with its resilient approach to thinking outside the box. Credited with helping revive the national spirit, Forty Creeks small-batch Confederation Oak Reserve, named after the Canadian Confederation of 1867, blends together three spirts of different ages, made from a mashbill of corn, rye, and barley, and then finished for two years in Canadian oak casks. The colder weather imparts a profile of vanilla, butter cream, pepper, and walnut.

Billed as Canadas first single-barrel whisky, this marvelous expression from Caribou Crossing comes from one of around 200,000 casks in the distillerys collection. Bourbon lovers might compare its caribou bottle topper to Blantons galloping horse, but the flavor profile can stand toe-to-toe as well. Easily one of the most prolific top-shelf options from the Great White North, Caribou Crossings Single Barrel soars with a slightly-fluctuating medium-body profile of vanilla, honey, pepper, and fruit.

Rye typically matures much faster that corn- or barley-based whiskies. Nevertheless, the folks at Lock Stock & Barrel have found magic in their process, utilizing a mashbill of 100% rye. The brands top-shelf 21 Year was double distilled in copper pot stills before being aged for over two decades in new charred American oak barrels. Bottled at 111 proof, this whisky has a definite heat undergirding notes of cinnamon, caramel, cocoa, anise, and treacle, giving way to a long finish of leather, oak, and spice.

Original post:

8 Best Canadian Whiskies of 2022 - HICONSUMPTION

Confederates were traitors: Ty Seidule on West Point, race and American history – The Guardian

In a 36-year army career, Ty Seidule served in the US, Germany, Italy, Kenya, Kosovo, Macedonia, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. He retired a brigadier general.

An emeritus West Point history professor, he now teaches at Hamilton College. His online video, Was the Civil War About Slavery?, has been viewed millions of times, and in 2021 he published a well-received book, Robert E Lee and Me: A Southerners Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause.

Outside academia, Seidule is a member of the Naming Commission, a body set up in the aftermath of the police murder of George Floyd and the protests for racial justice it inspired, tasked with recommending changes to military memorials to Confederates who fought in the civil war.

Asked how the US military came to name bases, barracks, roads and other assets after soldiers who fought to secede from the union and keep Black people enslaved, Seidule said: The first thing to know is that in the 19th century, most army officers saw the Confederates as traitors.

Thats not a presentist argument. Thats what they thought. And particularly about Lee, who renounced his oath, fought against this country, killed US army soldiers and as [Union general and 18th president Ulysses S] Grant said, did so for the worst possible reason: to create a slave republic.

So in the 19th century, they would not have done this the first memorialisation of a Confederate at West Point is in the 1930s. So, why is that? [Its about] segregation in America. The last West Point black graduate was 1889. The next one was in 1936. West Point reflects America. [The first memorials] were a reaction to integration.

Seidule rejects the notion that memorials to Lee and other Confederates PGT Beauregard, a West Point superintendent fired for sedition, William Hardee, a commandant who fought in the west might be claimed as symbols of reconciliation.

The problem with that is it was reconciliation among white people, at the expense of Black people.

There had already been reconciliation. Magnanimously, the United States of America pardoned all former Confederates in 1868 reconciliation is sort of an agreement among whites that Black people will be treated in a Jim Crow fashion. So no, its not a reconciliation based, I would say, on an America we want today.

Last week, the Naming Commission made headlines when it highlighted a bronze at the United States Military Academy which depicts a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Seidule told the New York Times that though the Klan bronze fell outside the remit of the commission the racist terror group was founded after the defeat of the south the panel chose to highlight it because we thought it was wrong.

The commission has issued reports concerning military bases and the military and naval academies. It will present its final report in October. Speaking to the Guardian, Seidule cited such ongoing work as reason not to discuss the Klan plaque further. But West Point did so on its Facebook page.

It said: There is a triptych (three bronze panels) at one of the entrances of Bartlett Hall [the science centre] that depicts the history of the United States. The artwork was dedicated on 3 June 1965 As part of the middle panel titled One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, there is a small section that shows a Ku Klux Klan member.

The artist, Laura Gardin Fraser wanted to create art that depicted historical incidents or persons that [documented] both tragedy and triumph in our nations history.

Noting that the work was dedicated to graduates who served in the second world war and the Korean war, West Point added: The academy strives to graduate diverse leaders of character for our nation.

Lee did not lead the Confederacy. Its president was Jefferson Davis, a former secretary of war and senator from Mississippi. But Lee, who died in 1870, became the most-memorialised Confederate.

Asked why, Seidule said: If you think of Confederate monuments, of the burning of books which the United Daughters of the Confederacy did in the early part of the 20th century, to ensure that textbooks said the right thing, really its that every religion needs its God. And in a way, thats what Lee became.

Today, conservatives are banning books in attempts to control teaching of history, race, sexuality and other culture-war issues.

Seidule concentrates on his historical work. Lee, he said, was in part idealised for lack of other options. James Longstreet enjoyed battlefield victories but after the war fought for biracial democracy in New Orleans. So you cant use him.

While Lee ended up losing hugely, completely defeated, his armies destroyed, he was successful for a time before that. And so he was seen by the white south as their best general, as their ideal. And by the 1930s, he comes to represent something not just in the south, but among white Americans in general.

Beyond West Point, the Confederate battle flag has become a symbol of rebellion, reaction and racism more potent than any statue or building. On 6 January 2021 it even flew in the halls of Congress, when Trump supporters attacked.

Again, Seidule rejects any notion that use of the flag might in any way be excused.

We have to remember that it really didnt mean that much different then than it does now. In 1863 it represented the Army of Northern Virginia, which was fighting to create a slave republic. Now, some people say it reflects rebellion. But remember, this was rebellion to create a slave republic. And so, to me, it is a symbol of all that America is not.

Its a symbol of insurrection, its a symbol of somebody that would not take the results of a democratic election. I grew up with it, my dad had Confederate flags over the mantle. I know how powerful these symbols are.

One thing we often do with the civil war as historians is we let the smell of gunpowder seduce us into thinking about the war as American football, [about the] Xs and Os of military history, without understanding the purpose. Thats the thing I always come back to: why this cruel war?

Seidules next book will be about events at West Point towards the end of another cruel war: Vietnam. In 1971, Richard Nixon decided he wanted to oversee a moral rebirth of an army in disarray.

OK, Seidule says, thats great. But the next thing he does is go to Trophy Point, the focal point of the West Point campus, high over the Hudson river. If youve seen Battle Monument, you know it says on there, the War of the Rebellion. Nixon says, Wheres the Confederate monument? So he orders the superintendent to put a Confederate monument on Trophy Point.

And the Black cadets find out. And they nearly mutiny and they write a manifesto based on the Attica uprising at a New York prison in 1971 and [eventually] just so many things change.

They put on a concert to raise money for sickle cell anemia research, featuring Stevie Wonder and the Supremes, up at Michie Stadium, the home of Army football. They bring Louis Farrakhan to talk. They institute remarkable change, which Im arguing comes from one of the most successful protest movements in American military history that nobody knows about, and eventually it kills the Confederate monument.

So thats the book Im writing now.

More here:

Confederates were traitors: Ty Seidule on West Point, race and American history - The Guardian

How Many People Died In The Civil War? Inside America’s Bloodiest War – All That’s Interesting

At least 620,000 soldiers died during the American Civil War more than two percent of the U.S. population along with an untold number of civilian fatalities.

The United States has engaged in multiple wars. But none were as devastating as the war the nation waged against itself, the Civil War, which lasted from 1861 until 1865. So how many people died in the Civil War?

During the four years of conflict, Union troops faced off against Confederate soldiers on battlefields across the nation. These brutal confrontations sometimes resulted in tens of thousands of casualties for the two sides, as soldiers perished from both injuries and disease.

Yet once the war came to an end in 1865, determining the Civil Wars death toll proved to be a difficult task. Ever since, the question of how many people died in the Civil War has become a matter of debate, with some claiming that around 600,000 died and others arguing that the actual death toll was much higher.

When Southern states seceded and President Abraham Lincoln vowed to quash their rebellion, both sides thought the looming war would be a short one. Lincoln activated troops for only 90 days, and the newly formed Confederacy believed that one decisive battle could win their independence.

But on July 21, 1861, that battle, the First Battle of Bull Run, proved both sides wrong. As spectators watched, including U.S. senators, 28,450 Union troops clashed with 32,320 Confederate soldiers. The hard-fought battle resulted in a Confederate victory and set the stage for a much longer conflict.

The U.S. Congress promptly extended the term of enlistment from 90 days to three years, according to the Virginia Museum of History and Culture, and expanded the army from 75,000 to 500,000 men. The Union was steeling itself for a drawn-out conflict with the Confederacy and, indeed, the war would last almost four more years.

During that time, Civil War battles grew even bloodier. Though both sides had lost hundreds of troops during the First Battle of Bull Run, both Union and Confederate casualties would soon reach the tens of thousands. The Second Battle of Bull Run, fought from August 28 to 30, 1862, for example, saw over 24,000 casualties. And the bloodiest battle of the Civil War, Gettysburg, saw some 50,000 casualties.

By the time the war ended in 1865 with Confederate General Robert E. Lees surrender to Union General Ulysses S. Grant, the conflict had touched every corner of the nation. Families had lost sons, husbands, and fathers. But how many people died in the Civil War?

After the war, two Union veterans set out to determine the true Civil War death toll. According to The New York Times, they meticulously pored over muster lists, battlefield reports, and pension requests. William F. Foxs Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1861-1865 (1889), and Thomas Leonard Livermores Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America, 1861-65 (1900), offered the first estimate of the Civil War dead.

Fox and Livermore, among other researchers, came to believe that roughly 618,222 people died during the Civil War, with Union deaths numbering 360,222 and Confederate deaths numbering 258,000. Men died in battle, from injuries, in captivity, and from disease, at a rate of about 500 per day.

Since then, 620,000 has frequently been cited as the Civil War death toll. But J. David Hacker, a demographic historian from Binghamton University in New York, recently challenged that static. He suggested in 2011 that the true number of Civil War deaths was probably higher, likely between 650,000 and 850,000.

According to History, Hacker studied census data from 1850, 1860, 1870 and 1880. By examining the survival rates of native-born white men in the pre-war decades, he was able to determine approximately how many Americans died in the Civil War. Hacker additionally calculated death rates for foreign-born men and studied existing estimates of fatalities among Black soldiers.

However, Hacker presented his data with a couple of caveats. He didnt estimate how many civilians died during the Civil War, an ongoing question among historians, and wasnt able to differentiate how many soldiers who died in the Civil War were Union or Confederate troops.

You could assume that everyone born in the Deep South fought for the Confederacy and everyone born in the North fought for the Union, he told The New York Times. But the border states were a nightmare, and my confidence in the results broke down quickly.

That said, many historians were quick to praise Hackers work.

It even further elevates the significance of the Civil War and makes a dramatic statement about how the war is a central moment in American history, Eric Foner, a Civil War historian, said according to The New York Times.

However, not everyone has accepted Hackers estimate of how many men died in the Civil War. Some believe the number is as high as 850,000, the American Battlefield Trust wrote. The American Battlefield Trust does not agree with this claim.

They called Hackers estimate an important insight, but concluded that it was very broad and not directly linked to the war years of 1861-1865.

Hacker acknowledged that his methodology was far from perfect, but also argued that the 620,000 number for Civil War dead is also imperfect.

They say, How can you publish a number with that big of a possible error range (650,000 to 850,000)?' Hacker told History. So theyre going to stay with a number that we all know is much more specific. But to me, the 620,000 number has a big error range with it We shouldnt prefer that number just because it does not include the possible error range.

Further study is needed, he said, to understand the Civil War death toll. But if his estimate is correct, and the Civil War death toll is higher than 620,000, that also means that more women and children were impacted by the conflict.

Wars have profound economic, demographic and social costs, Hacker told The New York Times. Were seeing at least 37,000 more widows here, and 90,000 more orphans. Thats a profound social impact, and its our duty to get it right.

Whether the Civil War death toll is 620,000 or higher, it stands as the bloodiest conflict in American history. The Civil War dead dwarf those Americans who died in World War II (405,399), World War I (116,516), and Vietnam (58,209).

In fact, more Americans died in the Civil War than they did in every conflict between the American Revolution and the Korean War combined.

And when the Civil War is broken down into numbers, it paints a devastating picture. As PBS explained, approximately 2.5 percent of Americans living in the 1860s died during the Civil War (adjusted for todays population, that would be the equivalent of about 7 million people). Some 40 percent of the Civil War dead were never identified, including 66 percent of Black soldiers.

Each Civil War death, of course, was someones family member, friend, lover, or child. As such, the mere number, whether its 620,000 or 850,000, tells only part of the story. Perhaps President Abraham Lincoln himself put it best when he said in 1864:

War at the best, is terrible, and this war of ours, in its magnitude and in its duration, is one of the most terrible.

After reading about the stunning Civil War death toll, go inside the grim question of how many people died on the RMS Titanic. Or, see how many people Joseph Stalin killed during his time in power in the Soviet Union.

More:

How Many People Died In The Civil War? Inside America's Bloodiest War - All That's Interesting

Richard West: Time for the USA to consider partition? – GazetteNET

Published: 6/28/2022 1:22:50 PM

Modified: 6/28/2022 1:20:15 PM

In 1860, when Abraham Lincoln won the White House, the southern states correctly concluded that their decadeslong ability to control the national political agenda had ended. They seceded from the union and formed the Confederate States of America. The northern states asserted that the primacy of the union prevented secession and so war commenced. It was long, bloody, and costly.

Today we face a similar political crisis. Millions of Americans believe that the national political agenda no longer expresses their values. To prevent another long, costly, and bloody Civil War, the people of the United States of America should seriously consider partition.

How would this work? The USA would partition into three nation-states. The United States of the Atlantic would be comprised of the states north of the Potomac and the Ohio and east of the Mississippi. The United States of the Pacific would be comprised of Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii. The United States of the Mississippi would consist of all of the southern and plains states, as well as Alaska.

The United States would continue to exist as an economic and military entity, much like the European Union and NATO. Free trade and the free movement of citizens between each nation-state would continue unhindered. If someone from Massachusetts wanted to move to Florida, no legal obstacles would stand in his or her way. If a company in Massachusetts wanted to send its product to California, no commercial obstacles would stand in its way.

Each nation-state however would elect its own form of government, presumably similar to our current model, with independent executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The nation-states would elect their own representatives in the manner they chose, and they would enact and uphold their own laws as they saw fit. Laws governing rights and liberties would be reserved for the nation-states to determine for themselves. Laws governing business and labor practices, taxes, education, property rights, environment standards, everything governing daily life within their borders would be similarly determined.

I understand that the broad outlines of such a proposal just scratch the surface of how much work would be involved in making partition a reality. But I think we can all agree that as a nation we are nearing a breaking point. We cannot afford another civil war. Now is the time to think creatively about how to avoid it.

Richard West

Northampton

Originally posted here:

Richard West: Time for the USA to consider partition? - GazetteNET

Daughters of the American Revolution Honor Veterans in Old Dallas Cemetery – The Mena Star

Daughters of the American Revolution Honor Veterans in Old Dallas Cemetery

James K. Polk Chapter, National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, recently honored 44 veterans in the historic Old Dallas Cemetery. New U. S. flags were placed at the graves of veterans representing the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, and the Vietnam War.

The chapter was excited to locate old records that led to the discovery of veteran number 44. An old publication, Memories of Old Dallas by Bonsell and Petrasek shed light on Sergeant Richard Uncle Dick Henry Davis of the 4th Arkansas Infantry, Confederate States of America. According to Fold 3 records, Davis was mustered into the War Between the States in August 1861. He was wounded in the arm while in battle at Murfreesboro, TN, also known as the Battle of Stones River. Richard Davis was extremely fortunate. The battle at Stones River claimed 23,000 casualties, and it was the second bloodiest battle fought west of the Appalachians during the Civil War. Five years after the Civil War, the 1870 U.S. Census reveals Davis is married with two small children and living on a farm in the Old Dallas community near where the airport is located. The Civil War made a huge impact on this rural Arkansas man. The article by Bonsell and Petrasek stated, as a relic of his service in the Confederate Army, Uncle Dick always carried his buggy whip in rifle position.

DAR members, HODARS (husbands of Daughters of the American Revolution) and members grandchildren all worked side by side to make sure every known veteran in the Old Dallas Cemetery was honored.

Daughters of the American Revolution is a nonprofit, nonpolitical volunteer womens service organization dedicated to preserving American history, promoting patriotism, and securing Americas future through better education. Any woman, regardless of race, religion, or ethnic background, who can prove their lineal decent from patriots of the American Revolution is eligible to join. For more information, contact Registrar Carolyn Hanna at carolynhanna220@gmail.com

Photos: by Brenda Cunningham and Deonna Williams

More:

Daughters of the American Revolution Honor Veterans in Old Dallas Cemetery - The Mena Star

The Fourth of July History and Meaning You Never Knew – Oprah Mag

Today, the Fourth of July is best known for its red, white, and blue adornment and drinks, fireworks, and of course, family barbecues. The holiday is revered as a summertime staple, but before you break out the sparklers and sunscreen, lets reflect on Americas history, shall we? After all, its through historical knowledge and personal introspection that we can develop a greater sense of empathy and gain an understanding of others unique experiences. Education and awareness provide individuals with the distinct ability to discern whether past mistakes are presently being repeated, a significant element that is vital for societal progression.

To take you on a journey back to primary school history class, the Fourth of July commemorates the day the United States gained independence from Great Britain in 1776. The delegates of the Continental Congress voted to declare the sovereignty of the 13 colonies on July 2nd, when it approved a resolution submitted by delegate Richard Henry Lee of Virginia.

After voting, the Continental Congress drafted a document, aka the Declaration of Independence, explaining the colonies newfound independence to the public, which was approved on July 4th in Philadelphia. However, historians have long disputed the date of its signing, and many believe it wasnt signed by all delegates until August 2nd, 1776.

Few colonists desired complete autonomy from Great Britain when the Revolutionary War broke out in April 1775, so what prompted the 13 notorious colonies to earn their independence? Introducing the origin story of the United States of America.

The first colony was founded at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, and 12 more were subsequently established. The colonies were part of Great Britain, which increased taxes for colonists on things they bought and used daily, like tea.

The Stamp Act of 1765 put a charge on papers and official documents in the American colonies but not in England and was another example of the unjust taxation.

Furthermore, the colonists' needs werent represented in the British government, evident by the fact that Parliament was elected by people living in England. This led to the notorious rallying cry No taxation without representation. Tensions heightened and eventually a war commenced, known today as the American Revolution.

The fight for the colonies independence ceased when Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin signed the Declaration of Independence on the day it was adopted, July 4th, 1776.

There were 56 signatures of the Declaration of Independence, the document that announced the separation of the 13 North American British colonies from Great Britain. It states that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, according to National Archives.

Years after the Declaration of Independence was drafted, three founding fathers and former presidents, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Monroe, died on July 4th. Jefferson and Adams passed on the 50th anniversary of the country in 1826 and Monroe in 1831.

Although the United States gained its independence on July 4th, 1776, it wasnt until June 19th, 1865, that true liberation was felt within the United States of America by all. On this day, the last enslaved people gained their freedom after federal troops arrived in Texas to enforce the decree that all slaves be freed.

The troops arrived two and a half years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves of the Confederate statethough because Southerners saw themselves as their own nation state, it didnt have a resolute impact.

While the Fourth of July became a federal holiday in the United States in 1941, Juneteenth did not become a federal holiday until June 17th, 2021. Today, Juneteenth and the Fourth of July are celebrated as symbols of liberation, autonomy, and freedom, recognized indispensably.

This content is imported from OpenWeb. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

View post:

The Fourth of July History and Meaning You Never Knew - Oprah Mag

Hate In America: The Many Faces Of White Supremacy – Black America Web

America was built on white supremacy and time after time its ideologies get Black people killed, injured, or traumatizedall because of lies.

When Payton Gendron, a self-proclaimed white supremacist, killed 10 Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo, he believed was helping to prevent the elimination of the white race.

In his manifesto, the boy wrote that his motivation for the attack was to prevent Black people from replacing white people and eliminating the white race and to inspire others to commit similar racially-motivated attacks.

Gendron was motivated by an idea called the great replacement theory. The deceitful conspiracy theory states that nonwhites are being brought to the U.S. to replace white voters and sway elections and other liberal political agendas. Those who believe this malarkey believe an influx of people of color will be the catalyst to the extinction of the white race.

Nothing blinds you more than hate and fearthe two traits that best describe white supremacy. To understand the concept better, lets dive into the meaning, history, and movement that is still a terror to Black and brown people all over the country.

White supremacy is the belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups, in particular Black or Jewish people.

America was founded on white supremacy ideologies. Article I of the Constitution called Black slaves three-fifths of a person. Article IV made it legal for runaway slaves to be hunted down and returned to their masters. This idea that Blacks were inferior to whites, therefore could be owned, was ingrained in many Americans. Slavery made white supremacy legal and mainstream. Even the white people who didnt own slaves had peers who did.

After The Emancipation Proclamation and the end of slavery, white supremacy changed from keeping slaves in check to terrorizing Black people. Southern leaders and white militant groups used extreme violence to keep Blacks in check. One of the most famous hate groups of the time was the Klu-Klux-Klan. The first KKK was established in 1865 in the wake of the Civil War. Their sole purpose was to violently oppose the Reconstruction era and make sure Black people were not afforded the same civil rights as their white counterparts. One of their most popular tactics was voter suppression, which is still used by Republicans to keep Black voters from the polls.

The second version of the Klan was formed in Georiga in 1915 but flourished after 1920. D. W. Griffiths silent film, The Birth Of A Nation, helped propel white supremacist ideologies, as well as stoke white fear that Blacks were violent and dangerous. This version of the Klan was also a Protestant nativist movement that attached heavily to their religious beliefs. Not only were they anti-black, but they also hated Catholics and Jews.

The third iteration of the Klan was formed to oppose the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s. White supremacists believed that the end of segregation would mean the end of their supremacy. Unlike other iterations, this Klan worked from within the government. Many white hoods of the 1950s were also the mayors, the sheriffs in their day jobs, and terrorists at night and violence was their modus operandi. Blacks were beaten, bombed, and or killed just for trying to exercise their right to vote.

White supremacists believed that if Blacks voted, their way of life would eventually be no more. Support for the group would dwindle after The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But the hateful idea of white supremacy would continue to morph and change to fit the times.

Over time the truth will come to light, and the term white supremacy began to develop a negative connotation. Its believers needed a more family-friendly word to describe their disgusting hateinsert the White Nationalist.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig. White nationalism and white supremacy are the same things.

The Southern Poverty Law Center defines White nationalism as groups that espouse white supremacist or white separatist ideologies, often focusing on the alleged inferiority of nonwhites.

Former President Donald Trump was the symbol for white nationalists. He helped bring the idea from the fringe right to the White House, with his racist language and rhetoric on imagination. White nationalists believed Trump would finally put their grievances to the forefront of American culture, which is something white supremacists yearned for greatly.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there were 155 white nationalist groups in 2019. Although that number has dropped in the last few years, their violence has not.

From Dylan Roof to Charlottesville, to Payton Gendron, white supremacy had been a stain on America that it has not been able to wash out. Conservative politicians have hijacked the nastiest parts of human nature and used them to manipulate the minds of many Americans.

Alt-Right

The Alternative Right, commonly known as the alt-right, is a set of far-right ideologies, groups, and individuals whose core belief is that white identity is under attack by multicultural forces using political correctness and social justice to undermine white people and their civilization.

Christian Identity

Christian Identity is an antisemitic, racist theology that rose to a position of commanding influence on the racist right in the 1980s. Christian in name only, asserts that white people, not Jewish people, are the true Israelites favored by God in the Bible.

Racist Skinhead

Racist skinheads have long been among the most violent-minded elements of the white power movement. Often referred to as the shock troops of the hoped-for white revolution, this movement flourished during the 1980s, 1990s, and the mid-2000s.

Neo-Confederate

Neo-Confederacy is a reactionary, revisionist branch of American white nationalism typified by its predilection for symbols of the Confederate States of America, typically paired with a strong belief in the validity of the failed doctrines of nullification and secession.

Neo-Nazi

Neo-Nazi groups share a hatred for Jews and a love for Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. While they also hate other minorities, gays, lesbians, and even sometimes Christians, they perceive the Jew as their cardinal enemy.

Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

National Vanguard

EURO

Blood & Honour

Aryan Nations

Brotherhood of Klans

Proud Boys

Patriot Front

CLICK HERE to read more about White Supremacy groups in America.

SEE ALSO:

Buffalo Shooter Could Face Death Penalty After Hate Crime Charge For Racist Mass Shooting

OP-ED: Groups Like The Proud Boys Want To Build A White Nation Regardless Of Sedition Charges

Hate In America: The Many Faces Of White Supremacywas originally published onnewsone.com

See the rest here:

Hate In America: The Many Faces Of White Supremacy - Black America Web

Is American democracy already lost? Half of us think so but the future remains unwritten – Salon

The American people understand that their democracy and their society are in deep trouble.But they do not agree on who or what is the cause of the problem, and do not share a common understanding of basic facts. To make matters worse there is a kind of sinister synergy between America's democracy crisis and other serious problems facing the country, which risks creating a state of collective paralysis.

During his prepared comments before the House Jan. 6 committee last Thursday, retired judgeJ. Michael Luttig, a lifelong conservative Republican who advised former Vice President Mike Pence before and during Donald Trump's coup attempt, issued this dire warning:

A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on Jan. 6, 2021, and our democracy today is on a knife's edge.

America was at war on that fateful day, but not against a foreign power. She was at war against herself. We Americans were at war with each other over our democracy.

Jan. 6 was but the next, foreseeable battle in a war that had been raging in America for years, though that day was the most consequential battle of that war even to date. In fact, Jan. 6 was a separate war unto itself, a war for America's democracy, a war irresponsibly instigated and prosecuted by the former president, his political party allies, and his supporters. Both wars are raging to this day. America is now the stake in these unholy wars. America is adrift. We pray that it is only for this fleeting moment that she has lost her way, until we Americans can once again come to our senses.

In response to a question from committee chairman Bennie Thompson about the danger to the republic still represented by Trump and his supporters, Luttig elaborated further:

Almost two years after that fateful day Donald Trumpand his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.

That's not because of what happened on Jan. 6. It is because, to this very day, the former president and his allies and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican party presidential candidate were to lose that election, they would attempt to overturn that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election, but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020.

If there are any reasonable and intelligent Americans who continue to doubt that this country is in the midst of an existential crisis, facing the dangers of Trumpism and a growing white supremacist authoritarian movement, Luttig's words should shock them back into reality.

A new Yahoo News/YouGov poll adds even more weight to Luttig's warnings about American democracy as it teeters on the precipice of irrecoverable disaster. The lead finding is that more than half of those surveyed, across the political spectrum 55% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans believe it is "likely" that the United States will "cease to be a democracy in the future."

RELATED:Global forecaster on "another bad year for democracy": Is the world near a dire tipping point?

Further findings in that poll are arguably even more troubling given the events of Jan. 6 and the Republican-fascist movement's increasing embrace of violence and terrorism:

This new poll also demonstrates that negative partisanship and other forms of extreme political polarization now appear to be permanent features of American political life.Andrew Romano summarizes this at Yahoo News:

When asked to choose the phrase that best "describes most people on the other side of the political aisle from you," a majority of Republicans pick extreme negatives such as "out of touch with reality" (30%), a "threat to America" (25%), "immoral" (8%) and a "threat to me personally" (4%). A tiny fraction select more sympathetic phrases such as "well-meaning" (4%) or "not that different from me" (6%).

The results among Democrats are nearly identical, with negatives such as "out of touch with reality" (27%), a "threat to America" (23%), "immoral" (7%) and a "threat to me personally" (4%) vastly outnumbering positives such as "well-meaning" (7%) or "not that different from me" (5%).

These findings offer further evidence that the U.S. in the Age of Trump and beyond is what political scientists call an "anocracy," a system that combines features of dictatorship and democracy. The coup against democracy and the rule of law did not end when Trump's insurrectionists left the Capitol on Jan. 6. The Republican-fascists and the larger white right continue to advance a strategy whose ultimate goal is a Christian fascist plutocracy, one modeled on a system of competitive authoritarianism in which political parties still exist and elections occur, but where outcomes are manipulated as in Russia, Hungary or Turkey.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

This dystopia made real will be a combination of such books and films as "The Handmaid's Tale," "Atlas Shrugged," "Brazil," "Idiocracy," "Robocop," "CSA: The Confederate States of America" and "1984."

Donald Trump and his acolytes continue to threaten political violence against their "enemies," meaning liberals and progressives, nonwhite people, Muslims, immigrants, LGBTQ people and any other groups or individuals they deem insufficiently "American" and not part of the MAGA faithful.

The Republican Party, its propaganda machine and other opinion leaders continue to amplify Trump's Big Lie and its inherent conclusion that further violence may be necessary to return Trump (or a successor) to the White House and, more generally, to prevent Democrats from winning or holding power by any means necessary.

The core tenets of the "great replacement" conspiracy theory which a white supremacist terrorist recently claimed as the motive for murdering 10 Black people last month at a Buffalo supermarket have been embraced by a majority of Republicans, and an even larger majority of Trump followers.

National security experts on terrorism and armed conflict have continued to warn that Trump's coup attempt and the Capitol attack are further evidence that the U.S. may face a period of sustained right-wing violent insurgency. Robert Pape, director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats, has estimated that more than 20 million Americansbelieve that using political violence to return Trump to power is justified.

In a widely read December 2021 essay in the Globe and Mail, Canadian political scientist Thomas Homer-Dixon offered a memorably grim prognosis of America's future. He predicted that "American democracy could collapse" by 2025 that is, following the next presidential election and that by 2030, the U.S. "could be governed by a right-wing dictatorship":

We mustn't dismiss these possibilities just because they seem ludicrous or too horrible to imagine. In 2014, the suggestion that Donald Trump would become president would also have struck nearly everyone as absurd. But today we live in a world where the absurd regularly becomes real and the horrible commonplace.

Mr. Trump's electoral loss has energized the Republican base and further radicalized young party members. Even without their concerted efforts to torque the machinery of the electoral system, Republicans will probably take control of both the House of Representatives and Senate this coming November, because the incumbent party generally fares poorly in mid-term elections. Republicans could easily score a massive victory, with voters ground down by the pandemic, angry about inflation, and tired of President Joe Biden bumbling from one crisis to another. Voters who identify as Independents are already migrating toward Republican candidates.

Once Republicans control Congress, Democrats will lose control of the national political agenda, giving Mr. Trump a clear shot at recapturing the presidency in 2024. And once in office, he will have only two objectives: vindication and vengeance.

Homer-Dixon then drew the this parallel between the current state of the U.S. and the collapse of the Weimar Republic in the early 1930s:

The situation in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s was of course sui generis; in particular, the country had experienced staggering traumas defeat in war, internal revolution and hyperinflation while the country's commitment to liberal democracy was weakly rooted in its culture. But as I read a history of the doomed republic this past summer, I tallied no fewer than five unnerving parallels with the current U.S. situation.

America's future stability is so much in doubt that even global rivals or enemies are concerned about the destructive forces unleashed by the Age of Trump. In a series of phone calls before and after the 2020 election, Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sought to reassure his Chinese counterpart, saying, "The American government is stable and everything is going to be OK. ... Everything's fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes."

An ambush is always disorienting, and intentionally so, but the best option is always to fight back. That's where we are right now.

This situation is undeniably bewildering, and deliberately so. But for pro-democracy Americans, inaction is not an option. That will inevitably lead to defeat. In military terms, a successful ambush is almost always disorienting, but the best option is always to fight back, not hunker down. The Republican-fascists and their allies want the American people to feel so confused and overwhelmed by their unending attack on democracy, the rule of law, the common good and basic human decency that they essentially turn away, close their eyes and surrender.In essence, the Republican-fascist movement is using their own version of a political "shock and awe" strategy here at home against the American people.

The Lincoln Project recently offered this evaluation of America's democracy crisis:

After three [Jan. 6 committee] hearings we know for certain the nation is at one of the most dangerous moments in its history. These revelations will not change the true MAGA believers mind but will cause them to double and triple down on the "Big Lie" making them more dangerous and perhaps more violent. Every single American needs to decide if they are the side of the seditionists who tried to tear down a free and fair election, or do they support our Republic and its democratic principles?

In short, the American people must act with deliberate purpose and speed if they hope to save their democracy and society. Voting is of course necessary, but by itself is insufficient. "Hashtag activism," with its "likes" and "shares" and memes, is for the most part symbolic or performative politics that accomplishes little or nothing in the long run, and may actually be counterproductive if people mistake it for real action. In the long-term struggle, substantive movement-building and organizing will be required to defeat fascism in America and around the world.

Voting is necessary, but not sufficient. "Hashtag activism" accomplishes little or nothing, and may even be counterproductive. What we need is movement-building.

Supporters of democracy must engage in grassroots organizing. They need to join, establish, and grow a range of civil society organizations. They must raise and donate money in effective ways, not by giving it to doomed Democratic candidates in hopeless races. Ultimately, they must be willing to engage in corporeal politics, including general strikes, street protests, civil disobedience and other forms of direct action where they can confront the Republican-fascists and their allies with overwhelming numbers.

Right now, almost all the momentum is with the Republican-fascists and their broad-spectrum attack on American democracy and society. They are in revolutionary mode, and they are are winning. They will press onward to total victory, unless and until they are stopped. This will require people of conscience to take a personal inventory and ask themselves, "How much am I willing to sacrifice to save my country, my family and future generations from this nightmare?" The future of American democracy and society largely hinges on how many of us can answer that question honorably and rise to the challenge.

Read more on America's crisis of democracy:

Follow this link:

Is American democracy already lost? Half of us think so but the future remains unwritten - Salon

Abolishing the death penalty and capitalism WW commentary – Workers World

By Workers World Houston bureau

To understand the systemic cruelty and deep inequalities that persist in the criminal injustice system in the U.S., one need look no further than the death penalty.

2011 Texas march to end the death penalty

The death penalty evolved from the rope to the chair to the needle. On this continent, it evolved directly from Indigenous genocide and enslavement of African people on stolen Indigenous lands. The death penalty persists, despite not deterring crime and despite the racist legal system getting fatal verdicts wrong so often. In practice, it is racist and anti-poor. Those without the capital, get the capital punishment.

The state of Texas has executed more people in the modern era than the next six U.S. states combined. The state has lynched 574 people since 1982.

The state that has executed the second largest number of people in the modern era is Virginia, with 113 executions. In 2020 Virginia was the first former Confederate state to abolish the death penalty, which is a big deal, as legal lynchings have historically been concentrated in the South, coinciding with a history of enslavement and genocide at the hands of colonizers.

Currently, there are 23 states with no death penalty, three with governor-imposed moratoriums and 24 states that have the death penalty. Public support for capital punishment is down, thanks in great part to activists all over the world, collectively fighting its inhumanity for decades.

Positive movement against the death penalty

Despite the SCOTUS ruling on May 17 denying two Arizona death row prisoners, David Ramirez and Barry Jones, the right to appeal ineffective counsel in federal court there is still quite a bit of positive movement against the death penalty, particularly in Texas.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center: [I]n Harris County, prosecutors are challenging Houston Judge Natalia Cornelios refusal to schedule an execution date for death row prisoner Arthur Brown in order to provide a new lawyer in time to investigate whether he is ineligible for the death penalty because of intellectual disability. In Nueces County, the Texas Attorney Generals Office has intervened in county proceedings to oppose District Attorney Mark Gonzalezs motion to withdraw a death warrant scheduling the execution of John Henry Ramirez for October 5, 2022. . . .

Gonzalez, a former defense attorney, was elected in 2016 on a platform of criminal justice reform. In response to an application filed by his office, the Nueces County District Court issued an order on April 12, 2022, setting an execution date for Ramirez. Two days later, citing his firm belief that the death penalty is unethical and should not be imposed on Mr. Ramirez or any other person while he is Nueces County District Attorney, Gonzalez filed a motion to withdraw the death warrant. (Deathpenaltyinfo.org, May 27)

Delia Perez Meyer, who has a brother on Texas death row, said at a rally in Harlingen, Texas, to free death row prisoner Melissa Lucio: This system is so flawed. Theres tampering of evidence; theres withholding of evidence; theres collusion. A lot of terrible things go on in death row cases. Executions are wrong and archaic. It doesnt matter if a person is innocent or guilty, no one should be executed. (Workers World, Feb. 9, 2022)

In reference to Lucios case, state representative Jeff Leach staunch Republican supporter of the death penalty recently said he supported a moratorium on capital punishment, due to his faith in the system carrying out these executions fairly being shaky. This is unheard of in the world of Texas politics and indicative of the changing tide of public faith in the so-called justice system on our way to abolition. (Inside Texas Politics, wfaa.com, April 29)

On the way to abolition

The death penalty itself is part of the legacy of enslavement we contend with abolishing. From the rope to the chair to the needle and methods such as death by lethal injection, firing squad and the gas chamber, still legal to use in places like South Carolina and Arizona the capitalist state has many methods with which to kill the poor and oppressed.

Much like in the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, there are hundreds of thousands of human beings imprisoned in the U.S. serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Mumia calls this slow death row, because unsanitary conditions and extreme medical neglect behind bars often prove to be as lethal as an official execution date just slower.

Before Americas era of mass incarceration took hold in the early 1970s, the number of individuals in prison was less than 200,000. Today, its 1.4 million; and more than 200,000 people are serving life sentences one out of every seven in prison. More people are sentenced to life in prison in America than there were people in prison serving any sentence in 1970. (sentencingproject.org, Feb. 17, 2021, tinyurl.com/y3ehjbfu)

If we include the number of all members of the working class being held captive in prisons, jails and detention centers, that would bring the total number under carceral control to 1.9 million people in the U.S. (prisonpolicy.org, March 14)

In tandem with capitalist cages, we live in a country where over a million people have perished from a deadly respiratory virus, many dying within prisons. We live in a world where capitalist legislators are comfortable with massacres through gun violence against children in school, against people of color shopping for groceries or at worship. We live in a world where the U.S. spends billions of dollars for war in Ukraine but has no plan to feed a populace struggling in a new era of mass poverty.

We live in a world where the minimum federal wage is only double the price of a gallon of gas, and where many cannot afford to even drive to work if they dont live nearby. We live in a world where as Angela Davis says we have the freedom to starve rather than have our human needs met.

Capitalism, as it has been for so many members of the working class throughout history, is much like a death sentence. Capitalism is racist, anti-poor and ableist in the way it operates and is an enemy of all the oppressed. As we work to abolish the death penalty, the abolition of capitalism is next on the horizon.

Go here to read the rest:

Abolishing the death penalty and capitalism WW commentary - Workers World

Ty Seidule on Exposing Robert E. Lee, Lost Cause Myths, White Supremacy, and Treason – History News Network

I grew up with a series of lies that helped further white supremacy. Thats uncomfortable. To see the real agony, think about the millions of people who lived their entire lives enslaved, knowing that enslavement would be the future for their children and their childrens children. Think of living with the violence of the Jim Crow era as an African American.

Ty Seidule, Robert E. Lee and Me

In his candid and searing recent memoir, Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerners Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause (St. Martins Press), retired US Army general and renowned professor of history Ty Seidule recounts his odyssey from youthful hero worship of Confederate General Robert E. Lee and an indoctrination in racist myths of the Lost Cause to acclaim as a historian devoted to challenging the poisonous white supremacist lies about slavery, the Civil War, African American inferiority, Jim Crow segregation, and the deified Lee.

As a distinguished scholar of history, a decorated soldier, and a native of the South, Professor Seidule writes with rare authority about race, the Civil War, and the myths and lies about the war that he learned from an education presented through the lens of racism and Confederate mythology. He explains how his early beliefs were shaped by white supremacist ideology that demeaned and dehumanized Black citizens. These racist views imbued Southern culture and were widely shared throughout the country in textbooks, popular periodicals, and the media, with movies such as the award-winning Gone with the Wind and Disneys Song of the South rife with degrading stereotypes of African Americans.

And Professor Seidule vividly describes his path to understanding and his emergence as a leader for historical truth and for a reckoning on race. He demolishes the myths about the saintly Lee and, based on extensive research and overwhelming evidence, concludes that Lee was a traitor to his country who fought to preserve slavery. And, as Professor Seidule describes the militarys veneration of Confederate leaders in naming of bases and other actions, he rejects honoring of those who fought to preserve slavery and committed treason in the effort.

He further details how he became a scholar of our deeply conflicted past, and how that study revealed the noxious, insidious influence of racist ideas that have poisoned white minds since the dawn of slavery. And he considers the timely and vexing issue of how otherwise seemingly admirable people could embrace the odious tenets of white supremacy and the oppression of others.

Professor Seidules powerful personal observations and insights are especially timely as our nation continues to suffer serious divisions on issues of race and democracy. He urges that understanding our past is critical to confronting and stopping the generational transmission of pernicious racist ideas.

Ty Seidule is Professor Emeritus of History at West Point where he taught for two decades. He served in the U.S. Army for thirty-six years, retiring as a brigadier general. He currently teaches history and serves as the Chamberlain Fellow at Hamilton College as well as a New America Fellow. He is the author or editor of six books of military history, three of which won distinguished writing prizes, includingThe West Point History of the Civil War. Also a leader in digital history, Professor Seidule created and co-edited the award-winningWest Point History of Warfare, the largest enhanced digital book in any field. His video lecture Was the Civil War About Slavery has had more than 30 million views on social media. He also serves as the vice chair of the Congressional Naming Commission, which will rename Department of Defense assets that honor the Confederate States of America. He graduated from Washington and Lee University and earned his doctorate at Ohio State University.

Professor Seidule generously responded to questions about his work and his new book by email.

Robin Lindley: Congratulations Professor Seidule on your candid new memoir Robert E. Lee and Me and thank you for considering questions. You have a distinguished background as a military historian and author. What inspired you to write your revelatory memoir now on your indoctrination in the myths and lies of the Confederate Lost Cause and your rigorous exploration of the reality of our history of racism and white supremacy?

Professor Ty Seidule: When I was at West Point, I chaired our memorialization committee. We created a new memorial room to the 1500+ Academy graduates who gave the last full measure of devotion to the nation from the War of 1812 to the present, including more than 100 alumni killed since 9/11. One decision caused a ruckus. Should the West Point graduates who fought and died in Confederate gray be included in the new Memorial Room? I argued, stridently, no! After all, Confederates abrogated their oath, killed US Army soldiers, and committed treason for the worse possible reason: to create a slave republic. Yet, I lost. The superintendent wanted to include the names.

I went home, defeated, to tell my wife. She asked me if I had told everyone why I was so passionate. Why the issues were so important to me? No, I told her. Im a historian. I tell other peoples stories. She told me if I wanted to convince anyone, I needed to be honest and tell my story.

Then, in 2017, Washington and Lee University invited me to give a talk in Lee Chapel, where Robert E. Lee is buried. I told my story and called Lee a traitor for slavery. The audience gave me a standing ovation. I realized that if I was honest about my own story, I might be able to convince others about the facts of the Civil War and the Lost Cause more readily. So, I decided to do what few historians do. Use my own story to try to reach a broader audience.

Robin Lindley: In your new book, you describe your virtual reverence for Robert E. Lee, and how your education as a child and young adult was imbued with Confederate myths and racist history. At one point as a child, you ranked Lee as an 11 out of a scale of 10, and ranked Jesus at five. How do you see the origins of your adoration of Lee? Did your parents and teachers encourage your embrace of Lost Cause myths and the veneration of Lee when you grew up in the 1960s?

Professor Ty Seidule: Every aspect of my life encouraged me to see Lee as the epitome of a Southern gentleman. I wanted to be a Virginia gentleman because that meant status. My first chapter book was Meet Robert E. Lee. Lee looked like a military god on loan from Mt Olympus, framed by a gigantic Confederate flag. Today, its hard to imagine just how reverential Lee was to the white South, especially in Virginia.

Robin Lindley: What was your view of the causes of Civil War and its outcome as a child and young adult?

Professor Ty Seidule: It wasnt something I remember thinking about. My culture focused on the romantic, underdog Confederates who fought nobly for a doomed cause. But honestly, I dont remember thinking or hearing anything about the cause, the purpose. That was the problem. The purpose of the war and the war itself werent linked.

Robin Lindley: You vividly describe your college experience at Washington and Lee Universitya veritable shrine to Robert E. Lee, who was seen as the paradigm of the Southern Christian gentleman. What did you learn about Lee and the colleges efforts to deify Lee, the former president of the college?

Professor Ty Seidule: The entire history of the school revolved around deifying Lee until very recently. Fundraising was successful for years by its association with Lee. Lee Chapel was called by the University in the 1920s The Westminster Abbey of the Confederacy. In fact, Lee Chapel is more a reliquary to a saint than a chapel. His basement office remains untouched from the day he died in 1870. Traveller, his warhorse, buried outside Lees crypt, often has apples left by tourists.

The fact that Lees statue lies on the altar in the Chapels apse clearly shows who is venerated and its not Jesus. When my wife saw it for the first time, she understood that the school literally worshipped Lee. Her reaction? Get me out of here!

Robin Lindley: It may surprise some readers that so many bases and other US military facilities are named for Confederate leaders. Why did the US military honor traitors to the US in this way?

Professor Ty Seidule: Yes. Several of our most prestigious army posts honor the enemy. The War Department named them during WWI and WWII when the army was a segregationist institution, and the South was a racial police state.

Black people did protest these names, but they had been violently excluded from voting and could not change it. But to me its outrageous that the US Army, the most diverse workforce in the country, honors the enemy. An enemy who fought for slavery and killed US Army soldiers. Some like Henry Benning and John Brown Gordon never served in the US Army. Others like Braxton Bragg, Leonidas Polk, John Bell Hood and other West Point graduates chose to fight against the country that educated them. Lee served in US Army for over 30 years before choosing treason to preserve slavery.

Robin Lindley: You had a distinguished teaching career at the US Military Academy at West Point. You note that Lee casts a long shadow there with numerous tributes to the Confederate general. What are a few examples of this admiration for Lee at West Point that struck you?

Professor Ty Seidule: I lived on Lee Road, by Lee Gate, in Lee Housing area. At West Point our barracks are named for Americas greatest military heroes, Washington, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Bradley, Scott, Sherman, Grant, and Pershing. We recently named our newest barracks after Benjamin O. Davis, Jr, the first Black West Point grad in the twentieth century. But one barracks bears Lee name. When was it named? The early 1970s. I counted more than a dozen memorials to Lee at West Point.

The first Lee memorial came about in the 1930s and the last in 2002. Thats part of what changed me. West Point was an anti-Confederate monument in the nineteenth century. No Confederates in the prestigious cemetery. No Confederates in the Memorial Hall. None on the towering Battle Monument to the US Army dead from the War of the Rebellion.

Duty, Honor, Country, West Points motto is anti-Confederate. West Point in the nineteenth century saw Lee and his Confederate comrades as traitors. Lee made a comeback when West Point moved towards equal rights and integration. And that really informed my understanding of Confederate memorialization. Its always about white supremacy.

Robin Lindley: Thanks for that striking observation. Youre a retired general and renowned expert on military history. Was Lee a good soldier and general?

Professor Ty Seidule: For years, I let the smell of gunpowder seduce me into answering that question. No more!

Lee chose treason to preserve slavery. His army kidnapped Black people during the Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns and brought them back for sale in Virginia. Lees army depended on enslaved people for much of their logistics cooks, teamsters, nurses, engineers, farriers, and servants. The Army of Northern Virginia was an enslaving army. And Lee desperately wanted more enslaved labor throughout the war. Think of that for a minute. What other army depended so thoroughly on enslaved labor for its logistics? Also, Lees army routinely executed Black prisoners of war. Too often, we look at the tactics of war and forget the purpose.

I cover Lee as a strategist and tactician only after I clearly talk about treason and slavery.

Robin Lindley: Lee was an enslaver. How did he treat enslaved people? Did he ever emancipate slaves or call for abolition of slavery?

Professor Ty Seidule: Lee was a cruel enslaver. He enslaved people from the time his mother died soon after his graduation until 1863. When Lees father-in-law died in 1857, Lee took control of three enslaved labor farms for more than two years (I wont call them plantations, which evoke images of the wind whispering through the Spanish Moss. Plantations are more Dachau than Disneyland).

Lees father-in-law recognized enslaved marriages and kept families together. Lee tried to maximize his profits at the expense of enslaved people by using the hiring system to break apart all but one family. He also ordered Wesley Norris and his sister whipped, telling the constable to Lay it on well.

As for emancipation, he once said that freedom would come on Gods time. He certainly fought for slavery, not emancipation. Lees actions are what count to me.

Robin Lindley: Your verdict on Lee is straightforward: He was a traitor who fought to preserve slavery. What was the most important evidence you considered in reaching this verdict?

Professor Ty Seidule: For treason: The US Constitution lists only one crime. In Article III Section 3: Treason againstthe United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No court convicted him, although he was indicted.

I write as a historian but also as a US Army officer who served nearly 36 years. Lee also abrogated the oath he had taken only three weeks earlier on his promotion to colonel. In fact, he didnt even wait three days to let his resignation process before he accepted a commission in the Virginia militia. Of the eight US Army colonels from Virginia in 1861, all West Point graduates, Lee and only Lee chose to fight for the Confederacy, chose treason.

As for slavery, thats easy. Everyone knew thats why the white South seceded. They told everyone. It wasnt a secret. If senior officers fought for the Confederacy (especially one as smart as Lee) they knew damn well what they fought for slavery. Then there are Lees comments after he heard about the Emancipation Proclamation on January 10, 1863, calling it,

A savage and brutal policy which leaves us no alternative but success or degradation worse than death, if we would save the honor of our families from pollution, our social system from destruction.

He fought for slavery because he believed in slavery.

Robin Lindley: Was there a moment or incident that sparked you to challenge your admiration of Lee and question the Lost Cause lies?

Professor Ty Seidule: Like many changes in life, it came gradually and then very fast.

First, my identity became army officer, not Southern gentleman. Second, I married a woman incapable of lying. My culture lied constantly. She really changed me. Third, I became a historian at West Point and then a historian of West Point.

I understood the Civil War was about slavery, but for too long, I held romantic notions of Lee. Then, when I started studying West Points memorialization of Lee, I just became outraged that tributes to Lee came at the same time as integration. That made me not just a historian but an activist for change.

Robin Lindley: How do you see views of the Confederacy and Lee evolving, if at all?

Professor Ty Seidule: Radical change! The US Congress created a commission to change the names of the army posts that honor Confederates, and then overrode President Trumps veto by a supermajority. I serve on that commission. Memorials to Lee in Richmond, Charlottesville, and the US Capitol are gone. Wow! I would not have taken a bet with high odds in my favor that those iconic statues would be taken down in one year.

In a very short time, many (but not all) Americans see the values of the Confederacy as antithetical to our values and that gives me hope. My home state of Virginia is leading the way.

Robin Lindley: You write powerfully of how you felt betrayed by your education, your indoctrination with the lies of the Confederate Lost Cause, adoration of General Lee, and more. What would you like to see todays students learn about our history?

Professor Ty Seidule: Everyone has a history. Every school has a history. Every town has a history.

I would love to see more students research their own lives. I taught a course on West Points history for years. We become better citizens, better people when we understand the history of where we live. And not just the myths, but the tough history: slavery, segregation, and redlining. A better understanding of our local history will, I think, make us more empathetic.

At West Point, our mission is to educate and inspire leaders of character for the nation who live the values of duty, honor, country. How do you teach character? Nothing works better than history. What we research and write can change our character, at least it did for me.

Understanding local history, through primary sources, made me a more empathetic and honest person.

And, for anyone teaching the Civil War, please, please have students read the Southern States Ordinances of Secession and Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech. If you start with those documents, a teacher is on the right path.

Robin Lindley: I was struck that you received hate mail and even death threats in 2015 after you stated your viewand that of virtually all academic historiansthat slavery was the cause of the Civil War. How are readers responding to your candid new book on Lee and the Lost Cause?

Professor Ty Seidule: The reception this time is far better, mostly. For the 2015 video I did on the cause of the Civil War, the online comments ran at least 20 to 1 negative. Now, its probably 10 to 1 positive. However, I still have plenty of one-star reviews on Amazon. There also seems to be a few folks who make videos debunking my argument.

If I receive hate mail in any form, I take it positively. I hope that my writing is clear enough that no one would mistake my message: treason for slavery. The Lost Cause, Confederate monuments, Jim Crow laws, disenfranchisement, and lynching all created a system of white supremacy to ensure white political power. Of course, history is dangerous because it challenges our myths and identity. When I challenge peoples identity, the reaction can be ferocious, but Ive faced far tougher foes than on-line trolls.

Robin Lindley: Your book Robert E Lee and Me is bound to become a classic study and it deserves a wide audience. Is there anything youd like to add about your book or your insights on history and the time we live in now? Where do you find hope as a historian and professor?

Professor Ty Seidule: I have no shortage of hope. Through the political process, statues dedicated to white supremacy have come down all over the country. Remember that commemoration is about our values. These statues demise tells us that our values, at least in many places, no longer tolerate traitors who fought for slavery. The military is now in the process of ridding itself of Confederate commemoration. Now, of course, that doesnt mean weve ended racism; we still have far, far to go, but for me as a soldier and a scholar, its a start. The only way to prevent a racist future is to first understand our racist past.

Robin Lindley: Thank you Professor Seidule for your thoughtful comments and insights, and congratulations on your moving and powerful new book. And best wishes on your new position at Hamilton College.

Robin Lindley is a Seattle-based attorney, writer and features editor for the History News Network (history news network.org. His work also has appeared in Writers Chronicle, Bill Moyers.com, Re-Markings, Salon.com, Crosscut, Documentary, ABA Journal, Huffington Post, and more. Most of his legal work has been in public service. He served as a staff attorney with the US House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations and investigated the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. His writing often focuses on the history of human rights, conflict, medicine, art, and culture. Robins email: robinlindley@gmail.com.

Visit link:

Ty Seidule on Exposing Robert E. Lee, Lost Cause Myths, White Supremacy, and Treason - History News Network

Op-Ed: As Democrats push for federal takeover of elections, Wisconsin forbids ballot harvesting and absentee ballot drop boxes – The Center Square

In the runup to the 2020 election, several states altered their voting procedures under the guise of the pandemic. In most cases, these far-reaching changes were instituted by governors under the premise that they could unilaterally do so because the pandemic afforded them emergency powers.

Americans should be outraged over this because according to the U.S. Constitution governors do not have the authority to single-handedly change voting rules pandemic or not. Per Article 1, section 4, The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.

In Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers tasked the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) with revising the rules for voting in the 2020 general election after his request to the state legislature to do the same was rejected.

However, according to a recent ruling from Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren, the voting changes instituted by WEC for the November 2020 election are illegal.

Specifically, Bohren ruled that WECs guidance regarding absentee ballot drop boxes violated the Wisconsin Constitution, which states, voting by absentee ballot is a privilege exercised wholly outside the traditional safeguards of the polling place.

Moreover, the Wisconsin Constitution notes, the privilege of voting by absentee ballot must be carefully regulated to prevent the potential for fraud or abuse; to prevent overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election; to prevent undue influence on an absent elector to vote for or against a candidate or to cast a particular vote in a referendum; or other similar abuses.

Suffice to say, creating a network of absentee ballot drop boxes is probably not the best way to prevent the potential for fraud or abuse.

Neither is ballot harvesting, which was also stricken down by Bohren.

Interestingly, Bohrens ruling comes as Democrats push national voting laws that would increase absentee voting and ballot harvesting, among many other provisions that would make it easier to vote under false pretenses.

Over the past few months, Democrats have argued that the federal government must circumvent the states by passing sweeping voting reform bills. Moreover, they have argued that anyone opposed to a federal takeover of state elections must be a racist.

Here is President Joe Biden, comparing those who oppose his call for the federal government to supersede state voting laws to infamous racists of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?

Biden failed to articulate how opposing his partys national voting bills actually makes one on par with the president of the Confederate States of America because that comparison is laughable on its face.

Biden also failed to mention that the vast majority of Americans agree with many of the commonsense rules states have in place to deter voter fraud. For example, recent polls show approximately 70 percent of Americans support voter ID laws, which Biden and Democrats claim is akin to voter suppression.

Whats more, in 2020, voting percentages among minority groups increased across-the-board.

Over the past several decades, great strides have been made in ensuring that all Americans eligible to vote are able to cast ballots. This achievement should be celebrated by all Americans, regardless of party affiliation.

As we enter 2022, with midterm elections on the horizon, it is imperative that states retain their sovereignty concerning voting procedures. Make no mistake, when elections are overseen by states rather than the federal government, the odds for corruption and election malfeasance are dramatically reduced.

In conjunction, the odds of a nationally disputed election and loss of confidence in American democracy are also less likely when elections are decentralized and run by states rather than the federal government.

Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is senior editor at The Heartland Institute.

See the original post here:

Op-Ed: As Democrats push for federal takeover of elections, Wisconsin forbids ballot harvesting and absentee ballot drop boxes - The Center Square