It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Eleven: Chapter XIII, Over the Edge, Part One

A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Eleven
Chapter XIII
Over the Edge
Part One
by Gene Kizer, Jr.

At the end of this article, beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," Mitcham's endnotes for Chapter XIII.

MITCHAM GIVES US an exciting account in Chapter XIII of how Abraham Lincoln started the War Between the States, which ended up killing 750,000 men and maiming over a million.

Lincoln established the supremacy of the federal government over the states (remember, Yankees were the "federals" in the war) because he wanted the North with its larger population to control the federal government and thus the country.

On Tuesday, November 6, 1860, Lincoln was elected and immediately Charlestonians raised the Palmetto flag "instead of the Stars and Stripes." A judge summed up the feeling in Charleston:

'the Temple of Justice raised under the Constitution of the United States is now closed. If it shall never again be opened I thank God that its doors have been closed before its altar has been desecrated with he sacrifices of tyranny.'1

South Carolina's legislature "met in an unusual Saturday session on November 10" and "passed an act calling for a secession convention to begin in Columbia on December 17." Both of the state's U.S. senators resigned that same day, and the day after, "the South Carolina legislature voted to raise 10,000 volunteers for the defense of the state."2

Secession had been debated the entire previous year across the South but on December 20, 1860 it became reality. The Convention of the People of South Carolina revoked the state's 1788 ratification of the U.S. Constitution and voted 169-0 to secede, which began an ecstatic celebration in Charleston that went on for days.

Earlier, on December 10, "six South Carolina congressmen and President Buchanan met to discuss the military situation in Charleston" and came to a gentleman's agreement that neither would attack the other vis-a-vis the forts. The status quo was to stay the same.

Buchanan's word was no good just as Lincoln and Seward's were no good the following spring. The day after meeting with the South Carolina representatives Buchanan sent Major Don Carlos Buell (later a Union general) who was the War Department representative to meet with Major Anderson then in Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island. Buell told Anderson that  "he had permission to abandon Fort Moultrie and transfer the garrison to Fort Sumter."3

Anderson knew Fort Moultrie was indefensible since it faced the harbor and was surrounded by local residences so "he quietly evacuated it on December 26, spiked his obsolete thirty-two-pounder guns, and took his men under cover of darkness to Fort Sumter, which was located on an uninhabited rock island in the middle of Charleston Harbor." Fort Sumter dominated the entrance to Charleston Harbor.4

A delegation from South Carolina went to Washington, D.C. at the same time to "obtain a peaceful settlement of all outstanding issues. Among other things, South Carolina was prepared to pay for its share of the public debt."5

Anderson's provocative act caused South Carolina forces to take over "the other harbor forts, including Moultrie and Castle Pinckney, on December 27."6

Military companies sprang up across the South and began "conducting drills in city parks and on the town squares." Northerners had not believed Southerners would secede but Northern greed and hatred had finally come home to roost. Southerners were "deadly serious."

By year end, and early 1861, Republican political strength plummeted "in the municipal elections. Even in Boston, Wendell Phillips needed police protection to return home."7 This is the same virtue-signaling abolitionist hate-monger with no solution for ending slavery, who had proclaimed that the Republican Party was the party of the North pledged against the South and was the first sectional party in American history.

South Carolina wanted Anderson to return to Fort Moultrie and Secretary of War John B. Floyd agreed. He warned that failure to do so "'invited a collision.'"8

There were several heated cabinet meetings at the end of the year, then Floyd resigned December 29th. On December 30th "South Carolina volunteers seized the Charleston Arsenal."9 President-elect Lincoln "claimed he 'yearned' for peace but took absolutely no steps to secure it."10

On January 9, 1861 Citadel cadets manning an artillery battery on Morris Island "fired on and drove off" the Star of the West, which had been sent to "reinforce and re-provision Fort Sumter":

The soldiers were hidden below deck [of the Star of the West], but the South Carolinians had been tipped off as to what was really happening by Secretary of the Interior Jacob Thompson of Mississippi. . . . Anderson continued to draw his supplies from the mainland of South Carolina, but he knew the secessionists could cut them off at any time.11

Meanwhile, one of the greatest expressions of democratic republican government in history occurred as six other states in a landmass nearly the size of Europe called conventions, elected delegates as Unionists or Secessionists, then debated the single issue of secession just as the colonists had debated the single issue of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

They then voted one by one to secede from the federal Union that had become full of hate and tyranny, much more so than the British in 1776. The terrorism of violent criminals like John Brown, which was celebrated in the North, meant Southerners with their wives, children, their families, were targeted for murder, rape, arson, and every other unimaginable horror. Some thought that was the federal government's intent. They had no reason to think overwise.


On January 9, Mississippi voted to secede by a vote of eighty-four to fifteen. The next day, Florida, voted sixty-two to seven to leave the Union. Alabama departed on January 11 by a vote of sixty-one to thirty-nine. Georgia seceded on January 19 after a vote of two hundred eight to eighty-nine. Louisiana left the Union on January 26 after a vote of one hundred thirteen to seven. Texas voted one hundred sixty-six to seven to secede on February 1. Governor Sam Houston tried to obstruct it and prevent Texas from joining the Confederacy. On March 16, he went to work and was shocked to find Lieutenant Governor Edward Clark sitting at his desk. The secession convention had deposed him. Lincoln offered him 50,000 troops to keep Texas in the United States, but like Robert E. Lee, Houston did not care to remain in a union held together by bayonets. He declined the offer and retired.12

Those seven states met in convention February 4, 1861 in Montgomery, Alabama, dedicated to the original American republic of the Founding Fathers with sovereign states in a loose federal union unlike the Northern tyranny that had developed. The most widely used phrase in the secession debate in the South during 1860 came from the Declaration of Independence:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

On Friday, February 8, 1861 "they adopted a constitution and created the Confederate States of America." It outlawed protective tariffs that had allowed the North to enrich itself at the expense of the South via Robert Toombs's "suction pump" which constantly sucked wealth out of the South and deposited it in the North.

It prohibited internal improvement in one state paid for with tax money from another so never again would Southerners pay 85% of the taxes but have 75% of the tax money spent in the North.

The Confederate Constitution "outlawed the slave trade and allowed for the admission of non-slaveholding states" which petrified Abraham Lincoln since several free states especially along the Mississippi were attracted to the free-trade South with its low 10% tariff for the operation of a small federal government in a states rights nation. This is in comparison to the North's soon-to-be-passed astronomical Morrill Tariff that was 47 to 60% higher because in a knee-jerk fashion, they had passed it thinking the South would have to pay it as it had in the past. However, the Morrill Tariff fell on Northerners because the South was now an independent nation.

Jefferson Davis, a Mississippi moderate with a distinguished record of service to the country was elected provisional president, and former Unionist, Alexander H. Stephens, "Little Alec," as Robert Toombs called his good friend, was elected provisional vice president. Stephens was a good friend of Lincoln's.

Independence "would give the South more leverage in dealing with domestic terrorism, as advocated by Lysander Phillips, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Samuel Gridley Howe, Theodore Parker, Franklin B. Sanborn, Gerrit Smith, George Luther Stearns, and others."13

The Northern press at first accepted Southern secession and editors like Horace Greeley said "let the erring sisters go." He at first believed in the right of secession and wrote a long emotional editorial in support of it as South Carolina was seceding.

But he soon realized it would affect his money in a dramatic way so he changed his tune and wanted war as did most of the North:

They were told (accurately) that the free trade ports of New Orleans, Charleston, Savannah, and others would undercut the high duty ports of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, etc. They predicted that the North would lose at least half of its commerce. The Southern economy was prosperous, and the industrial, commercial, and financial classes of the North did not want it to slip beyond their grasp. Simultaneously, Lincoln was insisting that he must have his tariffs. The withdrawal of the South meant that the federal government lost more than 85 percent of its tax base. Also, an independent South with an economy based on free trade would be devastating competition for the North. . . . Some Northern newspapers began advocating the use of military force to prevent this competitive situation.14

Lincoln spoke out of both sides of his mouth like a typical corrupt politician. He "spoke of how a house divided against itself could not stand and how the nation could not remain half slave and half free" while supporting the Corwin Amendment which left black people in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress, where slavery already existed. He spoke of peace while he laid his plans "to trigger war" and he still "insisted on high tariffs."15 After all, Lincoln was president of the North as Wendell Phillips had proclaimed, not president of the whole country.

There were "two potential flashpoints in the spring of 1861: Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens, the last located on Santa Rosa Island in Pensacola harbor, Florida."

Fort Pickens had federal troops inside and "a naval force" outside but they were "outnumbered by Florida volunteers" who held Pensacola.

Florida could have taken the fort but an armistice "was agreed on January 29 and remained in effect until Lincoln broke the agreement in April":

U.S. Captain Israel Vogdes of the First Artillery Regiment was the commander of a Union force aboard the USS Brooklyn. He and his men were supposed to reinforce the fort but stopped at the Pensacola sandbar. When he learned of the armistice, Vogdes returned to his vessel.16

The armistice was honored until:

March 12 when, at Lincoln's command, General Scott sent Captain Vogdes an order: 'At the first favorable moment, you will land your company, reinforce Fort Pickens, and hold the same until further orders.' This order was in direct violation of the armistice of January 29 and was an act of war---issued only eight days after Honest Abe became president.17 (Bold emphasis added.)

Vogdes "did not receivce the order until March 31." He then requested help from Capt. Henry A. Adams of the USS Sabine but Adams knew Lincoln's order would start a war.

Adams wrote to Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles:

'I can not take on myself under such insufficient authority as General Scott's order to the fearful responsibility of an act which seems to render civil war inevitable . . . '18 (Bold emphasis added.)

"In his report to the secretary of the Navy," Adams wrote:

'It would be considered not only a declaration but an act of war, and would be resisted to the utmost.'19 (Bold emphasis added.)

Adams went on:

'At present both sides are faithfully observing the agreement [armistice] entered into by the U.S. Government and Mr. [Stephen] Mallory and Colonel [William Henry] Chase. This agreement binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless it shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we attempt to reinforce it.'20

Huger W. Johnstone later wrote: "'Captain Adams averted open war on April 1, 1861, by refusing to obey this [Lincoln's] order.'"

Mitcham writes that Captain Adams must have "thought Welles did not understand the situation at Pensacola and did not want to start a war. It did not occur to him [Adams] that starting a war was exactly what Welles wanted to do."21

On April 6 Welles reprimanded Adams and "made it clear that he and the administration wanted war":

'Your dispatch of April 1 is received,' he wrote. 'The Department regrets that you did not comply with the request of Capt. Vogdes. You will immediately on the first favorable opportunity after receipt of this order, afford every facility to Capt. Vogdes to enable him to land the troops under his command, it being the wish and intention of the Navy Department to co-operate with the War Department, in that object.'22

The situation at Fort Sumter was perhaps even more ominous.

In Washington, D.C. "on February 6, Lincoln's agent, Gustavus V. Fox, met with Lieutenant Norman J. Hall, who was sent from Fort Sumter by Major Anderson. They discussed relieving the fort."23

Several more conferences occurred then:

Fox wrote General Scott on March 8, informing him that Hall was bringing the relief plans to Major Anderson if the Rebels would let him back into the fort. The Lincoln administration (including, among others, Lincoln, Fox, Hall, and Montgomery Blair, the newly designated postmaster general) was clearly scheming to relieve Fort Sumter before February 6, and these plans were well advanced by Inauguration Day.24

Confederate commissioners in Washington were lied to and told repeatedly that Fort Sumter would be evacuated though Lincoln's plan all along was to reinforce it, which he knew would start the war. On March 29, Lincoln sent a dispatch to Welles stating:

'I desire that an expedition, to move by sea be got ready to sail as early as the 6th of April . . . ' His memo called for three ships of war (the Pocahontas, the Pawnee, and the Harriet Lane) to enter Confederate territorial waters, carrying 200 reinforcements with one year's stores.25

Lincoln was determined to start the war somewhere so if Fort Sumter failed, of course he had Fort Pickens.

General Scott on April 2, "sent a remarkable order, dated April 1, to Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown at Fort McHenry, Maryland" commanding Brown to "take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens." It was signed by Winfield Scott and Abraham Lincoln.26

Mitcham writes:

President do not ordinarily approve orders like this from generals, but Scott knew it would violate the truce with the Confederates, who would undoubtedly fire on the ships and inaugurate civil war. It is obvious that he needed or wanted Lincoln's co-signature before he committed an act of war. He wanted future generations to know that the decision to go to war was Lincoln's, not his. Lincoln not only signed the order, but he also issued a second order (also dated April 1) to 'All officers of the Army and Navy' to aide Brown and co-operate with him as needed. The president signed this order himself.27 (Bold emphasis added.)

Five military missions were now "steaming toward, or about to sail for Southern territorial waters:"

1) the Welles-Fox Expedition, heading for Charleston;

2) the Rowan Expedition, also heading for Charleston;

3) Captain Adams' ships, lurking off Santa Rosa Island;

4) Colonel Brown's Expedition, heading for Pensacola; and

5) Porter's Expedition, also steaming for Pensacola.28


Next Week:

A Comprehensive Review of

It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.

Part Twelve

Chapter XIII
Over the Edge
Part Two

(Click Here to go to previous week: Part Ten: Chapter XII, Lincoln and His Agenda)


(Scroll down for:
It Wasn't About Slavery, Actual Citation from Book)

1 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 131.

2 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 131-132.

3 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 132.

4 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 132-133.

5 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 133.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 134.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 134-135.

13 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 135.

14 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 136-137.

15 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 137.

16 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 137-138.

17 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 138.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 138-139.

22 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 139.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 141.

26 Ibid.

27 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 142.

28 Ibid.

It Wasn't About Slavery,
Actual Citation from Book

It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Ten: Chapter XII, Lincoln and His Agenda

A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Ten
Chapter XII
Lincoln and His Agenda
by Gene Kizer, Jr.

At the end of this article, beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," Mitcham's endnotes for Chapter XII.

LINCOLN'S AGENDA after he was inaugurated March 4, 1861 was "more centralized government, more power to the chief executive, more money from the South to benefit the North and the West, and the prohibition of slavery in the territories to stop the spread of black people."1

Mitcham writes that Lincoln is probably the "most overrated man in American history" because:

The real Lincoln was a reservoir of dirty jokes and well as Yankee stories. . . . He had many humorous tales, anecdotes, yarns, and stories about the New England religious hypocrites and their dishonest peddlers. . . . Of the twenty-three preachers in his hometown of Springfield, Illinois, only three supported Lincoln in the presidential election of 1860.2

Lincoln's closest friends did not believe him a Christian though he had memorized enough Bible passages to use them when needed. His law partner William Herndon did not believe Lincoln was a "believer" and Ward Hill Lamon stated Lincoln "'was not a Christian.'"3 He did, however, value clerical support:

Later, during the war, in areas occupied by the Union army, Union generals forced Southern preachers to pray for him [Lincoln]. Failure to pray led to arrest, often by being dragged from the pulpit, and preachers were held in jail indefinitely, so Lincoln did received support from the clergy, even if it was under duress.4

Lincoln was the son of a "shiftless farmer" who moved often. He grew up around "uneducated and often coarse men and women" and "used foul language." He became a "'a self-made man'" and "great public speaker and debater." He became a lawyer where:

He represented big corporations and big business against the little man. At various times, he represented the Illinois Central Railroad, the Chicago & Alton Railroad, the Ohio & Mississippi, and the Rock Island Railroad. Erastus Corning offered him the job of chief general counsel for the New York Central Railroad at $10,000 a year (about $265,000 in 2017 dollars), but Lincoln turned it down. He probably couldn't afford the pay cut.5

Slavery was used by Northern demagogues to rally Republican votes using hatred of white Southerners, but there was no concern for black people. Lincoln and company didn't want slavery in the West because they didn't want blacks near them in the West.

Lincoln's appointment of Salmon P. Chase as secretary of the treasury is revealing as to Lincoln, Chase, and most other abolitionists' feelings about the black man:

In 1857, William D. Chadick of Alabama visited Ohio. He was searching for a home for a group of slaves liberated by the will of the late Samuel Townsend, and he thought Chase (then governor of Ohio) would be deeply interested in the project. On December 27, he met with him, and Chadick recalled Chase saying, 'he would rather never see another free negro set his foot upon Ohio soil.' Astonished, the Alabama man asked why. 'Because their moral influence is degrading,' Chase answered. Chadick pointed out the 'glaring inconsistency' in him and other abolitionists, who wanted to free the slaves but did not want them living amongst them. 'I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him,' the governor responded, 'but because I hate his master.'6

Lincoln later appointed Chase chief justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Of course, Lincoln's statements in the Lincoln-Douglas debates reveal his true feelings about blacks which, in fairness to Lincoln, were typical and widespread in the 19th century. Ignorant people today who apply 21st century standards to earlier eras are appalled but people in the past must be judged by the standards of their own time. That is how you understand the past.

Applying today's stupid woke standards to the past prevents understanding the past, which is the goal of the woke anyway. Their goal is political agitation via the liberal fraud news media and the cowardly mob in academia, not truth or understanding.

In Charleston, Illinois on September 18, 1858, Lincoln said:

'I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about, in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to inter-marry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.' General Piatt, a fervent abolitionist, recalled: '[Lincoln] could no more feel sympathy for that wretched race [Negroes] than he could for the horse he worked or the hog he killed.' 7

Lincoln favored, his whole life, sending black people back to Africa or into a place they could survive. See black scholar Lerone Bennett, Jr.'s excellent book, Forced into Glory, Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (Chicago: Johnson Publishing Co., 2000); and Phillip W. Magness and Sebastian N. Page's Colonization After Emancipation, Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2011); and numerous other books and articles.

The deification of Lincoln occurred only after his death. Numerous books, too many to list, attest to Lincoln's true character such as Larry Tagg's The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln, The Story of America's Most Reviled President (NY and CA: Savas Beatie, 2009).

Even James McPherson, who adores Lincoln, said: "'Being assassinated when he was in a moment of victory made it possible to forget all the criticism of him, the failures and the frustrations of the war years, and to see only the martyr.'" He admits Lincoln "'is now romanticized" though he was "'an often ruthless man.'"

Lincoln's contemporaries and associates were frank:

Abolitionist Wendell Phillips called him 'A huckster in politics . . . a first-rate second rate man.' General John C. Fremont said he had an 'incapacity and selfishness, with disregard of personal rights, with violation of personal liberty and liberty of the press, with feebleness and want of principle.'8

Lincoln's secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, who despised Lincoln, went further:

Lincoln had been called in as a legal consultant on the McCormack Reaper patent infringement case. He [Stanton] called Lincoln a 'giraffe' to his face and threatened to throw up his briefcase and leave if he joined the legal team. ' . . . he treated me so rudely I went out of the room,' Lincoln recalled. McCormack appealed to Stanton, who replied: 'I will not associated with such a damned gawky, long-armed ape!' Lincoln, who was in the next room, heard every word. When McCormack returned, Lincoln refunded his fee and left for home.9

Other words used by Stanton about Lincoln were 'orangutan', 'baboon' and 'low, cunning clown.'10

It appeared few of Lincoln's close associates respected him and included not only Chase, Fremont, Phillips, but also:

Vice President Hannibal Hamlin, Secretary of State Seward, . . . Senator Sumner, Senator Lyman Trumbell of Illinois, Senator Ben Wade of Ohio, Thaddeus Stevens, Senator Zack Chandler of Michigan, Henry Ward Beecher, . . . and Horace Greeley. On February 23, 1863, Richard H. Dana wrote to Thomas Lathrop: '. . . the lack of respect for the President in all parties is unconcealed . . . He has no admirers . . . '11

Mitcham writes that "The Thirty-Sixth Congress met in December 1860, preoccupied with solving the secession crisis" and of the "more than 200 resolutions" and "fifty-seven constitutional amendments" three stand out: "the Southern peace commissioners, the Crittenden Compromise, and the Corwin Amendment."12

The three Southern peace commissioners were Martin J. Crawford of Georgia, John Forsyth of Alabama, and Andre B. Roman of Louisiana but Lincoln refused to meet with them and his secretary of state, William H. Seward, lied to them repeatedly.

Seward promised to remove the Union garrison in Fort Sumter at the same time that Lincoln was plotting to send a naval force to Charleston and Pensacola to reinforce the forts, which he knew would start the war.

Major Robert Anderson, Lincoln's commander inside Fort Sumter, confirms Lincoln's intent to start the war. When Anderson was informed that Lincoln was going to reinforce Fort Sumter, Anderson wrote Lincoln and secretary of war Cameron and stated:

. . . a movement made now when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country. . . . We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. . . . (Emphasis added.)13

Anderson sees that the war "is to be thus commenced" by Abraham Lincoln, who had to hurry up and get it started or soon the South with European trade and military alliances would be unbeatable.

The Crittenden Compromise showed great promise. It revived the old Missouri Compromise line (36 degrees, 30 minutes) that prohibited slavery above it but allowed slavery below it. It had worked beautifully for 30 years and would most likely have worked in 1861 but Lincoln and racist Republicans refused to consider it.

They had forbid the extension of slavery into the West in their platform because they wanted the West for themselves and their white political allies. They did not want blacks anywhere near them in the West so slavery in the West, the Crittenden Compromise and its revival of the old Missouri Compromise line, were out.

Of the three attempts to deal with secession, the Corwin Amendment "won traction":

In December, 1860, President Buchanan asked Congress to set up a committee to draft an "explanatory amendment" vis-a-vis slavery. In the House, Thomas "Black Tom" Corwin of Ohio was chosen as the chairman. Corwin was a veteran politician who, at various times, was a state legislator, congressman, governor, U.S. senator, and congressman again. His amendment would forever prevent the federal government from interfering with slavery in the states where it existed.14

Lincoln supported it. He mentioned it in his inaugural. He wrote letters to governors in support of it.

The House "approved it one hundred thirty-three to sixty-five on February 28, and the Senate adopted it on March 2 by a vote of twenty-four to twelve." It got the two-thirds it needed.

Buchanan signed it and it was ratified by "Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Illinois" but the war made it moot.15 The Corwin Amendment was the true feeling of Lincoln and the North toward slavery. It left blacks in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress, where slavery already existed.

Republicans could then agitate to keep the West white by prohibiting blacks from being there as slaves or freemen.

Some abolitionists were disgusted with Lincoln's support for the Corwin Amendment. Lysander Spooner, "a conspirator with John Brown" who "advocated violence and guerrilla warfare against the slave states," wrote:

'On the part of the North, the war was  carried on, not to liberate the slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.'16

Spooner was an astute observer who believed the "moneyed interests in the North" greatly influenced the government:

Their interest, he wrote, was 'to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South . . . '17

Spooner wrote after the war:

'. . . these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These---and not any love of liberty of justice---were the motives on which the money was lent by the North.'18

The Corwin Amendment failed to persuade the Cotton States to return, which is understandable. Southerners had an insatiable desire for independence and their own powerful, free-trade nation where states were supreme and the federal government was weak and subservient. In the South, 1861 was 1776 all over. They knew their glorious history and their Revolutionary sires. They were not about to return to tyranny and the Northern yoke, just as the Colonists were not about to return to tyranny and the British yoke, thus:

[I]t became clear to the president and his cronies that they had two choices: 1) let the Confederacy go in peace and deal with the ensuing economic disaster or 2) go to war with the South.19


Next Week:
A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Eleven
Chapter XIII
Over the Edge
(Click Here to go to previous week: Part Nine: Chapter XI, The Real Cause of the War)


(Scroll down for:
It Wasn't About Slavery, Actual Citation from Book)

1 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 121.

2 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 122.

3 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 123.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 123-124.

7 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 124.

8 Ibid.

9 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 125.

10 Ibid.

11 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 125-126.

12 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 127.

13 Gene Kizer, Jr., Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument. (Charleston and James Island: Charleston Athenaeum Press, 2014), 91-93.

14 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 127.

15 Ibid.

16 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 128.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 129.


It Wasn't About Slavery,
Actual Citation from Book

It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Nine: Chapter XI, The Real Cause of the War

A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Nine
Chapter XI
The Real Cause of the War
by Gene Kizer, Jr.

At the end of this article, beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," Mitcham's endnotes for Chapter XI.

MITCHAM'S EPIGRAPHS are perfect. Chapter XI's are:

The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.---Charles Dickens, 1862

No soldier on either side gave a damn about the slaves.---Shelby Foote, American historian

For the love of money is the root of all evil. . . .---1 Timothy 6:10

Mitcham opens Chapter XI with:

And now we come to the real cause of the war: money. Most wars have been about money or the transfer of riches and territory, which also equates to money, eventually. This economic factor should never be ignored.1

The North has been benefiting from the federal government since the beginning of the country. Once they realized they could take over the federal government in 1860 because of their larger population and exploit the rest of the country, they were determined like a pack of snarling wolves about to tear a lamb to bits, thus legendary Yankee greed was born.

Georgia noted it in her declaration of causes for secession which is regularly ignored by most of the Marxist historians in academia who are not interested in truth but only the political advantage of the left:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all.

Yankees were the "federals" in the war who established the supremacy of the federal government over the states.

Mitcham points out that shortly after the Revolutionary War, all state debt was transferred to the federal government which greatly benefited the North because Southerners had to pay most of that debt via tariffs.

Senator Thomas H. Benton of Missouri who was anti-slavery said to the Senate in 1828:

Before the Revolution, it [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality. Money, and all it commanded, abounded there. But how is it now? All this is reversed.2

Benton asked himself why and his answer was "Federal legislation":

Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense in supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually, furnished by them, nothing, or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. . . . the South must be exhausted of its money, and its property, by a course of legislation, which is forever taking away, and never returning anything. Every new tariff increases the force of this action. No tariff has ever yet included Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, except to increase the burdens imposed upon them.3

This is an important chapter and Mitcham explains the "symbiotic economic relationship" between South and North with clarity:

When the Southerners bought their slaves from the Yankee flesh peddlers, they were using money loaned to them by Northern banks. The worldwide industrial revolution was based largely on textile manufacturing, which required enormous amounts of cotton. The South produced more than 75 percent of the world's cotton. The New England textile industry was built on this cotton, which was mostly planted, cultivated, picked, and ginned by slaves. Cotton, produced by slaves, built the North's prosperity like that of the Deep South.4

These are the EXACT themes of my book, Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument. They are the themes of many excellent books by authors such as Mike Scruggs, Phil Leigh, Charles Adams, Thomas DiLorenzo, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel and others BUT it really started in 1860 with Thomas Prentice Kettell, the most preeminent economist of the time.

Kettell's famous book, Southern Wealth and Northern Profits, proves conclusively that Southerners were producing the wealth of the country with agricultural commodities, but Yankees were making all the money with federal legislation that gave them bounties, subsidies, and monopoly status for their businesses as well as tariffs.

And Northerners manufactured for the South and shipped Southern cotton all over the world. Kettell's analysis is solid and he was observing everything first hand in real time.

Mitcham writes that Wall Street and Yankee bankers were indirectly dependent on "cotton and slavery":

Cotton was America's number one economic product, accounting for more than half of all exports. The export value of cotton alone stood at $161,434,923 in 1859. That same year, the total value of all exports from the North stood at only $78,217,202. In other words, the value of one Southern product accounted for more than twice the value of all Northern exports combined.5

Incredibly, "80 to 90 percent of federal revenue came from the Southern export trade, which was largely built on slavery." Mitcham writes:

Here we see the real reason Abraham Lincoln and the more moderate Republicans did not wish to disturb slavery in the South: from its establishment up until 1861, the United States government was mostly funded by Southern agriculture and especially the cotton industry, much of which depended on slave labor. If slavery were abolished, federal funding would be eliminated with it. Thus Lincoln and his allies only opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories.6

So funny and ironic but this was a double-win for Republicans because they could support slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress in places where slavery already existed as they did by supporting the Corwin Amendment, but stand against slavery in the territories which they did --- not because they were against slavery --- but because they were against blacks living anywhere near them in the West.

The Morrill Tariff introduced by Vermont Representative Justin Smith Morrill "would have raised the average dutiable ad valorem tax on imports from just under 20 percent in 1860 (under the Tariff of 1857) to more than 36 percent in 1862----and a whopping 47 percent within three years."7 But:

Predictably, some of the protected Northern industries and corporations needed to import specific items, so these were classified as non-dutiable (not taxed).8

As has been observed over and over, federal legislation was enriching the North and robbing the South blind, and Southerners in 1860 would no longer be able to protect themselves from this blatant theft being forced on them by the Northern majority. That is a primary reason they seceded from the Union.

Would you allow yourself to be robbed blind by a region that hated your guts and sent murdering terrorists into your peaceful towns and villages to poison wells and incite slave insurrections where your women and children would be raped and murdered in the night as happened in Haiti?

It is easy to see why Lincoln and the North feared Southern economic power, especially when allied with Europe and specifically Great Britain. Southerners:

[A]ccounted for close to 82 percent of U.S. export business and for more than 83 percent of American tariff revenues even before the Morrill Tariff. About 80 percent of these revenues went to public works projects, railroads, and industrial subsidies in the North, enriching Northerners at the expense of the South. The Morrill Tariff would make this unhealthy situation even worse.9

Imagine turning all that money back on the South. Imagine the growth and increase in standard of living. After all, it was Southern money. Many prominent Southerners during the secession debate in the South in the year prior to states seceding pointed that out.

But for each dollar of Southern money that stayed in the South, it meant the same dollar not going into Northern pockets.

Raising tariffs meant Northern manufacturers could raise their prices up to the level of the tariff:

If the Northern industrial special interests could raise the tariffs on imports from Britain, they could sell Northern products at a higher price and thus reap higher profits. This is what Calhoun was trying to block when he demanded to know what business the government had picking the winners and losers in the private sector.10

Mitcham writes about the passage of the Morrill Tariff after seven Southern states had seceded and their senators and representatives were out of the U.S. Congress:

It is worth noting that the tariff bill had priority even before excluding slavery from the territories.11

Henry Clay's "America System was now the law of the land" but:

[I]t only helped the North. The Constitution allowed the federal government to collect the tariffs to fund itself, but it had never been meant to enrich some people at the expense of others. Now the Constitution was irrelevant. Turned on its ear, it no longer served as an instrument to limit federal power.12

Just as we saw with the transcontinental railroad route chosen to go through the North to the West, the sectional Republican Party as Wendell Phillips had proudly stated, was fulfilling the desires of the North and its Northern president, Abraham Lincoln, against the rest of the country, and the writing was on the wall.

Southerners with their Jeffersonian belief in the sovereignty and supremacy of their states, would hereafter be outvoted by the Northern majority pushing Northern economic interests every single time. Robert Toombs called the federal government a "suction pump" sucking wealth out of the South and depositing it in the North, and it would now have unlimited power, forever.

This Union was now for the benefit of the North as Alexis de Tocqueville and others had warned could happen. De Tocqueville had said if any one state got the power to control the federal government it would make the rest of the country tributary to its wealth and power, and now, the Northern states had that power with their majority and the sectional Republican Party, the party of the North pledged against the South as Wendell Phillips stated.

This is what Lincoln was fighting for when he started his war by sending his hostile naval force against Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens in 1861.

And it worked.

The North has been the center of money, power and culture since Appomattox, though it is in great decline today with massive crime as we see out West and in New York City as Yankees flee the horribly-governed woke North for the South where folks are friendly and the region is dynamic, free, supports law enforcement, and is well-governed by leaders like Ron DeSantis in Florida.

DeSantis governs one of the freest states in the country yet has the lowest COVID problems in sharp contrast to much of the locked-down, masked-up, "show me your vaccination papers" North.

Mitcham points out that Southern wealth was not limited to the planter class:

Dixie had 33 percent of the nation's railroad mileage and was ahead of every other country in the world except, of course, the United States as a whole. It also had navigable rivers that did not freeze, several excellent ports, and a per capita income 10 percent higher than all the states west of Pennsylvania. . . . It also had a large, highly industrious class of yeoman farmers. Most of them did not own slaves. Only about 6 to 7 percent of the Confederate enlistees had slaves. Slaveholding yeoman farmers usually had only one or two. They labored in the cotton fields right beside their chattels.13

Many Northern newspapers at first supported the right of secession. Horace Greeley famously said "let our erring sisters go." He wrote in his New-York Tribune: "The South has as good a right to secede from the Union as the colonies had to secede from Great Britain." Even the Northwest Daily Tribune, a pro-Lincoln newspaper, said that if the South opted to form an independent nation, "they [would] have a clear moral right to do so."14

But soon they realized that Southern secession meant the collapse of the Northern economy. Northern manufacturing was based mostly on selling to their captive market in the South at high prices jacked up by tariffs. Secession meant Southerners could buy better goods from Europe at much lower prices as they had always wanted to do plus they would manufacture for themselves. They were chomping at the bit to do it.

Southerners outlawed protective tariffs and made them unconstitutional. They also put in law that each state would fund the internal improvements it wanted itself. Southern states would never be taxed again then have the tax money spent in the North.

Northerners were going to lose their shipping industry too, and overnight. The Morrill Tariff was like pumping gasoline into an already blazing fire. It meant the rest of the world would have to pay 47 to 60% to ship into the North, or pay 10% to ship into the South because Southerners felt that "if 10 percent was good enough for God" it was good enough for them!15

Nobody would be shipping into the North at Morrill Tariff rates so Northern ship captains were heading South to Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans where goods would be put on the Mississippi River and railroads and distributed to the rest of the country.

Secession meant a complete shift of economic power from North to South, and overnight.

To boot, Southerners had 100% control of King Cotton, the most demanded commodity on the planet that had been 60% of U.S. exports alone in 1860.

No wonder Lincoln and greedy Republicans started their war. They were not about to tolerate a free trade nation on their Southern border allied with Europe militarily and via trade alliances.

Lincoln knew he had four times the white population of the South and maybe 200 times the armaments at that point in history so in his Republican mind there was no reason to wait a second longer. He was anxious to set up his blockade and chill European negotiations and treaties with the South.

Mitcham writes:

It was now clear that many of the Northern politicians had seriously miscalculated the depths of Southern feelings about the tariffs, Northern hypocrisy, disrespect for the rule of law, hate-filled abolitionist propaganda, slavery, protecting terrorists, encouraging servile insurrection, corporate welfare, cultural arrogance, and a host of other matters that provoked secession.16


Next Week:

A Comprehensive Review of

It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.

Part Ten

Chapter XII
Lincoln and His Agenda

(Click Here to go to previous week: Part Eight: Chapter X, The Election of 1860)

(Scroll down for:
It Wasn't About Slavery, Actual Citation from Book)

1 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 111.

2 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 111-112.

3 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 112.

4 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 112.

5 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 113.

6 Ibid.

7 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 114.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 115.

11 Ibid.

12 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 116.

13 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 118.

14 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 119.

15 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 120.

16 Ibid.

It Wasn't About Slavery,
Actual Citation from Book

It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Eight: Chapter X, The Election of 1860

A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Eight
Chapter X
The Election of 1860
by Gene Kizer, Jr.

At the end of this article, beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," Mitcham's endnotes for Chapter X.

Mitcham's epigraph for Chapter X is by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels:

The War between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch on the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.

DISHONEST ACADEMIA and the news media will ignore statements like that from their man, Karl Marx. They will use the Marxist tactic of just ignoring powerful evidence that they don't agree with. However, those of us seeking truth will not ignore it and will put it in their faces, front and center.

Mitcham opens by pointing out the North's casual attitude about obeying the Constitution because they were following a "higher law" as New York Senator William H. Seward stated. Seward also believed an "irrepressible conflict" was coming between North and South.

If you can't trust the North to obey the Constitution, what good are they as fellow countrymen? Mitcham points out that "Under Seward's Higher Law Theory, God Himself had to be a Radical Republican."1

The sectional Republican Party was demanding a huge tariff increase yet "The South, which had less than 30 percent of the population, was already paying more than 85 percent of the taxes."2

Didn't matter. Republicans wanted more.

Some abolitionist newspapers "blared that the South deserved economic crushing, for its sins. Southerners should pay because the North---especially New England---had a divine right to tariff income and could disperse it to railroads and banks as they chose."

That is what the Founding Fathers meant by "tyranny of the majority." It was a concept warned about in the secession debate in the South prior to the South seceding.

George Washington warned about "sectional" political parties. It would mean the end of the country, he said. Political parties should be national but radical Republican abolitionist Wendall Phillips proudly stated that the Republican Party was the "party of the North pledged against the South."

Southerners watched this Northern sectional party make gains across the North and as Mitcham points out, "This trend may not have been in every case an endorsement of servile insurrection," but the South interpreted it that way, especially after John Brown and Harper's Ferry in 1859, and before that, with Hinton Helper's The Impending Crisis of the South in 1857. Republicans endorsed Helper's book and used it as a campaign document in the election of 1860. They printed hundreds of thousands of copies and distributed them coast to coast though it called for slaves to rise up in the night and slit the throats of Southern men, women and children.

It is important to note that the most prominent economist alive around the time of the War Between the States, Thomas Prentice Kettell, blasted Helper's economic statistics and said they were absurd. Kettell wrote the brilliant Southern Wealth and Northern Profits establishing that the South was producing the wealth of the United States with cotton and other Southern commodities but Northerners were making all the money by shipping cotton, manufacturing and banking for the South, and with tariffs, taxes, bounties, subsidies, and monopoly status for their businesses from the federal government.

In other words, Northerners were dependent on the federal government and the South. Without the South, Northerners were dead economically whereas without the North, Southerners were in great shape with 100% control of King Cotton.

That's why Lincoln refused to let the South go and instead started a war that killed 750,000 men and maimed over a million. He could have removed his troops from sovereign South Carolina and Florida soil and all of us live in peace, but the rise of the free trade South on his southern border guaranteed to end Northern economic dominance and Lincoln and the Republicans could not stand for that.

Mitcham writes that "The South reacted to the rise of the Republicans by becoming a one-party region" influenced by "'Fire-eaters' such as Robert Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina, William L. Yancey of Alabama, Edmund Ruffin of Virginia, and John A. Quitman of Mississippi"3 who "joined the Democratic party and began urging separation as a way to put an end of Washington's political corruption and economic exploitation of the South."4

Fire-eaters had more and more influence in the South as Republicans made gains in the North. Mitcham writes that "The antebellum Washington establishment danced its last dance in 1860 in a troubled atmosphere. Everyone had a sense of foreboding."5

The Democratic party National Convention was held in Charleston, South Carolina in April 1860 with Stephen Douglas the frontrunner. Because of a platform dispute, "fifty-one Southern delegates walked out, led by William L. Yancey." They included all the delegates from the first seven states to secede within the year --- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas --- as well as "three of Arkansas' four delegations and one delegate from Delaware."6

The convention deadlocked and Democrats tried again on June 18 at the Front Street Theater in Baltimore. Mitcham gives all the positions and details but the bottom line is that 110 Southern delegates walked out this time and a rump convention nominated Douglas.

Right after the walk-out in Baltimore, a second Democratic convention in Baltimore nominated John C. Breckinridge "for president and Senator Joseph Lane of Oregon for vice president."7

The Republicans met in Chicago in mid-May 1860 with Seward "the leading contender, but his radicalism, open anti-Southern bigotry, and well-known lack of integrity worked against him." Lincoln was next "followed by Salmon P. Chase of Ohio and Edward Bates of Missouri."8

Mitcham writes:

Except for Lincoln, the GOP candidates had serious political baggage. The Republicans also knew they would have to carry the West to win the election, and Lincoln was popular there. Greeley dropped the non-entity Bates and backed "Honest Abe," who secured the nomination on the third ballot.9

The VP nominee was Hannibal Hamlin of Maine.

The Republican platform:

[F]eatured extremely high tariffs, no slavery in the territories, and subsidies for a transcontinental railroad that, of course, would go through the North, and that would exclude the South from any economic benefit of this massive, federal-supported, internal improvement.10

The centrist Constitutional Union Party that "had been formed from remnants of the defunct Know-Nothing and Whig Parties" was strict constructionist and nominated John Bell for president and Edward Everett as VP, also in Baltimore. Mitcham writes that "This ticket showed surprising strength, and it might have been better for the country if it had won, but it was a centrist party (like the Northern Democrats), and no centrist was going to win in 1860."11

Lincoln needed 152 electoral votes to win and he got 180 carrying 18 states, though his popular vote total was only 1,865,908 or 39.8 percent.

Douglas got 1,380,202 or 29.5 percent but won only one state, Missouri. He had 12 electoral votes.

Breckinridge got 848,019 votes or 18.1 percent and carried 11 states with 72 electoral votes.

John Bell got 590,901 or 12.6 percent and carried three states with 39 electoral votes.

To sum up the popular vote, Lincoln got 1,865,908, but 2,819,122 voted against him.

Mitcham writes about the South:

They had had the presidency for forty-nine of the seventy-two years it existed (more than two-thirds of the time) and had played the most prominent role in writing the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. They had supplied twenty-four of the thirty-six speakers of the House and twenty of the thirty-five Supreme Court justices, giving them a majority in the court always. Twenty-five of the thirty-six presidents pro tempore of the Senate had been Southerners.12

Because of the hate pouring out of the North so they could rally their votes to win, Southerners had had enough and were not about to be ruled by people who supported John Brown's terrorism and Hinton Helper's call for slaves to rise up and slit the throats of Southerners as they slept. These were the same people who were robbing the South blind with tariffs, bounties, subsidies and monopoly status for Northern businesses, so much so that Southerners were paying 85% of the country's taxes, yet 75% of the tax money was being spent in the North. Some were worried the federal government "might encourage or even instigate slave revolts."13

Southerners began setting dates for conventions to debate seceding from the Union and prominent in their speeches and articles was the Declaration of Independence and this phrase:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Mitcham quotes Dr. Don Livingston who said the South "did not secede to protect slavery from a national plan of emancipation because no national political party proposed emancipation."14

Mitcham is correct when he writes:

The states which mentioned slavery in their ordinances were reacting to the irresponsible attacks of the abolitionists and their embrace of terrorism and servile insurrection as legitimate means of gaining their objectives. The South feared (with considerable justification) that the Republican party was a revolutionary party that wanted to destroy the federation of states (as favored by Jefferson) in favor of a dominant central government funded by the South but controlled by the North.15

Here is radical Republican Wendell Phillips' entire statement about the Republican party being a party of the North pledged against the South. It came right after Lincoln's election:

No man has a right to be surprised at this state of things. It is just what we have attempted to bring about. It is the first sectional party ever organized in this country. It does not know its own face, and calls itself national; but it is not national---it is sectional. The Republican party is a party of the North pledged against the South.16


Next Week:
A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Nine
Chapter XI
The Real Cause of the War
(Click Here to go to previous week: Part Seven: Chapter IX, John Brown, Terrorist and Lightning Rod)


(Scroll down for:
It Wasn't About Slavery, Actual Citation from Book)

1 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 103.

2 Ibid.

3 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 104.

4 Ibid.

5 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 104-105.

6 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 105.

7 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 106.

8 Ibid.

9 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 107.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 108.

13 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 109.

14 Ibid.

15 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 109.

16 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 109-110.


It Wasn't About Slavery,
Actual Citation from Book

It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Seven of Ten: Chapter IX, John Brown, Terrorist and Lightning Rod

A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Seven of Ten
Chapter IX
John Brown, Terrorist and Lightning Rod
by Gene Kizer, Jr.
Part-Seven--MAIN-PICT-2---Harper's Ferry 68K

At the end of this article, beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," Mitcham's endnotes for Chapter IX.

ON MONDAY, October 17, 1859 in Arlington, Virginia Colonel Robert E. Lee was "working on the financial accounts of his late father-in-law, George Washington Custis" who had died and left Lee executor of his "unprofitable and entangled mess" of an estate.

Of course that estate would later become our nation's most sacred burial ground, Arlington National Cemetery.

Lee was surprised to see Lieutenant James E. B. "Jeb" Stuart who was not clean shaven as he had been in the 1850s at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point when Lee was superintendent and Stuart was one of his favorite cadets.1

Stuart's father had been a "lawyer who was famous locally as a bon vivant and heavy drinker" but Stuart was a "teetotaler and devout Episcopalian."

Stuart and his wife had each been given a slave but the "Stuarts did not believe in slavery and quickly freed both of the African Americans."2

Stuart fought the Cheyenne in Kansas and took a bullet in the chest but recovered. He also did peacekeeping between "John Brown and other abolitionists hooligans and the Missouri "Border Ruffians."3

Stuart and Lee were both on leave in 1859 and Stuart had a lot he wanted to do including trying to sell his invention, "Stuart's Lightning Horse Hitcher," to the War Department. It was a device to attach a saber "to a horseman's belt."

Instead, he was given orders to "go to Arlington to fetch Colonel Lee" because there was serious trouble at Harper's Ferry. On hearing, Lee left immediately for Washington without even putting on his uniform.4

President Buchanan and Secretary of War John Floyd said a man named Smith "and some 'Kansas "Free-Staters"' were inciting a slave insurrection at Harper's Ferry" and had already "seized the government arsenal." State militiamen, a battalion of troops, detachment of Marines and ninety sailors were heading to Harper's Ferry and Lee was to take command and put the "revolt" down:

Lieutenant Stuart offered to serve as a volunteer aide, and Colonel Lee accepted. The two future Rebel generals left D.C. by a special train at five o'clock p.m.5

Smith was actually John Brown, a failure in life, who "'in ordinary times he would have been interesting mainly in a clinical sense'" according to Dr. Ludwell H. Johnson.6 Brown was "born in Connecticut in 1800" and descended from Puritans. Mitcham writes:

He became a fanatical abolitionist and recruited a small following. After securing funding in New England and Ohio, Brown went west, where he and his people took part in the turmoil that was "Bleeding Kansas," and murdered five men in cold blood, most hacked to death by swords in front of their screaming wives and children.7

Brown and his gang became robbers then "fled Kansas for New England, where he obtained funding for a terrorist attack in Virginia" which he planned to make into a multi-state "slave rebellion throughout the South" as they gathered followers.

Of course, Brown's New England funding violates the Constitution which is supposed to "insure domestic tranquility" and not murder and rape against fellow citizens.

Where is New England's plan for gradual, compensated emancipation, the way they "ended slavery" in New England? Ended slavery is in quotes because they didn't really end it there.

It is provable conclusively that most New Englanders sold their slaves back into slavery in the South just as they were to be freed, such as before the slave's 21st birthday. New Englanders just changed the slave's master from a Northern to a Southern one as noted by contemporaries such as Charles Dickens. See Black Bondage in the North by Edgar J. McManus (NY: Syracuse University Press, 1973), and Complicity, How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery (NY: Ballantine Books, 2005), and other works.

The hypocrisy of New England and the North and many historians today with their "woke" history defending New England and the North, is breathtaking.

New England brought virtually all the slaves here and made huge fortunes in the process. They built much, perhaps most, of the infrastructure of the Old North with profits from the slave trade, and they are directly responsible, with the British before them, for forcing the horrendous Middle Passage on poor Africans.

On the Middle Passage, Africans were chained to decks in filthy stinking slave ships with feces, vomit, dead people, all baked in a stifling hot oven with no air circulation in the bowels of slave ships for months on end. They had been sold into slavery in Africa by their fellow black Africans.

So rather than work on a plan of emancipation that would work --- and, as stated, New Englanders knew how to do it --- they supported a terrorist and murderer to murder fellow citizens in the South.

The North was already at war with the South. By seceding, Southerners were protecting themselves.

Mitcham writes that Brown tried to recruit Frederick Douglas and others but Douglas thought better.

Brown also approached Harriett Tubman who "consented to help Brown and recruited slaves in southern Ontario to join the invasion. (Brown liked her and called her 'General Tubman.')". But Tubman disappeared and did not participate.8

Brown miscalculated because the blacks around Harper's Ferry were not "badly treated compared to those on some of the cotton, tobacco, and rice plantations of the Deep South." They "were house servants and free people of color. They would not be enthusiastic about joining a dubious revolt."9

Brown going by "'Isaac Smith'" gathered up 22 men and his weapons "four miles north of Harper's Ferry" and on Sunday, October 16, at night, "he struck." They captured Colonel Lewis Washington's plantation but his slaves were not interested in joining Brown. That should have told Brown he was in trouble.10

Next, they seized the Harper's Ferry arsenal:

The first casualty occurred when Hayward Shepherd, a highly respected free man of color and a baggage master for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, realized what was happening. Rather than join the raiders, he tried to run away, so Brown's men shot him in the back. Shepherd died of his wounds. Also murdered was Thomas Boerly, an arsenal worker on his way to work.11

The incredibly ignorant Brown captured a B&O train but let it go so naturally it spread the alarm that terrorists had captured Harper's Ferry:

Individual militia companies from nearby communities quickly assembled and joined the fray. Local black people refused to join the battle, but local whites did---against Brown.12

More civilians were killed "including the unarmed mayor, Fontaine Beckham, and George W. Turner, who had attended West Point with Robert E. Lee." Brown "and his  men took refuge in the armory, which was soon surrounded by local farmers and shopkeepers" who quickly realized Brown didn't have much of a force. They "recaptured the arsenal and loosely surrounded the terrorists in the nearby fire engine house."13

At 10 p.m. Lee and Stuart got there and "walked across the dark railroad bridge to the armory where Colonel Lee decided to wait until daylight to attack. He sent Jeb Stuart to demand "Smith" surrender. Stuart entered the engine room, startled at what he saw. 'Why, aren't you old Osawatomie Brown of Kansas, whom I once had there as my prisoner?'"

Brown would not surrender so, "At first light on October 18, Stuart again advanced to the engine house double doors under a flag of truce. 'Are you ready to surrender, and trust to the mercy of the government?' he asked."14

Brown said no but wanted to negotiate safe passage out, promising to release his hostages later.

Stuart refused:

Several of the hostages and captured workmen cried out to Lee and Stuart, urging them not to use force or Brown would kill them. Above their voices came the roar of Colonel Washington: 'Never mind us! Fire!'

'The old Revolutionary blood does tell,' an admiring Robert E. Lee remarked. He was sitting on a horse, about fifteen yards from the firehouse.15

Stuart "stepped aside and dropped his hat---the signal for the attack" and "A dozen Marines rushed forward" but heavy hammers didn't work so they rammed the doors "with a heavy ladder" and that splintered them.

Marine Lieutenant Israel Greene rushed in with his men and two were shot dead immediately. Colonel Washington pointed out Brown to Greene and Greene rushed him "and swung his saber hard, intent on splitting Brown's skull" but Brown dodged then stood up and "the lieutenant gave him an under-thrust with his sword midway up his body, lifting him completely off the ground" but it hit Brown's belt buckle which broke the ceremonial sword Greene was carrying.16 Greene had not been told they were assaulting terrorists this day. He had thought they were attending a ceremonial function:

If he had been carrying his combat sword, Brown's splattered insides would have been all over the fire engine house's floor. There would never have been a John Brown trial....17

Mitcham points out that had there not been a John Brown trial, Southerners might not have realized the effectiveness of abolitionist propaganda and Northern hatred toward them thus might not have reacted to Lincoln's election by seceding.

Brown was badly wounded and other terrorists killed or they surrendered:

The marines hauled Brown and his surviving men outside to the grass and treated their wounds. In all, ten abolitionists were dead---including two of Brown's sons---three were immediately captured, four were captured later, and five escaped. Six civilians died and nine were wounded, as were two marines, one fatally. There were militia casualties as well, but their exact numbers are not known.18

The bloody hands of the New Englanders who financed Brown's terrorism includes hundreds of thousands more deaths because Brown's raid and the North's adoring attitude toward Brown helped greatly to bring on the War Between the States.

Those same hypocritical Yankees would have been better off developing a realistic plan to end slavery but that was never the North's desire. They didn't want slavery ended then all the slaves move to the North and be job competition.

They wanted to hurt the South. They were drooling for political control of the country so they could keep taxing the South and spending the South's money in the North. Southerners were paying 85% of the taxes yet over 75% of the tax money was being spent in the North.

All of this agitation and the war itself were about political power and money like all wars are. There was nothing whatsoever moral about the North's war against the South. Contemporaries like Charles Dickens knew it and stated it clearly.

Mitcham writes:

Following the raid, investigators examined the Kennedy Farm. They found Brown's correspondence with the Secret Six, a.k.a. the Secret Committee of Six---the abolitionists who funded John Brown. They also discovered maps of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The maps had notes pasted to the margins showing the black population. Counties with predominantly African-American populations had been highlighted. They also found the provisional Constitution for Brown's new government and 900 pikes.19

Edmund Ruffin "got hold of some of the pikes and sent one to the legislature of each Southern state with the inscription: 'Sample of the favors designed for us by our Northern Brethern.'"20

Brown's trial began October 27, 1859. Brown "was defended by a team of New England lawyers, led by Massachusetts abolitionist John Albion Andrew." On October 30 Brown was found guilty of "treason, conspiring with and telling slaves to escape and revolt, and first-degree murder." He was sentenced to death and hanged December 2, 1859.21

The North's worship of terrorist Brown woke the South up and shocked it:

Church bells rang in his honor, women wore black mourning clothes, men wore black armbands, politicians lauded him, businesses closed, and ladies cried on the day of his execution. Henry David Thoreau and Wendell Phillips praised him, as did Ralph Waldo Emerson and the rest of the New England literary elite.22

Emerson said Massachusetts prison inmates "were superior human beings to the leaders of the South" and Thoreau compared Brown to Jesus Christ. Brown's lawyer, John Albion Andrew, "was elected governor of Massachusetts."23

This "proved to the South that the Republican party was not distancing itself from its extremist members but was embracing them" and apparently "endorsing anti-Southern violence and servile insurrection."

The Secret Six cowards who when safe in Massachusetts with their compound interest on their money from the slave trade safely in their pockets mostly ran rather than face their crimes:

The Secret Six who funded Brown were Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Dr. Samuel G. Howe, Theodore Parker, Franklin B. Sanborn, Gerrit Smith, and George Luther Steams. Brown's captured documents and subsequent investigations of him revealed that they had financed the Harper's Ferry Raid, perhaps to the tune of $25,000 ($679,000 in 2017 dollars).24

Frederick Douglas fled to Canada since he knew about the planned attack.

Higginson stayed in Massachusetts where he knew he would not be prosecuted.

The "Republican governors of Iowa and Ohio refused to extradite" the seven of Brown's raiders who escaped. This proved to Southerners that the North was not going to obey the law. To these Northerners, Southerners were already the enemy, and "To many [in the South], it was a harbinger of what to expect under Republican rule."25

South Carolina, Georgia and Texas mentioned this Northern harboring of terrorists in their declarations of causes for seceding.

The South had become certain it could not depend on a Republican administration to obey the law and protect them from those who wanted the slaves to rise up and slaughter them in the night as had happened in Haiti. Thomas Jonathan Jackson of VMI and others began thinking seriously about secession and "Many Southern moderates started to believe the 'fire-eaters' had been right all along."26


Next Week:
A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Eight of Ten


(Click Here to go to previous week: Part Six: Chapter VII, Agitation and Compromise; Chapter VIII, The Chasm Grows)

(Scroll down for:
It Wasn't About Slavery, Actual Citation from Book)

1 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 91.

2 Ibid.

3 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 91-92.

4 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 92.

5 Ibid.

6 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 92-93.

7 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 93.

8 Ibid.

9 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 94.

10 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 94-95.

11 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 95.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 96.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 97.

18 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 97-98.

19 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 98.

20 Ibid.

21 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 99.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

24 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 100.

25 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 100-101.

26 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 101.


It Wasn't About Slavery,
Actual Citation from Book

It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Six of Ten: Chapter VII, Agitation and Compromise; Chapter VIII, The Chasm Grows

A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Six of Ten
Chapter VII
Agitation and Compromise
Chapter VIII
The Chasm Grows
by Gene Kizer, Jr.

At the end of this article, beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," Mitcham's endnotes for Chapters VII and VIII.

MITCHAM OPENS CHAPTER VII, Agitation and Compromise, with "William Lloyd Garrison was the son of an alcoholic sailor who abandoned his family. He grew into a staunch Baptist and a vitriolic, harsh, hateful man---an odd combination for a Christian."

Garrison denounced the Constitution as "A covenant with death and an agreement with Hell." The fanatical Garrison to his credit wanted the North to secede from the United States so he did not have to be associated with slavery. Georgia's Robert Toombs said Garrison, while an extremist, was a man of conviction who believed what he preached unlike so many for whom anti-slavery was a political position, not a moral one.

Most abolitionists were not pro-black but were anti-black. They were anti-slavery because they did not want blacks anywhere near them, especially in the West.

Garrison, with Arthur Tappen, organized the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833. Garrison had published The Liberator since 1831.

His heart might have been in the right place --- to him, at any rate --- but his radical tactics did not hasten the end of slavery. They entrenched it. Mitcham writes:

The abolitionists' extreme rhetoric had a polarizing effect, in both North and South, which developed with remarkable speed. Virginia---which narrowly defeated a law abolishing slavery within the state only three years before---enacted a law in 1836 making it a crime to advocate abolition. The Georgia legislature offered a $5,000 reward for anyone who would kidnap Garrison and bring him south to stand trial.1

Mitcham points out that earlier generations of Southerners were like Thomas Jefferson who "denounced slavery in 1776" and thereafter but like so many others was stuck in the system that even Lincoln acknowledged would never be started up today (during Lincoln's lifetime). Lincoln also said if he had been born into a slave society, he would not know how to end it either.

Before virtue-signaling radical abolitionists, who never once had a realistic plan to end slavery, Southerners themselves wanted to end it. George Washington said "'It is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery may be abolished by law.'"

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, was a slaveholder but admitted it was wrong.

The abolitionist demand for immediate, uncompensated emancipation was absurd. It would destroy the economies of the South and North because the Northern economy was based on manufacturing for the South and shipping Southern cotton.

It would also create a dangerous social problem because how would former slaves live? Already it was against the law in several Northern and Western states for free blacks to live there or even visit. To survive they had to steal or commit other crimes.

Slavery could have ended with a plan that dealt with all those problems but there was no will for that, especially in the racist North where freed slaves would go and be job competition. The demand for such a thing was ridiculous and I suspect that many virtue-signaling abolitionists knew it was ridiculous but just didn't care.

Rev. Nehemiah Adams of Massachusetts acknowledged the danger of "the propaganda of abolitionist societies." They encouraged slave insurrections which were murderous bloody affairs such as happened in Haiti. Adams writes "'husbands and fathers at the South considered that whatever might be true of slavery as a system, self-defence, the protection of their households against a servile insurrection, was their first duty. Who can wonder that they broke into the post-office, and seized and burned abolition papers; indeed, no excesses are surprising, in view of the perils to which they saw themselves exposed.'"

Southerners attacked Northerners for "'wage slavery'" and Mitcham writes that "In 1850, near the end of his life, Daniel Webster lamented that the debates leading up to the Compromise of 1850 would have led to the South gradually eliminating slavery had it not been for the frenzy stirred up by the abolitionists."2

The virtue-signalers, then and today, might feel good about themselves but their hands are usually dripping with blood.

Mitcham covers in detail every election, politician, political party, tariff, issue, date, percentage, and their significance in the entire antebellum period and he does it with a clarity and smoothness that makes it a pleasure to read.

The balance of power between North and South was huge because Northern states wanted high protective tariffs and large expenditures for public works in their states, while Southern states wanted low tariffs and free trade, the opposite of what the North wanted.

Mitcham writes:

A major factor in the Whigs' defeat was the Tariff of 1842, which they managed to push through Congress and persuaded a reluctant President Tyler to sign. Called the Black Tariff, it raised the rates from 20 percent to nearly 40 percent. The tariff hamstrung the economy so severely that total tariff revenues declined. As a result, the Whigs lost both branches of Congress in 1844.3

The U.S. soon annexed Texas then war broke out with Mexico (1846-48) "in which the United States Army pushed to the Pacific and captured California and the modern Southwest."

Rep. David Wilmot of Pennsylvania on August 8, 1846 introduced his famous "Wilmot Proviso" prohibiting slavery in the "territory annexed from Mexico." Like so many anti-slavery virtue-signalers who were definitely not pro-black, Wilmot admitted his racist motivation was to keep blacks out of the West.

The entire issue of slavery in the West was political posturing. Slavery was not going to work in the West ever. Huge territories at one time or another were open for slavery yet there were never over a handful of slaves anywhere.

Mitcham writes:

Senator James G. Blaine of Maine recalled: 'The whole controversy over the Territories, as remarked by a witty representative from the South, related to an imaginary negro in an impossible place.'4

Mitcham believes Southerners should not have fought the battle over slavery in the West since slavery could not work there.

However, it was a huge point of honor because Southerners, as Mitcham points out, had largely conquered the western territory. More Southern blood and treasure than Northern was used in the Mexican War so to then be told they could not take slaves there, even if a Southerner didn't own any slaves, was too much of an insult.5

The election of 1848 "was close and heated." The racist Wilmot had more to say. Mitcham writes:

The Southern slaveholders were called the 'Lords of the Lash,' while their opponents (northern textile manufacturers) were dubbed the 'Lords of the Loom.' Many of the Free Soil Democrats wanted to keep the west open for free white laborers. Congressman Wilmot told one rally: 'The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent. Let us keep what remains for ourselves . . . for free white labor.'6

There's gold in them there hills!

In 1848, gold was discovered in California and its population increased dramatically. That led to California wanting to be admitted as a state, which meant the South would be forever outvoted in the U.S. Senate.

On March 4, 1850, in his last speech when he was so ill that James Mason of Virginia had to read it, John C. Calhoun "warned that an overbearing North was dissolving the ties that held the states together. The United States, he declared, could not hold together by cries of 'Union, Union, glorious Union,' any more than a physician could save a seriously ill patient by crying 'Health, health, glorious health.'"7

Mitcham paraphrases Calhoun who stated that "compromise with Yankees was useless. The North would use it as a stepping-stone to greater concessions later."

The Northern majority had already begun to construe the Constitution to increase federal power and diminish states' rights, to minimize Southern influence at the national level. To avert disunion, the North had to stop its attacks and agree to a constitutional amendment to protect the Southern minority. It if would not or could not, the South should leave in peace.8

Mitcham writes that Calhoun would have gone down as one of our greatest political thinkers behind only Jefferson but for his "full-throated embrace of slavery."

Even so, John F. Kennedy ranked him among the top five senators ever. Had the South listened to Calhoun, the Civil War would have been fought a decade earlier, when the South was stronger. During the next ten years, due to immigration and the development of the West, the North grew stronger while Southern strength lagged. The South had a much better chance of winning in 1850 than it did in 1861, and even then, it was a near-run thing.9

Northerners knew they had the majority and were anxious to force their will on the rest of the country. Mitcham writes:

Webster made his final speech three days after Calhoun. He endorsed Clay's compromise. The anti-slavery Whigs, led by Senator William H. Seward of New York, were disappointed. Seward, meanwhile, became metaphysical. He spoke of obeying a 'higher law' than the Constitution---the kind of argument that could justify anything.10

Seward's "higher law" comment was warned about many times in the secession debate in the South in the year leading up to Southern states seceding. It is a perfect example of why Southerners did not trust Northerners to obey the Constitution, so how can you be in a country with them?

Sounds like woke liberals today who despise our history and the Constitution. Many are from the same blue state area that Seward was in the 1860s.

Seward also had another inflammatory comment that Southerners heard loud and clear in 1858 when he said an "irrepressible conflict" was coming between North and South.

In June 1851 Uncle Tom's Cabin, which was "world class propaganda" in the form of fiction, came out. Tom's "cruel master, Simon Legree, who is a Northerner by birth, tried to break him of his religious faith. When he fails, Legree beats Tom to death out of frustration."11

Soon after, in 1856, pompous Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts made an insulting speech about slavery and Sen. Andrew Butler of South Carolina. Butler was related to Rep. Preston Brooks, also of South Carolina.

Brooks, unable to challenge Sumner to a duel because that was something you did with gentlemen, and Sumner was considered a dog, entered the Senate chambers and beat Sumner unconscious with a gutta percha cane while Brooks' friend, Rep. Laurence M. Keitt of South Carolina, kept Sumner's friends at bay.

Brooks was the perfect example of the hostilities of North and South. He was hated in the North but adored in the South and his cane, which had shattered into pieces in the attack on Sumner, became valuable as each piece was begged for as a sacred relic.

Brooks was sent a replacement cane on which were the words: Hit Him Again.

I was once commander of the Preston Brooks Camp, SCV, out of Columbia, South Carolina and our excellent newsletter, which I edited and published, was entitled, of course, "Hit Him Again!"

Chapter VIII
The Chasm Grows

Mitcham includes so many fascinating stories in this chapter it is a delight to read, though some are quite sad.

Franklin Pierce won the election of 1852. Mitcham writes:

History often turns on a dime. One such turn occurred on January 6, 1853. The President-elect and his wife were traveling from Boston when their train derailed. It rolled down an embankment near Andover, Massachusetts. Pierce and his wife survived, but their only living child, Benjamin or "Benny," was crushed to death and nearly decapitated. Pierce could not prevent his wife from seeing the body. Afterward, both Pierces suffered from depression, Jane greatly. She wondered if Benny's death was God's punishment for her husband's seeking high office. A cloud came over their marriage and Pierce's incoming administration. His son's death and Jane's constant depression continued to trouble Franklin and materially contributed to the failure of his administration. Pierce was already a heavy drinker; after, he drank even more. It would eventually kill him. Franklin Pierce die of cirrhosis of the liver in 1869. His wife died of depression six years before him.12

The fight over the route of the transcontinental railroad began with Jefferson Davis, Pierce's secretary of war, "ordering two routes surveyed, one north and one south." The Southern route had land and right-of-ways settled but the Northern faced all kind of problems including unorganized territory, Indians and mountains.

Stephen A. Douglas "pressured President Pierce into supporting" the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act to organize them as territories with "popular sovereignty" in place with respect to slavery. This repealed the Missouri Compromise, which forbid slavery north of parallel 36o 30' (except for Missouri).

Douglas did this because he needed Southern support for his bill to use the northern route for the transcontinental railroad despite the enormous problems when compared to the Southern route.

In a statement that proves that most anti-slavery in the North was political and not moral or pro-black, Mitcham writes:

Horace Greeley, an abolitionist leader and the editor of the New York Tribune, later commented that the [Kansas-Nebraska] act created more abolitionists in two months than William Lloyd Garrison produced in twenty years." (Bold emphasis added.)

It produced more abolitionists because so much money and political power was involved with having a northern route for the transcontinental railroad going through Chicago that suddenly Northerners, who had not given a damn about slavery before, became abolitionists to get that money and power.

That kind of greed for money was the cause of the War Between the States.

When Southerners left the Union seeking self-government as promised in the Declaration of Independence with "Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...", it meant the South would rise to dominance in North America with control of King Cotton and European trade and military alliances, and that is something Lincoln and the North could not tolerate. It had nothing to do with Northern morality or desire to end slavery but rather with Northern immorality, hypocrisy, and lust for other people's money.

As Lincoln said, it's about Union, the source of Northern wealth and power, and if he could free no slaves, or one slave, or all of them to preserve the Union, he was going to do it.

In 1854, "The American or 'Know Nothing' Party, which was formed out of anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant elements, went from zero to fifty-one seats." They allied with "the anti-slavery Opposition Party and a few smaller parties, which held a handful of seats."

The Whig Party collapsed and:

Most of the former Northern Whigs joined the Republicans, which became the first genuinely regional party in the United States. It was a big government, big business party from the beginning. It advanced the ideas of Hamilton, who believed these policies would bring national growth through a powerful centralized government and government intervention through government regulation, subsidies, and high tariff policies, rather than through free-market solutions.13

George Washington warned that sectional parties would destroy the country but abolitionist Republican Wendell Phillips bragged that the Republican Party was sectional: the party of the North pledged against the South.

Of course Washington was right. This was the "tyranny of the majority" that the Founding Fathers warned about. Alexis de Tocqueville warned about it too. Northerners were determined to rule with their majority and pass legislation that robbed the rest of the country and sent money from the South into the North.

The "political winds were shifting, the political chameleons naturally changed with them."

Abraham Lincoln, for example, became less moderate. As an attorney, he had represented a slave owner and argued to have his client's slaves, who had fled to Illinois, returned to him. (He lost the case.). He had been silent on the issue of slavery, he had supported the Black Codes, and he was a big believer in African colonization. In 1854, he was an extraordinarily successful and wealthy corporate attorney, but his political career was at a low point. He demonized the South and said they were likely to expand slavery to the West. This claim was absurd and Lincoln had to know it (there were only eighty-fives slaves in Kansas at its peak), but being the political opportunist that he was, he joined the chorus anyway.14

The national atmosphere was tense and emotional. The "Border War" began. "In May 1856, 700 pro-Southern men descended on Lawrence, Kansas, and pillaged the place. Shortly thereafter, fanatical abolitionist John Brown retaliated by torturing and murdering five Southerners. They were not slave holders and had not taken part in the Lawrence Raid."15

That summer began barn and house burnings, "ambushes, and bushwhacking. At least 200 people were killed." This would continue until 1865.16

In the election of 1856, "The Republican platform called for high tariffs and for slavery to be excluded from the territories. This would keep them from the "troublesome presence of free Negroes," as Lincoln said.17

Mitcham writes that there were no moral considerations at all among Northerners: "The motives were purely to protect the economic and political interests of the North and West at the expense of the South."18 Their strategy was "to spread alarm in the North by proclaiming that 'slave Power' or the 'slaveocracy' intended to gain control of the government."

First, it would (somehow) conquer the territories; then it would spread slavery to the North. It would make every state a slave state. This was absurd, of course, but hysteria can work.19

Dred Scott, a slave who had been taken by his master into Illinois and the Wisconsin territory, sued for his freedom "but on March 6, 1857, [Chief Justice Roger] Taney and his colleagues ruled in favor of the slave owner. Speaking for the majority, Judge Taney declared that because he was black, Scott was not a person under the U.S. Constitution; he was the property of his owner, and property could not be taken from anyone without due process of law."20

Taney also ruled that "the Missouri Compromise's prohibition on slavery was unconstitutional. Congress had no right to exclude slavery from any of the territories".21

Again, Abraham Lincoln remarked "that the South would not embrace slavery today (i.e., 1858) if it were not already economically entrenched there."22

The 1858 campaign in Illinois for the Senate included the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates, seven of them:

Douglas attacked Lincoln's racist credentials. He accused Lincoln of thinking the black was his equal and hence his brother. Douglas himself pointedly remarked that the African American was not his equal and certainly not his brother.

Lincoln responded that he was not and never had been in favor of the equality of the races. He believed that so long as the two races lived together, there must be one superior race and one inferior race. 'I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race,' he declared.23

Douglas won. He was appointed Illinois senator by the legislature despite Lincoln winning the popular vote. Senators were not elected directly by voters in those days. They were appointed by state legislatures until the Seventeenth Amendment changed all that in 1913.

But "As a result of the election, Lincoln rose to national prominence. Also, slavery became a major issue."24


Next Week:
A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Seven of Ten
(Click Here to go to previous week: Part Five: Chapter VI, Cultural Differences)


(Scroll down for:
It Wasn't About Slavery, Actual Citation from Book)

1 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 62.

2 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 63-64.

3 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 66.

4 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 68.

5 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 67.

6 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 69.

7 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 70.

8 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 70-71.

9 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 71.

10 Ibid.

11 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 73.

12 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 79.

13 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 82.

14 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 83.

15 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 84.

16 Ibid.

17 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 86.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 87-88.

21 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 88.

22 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 89.

23 Ibid.

24 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 90.


It Wasn't About Slavery,
Actual Citation from Book

It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Five of Ten

If Heaven ain't a lot like Dixie
I don't wanna go
If Heaven ain't a lot like Dixie
I'd just as soon stay home

From Hank Williams Jr.,
If Heaven Ain't a Lot Like Dixie

A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Five of Ten
Chapter VI
Cultural Differences
by Gene Kizer, Jr.

[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. : This is a fascinating chapter comparing Southern culture with Northern.

Southern culture today must be superior because Northerners and Westerners are moving to the South in droves.

They are coming here to escape government tyranny and the violence and lawlessness in much of the blue state North and West. In California, four days ago, a mob of 80 people ransacked a Nordstrom department store and assaulted employees near Oakland. Two days before that, another mob robbed several stores in San Francisco.1

Come South and try that.

We have our idiots who think the police are the problem and criminals ought to be slapped on the wrist or not prosecuted for stealing up to $950 but violence and massive theft is a clear sign of a sick decaying civilization.

In 2020 most of the George Floyd rioters and arsonists had their charges dropped and that was applauded by Kamala Harris, but Kyle Rittenhouse, a first-rate all-American kid out to help victims of mob violence was himself the victim of a leftist political prosecution with alleged prosecutorial misconduct. He was slandered by the "president" of the United States and fraud media but found innocent of all charges by a jury of his peers.

What was on trial with Rittenhouse was the right to defend yourself against mob violence. The left, always enamored with mob violence, thinks it gives them power, but average Americans on Rittenhouse's jury rejected that woke idiocy and affirmed the absolute right of self-defense.

That so many of my Democrat friends think this woke garbage is a good idea is why the often predicted electoral bloodbath will take place starting in 2022, and it can't come soon enough.

How about standing up for the law-biding who work every day and would like to raise children in a safe decent country. How about standing up for people who start businesses and risk all to hire other people and provide goods and services.

Of course, the criminals robbing businesses will step in human feces and drug needles in the streets of California, a state that once was great until it became a one-party Democrat state. Now, it can't keep the electricity on, but their leaders are all woke.

Here in the South there is a strong, prosperous civilization of FREEDOM from government tyranny, with happy patriotic people who will wave you into traffic in front of them, though if you cross them unfairly or threaten their families you will end up with a boot in your a_s as Toby Keith says in his song . . . or worse.

Keith's Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue describes it perfectly:

My daddy served in the army where he lost his right eye
But he flew a flag out in our yard until the day that he died
He wanted my mother, my brother, my sister and me
To grow up and live happy in the land of the free2

At the end of this article, beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," Mitcham's endnotes for Chapter VI.]

MITCHAM WRITES that the South has always been "more leisurely and less money-oriented" than the North and he quotes a British citizen, Anthony Trollope, who traveled extensively in the South and North. Trollope wrote in 1861:

The South is seceding from the North because the two are not homogeneous. They have different instincts, different appetites, different morals, and a different culture.3

John Adams in the Continental Congress wrote his wife that "the political union between the two people would not hold 'without the utmost caution on both sides.'"4

Mitcham describes it well:

New England, with its Puritan legacy, developed a self-absorbed, holier-than-thou culture that looked down on the rest of America. Their elite believed high tariffs were their natural right, making New England stronger than the rest of the country. They also viewed nature as something dark and foreboding, an evil to be conquered and controlled. The Southerner saw nature as something to embrace and enjoy. They loved hunting, fishing (usually with a cane pole), and horse racing (gambling), and had a relaxed attitude toward life and nature. Some even saw the South as close to paradise on earth.5

Mitcham points out that by 1850 "the North had many secular humanists, including atheists, deists, transcendentalists, and assorted other non-believers" but the South loved its religion. Southerners were not so delusional as to think they know all there is about the universe and meaning of life.

Through prayer, it [the South] looked to God for guidance and regarded secular humanism with suspicion and often with outright hostility. Baptist churches and Churches of Christ sprang up all over the place. Unpretentious, fervent country preachers expounded their simple truths straight from the Bible and gained thousands of converts, and their tent revivals became famous. 6

My Aunt Bell, who, with her husband Bruce, raised my dad and his six brothers and sisters when their mother died during the Depression, used to talk about camp meetings in Saint George, South Carolina. She told me when she was a young girl she would go for a week to the white preachings then stay the next week for the black.

Mitcham notes that the South is known as the Bible Belt and he gives us his best example of Northern and Southern cultural differences:

The fact that many Northerners use the term [Bible Belt] derogatorily while many Southerners (including this author) consider it a compliment further illustrates the differences between the two cultures.7

New Englanders "looked down on Southerners, with their French, Spanish, American Indian, and even African cultural influences, and certainly they considered themselves vastly superior to the uncouth Westerners."8

Mitcham quotes Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote in his famous work, Democracy in America:

Race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known.9

Tocqueville, a Frenchman, was perhaps the most astute observer of life in antebellum America because he was observing as an outsider. He traveled the country widely and published Democracy in America in two volumes, the first in 1835, the second in 1840.

Tocqueville also stated that any American state that became powerful enough to take over the federal government would do so and force the rest of the country to be tributary to its wealth and power, which is exactly what happened except it wasn't one state. It was all the close-knit populous states of the Northeast.

The North's population exploded in the 1850s with massive immigration. By the time Southerners realized they were going to be outvoted forever by the Northern majority --- something the Founders called the "tyranny of the majority" --- it was too late.

The South should have seceded in the 1830s because of the Tariff of Abominations, or in 1850, or better still, they should have listened to Patrick Henry and never joined the Constitution but instead formed their own country with fellow Southerners.

A big problem for Northerners was the "integrated nature of Southern society." The South was a multi-racial integrated society until it was forced during Reconstruction to adopt the Northern model of rigid segregation.

Segregation had been easy for the North because there were few blacks in the North, but it was impossible for the South until forced on the South after Reconstruction.

Southerners had resisted segregation because they associated it with "the ills of Northern industrial society, as pointed out by C. Vann Woodward in his classic The Strange Career of Jim Crow, a book Martin Luther King called 'the historical Bible of the civil rights movement.'"10

Northerners as the white Yankees in Gone with the Wind showed, were repulsed by the thought of Mammy touching their children.

Scarlett O'Hara thought that was absurd. Here's where fiction perfectly illustrates reality but even more horrifying than Mammy's black hands was the fact that "Black women often served as wet nurses for white babies, something Northerners found offensive, if not odious."11

Mitcham points out that the black population in the South grew rapidly "after the slave trade ended, one indication of relatively good treatment. In other areas, there was no natural increase. The sugar plantations of the Caribbean and other regions required continuous importation of slaves."

Mitcham suggests reading the "Slave Narratives" of the Federal Writers' Project for a good perspective on slavery despite them being written years after slavery ended. They are still first-hand accounts by former slaves in their own words.

Northerners treated free blacks terribly, looked down on them and considered them a curse.

Ironically, most abolitionists were racists who didn't want blacks anywhere near them. They were anti-slavery, often as a political issue, but they were not pro-black. This is an indisputable fact.

The expansion of slavery in the West issue was based on that same Northern racism: Northerners didn't want slavery in the West because they didn't want blacks in the West near them. As Lincoln said in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, the West was to be reserved for white working men from all over the world. No blacks allowed.

Mitcham points out the many Northern states that had laws forbidding blacks from living there or even visiting. In Lincoln's Illinois in 1833:

[B]lacks could not vote, sit on juries, testify against white people, or attend public schools. If three or more free blacks assembled for the purpose of dancing, they were fined twenty dollars ($540.90 in 2018 dollars) and were to be publicly whipped. They were not to receive more than thirty-nine lashes, however.12

In 1853, Illinois "passed a law 'to prevent the immigration of free negroes into the state.' It declared it a misdemeanor for a 'Negro or mulatto,' slave or free, to come into the state with the intention of living." Any black person doing so "faced a fine or temporary slavery to pay for these fines and other costs."13

In the 1862 Illinois Constitutional Convention supported by Abraham Lincoln, there was Article XVIII, Section 1: "'No negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in the state after the adoption of the Constitution.'" Mitcham writes that:

The article was presented for a vote of the people separate from the Constitution. The Constitution was rejected by more than 16,000 votes, but Article XVIII passed by a majority of 100,500 votes and became an organic law in the Illinois Constitution.14

Indiana and Oregon also had laws which passed by wide margins that forbid blacks from settling there "Nor where these the only states to forbid black people and mulattos from entering. Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, California, Colorado, and New Mexico, had similar language in their constitutions."15

Gen. William T. Sherman got a letter from his brother John Sherman April 2, 1862 that stated:

We do not like the negroes. We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana said yesterday: 'The whole people of the Northwestern States are opposed to having many negroes among them and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all the Northwestern States.'16

Gen. Sherman owned two "'house slaves'" when he was president of Louisiana Military Academy in Alexandria. He wrote:

All the Congresses on earth can't make the negro anything else than what he is; he must be subject to the white man, or he must amalgamate or be destroyed. Two such races cannot live in harmony, save as master and slave.17

This was a common attitude in the 19th century North and West. Black people were far more accepted in the South where there was an equal number of free blacks as in the North. Slavery existed but there were also good, loving relationships between blacks and whites that could not even be extinguished by all the carpetbagger hate of Reconstruction.

Slavery was a way to get the cotton picked and nothing more. With the invention of machines to pick cotton, there was no need for slavery and Southerners would have ended it in a much better way than what happened with Lincoln's bloody war that killed 750,000 men and maimed over a million.

Lincoln's war and the corruption and hatred forced on the South during Reconstruction caused problems for blacks and whites for over 100 years but the North was still more racist as well as hypocritical.

Republican Sen. Benjamin Wade of Ohio, an abolitionist leader and Lincoln ally "became extremely critical of him when he failed to recruit black soldiers into the Union Army quickly. Privately, he called Lincoln 'poor white trash.' Wade was a matter of record intensely bigoted against people of color; during the Civil War, he wanted to send dispensable African-American troops into combat as rapidly as possible so Confederates could kill them instead of white soldiers."

In 1851, Wade called Washington, D.C.: "'a God-forsaken N**ger ridden place.' He wanted to hire a white woman as a housekeeper because 'I am sick and tired of n**gers.' He complained that he had eaten food cook 'by n**gers until I can smell and taste the n**er.'"18

Of course, Mitcham is correct when he writes:

Given the hatred much of New England and the rest of the North felt toward people of color, it is absurd and hypocritical to claim that many in the North invaded the South and sacrificed young white men to emancipate slaves.19

The one thing you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt is that the North did not go to war to end slavery. All of their documents for the first two years of the war like the Corwin Amendment, the War Aims Resolution, the six slave states that fought for the Union, etc. when hundreds of thousands of men died, prove conclusively that the North did not go to war to end slavery. They could care less about slavery. The only thing they cared about was their money and power.

Mitcham writes that before the war "unlike the industrial North, the South as a whole preferred a prosperous and innovative agricultural way of life because it was profitable and more congenial."20

He notes numerous technological achievements in agriculture by Southerners such as the McCormack Reaper and:

Innovation was even more noticeable during the Civil War, when a Southerners invented the Gatling gun, Texas Rangers designed the Colt revolver, and Brigadier General Gabriel Rains developed the landmine. Other Southern innovations included ironclads, submarines, electronically detonated mines, and a workable machine gun.21

About literacy, Mitcham writes:

It is popular in the modern media to portray Southerners---antebellum and after---as illiterate. Frank L. Owsley, however, revealed that the literacy rate of the Old South was 91.73 percent. While that was less than that of New England (98.2 percent) and the Northwest (95 percent), it was higher than the male population of Great Britain (75.4 percent), and no one ever refers to the British of that day as uneducated and illiterate. The Old South's white literacy rate, in fact, was higher than every country in Europe except Sweden and Denmark.22

Mitcham writes that the South in 1860 was "more prosperous than either the West, the North, or New England. Of the top eleven states in per capita income, six were Southern." He also points out:

Nor were all the prosperous people in the Old South planters and plantation owners. There was a significant class of sturdy, yeoman farmers. As the Union army discovered, they also made surprisingly good combat infantrymen.23

Mitcham makes clear that Southerners "had a severe distaste for people from other regions coming to Dixie and telling them how to  live." It is easy to understand why:

In New York City in 1860, women and children were working sixteen-hour days on starvation wages. There were more than 150,000 unemployed, 40,000 homeless, 600 brothels (some with girls as young as ten), and 8,000 bars or grog shops. Half of the children of the city did not live past the age of five. Other Northern slums were at least as bad.24

Mitcham ends this excellent chapter with an absolute truth:

The North, beginning in New England, had a holier-than-thou attitude born of moral self-deception which unfortunately has become a permanent characteristic of some of their "elites."25


Next Week:
A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Six of Ten
(Click Here to go to previous week: Part Four: Chapter V, The Nullification Crisis)


(Scroll down for:
It Wasn't About Slavery, Actual Citation from Book)

1 "California police seek 80 suspects in flash-mob department store robbery, Reuters, 11/21/21,, accessed 11-24-21.

2 Toby Keith, Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American),, accessed 11-24-21.

3 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 51.

4 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 52.

5 Ibid.

6 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 53.

7 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 53.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 54.

11 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 53-54.

12 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 55.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 56.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 56-57.

19 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 57.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 59.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.


 It Wasn't About Slavery,
Actual Citation from Book

It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Four of Ten

A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Four of Ten
Chapter V
The Nullification Crisis
by Gene Kizer, Jr.

I am extending this series to ten. Mitcham's book is important enough for this comprehensive treatment because it covers all the important issues of the antebellum era and War Between the States from start to finish, and, as I have said many times, Mitcham cuts right to the chase. He explains everything well and does not waste your time.

Everybody should read this chapter through. It will give you a solid understanding of the antebellum era, nullification, and what they meant for the future.

At the end of this article, beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," Mitcham's endnotes for Chapter V.

The epigraphs for this chapter are perfect, especially the one from the Charleston Mercury:

South Carolina will preserve its sovereignty or be buried beneath it. ---Senator Robert Young Hayne, 1832

The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of taxes . . . and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.---Charleston Mercury editorial, November 8, 1860.

[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. : The above excerpt from the Charleston Mercury is the primary reason for the War Between the States. It is ignored by many "historians," academia and the news media, because they are not only ignorant of Southern history, a large number of them are corrupt. This is unquestionably due to the politicization of history that began in the 1960s.

What comes out of academia today is not because of good scholarship and open, honest debate, but instead is the price professors have to pay to keep the mob away from their office. They know what they have to say and teach so they won't be branded a racist and lose their pensions.

The politicized news media is beyond corrupt. Most of its purpose is not truth but to keep 30% of the country voting democrat and hating the rest of the country.

As esteemed historian Eugene Genovese said 25 years ago, academic and media elites have turned Southern history into a "political and cultural atrocity," but truth is still readily available. It's in the outstanding scholarship of independent historians and publishers, and in places like this book of Dr. Mitcham's, not to mention all the excellent history written in the past when the standard was good argument and thorough documentation, unlike the woke politicized history of today that inspires nobody.]

MITCHAM STARTS CHAPTER V by pointing out that "The question of who could interpret constitutional issues was not addressed in the Constitution."

The judiciary moved quickly to take over that power but "Some of the Founders soon realized that, if this continued, the only restraint on the federal government would be the federal government itself, an oxymoron." In those days it was states that got to decide, under the Tenth Amendment, if something was constitutional or not.1 Frankly, that's how it ought to be today. We'd have a lot more freedom if it was.

Nullifying tyrannical laws goes back to the Colonies: "The British Parliament passed the Stamp Act in 1765, but the North American colonies considered it an illegal tax and resorted to mob violence to resist it." The tax collectors quit, which nullified the act and led to Parliament repealing it in 1766.

But the British wanted their colonies to be tributary to the empire's wealth and power just like the North did in the antebellum days as South Carolina noted in its secession documents.

The British followed the Stamp Act

with other attempts at taxation, including the Boston Port Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Administration of Justice Act, and the Quartering Act. Taken together, these are called the Coercive Acts or the Intolerable Acts. Massachusetts led the way in resisting and trying to nullify them, resulting in the Boston Tea Party, the Suffolk Resolves, and the forming of the First Continental Congress. But did the states still have the right to do so after they joined the United States? This question would need an answer.2

It is fascinating to see how early legal cases reflected and formed political thought in our country. It always comes down to those who want a strong centralized all-powerful federal government, and those who don't.

The main issue in American history since the Revolution has been federal versus state power starting with the more populous North --- the Federals in the War Between the States --- desiring to control the federal government with its larger population so it could pass legislation favorable to itself. The Founding Fathers called this the "tyranny of the majority."

Mitcham points out that in 1792, Alexander Chisholm sued the State of Georgia on behalf of the estate of Robert Farquhar, for payment for goods delivered during the Revolution.

The case was tried in the Supreme Court but the Georgia lawyers refused to appear stating that Georgia was a sovereign state that "could not be sued without its permission."

Chisholm won, giving a "significant victory to centralized government because a branch of the federal government had placed itself above a sovereign state."

But that quickly led to "the Eleventh Amendment, which restored the states' sovereign immunity."3

The next battle "centered around the Alien and Sedition Acts" but they were declared null by the Democrat-Republicans who issued the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, so "this crisis ended without a clear resolution."4

Jefferson won the presidency in 1800 but on his way out the door, John Adams "tried to pack the federal courts with sixteen Federalist judges, who would have lifetime appointments to the recently created seats on the bench (the Judiciary Act of 1801)."

Mitcham writes:

Jefferson's inaugural address was a thing of toleration, art, and beauty. New England was once again threatening to leave the Union because it had lost the election. Jefferson invited it to do so. 'If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve the Union,' he said, 'or to change it republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.'5

The 'Midnight Judges Act' did not stand because Jefferson and supporters in Congress repealed it and "Jefferson swept the lower court benches clear" except for Adams' chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, Jefferson's cousin. Marshall later "cleverly inserted the principle of judicial review into the decision on the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."

Jefferson fought it by trying to impeach an "arrogant and obnoxious Federalist Supreme Court judge" but lost when the Supreme Court decided arrogance and obnoxiousness did not rise to the required "high crimes and misdemeanors" required, so Marshall and the Supreme Court "was thus able to create for itself the right of judicial review, even though it was not in the Constitution."6

The issue was not settled because states could still review constitutional cases.

With regard to slavery, in the "early 1830s, the South inched toward emancipation." Mitcham points out that

there were more anti-slavery societies in the South than the North. The 106 Southern anti-slavery societies had 5,150 members. The twenty-four anti-slavery organizations in the North had 1,475 members.7

Virginia almost voted for emancipation in 1832. It lost 65-58 and the only reason was the emancipationists could not agree on the details. A resolution "that admitted slavery was evil" did pass 73 to 58.

Emancipationists believed it would pass in the future but then virtue-signaling

Northern abolitionists 'began their theatrical antics demanding immediate, uncompensated emancipation, backed by threats of terror and Northern secession.' The Southerners did not like people coming down and telling them how to live. As a result, the slavery issue became sectional. By 1850, there were zero anti-slave societies in the South.8

Meanwhile sectionalism grew. It was the one thing George Washington warned about. He said parties should always be national and not sectional. The moment they become sectional, Washington warned that the country was in trouble.

In 1833, 27 years before South Carolina seceded, "America teetered on the brink of civil war" over tariffs, nullification and states' rights.

The Denmark Vesey plot had been discovered. Vesey "a free black minister in Charleston and one of the founders of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME), was angry because he had been unable to buy his first wife and children out of slavery." The plot was discovered and Vesey and around 35 others were hanged and others deported.

The South Carolina legislature passed the Negro Seaman Act "which required the confinement of all foreign black sailors to their ships while they were docked in South Carolina ports. If a black sailor disobeyed the law and came ashore, he faced arrest and the prospect of enslavement."9 Other Southern states "which also feared servile insurrection---quickly replicated South Carolina's actions. The entire matter soon ended up in court."10

The Negro Seaman Act was declared unconstitutional because it "violated U.S. treaties with the United Kingdom" but that didn't matter to the South Carolina Senate which nullified the ruling and President James Monroe did nothing about it.

Late in his life Jefferson "recommended that Virginia reassert her sovereignty and nullify federal internal improvement legislation, which he considered unconstitutional." He died in 1826 but before that wrote about slavery "we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go."11

Two years later, in 1828, the Tariff of Abominations was passed 105 to 94 in the House, and 26 to 21 in the Senate. Southerners voted against it 50 to 3. It raised rates dramatically to around 47 percent on most items, and 51 percent on "implements with iron in them."

Mitcham points out:

The Constitution allowed a tariff for revenue purposes. For those who interpreted the document strictly, this did not mean that it authorized a tariff to protect domestic manufacturers from foreign competition or to favor one section of the country over another. The South solidly opposed protective tariffs, correctly envisioning that restraints on free trade would mean economic exploitation of an exporting region like the Cotton States.12

This use of the federal government to enrich Northerners through tariffs, bounties, subsidies and monopoly status for Northern businesses is why Southerners in the Confederate Constitution forbid protective tariffs. It was not fair to favor one section of the country over another, especially when it cost that other section more in taxes. Even more outrageously, 80% of the tax money was being spent in the North.

No wonder Southerners seceded. Everybody knows that money drives everything. Nobody sends their precious sons off to die because they don't like the domestic institutions in other countries. We aren't at war today though there is more slavery on the planet than at any other time in human history as Mitcham pointed out early in his book.

Slavery as the cause of the American War Between the States is one of the biggest absurdities in all of history. It is the one thing you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt: that the North did not go to war to free the slaves or end slavery.

Yankees care about money. Black lives did not matter much to them. That's why so many Northern states forbid blacks from living there or even visiting including Lincoln's Illinois.

The Confederate tariff was less than 10% for the operation of a small federal government in a states rights nation. The Yankee tariff, the Morrill Tariff, was 47 to 60%. That's one reason Northern ship captains were beating a path to the South where they could get cargoes.

The Morrill Tariff threatened to destroy the Northern shipping industry overnight, which was the one-two punch that caused Lincoln to start the war. Northerners had already lost much of their manufacturing industry because they manufactured mostly for the captive Southern market, but Southerners did not want overpriced inferior Northern goods. They wanted free trade and had always wanted free trade. They wanted to manufacture for themselves and buy from England and other places.

Lincoln could see the death of the North on the wall, or severe economic damage at the very least. A free trade South with 100% control of the most demanded commodity on the planet --- cotton --- would bury the North in short order. Lincoln needed to fight right when he did, which is why he started the war. Every day that went by, the South got stronger and the North got weaker.

The South with European trade and military agreements would be unbeatable in a war, and Lincoln and Northern leaders knew it.

That's why we had the War Between the States. Certainly not for any mythological freeing of the slaves by the North, or protecting slavery by the South.

Slavery was a way to get the cotton picked. Technology and the invention of machines to pick cotton would have ended slavery by the 1880s. Southerners would much rather do like Yankees and hire when they needed to, and fire when they needed to, without a birth to death commitment. Lincoln didn't need to kill 750,000 people and maim over a million, but then his party would have disappeared from history and there would be no Lincoln Memorial.

Lincoln was a sectional president, president of the North. When he went to war, it was to protect and enrich the North. He did not care an iota about the rest of the country. That's why it was always "Union" for Lincoln, because that's where Yankee power and money were. And the Union would be controlled by the Northern majority.

Mitcham points out that the Tariff of 1828 caused John Quincy Adams to lose the presidential election to "hot-tempered, intolerant military man and slaveholder" Andrew Jackson. Jackson believed the high tariff should stay in place "until the national debt was paid off."

Mitcham makes a critically important point about that debt:

(Most of the debt was caused by over expenditures on internal improvements in the North. "Internal improvements" in today's terms means government subsidies to private industry, corporate welfare and crony capitalism, and catering to special interest groups. In the nineteenth century, they were characterized by corruption and enthusiastically supported by Abraham Lincoln and other Northern Whigs.) Despite his sympathy for the South, Jackson would not sanction nullification or secession.13

Here is why this book of Mitcham's is so outstanding. He talks about the tariff debate in the Senate which began December 29, 1829 between mainly Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and allies, and Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina and allies. Mitcham writes:

According to establishment historical mythology, the intellectually outstanding Webster, using his vastly superior debating skills, isolated the South, discredited states' rights, nullification, secession, and strict constructionism, and affirmed the principles of implied powers, strong central government, federal supremacy, and an indivisible, perpetual Union----- all by himself and in only a couple of speeches.14

However, this myth was "convincingly shattered" in 2016 by H. A. Scott Trask: "Trask examined the documents and newspapers of that time, which give an entirely different picture. At least as many people believed Hayne had defeated Webster."15

Mitcham gives an exciting account of the back-and-forth of Webster and Hayne. The debate begins with Connecticut Senator Samuel A. Foot's resolution about whether it was "desirable to limit the sale of public lands indefinitely and to stop the survey of new areas."

A Hayne ally, Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri,

rose and denounced the proposal as just another attempt by New England to stop immigration to the western states. Their hidden aim, he declared, was to keep people in the East to work in their factories. On January 18, 1830, he spoke again and charged that the business classes of the East were trying to enrich themselves by taxing the South, injuring the West, and pauperizing the poor of the North.16

The debate went on for months with Webster, like New England liberal democrats today, adamantly defending the federal government and its growth. Webster "attacked the South and its institutions, and declared that Southerners were hurting the country by opposing the growing power of the central government."

Benton "correctly accused Webster of trying to isolate the South and form an alliance between the North and West, creating a coalition like the one that led to the election of Adams in 1824" and he added that "New England had threatened to secede on more than one occasion and that the region's attitude toward the Union was one of calculated indifference."17

Mitcham writes:

Hayne spoke again on January 21, attacking the New England faction as motivated by base self-interest and defending his state's right to sovereignty and nullification. He quoted Jefferson's contention that the national government was not the 'exclusive or final judge of the extent of its own powers.' (Like Marshall, Webster believed the Supreme Court was the exclusive evaluator of constitutional disputes.)18

As the debate about the Tariff of 1828 continued, the South Carolina legislature declared it unconstitutional.

Behind the scenes, Vice President John C. Calhoun secretly wrote The South Carolina Exposition and Protest, which advanced the idea of nullification vis-a-vis the tariff. He asserted that the Tariff of 1828 was unconstitutional because it favored manufacturing over commerce and agriculture. In Exposition and Protest, Calhoun held that state conventions (which had originally ratified the Constitution) could nullify any law they considered unconstitutional. The nullification could only be overridden by a three-fourths vote of all the states.19

Jackson was uncompromising, "He demanded immediate and unconditional obedience."

South Carolina refused "for constitutional and economic reasons." Since the "Panic of 1819, and, due to Western migration, its population had dropped from 580,000 to just under 500,000 in the 1820s." South Carolina just could not afford it.

South Carolina congressman and Calhoun supporter, George McDuffie, "expounded the Forty Bale Theory. The theory declared that the 40 percent tax on finished cotton goods in the Tariff of 1816 meant that 'the manufacturer actually invades your barns and plunders you of forty out of every hundred bales that you produce.'"

McDuffie's message was effective and "opened the eyes of many South Carolinians. It made converts to the idea of nullification and stoked the fires of many who already felt the federal government was taking advantage of them."20

In this tense atmosphere, "President Jackson arranged an elaborate dinner at the India Queen Hotel on April 13, 1830, to celebrate Thomas Jefferson's birthday." Everybody was there.

Hayne spoke that evening and "denounced the tariff but avoided any mention of nullification." During the toasts, there were many anti-tariff messages so much so that the entire Pennslyvania delegation left. Tensions were high.

Jackson rose and looked straight at Calhoun and said with vigor, "Our Union, it must be preserved."

The entire room went silent. It could not have been more dramatic had Jackson ordered federal officers to arrest Calhoun on the spot. The vice president was scheduled to give the next toast. He arose, looked directly at Jackson, and in a firm voice said: 'The Union, next to our liberty, most dear. May we all remember that it can only be preserved by respecting the rights of the states and by distributing equally the benefits and burdens of the Union.'21

Northerners began realizing the Tariff of Abominations was too much. Thinking the Tariff of 1832 would adjust the rates satisfactorily, South Carolina did not take action:

The Tariff of 1832 did indeed lower the rates but not enough. The average tariff for dutiable good was 33 percent. Thanks to the tariffs, about 90 percent of which were paid by Southerners, the United States now had a budget surplus, but the Northerners drafted a bill that kept the tariffs high and protected the manufacturer's profit margins at the expense of the South. Many Southerners felt hoodwinked. Much of the rest of Dixie wanted a better compromise, but South Carolina was ready to act. Governor James Hamilton conducted pro-nullification, anti-tariff rallies throughout the state. As a result, the nullification forces won the state election of 1832 by a large majority.22

The next events were exciting and important in American history. South Carolina governor James Hamilton "called for a special session to authorize a nullification convention. The legislature concurred, and the convention met on November 24. It chose Senator Hayne presiding officer and quickly declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and nullified them. State and federal officials were forbidden from collecting tariffs within the state after February 1, 1833. The leadership vowed to secede if the United States government tried coercion."23

Jackson in private threatened to invade South Carolina and hang Calhoun. Jackson in public stated "he would use force to prevent nullification."

In the next few weeks, Hamilton's term as governor ended and Hayne was picked governor by the legislature which chose governors and senators in those days. Calhoun's relationship with Jackson was destroyed so he resigned as vice president and was picked to be a senator, replacing Hayne.

On January 16, 1833 Jackson "requested Congress pass the Force Bill authorizing military intervention in South Carolina."

South Carolina "mobilized 27,000 men."

Realizing bloodshed was about to occur and nobody really wanted war, a compromise was worked out by Clay and Calhoun rolling back "the tariffs over a nine-year period until 1842, when it reached the levels of the 1816 Tariff---about 20 percent."

In a final "gesture of defiance," South Carolina nullified the Force Act.


Next Week:

A Comprehensive Review of

It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.

Part Five of Ten

(Click Here to go to previous week: Part Three: Chapter III, Secession: The Constitutional Issue; Chapter IV, Pregnant Events)


(Scroll down for:
It Wasn't About Slavery, Actual Citation from Book)

1 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 37.

2 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 37-38.

3 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 38.

4 Ibid.

5 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 39.

6 Ibid.

7 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 40.

8 Ibid.

9 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 41.

10 Ibid.

11 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 41-42.

12 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 42.

13 Ibid.

14 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 42-43.

15 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 43.

16 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 43-44.

17 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 44.

18 Ibid.

19 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 45.

20 Ibid.

21 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 47.

22 Ibid.

23 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 47-48.

 It Wasn't About Slavery,
Actual Citation from Book
Mitcham-Notes-Chap-5-1-109K 600 pix
Mitcham-Notes-Chap-5-2 112K 600 pix

It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Three of Five

A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Three of Five
Chapter III
Secession: The Constitutional Issue
Chapter IV
Pregnant Events
by Gene Kizer, Jr.
Epigraphs at beginning of It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Epigraphs at beginning of It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.

At the end of this article, beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," two pages of Mitcham's endnotes for Chapters III and IV.

In Chapter III, Secession: The Constitutional Issue, Dr. Mitcham again cuts right to the chase when he writes:

The Issue of Secession can be dealt with very simply. The United States was a product of secession. The Declaration of Independence was the most beautiful Ordinance of Secession ever written.1

He discusses the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789) among the 13 sovereign states, which was supposed to be perpetual but "every state left or seceded from it by 1790."2

A Constitutional Convention was held starting in Philadelphia in 1787, and on March 4, 1789, the Constitution of the United States went into effect. Mitcham writes:

Every state (colony) recognized the right of secession in 1776 and again in 1789. The Constitution dealt with this right indirectly in Amendment Ten of the Bill of Rights, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It was ratified by the states between 1789 and 1791 and added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791.

New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia did not wait for the addition of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution to ensure they could leave the Union if they wished. They explicitly reserved the right to secede when their legislatures ratified the Constitution on July 26, 1788 [NY]; May 29, 1790 [RI]; and June 25, 1788 [VA], respectively.3

Part Two of my book, Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument., is entitled "The Right of Secession." I go into detail in 91 pages, which include "An Annotated Chronology of the Secession Debate in the South" in the year leading up to Southern states seceding.

I include much from Is Davis a Traitor by Albert Taylor Bledsoe, the 1995 reprint by Fletcher and Fletcher Publishing with Introduction by Clyde N. Wilson, emeritus professor of History at the University of South Carolina and author of numerous books, hundreds of articles, and primary editor of The Papers of John C. Calhoun.

I also include an analysis of a Stetson Law Review article from Stetson University College of Law written by H. Newcomb Morse in 1986 that documents and brings up all the history and legal angles of secession and concludes:

. . . conceivably, it was the Northern States that acted illegally in precipitating the War Between the States. The Southern States, in all likelihood, were exercising a perfectly legitimate right in seceding from the Union.4

One of the most important things that I point out is what Dr. Mitcham just pointed out about New York, Rhode Island and Virginia reserving the right of secession.

Let me make it clear that because all the states entered the Union as equals, the acceptance of the reserved right of secession of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia by all the other states also gave it to them, though there is other, overwhelming, conclusive evidence that secession was a legal right accepted by all. Even Horace Greeley ("let our erring sisters go") and Abraham Lincoln believed in it until they realized it would affect their money. Then they wanted war as did the rest of the North as they watched property values sink and goods rot on New York docks.

In 1847, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, 14 years before he started the War Between the States in Charleston Harbor, Abraham Lincoln said:

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.5

Mitcham writes that "the absence of any mention of secession in the Constitution and the intent of the Tenth Amendment remain quite clear." Mitcham means, of course, that nothing in the Constitution prohibits secession, and the Tenth Amendment gives all power not prohibited by the Constitution to the states or people, therefore the right of secession is clear. It is clear for numerous other powerful, conclusive reasons based in history, law, precedent and tradition, too.

Mitcham writes "The argument between Hamiltonians (large, strong, central government) and Jeffersonians ("governs best which governs least") continues---albeit in altered form---to the present day."

Ironically, as Mitcham points out, it was the Northeast, the New England states, who threatened to secede many times before the South actually did. Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison wanted to secede through the 1840s and 1850s because he did not want to be in a country with slavery. The treasonous Hartford Convention led by Massachusetts threatened to secede during the War of 1812 while at the same time aiding our British enemies. That is the very definition of treason.

Southerners never did anything like that. They debated the issue of secession and voted democratically in conventions stating their intent all along in accordance with precedents set by our secessionist Founding Fathers who seceded from the British Empire for the exact same reason Southerners seceded from the federal Union: Independence and Self-government. [And judging by what the Federal Government has become today with its deep-state corruption, an FBI that lies to FISA courts on surveillance warrants so they can spy for the Democrat Party on political rivals and innocent Americans, a DOJ and attorney general, Merrick Garland, who sicced the FBI on parents at school board meetings who are protesting racist Critical Race Theory and transgenderism being taught to their children at school, etc., etc., Southerners were right.]

The most widespread phrase in the secession debate in the South in the year leading up to secession came from the Declaration of Independence:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Anything that New Englanders thought would dilute their political power would provoke talk of secession. Mitcham writes:6

In all, New England seriously considered secession five times:

1) over the Louisiana Purchase

2) over Jefferson's embargo

3) because of the War of 1812

4) over the annexation of Texas

5) over the Fugitive Slave Act

After the War Between the States, which killed over 750,000 and maimed over a million, Northern historians vilified the South to excuse their war to establish the Northeast as the economic and cultural capital of our great nation. Mitcham writes, "Fortunately for Northern historians, the morally abhorrent institution of slavery---of which the North had only recently divested itself, from which it profited until 1885, and which largely funded its industrial revolution---was conveniently available."

He hits the nail on the head when he denies that slavery was the cause of secession or the war:

The fact that there is a vast body of evidence to the contrary and that Southerners of that time gave several other reasons for secession was, and still is, simply ignored. But this is a highly successful Marxist tactic: focus on something that people find highly repugnant and then build an analytic framework around it.7

Chapter IV
Pregnant Events

Mitcham points out the many things that defined the antebellum era and led to the war. They began immediately after George Washington was inaugurated April 30, 1789. Three months later, on July 4, Washington signed the Tariff of 1789.

Tariffs were the "primary source of federal revenue" because there was no income tax in those days. Tariffs "placed an undue burden on the South, whose income, based on agricultural exports, was dependent on foreign imports."

A huge event that traumatized the entire South was the bloody slave revolt in Haiti that began August 14, 1791. Mitcham writes:

Within weeks, 100,000 slaves joined the rebellion. They killed 4,000 whites and destroyed 180 sugar plantations and 900 coffee plantations, as well as hundreds of large indigo farms. The revolution was characterized by extreme violence, torture, rape, and murder. Entire families were wiped out. Survivors often escaped with only the clothes on their backs. Many of them fled to the American South, carrying their stories of horror with them. Meanwhile, the whites who remained on the island formed militia units, which killed some 15,000 black people in an orgy of revenge. The fighting lasted until 1804, when Haiti became an independent republic under black leadership. It was the only successful slave insurrection in the history of the Western Hemisphere.8

Slave trading was not yet outlawed by the United States Constitution, which allowed slave trading until 1808, so New Englanders were going at it full steam. Of course, after 1808, New Englanders still made huge fortunes in the international slave trade picking up slave cargoes from African tribal chieftains and taking them all over the world including secretly into America. This they did until 1885, 20 years after the War Between the States ended.

But in the early antebellum days, Eli Whitney's cotton gin reversed the dying out of slavery and increased the demand for field workers dramatically, which Yankee slave traders were glad to meet.

The 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts of the Federalist Congress restricted immigration and "the speech of people who defamed government officials, including the president." [Sounds like TODAY with the Democrat Party using big tech and cancel culture to censor speech and destroy the businesses and lives of Americans who don't agree with their twisted woke idiocy.]

This led to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, which their legislatures passed in 1798. They "argued that individual states had the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional." A second Kentucky Resolution in 1799 "declared that if a state found a law unconstitutional, nullification was the proper remedy." Alexander Hamilton's solution was the opposite. He wanted "to send the army to Virginia to enforce the Acts."9

Jefferson won the presidential election of 1800, which caused racist New England to show its colors. It was a "racial trauma" for New Englanders because Jefferson had slept with a black woman. New Englanders

considered Jefferson racially tarnished and called him the "first Negro president." They also resented the fact that black folks counted as three-fifths of a person for census purposes, which determined the allocation of electoral votes. If it had not been for this "three-fifths rule," Adams would have been reelected.

Southerners wanted black people to count as the whole human beings they are, but Yankees wanted them reduced to 3/5ths of a person so the North would have more political power.

Mitcham writes, "Northerners of that day were highly prejudiced against black people, and they kept this bias throughout the Civil War era."10

He talks about "Josiah C. Nott, a descendant of one of Connecticut's oldest families, and Louis Agassiz, a zoology professor at Harvard" who did research on the inferiority of blacks to whites, presenting theories that blacks were not of the same species as whites --- "Nott described his racial theories as 'niggerology.'"11

Ralph Waldo Emerson said blacks were "destined for the museums, like the Dodo." He thought they would die out if freed.

Southerners wanted to end slavery in a way that would work:

Thomas Jefferson once suggested that the slaves could go to the Western lands and find liberation. He received no support from the North, but Virginia statesman John Randolph thought it was a capital idea. He freed his 518 slaves in his will and caused them to be sent to Ohio, to lands they inherited from him, along with supplies provided by his estate. But Ohio refused to accept them. The free black contingent had to return to Virginia and ask to be made wards of the state.12

Tariffs increasingly became a problem. Mitcham writes about the "unintended consequences" of the Tariff of 1816:

First, the North became addicted to protective tariffs---and with incredible speed. Second, the nature of the tariff itself changed. It became a corrupt system for the redistribution of wealth by political means. Third, Northern manufacturers were now able to charge more for their own products and thus reap higher profits because the tariffs (taxes) on imported British goods were so high.13

That caused enormous economic problems for the South. They had higher costs, and a higher cost of living because of Northern tariffs.

The debate over the admission of Missouri as a slave state exposed the North's hypocrisy. Mitcham writes:

Among the leaders of the anti-admission faction was Northern flesh peddler Senator James DeWolff of Rhode Island. DeWolff was one of the wealthiest men in the United States. He made his money in the New England slave trade. His company ran eighty voyages to Africa before Washington shut down the importation of human beings to the U.S.A. in 1808. After that, DeWolff's ships engaged in the global slave trade.14

To make it worse, there were heavy federal subsidies of New England business interests including fishing and manufacturing. Like a drug addict, Yankees were addicted to other people's money and their method of theft was the federal government and their domination of it.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 brought Missouri, a slave state, and Maine, a free state, into the Union.

The "Black Codes" such as were adopted in Lincoln's Illinois prohibited free blacks from entering Illinois.

Lincoln believed, his whole life, in sending black people back to Africa or into a climate they could handle. He was a member of the American Colonization Society and "secretary of the Illinois branch for several years." Lincoln "and his colleagues, who included President James Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall, Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Webster, and Stephen Douglas, had a simple solution to the 'Negro problem': return every African American to Africa, including those born in the United States."15

Meanwhile, a violent abolitionist movement rose in the North with leaders such as Lysander Spooner of Massachusetts, William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips and others.

The one thing that Southerners feared worse than all else, after the slaughter in Haiti, was a slave insurrection, but rather than trying to solve the slavery problem with good will, abolitionist extremists who were well-financed by New Englanders "flooded the South with handbills calling for slave revolts."

Mitcham points out that Henry Clay was Abraham Lincoln's idol. Clay was a slaveholder who believed in sending black people back to Africa. He also advocated for the "American System," a system of government largesse to help U.S. manufacturing compete with the British. The American System called for high tariffs, internal improvements for the North at taxpayer expense, and other of what today would be "corporate welfare."

Southerners were not against internal improvements but they believed that states should pay for whatever improvement they wanted. Improvements in one state should not be paid for by the people in another.

This is a prime example of the difference in the South's States' Rights philosophy and that of the North, which wanted to take over the federal government and rule for its own benefit only. Alexis de Tocqueville warned that if one state ever got the power to take over the federal government, it would do exactly as the North did: make the rest of the country tributary to its wealth and power.

Mitcham sums it up well:

The Tariff of 1824 was a sign of Northern political dominance in the United States. It was also a sign that Northern hegemony meant economic exploitation and poverty for the South. To Southerners, it proved that Northerners would ignore the Constitution if its economic interests were involved. James Spence wrote: 'The idea of a moderate system, generally beneficial to the industry of the country, without grievous hardship to any particular class, became altered into the reality of corrupt political bargains between special interests, to impose heavy taxation on all others for their own profit.'16

Two more slave revolts, one in 1811, and the Nat Turner revolt in 1831, kept Southerners on edge about slavery. Mitcham points out that "Abolitionists were irresponsible. Immediate, uncompensated liberation would have resulted in chaos and economic collapse for both the North and the South."

If the North really cared about ending slavery --- which they didn't --- they could have offered a plan of gradual compensated emancipation such as Northern states themselves used to end slavery. But Northerners were not about to spend hard-earned sweatshop money to free the slaves in the South who would then go North and be job competition.

It is clear that most Northerners did not give a damn about Southern slaves and surely did not want free blacks in the North or West.  During this time period the hypocritical North was still slave-trading all over the globe bringing huge fortunes constantly into the North.

Northerners also murdered abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy in Illinois in 1837.

Promoting the murder of Southern men, women and children so the North could gain politically and some could signal their "superior" virtue, was not going to end slavery or help black people, but that was not the goal.

Political domination and Northern wealth and power were always the goal as Alexis de Tocqueville had said.


Next Week:
A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Four of Five


(Scroll down for:
It Wasn't About Slavery, Actual Citation from Book)

1 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 19.

2 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 20.

3 Ibid.

4 H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson University College of Law, Stetson Law Review, Vol. XV, No. 2, 1986, 436, in Gene Kizer, Jr., Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument. (Charleston and James Island, SC: Charleston Athenaeum Press, 2014), 107, 121, available on

5 Abraham Lincoln, 1847 Congressional debate in the United States House of Representatives in John Shipley Tilley, Lincoln Takes Command (Hashville: Bill Coats, Ltd., 1991), xv. Tilley's source, as state in footnote #4 on page xv, was Goldwyn Smith, The United States: An Outline of Political History, 1492-1871 (New York and London, 1893), 248, in Kizer, Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, Note 104, 109-110.

6 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 22-23.

7 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 23.

8 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 25-26.

9 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 27.

10 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 27-28.

11 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 28.

12 Ibid.

13 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 29.

14 Ibid.

15 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 31.

16 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 33.

 It Wasn't About Slavery,
Actual Citation from Book
Mitcham-endnotes-Chap-3-4-1 97K 600 pix
Mitcham-endnotes-Chap-3-4-2 110K 600 pix

It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Two of Five

A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Two of Five, a close look at
Chapter I
Slavery and the Yankee Flesh Peddler
Chapter II
by Gene Kizer, Jr.
Back cover of It Wasn't About Slavery by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Back cover of It Wasn't About Slavery by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.

In doing this comprehensive review of Dr. Mitcham's It Wasn't About Slavery, my motives are selfish because I wanted to learn his facts and argument thoroughly and the best way to learn anything is write about it.

Everything I have cited in this review shows where it is located in Mitcham's book. Of course, the book itself cites Mitcham's original sources. At the end of this article, beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," four pages of Mitcham's actual endnotes for Chapters I and II. Many are explanatory with good additional information.

Chapter I, Slavery and the Yankee Flesh Peddler, is one of the best short histories of slavery I have ever read. As I said before, Dr. Mitcham has a knack for cutting to the chase.

He talks about the word "slave" being mentioned in the Bible in Genesis and slavery today:

According to the International Labor Office, a United Nations-affiliated organization, there were an estimated 40,300,000 slaves in the world in 2017. This means that, in terms of raw numbers, there are more slaves in the world today than at any other time in history. There is, however, no great outcry about this fact, nor any large-scale movements to rid the world of it. After all, there is no money in that.1

He points out how slavery was not racial in ancient times but "based primarily on military conquest or bad luck."2

Arab Muslims started racial slavery by enslaving black Africans and starting the Trans-Sahara trade routes that "took more than 10,000,000 Africans to North Africa and the Arabian peninsula." Many were enslaved by military conquest but others "were sold into slavery by fellow Africans." This era lasted until the 1800s though many African societies had converted to Islam and had slavery before the Muslims arrived. Many became slave traders. 3

Portugal "established trading posts along the West African coast" and began the second wave of race-based slavery.

Spaniards soon introduced race-based slavery into the New World in 1503 followed by the Brits in 1562. The British found the slave trade "so lucrative that they soon wanted to dominate it" but were not successful until 1713 when the "Treaty of Asiento with Spain gave Great Britain the bigger share of the slave trade."4

American Yankees started small in 1638 (18 years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Harbor, Mass.) by importing a few slaves for personal use because "the slave trade was a Crown monopoly until 1749" when it was opened to all Englishmen. New Englanders wasted no time getting into it.5

Mitcham provides a number of fascinating primary source narratives about the inner workings of the slave trade such as "Captain Canot or Twenty Years of an African Slaver" from 1854. Canot netted, what would be today almost a million dollars, on one ship with 220 slaves amongst other cargo. The profits were astronomical.6

Mitcham writes that:

In 1836, English Captain Isaacs visited the slave trading port of Lamu on the island of Zanzibar. It was overrun with Northern fresh peddlers. 'There were so many Yankee slavers and traders active in Zanzibar that the local population thought that Great Britain was a subdivision of Massachusetts,' Isaacs recalled.7

The year 1836 was 25 years before the War Between the States. This was the same period when abolitionists were hated in the North and often beaten or murdered like Elijah Lovejoy, murdered by a mob in 1837 in Alton, Illinois at age 34.

Mitcham writes:

All U. S. slave ships were built in the North; none were constructed in the South. Their crews were mostly Northern men, and Northerners prospered by the trade. New England also prospered indirectly because their capitalists bought Southern goods that were mostly produced by slaves. The Yankees then sold them overseas, usually at a handsome profit. The centers of the slave fleets were not New Orleans, Charleston or Savannah. They docked at Boston, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island, later joined by New York City, which was also the financial center of the slave business. New York bankers loaned money to slave buyers and Southern plantation owners to expand their cotton acreage. They often accepted slaves as collateral.8

When some journalist with the Hartford Courant in Hartford, Connecticut were researching slavery and to their shock found that Aetna Insurance Company of Connecticut had insured slaves, they looked further into it and the result was an outstanding book, Complicity, How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery, by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank: (New York, Ballantine Books, 2005).

They are to be commended as outstanding journalists for their work though most journalists are still ignorant and disgraceful when it comes to Southern history. Esteemed historian Eugene Genovese (Roll, Jordan Roll, The World the Slaves Made, et al.) called their treatment of Southern history, along with academia's, a "cultural and political atrocity."

So many "journalists" and "historians" today accept the fraudulent 1619 Project, which is the worst scholarship in American history. It is based on a complete lie, that the American Revolution was fought because the Brits were about to abolish slavery. That is the main theme of the 1619 Project yet there is no evidence whatsoever for it: not a single letter, speech, editorial or anything else. It is a total fraud, an invention by a white-hating racist, Nikole Hannah-Jones,9 published in the race-obsessed New York Times, which pushed the Russia Hoax, that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election in 2016. Of course Mueller proved that was a fraud but it didn't stop the New York Times from pushing it as hard as they could for a year and winning a Pulitzer Prize for their fraud. Shows Pulitzers mean nothing today because Hannah-Jones won one too.

The news media and academia have outsmarted themselves because most people think much of academia is a joke, which it is, and they despise the news media, which is responsible for so much racist hate and division in our country today with Critical Race Theory. CRT started in academia and is pushed by the Associated Press and rest of the fraud-news media.

Mitcham goes on to discuss the Triangle Trade and he points out that only "six percent of the slaves exported from Africa to the New World were destined for the thirteen American colonies. The bulk of them went to the Caribbean, West Indies, Brazil, or the sugar plantations of South America or the islands such as Trinidad and Tobago."10

The slave trade was so entrenched in New England, when the Brits proposed a tax on molasses, a component of the Triangle Trade, Massachusetts merchants "Protested that the tax would ruin the slave trade and cause more than 700 ships to be docked for lack of work."11

African slavery would have been impossible without the help of other Africans in Africa who sold their own people into slavery as a result of mostly tribal warfare. Mitcham writes:

The Northern flesh peddlers obtained their black chattels primarily from other Africans. Historians Linda Heywood and John Thornton of Boston University estimated that 90% of the slaves shipped to the New World were first enslaved by Africans and only later sold to Europeans and American. Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., of Harvard University writes: 'The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred.'12

Esteemed black anthropologist Zora Neale Hurston documents this too with such works as Barracoon, which was a slave fort where captured Africans were held by other Africans awaiting the European or New England slave ships that would take them on the horrendous Middle Passage.

Slavery was so entrenched in African culture that Mitcham quotes an African chief, Gezo, who told Britain's Sir Richard Francis Burton:

'The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source of their wealth . . . the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery.'13

Mitcham's sources, quotations and analysis that I have put in this review are the tip of the iceberg you will find in his book.

Mitcham goes into detail on how widespread slavery was in New England in the eighteenth century. He says in Connecticut half of all "ministers, lawyers, and public officials owned slaves, and one-third of all doctors had them as well."14

There were strong laws regulating the behavior of free blacks, Indians and mulattos with serious punishments such as 40 lashes at one point for "even speaking against a white person."15

Mitcham concludes the chapter stating that 24 to 25 million blacks were transported "from Africa to the New World" and between "4 and 5 million of them died en route(the so-called "Middle Passage"), primarily because of the brutality of the slavers."16

As the Age of Enlightenment began, the British turned against the slave trade and promoted the idea of compensated emancipation, but Mitcham writes:

Even so, the North remained linked to slavery. Much of the capital that propelled the Industrial Revolution came from the slave trade. The North continued to profit from and, in one form or another, promote slavery until 1861. It also reaped massive financial benefits from federal tariffs on imports. (A tariff is a tax or duty placed on imports and/or exports.) Slavery and the commodities it produced for export, in fact, funded most of the federal government as late as 1860.17

Mitcham lists five groups involved in slavery in the era of European and American slave traders:18

1) Africans;

2) Arab-Muslim slave traders;

3) Northern flesh peddlers and other Yankees;

4) Latin American plantation owners;

5) Southerners.

He notes that "far too many people 'give a pass' to everyone except the Southerner---often without realizing it. He goes on:

This trend is a grievous injustice. The morally superior, sanctimonious attitude some people adopt when lecturing others concerning the sins of their ancestors isn't factual. When it comes to America's "peculiar institution," there is plenty of guilt---if that is the objective---to spread around.19

Chapter II

By 1750, Mitcham writes, "there were three times as many slaves in Connecticut as there were in Georgia. Massachusetts had four times as many as the Peach State."20

"Northerners never particularly liked black people prior to the Civil War" Mitcham writes.21

That would explain the many Northern and Western states that had laws forbidding black people from even visiting, much less living there, unless they wanted to end up in jail or whipped. Lincoln's Illinois was one of them. Of course, there were the New York City Draft Riots during the War Between the States when scores of blacks were lynched.

Mitcham recounts a fascinating story that says a lot about eighteenth century New York:

In 1741, several fires broke out in the city, including one in the lieutenant governor's house. Further investigation into the fires uncovered the "Conspiracy of 1741," also known as the Negro Plot of 1741 or the Slave Insurrection of 1741. Those believed guilty were quickly arrested. More than two hundred people, including twenty poor whites, were jailed while more than a hundred were hanged, exiled, or burned at the stake. The two black leaders were gibbetted (i.e., hung in chains in a public display and left to die of exposure, thirst, and starvation). At least thirty-eight slaves faced execution along with several whites. Fourteen blacks were burned at the stake.22

During the antebellum era, slavery began to end in the North when massive white immigration made it cheaper to hire a white man, whom one could fire at will, than buy a black and have to take care of him from birth to death.

New York passed a "progressive abolition law in 1799, with the goal of ending slavery by 1827. Rhode Island also passed a manumission law but it was very carefully written to protect the slave trade, which enriched the state. All the Northern states had enacted anti-slavery legislation by 1830. The Northern manumission and emancipation laws were designed so that the slaves' masters did not lose money."23

What usually happened by ever-thrifty Yankees, was, the slave would be sold South back into slavery just before his twenty-first birthday, which would have free him. As Mitcham writes, "There was no moral outrage against slavery in the North. Much of the impetus behind manumission was a desire to protect white labor from cheap black competition."24 Other books, such as Black Bondage in the North, by Edgar J. McManus, prove this too. Mitcham cites it.

Mitcham points out that the percentage of free blacks in the North declined too, in the antebellum period. Free blacks in the North had to worry about being kidnapped and sold into slavery. Between 1790 and 1830, free blacks declined in New York from 2.13 percent to .57 percent.25

There was roughly the same number of free blacks in the North as in the South at war time. There were around 250,000 free blacks in the North, and around 250,000 in the South.

Thousands of free blacks in the South fought for the South in the War Between the States. Some 3,000 to 4,000 were observed by chief inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission, Dr. Lewis Steiner, in Stonewall Jackson's army as he left Frederick, Maryland in 1862.

Frederick Douglas and others confirmed that many blacks were Confederate soldiers; and they were integrated in the Confederate Army alongside whites, "mixed up with all the rebel horde," as Dr. Lewis Steiner observed of Stonewall Jackson's army, not segregated as in the Union Army.

Mitcham writes about the fascinating story of Solomon Northup of Sarasota Springs, New York, who was a free black man, kidnapped, who spent twelve years as a slave then escaped and wrote about his ordeal in Twelve Years a Slave. It tells the truth about slavery because it is fact, unlike Uncle Tom's Cabin, which is fiction.

Slavery was dying out until 1793 when Eli Whitney invented his cotton gin for American cotton, which led to enormous demand for cotton and thus field hands: "Southern cotton production increased from 5 million pounds in 1793 to 500 million in 1835...".26

The slave trade was outlawed in the U.S. in 1808 but "Northern flesh peddlers continued to sail and rack up the profits with tacit support from the United States government." Great Britain and France wanted to board American vessels looking for illegal cargoes of slaves but the American government would not allow it "so the U.S. flag proved to be ample protection for the slave traders" who continued to operate during the War Between the States and on through to 1885, twenty years after Appomattox, when Brazil, the last nation allowing slavery, ended it.

Mitcham writes:

The attitude of the flesh peddler was perhaps best expressed by the other John Brown, a rich slave peddler for whom Brown University in Rhode Island is named (not to be confused with the terrorist hanged in 1859). When he was criticized for traveling to Africa to bring back slaves, he replied that "there was no more crime in bringing off a cargo of slaves than in bringing off a cargo of jackasses."27

Mitcham quotes historian H. V. Traywick, Jr. who describes the horror in Africa of an attack on the Takkoi in West Africa by the Amazon women warriors of Dahomey. They "beheaded the old and sick and carried their heads off as trophies. The rest were marched in a slave column to barracoons (slave barracks) on the beach at Dymdah. The Dahomians stopped on the second day to smoke the heads of their decapitated victimes because they began to stink."28

Traywick's source was African American anthropologist Zora Neale Hurston who wrote about the last known African "illegally smuggled into the United States" before the war as written in Hurston's Dust Tracks on a Road, and also her later book, Barracoon. That African was Cudjo "Kossola" Lewis and the slave ship that brought him to America was the Clotilda out of Maine, which took Lewis to Mobile. He has descendants who still live in the area of Plateau, Alabama.

Mitcham ends the chapter with:

Zora Neale Hurston, a prominent African American writer and anthropologist, said that it "suck in my craw" that her own black people had sold her ancestors into slavery. She had been raised on stories that white people had gone to Africa and lured the Africans onto the slave ships by waving a red handkerchief. When they boarded the ship to investigate, it sailed away with them. But, no, she declared, her own people had "butchered and killed, exterminated whole nations and torn families apart, for a profit." She was sadly impressed with the "universal nature of greed and glory."29


Next Week:
A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Three of Five


(Scroll down for: It Wasn't About Slavery, Actual Citation from Book)

1 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 1.

2 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 2.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 4.

7 Ibid.

8 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 5.

9 See "In Racist Screed, NYT's 1619 Project Founder Calls 'White Race' 'Barbaric Devils,' 'Bloodsuckers,' Columbus 'No Different Than Hitler'", June 25, 2020, The Federalist,, Accessed 11-2-21.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 6.

13 Ibid.

14 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 7.

15 Ibid.

16 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 8.

17 Ibid.

18 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 9.

19 Ibid.

20 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 11.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 12.

24 Ibid.

25 Ibid.

26 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 15.

27 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 16.

28 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 17.

29 Ibid.

It Wasn't About Slavery,
Actual Citation from Book