Widow’s Weeds and Red Roses

European-born Confederate volunteer Captain William Antonio Ferring, was remembered with a memorial service on Sunday, October 12, 2014, at 3 P.M. at the Maple Grove Cemetery in Blytheville, Arkansas. This event was attended by about 70 people, some were representatives of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Mississippi County Historical and Genealogical Society located in Osceola, Arkansas.

A young lady represented Captain Ferring’s widow by wearing black period attire which is known as widow’s weeds. She placed a bouquet of red roses beside the granite marker which was inscribed with the details regarding Captain Ferring’s Confederate service. There were men in traditional Confederate uniforms. A gathering of Ferring descendants were present for the solemn service; as well as member of the SCV mechanized cavalry and the Mayor of Blytheville.

Captain Ferring’s marker was privately-purchased by two of his descendants and is engraved with “in memory of.” His grave marker is without doubt resting among his family as the Carney plot contains the remains of his daughter, son-in–law, as well as his two grandchildren.

After the speeches had come to an end, the cannon fired three volleys and a bugle played “taps.” After the service, all of those in attendance were invited to a reception at the Delta Gateway Museum on Main Street in Blytheville, Arkansas.

Capt. William Antonio Ferring was born in Milan, Italy or Locarno, Switzerland on June 15, 1823, as Guiglielmo Antonio Ferrini. He had considered entering the Priesthood before immigrating to the States. It is not known how he arrived in Louisville, Kentucky; but he studied medicine at the Louisville Medical Institute and graduated as a medical doctor in 1843. On October 30, 1845, he married a Louisville native, Sarah Elizabeth Gailbreath.

The Ferring family settled in the port town of Barfield, Arkansas, located on the Mississippi River.  Dr. Ferring continued to practice as a medical doctor and also engage in farming on a homestead of approximately 300 acres.

On July 4, 1861, Dr. Ferring was mustered into the Confederate service at Fort Pillow, north of Memphis. He was wounded, apparently in his leg, during the battle of Shiloh. Captain Ferring was taken prisoner while recuperating at home in Arkansas. He was a witness to the inside of several Yankee prisons, including Johnson’s Island. Captain Ferring along with about 600 Confederate officers became members of the “Immortal 600,” a name used to describe those Confederate officers who were transported from northern Yankee prisons by sea to be placed in stockades built in front of the Yankee artillery batteries in Charleston Harbor. They were used as cannon fodder for incoming Confederate shot and shell. During their many months of suffering without sufficient food or care, many succumbed or were killed by shrapnel from their own military due to the perilous location they were positioned in by the enemy.

Captain Ferring survived this scene of Yankee war crimes and was able to return home to his wife and seven children.  He became the County Clerk of Mississippi County located at the Court House in Osceola, Arkansas. On September 7, 1872, Ferring died following the amputation of his leg. Doctor, Captain and County Clerk Ferring’s life was most likely shortened by his military service for the Southland.

It has not yet been determined where the remains of this foreign-born Confederate are buried; but logic leads one to believe that he was buried upon his own land, some of which has been swept into the Mississippi River over time.  The village of Barfield exists merely as a crossroads.

Two of Ferring descendants spoke at the memorial service, Mississippi County Judge Randy Carney and Anne Moore along with representatives of the UDC, SCV and MCHGS.

Ferring relatives had done a great deal of research on their ancestor and I have used it in my own attempts to locate his gravesite starting back in 2012. My generous research friend, Stewart Cruickshank, obtained Ferring’s military records. With all the documents and even affidavits from Ferring’s descendants, the V.A. refused to allow me to order a marker without an official printed obituary. Since there was no local newspaper operating in 1872, we had to go another route and forgo the V.A.’s impossible requests/regulations.

Without the genuine interest and assistance given to me through many long distance telephone calls, e-mail messages and snail mail to and from Glynda Thompson, the President of the MCHGS, this marker may never have found a home. Both of the directors of Maple Grove, Helen Miller and Roy Oldham along with their Cemetery Committee members agreed to allow the placement of the Ferring marker on the Carney plot. The owner of the McHaney Monument Company, Glen Whitener could not have been more gracious.  They are all typical Southerners.

An extra special thanks goes to our newsletter editor, Raphael, who encouraged me to find out more about this foreign-born Confederate. We are determined not to forget our brave European Confederate volunteers who gave so much during our War for Southern Rights.

Nancy Hitt – 2014

hunleyhitt@gmail.com

2015 Stephen Dill Lee Institute THE REAL RESULTS OF 1865 - February 6-7, Dallas, TX

THE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE VILLIFICATION OF THE CONFEDERACY

The News-Sentinel editorial of Nov. 17^th entitled “Confederate flag in parade an insult to blacks , veterans”  is a prime example of the continuing uninformed campaign to demonize the Confederacy and all of its symbols and emblems.  In doing so, the writer is also, perhaps or perhaps not without thinking, insulting the estimated 70 million-plus of us who are descended from those who fought for the South in that tragic conflict. 

You do not speak for “blacks” or “veterans”. You speak for yourself.

These men were our ancestors.  Their pictures hang on our walls, their blood is in our veins.  President Dwight Eisenhower recognized the patriotism of the Confederate soldier when he ordered in May of 1958 that they be considered American veterans.  Their forefathers and their descendants have gallantly served our Nation in every war.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. understood that we could not share a future without fully understanding and accepting our shared past. When he dreamed of a future where “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners would dine together at the table of brotherhood”, he did not qualify that dream. He did not insist that we millions of Confederate descendants deny our ancestry or turn our back on the courage and sacrifice of our forebears.  He wanted quite the opposite of the kind of demagoguery that is now being practiced by those who would divide us with “political correctness.”

In America, slavery existed under the Dutch, Spanish, and French flags. It existed under the British flag for 157 years. It existed under the American flag for 85 years.

One need only read Lincoln’s first Inaugural Address to see the folly in your revisionist editorial. He said he would do nothing about slavery.

Your editorial is an example of what serious historians call “presentism”. Presentism is the mistake of assuming that the ethics of another era can be judged by current ethical standards. It is not that way, nor has it ever been.

And to demean the St. Andrews Battle Flag, a Christian Cross, is to desecrate it in much the same way as those pitiful racists who also wave the American flag and run around in bed-sheets.

For what it is worth, I worked for years on a television show called “The Dukes of Hazzard”. Every week for years, 30 to 40 million Americans of all regions, races, and heritages watched the “General Lee” race around in a place where there was no racism. There was never a single complaint about that old flag on top of the car.  It still flies proudly all over the nation and all over the world as a positive symbol of the South.  Because symbols mean different things to different people at different times.   

Ben Jones

Chief of Heritage Operations

Sons of Confederate Veterans

Sticks and Stones… And Why They REALLY Hate the Confederate Battle Flag

In 1863, Lincoln was losing an unpopular war and needed a "Cause" to rally his citizens, and convince Congress to continue funding his invasion of the Southern States. He found one in the issue of slavery.

The same man who, just two years earlier, supported an amendment that would have made slavery permanently legal if the Southern States would simply agree to stay in the Union, suddenly changed course and issued a proclamation that effectively freed slaves in territories over which he had no control, and left them enslaved in the locations where he actually had authority to free them.

A propaganda machine was set in motion, the effects of which were magnified with Yankee victory and subsequent subjugation, and continue to this day.

Even so, and in spite of their best efforts, there a still a great number of folks who know the truth and are not afraid to speak out. Losing its effectiveness over time, the "it's all about slavery" mantra needed updating.

It didn't take long for the enemy to find that new smokescreen... "racism". The fear of having that label applied was enough to make even some in our own heritage organizations cower, capitulate, and compromise to the point that the Confederate battle flag quickly became an endangered species, even at our own events.

These attacks have been deliberate and largely successful as a means to an end...one which has absolutely nothing to do with the American institution of slavery or "racism".

The Confederate Battle Flag is hated today for the same reason it was hated in 1861...because it is a universal symbol of resistance to tyranny and defiance of an overreaching and oppressive federal government.

Only when we find the courage and fortitude of our ancestors, and refuse to let these false accusations and fabricated labels deter us from our duty, will we effectively take back our heritage.

My Great- Great Grandfathers believed it was a Cause worth dying for. The least I can do to honor their memory and defend their good name, is stand up to name calling and derision.

"We will rejoice in thy salvation, and in the name of our God we will set up our banners..." Psalm 20:5

Susan Hathaway

Virginia Flaggers

P.O. Box 547

Sandston VA 23150

info@vaflaggers.com

150th Anniversary of the Battle of Griswoldville

The Jarrell Plantation Historic Site, the 16th Georgia Volunteer Infantry, Co. G, "The Jackson Rifles", and The Camp of the Unknown Soldier, Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp # 2218, of Clinton, Jones County, Georgia, cordially invite one and all to the Commemorative Service of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Griswoldville on Saturday, November 22, 2014. A living history program will begin at 9:30am with the commemoration starting promptly at 12:00 noon,  honoring all who served at the battle of Griswoldville and environs  in November of 1864. Our guest speaker will be Pastor John Weaver of Fitzgerald, Georgia. Although this event is sponsored by the Jarrell Plantation, it will not be held on that site but on the actual Griswoldville Battlefield - GPS: 32°52′00″N 83°28′10″W, regardless of weather conditions.  For more information, please call 478-986-5172, 478-396-4838 or 478-731-5531.

ONCE AGAIN, THE EVENT IS NOT HELD AT JARRELL PLANTATION. IT WILL BE ON THE ACTUAL GRISWOLDVILLE BATTLEFIELD.

Christmas at Hancock House

A Confederate Address for Veterans Day

Portion of An Address of Welcome on Veterans’ Day at the Florida Chautauqua on March the 13th, 1909.  By John L. McKinnon of Walton County, Florida

Fellow Comrades:  Our commander, General Pasco, in having me speak the welcoming words today, gave me to understand, that it did not require the commanding voice of oratory, nor the persuasive speech of eloquent words, neither was it necessary to dip one’s tongue in the fountain of the Muses, to welcome a confederate soldier.  But, says he, “it needs only the simple language of the heart, just true heart words.”

It was only then, I felt I might be able to make you feel at home with us, on this occasion, as my heart is always in tune with, and in sympathy for the Confederate soldier. For I know well of his motives, his grievances, his sacrifices. To some here, your bent forms, your empty sleeves, your halted steps coming down these aisles, may be suggestive of uncouthness. But to us, who remember the cause through which these came, they are grace, beauty and love. Your persecuted cause, that the world now calls “The Lost Cause,” made resistless appeals to your manhood.

To be sure, it sifted out the insincere and cowardly, but it left you a force of men the stronger for the winnowing. And brought out all that is noble and most daring in you. It struck open the deeps in your souls. No men could have been more sincere in the righteousness and justice of a cause, than you were in the one you espoused. Then shall we say of a truth, ours is a “Lost Cause?” “Nothing is settled until it is settled right.”

We know our grievances were settled by the power of the sword, and time has shown us how very unjust and unsatisfactory the arbitrament of the sword has been in the past. Now, near half a century has passed, and the problems of those days are the unsolved problems of today. “Courage yet,” writes James Renwick, the soul of the Cameronian Societies in the days of the Covenant and Killing Times. “Courage yet, for all that has come and gone. The loss of men is not the loss of the cause. What is the matter tho’ we all fall? The cause shall not fall.”

We see a rock in mid ocean, with its modest form high above the dashing waves, as a beacon light to those who would navigate treacherous seas; inviting the storm tossed ones to take rest on its firm foundations. We see the waves of every sea leaping upon and lashing it. And in the course of time, we find this beacon rock wasting itself away, beating back the angry waves. This rock is not lost, it is resting there on its granite bed, while the waves roll on; and maybe some day when the waters recede from the earth, or in some cosmic disturbances it may be the first to lift its broader form to bring light and give protection around.

So, too, in a political or governmental sense, we see a little Republic, born out of contentions and disturbances, modestly lifting itself up and taking its place among the Nations of the world. It, too, has a firm foundation on which to build–a constitution that eliminated the evils and interjected the good found in other governments. With a splendid code of laws enacted, guaranteeing self government. Yet this little Republic had hardly taken its place on the roll of Republics, before the Nations about began to leap upon and continued to pound upon it, until it wore itself out driving them back.

And my fellow comrades, you are here today as the representatives, the exponents of that little Republic–as the resultant–the residuum, if you please, of all that pounding. And your ardent support, all these years to the overpowering government, speaks in noble terms of your patriotism–your loyalty to the same. We feel that we voice the heart sentiments of every one here, when we say, in defending this little Republic, we did nothing that we are ashamed of, one that needs an apology for. None but the coward or degenerate sons would dare say less.

We know that we deserve as much respect from the world at large, for standing by our convictions, as those do who opposed us and will be satisfied with nothing less. We acknowledged that we were overpowered, or whipped if you please, but not debauched. The agonies that we know of–the blood that we saw flow, must stand for something. As the years roll on, in the course of human, events, there may come a time in our governmental affairs, when “Mercy and truth are met together: righteousness and peace have kissed each other”–when “truth crushed to the ground shall rise again.”

When the principles of State Sovereignty of Liberty (and not chattel slavery as some would have believe) that were so dear to us, and for which we fought and gave the best blood in our land, shall come to the front, assert themselves, and make this old Republic–so long as God will have it stand–by far the best government on the globe. Fellow Comrades–we do welcome you here with all our hearts, and to all the good things in our town; and hope through all the years that are going to be yours in this world, we may find you able to come up here annually, that we may have sweet fellowship one with another."

Source: History of Walton County  – Pages 384-389

In the 11th Month, on the 11th Day, at the 11th Hour, the armistice was signed that ended World War I. Since that time we have come to know November 11th as Veterans Day. While the Virginia Flaggers are  dedicated to honoring and remembering Confederate Veterans and defending the flags under which they fought and died,  we would like to pause on this Veterans Day, 2014, and say THANK YOU to all of the Veterans in our ranks, and all who have served with honor.  God bless our Veterans!

Dixie Division Color Guard

Susan Hathaway

Virginia Flaggers

P.O. Box 547

Sandston VA 23150

info@vaflaggers.com

Whose History—And Why It Matters

By Valerie Protopapas

Some time ago, I wrote an article in response to a review of the book, REBEL YELL: The Violence, Passion, and Redemption of Stonewall Jackson. I did so because I believed what the review’s author, Matthew Price, had written should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Mr. Price noted that, “(Stonewall) Jackson was no proslavery zealot, but (author) Gwynne does not address directly the somewhat vexed issue of writing sympathetically about a figure who still fought for a cause utterly discredited by history.” My question to Mr. Price was, to “whose history” was he alluding when he made that claim?

Because the matter involved the history and heritage of the South, I submitted my position to a Southern publication holding the same beliefs as expressed in my essay. However, it was rejected not because of my premise but because, in the words of those involved, the publication was “. . . not publishing as many Confederate history articles as previously . . . [Our] focus has shifted to current issues and to the future of the South.” Frankly, I fail to see the “disconnect” between that which I countered—Mr. Price’s definition of the cause for which Stonewall Jackson fought as “discredited”—and those same “current issues” which the publication wishes to address. After all, this contention is the very basis for the ongoing efforts of cultural genocide “currently” directed against the South! Ergo, it is neither rational nor intelligent to fight the present anti-Southern brushfires while ignoring the inferno causing them; that is, Mr. Price’s accepted version of “whose history!”

To further illustrate the importance of the defeat of Jackson’s “cause,” I ended my article by stating, “For those who look at this country today and wonder how we got a government that is essentially lawless . . . and a Constitution that has been nullified along with its Bill of Rights, most of the answers to their questions can be found in the defeat of General Thomas Stonewall Jackson’s noble cause, a cause which has been made ignoble through the triumph of that present version of “history.” I believe that such a conclusion does address “current issues” for until and unless we directly counter the present myth of the South’s seceding because of and fighting for slavery, nothing else we do will matter. If we vacate that “historic” field and leave Mr. Price’s version of “whose history” to define all issues relative to the South’s past, then every present effort, no matter how intelligent, rational or spirited, is going to be dashed to pieces on the rocks of politically correct, factually inaccurate racial rhetoric.

Responding to every claim that the Southern cause was all about slavery is analogous to going back and correcting a miscalculation at the beginning of a mathematical equation. For no matter how involved and lengthy the equation, if one starts with error one will never reach truth no matter how many years one takes to solve the problem. All efforts to avoid “Confederate history” and “move on” so as to address “current issues,” is a study in futility for each and every time the South is considered or discussed in the present, we invariably—and inevitably—go back to that same “Confederate history.” This cannot be avoided and all attempts to disconnect present from past only gives credence to those who say that we do so because the South’s past is shameful and has been discredited by actual (rather than “whose” ) history.

Did my response to Mr. Price involve merely matter of history or did it not represent an attempt to enlighten people to the facts that undergird the entire question of “today’s” South? Do we who desire to re-establish the South as representing the true vision of the Founding Fathers not understand that until people realize the ante-bellum South was not all moonlight, magnolias and slavery, we have little chance of achieving our goal? Do we not realize that if we do not thwart this wretched narrative about slavery as the South’s only cause, all of our efforts to stave off oblivion are in vain? If we do not understand this reality, then we are wasting our time trying to refute the image of the South as it is currently understood in the 21^st century. The simple fact is that we must repudiate “whose history” and re-establish authentic history. Only by doing so will the people of the South—their faith, intellect, morality, humanity and way of life—be understood to be what is missing from the current United States! On the other hand, if we do not—if we permit “whose history” to remain the only history, the South will be consigned to oblivion.

Va Flaggers Danville Update: City Council Votes to Keep Flag Flying!

“Yesterday we fought a great battle, & gained a great victory, for which all the glory is due to God alone…My preservation was entirely due, as was the glorious victory, to our God.” Gen Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson, July 23, 1861, Letter to Anna
City of Danville denies request to remove Confederate flag! 

http://www.wsls.com/story/27322097/city-of-danville-denies-request-to-remove-confederate-flag

For the third time in six weeks, Confederate flag supporters from the SCV, UDC, Flaggers, OCR, Mechanized Cavalry, HPA, and other concerned citizens made their way to Danville and packed the City Council Meeting room.  Those who rose to speak in defense of the Confederate Flag and the men who fought and died beneath her, did so with eloquence and passion, and conveyed facts and information relevant to the vote about to take place.

After over two hours of debate and discussion, and in spite of some last minute shenanigans, the City Council of Danville Va voted last night 7-2 to DENY the request by the Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History to remove the Confederate Memorial flag from the grounds of the Sutherlin Mansion.

THE FLAG WILL CONTINUE TO FLY ON THE GROUNDS OF THE LAST CONFEDERATE CAPITOL!
​
Once the vote was taken, those of us in attendance in support of the flag quietly exited the room, mindful of our duty to remain honorable and charitable in victory.

Outside, a rebel yell or two could be heard in the streets... and just before leaving, we felt it proper to leave a reminder of the decision on the steps of City Hall, at the base of a statue erected by the UDC in honor of Danville Mayor Harry Wooding.

Mayor Wooding served as chief executive for 46 years, and was claimant to the title of the oldest mayor in the United States. Enlisting in the Confederate Army when only 17 years of age, he served in many major battles of the War Between the States, including the battles of Gettysburg and Manassas. When he died, he was Danville's last surviving Confederate Veteran.

It is for Private William Harry Wooding, Co. C, 5th Va Cavalry... and thousands like him, that so many came together to stand against this unwarranted attack. 

We will savor this moment and the momentum the victory will bring, but MUST remain vigilant, ever mindful of those who seek to dishonor our heritage, and at every opportunity, continue to advance the flags of Dixie!

Watch for information, coming soon, on how you can assist in plans to build on this victory in Danville, as well as leverage the decision in ongoing and future heritage battles across the Commonwealth.

Many thanks, again, to each of you who took time to contribute to this effort.  


​Susan Hathaway

Virginia Flaggers

P.O. Box 547

Sandston VA 23150

info@vaflaggers.com

UPCOMING EVENTS:

Saturday, November 8th: Flagging the VMFA, 200 N. Boulevard, 11:00 am - 3:00 pm

Saturday, November 15th - Sunday, November 16th:  We will have a booth at the Capital of the Confederacy Civil War Show at Richmond International Raceway.  The 34th Annual Capital of the Confederacy Civil War Show presented by Mike Kent & Associates along with the Central Virginia Civil War Collector's Association. This is one of the oldest and most respected Civil War shows in the country.  Hours are Saturday 9am - 5pm and Sunday 9am - 3pm.  http://www.mkshows.com/cgi-bin/show_display.asp?52

Saturday, December 7th:  Mechanicsville Christmas Parade. The Va Flaggers will join the Edmund Ruffin Fire-Eaters in this VERY Confederate friendly parade.  ALL are welcome! 

Tuesday, December 9th:  6:00 pm.  The Va Flaggers will be making a presentation to the Va War Memorial in memory of Sgt. Cliff Troutman, and in honor of our Veterans.  All are invited to attend.  621 S. Belvedere St., Richmond

Thursday, December 11th:  Susan will be speaking at the December meeting of the A.H. Belo Camp #49, SCV, Dallas Texas

Friday, December 12th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the

Major Robert M. White, Camp No. 1250, Sons of Confederate Veterans,Temple, Texas

Saturday, December 13th:  Susan will be speaking at the Christmas gathering of the Middleton Tate Johnson Camp #1648, SCV, Arlington, TX

Annual Wirz Memorial Service Andersonville Georgia

Article by James W. King, Commander of the Albany Georgia Camp of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans organization.  I assist the Americus SCV camp in promoting the Wirz memorial service. jkingantiquearms@bellsouth.net This article is scheduled to be printed in several Southwest Georgia newspapers. 
 
The Americus camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) organization will host  an annual Memorial Service for Civil War Andersonville Prison Commandant Capt. Henry Wirz on Sunday Nov. 9. The musical group, "A Joyful Noise," from Leesburg, will play and sing Southern Confederate songs and Gospel Hymns from 2 to 3PM followed by a formal memorial service. The public is invited to join SCV and pay tribute to a Southern hero and martyr.
 
The guest speaker will be Congressman Paul Broun from Athens.  Dr. Broun, a native of Athens, practiced medicine in Americus many years ago.  Confederate Reenactors "The Muckalee Guards" will provide Honor Guard duties during the Service.
 
When the War Between the States (Civil War) ended in 1865, Capt. Wirz was paroled.  However, shortly thereafter, he was arrested and carried to Washington, D.C. where he was placed in the Old Capitol Prison.  His trial before a military tribunal lasted several months, and included the perjured testimony of a Yankee soldier who was a deserter from a NY. Regiment who falsely claimed to be a great nephew of Lafayette of Revolutionary war fame.  For his false testimony against Capt. Wirz, he was given a position with the U.S. Dept. of the Interior.  It was later learned that this key witness whose perjured testimony contributed considerably to the conviction had never been at Andersonville. The vast Majority of defense witnesses for Capt. Wirz were not permitted to testify.  Many historians call his trial a farce and travesty of justice.  After the war, James Madison Page, a Michigan cavalryman, who had been a POW at Andersonville, wrote a book completely exonerating Wirz.
 
Capt. Wirz was found guilty of murdering 13 Union prisoners at Andersonville, although not a single body, nor even the name of any of the 13 was ever produced.  He was also falsely convicted on a second charge of conspiracy with high ranking members of the Confederate government to create the conditions that caused the high death rate. Wirz was made a scapegoat for the South.  On Nov. 10, 1865, Capt. Wirz was hanged in the yard of the Old Capitol Prison.  He declared his innocence to the end. The night before the hanging he was offered a commuted sentence if he would implicate Confederate President Jefferson Davis as a conspirator for Andersonville deaths. Wirz was an honorable man and would not lie to save his life.
 
After the hanging, the barbaric Yankees cut off his head and arms and other body parts, and exhibited them about the country. It took Capt. Wirz's attorney, Louis Schade, four years to collect enough body parts to have a Christian burial in Mount Olivet Cemetery in Washington.
   
The highly biased Northern version of Andersonville Civil War Prison (POW) Camp is well known however the true facts concerning Andersonville are not well known. The government of The Confederate States of America issued an order that a large POW prison should be constructed in early 1864 to alleviate crowding in existing camps in the South. The requirements were that it be constructed at a location further South away from the battle front and should be a healthy location with plenty of pure water, a running stream, close to grist and saw mills and if possible have shade trees. The location selected was in South Georgia in Sumter County and was officially named Camp Sumter although it became known as Andersonville. It was constructed to house 10,000 Union POW's however numbers increased to as high as 45,000 due to a policy by the Lincoln administration to discontinue exchanges.
 
The average death rate at other POW camps in the South was about 9% as compared to 12% for POW camps in the North where Confederate POW's were incarcerated.  In contrast the death rate at Andersonville was approximately 29% due to causes beyond the control of Confederate authorities and was unintentional. Also in contrast were the similar death rates at several Northern POW camps notably Elmira New York and Camp Douglas Chicago where the high death rates have been proven to be intentional.
 
It is a well known fact that the victor of a war writes the history from a biased perspective. Immediately after the end of the war absurd war crimes claims were made by Northern politicians, military authorities, newspapers, periodicals, and citizens that the decisions and conditions that caused the human disaster at Andersonville were intentional on the part of Confederate authorities. Demands for War Crimes Trials were made and the Commandant of Andersonville POW camp, Capt. Henry Wirz, was arrested, tried, and convicted in a farce trial by a military tribunal who had predetermined that a conviction would result. No War Crimes Charges against Northern POW commandants were ever made and no Northern POW camp has ever been enshrined by the U.S. Government as a memorial to Confederate POW's. Only Andersonville in the South has been enshrined and it has become a memorial to American POW's of all wars that have involved American veterans.
 
In defense of the Confederate government and Confederate prison officials in regards to Andersonville, a response was made in 1876, by the Southern Historical Society, consisting of 9 points that place the blame for deaths and suffering at Andersonville totally on Northern politicians and military authorities. Specifically President Lincoln, Sec. of War Stanton, Asst. Sec. of War Dana, and Gen. Grant shoulder the blame as noted in the following 9 points.

1. It is not denied that great suffering and mortality occurred but it was due to circumstances and conditions beyond CSA control.

2. If the death rate be adduced as "circumstantial evidence of barbarity" the rate of Confederate deaths was higher in Northern POW camps where there was an abundance of food, medicine, and shelter.

3. The Union POW's were given the same rations as Confederate guards and soldiers and equal treatment in hospitals as required by the CSA government and the death rate of CSA guards was the same as POW's.  The Northern Federal government did not have this humane policy.

4. The exchange of prisoners was refused by the North before the issue of black Union POW's became an issue.

5. The CSA government requested that Northern doctors and medicine be sent to treat  Northern POW's and the request was denied.

6. The CSA tried to buy supplies including bowls and other utensils to use in feeding the POW's. They offered to pay with cotton and gold but the offer was refused by the Lincoln administration.

7. The Federal Government under President Lincoln made medicine contraband causing suffering and death of Union POW's and all Southerners military and civilian.

8. Prior to the period of greatest mortality the CSA authorities offered to release the Andersonville POW's without exchange but the offer was not accepted by the Lincoln Administration who was told by CSA authorities "we cannot feed or care for them-just come get them". Sherman's barbaric war crimes in Georgia consisting of stealing, destroying, and burning made food and supplies even scarcer and increased suffering and mortality.

9. The Northern press was furnished lies and propaganda by Union Sec. and Asst Sec. of war Stanton and Dana claiming deliberate cruelties and war crimes by the South. The control of Northern POW camps was transferred by Stanton and Dana to vindictive partisan criminal elements and deliberate war crimes of cruelty, torture, and murder were committed against Confederate POW's as proven by a joint resolution of the U.S. Senate and House SR97.
 
In 1906 former Confederate General Stephen D. Lee charged the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) organization with the duty to defend the honor of the South and the Confederate Soldier:

“To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we will commit the vindication of the Cause for which we fought.  To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which you love also, and those ideals which made him glorious and which you also cherish.  Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations.”

DANVILLE FLAG OUTCOME "A VICTORY FOR COMMON SENSE OVER POLITICAL CORRECTNESS"

In a major victory for Americans of Confederate heritage, the City of Danville today squashed the attempts by The Danville Museum of Fine Arts and History to remove the Third National Flag of the Confederacy from its grounds at the historic Sutherlin mansion.

"This is a huge victory for common sense over political correctness," said Kelly Barrow, the Commander in Chief of the 30,000 member Sons of Confederate Veterans, a heritage organization made up of direct descendants of those who fought for the Confederate States of America.

"The Sutherlin Mansion is called the Last Capital of the Confederacy because Jefferson Davis and his Cabinet stayed there after Richmond fell in 1865," said Barrow. "That flag flies there as a very significant part of American history. What the museum was proposing was nothing less than an unthinking insult to the more than 70 million Americans whose ancestors fought for the Southern cause. It amounts to an attempt to whitewash American and Virginian history."

In a brief statement, the City of Danville acknowledged that Virginia law prevents the removal of the flag. Attorney Fred Taylor, who represented individual citizens of Danville, said, "I am pleased to hear of the decision by the Danville City Council. Virginia state law is clear regarding the protection of the monument and the memorial, and it is reassuring to see the City Council honor its original 7994 agreement with the Heritage Preservation Association and the citizens of Danville, avoiding what could have been a needless and costly legal battle."

Ben L. Jones
Chief of Heritage Operations
Sons of Confederate Veterans

A TRULY HISTORIC DAY, A STIRRING TRIBUTE TO A BEAUTIFUL SOUL, AND A MEDIA BLACKOUT

By Ben Jones, SCV Chief of Heritage Operations 

This past Saturday, at the Hillcrest Cemetery in Monroe, North Carolina a memorial service of major historic importance took place. The ashes of Mrs. Mattie Clyburn Rice were placed next to the grave of her father, Weary Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn was born in 1841 and was a combatant in the American Civil War and passed away in 1932. His daughter, Mrs. Rice, passed on September 1st of this year, two weeks before what would have been her 91st birthday. The service was to remember "Miss Mattie" and to dedicate to her a permanent memorial.

The memorial service was a day of tears and laughter, and a day of reflection, pageantry, music, and praise. It was a memorable occasion for a beautiful soul.

Between them, the lives of father and daughter encompassed the greater part of the American Experience. When Weary Clyburn was born, there were still many alive who had fought in the American Revolution. When his daughter died, the space age had taken men to the moon and beyond, and the digital revolution had enabled the entire planet to instantly connect. During this Sesquicentennial of the War Between the States, one would have expected such a memorial tribute as this to gain the attention of the major television networks, the cable news networks, and the major regional and national newspapers.

Certainly serious historians of the era would be there to mark the occasion, for

this wonderful lady had heard of the war first hand from the stories of her beloved father, and she had honored his heritage with devotion and courage.

But the event took place in a virtual blackout of media coverage. There were, to my knowledge, two reporters from the Monroe area there, but nothing beyond that. The nation did not get to hear about "Miss Mattie" and her devotion to her father's memory. The historic importance of this family went virtually unnoticed by the media.

There was, however, an Associated Press story about the Memorial on the day before the service. And that nationally distributed story is indicative of the "mainstream media's" approach to what can only be called "political correctness". Nothing else can explain the "hatchet job" on the passing of this beautiful soul. For you see, Weary Clyburn was a slave, and he served for the Confederacy, and he received a pension for his service to the Southern Army. But the story told to the nation by the Associated Press says that he was surely forced into service by his master.

And that, according to Weary and his daughter Mattie, is a lie.

According to "Miss Mattie", her father went into the war with his friend, Frank Weary, and served as his bodyguard for four years. In one battle, Weary saved the wounded Frank's life by carrying him over his shoulders to safety. A granddaughter of Frank Weary spoke heartfelt thanks for this act to Weary's descendants at the Memorial Service.

For that Associated Press story, the reporter, Martha Waggoner, interviewed a man identified as a "blogger", a man who is a high school teacher from New Jersey who lives in Massachusetts. Claiming to be a "historian", this blogger has said that Mrs. Rice had promulgated a hoax, and that it was not true that men like Weary Clyburn had supported the Confederacy because Weary Clyburn was a slave. Never mind what the man Weary Clyburn himself said. The blogger, a man named Kevin Levin, thinks he knows the minds of Southern people who lived in the 1840's better than they knew it. In choosing to interview a blogger who is best known as an avowed anti-Southern propagandist, the A.P. reporter has insulted the memory of Mrs. Rice and her father and brought great pain to her family and to the many friends who knew this wonderful lady.

Of course, the "reporter" did not bother to cover the actual event and talk to Mrs. Rice's children and grandchildren. She and her colleagues were nowhere in sight. She had "covered" the story with a phone call to a self-obsessed Massachusetts blogger.

It is an outrageous and disturbing piece of "reporting". How anyone could slander this father and daughter is beyond comprehension, but that is exactly what "reporter" Martha Waggoner and "blogger" Kevin Levin managed to do.

Ms. Waggoner could have easily contacted any number of serious, respected historians of the American Civil War in North Carolina. Instead she seemed to "cherry-pick" a blogger devoted to attacking Southern heritage and gave him the final word.

But we can speak up for Weary Clyburn and "Miss Mattie" just as she spoke up for us.

Please e-mail Ms. Waggoner at MWaggoner@ap.org and tell her politely that her story was clearly biased and insulting to the memory of Mattie Clyburn Rice and her family. Tell her, as nicely as possible, that she should apologize to every one of "Miss Mattie's" family members, and especially to the memory of Weary Clyburn and his indomitable daughter, Mattie Clyburn Rice.

A NEW GUARD STANDS AT THE MARIETTA CONFEDERATE CEMETERY

(Atlanta - October 13, 2014) The Georgia Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans is honored to announce the unveiling of a new Bronze Soldier Confederate Monument at the Marietta Confederate Cemetery where over 3,000 Confederate soldiers rest in peace. Georgia Division Adjutant Tim Pilgrim, who is heading up the project, stated, "This was a project made possible by the joint cooperation of the Marietta Confederate Cemetery Foundation and the local Sons of Confederate camps in the area. 

Pilgrim indicated that most of the funding for the new monument came from the Georgia Division's specialty tag funds and from donations by the local Sons of Confederate Veterans camp. "It's part of our on-going recognition of the 150th Anniversary of the War Between the States," said Pilgrim, "in honor of more than 3,000 Southern Heroes who rest in these hallowed grounds that made the ultimate sacrifice to protect their family and homes from an invading army."  

The Bronze Confederate Soldier is (5) five foot (10) ten inches tall in full military regalia and gear, holding his musket. He will be place atop a (5) five foot high granite pedestal centered in a new paver plaza. The octagon pavers will be true to historical period style with granite knee walls on three sides of the plaza. The engravings in front of the granite pedestal will include the Great Seal of the Confederate States of America with the Confederate motto of "Deo Vindice" -- Latin for "God is our Vindicator."  The East side will have the Marietta Confederate Cemetery Logo and the West side lists the (14) fourteen States that have Soldiers buried in the Marietta Confederate Cemetery.  

Wax mold for the casting of the new Bronze Confederate Soldier

Marietta Confederate Cemetery is the largest Confederate cemetery South of Richmond and is located at 395 Powder Springs St, Marietta, GA 30064. The Marietta Confederate Cemetery is one of the largest burial grounds for Confederate dead.

The City of Marietta and Friends of Brown Park will also be unveiling two new sections to the existing memorial walls. The new section will list 350 additional names of Confederate soldiers buried as "Unknowns" in the Confederate Cemetery. Brown Park now has four granite walls commemorating 1,150 Confederate soldiers buried in the adjacent Marietta Confederate Cemetery after two new memorial walls were installed recently.

The Bronze Confederate Soldier Monument as well as the two new memorial walls will be unveiled to the public at an unveiling ceremony this Sunday, October 19 at 1 p.m.

 

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

Buchanan and Black – The Final Word on the Constitutionality of Secession

Kenneth Bachand

According to Buchanan biographer George Ticknor Curtis, Among the Buchanan Papers of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, in a box labeled "Buchanan Papers-Nahum Capen, Black, & Brewster," there is a paper in the handwriting of Attorney General Judge Jeremiah Black, dated November 17, 1860, and endorsed by President Buchanan, that lists certain questions propounded to him by the president in respect to the situation involving the Southern states. (Source: George Ticknor Curtis, Life of Buchanan, Fifteenth President of the United States, Vol. II, (Harper, 1883), p. 319) 

At that time, President Buchanan wrote,

“17 November, 1860. SIR, The excitement in the Southern States caused by the recent presidential election and by the previous expressions in the North of hostility to Southern people and their domestic institutions may produce in some places resistance to the laws of the Union. As I desire to be guided in this emergency solely by the Constitution, and as there are several important points obscure enough to need some exposition, I have to require your opinion in writing on the following questions:

1. In case of a conflict between the authorities of any State and those of the United States, can there be any doubt that the laws of the Federal Government, if constitutionally passed, are supreme?

2. What is the extent of my official power to collect the duties on imports at a port where the revenue laws are resisted by a force which drives the collector from the custom house?

3. What right have I to defend the public property (for instance, a fort, arsenal and navy yard), in case it should be assaulted?

4. What are the legal means at my disposal for executing those laws of the United States which are usually administered through the courts and their officers?

5. Can a military force be used for any purpose whatever under the Acts of 1795 and 1807, within the limits of a State where there are no Judges, marshal or other civil officers?

I will thank you to give this subject your early attention and let me have your opinion without loss of time.”

Judge Black's opinion bears the date November 20, 1860, one month to the day prior to South Carolina declaring independence from the United States. And ironically, although secession was being talked about everywhere from farmers in their fields to politicians in the houses of Congress, none of Buchanan’s five questions was focused specifically on that subject. So much of the opinion as includes the points which are specially controverted and criticised is here given—about one-half of the entire document.

(Source: Curtis, ibid., Pp. 319–324.  See also “Opinion of Judge Black, November 20, 1860,” James G. Blaine, Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield, with a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860, Vol. I, (The Henry Bill Publishing Company, 1884), pp. 603–605; THE WORKS OF JAMES BUCHANAN, Comprising his Speeches, State Papers, and Private Correspondence Collected and Edited By JOHN BASSETT MOORE, Vol. XI, (Philadelphia & London, J. B. Lippincott Company, 1910), pp. 860–868, as found in the Dickinson College Digital Collection; and 9 Opinions of the Attorneys General, 517–526.)

The specific portions of the militia acts of 1795 and 1807 referred to by Judge Black follow here and precede his opinions.

The Militia Act of 1795:

An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in force for those purposes.  [The act to be repealed being the Militia Act of 1792]

Be it enacted, &c., That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. And, in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.

The Militia Act of 1807:

ANNALS OF CONGRESS NINTH CONGRESS. SESS. II. CH. 39, 1807. Page 443 STATUTE II. March 3, 1807. CHAP. IX. - An Act authorizing the  employment of the land and naval forces of the United States, in cases of insurrections.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state, or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.

APPROVED, March 3, 1807. 

Judge Black’s opinion (unedited)

(Note: The paragraphs have been numbered to facilitate referencing in the notes that follow.)

“(1) I come now to the point in your letter which is probably of the greatest practical importance. By the Act of 1807 you may employ such parts of the land and naval forces as you may judge necessary for the purpose of causing the laws to be duly executed, in all cases where it is lawful to use the militia for the same purpose. By the Act of 1795 the militia may be called forth 'whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any State by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of Judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals.' This imposes upon the President the sole responsibility of deciding whether the exigency has arisen which requires the use of military force, and in proportion to the magnitude of that responsibility will be his care not to overstep the limits of his legal and just authority.

(2) The laws referred to in the Act of 1795 are manifestly those which are administered by the judges, and executed by the ministerial officers of the courts for the punishment of crime against the United States, for the protection of rights claimed under the Federal Constitution and laws, and for the enforcement of such obligations as come within the cognizance of the Federal Judiciary. To compel obedience to these laws, the courts have authority to punish all who obstruct their regular administration, and the marshals and their deputies have the same powers as sheriffs and their deputies in the several States in executing the laws of the States. These are the ordinary means provided for the execution of the laws; and the whole spirit of our system is opposed to the employment of any other, except in cases of extreme necessity arising out of great and unusual combinations against them. Their agency must continue to be used until their incapacity to cope with the power opposed to them shall be plainly demonstrated. It is only upon clear evidence to that effect that a military force can be called into the field. Even then its operations must be purely defensive. It can suppress only such combinations as are found directly opposing the laws and obstructing the execution thereof. It can do no more than what might and ought to be done by a civil posse, if a civil posse could be raised large enough to meet the same opposition. On such occasions, especially, the military power must be kept in strict subordination to the civil authority, since it is only in aid of the latter that the former can act at all.

(3) But what if the feeling in any State against the United States should become so universal that the Federal officers themselves (including judges, district attorneys, and marshals) would be reached by the same influences, and resign their places? Of course, the first step would be to appoint others in their stead, if others could be got to serve. But in such an event, it is more than probable that great difficulty would be found in filling the offices. We can easily conceive how it might become altogether impossible. We are therefore obliged to consider what can be done in case we have no courts to issue judicial process, and no ministerial officers to execute it. In that event troops would certainly be out of place, and their use wholly illegal. If they are sent to aid the courts and marshals, there must be courts and marshals to be aided. Without the exercise of those functions which belong exclusively to the civil service, the laws cannot be executed in any event, no matter what may be the physical strength which the Government has at its command. Under such circumstances to send a military force into any State, with orders to act against the people, would be simply making war upon them.

(4) The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the defensive. You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property and aid the Courts in the performance of their duty. If the means given you to collect the revenue and execute the other laws be insufficient for that purpose, Congress may extend and make them more effectual to those ends.

(5) If one of the States should declare her independence, your action cannot depend on the rightfulness of the cause upon which such declaration is based. Whether the retirement of the State from the Union be the exercise of a right reserved in the Constitution, or a revolutionary movement, it is certain that you have not in either case the authority to recognize her independence or to absolve her from her Federal obligations. Congress, or the other States in Convention assembled, must take such measures as may be necessary and proper. In such an event, I see no course for you but to go straight onward in the path you have hitherto trodden — that is, execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means placed in your hands, and act generally upon the assumption that the present constitutional relations between the States and the Federal Government continue to exist, until a new code of things shall be established either by law or force.

(6) Whether Congress has the constitutional right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 is that 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.' This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power 'to provide for calling forth the militia,' and to use them within the limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes: To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties. To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by Article 4, Section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people. To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory. All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.

(7) If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquility which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?

(8) The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot be denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.

(9) If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.

I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,”

J. S. BLACK.

We may summarize Judge Black’s Arguments as follows:

1. The president must not overstep the limits of his legal and just authority. 

2. The operations of any military force must be purely defensive. 

3. To send a military force into any State to act against the people would be to make war upon them. 

4. The laws put the Federal Government strictly on the defensive, and force can be used only to repel an assault on public property. 

5. In the event of the secession of any state, the president must execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means. 

6. The Constitution does not  give Congress the right to make war against any State or to require the president to carry it on except when the State applies for assistance against her own people or to repel an invasion of a State by enemies from abroad, not to plunge them into civil war. 

7. A declaration of war or hostilities by the Central Government against any State or states would absolve all the States from their Federal obligations. 

8. The General Government may not engage in a war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Governments or to force them to acknowledge  the supremacy of the central Government.  Some conquering others  and holding them as “subjugated provinces” would destroy the theory upon which they were united. 

9. The arming of any portion of the people against another save for “protecting the General Government in the exercise of its constitutional functions” would constitute an end of the Union.

Seventeen years earlier, Justice Joseph Story of the U.S. Supreme Court, though not an advocate of secession, quoted legal scholar George Tucker, saying in reference to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution: “It may not be amiss further to observe, (in the language of another commentator,) ‘that every pretext for intermeddling with the domestic concerns of any state, under colour of protecting it against domestic violence, is taken away by that part of the provision, which renders an application from the legislature, or executive authority of the state endangered necessary to be made to the general government, before its interference can be at all proper.’"  (Source: Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833, volume 3, sections 1808, 1819)

John Remington Graham said of  the use of federal troops within a state: "It is an historical fact that, on two occasions during their deliberations, the framers in the Philadelphia Convention voted to deny Congress the power of calling forth military forces of the Union to compel obedience of a state, and on two further occasions they voted to deny Congress the power of sending the Federal army or navy into the territory of any state, except as allowed under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution—to repel a foreign invasion or at the request of its legislature or governor to deal with domestic violence." (Source: Graham, op. cit., p. 287)

The most pertinent words from Judge Black’s opinion relative to the subject of this treatise are found in section 6 where he says, “There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.”  As the secession of Southern states in 1860 and 1861 was neither un-Constitutional nor illegal; and as the Confederate States of America did not invade the United States of America, the right of the government to use the military to defend itself against an invasion by a foreign power cannot justify Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to force the seceded states back into the union.

It is interesting to note that in December, shortly after receiving Judge Black’s opinions, Buchanan promoted him from Attorney General to Secretary of State.  Two months later, in February of 1861, John Moncure Daniel, after seven years as  chargé d'affaires to Sardinia, returned home, met with the new Secretary of State, and reported him to have said, “Sir, slavery is but an accident in this quarrel. Slavery is only the John Doe and Richard Doe case, in which this mooted question is to be decided—whether your States shall continue their sovereignty and self-government, or the Northern majorities shall govern you and all of you as they please and according to their own separate interest. If they had not the point of slavery convenient, they would try it on other points just the same.”

(Source: Pen of Fire, John Moncure Daniel, Peter Bridges, Kent State University Press, 2002, p. 161)