E 487 lasaSESHSasaSHSHSaSZSHSHSasaSBSasaSHSZSZSHSHSaSHSHSHSZSHSHSZSHSaSESHSH . S69 Copy 1 THE GRAY BOOK Published by the GRAY BOOK COMMITTEE S. C. V. By Authority, and Under Auspices of The Sons of Confederate Veterans SZSiSBSBSH52SHSHSHSHSiL5HSE52SHSHSa5HSHS3H5HSHSZSSSHSH5HS2SH5aSZSH5SSHSBSHScL5HS2 ilOLL OF HONOR Tlic list licldw coiilniiis tlie names of those wliosc eontributed riiihls iiiiidc itdssiMc the |iiililiciiti(Hi iiiid (listi'ilnitioii u[ tlic (.Jray l>(i()k : A. II. Jciiiiiii^s, IjviuIiIiiiii;', \'a. W. W. Old. dr., Noid'olk, Va., W . McDonald Lee, Trviiiiiton, \'a. K. IT. Blaloek, Washinresentcd is the claim that the North fought the war to free the slaves. This statement is contrary to the assertions of Lincoln, Grant and Sherman and contrary to all the common sense evidence of the times. With scarcely one soldier in twenty in the Soutliern Armies owning even one slave and with thousands of Northern soldiers being slave owners, is it reasonable to assert that each went to war to tight against his own interests? Is it not a repulsive thought that any mind could V)e so consti- tuted as to believe that Robert E. Lee, Albert Sidney Johnson and Stonewall Jackson fought their immortal light to hold some negroes in slavery ! Noth- ing could ])e more unfair or untruthful than to represent the North as going into the War Between the States as upon some holy crusade to free the slaves from their Southern owners, to whom, it may be remarked in passing, in very large measure they had been sold by this same North — and the money not refunded ! And yet a ]n-omincnt American author makes this assertion in an article he wrote at the request of the United States Committee on Public Informa- tion, which article thus misrepresenting the South and hypocritically lauding the North was taken hj this government Committee to France and scattered through her schools and among her children to teach them what "sort of people we Americans are." Further, a well-known writer and former divine, wrote an article, using most offensive terms, misrepresenting the South, which was most prominently featured in the official puljlication of the Y. ^1. C. A., and was scattered through the cantonments and camps of France and tliis country during the war. Instances without number could be quoted, l)ut these few sample cases show the direction and nature of the tide of falsehood and misrepresentation con- stantly pouring ujjon the Simthern people. Another point upon which we are constantly misrepresented is the applica- tion of the term "rebellion" to the secession of the SoTitliern states from tlie Union. \\'ithout going into details, it is a conceded fact that during tlie earlier days of the Union the right of a state to secede was generally recog- nized. Uiis right was asserted more than once by states in the North, who later refused to allow the South to assert the same claim. ^lassachusetts was a prominent believer in the rights of secession in the early days. John Quincy Adams declared on the floor of Congress, at the time of the admission of Texas as a state, that New England ought to secede, while the Hartford Con\ention threatened similar stejts while our country was actively engagcVl in the war of 1812. Even at the time when the North declared the South had no right to secede, although having themselves asserted that right jjre- viously, we see West Virginia encouraged and assisted in secession from tlie mother state, while of late years the secession of Panama from Colombia was not only recognized by this government, but the forces of the United States made the secession an accomplished fact. The South is willing to stand by her record as to secession — she is unwilling to submit to the false claims now asserted by the North that the war was waged to grant liberty to sull'ering slaves. In the face of this state of affairs, the Sons of Confederate Veterans have determined to offer refutation of a ])art at least of the false history which almost overwhelms us and through this issue of this modest book, which we now offer, we hope to attract attention to the truth, and do, in our feeble way, our part toward establishing it. A. II. Jennings, Clniirman. The Cray Book Committee S. C. V. Arthur 11. Jeiuiings, Chairman, Lynchlairg, Va. ]\latthew Page Andrews, Baltimore, ^Id. C. 11. Fauntleroy. St. Louis, Mo. The Generally Misunderstood Eman- cipation Proclamation THERE is 110 doc-uiiieiit so little road or so widely inisuuder- stood as the Eiiiancipatioii Proclamation — there is no sub- ject so entirely misstated as Lincohi's connection with, and attitude toward, freeing the negro. Lincoln, who never freed a slave, is called ''The Emancipator," while The Emancipation Proclamation, a war measure of the stern- est description, holding within its possibilities an untold measure of woe for the South, is almost universally hailed as a great "humani- tarian" document I To those who wish to l<)() slaves have been brought into our country this year." And Sergeant, of Tennsylvania. said: "It 15 is notorious that in spite of the utmost vigilance that can be em- ployed, African negroes are clandestinely brought in and sold as slaves." This "vigilance" he speaks of, however, was much ridiculed by others, and it was openly hinted that the efforts of the Federal authorities to suppress the trade, even the look-out for slavers along the African coast as conducted by vessels of the United States Navy, were merely perfunctory, Blake in his "History of Slavery and the Slave Trade," published in 1857, says: "It is stated upon good authority that in 1844 more slaves were carried away from Africa in ships than in 1744 when the trade was legal and in full vigor;" while in the year immediately preceding the opening of the War Between the States, John C. Underwood is quoted as writing to the Xew York Tribune : "I have ample evidence of the fact that the reopening of the African slave trade is an accomplished fact and the traffic is brisk." Not only was the traffic brisk with the United States but thousands of slaves were being smuggled into Brazil. Southern mcmljers of Congress complained of the violations of the law and the illegal importation of slaves into their territory. Smith, of South Carolina, said on the floor of Congress in 1819 : "Our Northern friends are not afraid to furnish the Southern States with Africans;" and in 1819, Middleton, of South Carolina, and Wright, of Virginia, estimated the illicit introduction of slaves at from 1300 to 1500 respectively. There is interest in the striking fact that one year before the outbreak of the War Between the States, and at the time when the rabid abolitionists of New England and the North were most vigor- ous in their denunciations of the South and the slave holders, there were in Massachusetts only 9000 free negroes, while in Virginia there were 53,000 of these negi'oes, free, and able to go where they pleased : and it is significant that about as man}' free negroes chose to live in Southern slave holding states as dwelt in Northern states; and many of these free negroes owned slaves themselves and were well-to-do citizens. In the city of Charleston, S. C, some three hundred free negroes owned slaves themselves. In closing this article the following letter, which appeared in the columns of the New Orleans Picayune years ago, may be of in- terest : "My father, Capt. John .Tulius Guthrie, then of the United States Xavy, while executive officer of the sk)op of war "Saratoga" on April 21st. 1861, captured at the mouth of the Congo River, on the west coast of Africa, the slave ship 'Nightingale' with 900 slaves aboard. I'he slaver was owned, manned and ecpiipiu'd in the city of Boston, Mass., and in refer- ence to the date it will ajipear that her capture was after the assault on Fort Sumter and the Baltimore riot consequent upon the passage of the 6th Massachusetts Regiment through the city. This was the last slaver ca])utrcd by an American war ship and as my father soon after resigned and went in to the Confederate service, her ca])taiii and owners were never brought to trial. All this is a matter of record on file at the Navy Depart- 16 ment in Washington. Thus it will l)e seen that the last captmi" of a slaver was by a Southern officer and the good peojjle of Massacliusetts were ngaged in (liis nefarious business at the beginning of i>ur unliaj)py war." (Signed) .1. Julius Guthrie, Portsmouth. Va. Too Iou^j: has the South had tlie odiuin of .slavery forced upon her. With the iiKstitutiuu tlirust upon her against her protest, the slaves flourished in her boundaries on account of clinuite, and economic conditions favored the spread of the institution itself. The facts set forth above indicate the innocence of the South in foisting this feature upon our national life, as well as her freedom from guilt in the continued importation of slaves into this country. While no claim is made for special virtue in that the South did not engage in the slave importing business as the North did, yet the facts as they exist are to her credit. With the facts in her favor, the South sits still under the false indictments constantly made against her by the section of our country most I'esponsible i'or the whole trouble. Willing to abide by the verdict of posterity, if the verdict is based u]K)n the truth, and not upon the false statements of Northern his- torians, writers and speakers, and willing to accept her share, her full share of due res])onsibility. this section, in justice to lier dead who died gloriously in a maligned cause, and to her unborn chil- dren, inheritors of a glorious heritage, must set forth to the world the facts as they are, neither tainted with injustice to others nor burdened with hypocritical claims of righteou.sness for herself; and these facts will estai)lish her in the proud ]X)sition to which she has all along been entitled among the pe()])le of the earth. 17 Treatment of Prisoners in the Confederacy By Matthew Page Andrews Author ol" History of the United States. Dixie Book of Days, ka, ka. Only a generation ago, Eaphael Semmes, commander of the Con- federate warship Alabama, was widely advertised as a "pirate" and Eol)ert E. Lee was stigmatized as a "traitor." Thousands of young Americans were taught so to regard these Southern leaders. Xow, however, these terms are nearly obsolete ; while many Xorthern his- torians, such as Charles Francis Adams, who fought on the Federal side in the War of Secession, aiid Ganuiliel Bradford, who grow up after the war, have delighted in honoring Lee and other South- ern leaders as Americans whose character and achievements are the ennobling heritage of a united Xation. It was more or less natural that Americans should have been led astray of the truth in the heat of sectional strife and partisan ex- pression. Misconceptions have arisen out of every war. In fifty years, however. Americans have made greater progress in overcom- ing war |n-('ju(lic('s than tlie pcojjlc of otlicr l.iiids in twice or thrice that period. '^rhis is cncon raging, yet the I'ac-t that tlie greater nund)ei' of our textl)0oks, and consequently oui' schools, teach that "the cause for which the South fought was imwoi'tby ;"" that the Southern leaders "were laboring under some of tlio niost cui'ious hallucinations which a student of history meets in the whole course of his researches;" and Ihat "the South was the clianipiun of the detested institution of slavery," indicates a lamentable state of historical ignorance on the part of those who should know better. The characters of the Sontbern leaders are no longer aspersed Imt their iiinlirr.n across the Cdiitinent from the author that "'the book was untrustworthy"" and that the author was unreliable. A quiet and careful investijration was, however, made hy him into the character and career of the "witness," and the favor- able testimony of those in a jiosition to kiidw him best in all his relations led the historian to ])Iace the i:-i-eatest cdiilidence in his testimony.* The char<>es jireferivd a.uainst the authorities of the Confederacy were, for several years, made the most imjiortant subject midei- con- sideration by the peo]»le and excn the i;(i\eiiiment of the United States. During that period, the ina.iinitudc and violenci' of the ac- *Tlie historian ei)rros])()ii(le(l with tliis Veteran's friends and ae(]Uiint- anees and interviewed others. One of iluni. a \ve adduced as "circumstantial evi- dence of harhai'ity," the rate was as high or even higher in the majority of tlu' |»risons u\ the .XOrth. where there was an abundance of food and where .shelter could easily be provided.** *It must l)p rpTiiembprod that tliis subordinate offioor was convicted of conspii iiifi iri/li Con federate ant liorit ies in the crimes alh'. wliicli many of the ])risoners ate with a view to sustaining life. hi the enldest weather two busluds of coal a day were allowecl eaeli ■■barracks'" of .■{■2(1 men. Tliis supply of fuel lasted l)ut a jiortioii of the twenty-four hours. llos|)ital service was so l)ad at this prison that many of tlie men ))referred to sutfer ami die among their friends in the "layers" of superimjxjsed iiard plank bunks. Offieial figures given (mt by Secretary Stanton show that 2ti.4.'?(i Confed- erates died in Northern i)risons. Fach man was allowed one blanket or an overcoiit. Prisoners could not have both. They were de])rive(l of money and allowed a limited amount of sutler's checks with whicli they could buy tobacco, etc.. but no additional food. Tlie dead, with tiieii- Jiodies stripped of ch>thing. were thrown into long ditches; .so tjiat years after- wards a Committee authorized by Congress could Jiot determine the dead or put up tombstones. On the other hand, it is good to record that Confederate e\-])risoners themselves, out of llieir poverty, erected a nieniorial to Colonel Kicliard 24 ('.]) Tlmt ill the South the sjiiiic rations wciv ^ivcii the |iiisoiii'rs ami t lie unai'ds ; hut that \ari('ty in food could not 1k' had or trans- ported on tho broken-down railway systciii of a iion-nianuracturin^ country, which system coulil not or did not |iro\ide sullicient clothes and food e\en I'oi' the ('onfederate soldiei's in the lield.* (t) That the Confederacy had ari'aiiiicd for the exchan^^' (d' prisonei-s hy a special cartel, which carti'l was dcliherately disre- garded hy the Kedei-al authorities.** ( .") ) That they oll'ei'ed to pci'mit l''ederal Surgeons to l)ring medi- cal 8Uj)i)lies to the prisonei's, which olTer was not accepted. (6) That, as the needs of the prisoncis increased, they o[1'ere(| to buy (finally with cotton oi- with gold) supplies for the pi'isoners, which otler was ignored. Owen, commandant at Camp Morton, Indiana. Tliis noble man did all he could to mitiyate the hardshijis of ])ris(m life, and scores of Confederate prisoners continetl there and transferreil to other prisons have borne pa- thetic ti'stiinony to his allowance of bolli overcoats and blankets (two). The rations were limited under conditions beyond the control of t'ohniel Owen, but tiiese were "nicrcifnlly chanjieil" in didcr to ])revent the rava^'es of scurvy. ■The point as to idrivlji in fou7. that "Tlic laws of the C^onfederate Congress and tlic orders of the \\';\v Deicirtinciit di- rected that the rations furnished prisoners of war should l)e the same in quantity and quality as those furnished enlisted men in the army of the Confederacy, and that the hospitals for prisoners should *This Confedorat*' defense against tlic cliaiue of wliolesale and deliberate cruelty to prisoners is amply sustained by tlie historical evidence at hand. The impartial historian, looking for all the salient facts, does find, however, as a kind of flaw in tne fraid|iiial8 in all respects. ""* Turninii' apiin to Amlersonville i)i-ison, we find that tiie ullicial order for the location of "a large prison" in the South in 18G4 was that it should ha\i' "a iiealthy locality, plenty of pure water, a riinninp- stream, and. if possihlc. shade trees, and in the immedi- ate nei*>hborhood of i^rist and saw mills." The Confederate autliorities have I)een denounced hecause they did not cause to be constructed a snflicient number of barracks at Andrsonville, since the veiT order for its roundinitatet frovernnietil until ^lay !Mh. or until there was no further use for his ser- vices. TTis modest bill of $2S.T.no f4)r liis own services and for futd and board for himself and "forage" for his horse was ])resented to the l'nite. in bi-ief: *^Xt)t only were tliei'e few iiii]ilctiu'iit s inaiiufiictured in the South for ( ar; eiiteriiitr, farminfi, t'lc. liut cxcn nails wcMe not to he had, "there being l)ut one solitary niaiuifactory of cut nails in the limits of tlic Confederacy."' **At the close of the war. Brijjadier-Cieneral Xeal Dow, l'. S. \'.. after- wards tli(' noted teni])erance reformer, and candidate for the Presidency, went to distrihute (dothin' tiie lira\t' men lield jirisoners at Andersonville, there was just this inerci-nary element to he contended with, and <;reat nunil)ei-s of tiuo American siddiers siiH'ered terril)ly at the hands of such fcllo\v-])risoners. Tlie Confederacy, on the other hand, with few exceptions, cunld not draw upon uiy hut its own .\merican-horn population. There was, nc\ert lielt-ss, an e\ii eh'mcnt ainoiii: the Confederates in tlie Noi-theni |>risiis|iiic with lliciii. the said .IcITersoii Davis. .laincs A. Scddoii, Howell ('(.Itl). John II. Winder. IJiehanl li. Winder. Tsaiali H. White, W. S. Winder, W. Shell.y Heed. \l. \l. Stevenson, S. P. ]^Ioore, Kerr, late hosi)ital-ste\\ai-d at Andersonville ; James Diinean. Wesley W. 'rurner, Benjamin Harris, and others wliose names are unknown, citizens of the United States aforesaid, and wlio were then enjiaged in armed rei)ellion ajxainst the United States, malieiously, traitorously, and in viohition of the laws of war. to impair and injure the liealth and to destroy the lives — l)y suh- jeetino; to torture and great sulfering. hy eonhning in unhealtliy and unwholesome quarters, hy exposing to the inelenieney of winter and to tlie dews and hurning sun of summer, hy (-ompelling the use of im])ure wati-r. and l>y rui-nishing iiisuffieient and iniwholesome food — of large luunhers of Fedei'al pi'isoners. to wit, the numher of ahout forty-livt- thousand, soldiers in the military service of the United States of America, held as prisoners of war at Anderson- ville, in tlie State of Georgia, within the line of the so-called Con- federate States, on or hefore the 27th day of March. A. I). 1S()4. and at divers times hetween that day and the H»th rtal wounds upon their hodies so that they died." Three soldiers were murdered thus, in each case the "specification"" stating, "whose name is uidvnown."" Si)ecification No. 2 told how a soldier, name unknown, was stamped to death hy said Wirz. .Vnother jirisoner was "tortured unto death in the stocks."" Several more died un.ler s])ecially contriveil cruelties, and others were fired n]m\\ hy orders from said Wiiv.. In each and every case, the mnne of the viitnn was "unknown."" The Militai'v Connnission declared Captain Wirz guilty -"'- A few of the amazing circumstances connected with this trial mav he given here to sliow that it was, perhai)s, the only really infamously unjust ])rosecution and conviction on record in the his- tory of the jurisi)ru(lence of the United States, unless partial excep- tion 1).e nniile as to the condemnation of ^Irs. Surratt and Or. Samuel .\. Mudd. unjustly convicted cd" complicity in the hrutal as- sassinatioii of FresidCnt Tiincoln hy the demented P(»oth and his ignorantlv criminal acconiplii cs. Ill the first plaoe. after aseei'taiiiina' the nature and purpose of the niilitarv eourt apiointed, in viohition of the C'onstitutiou of the United States, to try Capain Wirz, the regularly employed eoun- sel for the defense withdrew from the case. Even permission to be heard, according to law, was denied the prisoner. It may be added, by way of a sidelight on the conditions of the time, that the three men who liad been brought forward by the same partisan leaders for tlie ]»ui'pose of convicting Jeiferson Davis of complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln had just been shown to be per- jurers. Two had turned state's evidence against the third, Conover, who was then in jail. It was determined that no chances for a like failure were to be taken in the case of Wirz. It was, moreover, easier to convict a subaltern than a higli official of the Confederacy. Captain Wirz was placed in confinement in the Old ('a])itol Prison on the 7th of Mav, 1805 ; and, from that moment, the press and people of the country were fed with stories of the "monster" and "demon" Wirz. As far as possible, all favorable testimony vol- unteered by Federal officers and soldiers was suppressed. A victim had to be produced by radical politicians and extremists in order to keep the American people from learning ( 1 ) that the suffering in the Southern prisons could have been ]irevented by the Federal Gov- ernment and (2) that there were at least equally terrilile privations in the Xorthern prisons, a knowledge of which would have led their countrymen to pour out their indignation on them instead. Ill the second ])lace. ("aptain Wirz was accused, by tlie terms of Charge I, of cuui^jtinKij with .Jefferson Davis and other officials of the Confederacy, in delil)erately planning the death of thousands of Federal soldiers. Ao/ n particle of eridence iras found ihai surh a coiispinicii crcr c.rislrd. yet Captain Wirz was convicted of this grave c-hargc. wliilc his fellow "conspirators."" a number of whom were actnallv named in the Change, were iievei' even broimlit to trial. In the third ])lace. the siccillc cbai'ges of murder broimlit against Captain Wirz were made by only twelve to fifteen of the one hun- dred and sixty former actual or alleged prisoners summoned or se- cured by those backing the prosecution. At least most of these, and ])ei-lia|is all of tlieiii. like Conover. am! his two infamous associates, were ])erjurers. One of the witnesses upon whose testimony Judge- Advocate Chipman laid particular stress, as heiaij of a r(diahJe and irallifiil rjiarnrlrr. swore himself in as '"Felix de la Iwiunie."" a ne])hew of Marcjuis Lafayette. Upon (inishing his labors on the witness stand, and before the (rial was over, be was rcwai'dcd for his trouble by l)ein^'' ajijiointed to a clerkship in a I)e])ar1nu'iu of the Federal (lovernmeiit. while about the same time one of the witnesses who seemed likely to olTer favorabU' testimony for the defense, was arresfeil in oix'ii court, and ])laced behind prison bars before he eoiild testify, l^lexcn days after the execution of Wirz. 30 the alle,,.r of Saxony, a desertei' from the 7th New York Kci^iniciit/'^ Finally. (Hi tlie day before the excntit ion (d' Captain W'ir/. a tele- li-rani was sent out to the elVect that Wii'z li;id niMdc ;i c.i'ifossion which inii.licalcd .IclTci'son Davis. W ahoiit the same time, a mes- sa,ue was sent to Wirz, throu-:h the medium of his minister. Father Boyle, that if he would implicate Davis, his sentence would he eoni- nuited. Furthermore, in the -leliherate effort to hlackcn ihr char- acter of W'irz and to weaken the effect of his di'claration of iiino- cenee. a tele-ram was se]it out stating on high authority that the prisonei"s wife had attcmi)ted, on the 27th of Octoher, to poison her brute of a husband, althougli Mrs. Wirz was, at that time, liun- dreds of miles away. To eap tlie clinuix, the bodv of the prisoner was refused a Christian burial. It is perha])s signifieant of ulti- mate justic-e at tlio bar of history, whieh Liiu-oln has trulv declared 'Sve eannot esca))e," that the body of Wirz was placed iii the yard of the jail beside the l)ody of Mrs. Surratt, who is now generally regai-ded as tlie innocent victim of another military connnission. Surely, if Captain Wirz were "a tool" and guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted undei' "Charge T." the men who so infam- ously used liim as such weiv far more criminal and deserving of the gallows than theii' underling. Why were they, too. not hanged, or at least brouglit to trial ^ The answer is given above in that those res])onsihle for the prosecution of "Wirz knew that wliile he, a ])oor subordinate ofFicer, might be convicted in the heat of sec- tional passion provoked by their misrepresentations, it was quite another matter to try and to convict the great leaders of the Con- federaty. Tliey knew perfectly well that the best element — the *Conoorniiik well. for it is said thai he found and killed no fi'Vicr than forty-seven I)loodhounds at Mr. Davis's hoinc." .As a mailer of fad. Mr. Davis not only did n ; Xew IIami)shire. $1 ,(i!i:.(M»(i : \'iiginia, '^\ .- 6-l-i),U(K); Kentucky. $l,l!13,()0() : and no otbei' Southern State divw as much as one million dollars for this period from 1T!)1 to is;!:). This is a \vy\ striking coniparison, and the causes for it lie in the characteristics of the people. Xow, as to pensions of the W'ai' rx'tweeii the States, the South has i'ecei\'e(l compai'atix cU' nothing, and vet the I'cport of the ('oni- il iiiissioiici' (if Pensions in tlio yi'5.S,00().(i()() per year was added to the ])ension hurdcii. already loaded with fraud, and niillioiis ])aid out tti .Vorthern soldiers, so called, who had ncNcr seen a hattle Held nor fired a ,uun. As an exam]ile n\' the unequal distrihution of national money throufih ])ensi()iis, take the report of the Commissioner for the year 1!)09, in which year $1()1,973,00() was dishursed. Of this sum." the eleven States which conijiosed the Confederacy received ahout $1'^.- 800.00(1, Mild the North received the halance. jiroportioued amoiiji the States in part as follows: Ohio. .$l().;}T(i,000 : Pennsylvania. $15,85 1.000; Xew York. $18,!) Iti.ooo ; Illinois, $11.811, oiio; In- diana. $10. (i 10.000: and the other $.S0, 000,000 was scattered tliroiirnment of England and not the p^ple of the South was originally responsible for the intn>- 37 duetion of slav(ivy. The colony of Virginia again and again and again protef^ted to tlie British king against sending slaves to her shores, hut in vain; they were forced upon her. Nearly one hun- dred petitions against the introduction of slavery were sent by the colonists of \^irginia to the British government. In 1760 South Carolina passed an act to prevent the further im- portation of shives, hut England rejected it with indignation. Let it also be remembered that Virginia was the first of all the States in the South to prohibit trade in slaves, and Georgia was the first to ])ut sucli a prohil)iti()n into her organic constitution. In fact, \'irginia was in advance of the whole world on this subject. She al)()lished the slave trade in 1778, nearly thirty years before England did and the same period before Xew England was willing to consent to its abolition. Again, in the convention which adopted the Fed- eral Constitution Virginia raised her protest against the continu- ance of that traffic ; l)ut Xew England objected and, uniting her in- fluence with that of South Carolina and Georgia, secured the con- tinuance of the slave trade for twenty years more by constitutional provision. On the other hand, the first statute establishing slavery in America was passed by Massachusetts in December, 1641, in her code entitled "Body of Lil3erties." The first fugitive slave law was enacted by the same State. She nuide slaves of her captives in the Pequot "War. Thus slavery was an inheritance which the people of the South received from the fathers; and if the States of the North after the Eevolution sooner or later abolished the institution, it cannot lie claimed that the al)()lition was dicated by moral con- siderations, but rather by differences of climate, soil, and industrial interests. It existed in several of the Northern States more than fifty yeai's ;\Hov tlic ad()])ti(»n of the Constitution. I said at the n^ that were the o])posite of ours, and we res]iected them as every man with a heart must respect those who give all for their belief.'* 38 And diaries Fnuu-is Adams declared that "both the North and the South were ri.yht in the great struggle of the Civil War, Itecause eaeli l)elieved itself right." Mv. Rhodes, perhaps the ablest Xortheni historian of the war, declared that the time would come when the whole American ])eople "will iccognize in Robert E. Lee one of the finest products of Amer- ican life. As surely as the years go on we shall see that such a life can be judged by no partisan measure, but we shall come to look upon him as the English of our day regard Washington, whom a little more than a century ago they delighted tt) call rebel.*" To compare such a pure and exalted hero as Lee with a tyrant like the Hohenzollern Emperor, or such a Christian soldiei' as Stonewall Jackson with a heartless commander like Tlindenburg or a soulless tyrant like von Bissijig, is an outrage upon the human understanding. To loiiipare soldiers such as those who followed Joseph E. Johnston and Ahiert Sidney Johnston and the two \u- ginia commanders just named with the bi'utal and savage legions that have desolated Relgiimi and Fi'ance almost passes lielief. And yet the conspicuous authorities named at the outset of this article have dared to say that there is an essential analogy between the spirit of the Plohenzollerns and that of the Southern Confederacy. Let them tell us wherein consists the likeness. Did the govermneiit of the Southern Confederacy ever ruthlessly violate the freedom of any other State? Did it cherish any ambition to establish its dominion over any other part of the United States or of the world ? Did it violate its plighted faith and scoff at a treaty as a "mere scrap of paper''? Is it not a fact that, with one or two ex- ceptions, during all the four years of war the Confederate soldiers in their conduct of war respected the principles of civilization and humanity? Ts it not a fact that when Lee in his offensive-defensive campaign of 1803 invaded the State of Pennsylvania his soldiers not only were not guilty of any bai'barity or of any rapine, but so respected private ])roperty that in the three weeks they were nuirch- ing and fighting on the soil of Penn.sylvania they left behind them not a single ])rint of the iron hoof of war? And yet men of Ood and officers high in raid< and editors of commanding ability have not hesitat('(l to institute a comparison betwe(>n the TTohenzollern>; and wliat tlicy are pleased to call the shnc ])o\\('i' of the South! Let me say to them that if they would find a jiarallel to the spirit of the TTohenzollerns as that spirit has been dis]ilayed in this tre- mendous war against liberty, they will find it in the record of the ])illai;"e and ra])ine and the desolation inflicted by the .soldiers of the I'nion and their cam]i followers in the Shenandoah Valley of Yirignia under Sheridan's oi'ders and in the States of South Caro- lina §nd Georgia under the orders of (Jeneral Sherman. TTere is what Oen. Charles Francis Adams .says on that sul)ject : "Sherman's advancing army was enveloped and followed by a cloud 39 of inesponsible stragglers * * * known as bummers, who Avere simply for the time being desperadoes bent on pillage and destruc- tion, subject to no discipline, amenable to no law ; * * * in reality a l)and of Goths. Their existence was a disgrace to the cause they professed to serve.'"' General Adams continues : "Our own methods during the final stages of the conflict were sufficiently descrilied by General Sheri- dan when, during the Franco-Prussian War, as the guest of Bis- marck, he declared against humanity in warfare, contending that the correct policy was to treat a hostile population with the utmost rigor, leaving them, as he expressed it, 'nothing but their eyes to rt^eep with." In other words, a veteran of our civil strife, General Sheridan, advocated in an enemy's country the sixteenth-century practices of Tilly, described by Schiller, and the later devastation of the Palatinate, commemorated by Goethe." ("Military Studies," pages 2()(), 207. ) Note also that these acts of plunder and cruelty were not prac- ticed by the bummers only, but by officers and soldiers. I have recently read again the description of an eyewitness, that learned and accomplished man. Dr. John Bachman, of South Carolina, honored with membership in various societies in England, France, Germany, Russia, etc., and the narrative reads like a description of the devastation and cruelty and barbarian practices of the soldiers of Tan Kluck in Belgium and France. One sentence may suffice here : "A system of torture was practiced toward the weak, un- armed, and defenseless which, so far as I Icnow and believe, was uni- versal throughout the whole course of that invading army." Xot only aged men but delicate women were made the sul\jects of their terrorism. Even the blacks were "tied up and cruelly beaten." Several poor creatures died under the infliction. There, and not in the armies of the South, will he found a pai'allel to the spirit of the Hohenzollerns. 40 The Secession of 1861 Founded Upon Legal Right Bv E. W. E. Ewino-, A. M., LL. B., LL. D., Historian-in-Chief, S. C. V. Author of "Legal and Historical Status of the Dred Scott Decision/' &c. Secession rested upon fundamental law. The secession from the United States by the several States of the South in 1861. which led to the war between the Confederacy and the Federal Govern- ment aided by the remaining States, was within constitutional right found in that greatest governmental instrument, the Constitution of the United States. That secession was the extreme means, in the sense that the right of revolution as such a means is sometimes jus- tified, for the purpose of preserving the sacredness and blessings of written constitutional government, and for these purposes only. Now brush the cobwebs and preconceived notions from the mental vision and let us measure by the sternest logic and the strictest of universally recognized rules these sweeping premises, standards of conduct for which our fathers fought and for which many gave their lives and for which our mothers made the most supreme sac- rifices. First, then exactly w^hat do we mean by secession? We are to examine specific conduct, not the mere academic definition of the word secession. The question before us is : What is meant by the secession of certain States in the southern part of the United States in 1861? For the purpose of finding the legal ground upon which those Southern States acted, it is immaterial whether we regard the acts comprehended by the word secession in this connection as acom- plished or attempted secession, but it is interesting to recall that those in the exercise of the chief functions of the Federal Govern- ment and a large part of Northern people generally insisted in 1861 (contrary to prior Northern doctrine and practice) that no South- ern State could secede, could get out of the Union; while four years later, after the South had worn out her swords and had broken her bayonets, and her brave boys were mostly asleep beneath the golden I'ods of the summer and the withering leaves of somber winter, the same pro-Union people generally and tlie functionaries of the United States Government were sordid and cruel in holding that the seceding States were out of the Union and as sovereign and independent States had ceased to functionate as units of the Union ! So to avoid confusion of thought upon this point it may be assumed without fear of suci-cssful coiiti-adiction that the seceding States wore 41 at leaf>t de fado out ot the Union. That a course of conduct does not reach its final goal is no evidence that it was not legally taken. So the secession here under consideration may he broadly and cor- rectly defined as the act or acts of the Southern States, each exer- cising what we call its sovereign political powers, the purpose of which was to sever allegiance to and connection with the Union. The Union was and yet is the relation between each State and a sovereignty known as the United States (or the Federal Gov- ernment) which was created by and which exists by the authority of that wonderful, written instrument known as the (.'onstitution of the United States. Hence secession was the act of a State as such by which it at least sought to become and for a time was de facto independent of the United States, out of the Union, just as each colony became by revo- lution independent of and out of the British Empire back in 17?6. Mr. Lincoln who was at the time as President the chief executive of the United States took the position that no State could withdraw and become completely independent. So as the Southern States one by one persisted in the secession course Mr. Lincoln sent Federal troops into the South to reestablish where l)roken and to maintain Federal authority — not to free the slaves or affect in the least slav- ery. To resist this invasion by armed force the seceding States raised troops to defend the newly asserted independence, just as the colonies did back in 1776 with regard to Great Britain, the South- ern States organizing in the meantime a centi-al government known as the Confederate States of America. Thus the war came on apace. Then since secession was either a withdrawal or an effort to withdraw from the Union, to become completely independent of the government of the United States, our first inquiry must be: What is the relation of each state to the Union? In finding this relation we necessarily define the govcrmiuMit of the United States, also called the Federal Government. The first thing we discover, as just intimated, when we come to see exactly what the American Union is, when we really discern the universally acknowledged fundamental of all fundamentals re- garding its existence, is that the Constitution is the one source of its power and authority, the sole source of its vitality; and so out- side of or minus this Constitution there would be no Union, no United States of America. This great, basal truth is one of the settled and established facts concerning our American govern- ment. In isKi, wlu'ii Mni'shall uf \'ii-ginia and Story of Massachusetts, two great constitutional lawyers, were members of the bench, the Supreme Coiii't of the United State, the entire ])ench concurring said : "The governiiirnl. tlien. of the United Stati's can claim no jiowers wliich are not granted to it by the Constitution, and the powers 42 actually granted must be such as are expressly given, or given by necessary implication." (1 Wheaton (U. S. Reports), 326.) In 1906 Mr. Justice Brewer, speaking for that same high court, said : "As heretofore stated the constant declaration of this court from the beginning is that this government (of tbo Unitcil States) is one of enumerated powers." Then as showing the place where that enumenilion is found the court in 1906 quoted with entire approxal the words from the decis- ion, as written by Story of Massachusetts in 1816, "the United States can claim no powers which arc not granted to it by the Con- stitution." This fact, a most basal truth, is found not alone in the decisions of the courts; but it is the great principle by wldch all departments of the Federal Government are admittedly controlled. It is the practical fact in all the activities of the general government. There is another similarly fundamental truth, practical fact: The United States government does not enjoy spontaneous or original or inherent sovereignty; all of its sovereign powers are delegated. This fact is Just as miiversally and as practically recog- nized as the other. "The government of the United States is one of deJegaied, limited, and enumerated powers," is one of the hundreds of statements of this truth repeated by the Su]>reme Court in case of the United States vs. Harris (106 U. S. (Supreme Court Re- ports), 635.). There is a dispute whether the States created the Federal Government, delegated to it the powers it has, or whether it is the creature of the whole people of the United States acting as a great sovereign political unit. It appears to me, since the Constitution went from its framers back to the States, had- in each separate State for its mdependent action, too clear for argument that it is the creature of the States, particularly since three-fourths of the States had to approve it befoi'e it became operative and three-fourths may now amend it. (Constitution, Art. V.). And all the more that this must be true when we recall that at the formation of the Federal Government and l)efore the ratifica- tion of the Constitution, "thirteen dependent colonies l)ecame thir- teen independent States;" that is, in other words, before the rati- fication of the Constitution "each State had a right to govern itself by is own authority and its own laws, without any control by any other power on earth." (Ware vs. Hilton, 3 Dallas. 1 !I9 : Mdlvaine vs. Coxe, 4 Cranch, 312; Manchester vs. Mass.. 1:5';) U. S. 25: ; Johnson vs. Mcintosh, 8 Wheaton, 395; Shivley vs. Bowlby. 152 U. S. 14.) But we need not stop to debate this (picstion here or let it bother us in considering secession. At the time of secession we had a certain kind of government, the same we have now. in fact : and however it was created we know that the univoi'sally admitted facts are that Ihc Federal (iovernnient gets its vital \)\\",\X\\ ti- as nullification and other wrongs l)y Northern States and some Northern people, to escape all of whicli our fathers found secession the one probably bloodless remedy, justified by fundamental con- stitutional law, and tiie one available remedy with honor. 50 The South and Germany By Lvon G. Tyler, President of William and Mary College, \'A. At the moment when the United States had declared war a.s;ainst Germany, there seemed to be a concerted effort by Northern speak- ers and writers to cast slurs upon the old South by drawing analo- gies betAveen it and Germany. This course was taken without any regard for the feelings of the present generation of Southern men, who see no reason to'be ashamed of the conduct of their ancestors. Probably the most vicious of these attacks appeared in the Neio York Times. Under the title of "The Hohenzollerns and the Slave Power," the spirit of the old South to 1861 is said to have been essentially analogous to that of Germany. The slave power was "arbitrarv, aggressive, oppressive." "The slave power proclaimed the Avar Avhich was immediately begun to l)e a Avar of defence in the true Hohenzollern temper." "The South fought to maintain and extend slaverv, and slavery Avas destroyed to the great and lasting gain of the people Avho fought for it, so that within a score of years from its doAvnfall, the Southern i)eoi)le would not have re- stored it had it been possible to do so." Here is the old trick of representing the weaker poAver the ag- gressive factor in history. An earlier instance of it occurs in the history of the Times's own State. The early >TeAv England Avriters in excusing their own aggressiveness represent the rich Ncav England colonies Avith their thousands as in imminent danger of being Aviped out and extinguished l)y the liandful of Dutchmen at NeAv'^York. And so it has been Avith the Southern question. In one breath the Northern historian has talked like the Tiines of the "arbitrary, aggressive and oppressive poAver" of the South, and in the next has exploited figures to shoAv the declining power of the South from the Revolution down to 1861. With its "inde- fensible institution" the South's attitude Avas necessarily a purely defensive one, and C'alhoun never at furthest asked any more than a balance of poAver to protect its social and economic fabric. The North began the attack in 1785 Avith a ]iroposition to cede to S|)ain the free navigation of the Mississippi River. In 1820, it attacked again AAdien Missouri applied for admission as a State Avith a con- stitution Avhich permitted slavery. It attacked once more in \S2S and 1832, Avhen, despite the earnest protest ol' the South, it fastened on the country the protective tariff system : and tlic attack Avas continued till both Congress and the presidency \yere con- trolled by them. When in pursuance of the decision of tlie Su- ])rcinc Court the Southci'uers asked for the priviK-gc of tenipor- 51 arily holding slaves in the Western territories until the population was numerous enoug-h in each territory to decide the continuance of slavery for itself, it was denied them hy the North. It is certain that if nature had been left to regulate the subject of slavery, not one of the Western territories would have had slavery — the odds, by reason of emigration and unfitness of soil and climate, being so greatly against it. Did the slave power "•proclaim the war" as the Times asserts? Every sensible man knows that the South would have been very glad to have had independence without war. But Lincoln made the ostensible ground of the war an attack on Port Sumter, when after vacillating for almost a month, he forced the attack, contrary to the advice of his own cabinet, by sending an armed squadron to reinforce the Fort. Xot a man was killed, and yet Lincoln witliout calling Congress, which had the sole power under the constitution, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, instituted a blockade, and set to work to raise and organize an army to subdue the South. Presi- dent Wilson waited I'oi' two years till two liundred American citi- zens had been killed by the Germans, and even then took no hostile step without the actiou of Congress. Who had the "Tlohenzollern temper"— the North or the South in 1861 ? Did the "South fight to maintain and extend slavery?" The South fought for independence and the control of its own actions, but it did not fight to extend slavery. So far from doing this, by secession the South restricted slavery by handing over to the North the Western territory, and its constitution provided against the importation of slaves from alu'oad. Slavery was indeed destroyed by the war, and it is perfectly true that no one in the South would care to restore it. At the same time we see no reason wliy we should be grateful for the Avay in wliich slavery was desti'oyt'd. At the beginning of the Union, there was a strong sentiment in tlic Southern States, especially in Maryhiiid. A'irginia and Xortli Carolina, against the existence of slavery, hut the action of thi'cc of the New England States in joining with the two extreme Southern States to keep open the slave trade for twenty years through an article in the constitution, and the subsequent activity of New England shipping in bringing thousands of nciiroes into the South, made its abolition a ureat difficulty. No country evei- waged a war on priiuipdes more dilferciit from Germany than ilid the Southern States. Germany justified its cam])aigns of "frightfulness" on tlie plea of necessity, hut in any result its national entity was sccnre. The South, on the other hand, knew that failure in arms woidd mean the extinction of its national l)eing, l)nt there were some things it could not do even to prest'rve this, and so Tvobcrt E. Lee commanded her armies on land and Raphael Senunes roved the sea, but no droj) of innocent blood staincMl tlic splendor of tlieir achievements. 52 While I am glad to say that the North did not go as far as Germany the general policy of its warfare was the same — one of destruction and spoliation, and the campaigns of Sheridan and Sherman will always stand in history in the catalogue of the cruel and inhumane. The expulsion of the inhabitants of Atlanta and the burning of the city was the prototype of the martyrdom of Louvain. Eheims and its ancient cathedral have suffered less from the shells of the Germans than beautiful Columbia and Savannah suffered from the torch and wanton depredation of the Federal soldiers. In an article in a prominent magazine a writer quotes Lincoln's Gettysburg address and states that these last words of his speech — "That the nation shall under God have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, ])y the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth," described the great cause for which Lincoln sent armies into the field. Here is the same lack of logic and historic accuracy. The North had been antagonistic to the South from the first days of union, but it was really the jealousy of a rival nation. The chief elements that first entered into the situation were antagonistic interests and different occu- pations. Manufacturers were arrayed against agriculture, a pro- tective tariff against tariff for revenue. Long before the quick- ening of the Northern conscience, and while the slave trade was being actively prosecuted by men from New England, tliat section was particularly violent against the South. Its dislike of the great democrat Jefferson went beyond all words, and he was described by the Chief Justice of Massachusetts as "an apostle of atheism and anarchy, bloodshed and plunder." How much of real oppo- sition to slavery was mixed with this old-time jealousy in the Republican plank against slavery in the territories in 1860 no one can exactly say. But with the exception of the abolitionists, all persons — Democrats and Republicans alike — were unanimous in saying that there Avas no intention of interfering with slavery in the States. Lincoln was emphatically of this view, and so declared in his inaugural address. In instituting hostilities soon after, had he avowed that he wished to raise armies to fight the South for a "new birth of free- dom" and to keep popular government "from perishing from the earth," he would have been laughed at. Had he avowed his pur- pose of raising armies for the abolition of slavery, none but the abolitionists would have joined him. He obtained his armies only by repeatedly declaring that he waged war merely for j)reserving the Union. 53 OFFICEES. Soxs OF Confederate VetePiANs li)l!)-1920 Conimander-in-Chief, X. B. Forrest, Biloxi, Miss. Adjutaut-iii-Chief, Carl Hiiiton, Denver, Colo. Staff (Jiiarternuister-in-Cliief, J no. Ashley Jones, Atlanta, Ga. Inspcctor-in-Chief, R. Henry Lake, Memphis, Teini. Conimissary-in-Chief, Chas. P. Rowland, Savannah, (ia. Judge Advocate-in-Chief, A. L. Caston, Chester, S. C. Surgeon-in-Chief, Dr. W. C. (Jalloway, Wilmington, X. C. Chaplain-in-Chief, Kev. Henry W. Battle. Charlottesville, \'a. Historian-in-Chief, E. W. K. Ewing, Washington, I). C. Executive Council X. R. Forrest, Biloxi, Miss., Ex-Otlicio Chaii-niaii. Ivlgar Scurry, Wiehita Falls, Tex. W. McDonald Lee, Irvington, Va. ,1. W. Mc Williams, Monroe, La. .). ]\oy Price, Washington, D. C. Carl Ifinton, Denvei-, Colo. Advisory Co.AniiTTEi'] (Marence -L Owens. Washington. 1 ). C, Chnii'nian. Ernest U. Baldwin, Koanoke, Va. Seymoui' Stewart, St. Louis, Mo. W." W. Old, .Jr., Xorfolk, Va. W. X. Brandon. Little Rock. Ark. B. B. Haughton, St. Louis, :\lo. J. W. Ajiperson. Biloxi, Miss. Carl 11 inton. 1 )ciivcr. Colo. Dkpart.ai i:xr ( 'onf ai andeus Army Xo. \'a. Dept., Jas. F. Tatem, Xori'olk, Va. Army Teiin. Dept., B. A. Lincoln, Columbus, Miss. Army Trans.-Miss. Dept.. S. H. King. .)r.. Tulsa. Okla. I )ivis]()\ Com .maxi)i:i;s Alal.ama. Dr. W. F. (,)uin, Fort Tayne. x4.rkansas, A. D. Pope, Magnolia. Colorado, H. W. Lowrie, Denver. Dist. Columbia, A. S. Parry, Wasltingion. D. C. Florida, S. L. Lowry, Tamjja. Georgia, Walter P. Andrews, Atlanta. Kentucky, P. E. Johnston, Mayfleld. Louisiana. .1. W. McWilliams, Monroe. Maryland, Henry Hollyday, Jr.. Easton. Mississippi, D. M. Featherston, Holly S])rings. Missouri, Todd M. George, Independeni-e. Xorth Carolina, (Jeo. i\L Coble, Gi-eeiisboro. Oklahoma, Tate Brady. Tulsa. South Carolina, Weller Pothrock, Aiken. Tennessee, D. S. Etheridge, Chattanooga. Texas, C. A. Wright, Fort Worth. West Virginia. Palph Darden, Elkins. Virginia, S. Ij. .\dams, South Boston. SouUi West, 1-:. 1'. lUijac, Carlsbad, N. M. LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 013 702 905 4 4^ i I 013 70: Hollini pi LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 013 702 905 4 Holllnger Corp.