Our Confederate Ancestors: Running the Yankee Blockade: A Daring Daytime Run by the Little Hattie

A Series on the Daring Exploits of Our Confederate Ancestors in the War Between the States.
Blockade-runner mail to New Orleans via Nassau, Bahamas, stamped incoming ship 10-cents postage due.
Blockade-runner mail to New Orleans via Nassau, Bahamas, stamped incoming ship 10-cents postage due.
Running the Yankee Blockade:
A Daring Daytime Run by the Little Hattie

From Confederate Veteran magazine,
Volume VI. , No. 5, May, 1898, original title
"Incidents in Blockade-Running"

Signal-Officer Daniel Shepherd Stevenson has written for the archives of the Daughters of the Confederacy at Wilmington, N. C., a sketch, from which the following is taken:

In the soft, mild days of October, 1864, while we lingered at our cottage by the sea, on Confederate Point, I witnessed the most exciting and most interesting scene of my life. It was during dark nights that blockade-runners always made their trips, and the bar was shelled whenever one was expected. The "Little Hattie," a blockade-runner, on which my nephew, D. S. Stevenson, was signal-officer, was expected, and the bar was vigorously shelled each night to keep the blockading fleet at a safe distance.

The SS Banshee. The Little Hattie probably looked like this.
The SS Banshee. The Little Hattie probably looked like this.

Capt. Lebby, a dashing young South Carolinian, commander of the "Little Hattie," had ordered the fires banked just at the dawning of the day, as they neared Cape Lookout, intending to wait until the next night, when he would run down the coast and come in through New Inlet at Fort Fisher; but before the order could be carried into effect he saw, by the movement on the Yankee fleet stationed off Cape Lookout, that his vessel had been discovered.

Immediately he rescinded the command, and, turning to Lieut. Clancey, first mate, and to Dan, said: "They see us, and I am afraid we shall be captured, but we will give them a lively race for it." Then, turning to one of the men, he said: "Tell the engineer to crowd on the steam, have the fireman to feed the furnace with Nassau bacon, and we will make this run in broad daylight."

The Captain then directed Clancey to run up the "fox and chicken" (the private flag of the "Little Hattie"), throw out the stars and bars, and fling to the breeze every inch of bunting on board, saying: "If we must die, we will die game."

Ft. Fisher & Cape Fear Riv to Wilmington Jan. 1865. The Florie & Little Hattie went this way earlier.
Ft. Fisher & Cape Fear Riv to Wilmington Jan. 1865. The Florie & Little Hattie went this way earlier.

The fires on the Yankee fleet had been banked before the "Little Hattie" was sighted, and it took some time to clear out the furnaces and raise steam. Thus the "Little Hattie" had some start of her enemies, and well she responded to her extra steam. Young Stevenson said that to his anxious mind it seemed that at every pulsation of her great iron heart her tough oaken sinews would quiver as though instinct with life, and she seemed to leap out of the water. Eight blockading steamers joined in the chase, and kept up a murderous shower of shot and shell.

The foregoing my nephew told me; what follows I witnessed.

About nine o'clock on that lovely October morning, when all nature smiled so kindly upon our war-desolated land, a courier rode up to our front door and shouted: "There is a blockade-runner coming this way and she looks like the 'Little Hattie.'" The "Little Hattie" had two smoke-stacks.

I sprang to my feet, took some powerful field-glasses belonging to Maj. James M. Stevenson, stepped out on the roof of the porch facing the ocean, and looked. Sure enough, it was the "Little Hattie," and, to my horror, I saw a figure on the paddle-box whom I knew to be Dan, with flag in hand, signaling to the fort.

Sea Face at Fort Fisher.
Sea Face at Fort Fisher.
The grounds inside Fort Fisher.
The grounds inside Fort Fisher.

The agonizing suspense of his mother could find vent only in prayer, and at a window looking toward the sea she knelt and supplicated the Throne of Mercy for her boy and his companions in danger. The shrill screeching of shot and shell was agonizing.

Onward dashed the frail little craft with eight United States steamers following close in her wake, pouring a relentless iron hail after her.

When she came near the fort the thirteen ships stationed off the mouth of the Cape Fear River joined in the fray, but He who "marks the sparrow's fall" covered her with his hand, and not one of the death-bearing messengers touched the little boat.

The guns of the fort were manned, and shot and shell, grape and canister, both hot and cold, belched forth from the iron throats of Parrot, Columbiad, Whitworth, and mortar. This was done to prevent the fleet from forming on the bar and intercepting the entrance of the "Little Hattie."

Columbiad inside Ft. Fisher with damaged muzzle, Jan. 1865.
Columbiad inside Ft. Fisher with damaged muzzle, Jan. 1865.

For nearly an hour I stood on the roof watching the exciting race, and when the "Little Hattie" came near enough to discern features, I recognized Capt. Lebby with his trumpet, Lieut. Clancey, with his spy-glass, and Dan, still standing on the paddle-box with his flag, which, having served its purpose for the time, rested idly in his hand.

Thus, at ten o'clock that cloudless October day, there was accomplished the most miraculous feat: a successful run of the blockade by daylight.

I give another incident in the blockading career of Signal-Officer Stevenson as received form him:

On the night of December 24, 1864, the same fatal year, the whole attacking fleet was lying before the fort when the "Little Hattie" came on her return trip. As they saw the congregated lights on the one side and the one lone light on the other, Capt. Lebby remarked that they had made the wrong inlet, and would have to come in on the high tide between Smithville and Bald Head, as they had passed Fort Fisher.

"No, Captain," said young Stevenson; "we have not passed Fort Fisher. The many lights you call Smithville is the Yankee fleet, and the one light you call Bald Head is Fort Fisher Mound light."

Union attack on Fort Fisher Dec., 1864. The Little Hattie ran through this fleet at night.
Union attack on Fort Fisher Dec., 1864. The Little Hattie ran through this fleet at night.

The captain and Lietu. Clancey laughed at him and pushed on, but he proved to be right. Fortunately, the night was very dark, and so many vessels were grouped together that one more was not noticed by the enemy. Before the officers of the "Little Hattie" were aware of it, they were in the midst of the fleet which bore Butler's expedition against the fort.

Consternation seized them. Escape seemed impossible. But they had a trusty and fully competent pilot on board, Capt. Bob Grissom, who took his stand at the wheel-house, and Dan, at the word of command, mounted the paddle-box with his lantern, and signaled to the fort to let up the shelling until they could get in.

J. C. Stevenson, his brother, who was also a signal-operator, and on duty that night, reported that the "Little Hattie" was at the bar and asked that the shelling be stopped to let her in.

A test question was flashed to the boy on board, which, of course, he answered correctly, and the shelling ceased.

In and out the little craft wound among the vessels of the Yankee fleet so close at times that young Stevenson, as he stood on the paddle-box, could hear the officers as they gave commands, and see the men executing them; but again they were shielded "in the hollow of His hand," and again made an almost miraculous escape. The next morning, December 25, as the fleet was shelling the fort, the "Little Hattie" steamed up to Wilmington and Dan walked in and gave us his perilous experience of the night before.

All know that the first expedition against Fort Fisher was unsuccessful, and when the siege was raised, the "Little Hattie" left this port, never to return.

How well I remember the last time I saw Capt. Lebby! I had been down the street, and had met and walked a few yards with him, bidding him good-by, for he was to sail in a few hours.

I crossed the street, and he called to me, and when I turned, he stood with hat in hand, making one of his most courtly bows, and said: "You and your sister must not forget the 'Little Hattie' at night and morning."

We never did, until we knew that the dainty little craft and her perilous trips were ended.

The beautiful, tranquil beach at Fort Fisher today.
The beautiful, tranquil beach at Fort Fisher today.

Publisher's Note: Some paragraphs were broken up to make reading online easier but, otherwise, the article is verbatim. No words were changed.

We Can Win a Total Victory in This War on Southern History: Three Things Are Key

We Can Win a Total Victory in This War
on Southern History: Three Things Are Key

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Our enemies are intent on destroying every last vestige of Southern history.

We are up against opportunistic people who know little about real history. They gain politically by agitating against an invented Southern history.

They are bullies who know their hatred and violence will get them what they want from cowardly mayors and city councilmen and women. They know the disgraceful press will not question them and risk being called a racist.

They are more about a shakedown that will put money in their pockets as proclaimed by Nikole Hanna-Jones of the New York Times's historical fraud, the 1619 Project. It's all about reparations says Hanna-Jones.

The New York Times and Hanna-Jones are proud of the violence, destruction, and murders that occurred in the wake of George Floyd's death. She admitted she was proud to call the riots the 1619 riots.

Here is what we are up against.

These are the tactics that must be understood and defeated. This comes from a recent Southern Poverty Law Center newsletter bragging that since George Floyd's death May 25, 2020 over 100 Confederate monuments have been removed.

“Confederate symbols revere a secessionist army that fought to preserve the institutions of slavery and white supremacy,” said SPLC Chief of Staff Lecia Brooks. “They are painful monuments to anti-Black racism that have no place in public spaces. The removal of these symbols sends a powerful message: For our nation to heal, we cannot tolerate Confederate symbols that honor and mythologize a cruel, hateful past.”

In 2015, the murder of nine Black worshipers at an AME church by a white supremacist sparked a nationwide movement to remove Confederate monuments, flags and other symbols from public spaces. In response, the SPLC created Whose Heritage?, a project dedicated to creating a comprehensive database of Confederate symbols on public lands. For the past four years, Whose Heritage? has tracked the removal and relocation of these Confederate symbols, and the data shows we’re making strong progress. But, despite the fastest pace of removal we’ve seen yet, nearly 1,800 remain at courthouses, schools, parks, roads and other public spaces. [SPLC emphasis.]

The SPLC's "history" is invented by political agitators whose stock and trade is hate.

They could never understand that race relations, despite slavery, were better in the antebellum South than anywhere in the country according to credible observers like Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America.

Jim Crow started in the North and was there a long time before moving South after Reconstruction.

America is not a racist country.

We have had a two-term black president, regardless of the fact that he was the worst president in American history.

It appears his vice president, Joe Biden, is worst than him.

Biden has been selling influence to regimes like the Communist Chinese for decades. Tony Bobulinski likely proves it as detailed in recent New York Post stories such as October 27, 2020's "Hunter Biden emails: Tony Bobulinski says he was warned, 'You're just going to bury all of us".1

Nobody except the left cares about skin color. I am proud of my black Confederate brothers and the blacks who fought for the South, and it is we who demand respect for them.

I hate to shock the South haters but black people fought for the South in many capacities including as soldiers. Black loyalty to the Confederacy shocked Yankees at first, just as it shocks liberals today.

The following comes from an article in VDare by historian and author Mike Scruggs entitled "The Black Soldiers of the Confederacy."2 He writes that "The Northern Exchange angrily editorialized about blacks after First Manassas:"

The war has dispelled one delusion of the abolitionists. The Negroes regard them as enemies instead of friends.  No insurrection has occurred in the South—no important stampede of slaves has evinced their desire for freedom.  On the contrary, they have jeered at and insulted our troops, have readily enlisted in the rebel army and on Sunday at Manassas, shot down our men with as much alacrity as if abolitionism had never existed.
[Indiana State Sentinel, Volume 21, Number 10, Indianapolis, Marion County, July 31, 1861.]

Scruggs goes on "In 1863, Horace Greeley, the famous abolitionist and founder and editor of the New York Tribune, argued that Lincoln should enlist black soldiers to fight because the South had done so:"

For more than two years, Negroes have been extensively employed in belligerent operations by the Confederacy. They have been embodied and drilled as rebel soldiers and had paraded with white troops at a time when this would not have been tolerated in the armies of the Union.
[The Politically Incorrect Guide to The South: (And Why It Will Rise Again), by Clint Johnson]

Scruggs continues, "In September 1861, former slave Frederick Douglass, wrote down what he told President Abraham Lincoln about black Confederates:"

There are at the present moment, many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets ready to shoot down loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government.
[Frederick Douglass and the “Negro Regiment” at First Manassas, Dead Confederates, July 30, 2011]

None of that matters to those who make millions promoting hatred and destroying American history. They are "trained Marxists" who know that violence, political correctness, cancel culture, and the false charge of racism will cow most people today, especially gutless, cowardly mayors and city councilmen and women nationwide, the overwhelming majority of whom are Democrats.

Here are the highly effective tactics of the SPLC from that same October newsletter, and following that is how we can defeat them.

What can you do today to help remove Confederate symbols?

With almost 1,800 public Confederate symbols still standing, will you commit to researching symbols around you? Across the country, citizen-driven campaigns have risen from the ground up to remove symbols that distort and lionize the shameful history of the Confederacy. Our Confederate symbols map can help you find out if there are any in your community. The Whose Heritage? Action Guide provides information about the next steps you can take after identifying a symbol you want to see removed.

Here are the first steps:

Research the symbol. Use public records and newspaper reports to get more information about the origin and the motivation behind it.

Map the path to change. Find out what governmental body is responsible for overseeing or maintaining the display and identify the process for removal.

Organize and raise awareness. Demonstrating public support for removing the symbol can help you persuade policymakers or officials to work towards removing it.

Check out our Action Guide for detailed tips and information about the entire removal process, from start to finish. If you know of a Confederate symbol in your area that is not listed in Whose Heritage? or would like to share an update on a symbol’s removal or relocation, contact us . . .

Read more about the 100+ symbols that have been removed from public spaces across the U.S. here.

In solidarity,

Your friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center

P.S. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to get updates on the work to remove Confederate symbols and monuments from public spaces.

There are basically three things we must do:

1) Strengthen heritage laws in each Southern state.

This is the most important thing we can do and we absolutely must do it. We can not fail. We have got to give the heritage laws in each Southern state real teeth with real bite. In Alabama, the paltry $25,000 fine is an invitation to Democrat mayors to just pay it then remove whatever monument they want. Alabama might as well not have a heritage law.

What Alabama's law should say is that there is a $250,000 fine for removing an historical monument, and further, councilmen and women, and mayors, can be sued personally, if they vote to do unlawful things.

The national SCV should encourage this and keep up with it. It is best done by camps and people in individual states but SCV HQ should know what is going on everywhere, at all times, so they can learn from the best, and pass along winning techniques that can help everybody.

By SCV HQ keeping up with all of these efforts, they will know when a state is weak or needs help, and they can help them. There is enough talent and desire in every state in the Union to become politically powerful and make friends in legislatures and get the job done.

A lot of this can be done quietly and behind the scenes but the effort absolutely has to be aggressive. Every state in the South has to do it. Leaders need to come forward, camps and individuals, and get after it in their states.

I know of excellent efforts going on right now, and they promise to be effective. Success begets success. Leaders in different states can become friends and share information privately, behind the scenes. They can call on members to raise money.

SCV national headquarters should encourage it all with a ferocious urgency.

Just imagine what it would look like if every Southern state had a heritage law with teeth, with the ability to hold these cowardly, characterless mayors and city councilmen and women accountable, to sue them personally when possible.

Years ago, former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, made a great commercial supporting the SCV because he was a member. This kind of thing should be going on constantly.

In the current election, Georgia has, on their ballot, an initiative to remove sovereign immunity from cities and towns. That is a great thing to push everywhere because why should cities and towns be allowed to do illegal things simply because they are protected by sovereign immunity? They shouldn't be.

Sovereign immunity encourages illegal activity. If city, county and other leaders knew they could be sued, all of them would do better, and that would be good for America.

Here is more information on the issue of sovereign immunity now on the ballot in Georgia. This comes from Georgia Division Commander, Tim Pilgrim, October 12, 2020, with subject line: Vote (YES) on Constitutional Amendment -2-:

Vote (YES) for Constitutional Amendment No. 2
that will repeal the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity

Gentlemen,

Early voting starts tomorrow on October 12th. We have a very important Georgia Constitutional Amendment No. 2 that we will be voting on. Constitutional Amendment No. 2 repeals the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity in our State's Constitution.

Most of you have been following our current legal battles against the Cities and Counties that are removing our Veterans Monuments. The primary defense that these Cities and Counties are using against the Sons of Confederate Veterans is the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The legal doctrine of sovereign immunity allows municipalities, counties and State governments and their agencies to violate State Law without any repercussions, because they can claim they have sovereign immunity. The same laws that if they were violated by a Citizen, that Citizen would be charged, fined and jailed.

Also these municipalities, counties and State governments cannot be sued by Citizens, groups or organizations for the violation of State Laws because the legal defense of sovereign immunity prevents these groups from having legal standing to sue. [Emphasis added.]

Below is how it will be presented on the Official State Ballot:

Sovereign Immunity Amendment, -2-, on Georgia's 2020 ballot. VOTE YES TO END SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY!
Sovereign Immunity Amendment, -2-, on Georgia's 2020 ballot. VOTE YES TO END SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY!

Click Here: For a Voters Guild from the Veterans Memorial Coalition

Wait a minute! In the Voters Guide you left out Stacey Abrams.

JUST KIDDING!!! She is the worst, most embarrassing political figure in Georgia's history.

Click Here: To make a donation to Heritage Defense to help us fight these legal battles.

Georgia's Constitutional Amendment -2- is worded well. I don't know why anybody would oppose it. This is an exciting possibility and I pray it passes! GO GEORGIA!

I am behind our SCV national headquarters all the way. There are probably efforts underway that I am not aware of and I hope that is the case.

As the U.S. Army Rangers say, Rangers lead the way!

In this heritage fight, the SCV needs to lead the way.

They need to be quietly effective but have plans in place for TOTAL VICTORY which is a strong heritage law in every single Southern state. That's what victory looks like.

We need to become sophisticated and powerful in our state legislatures because we are in a political fight and not a history debate.

Get prominent citizens of each state who care about their state's history to step up, former as well as current legislators, military leaders, and accomplished citizens who are fed up with the destruction of American history.

Everybody supports a winner, and winning encourages more winning.

2) Write and promote Southern history ourselves.

The words of our ancestors and other primary source documents are there in troves.

Academia today is largely worthless and are more the enemy because of political correctness and wokeness. Neither academia nor the news media are interested in truthful history. They politicized history in the 1960s and that has dumbed down the country and led us to the ignorant place we're at today.

Academia and the news media (except for Fox News) are nearly 100% liberal and Democrat. I know the actual statistic is only 90% but the few non-liberals will not say a word and endanger their tenure or pension.

Fortunately, neither academia nor the news media has any credibility after pushing Mueller's Russia hoax for three years. Around 70% of the public does not trust the news media at all,3 and the idiotic wokeness and anti-free speech on college campuses have turned them into a joke to laugh at.

Most of American history prior to the 1960s is beneficial. The standard back then was objectivity and fairness. There are a lot of excellent works written by Northerners supporting the South, and a ton of things by Europeans such as Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Charles Dickens, et al.

Some excellent history has been written since the '60s once you separate it from the politically correct fraud. Clyde Wilson has written several books of listings of outstanding Southern history books and movies to study. They are all on Shotwell Publishing's website (www.ShotwellPublishing.com).

Visit the website of the Abbeville Institute and their outstanding blog. Get on their blog list and receive an excellent article daily, and support them with cash. Go to www.AbbevilleInstitute.org.

Join the Society of Independent Southern Historians: www.SouthernHistorians.org.

Visit Phil Leigh's excellent blog: www.CivilWarChat.wordpress.com.

Visit www.Reckonin.com for outstanding articles on history and current events.

Visit Boyd Cathey's blog, My Corner, at http://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com.

We can review current "woke" books and post the reviews on our websites and blogs.

I have numerous articles on my blog all documented and cited. I encourage compatriots to reprint or link to any of those articles. Just give me author/publisher credit (Gene Kizer, Jr., Charleston Athenaeum Press, www.CharlestonAthenaeumPress.com) and link to my website.

Go to SCV.org, the Sons of Confederate Veterans website.

Brian McClanahan has whole courses you can take online at your own leisure from his McClanahan Academy. Check them out at https://mcclanahanacademy.com.

A lot of camps have excellent websites with the history of their namesakes and other information. They should add a ton more good information and link to other great sites.

What I have mentioned here is a molecule's worth of sources from a mountain of available information.

3) A winning position on monuments in public discussions is NEVER to accept removing one, but encourage building more.

When SJW agitators say something needs to be removed, tell them 750,000 soldiers died in the War Between the States, and hell no, no monument needs to be removed, but you can build one to your ancestors and we may even support you!

Contextualized plaques are better than a monument being removed but they and their politically correct hate should be avoided.

We should begin a monument building movement exactly like our ancestors did at the beginning of the twentieth century. We will use private property, and even buy property as close to city centers as possible, because in the next century, those places will end up in the middle of cities.

We should make sure, legally, that those monuments can never, ever be removed for any reason.

Another extremely important thing we can do is get on the newsletter lists of all of our enemies so we know what they are doing all the time and how they are thinking. Remember what the Godfather said: Hold your friends close but your enemies closer.

Many of our enemies use highly effective techniques including social media, and we can learn a lot as well as keep up with them.

At the very least, reading their hateful garbage will infuriate you into more action.

Target for political annihilation the mostly Democrat mayors and councilmen and women who have removed our monuments. Perhaps organize yourself so specific camp leaders work with legislators to strengthen heritage laws, and others go after political enemies.

No matter how it is done, it has GOT to be done, and effectively.

We can have victory in this war but we have got to start winning significant battles, and we certainly can.

Democrat Mayor John Tecklenburg in Charleston, South Carolina who took down the Calhoun monument, which was said to be as good as any in the city of Rome, Italy, needs to be defeated.

Republican Mayor Sandy Stimpson in Mobile, Alabama, who took down Raphael Semmes magnificent monument, should be targeted, among many many others.

This is all hands on deck but going after these people politically, and raising money and building more monuments as we go, will be SO GRATIFYING.

We should strongly support all leaders, especially political leaders, who support us. President Donald J. Trump has been our most powerful supporter in the past 75 years. He has stood up for the battle flag and Gen. Lee's monument in Charlottesville, and he has fought against changing the Confederate names of Army bases in the South.

President Trump has caught hell for standing with us and we surely should pay him back with strong support on November 3rd. I don't need to list the many many other things Trump supports that we are for, such as a strong Second Amendment, his pro-life stance, appointing hundreds of conservatives to federal courts and three to the Supreme Court, his pro-business and strong support for our military and law enforcement. There is so much more.

Support all Republicans on November 3rd, even if you have to hold your nose with some of them.

Just remember, Virginia's Monument Avenue was safe and magnificent when Republicans were in control.

The moment Ralph Northam and Democrats took over, they destroyed it.

President Trump will be with us the next four years if he wins, so lets support him strongly and make both the South, and America, great again!

Deo Vindice!

 

NOTES:

1 "Hunter Biden emails: Tony Bobulinski says he was warned, ‘You’re just going to bury all of us’", by Bruce Golding, October 27, 2020, https://nypost.com/2020/10/27/hunter-biden-emails-tony-bobulinski-says-he-was-warned-about-going-public/, Accessed 10-28-20.

2 Mike Scruggs, "The Black Soldiers of the Confederacy", VDare, https://vdare.com/articles/hey-blm-why-didn-t-robert-e-lee-s-black-teamsters-desert-after-gettysburg, Accessed 10-22-20.

3 The 70% figure who do not trust the news media comes from several polls in the past few years. A recent poll by Gallop, October 6, 2020, shows that "About only 40% of people would slightly trust the media, while about 60% of people would have little to no trust in the news." Also, "Another thing that a recent poll has shown is that political parties play a huge part in who trusts the media. A whopping 73% of Democrats have at least a fair amount of trust in the media while only 3% of the Republicans and 6% of Independents said that they have a great deal of trust." All of this comes from the article "Gallop Poll shows approval of media at all time low...You'll be surprised just how low", https://steadfastclash.com/the-latest/gallop-poll-shows-approval-of-media-at-all-time-low-youll-be-surprised-just-how-low, Accessed 10-7-20. [Emphasis added.]

Winning, and the Philosophy of Success

It is and always has been an American zeal to be first
in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win.
– Vince Lombardi

Winning, and the Philosophy of Success

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Publisher's Note: This is one of the few non-Southern history articles on this blog but this is such GREAT material I have wanted to publish it for a while. This is Chapter X of my pro-South, 360 page book, The Elements of Academic Success, How to Graduate Magna Cum Laude from College (or how to just graduate, PERIOD!), published in 2014. The words and philosophies of driven, successful people are highly motivational. In this final chapter of the book are 61 pages of powerful quotations from some of the most successful people throughout history. It is thoroughly enjoyable to read material like this but let me warn you: You WILL get fired up! The first few quotations are part of the epigraph, then the bold topic sentences continue from previous chapters.

“Winning is not everything. It is the only thing.”
Vince Lombardi

“Whether you believe you can do a thing or believe you can’t, you are right.”
Henry Ford

“The longer I live, the more deeply I am convinced that that which makes the difference between one man and another – between the weak and the powerful, the great and the insignificant – is energy, invincible determination, a purpose once formed and then death or victory.”
Fowell Buxton

“Success or failure in business is caused more by mental attitude even than by mental capacities.”
Walter Dill Scott

“You can really have everything you want. If you go after it. But you will have to want it. The desire for success must be so strong within you that it is the very breath of your life — your first thought when you awaken in the morning, your last thought when you go to bed at night.”
Charles E. Popplestone

“The starting point of all achievement is desire. Keep this constantly in mind. Weak desires bring weak results, just as a small amount of fire makes a small amount of heat.”
Napoleon Hill

“People do not lack strength; they lack will.”
Victor Hugo

“Success isn’t a result of spontaneous combustion. You must set yourself on fire.”
Arnold H. Glasow

“It’s not the size of the man in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the man.”
Teddy Roosevelt

323. Read about success and those who have achieved it.

You can develop a powerful attitude by reading about success and those who have achieved it. There is nothing so motivational as a good story in which the hero bleeds and struggles but refuses to be beaten, and finally wins. Be that protagonist in your own story!

324. Accumulate a library of success books and refer back to them regularly.

The result of reading about success and successful people is the same as when you associate with successful people. Their success and good attitude rub off on you.

Once you go to an online book store such as Amazon.com, Alibris.com, AbeBooks.com, BarnesandNoble.com, BooksAMillion.com, et al., there are links to all the other success and positive mental attitude books. Many of them are also available as audio books.

Walk into a bookstore and look in the self-help and inspiration sections. In the bigger stores, there will be a ton of great books, old and new.

325. Buy the old classic, Think and Grow Rich, by Napoleon Hill.

Think and Grow Rich is the best selling success book of all time. Chapter 1, "The Power of Thought," starts with:

TRULY, "thoughts are things," and powerful things at that, when they are mixed with definiteness of purpose, persistence and a BURNING DESIRE for their translation into riches, or other material objects.1

Need I say more.

And let me add "a BURNING DESIRE" for not just "riches or material objects" but intangibles such as graduating magna cum laude! That was as tangible to me as the Atlantic Ocean, and I had a BURNING DESIRE to get there and was willing to sacrifice and work myself into the ground, and I got there. So can you.

Napoleon Hill (1883-1970) wrote several other outstanding books.

326. Buy The Power of Positive Thinking, by Norman Vincent Peale.

Dr. Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993) is another success author who has written numerous books. One of his most famous is The Power of Positive Thinking. Here’s how it starts in Chapter 1, “Believe in Yourself”:

BELIEVE IN YOURSELF! Have faith in your abilities! Without a humble but reasonable confidence in your own powers you cannot be successful or happy. But with sound self-confidence you can succeed. A sense of inferiority and inadequacy interferes with the attainment of your hopes, but self-confidence leads to self-realization and successful achievement. Because of the importance of this mental attitude, this book will help you believe in yourself and release your inner powers.2

327. Another classic is the huge 1936 bestseller, How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie.

Dorothy Carnegie, wife of author Dale Carnegie, writes this in the Preface to the 2009 reprint:

How to Win Friends and Influence People was first published in 1937... took its place in publishing history as one of the all-time international best-sellers. It touched a nerve and filled a human need that was more than a faddish phenomenon of post-Depression days, as evidenced by its continued and uninterrupted
sales . . .3

This book has sold 15 million copies worldwide. It remains popular today.

Dale Carnegie (1888-1955) wrote several other success books.

328. The Art of War, by Sun Tzu, edited by James Clavell, is an enlightening book of strategy and success.

This great book was written 2,500 years ago in China. Sun Tzu defines supreme excellence:

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.4

Sun Tzu knew that planning is essential to success on the battlefield.

The general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat; how much more no calculation at all!5

329. Planning is also essential in life!

Planning leads to achievement of goals. Not planning leads to floundering.

If you don’t plan, you can’t concentrate your power or evaluate how you are doing. You can’t correct errors or stay on track.

Two millennia after Sun Tzu, and over a century ago, French dramatist and writer, Victor Hugo (1802-1885 – author of The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Les Misérables) echoed Sun Tzu’s sentiment:

He who every morning plans the transactions of the day, and follows out that plan, carries a thread that will guide him through the labyrinth of the most busy life. The orderly arrangement of his time is like a ray of light which darts itself through all his occupations. But where no plan is laid, where the disposal of time is surrendered merely to the chance of incidents, all things lie huddled together in one chaos, which admits of neither distribution nor review.6

330. Read the autobiography of Wal-Mart founder, Sam Walton.

Sam’s 1992 autobiography, Made in America, My Story, by Sam Walton with John Huey, is a powerhouse of inspiration that you will think about every time you walk into Wal-Mart.

I have included some extra quotations here because THIS is how you succeed in business.

'Wal-Mart is the finest-managed company we have ever followed. We think it is quite likely the finest-managed company in America, and we know of at least one investor who thinks it is the finest-managed company in the world. We do not expect to find another Wal-Mart in our lifetime . . .' Margaret Gilliam, First Boston, around 19927

'(Sam Walton) is the greatest businessman of this century.' Harry Cunningham, Kmart Founder8

'I've known Sam since his first store in Newport, Arkansas, and I believe that money is, in some respects, almost immaterial to him. What motivates the man is the desire to absolutely be on top of the heap.' Charlie Baum, Early Wal-Mart Partner9

'I remember him saying over and over again: go in and check our competition. Check everyone who is our competition. And don't look for the bad. Look for the good. If you get one good idea, that's one more than you went into the store with, and we must try to incorporate it into our company. We're really not concerned with what they're doing wrong, we're concerned with what they're doing right, and everyone is doing something right.' Charlie Cate10

' (Sam Walton) is less afraid of being wrong than anyone I've ever known. And once he see he's wrong, he just shakes it off and heads in another direction.' David Glass11

'. . . If you take someone who lacks the experience and the know-how but has the real desire and the willingness to work his tail off to get the job done, he'll make up for what he lacks. And that proved true nine times out of ten. It was one way we were able to grow so fast.' Ferold Arend12

From Sam himself:

Even when I was a little kid in Marshall, Missouri, I remember being ambitious. . . . I was so competitive that when I started Boy Scouts in Marshall I made a bet with the other guys about which one of us would be the first to reach the rank of Eagle. Before I made Eagle in Marshall, we had moved to the little town of Shelbina, Missouri population maybe 1,500 but I won the bet; I got my Eagle at age thirteen the youngest Eagle Scout in the history of the state of Missouri at the time.13

This is a big contradiction in my makeup that I don't completely understand to this day. In many of my core values things like church and family and civic leadership and even politics  I'm a pretty conservative guy. But for some reason in business, I have always been driven to buck the system, to innovate, to take things beyond where they've been.14

I can tell you this, though: after a lifetime of swimming upstream, I am convinced that one of the real secrets to Wal-Mart's phenomenal success has been that very tendency. Many of our best opportunities were created out of necessity. The things that we were forced to learn and do, because we started out underfinanced and undercapitalized in these remote, small communities, contributed mightily to the way we've grown as a company.15

One way I've managed to keep up with everything on my plate is by coming in to the office really early almost every day, even when I don't have those Saturday numbers to look over. Four-thirty wouldn't be all that unusual a time for me to get started down at the office.16

Around 1976 and 1977, we definitely got the message that Kmart – with 1,000 stores – thought Wal-Mart – with 150 – had gotten too big for its britches.... In 1976, we had a session of our discounters’ trade group in Phoenix, and a lot of guys were talking about ways to avoid competing with Kmart directly. I got a little mad and told everybody they ought to stand up and fight them. I made it clear we planned to.17

If American business is going to prevail, and be competitive, we're going to have to get accustomed to the idea that business conditions change, and that survivors have to adapt to those changing conditions. Business is a competitive endeavor, and job security lasts only as long as the customer is satisfied. Nobody owes anybody else a living.18

This book is full of GOLD for entrepreneurs and people who plan business careers, especially in retail and marketing. There is a TON more extremely valuable information in this enjoyable book. It should be required reading for everybody in business.

331. Read some of Donald Trump’s books.

[Publisher's Note: It is fascinating to look back on this, now that Trump is president (Oct. 2020). You can see how these traits served him well the past four years. This is a great book full of valuable material. He has several others out there just like this.]

I read Think Big and Kick Ass, in Business and Life, by The Donald, co-authored with Bill Zanker. This book is full of highly motivational material and excellent advice such as:

To be a success the most important thing is to love what you do. You have to put in long hours and face enormous challenges to be successful. If you do not love what you do, you will never make it through. If you love your work, the difficulties will be balanced out by the enjoyment.19

All successful people are high-energy people who are passionate about what they do. Find a passion that energizes you!20

Do not look for approval from others. That is a sure sign of weakness.21

Some people carry around a lot of mental baggage, which destroys their focus. Get rid of it. It just gets in the way and slows you down.22

The worse hell you will ever face is the hell you create with your own mind. It is much worse than the hell other people create for you. So instead of dwelling on all the negatives, think about what you want. Think about all the good things you are going to do in life. Keep focused on your goal and never give up. Besides, bad times bring great opportunities.23

332. When you read an exceptionally motivational quotation, look up the person saying it and read a brief bio. Learn something about an accomplished person.

Just Google them and Wikipedia or somewhere will pop up. It makes the quotation so much more meaningful if you know a little about the person saying it. You don’t have to read much, just skim a few paragraphs and read what you want.

In the compilations below, there are hundreds of the most famous, accomplished men and women of all time whose stories and quotations are highly motivational.

One of them is Orison Swett Marden, founder of Success magazine and author of numerous books on success.

Also, Marden’s original inspiration, Samuel Smiles. Smiles wrote hundreds of articles and twenty-five books including Self-Help, a best-selling classic celebrating achievement and self-reliance. It was published in 1859 but is still powerful reading and just as relevant today. The principles are the same.

333. Compilations of success quotations are jam-packed with crackling, buzzing electricity.

One can get lost in a bliss of quotations about success, determination, desire, discipline, achievement and the other things humans are geared to do.

These types of books show you the minds and raw drive of men and women determined to make things happen in their lives. They are the movers, shakers and achievers of the world, and will not be denied.

Compilations of success quotations can be read over and over throughout one’s life for a shot of motivation or pure pleasure.

Here are a few I love:

“You know from past experience that whenever you have been driven to the wall, or thought you were, you have extricated yourself in a way which you never would have dreamed possible had you not been put to the test. The trouble is that in your everyday life you don’t go deep enough to tap the divine mind within you.”
Orison Swett Marden

“Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.”
Calvin Coolidge

“You learn that, whatever you are doing in life, obstacles don’t matter very much. Pain or other circumstances can be there, but if you want to do a job bad enough, you’ll find a way to get it done.”
Jack Youngblood

“This force, which is the best thing in you, your highest self, will never respond to any ordinary half-hearted call, or any milk-and-water endeavor. It can only be reached by your supremest call, your supremest effort. It will respond only to the call that is backed up by the whole of you, not part of you; you must be all there in what you are trying to do. You must bring every particle of your energy, unswervable resolution, your best efforts, your persistent industry to your task or the best will not come out of you. You must back up your ambition by your whole nature, by unbounded enthusiasm and a determination to win which knows no failure.... Only a masterly call, a masterly will, a supreme effort, intense and persistent application, can unlock the door to your inner treasure and release your highest powers.”
Orison Swett Marden

“Get into a line that you will find to be a deep personal interest something you really enjoy spending twelve to fifteen hours a day working at, and the rest of the time thinking about.”
Earl Nightingale

“Success is not measured by what a man accomplished, but by the opposition he has encountered, and the courage with which he has maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds....”
Orison Swett Marden

“It is not ease, but effort — not facility, but difficulty, that makes men. There is, perhaps, no station in life in which difficulties have not to be encountered and overcome before any decided measure of success can be achieved.”
Samuel Smiles

“There are no gains without pains.”
Benjamin Franklin

“There is no success without hardship.”
Sophocles

“The measure of a man is the way he bears up under misfortune.”
Plutarch

“The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”
Thomas Paine

“No pain, no palm; no thorns, no throne; no gall, no glory; no cross, no crown.”
William Penn

“People who have accomplished work worthwhile have had a very high sense of the way to do things. They have not been content with mediocrity. They have not confined themselves to the beaten tracks; they have never been satisfied to do things just as others do them, but always a little better. They always pushed things that came to their hands a little higher up, a little farther. It is this little higher up, this little farther on, that counts in the quality of life’s work. It is the constant effort to be first-class in everything one attempts that conquers the heights of excellence.”
Orison Swett Marden

“He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.”
Edmund Burke

“The very greatest things — great thoughts, discoveries, inventions — have usually been nurtured in hardship, often pondered in sorrow, and at length established with difficulty.”
Samuel Smiles

“First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do.”
Epictetus

“This above all: to thine own self be true.”
William Shakespeare

“Know thyself.”
Socrates

“You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing that we call ‘failure’ is not the falling down, but the staying down.”
Mary Pickford

“It’s not over until it’s over.”
Yogi Berra

“What this power is I cannot say; all I know is that it exists and it becomes available only when a man is in that state of mind in which he knows exactly what he wants and is fully determined not to quit until he finds it.”
Alexander Graham Bell

“If I had to select one quality, one personal characteristic that I regard as being most highly correlated with success, whatever the field, I would pick the trait of persistence. Determination. The will to endure to the end, to get knocked down seventy times and get up off the floor saying, ‘Here goes number seventy-one!’”
Richard M. DeVos

“I do not think there is any other quality so essential to success of any kind as the quality of perseverance. It overcomes almost everything, even nature.”
John D. Rockefeller

“Success... seems to be connected with action. Successful men keep moving. They make mistakes, but they don’t quit.”
Conrad Hilton

“‘Where there is a will there is a way,’ is an old and true saying. He who resolves upon doing a thing, by that very resolution, often scales the barriers to it, and secures its achievement. To think we are able, is almost to be so — to determine upon attainment is frequently attainment itself.”
Samuel Smiles

“When your desires are strong enough you will appear to possess superhuman powers to achieve.”
Napoleon Hill

“I have brought myself, by long meditation, to the conviction that a human being with a settled purpose must accomplish it, and that nothing can resist a will which will stake even existence upon its fulfillment.”
Benjamin Disraeli

“There’s a way to do it better... find it.”
Thomas A. Edison

“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out where the strong stumbled, or how the doer could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly. His place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
Theodore Roosevelt

“The beginning of a habit is like an invisible thread, but every time we repeat the act we strengthen the strand, add to it another filament, until it becomes a great cable and binds us irrevocably thought and act.”
Orison Swett Marden

“The individual who wants to reach the top in business must appreciate the might of the force of habit — and must understand that practices are what create habits. He must be quick to break those habits that can break him — and hasten to adopt those practices that will become the habits that help him achieve the success he desires.”
J. Paul Getty

“Any act often repeated soon forms a habit; and habit allowed, steadily gains in strength. At first it may be but as a spider’s web, easily broken through, but if not resisted it soon binds us with chains of steel.”
Tryon Edwards

“I made a resolve then that I was going to amount to something if I could. And no hours, nor amount of labor, nor amount of money would deter me from giving the best that there was in me. And I have done that ever since, and I win by it. I know.”
Colonel Harland Sanders

“All men who have achieved great things have been dreamers.”
Orison Swett Marden

“Think little goals and expect little achievements. Think big goals and win big success.”
David Joseph Schwartz

“We lift ourselves by our thought, we climb upon our vision of ourselves. If you want to enlarge your life, you must first enlarge your thought of it and of yourself. Hold the ideal of yourself as you long to be, always, everywhere — your ideal of what you long to attain — the ideal of health, efficiency, success.”
Orison Swett Marden

“Dream lofty dreams, and as you dream, so shall you become. Your vision is the promise of what you shall one day be; your ideal is the prophecy of what you shall at last unveil.”
James Allen

“Music should be something that makes you gotta move, inside or outside.”
Elvis Presley

“Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine.”
Elvis Presley

334. The most powerful success material I ever read was compiled by American philosopher and writer, Elbert Hubbard, and published in 1923 with title Elbert Hubbard’s Scrap Book.

I ran across Elbert Hubbard’s Scrap Book when I was in my early 20s, the edition with copyright 1923 “By The Roycrofters” (published posthumously by William H. Wise & Company, Roycroft Distributors, New York City).

The title page states, almost as a subtitle:

Containing the inspired and inspiring selections gathered during a lifetime of discriminating reading for his own use.

This 228 page book has subject, author and poetry indices, and is a product of the Arts and Crafts Movement of the early 20th century. It is ornate and decorative with hard brown covers tied together by cloth ribbon through three holes on the left-hand side.

335. Elbert Hubbard’s Scrap Book is powerful.

Inside is some of the best writing and philosophy in the history of the world by people who lived from ancient times right up to Hubbard’s death in 1915.

The flavor of Elbert Hubbard’s Scrap Book is definitely 19th century and before. Hubbard and his wife, Alice, died aboard the RMS Lusitania after it was torpedoed by the German submarine, Unterseeboot 20, on May 7, 1915 off the coast of Ireland two years before the United States entered World War I.

I read large parts of this book and found it so powerful and inspiring, it changed my life and has been a strong source of power and inspiration my entire life.

It also gave me a certain wisdom to have read the words of so many brilliant people across time.

336. Here are a few of the most powerful quotations for me from Elbert Hubbard’s Scrap Book.

“No one has success until he has the abounding life. This is made up of the many-folded activity of energy, enthusiasm and gladness. It is to spring to meet the day with a thrill at being alive. It is to go forth to meet the morning in an ecstasy of joy. It is to realize the oneness of humanity in true spiritual sympathy.”
Lillian Whiting

“He who would do something great in this short life must apply himself to work with such a concentration of his forces as, to idle spectators who live only to amuse themselves, looks like insanity.”
Francis Parkman, Jr.

“I never work better than when I am inspired by anger. When I am angry I can write, pray, and preach well; for then my whole temperament is quickened, my understanding sharpened, and all mundane vexations and temptations depart.”
Martin Luther

“Enthusiasm is the greatest asset in the world. It beats money and power and influence. Single-handed the enthusiast convinces and dominates where the wealth accumulated by a small army of workers would scarcely raise a tremor of interest. Enthusiasm tramples over prejudice and opposition, spurns inaction, storms the citadel of its object, and like an avalanche, overwhelms and engulfs all obstacles. It is nothing more or less than faith in action.

“Faith and initiative rightly combined remove mountainous barriers and achieve the unheard of and miraculous.

“Set the gem of enthusiasm afloat in your plant, in your office, or on your farm; carry it in your attitude and manner; it spreads like contagion and influences every fiber of your industry before you realize it; it means increase in production and decrease in costs; it means joy, and pleasure, and satisfaction to your workers; it means life, real, virile; it means spontaneous bedrock results – the vital things that pay dividends.”
Henry Chester

“A great deal of talent is lost in the world for want of a little courage. Everyday sends to their graves obscure men whom timidity prevented from making a first effort; who, if they could have been induced to begin, would in all probability have gone great lengths in the career of fame. The fact is, that to do anything in the world worth doing, we must not stand back shivering and thinking of the cold and danger, but jump in and scramble through as well as we can. It will not do to be perpetually calculating risks and adjusting nice chances; it did very well before the Flood, when a man would consult his friends upon an intended publication for a hundred-and-fifty years, and live to see his success afterwards; but at present, a man waits, and doubts, and consults his brother, and his particular friends, till one day he finds he is sixty yeas old and that he has lost so much time in consulting cousins and friends that he has no more time to follow their advice.”
Sydney Smith

“Oh, the eagerness and freshness of youth! How the boy enjoys his food, his sleep, his sports, his companions, his truant days! His life is an adventure, he is widening his outlook, he is extending his dominion, he is conquering his kingdom. How cheap are his pleasures, how ready his enthusiasms! In boyhood I have had more delight on a haymow with two companions and a big dog – delight that came nearer intoxication – than I have ever had in all the subsequent holidays of my life.

“When youth goes, much goes with it. When manhood comes, much comes with it. We exchange a world of delightful sensations and impressions for a world of duties and studies and meditations. The youth enjoys what the man tries to understand. Lucky is he who can get his grapes to market and keep the bloom under them, who can carry some of the freshness and eagerness and simplicity of youth into his later years, who can have a boy’s heart below a man’s head.”
John Burroughs

“Believe me when I tell you that thrift of time will repay you with a usury of profit beyond your most sanguine dreams; and that waste of it will make you dwindle alike in intellectual and moral stature, beyond your darkest reckoning.”
W. E. Gladstone

“If time be of all things most precious, wasting time must be the greatest prodigality, since lost time is never found again; and what we call time enough always proves little enough. Let us then be up and doing, and doing to a purpose; so by diligence shall we do more with less perplexity.”
Benjamin Franklin

“There are two ways of being happy: We may either diminish our wants or augment our means — either will do — the result is the same; and it is for each man to decide for himself, and do that which happens to be the easiest.

"If you are idle or sick or poor, however hard it may be to diminish your wants, it will be harder to augment your means.

"If you are active and prosperous or young or in good health, it may be easier to augment your means than to diminish your wants.

"But if you are wise, you will do both at the same time, young or old, rich or poor, sick or well; and if you are very wise you will do both in such a way as to augment the general happiness of society.”
Benjamin Franklin

“The power of a man increases steadily by continuance in one direction. He becomes acquainted with the resistances and with his own tools; increases his skill and strength and learns the favorable moments and favorable accidents. He is his own apprentice, and more time gives a great addition of power, just as a falling body acquires momentum with every foot of the fall.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson

“There is but one straight road to success, and that is merit. The man who is successful is the man who is useful. Capacity never lacks opportunity. It can not remain undiscovered, because it is sought by too many anxious to use it.”
Bourke Cockran

“I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.”
Edward Gibbon

“If the world does owe you a living, you yourself must be your own collector.”
Theodore N. Vail

“He is not only idle who does nothing, but he is idle who might be better employed.”
Socrates

“Every year I live I am more convinced that the waste of life lies in the love we have not given, the powers we have not used, the selfish prudence that will risk nothing, and which, shirking pain, misses happiness as well. No one ever yet was the poorer in the long run for having once in a lifetime 'let out all the length of all the reins.'”
Mary Chalmondeley

“The law of worthy life is fundamentally the law of strife. It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things.”
Theodore Roosevelt

“Nature gives to every time and season some beauties of its own; and from morning to night, as from the cradle to the grave, is but a succession of changes so gentle and easy that we can scarcely mark their progress.”
Charles Dickens

“Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.”
John Quincy Adams

“Self-confidence is the first requisite to great undertakings.”
Samuel Johnson

“Habit is a cable; we weave a thread of it every day, and last we can not break it.”
Horace Mann

“Affection can withstand very severe storms of vigor, but not a long polar frost of indifference.”
Sir Walter Scott

“When one begins to turn in bed it is time to turn out.”
Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington

“Except a living man there is nothing more wonderful than a book! A message to us from the dead – from human souls we never saw, who lived, perhaps thousands of miles away. And yet these, in those little sheets of paper, speak to us, arouse us, terrify us, teach us, comfort us, open their hearts to us as brothers."
Charles Kingsley

“The men whom I have seen succeed best in life have always been cheerful and hopeful men, who went about their business with a smile on their faces, and took the changes and chances of this mortal life like men, facing rough and smooth alike as it came.”
Charles Kingsley

“‘Letting well enough alone’ is a foolish motto in the life of a man who wants to get ahead. In the first place, nothing is ‘well enough,’ if you can do it better.

“No matter how well you are doing, do better. There is an old Spanish proverb which says, ‘Enjoy the little you have while the fool is shunting for more.’

“The energetic American ought to turn this proverb upside down and make it read, ‘While the fool is enjoying the little he has, I will hunt for more.’

“The way to hunt for more is to utilize your odd moments. Every minute that you save by making it useful, more profitable, is so much added to your life and its possibilities. Every minute lost is a neglected by-product — once gone, you will never get it back.”
Arthur Brisbane

“Among the aimless, unsuccessful or worthless, you often hear talk about ‘killing time.’

The man who is always killing time is really killing his own chances in life; while the man who is destined to success is the man who makes time live by making it useful.”
Arthur Brisbane

“The ladder of life is full of splinters, but they always prick the hardest when we’re sliding down.”
William L. Brownell

“Forty is the old age of youth; fifty is the youth of old age.”
Victor Hugo

“Fifty is the old age of youth; sixty is the youth of old age in 2012.”
Gene Kizer, Jr.

“It is customary to say that age should be considered because it comes last. It seems just as much to the point that youth comes first. And the scale fairly kicks the beam if you go on to add that age, in a majority of cases, never comes at all. Disease and accidents make short work of even the most prosperous persons. To be suddenly snuffed out in the middle of ambitious schemes is tragic enough at the best; but when a man has been grudging himself his own life in the meanwhile, and saving up everything for the festival that was never to be, it becomes an hysterically moving sort of tragedy which lies on the confines of farce.... To husband a favorite claret until the batch turns sour is not at all an artful stroke of policy; and how much more with a whole cellar – a whole bodily existence! People may lay down their lives with cheerfulness in the sure expectations of a blessed mortality; but that is a different affair from giving up with all its admirable pleasures, in the hope of a better quality of gruel in a more than problematic, nay, more than improbable old age. We should not compliment a hungry man who should refuse a whole dinner and reserve all this appetite for the desert before he knew whether there was to be any dessert or not. If there be such a thing as imprudence in the world, we surely have it here. We sail in leaky bottoms and on great and perilous waters; and to take a cue from the dolorous old naval ballad, we have heard the mermaids singing, and know that we shall never see dry land any more. Old and young, we are all on our last cruise. If there is a fill of tobacco among the crew, for God’s sake, pass it round and let us have a pipe before we go!”
Robert Louis Stevenson

“You want a better portion than you now have in business, a better and fuller place in life. All right, think of that better place and you in it. Form the mental image. Keep on thinking of that higher position, keep the image constantly before you, and – no, you will not suddenly be transported into the higher job, but you will find that you are preparing yourself to occupy the better position in life – your body, your energy, your understanding, your heart will all grow up to the job – and when you are ready, after hard work, after perhaps years of preparation, you will get the job and the higher place in life.”
Joseph H. Appel

“Why should we call ourselves men, unless it is to succeed in everything, everywhere? Say of nothing, ‘This is beneath me,’ nor feel that anything is beyond our powers. Nothing is impossible to the man who can will.”
Honoré Mirabeau

“The man who starts out with the idea of getting rich won’t succeed; you must have a larger ambition. There is no mystery in business success. If you do each day’s task successfully, stay faithfully within the natural operations of commercial law, and keep your head clear, you will come out all right.”
John D. Rockefeller

“I owe all my success in life to having been always a quarter of an hour beforehand.”
Horatio Lord Nelson

“The men who try to do something and fail are infinitely better than those who try to do nothing and succeed.”
Lloyd Jones

“To love and win is the best thing; to love and lose the next best.”
William Makepeace Thackeray

Playthings
By Robert Louis Stevenson

The streets are full of human toys,
Wound up for threescore years;
Their springs are hungers, hopes and joys,
And jealousies and fears.

They move their eyes, their lips, their Hands;
They are marvelously dressed;
And here my body stirs or stands,
A plaything like the rest.

The toys are played with till they fall,
Worn out and thrown away.
Why were they ever made at all!
Who sits to watch that play!

337. Other quotations by Elbert Hubbard himself.

“There is no failure except in no longer trying. There is no defeat except from within, no really insurmountable barrier save our own inherent weakness of purpose.”

“At last we must admit that the man who towers above his fellows is the one who has the power to make others work for him; a great success is not possible any other way.”

“To remain on earth you must be useful. Otherwise, Nature regards you as old metal and is only watching for a chance to melt you over.”

“Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.”

“Life is just one damned thing after another.”

“To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.”

“The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually fearing you will make one.”

“One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man.”

“You can lead a boy to college, but you can’t make him think.”

“We awaken in others the same attitude of mind we hold toward them.”

“The love we give away is the only love we keep.”

“Prison is a Socialist’s Paradise, where equality prevails, everything is supplied and competition is eliminated.”

“Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive.”

338. Find and clip stirring words anywhere, and make them yours.

This was an ad in the Wall Street Journal, December 5, 1985 sponsored by United Technologies of Hartford, Connecticut. At the bottom, it read “How we perform as individuals will determine how we perform as a nation.”

To the Kid on the End of the Bench

Champions once sat where you’re sitting, kid. The Football Hall of Fame (and every other Hall of Fame) is filled with names of people who sat, week after week, without getting a spot of mud on their well-laundered uniforms. Generals, senators, surgeons, prize-winning novelists, professors, business executives started on the end of a bench, too. Don’t sit and study your shoe tops. Keep your eye on the game. Watch for defensive lapses. Look for offensive opportunities. If you don’t think you’re in a great spot, wait until you see how many would like to take it away from you at next spring practice. What you do from the bench this season could put you on the field next season as a player, or back in the grandstand as a spectator.

339. There are excellent success-quotation websites on the Internet. Search for “success quotations.”

The great thing about quotation websites is the vast amount of information, all cataloged by author and subject. Do a Google search for “success quotations” or “famous quotations” and all kinds of things will pop up.

A good website is The Quotations Page at www.quotationspage.com. Their home page boasts that it is the oldest quotation website, established in 1994, and today (March, 2013) has 27,000 quotations from 3,100 authors with more added daily.24 There are extensive quotations, from Aristotle to Elizabeth Clarkson Zwart. It’s a philosophical feast! And all are categorized by author and subject. Here are three:

"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature …. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."
Helen Keller

"Duty then is the sublimest word in the English language. You should do your duty in all things. You can never do more, you should never wish to do less."
Gen. Robert E. Lee

"How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving, and tolerant of the weak and the strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these."
George Washington Carver

340. Another good website is www.BrainyQuote.com.25 Here are a few from H. L. Mencken

Henry Louis "H. L." Mencken (September 12, 1880 – January 29, 1956), the "Sage of Baltimore," was one of the most influential American writers of the twentieth century, a journalist, editor, satirist and critic of American culture. Several of his books are still in print.

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that they will also make better soup."

"Immorality: the morality of those who are having a better time."

"It is impossible to imagine the universe run by a wise, just and omnipotent God, but it is quite easy to imagine it run by a board of gods."

"No married man is genuinely happy if he has to drink worse whiskey than he used to drink when he was single."

"No matter how happily a woman may be married, it always pleases her to discover that there is a nice man who wishes that she were not."

"Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

"The theory seems to be that as long as a man is a failure he is one of God’s children, but that as soon as he succeeds he is taken over by the Devil."

341. More from www.BrainyQuote.com:

Here's one from the guy who wrote God Bless America:

Irving Berlin, May 11, 1888-September 22, 1989, was a brilliant American composer and songwriter who wrote God Bless America, White Christmas, There’s No Business Like Show Business, and many other great songs.

“Our attitudes control our lives. Attitudes are a secret power working twenty-four hours a day, for good or bad. It is of paramount importance that we know how to harness and control this great force.”
Irving Berlin

“I honestly think it is better to be a failure at something you love than to be a success at something you hate.”
George Burns

“Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome.”
Booker T. Washington

“Excellence is to do a common thing in an uncommon way.”
Booker T. Washington

“Action is the foundational key to all success.”
Pablo Picasso

“Don’t aim for success if you want it; just do what you love and believe in, and it will come naturally.”
David Frost

“Each player must accept the cards life deals him or her: but once they are in hand, he or she alone must decide how to play the cards in order to win the game.”
Voltaire

“No problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking.”
Voltaire

“Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.”
Aristotle

“I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self.”
Aristotle

“Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting in a particular way.”
Aristotle

“Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just, by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.”
Aristotle

“The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.”
Aristotle

“You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honor.”
Aristotle

“Youth is easily deceived because it is quick to hope.”
Aristotle

“Love begets love, love knows no rules, this is same for all.”
Virgil

“Love conquers all.”
Virgil

“Love conquers all things; let us too surrender to Love.”
Virgil

“When I don’t know whether to fight or not, I always fight.”
Horatio Lord Nelson

“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.”
William Shakespeare, from As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII

“Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.”
William Shakespeare, from Julius Caesar, Act II, Scene II

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
William Shakespeare, from Macbeth, Act V, Scene V

“Nothing is really good or bad in itself – it’s all what a person thinks about it.”
William Shakespeare, from Hamlet, Act II, Scene II

“This above all: to thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.”
William Shakespeare, from Hamlet, Act I, Scene III

“Courage is the greatest of all virtues, because if you haven’t courage, you may not have an opportunity to use any of the others.”
Samuel Johnson

“If your determination is fixed, I do not counsel you to despair. Few things are impossible to diligence and skill. Great works are performed not by strength, but perseverance.”
Samuel Johnson

“Self-confidence is the first requisite to great undertakings.”
Samuel Johnson

“So far is it from being true that men are naturally equal, that no two people can be half an hour together, but one shall acquire an evident superiority over the other.”
Samuel Johnson

“The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken.”
Samuel Johnson

“The greatest part of a writer’s time is spent in reading in order to write. A man will turn over half a library to make a book.”
Samuel Johnson

“There is no private house in which people can enjoy themselves so well as at a capital tavern …. No, Sir; there is nothing which has yet been contrived by man by which so much happiness is produced as by a good tavern or inn.”
Samuel Johnson

“Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”
Benjamin Franklin

“Energy and persistence conquer all things.”
Benjamin Franklin

“Speak ill of no man, but speak all the good you know of everybody.”
Benjamin Franklin

“Take time for all things: great haste makes great waste.”
Benjamin Franklin

“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.”
Benjamin Franklin

“One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half. Never run away from anything. Never!”
Winston Churchill

342. Know Vince Lombardi, immortal coach of the Green Bay Packers.

Coach Lombardi won numerous championships including the first two Super Bowls for the 1966 and ’67 seasons. He never had a losing season in the NFL. He is the epitome of drive, determination, blood, sweat and achievement.

What It Takes to be Number One

From the Lombardi web site, www.VinceLombardi.com

Winning is not a sometime thing; it’s an all the time thing. You don’t win once in a while; you don’t do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.

There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game, and that’s first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay, and I don’t ever want to finish second again. There is a second place bowl game, but it is a game for losers played by losers. It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win.

Every time a football player goes to play his trade he’s got to play from the ground up – from the soles of his feet right up to his head. Every inch of him has to play. Some guys play with their heads. That’s O.K. You’ve got to be smart to be number one in any business. But more importantly, you’ve got to play with your heart, with every fiber of your body. If you’re lucky enough to find a guy with a lot of head and a lot of heart, he’s never going to come off the field second.

Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organization – an army, a political party or a business. The principles are the same. The object is to win – to beat the other guy. Maybe that sounds hard or cruel. I don’t think it is.

It is a reality of life that men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men. That’s why they are there – to compete. To know the rules and objectives when they get in the game. The object is to win fairly, squarely, by the rules – but to win.

And in truth, I’ve never known a man worth his salt who in the long run, deep down in his heart, didn’t appreciate the grind, the discipline. There is something in good men that really yearns for discipline and the harsh reality of head to head combat.

I don’t say these things because I believe in the ‘brute’ nature of man or that men must be brutalized to be combative. I believe in God, and I believe in human decency. But I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour – his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear – is that moment when he has to work his heart out in a good cause and he’s exhausted on the field of battle – victorious.
Coach Vince Lombardi26

343. Other quotations by Vince Lombardi, also on the website.

"Dictionary is the only place that success comes before work. Hard work is the price we must pay for success. I think you can accomplish anything if you’re willing to pay the price."

"Winning is habit. Unfortunately, so is losing."

"The harder you work, the harder it is to surrender."

"Teams do not go physically flat, but they go mentally stale."

"Fatigue makes cowards of us all."

344. Powerful statements about Vince Lombardi by some of his players, from the book Lombardi, Winning Is the Only Thing, edited by Jerry Kramer.27

Jerry Kramer played at Green Bay for 11 years as an offensive lineman. During that time, the Packers won five National Championships and the first two Super Bowls. He’s most famous for the 1967 NFL Championship Game known as the Ice Bowl played against the Dallas Cowboys at Green Bay in sub-zero temperatures.

The Packers were down 17-14 with 16 seconds left in the game. It was third and goal from the two-foot line. If they ran and didn't score, the clock would run out and they would lose. The smarter play was a pass, so that if incomplete it would stop the clock and give them enough time to set up for the tying field goal to go into overtime.

Kramer assured Quarterback Bart Starr he could block on the frozen ground so Starr called a right 31 wedge with himself keeping.

On the snap, Kramer and center Ken Bowman instantly executed a perfect double-team block on the Cowboy’s Jethro Pugh and Starr got across the goal line! The Packers had won one of the greatest NFL games in history, 21-17.

Kramer is in the Green Bay Hall of Fame and his jersey retired. He is the author of several books including the best-selling Instant Replay, with Dick Schaap. He was also a sports commentator.

Alex Wojciechowicz28

Vince went into every game with the attitude, 'I'm here to die, are you?' He was ready to kill himself to win. He never said much. He was a leader by example. One game, someone hit him in the mouth, and he played the whole sixty minutes, cut and bleeding, then went and got about twenty stitches in his mouth.

Bart Starr29

I wasn't mentally tough before I met Coach Lombardi. . . . To win, you have to have a certain amount of mental toughness. Coach Lombardi gave me that. He taught me that you must have a burning desire to win. It's got to dominate all your waking hours. It can't ever wane. It's got to glow in you all the time.

. . . And in 1960, when we had to beat Los Angeles in the final game of the season to clinch the conference title, I was really ill. I got violently sick to my stomach during the game. But I kept playing—I was mentally tough; I wouldn't give in to my sickness—and we won the game.

I wanted to be one of the best quarterbacks in pro football, and I knew I didn't have the strongest arm in the world. I knew I wasn't the biggest guy or the fastest. But Coach Lombardi showed me that, by working hard and using my mind, I could overcome my weaknesses to the point where I could be one of the best.

The heart of his system was preparation. He prepared us beautifully for every game, and for every eventuality. That—more than the words of encouragement he occasionally gave me—was what built up my self-confidence. Thanks to Coach Lombardi, I knew—I was positive—that I would never face a situation I wasn't equipt to handle.

Paul Hornung30

I don't believe any team went into its game each Sunday as well prepared as we were. We knew just what to expect.

For instance, if we were playing the Baltimore Colts and we had the ball on the left side of the field between the forty-yard lines, we knew that, on third down, the Colts would throw up a zone defense against us. And we knew exactly how to attack that zone. The quarterback knew which plays to call, and the linemen knew how to adjust. Every single one of our linemen knew what a zone was. Hell, before Vince got there, even our quarterbacks—I was one of them—didn't know what a zone was. We just called some kind of pass on third down, and that was it. If it went incomplete, we just figured it was a bad pass. Vince made us the smartest team in football.

Frank Gifford31

I can remember sneaking out some nights after curfew in Oregon, and sometimes I'd come back in pretty late, and the lights would still be on in his room. I realized then the kind of work he was putting in. He had to be exhausted, but he never showed it. He'd be out on the field the next day, going full speed, driving himself every minute.

Vinny believes in the Spartan life, the total self-sacrifice, and to succeed and reach the pinnacle that he has, you've got to be that way. You've got to have total dedication. The hours you put in on a  job can't even be considered. The job is to be done . . . I saw the movie, Patton, and it was Vince Lombardi.

Sam Huff32

I love football, I love the game more than anything in the world, but my dedication equals one-third of his. It's his life. I remember one time we were watching some films, Kansas City versus Green Bay in the Super Bowl. On one play, Jimmy Taylor took off through tackle and broke to the outside and went for the touchdown. I think he carried about three guys with him. Lombardi, watching, was up and screaming, 'Look at that sonuvabitch run!' I guarantee he'd seen that film two hundred times, but he couldn't contain his enthusiasm.

Norb Hecker33

Of course, Vince admired great speakers. He had a record of Gen. MacArthur's famous speech to the cadets at West Point, the one about love, honor and duty, and he used to  play that record over and over in the coaches' room. You got tears in your eyes listening to it; it was fantastic.

345. If you draw power from other sources such as your faith or family, then nurture them too. Nurture all sources of power.

Put a lot into whatever gives you power! You can't get more out than you put in. Put a lot in! Especially if your effort is multiplied.

Don't listen to what anybody else says. Follow your heart. It's YOUR life and it's shorter than you think. Know yourself, as Socrates said. To thine own self be true, as Shakespeare said. Go after everything you want! Play the game with heart from the bottoms of your feet to the top of your head, as Lombardi said!

Having a philosophy of success in your mind will unleash a power you never knew you had. It is something that stays with you, something you can rely on to be there for you always! Nurture it! Promote it. You will be happy and fulfilled doing so.

346. Do things that give you confidence. I ran four marathons!

I ran 26.2 mile races four times the Island Marathon (Isle of Palms, SC early 1980s, my best time: 3 hrs., 23 mins.), the Savannah Marathon, the Marine Corps Marathon, and the Shut-In Ridge Run (I count this as a marathon because it was more grueling 17 miles up Little Pisgah!).

My marathons were difficult goals and I went after them with a vengeance. I also ran over fifty 10Ks and races of other distances. I had a blast doing so.

I think back on those days and it gives me a good feeling to know I had the guts to take on huge challenges and was man enough to make them happen. I will always feel great about my marathons and NOBODY can take them away from me.

347. I was determined to graduate magna cum laude, one of the greatest goals of my life.

And in the process, I ended up achieving History Departmental Honors and the Outstanding Student Award for the History Department, as well the Rebecca Motte American History Award the year before.

I was determined and was not going to be denied. I was willing to do whatever it took, and that meant long, long hours and TOTAL commitment.

I achieved my goals and those victories are mine to savor forever.

348. And now my goal is to help YOU do it!

Just imagine how good graduating magna cum laude will make you feel! Not to mention what you'll learn! And you'll feel that way the rest of your life. It's like winning an Olympic Gold Medal!

Of course if you've been playing too hard, just graduating, PERIOD, will make you feel pretty damn good too!

349. Do things that discourage self-consciousness.

Self-consciousness diverts focus in a critical way from your goals to your self. Don't paralyze yourself with self-consciousness. It ruins everything and is a waste of time.

Take on things that scare you! Jump out of a plane. Run a marathon. Anything that you know is a weakness, attack it. Even if you attack in a small way. Put yourself on the road to overcoming all problems, especially shyness and things that make you self-conscious.

Keep yourself positive. Keep your goals before you. Whatever is causing you to be self-conscious or ineffective, defeat it! You have the power. Use it.

350. Keep your body strong and fit.

It's hard to have a mind like a steel-trap if your body is flab. Shape up! Walk, run, bike ride. Go to the gym. Lift weights. Swim. Be physical. You will not believe how much better you look and feel, and how much more you will enjoy life.

351. America is a land of unlimited opportunity.

It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win.
Vince Lombardi

Decide what you want then GO GET IT! There is nothing in your way except your own self.

You’ve only got one life and it’s short, though it might not seem short.

I know it is hard for young people to see far into the future. Y’all have an immortality mindset just like the old man and old woman walking down the street once had.

And that’s fine. It’s normal. It’s human.

The way for young people to go into the future as if you have a road map is first pursue what you love! Pursue the things that stimulate and motivate you, and pursue them HARD and with great vigor.

Then, just stay on track. Do things that help you such as more education, more experiences, staying in shape, eating healthy, being happy, having fun. Make sure you don’t get hooked on anything like cigarettes, drugs, gambling . . . anything that controls you instead of you controlling it!

If your interests change, pursue your new interest with just as much energy. I know people who graduated from law school then decided they didn’t want to practice law and got into other fields.

I know people in other fields who decided they wanted to go to law school at middle age and did that.

I know people who have become writers at all ages, and LOTS of people who have started businesses at all ages!

There is simply no limit in America. Give back to your country and make sure it stays a land of individual freedom and responsibility, and unlimited opportunity!

Go have a GREAT life! I hope I have added to it.

Gene

Notes:

1 Napoleon Hill, Think and Grow Rich (1937; reprinted as Think and Grow Rich: The Landmark Bestseller-Now Revised and Updated for the 21st Century; rev. and expanded by Arthur R. Pell – New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2005), 1.

2 Norman Vincent Peale, The Power of Positive Thinking (1952; reprint, New York: Ishi Press International, 2011), 1.

3 Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People, (1936; reprint, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009), Preface, xi.

4 Sun Tzu, The Art of War, James Clavell, ed. (New York: Delacorte Press, 1983), 15.

5 Ibid., 11.

6 Victor Hugo quotation in Elbert Hubbard's Scrap Book (New York: Wm. H. Wise & Co., Roycroft Distributors, 1923), 169.

7 Sam Walton with John Huey, Made in America, My Story (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 103.

8 Ibid., 156.

9 Ibid., 8.

10 Ibid., 63.

11 Ibid., 39.

12 Ibid., 121.

13 Ibid., 12.

14 Ibid., 47.

15 Ibid., 49.

16 Ibid., 117.

17 Ibid., 191-192.

18 Ibid., 184.

19 Donald J. Trump and Bill Zanker, Think Big and Kick Ass, in Business and Life (New York: HarperCollins, 2007), 25.

20 Ibid., 27.

21 Ibid., 278.

22 Ibid., 236.

23 Ibid., 239.

24 The Quotations Page, http://www.quotationspage.com, accessed March 28, 2013.

25 BrainyQuote, http://www.BrainyQuote.com, accessed March 28, 2013.

26 Vince Lombardi, "What It Takes to be Number One", http://www.vincelombardi.com/number-one.html, accessed March 28, 2013.

27 Jerry Kramer, ed., Winning Is the Only Thing (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1970).

28 Wojciechowicz played on the offensive line at Fordham University in 1936 and '37 with Lombardi when Fordham was a football powerhouse. He and Lombardi were two of the famed Seven Blocks of Granite. Wojciechowicz went on to become an NFL Hall of Famer.

29 Starr was the Green Bay Packers' famed quarterback from 1956 to 1971, winning several NFL championships and the first two Super Bowls in which he was MVP in both. He is another Pro Football Hall of Famer and is also in the Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame. He played college football at Alabama. He had an NFL playoff record of 9-1, and the NFL's best passing completion percentage (57.4) when he retired in 1972.

30 Hornung is a Heisman Trophy winner and was inducted into both the Pro Football Hall of Fame and College Football Hall of Fame. He played at Notre Dame and was the number one draft pick in 1957, taken by the Green Bay Packers. Hornung played for Lombardi for eight years and became a star, breaking scoring records, many of which still stand. In 1960, he scored 176 points in a 12-game season. Green Bay won four league championships in those days including the first Super Bowl in 1967.

31 Gifford was an All-American at the University of Southern California in 1951 and '52, and is another Pro Football Hall of Famer. He spent 12 seasons with the NY Giants, and five of those were under head coach Vince Lombardi before Lombardi's Green Bay days. In each of Gifford's seasons under Lombardi, he was nominated for the Pro Bowl, and they never had a losing record. After football, Gifford became a sportscaster. He is married to Kathie Lee Gifford.

32 Huff was inducted into the NFL Hall of Fame in 1982. He played middle linebacker for the NY Giants from 1956 to '63, and for six of those years, the Giants won the division title. For four of those years, Huff was All-Pro. He spent four years with the Washington Redskins then retired before Lombardi talked him out of retirement.  He became a player/coach for the Redskins under Lombardi in 1969, and they went 7-5-2. That kept Lombardi's record of never coaching a losing NFL team, intact.

33 Hecker was an assistant coach under Vince Lombardi in Green Bay from 1959 to '65. In his career, he was a part of eight NFL championship teams and was the first head coach of the Atlanta Falcons.

Douglas Southall Freeman’s R. E. Lee: A Biography: A Compelling Review by Professor Charles W. Ramsdell

Douglas Southall Freeman's R. E. Lee: A Biography:
A Compelling Review by Professor Charles W. Ramsdell


Publisher's Note:
Charles W. Ramsdell, known during his lifetime as the Dean of Southern Historians, wrote the following review in 1935 at the peak of his career. It was two years later that Ramsdell wrote his famous treatise, "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," which indicts Abraham Lincoln for scheming and starting the War Between the States in Charleston Harbor.

Ramsdell's book reviews are works of art. As a brilliant scholar and authority on American history, he knew what to look for and was hard on writers when he did not find it. That was certainly not the case with Douglas Southall Freeman. Ramsdell writes, early on, that Freeman, with his four volume R. E. Lee: A Biography, has given us "the definitive life of Robert E. Lee."

This review is a pleasure to read and is like a mini-history of Robert E. Lee and the war.

Professor Charles W. Ramsdell, Dean of Southern Historians, University of Texas.
Professor Charles W. Ramsdell, Dean of Southern Historians, University of Texas.

Douglas Southall Freeman, himself, was a towering personality, a great American historian, biographer, newspaper editor, radio commentator and author. He was a Virginian born in Lynchburg, with a legendary work ethic. His dad, Walker Burford Freeman, had served with Gen. Lee in the Army of Northern Virginia.

Douglas Southall Freeman, c. 1916, approx. age 30, as the new editor of the Richmond News Leader.
Douglas Southall Freeman, c. 1916, approx. age 30, as the new editor of the Richmond News Leader.

His writing accomplishments include 1) Lee's Dispatches; 2) R. E. Lee: A Biography; 3) Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command; and 4) Biography of George Washington. He won a Pulitzer Prize for R. E. Lee: A Biography in 1935 (4 vols.), and another, posthumous, in 1958, for George Washington: A Biography (6 vols.).

An older Douglas Southall Freeman, still hard at work.
An older Douglas Southall Freeman, still hard at work.

Douglas Southall Freeman's Pulitzer Prizes were back in the day when Pulitzers meant something.

Today, Pulitzer Prizes are a joke. The New York Times's resident racist (one of them), Nikole Hannah-Jones, won one for the fraudulent 1619 Project, which is invented history, designed, as she said, to get reparations for blacks.

The New York Times and Washington Post won another Pulitzer Prize for reporting as true, something that turned out to be a complete fraud -- the Russia Hoax -- as determined by Robert Mueller and his three year investigation.

Here is Ramsdell's review as it appeared, verbatim, in The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 1, No. 2 (May, 1935), 230-236. Some of the paragraphs have been broken up to make it easier for online reading but no words have been left out or changed.


R. E. Lee: A Biography.
By Douglas Southall Freeman.
4 volumes. (New York and London:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1934, 1935.
Pp. xiv, 647; xiii, 621: xiii, 559: ix, 594. $15.00.)
61K
41K
29K

AS NEARLY AS ANY WORK MAY, these four volumes constitute the definitive life of Robert E. Lee; for, while even the indefatigable researches of Dr. Freeman over nearly twenty years cannot possibly have brought to light every scrap of evidence, it is improbable that any thing yet to be discovered will materially change the story he has told or seriously impair the judgments he has formed on Lee's character, actions, and career.

Robert E. Lee, oil on canvas, by Edward Calledon Bruce, 1865.
Robert E. Lee, oil on canvas, by Edward Calledon Bruce, 1865.

Although the original plan was for only one volume, as the material in his hands accumulated Dr. Freeman wisely chose to give himself full scope. The result is a full, clear narrative that moves with dignity, without hurry or prolixity, and frequently with eloquence.

Of the more than 2300 pages, about 450 are given to Lee's life prior to his resignation from the United States army in April, 1861 (of which 100 cover his participation in the War with Mexico), a little more than 1500 to his services to Virginia and the Confederacy, and about 300 to the presidency of Washington College.

More important even than the discovery of new material--or at any rate more interesting to this reviewer--is the careful analysis and weighing of the sources, especially when they are conflicting, the explanation of the elements which went to the formation of Lee's character and habits, the description of his steady growth in professional competence, and the exposition of the methods by which he solved his military problems.

How much of his high qualities of mind and character was derived from the ancestral Lees and Carters, how much came of the severe lessons inculcated in childhood or from an enlightened self-discipline no one can say with confidence. Certainly his forebears were men and women of character, but the reader gets the impression that innate honesty, simplicity of soul joined to the courtesy and kindliness of a true gentleman, and the precise workings of a high order of intelligence are the best explanations of both his military successes and the hold he acquired over the affections of all southerners and, eventually, of discerning northerners.

When at the age of thirty-nine Lee got his first experience of warfare in Mexico he had seen seventeen long years of service in the Bureau of Engineers and had reached no higher rank than a captaincy. His experiences in Mexico were to reveal his abilities and to teach him many things.

Lee at age 31 in 1838, as a Lieutenant of Engineers in the U.S. Army.
Lee at age 31 in 1838, as a Lieutenant of Engineers in the U.S. Army.
Lee around age 43, when he was a Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel of Engineers, c. 1850.
Lee around age 43, when he was a Brevet Lieutenant-Colonel of Engineers, c. 1850.

Freeman suggests that Lee was inspired by General Scott's example to audacity, that he learned from him the value of a trained staff in the development of strategical plans, the importance of careful reconnaissance, of field fortifications, of the great possibilities of flank movements, the relations of communications to strategy, and that

Lee concluded, from Scott's example, that the function of the commanding general is to plan the general operation, to acquaint his corps commanders with that plan, and to see that their troops are brought to the scene of action at the proper time; but that it is not the function of the commanding general to fight the battle in detail. . . . Whether he was right in this conclusion is one of the moot questions of his career.

He had no opportunity to study the use of cavalry and had to learn that in 1862.

Nor did he, in an army of only 10,000 men, have a chance to observe large scale operations or transportation by railroad. Between 1848 and 1861 he was able to advance his military training only during the three years while he was superintendent at West Point by the study of Napoleon.

It is well known that Lee was opposed to secession and that his resignation from the army in April, 1861, was based only upon what he felt was due to his state and his people. His high reputation was known to the authorities of Virginia and caused him to be made commander of the military and naval forces of the state.

The value of his services in mobilizing the Virginia volunteers and in selecting points of defense has been obscured by the fame of his later campaigns so that not the least of Freeman's distinctive contributions is his account of Lee's work as a military organizer and administrator in the early summer of 1861.

When the Confederate government took over control of the Virginia volunteers, Lee, who had been raised to the rank of general in the Confederate army by Jefferson Davis, remained in Richmond until one week after the battle of Manassas. Then he went into the mountains of western Virginia to begin his first independent campaign.

Here again Dr. Freeman has given us a clear account of what has hitherto been much confused.

Lee faced immense difficulties. He was sent out to coordinate, not to command, the scattered forces, although he did later take over command.

But the principal officers gave him infinite trouble with their mutual jealousies and bickerings. It rained incessantly; the roads were quagmires of "unfathomable mud"; food and forage were inadequate; the men were weakened by measles and other sickness.

When on two occasions he worked out plans of attack against the Federals, he was frustrated partly by the rains but more by the incompetence and quarrels of his officers as well as by his own unwillingness to be peremptory with them.

Lee returned to Richmond late in October without recovering western Virginia, the public confidence in him virtually gone. It is to the credit of Jefferson Davis that he understood Lee's difficulties and stood by him. Lee, for his part, had learned much in the mountains.

In exactly one week after his return he was sent to command the South Carolina-Georgia coast where the Union navy was threatening. His work there, largely that of an engineer, was so nearly perfect that the Confederates were able to hold the defenses he laid out until Sherman's army took them in the rear in 1865.

Publisher's Note: Lee's defenses along the 100 mile stretch between Savannah and Charleston, allowed the Charleston and Savannah Railroad to operate successfully until the very end of the war, as Ramsdell said. Because Confederates were always short of troops and outnumbered, it was imperative that Savannah be able to reinforce Charleston and vice versa. For example, just before the Battle of Secessionville in June, 1862, Yankees tried to break the railroad before their attack on Tower Battery on James Island but were unsuccessful and ammunition and reinforcements from Savannah were sent to Charleston. When Gen. Lee was setting up those defenses, his headquarters was Coosawhatchie, South Carolina, about midway between Savannah and Charleston, from November, 1861, to March, 1862. For those folks familiar with the West Ashley Greenway in Charleston, that was the route of the Charleston and Savannah Railroad. It operated as a working railroad line under a different name until around 1980, when plans for the Greenway were made. I remember waiting on Folly Road Extension at South Windermere Shopping Center on that dang train to go by when in high school in the late '60s. But, knowing today, that the Greenway was the route of the Charleston and Savannah Railroad, and along that route came Confederate reinforcements from Savannah in defense of Charleston during the war, makes the West Ashley Greenway incredibly special in my mind, almost sacred. There is a nice historical marker with the Charleston and Savannah Railroad's history about a mile up the Greenway from South Windermere, toward Savannah.

He was called back to Richmond early in March, 1862, to serve as military adviser to President Davis but without real authority. It was an uncongenial task, but he set to work. He was chiefly responsible for the resort to conscription, but his plan was badly mangled in the legislation by Congress.

After Joseph E. Johnston had retired from the Manassas front to face McClellan on the Peninsula, Lee was able to suggest the plan for the brilliant campaign by which "Stonewall" Jackson frightened Washington and prevented the Federal forces in northern Virginia from going to the aid of McClellan--a far-reaching strategic plan which was nearly wrecked by Johnston whose ideas for the defense of Richmond never went beyond the concentration of all available Confederate forces in front of that city and who never quite grasped the daring conceptions of Lee.

But Lee's part in the movement was unknown both to the public and the army, and when Davis placed him in command of the army on June 1, after Johnston was wounded, he had never actually conducted a battle and his reputation was still clouded.

It is manifestly impossible, within the limits of this review, to trace Freeman's account of each of Lee's campaigns; but something should be said of his method of presenting them.

He has chosen to give the reader only such information as Lee himself was able to obtain from day to day and hour to hour for this is the only way by which the reader can see the situation as Lee saw it.

It has been no easy task, for it has required great care in disentangling the probable truth from conflicting testimony; but Freeman has done it with such skill that few will question his conclusions.

He discards the story that Lee was able, by studying the personalities of his opponents, to predict what each one would do. On the contrary, Lee always insisted that one must expect the enemy "to do what he ought to do."

General Robert E. Lee during the War Between the States.
General Robert E. Lee during the War Between the States.

Lee's method was to seek out every bit of information he could procure, weigh it, balance one thing against another, discard what was improbable, and then decide what was best to do with the means available. He saw his problem as a whole and was never confused by details.

It is really exhilarating to watch, through the medium of these pages, the precise working of Lee's mind even in "the fog of war.'' When he made errors he discovered that they were errors and avoided repeating them.

He devised new methods of meeting new conditions, as in his development of field fortifications not merely for the greater protection of his thinning ranks but also to hold a position with fewer men in order to gain freedom for maneuver with the others.

Always he was painfully hampered in transportation facilities, in the commissariat, in the scarcity of clothing and shoes for his men, by the longer range and heavier metal of the Federal artillery, by the supreme difficulty, after the death of Jackson, of finding higher officers with the tactical skill to carry out his plans and at the same time to make wise use of the discretion he wished to give them.

Step by step through the campaigns and reorganization and ever-increasing difficulties that Lee faced the author takes his readers. At the end of each major campaign he submits a clear, candid, critical review of Lee's operations.

On many difficult or disputed questions he throws new light, but only a few instances can be mentioned here.

He justifies Lee for going into Maryland after Second Manassas because he could not feed his army where it was and the alternative was to retire behind the Rappahannock and leave an important section to the enemy.

The decision to fight at Sharpsburg came only after he knew Jackson was at hand and he found the ground favorable for defense.

One of Lee's greatest difficulties in the Pennsylvania campaign was the fact that two of the three corps of his army were under new and untried commanders, Ewell and A. P. Hill.

His failure to get all his forces in front of Grant at the beginning of the Wilderness fight was because he had had to guard against a thrust down the railroad on his left. He was fully aware of the possibility that Grant might cross the James and strike at Petersburg before that movement was begun, but he could get no definite information, even from Beauregard, as to what corps of Grant's army had actually crossed until it was almost too late.

In a notable chapter in the last volume, Freeman sums up Lee's qualities as a commander in these words:

The accurate reasoning of a trained and precise mind is the prime explanation of all these achievements. Lee was pre-eminently a strategist, and a strategist because he was a sound military logician. . . . These five qualities, then, gave eminence to his strategy--his interpretation of military intelligence, his wise devotion to the offensive, his careful choice of position, the exactness of his logistics, and his well-considered daring. Midway between strategy and tactics stood four other qualities of generalship that no student of war can disdain. The first was his sharpened sense of the power of resistance and of attack of a given body of men; the second was his ability to effect adequate concentration at the point of attack even when his force was inferior; the third was his careful choice of commanders and of troops for specific duties; the fourth was his employment of field fortification.

Among the mistakes of Lee, Freeman cites his too elaborate strategy in the Seven Days, his overestimate of the endurance of his infantry and his underestimate of the time required for the reduction of Harper's Ferry in the Maryland campaign, his permitting Longstreet to stay so long in Suffolk in April 1863, his selection of Ewell to command the Second Corps after Jackson's death, his acquiescence in the occupation of the Bloody Angle at Spotsylvania and the withdrawal of the artillery from that point, his "excessive amiability" at times when he should have been stern. But these errors weigh lightly against his supremely positive qualities.

Lee's relations with Jefferson Davis and his hold upon his men and the southern people are not hard to understand. He had no real difficulty with the Confederate president, partly because he understood him and had acquired a mental ascendancy over him and partly because he had a genuine respect for the civil authority and for Davis personally and was always tactful and deferential. Davis, moreover, had implicit confidence in Lee and always sustained him.

His men knew that he looked after their welfare with assiduous care and that they could approach him without fear. Stories of his personal kindness to humble privates spread through the army and aroused affectionate reverence, while his successes against heavy odds developed the belief that he was invincible. To the people in general his successes and his character made him seem a leader raised up for them by divine favor.

Freeman refuses to make comparison between Lee and other great commanders of history on the ground that differences of conditions were so incommensurable that comparisons would be futile.

One cannot but wish, however, that he had discussed the statement of certain recent military writers that Lee never showed that he was fitted for supreme command over a wide area such as Grant exercised after March, 1864. While it may well be answered that Lee was never given such authority until it was too late to effect anything, a careful study of his correspondence between March 13 and June 1. 1862, while he was Davis' adviser--though with little real authority--should throw some light upon this question.

Dr. Freeman's delightful account of Lee's five years in the presidency of Washington College reveals the general as an educational leader.

General Robert E. Lee in May 1869, a year before his death.
General Robert E. Lee in May 1869, a year before his death.

Not only did the trustees under the stimulus of his zeal rehabilitate the school materially and financially, but the faculty, under his guidance and in keeping with his anxiety for the training of southern youth in practical affairs, greatly enlarged the curriculum, anticipating many of the developments of later days.

Meanwhile Lee, although greatly disturbed by the radical policy of reconstruction, kept studiously aloof from political or sectional controversies while doing all in his power to bring about eventual reconciliation between North  and South. His prestige in his own section was as great as ever and no doubt much of the growth of the college was incident to his immense popularity.

But his health had failed rapidly. A throat infection in March, 1863, followed by pericarditis had developed into what was probably angina pectoris. He died on October 12, 1870, in the midst of plans for the further development of the college.

In a final chapter, "The Pattern of a Life," Freeman tells simply but eloquently the manner of man that Lee was--his daily routine, his method of work, his simple and sincere religion, his kindliness and his humility. "Those who look at him through the glamour of his victories or seek deep meanings in his silence will labor in vain to make him appear complicated. His language, his acts, and his personal life were simple for the unescapable reason that he was a simple gentleman."

The four volumes contain numerous photographs and sketch maps. The reader who is not familiar with the geography of Virginia and other areas in which Lee operated will sometimes wish for a larger map.

As the first two volumes came from the press several months before the last two, each pair is provided with a separate index--in the second and fourth volumes.

There is also a "short title" bibliography, for which there seems little need, in the same volumes and a longer, most excellent critical bibliography filling twenty-seven pages at the end of volume IV.

The mechanical work is faultless, the binding is handsome, and the work as a whole is worthy of its subject.

Charles W. Ramsdell
University of Texas

Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson in Stone Mountain stamp issued 1970.
Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson in Stone Mountain stamp issued 1970.
Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Stratford Hall, Army Issue of 1936.
Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Stratford Hall, Army Issue of 1936.
Washington and Lee University 200th anniversary on November 23, 1948.
Washington and Lee University 200th anniversary on November 23, 1948.
Arlington House, the Lees' estate, 1857, the grounds are now Arlington National Cemetery.
Arlington House, the Lees' estate, 1857, the grounds are now Arlington National Cemetery.

For Charles W. Ramsdell's nine best essays including "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," "The Natural Limits of Slavery Expansion," and "Carl Sandburg's Lincoln," and 15 book reviews, along with a 30 page Introduction by me, please see Charles W. Ramsdell, Dean of Southern Historians, Volume One: His Best Work, compiled by Gene Kizer, Jr., over 450 pages, on www.CharlestonAthenaeumPress.com.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Confederacy’s Judah Benjamin

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
the Confederacy's Judah Benjamin

Remarks for Jewish Council for Public Affairs in appreciation for the Albert D. Chernin Award, February 18, 2002

Official portrait, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court of the United States.
Official portrait, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Supreme Court of the United States.
United States Senator Judah P. Benjamin of Louisiana, circa 1856.
United States Senator Judah P. Benjamin of Louisiana, circa 1856.

Publisher's Note: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, passed away September 18, 2020 from metastatic pancreas cancer at age 87. She was popularly known as RBG. I am the political opposite of RBG but I admired her toughness and dignity in fighting through several life-threatening illnesses as she continued to do her work on the court. That kind of toughness is an All-American virtue we can all admire. Below, is a fascinating speech she gave, full of history and perspective, on Judah Benjamin and his life and accomplishments. It is interesting to read these admiring words from a very liberal Supreme Court justice about a man fighting for the ultimate in conservative principles: States' Rights, a weak Federal Government, power to the individual, low taxes and tariffs, and a true federal republic such as our Founding Fathers created in 1776. That magnificent republic is a foreign concept to big government liberals like RBG.

______________

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Associate Justice
Supreme Court of the United States
February 18, 2002

The Court begins a heavy sitting period tomorrow. At such times, I seldom stray from the briefs piled on my desk. But I could not resist a pause in today's occupations to accept this award from the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an organization comprising agencies devoted to the social imperatives of Judaism.

On walls of my chambers, I have posted in two places the command from Deuteronomy -- "Zedek, Zedek," "Justice, Justice shalt thou pursue." Those words are an ever present reminder of what judges must do "that they may thrive." There is an age old connection between social justice and Jewish tradition. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, whose tenure on the Court, 1962-1965, was far too brief, once said: "My concern for justice, for peace, for enlightenment, . . . stems from my heritage." Justice Breyer and I are fortunate to be linked to that heritage.

Preparing some years ago for a lecture on the Jewish Justices who preceded Justice Breyer and me, I learned that Louis D. Brandeis was not the first Jewish nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. I have since read more about the man who might have been first, and thought perhaps you would find his life as intriguing as I did. The person who might have preceded Brandeis hailed from Louisiana. His name was Judah Benjamin. He was intensely involved in public affairs, though you and I would agree that he chose the wrong side.

Publisher's Note: Ruth Bader Ginsburg was born in New York in 1933. She obviously was unaware that New York was one of three states that reserved the right of secession before acceding to the Constitution. The other two are Rhode Island and Virginia.

RBG should have known that the acceptance of the reserved right of secession of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia by the other states, also gave the right of secession to all of the states, because all entered the Union as equals with the exact same rights under the Constitution.

As a judge and interpreter of the Constitution, RBG's knowledge of the origins of the Constitution, and American history in general, were abysmal.

She must have thought the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called so the Founders could establish the huge all-powerful Federal Government we have today.

If any participant had even mentioned such a thing, the rest would have run for the door. There never would have been a Constitution. None of the 13 states, North or South, would have even considered such an absurdity.

RBG should have known that Horace Greeley and even Abraham Lincoln believed in the right of secession until they realized Southern secession would affect their money.

She should have known that Northern states threatened to secede several times before the War Between the States and New Englanders almost did with their treasonous Hartford Convention.

As President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in a well known 1960 letter "we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted."

No, RBG. Judah Benjamin did not choose the wrong side.

He believed in the Declaration of Independence and consent of the governed, like his fellow Southerners.

They were not about to let a seething, rabid Northern party, out only for its own wealth and power, rule over them.

The Republicans were the first sectional party in American history and, as Wendell Phillips said, were the party of the North pledged against the South. Their campaign documents included Hinton Helper's The Impending Crisis, which called for the throats of Southerners to be cut in the night by slave insurrections.

Southerners were already paying most of the taxes through high tariffs, bounties, subsidies, and monopolies for Northern businesses though most of the tax money was spent in the North.

Even after all that Republican hate, 60% of the country still voted against Abraham Lincoln.

This phrase from the Declaration of Independence was the most widely quoted in the secession debate in the South in the year prior to their seceding:

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.

There was absolutely no consent of the governed in the South to be ruled by a hateful, violent, Northern sectional party that celebrated a murdering terrorist like John Brown.

Southerners are the heroes of American history fighting for independence against an invasion by a region that outnumbered them four to one and outgunned them 100 to 1.

They fought until the bitter end, until most of the South was destroyed and 750,000 men were dead and over a million more maimed. The South was laid waste and did not recover for three-quarters of a century.

Yet, if they had it to do over, they would without hesitation, because the principles for which they contended - independence, self-government, and a country such as our American Founding Fathers had intended for us - were not invalidated at Appomattox.

Lt. Gen. Jubal A. Early stated the case to perfection when he said "the result of the war decided no question of principle":

In no sense can (the South) be said to have submitted any of their rights to the arbitrament of arms any more than the traveller on the highway submits his money to the arbitrament of arms between himself and the robber . . .

Back to RBG:

In 1853, Benjamin declined the nomination of President Millard Fillmore to become an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Just elected U.S. Senator from Louisiana, Benjamin preferred to retain his First Branch post. His choice suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court had not yet become the co-equal Branch it is today.

Earliest known photograph of Judah Benjamin, probably mid-1830s or so.
Earliest known photograph of Judah Benjamin, probably mid-1830s or so.

Had Benjamin accepted the Court post, his service likely would have been shorter than the time I have already served as a Justice. [RBG had served nine years when she made this speech]. In early 1861, in the wake of Louisiana's secession from the Union, Benjamin resigned the Senate seat for which he had forsaken the justiceship. He probably would have resigned a seat on the Court had he held one, as did his friend Associate Justice John Archibald Campbell of Alabama. (Campbell, incidentally, opposed secession and freed all his slaves on his appointment to the Supreme Court. But when hostilities broke out, he remained loyal to the South.)

John Archibald Campbell of Alabama, resigned a seat on the US Supreme Court when the South seceded.
John Archibald Campbell of Alabama, resigned a seat on the US Supreme Court when the South seceded.

Benjamin is perhaps best known in the United States for his stirring orations in the Senate on behalf of Southern interests, and for his service as Attorney General, Secretary of War, and finally Secretary of State in the cabinet of Jefferson Davis. After the Confederate surrender, Benjamin fled to England; en route, he narrowly survived several close encounters with victorious Union troops, and the forces of storm and rough seas. Benjamin's political ventures in the Senate and in the Confederacy were bracketed by two discrete but equally remarkable legal careers, the first in New Orleans, the second in Britain.

Original Confederate Cabinate 1861, L-R: Benjamin, Mallory, Memminger, Stephens, Walker, Davis, Reagan, Toombs.
Original Confederate Cabinate 1861, L-R: Benjamin, Mallory, Memminger, Stephens, Walker, Davis, Reagan, Toombs.

Having left Yale College without taking a degree, Benjamin came to New Orleans in 1832 and was called to the bar that same year. Although he struggled initially, his fame and fortune quickly grew large after the publication, in 1834, of A Digest of Reported Decisions of [the Supreme Court of the Late Territory of Orleans, and of] the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Benjamin's book treated comprehensively for the first time Louisiana's uniquely cosmopolitan and complex legal system, derived from Roman, Spanish, French, and English sources. Benjamin's flourishing practice and the public attention he garnered helped to propel his election by the Louisiana legislature to the United States Senate. (In pre-Seventeenth Amendment days, until 1913, Senators were chosen not directly by the People, but by the Legislatures of the several States.)

Benjamin's fortune plummeted with the defeat of the Confederacy. He arrived in England with little money and most of his property lost or confiscated. His wife and daughter settled in Paris, where they anticipated support from Benjamin in the comfortable style to which they were accustomed. He nevertheless turned down a promising business opportunity in the French capital, preferring to devote himself again to the practice of law, this time as a British barrister. He opted for a second career at the bar notwithstanding the requirement that he start over by enrolling as a student at an Inn of Court and completing a mandatory three-year apprenticeship before qualifying as a barrister. This, Benjamin's contemporaries reported, he did cheerfully, although he was doubtless relieved when the Inn of Court to which he belonged, Lincoln's Inn, determined to waive some of its requirements and admit him early.

Judah Benjamin, circa the War Between the States.
Judah Benjamin, circa the War Between the States.

Benjamin became a British barrister at age 55. His situation at that mature stage of life closely paralleled conditions of his youth. He was a newly-minted lawyer, with a struggling practice, but, he wrote to a friend, "as much interested in my profession as when I first commenced as a boy." Repeating his Louisiana progress, Benjamin made his reputation among his new peers by publication. Drawing on the knowledge of civilian systems gained during his practice in Louisiana, Benjamin produced a volume in England that came to be known as Benjamin on Sales. The book was a near-instant classic. Its author was much praised, and Benjamin passed the remainder of his days as a top earning, highly esteemed, mainly appel-late advocate. His voice was often heard in appeals to the House of Lords and the Privy Council.

Benjamin's biographer tells us that, "[h]owever desperate his case, Benjamin habitually addressed the court as if it were impossible for him to lose." This in-domitable cast of mind characterized both Benjamin's courtroom advocacy and his response to fortune's vicissitudes. He rose to the top of the legal profession twice in one lifetime, on two continents, beginning his first ascent as a raw youth and his second as a fugitive minister of a vanquished power. The London Times, in an obituary, described Judah Benjamin as a man with "that elastic resistance to evil fortune which preserved [his] ancestors through a succession of exiles and plunder-ings."

Judah Benjamin's grave at Pere Lachaise Cemetery in Paris.
Judah Benjamin's grave at Pere Lachaise Cemetery in Paris.

One more historical vignette before I go back to the briefs. For this account, my source is Seth P. Waxman, who served with distinction as our nation's Solicitor General from 1997 until January 2001.

Seth spoke of one of his predecessors as Solicitor General, Philip Perlman, who broke with tradition in the 1940s and successfully urged in a friend of the Court brief the unconstitutionality of racially restrictive covenants on real property. The case was Shelley v. Kramer, decided in 1948. The brief for the United States was written by four lawyers, all of them Jewish: Philip Elman, Oscar Davis, Hilbert Zarky, and Stanley Silverberg. But their names were deleted from the filed brief. That decision was made by Arnold Raum, the Solicitor General's principal assistant and himself a Jew. "It's bad enough," Raum said, "that Perlman's name has to be there." It wouldn't do, he thought, to make it so evident that the position of the United States was "put out by a bunch of Jews."

I do not think Jewish names would be hidden from view in briefs filed in today's Court. The security I feel is displayed in my chambers not only in my "Zedek" posters, but also by the large mezuzah on my door post, gift from the Shulamith School in Brooklyn. Thanks to the efforts of organizations of the kind represented here, Jews in the United States are no longer afraid about letting the world know who they are.

It is fitting, I hope you agree, in thanking you for honoring me with the Albert D. Chernin Award, to close with words I often use to describe my heritage:

I am a judge, born, raised, and proud of being a Jew. The demand for justice runs through the entirety of the Jewish history and Jewish tradition. I hope, in all the years I have the good fortune to serve on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, I will have the strength and courage to remain steadfast in the service of that demand.

SOURCE: Supreme Court of the United States, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, "Remarks for Jewish Council for Public Affairs in appreciation for the Albert D. Chernin Award, February 18, 2002," https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/
sp_02-18-02.html, Accessed 9-28-20.

For more information on Judah Benjamin, visit the website of the Judah P. Benjamin Camp #2210, SCV, Tampa, Florida at http://jpbenjaminscv.org/, and their Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/jpbscv.

Judah-P-Benjamin-33K

Sue Public Officials, Personally, Who Break Laws When Removing Monuments to Southern War Dead

Sue Public Officials, Personally, Who Break Laws When Removing Monuments to Southern War Dead

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

A Georgia organization, the Georgia Minutemen, LLC, founded by Ray McBerry, has filed a lawsuit against all four Henry County, Georgia commissioners as individuals, meaning they are being sued personally. In Georgia, when public officials vote for unlawful acts as these allegedly did in July when they voted to remove the century old Confederate monument on McDonough Square in McDonough, Georgia, they are not protected from personal lawsuits against them.

Henry County Courthouse and Confederate monument, McDonough, Georgia, before monument removed 7-29-20.
Henry County Courthouse and Confederate monument, McDonough, Georgia, before monument removed 7-29-20.
Century old Confederate monument, McDonough Sq., McDonough, Georgia before removal.
Century old Confederate monument, McDonough Sq., McDonough, Georgia before removal.

The McDonough Square monument was removed July 29, 2020 and other laws were apparently broken by the county in their extreme haste to remove the monument.

The commissioners' votes allegedly violated Georgia's strong Monument Protection Act, Georgia Code 50-3-1.

Four Henry County commissioners are being sued personally for removing this monument.
Four Henry County commissioners are being sued personally for removing this monument.

If the Georgia Minutemen prevail, the four commissioners, three Democrats and a Republican, as well as the county manager who facilitated the monument removal, will have to pay out of their own pockets triple "the cost of replacing or restoring the original monument to its rightful place on McDonough Square, all attorneys fees, and exemplary damages in an amount decided by a jury" according to a September 10 press release. There could also be punitive damages.

This is a promising approach! Camps should get their legal people to look at what the Georgia Minutemen are doing to see if you can do the same or something similar. We should think outside the box as our ancestors had to do constantly since they were outnumbered four to one and outgunned 100 to one.

I have included, below, a press release and update from the Georgia Minutemen that go into detail on their excellent lawsuit and what can be done to help them. Their contact information is at the end of this blog post.

North Carolina has had as number of flagrant violations of their Heritage Protection Act (HPA), the Monuments Law of 2015 [N.C.G.S. 100.2-1 (b) and (b) (1)] and if there is any way to start suing those public officials as individuals, it should be done ASAP. If possible, a suit should be brought against the former president of UNC who allowed the destruction of Silent Sam and removal of the base of the statue from the campus.

I don't know what the law is in Alabama but the mayor of Mobile, a Republican named Sandy Stimpson, who removed the magnificent statue of Admiral Raphael Semmes on June 5, 2020, should be targeted for a personal lawsuit if one is possible. Sandy Stimpson is not good enough to polish the shoes of Raphael Semmes.

Heritage groups in every state in America should investigate this strategy. ALL public officials, PRESENT AND PAST, who have broken monument protection laws, should be targeted and brought to justice in a court of law, then voted out of office.

Georgia Minutemen Press Release,
September 10, 2020
64k

(McDonough, GA - 10 September) On Tuesday 8 September 2020, suit was brought by the Georgia Minutemen, LLC, a Georgia corporation, against all four Henry County commissioners who voted in July to remove the Confederate Monument from the McDonough Square where it had stood vigilant for more than 100 years. This suit is different than other suits that have been brought against public officials this year for removing Confederate monuments around the state in that it names all four commissioners in their individual capacity who voted for the removal.

Other lawsuits filed around the state, including Henry County, to force the restoration of monuments moved by public officials have been unsuccessful as yet owing to the onerous doctrine of "sovereign immunity" which protects any subdivision of state government from lawsuits in most cases. The new lawsuit filed by the Georgia Minutemen does an "end around" with regard to the sovereign immunity issue by naming the commissioners in their individual capacity where immunity is limited to lawful acts. Georgia's Monument Protection Act, arguably the strongest in the nation, allows for both civil and criminal suits against public officials who violate its stringent protections of monuments in Georgia.

This suit is important in that it would be a precedent-setting case which could be used as a tool for preventing the unlawful removal of monuments in other places. If the Minutemen are successful in the prosecution of this suit, public officials everywhere will be reticent to consider removing any monument protected under Georgia Code 50-3-1. If the commissioners lose this case, they will be on the hook as individuals for "treble" (triple) the cost of replacing or restoring the original monument to its rightful place on the McDonough Square, all attorneys fees, and exemplary damages in an amount decided by a jury. Monies collected from the verdict will first be applied to restoring the Monument to its home of more than 100 years before any other distributions are made.

The attorney for the Georgia Minutemen is Todd Harding of Maddox & Harding. The Defendants in the case are the four commissioners who voted unlawfully for the removal of the Monument: Dee Clemmons (D), Vivien Thomas (D), Bruce Holmes (D), and June Wood (R-chairman); and the Henry County Manager, Cheri Hobson-Matthews, who effected the removal.

Speaking to local reporters, Georgia Minutemen founder Ray McBerry had this to say about the new filing: "It is sad when we have reached a point in America when even monuments to our heroes that have stood for more than a hundred years are under attack. It is time that Georgians, and all Americans, begin to stand up together and say, 'No more!' Our legislature last year wisely gave the people of the sovereign state of Georgia the tools necessary to prevent this very thing in the form of the strongest monument protection bill in the country... and we intend to use it. Let this be a warning shot to all public officials in this state who are considering removing our monuments... you will be next. We're coming for you in the courtroom."

Minutemen founder McBerry is personally facing a state obstruction charge for refusing to vacate the sidewalk in McDonough on the evening that the County brought a crane company to remove the Confederate Monument. He was told that the crane company could not begin work until the sidewalk was cleared, and he refused to move. Mr. McBerry pointed out to the more than 20 officers present at his arrest that the construction permit they were ostensibly using as their authority to clear the Square could not exist because it was nowhere posted publicly on the site as required by law. Officers arrested and detained him anyway, only to learn the following day through Open Records Requests that the County had, in fact, dropped the ball and failed to obtain the permit as required by law. Although Mr. McBerry's statements to the officers have proven true, the Henry County solicitor's office have thus far refused to dismiss the charge against him.

* * * END RELEASE * * *

 

Georgia Minutemen Press Release UPDATE,
September 29, 2020

 

WHY IS OUR LAWSUIT OVER THE CONFEDERATE MONUMENT IN McDONOUGH SO IMPORTANT?

The lawsuit filed by the Georgia Minutemen in the Henry County Superior Court is extremely important for all of Georgia. With monuments to our heroes coming down all across the state even in the face of the strongest monument protection law in America, it is essential that we score a victory for a number of reasons. Both well-meaning individuals and organizations such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans have filed multiple lawsuits to stop the removal of our monuments or force their restoration. To date, ALL of these efforts have been unsuccessful, mainly owing to the onerous doctrine of sovereign immunity which prevents any political subdivision of the state of Georgia from being sued without its permission. Months ago, the Georgia Minutemen put out an article encouraging all Georgians to vote YES this November on the proposed state constitutional amendment on the ballot which would end sovereign immunity in most cases; however, we cannot afford to wait for the outcome of that election. With every day that passes, more monuments are under scrutiny in local communities across the state; and the chances of having monuments put back that have already been removed become smaller and smaller. That's why our lawsuit over the McDonough monument is so crucial.

SO WHY IS THIS CASE SO IMPORTANT?

There are several reasons that this particular case is so important...

1. We are not suing the Board of Commissioners like the SCV and other well-meaning individuals have done around the state. We are suing the commissioners as INDIVIDUALS for breaking the law.

2. We MUST secure a legal win in order to stop other monuments from being removed. So far, none of the legal efforts to enforce our Monument Protection Act have proven successful. We need to take the strongest case to court.

3. There is tremendous popular support for restoring the Monument among the locals in this case.

4. We have and are continuing to receive intelligence and evidence in this case from individuals within the county government here who are sympathetic to our Cause.

5. In going about to break the Monument law, the county in this case has also broken additional laws owing to their attempt to do so quickly and secretively.

6. This particular Monument was already part of the National Historic Registry and is afforded additional protections.

7. The motive of the commissioners in this case was clearly stated... to remove anything Confederate from county property.

For these and some other reasons that I am not at liberty to share at this time related to things which may be presented in court, the case to restore the Confederate Monument in McDonough is the strongest evidentiary case which currently exists on the legal landscape here in Georgia.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE WIN THIS LAWSUIT?

1. The 4 commissioners who voted to remove the Monument illegally (plus the county manager who effected the removal) will be forced to pay PERSONALLY to restore the Monument even though public funds were used for its removal.

2. The law requires that the defendants will be required to pay TRIPLE the cost to restore the Monument.

3. The defendants will be required to repay all of our legal fees and court costs.

4. The jury may award punitive damages if it chooses.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP US WIN?

We are already having success in two instances of halting plans by other localities to remove monuments just because they have learned that we are suing the officials in their PERSONAL status... because NO politician wants to be held PERSONALLY liable with THEIR OWN MONEY for their reckless and illegal actions. They have no qualms about doing it if it is only YOUR TAX DOLLARS at risk and when they can use the county attorney that they do not have to personally hire for their defense. It's a different story when they are risking their own fortunes to break the law. . . .

Contact Information: http://georgiaminutemen.com

Our Confederate Ancestors: Admiral Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, Chapters 5 and 6

A Series on the Daring Exploits of Our Confederate Ancestors in the War Between the States.

Chapters 5 and 6 of the first 6 of

Memoirs of Service Afloat
During the War Between the States
by Admiral Raphael Semmes

5. Another Brief Historical Retrospect.

6. The Question of Slavery, as It Affected Secession.

Admiral Raphael Semmes of the CSS Alabama, the picture that later became a U.S. postage stamp.
Admiral Raphael Semmes of the CSS Alabama, the picture that later became a U.S. postage stamp.
Publisher's Note from Gene Kizer, Jr.: The six chapters of Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States, by Admiral Raphael Semmes, published in this and the two previous blog posts, are the most outstanding, accurate and complete argument on the causes of the War Between the States that I have ever read in a short analysis.

Semmes covers everything and leaves nothing out. He is right about both North and South believing in States Rights until about 1830, which is only 31 years before the war.

What changed was the massive immigration into the North that made them aware of their sectional strength. By 1860, Northerners realized if they could just rally their votes, they could take over the government and have higher tariffs than ever, such as the astronomical Morrill Tariff, as well as more bounties, subsidies, monopolies and any other way they could conceive of to increase their wealth and power.

Even more than the economic issues, the hatred of Southerners used by the Republican Party to rally its votes is what caused the first seven Southern states to secede. Southerners believed in the Declaration of Independence and its statement that the just powers of the government come from the consent of the governed.

There was no consent of the governed in the South in 1860 to be ruled over by crazed, rabid people so full of hate. Sounds like the Democrat Party of today, and there are many parallels that will be written about in coming weeks.

Southerners knew they had the right to secede because New York, Rhode Island and Virginia had all reserved the right of secession, specifically, in writing, before acceding to the Constitution. The acceptance of all the other states of that reserved right of secession of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, gave it to them as well because all the states entered the Union as equals.

Even after all that Northern hate, 61% of the country still voted against Abraham Lincoln, but that was enough for him to win the electoral college.

Southerners called conventions, which was the precedent set by the Founding Fathers with the Constitution, and they voted to secede from the Union.

They expected peace but got war when Lincoln's economy without Southern cotton and all those tariffs, bounties, subsidies and monopolies was threatened with annihilation. Lincoln knew he had four times the white population of the South and 100 times the manufacturing so he started his war and 750,000 died and over a million were wounded, but it wasn't over until the South was destroyed and had nothing else to give.

There is no stain on Southern honor. They were fighting for the republic of sovereign states that the Founding Fathers had envisioned. It was States' Rights verses a massive, centralized Federal Government (the Yankees were the Federals in the war) that was fighting for Northern control of the country, and certainly not because of a moral desire to end slavery by the same people who had brought all the slaves here and made huge fortunes in the process.

Semmes's argument is EXACTLY the same argument I make in my book, Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument. It is always good to see one's historical analysis mirrored and validated by such a towering and brilliant person as Admiral Raphael Semmes.

Our Confederate ancestors are the true heroes of American history. They fought America's bloodiest war for independence and the vision of the Founding Fathers, and in the process, they wrote the book on American valor and patriotism.

For more information on Admiral Raphael Semmes, please visit the website of the Admiral Raphael Semmes Camp #11, SCV, in Mobile Alabama: https://www.scvsemmes.org/index.html. Several of the pictures from my three Semmes posts come from their outstanding website.

Admiral Raphael Semmes, 1995 U.S. postage stamp commemorating him.
Chapter V.
Another Brief Historical Retrospect.

In the previous chapters, I have given a brief outline of the history and formation of the Federal Constitution, proving, by abundant reference to the Fathers, and to the instrument itself, that it was the intention of the former to draft, and that they did draft, a federal compact of government, which compact was "ordained, and established," by the States, in their sovereign capacity, and not by the people of the United States, in the aggregate, as one nation.

It resulted from this statement of the question, that the States had the legal, and constitutional right to withdraw from the compact, at pleasure, without reference to any cause of quarrel.

Accordingly, nothing has yet been said about the causes which impelled the Southern States to a separation, except indeed incidentally, when the tariff system was alluded to, as the motive which had induced Massachusetts and the other Northern States, to change their State-Rights doctrine.

CSS Alabama, the greatest commerce raider in maritime history.
CSS Alabama, the greatest commerce raider in maritime history.

It was stated in the opening chapter, that the judgment which posterity will form, upon the great conflict between the sections, will depend, mainly, upon the answers which we may be able to give to two questions: First, Had the South the right to dissolve the compact of government, under which it had lived with the North? and secondly, Was there sufficient ground for this dissolution?

Having answered the first question---imperfectly, I fear, but yet as fully, as was consistent, with the design of these pages---I propose now to consider, very briefly, the second. I would gladly have left all this preliminary work to other, and abler pens, but I do not consider that the memoirs of any actor in the late war, who, like myself, was an officer in the old service, and who withdrew from that service, because of the breaking out of the war---or rather because of the secession of his State---would be complete without, at least, a brief reference to the reasons, which controlled his judgment.

The American Constitution died of a disease, that was inherent in it.

Capt. Raphael Semmes on the Alabama in Cape Town, S. Africa, 12 Aug. 1863.
Capt. Raphael Semmes on the Alabama in Cape Town, S. Africa, 12 Aug. 1863.

It was framed on false principles, inasmuch as the attempt was made, through its means, of blinding together, in a republican form of government, two dissimilar peoples, with widely dissimilar interests.

Monarchial governments may accomplish this, since they are founded on force, but republican governments never. Austria, and Russia, pin together, in our day, with their bayonets, many dissimilar peoples, but if a republic should make the attempt, that moment it must, of necessity, cease to be a republic, since the very foundation of such a government is the consent of the governed.

On the CSS Alabama, Cape Town, South Africa, 12 August 1863.
On the CSS Alabama, Cape Town, South Africa, 12 August 1863.

The secession of the Southern States was a mere corollary of the American proposition of government; and the Northern States stultified themselves, the moment they attempted to resist it. The consent of the Southern States being wanted, there should have been an end of the question.

If the Northern States were not satisfied to let them go, but entertained, on the contrary, a desire to restrain them by force, this was a proof, that those States had become tired of the republican form, and desired to change it.

But they should have been honest about it; they should have avowed their intentions from the beginning, and not have waged the war, as so many republics, endeavoring to coerce other republics, into a forced union with them.

To have been logical, they should have obliterated the State boundaries, and have declared all the States---as well the Northern States, as the Southern---so many counties of a consolidated government. But even then, they could not have made war upon any considerable number of those counties, without violating the fundamental American idea of a government---the consent of the governed.

The right of self-government was vindicated in the Declaration of Independence, in favor of three millions of the subjects of Great Britain. In the States of the Southern Confederacy, there were eight millions.

The American Republic, as has been said, was a failure, because of the antagonism of the two peoples, attempted to be bound together, in the same government. If there is to be but a single government in these States, in the future, it cannot be a republic. De Tocqueville saw this, thirty years ago. In his "Democracy in America" he described these States, as "more like hostile nations, than rival parties, under one government."

Raphael Semmes with the First National Confederate Flag, the Stars and Bars.
Raphael Semmes with the First National Confederate Flag, the Stars and Bars.

This distinguished Frenchman saw, as with the eye of intuition, the canker which lay at the heart of the federal compact. He saw looming up, in the dim distance, the ominous, and hideous form of that unbridled, and antagonistic Majority, which has since rent the country in twain---a majority based on the views, and interests of one section, arrayed against the views, and interests of the other section.

"The majority," said he, "in that country, exercises a prodigious, actual authority, and a moral influence which is scarcely less preponderant; no obstacles exist, which can impede, or so much as retard its progress, or which can induce it to heed the complaints of those whom it crushes upon its path. * * * This state of things is fatal, in itself, and dangerous for the future. * * * If the free institutions of America are ever destroyed, that event may be attributed to the unlimited authority of the majority. * * * Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism."

Precisely so; liberty is always destroyed by the multitude, in the name of liberty.

Majorities within the limits of constitutional restraints are harmless, but the moment they lose sight of these restraints, the many-headed monster becomes more tyrannical, than the tyrant with a single head; numbers harden its conscience, and embolden it, in the perpetration of crime.

And when this majority, in a free government, becomes a faction, or, in other words, represents certain classes and interests to the detriment of other classes, and interests, farewell to public liberty; the people must either become enslaved, or there must be a disruption of the government.

This result would follow, even if the people lived under a consolidated government, and were homogenous: much more, then, must it follow, when the government is federal in form, and the States are, in the words of De Tocqueville, "more like hostile nations, than rival parties, under one government." These States are, and indeed always have been rival nations.

The dissimilarity between the people of the Northern, and the people of the Southern States has always been remarked upon, by observant foreigners, and it has not escaped the attention of our own historians.

Indeed it could not be otherwise, for the origin of the two sections has been diverse. Virginia and Massachusetts were the two original germs, from which the great majority of the American populations has sprung; and no two peoples, speaking the same language, and coming from the same country, could have been more dissimilar, in education, taste, and habits, and even in natural instincts, than were the adventurers who settled these two colonies.

Those who sought a new field of adventure for themselves, and affluence for their posterity, in the more congenial climate of the Chesapeake, were the gay, and dashing cavaliers, who, as a class, afterward adhered to the fortunes of the Charleses, whilst the first settlers of Massachusetts were composed of the same materials, that formed the "Praise-God-Barebones" parliament of Cromwell.

Admiral Raphael Semmes Camp 11, SCV, plaque.
Admiral Raphael Semmes Camp 11, SCV, plaque.

These two peoples, seem to have had an instinctive repugnance, the one to the other. To use a botanical phrase, the Puritan was a seedling of the English race, which had been unknown to it before.

It had few, or none of the characteristics of the original stock. Gloomy, saturnine, and fanatical, in disposition, it seemed to repel all the more kindly, and generous impulses of our nature, and to take a pleasure in pulling down everything, that other men had built up; not so much as its subsequent history would seem to show, because the work was faulty, as because it had been done by other hands than their own.

They hated tyranny, for instance, but it was only because they were not, themselves, the tyrants; they hated religious intolerance, but it was only when not practiced by themselves.

Natural affinities attracted like unto like. The Cavalier sought refuge with  the Cavalier, and the Puritan with the Puritan, for a century, and more.

When the fortunes of the Charleses waned, the Cavaliers fled to Virginia; when the fortunes of Cromwell waned, the Puritans fled to Massachusetts.

Trade occasionally drew the two peoples together, but they were repelled at all other points. Thus these germs grew, step by step, into two distinct nations. A different civilization was naturally developed in each.

The two countries were different in climate, and physical features---the climate of the one being cold and inhospitable, and its soil rugged, and sterile, whilst the climate of the other was soft, and genial, and its soil generous, and fruitful.

As a result of these differences of climate, and soil, the pursuits of the two peoples became different, the one being driven to the ocean, and to the mechanic arts, for subsistence, and the other betaking itself to agriculture.

Another important element soon presented itself, to widen the social, and economical breach, which had taken place between the two peoples--African slavery.

All the Colonies, at first, became slaveholding, but it was soon found, that slave labor was unprofitable in the North, where the soil was so niggard in its productions, and where, besides, the white man could labor.

One, by one, the Northern States got rid of their slaves, as soon as they made this discovery.

[NOTE: The Northern states did not free their slaves. They sold them back into slavery in the South, often just before the slave was to be free, such as before his 21st birthday. There is irrefutable proof of this. It was also written about by Alexis de Tocqueville who said Northerners did not free their slaves but simply changed the slave's master from a Northern to a Southern one. See also Edgar J. McManus, Black Bondage in the North (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1973).]

In the South, the case was different. The superior fertility of the soil, and the greater geniality of the climate enabled the planter to employ the African to advantage; and thus slave labor was engrafted on our system of civilization, as one of its permanent features.

The effect was, as before remarked, a still greater divergence between the two peoples.

The wealth of the South soon began to outstrip that of the North. Education and refinement followed wealth.

Whilst the civilization of the North was coarse, and practical, that of the South was more intellectual, and refined. This is said in no spirit of disparagement of our Northern brethren; it was the natural, and inevitable result of the different situations of the two peoples.

In the North, almost every young man was under the necessity, during our colonial existence, of laboring with his own hands, for the means of subsistence. There was neither the requisite leisure, nor the requisite wealth to bring about a very refined system of civilization. The life of a Southern planter on the other hand with his large estates, and hundreds of vassals, with his profuse hospitality, and luxurious style of living, resembled more that of the feudatories of  the middle ages, than that of any modern gentleman out of the Southern States.

It is not my object to express a preference for either of these modes of civilization---each, no doubt, had its advantages, and disadvantages---but to glance at them, merely, for the purpose of showing the dissimilarity of the two peoples; their uncongeniality, and want of adaptation, socially, the one to the other with social institutions as wide asunder as the poles, and with their every material interest antagonistic, the separation of the two peoples, sooner or later, was a logical sequence.

As had been anticipated by Patrick Henry, and others, the moment the new government went into operation, parties began to be formed, on sectional interests and sectional prejudices.

The North wanted protection for her shipping, in the way of discriminating tonnage dues, and the South was opposed to such protection.

The North wanted a bank, to facilitate their commercial operations; the South was opposed to it.

The North wanted protection for their manufactures, the South was opposed to it.

Raphael Semmes.
Raphael Semmes.

There was no warrant, of course, for any of these schemes of protection in the Federal Constitution; they were, on the contrary, subversive of the original design of that instrument.

The South  has been called aggressive. She was thrown on the defensive, in the first Congress, and has remained so, from that day to this. She never had the means to be aggressive, having been always in a minority, in both branches of the Legislature.

It is not consistent with the scope of these memoirs, to enter, at large, into the political disputes which culminated in secession. They are many, and various, and would fill volumes. It will be sufficient to sketch the history of one or two of the more important of them.

The "American System," of which Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, became the champion, and to which allusion has already been made, became the chief instrument of oppression of the Southern States, through a long series of years.

I prefer to let a late distinguished Senator, from the State of Missouri, Mr. Benton, tell this tale of spoliation.

On the slavery question, Mr. Benton was with the North, he cannot, therefore, be accused of being a witness unduly favorable to the South. In a speech in the Senate, in 1828, he declared himself, as follows:

I feel for the sad changes, which have taken place in the South, during the last fifty years. Before the Revolution, it 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. Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac; and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? In the place of wealth, a universal pressure for money was felt---not enough for current expenses---the price of all property down---the country drooping, and languishing---towns and cities decaying---and the frugal habits of the people pushed to the verge of universal self-denial, for the preservation of their family estates. Such a result is a strange, and wonderful phenomenon. It calls upon statesmen to inquire into the cause. Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue. * * * Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourth, of the annual expense of 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. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction---it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this. It does it by the simple process of eternally taking from the South, and returning nothing to it. If it returned to the South the whole, or even a good part, of what it exacted, the four States south of the Potomac might stand the action of the system, but 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."

This picture is not overdrawn; it is the literal truth. Before the war the Northern States, and especially the New England States, exported next to nothing, and yet they "blossomed as the rose."

The picturesque hills of New England were dotted with costly mansions, erected with money, of which the Southern planters had been despoiled, by means of the tariffs of which Mr. Benton spoke. Her harbors frowned with fortifications, constructed by the same means,. Every cove and inlet had its lighthouse, for the benefit of New England shipping, three fourths of the expense of erecting which had been paid by the South, and even the cod, and mackerel fisheries of New England were bountied, on the bald pretext, that they were nurseries for manning the navy.

The South resisted this wholesale robbery, to the best of her ability. Some few of the more generous of the Northern representatives in Congress came to her aid, but still she was overborne; and the curious reader, who will take the pains to consult the "Statutes at Large," of the American Congress, will find on an average, a tariff for every five years recorded on their pages; the cormorants increasing in rapacity, the more they devoured.

No wonder that Mr. Lincoln when asked, "why not let the South go?" replied,

Let the South go! where then shall we get our revenue?

This system of spoliation was commenced in 1816.

The doctrine of protection was not, at first, boldly avowed. A heavy debt had been contracted during the war of 1812, with Great Britain, just then terminated. It became necessary to raise revenue to pay this debt, as well as to defray the current expenses of the government, and for these laudable purposes, the tariff of 1816 was enacted.

Raphael Semmes standing by the Stars and Bars.
Raphael Semmes standing by the Stars and Bars.
The North had not yet become the overshadowing power, which it has become in our day. It was comparatively modest, and only asked, that, in adjusting the duties under the tariff, such incidental protection, as might not be inconsistent with the main object of the bill, to wit, the raising of revenue, should be given to Northern manufactures.

It was claimed that these manufactures had sprung up, sua sponte, during the war, and had materially aided the country in prosecuting the war, and that they would languish, and die, unless protected, in this incidental manner. This seemed but just and reasonable, and some of the ablest of our Southern men gave their assent to the proposition; among others, Mr. Calhoun of South Carolina, and Mr. Clay of Kentucky.

The latter, in particular, then a young member of the House of Representatives, espoused the Northern side of the controversy, and subsequently became known, as we have seen, as the father of the system. Much undeserved obloquy has been thrown upon Mr. Clay, for this supposed abandonment of his section. The most that he claimed, was that a temporary protection, of a few years' duration only, should be given to these infant manufactures, until they should become self-sustaining.

In later life, when he saw the extent to which the measure was pushed, he did, indeed recoil from it, as Mr. Calhoun, with keener intellect, had done, years before. The wedge, being thus entered, was driven home by the insatiable North.

In less than twenty years, or during the early part of General Jackson's administration, the public debt was paid off, and it became necessary to reduce the tariffs, to prevent a plethora in the public treasury; but the North, by this time, had "waxed fat," and like the ox in the scriptures, began to kick.

From incidental protection, it advanced, boldly, to the doctrine of "protection, for the sake of protection"---thus avowing the unjust doctrine, that it was right to rob one section, for the benefit of the other; the pretense being the general good---the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution as well as the expression "We, the people," in the Preamble, being invoked to cover the enormity.

Under the wholesale system of spoliation, which was now practiced, the South was becoming poorer, and poorer.

Whilst her abundant cotton crops supplied all the exchanges of the country, and put in motion, throughout the North, every species of manufacturing industry, from the cut-nail, which the planter put in the weather-boarding of his house, to the coach in which his wife, and daughters took an airing, it was found, that, from year to year, mortgages were increasing on her plantations, and that the planter was fast becoming little better, than the overseer of the Northern manufacturer, and the Northern merchant.

A statesman of England once declared, that "not so much as a hob-nail should be manufactured, in America." The colonial dependence, and vassalage meant to be proclaimed by this expression, was now strictly true, as between the North, and the South. The South was compelled to purchase her hob-nails, in the North, being excluded by the Northern tariffs, from all other markets.

South Carolina, taking the alarm at this state of things, resorted as we have seen to nullification, in 1832. The quarrel was compromised in 1833, by the passage of a more moderate tariff, but the North still growing, in strength, and wealth, disregarded the compromise, in 1842, and enacted a more oppressive tariff than ever.

From this time onward, no attempt was made to conciliate the South, by the practice of forbearance, and justice, and the latter sank, hopelessly, into the condition of a tributary province to her more powerful rival.

All this was done under a federal compact, formed by sovereign States, for their common benefit! Thus was the prophecy of Patrick Henry verified, when he said:

But I am sure, that the dangers of this system [the Federal Constitution] are real, when those who have no similar interest with the people of this country [the South] are to legislate for us---when our dearest rights are to be left, in the hands of those, whose advantage it will be to infringe them.

And thus also, was verified the declaration of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, of South Carolina: "If they [the Southern States] are to form so considerable a minority, and the regulation of trade is to be given to the general Government, they will be nothing more than overseers of the Northern States."

Chapter VI.
The Question of Slavery, as It Affected Secession.

Great pains have been taken, by the North, to make it appear to the world, that the war was a sort of moral, and religious crusade against slavery.

Such was not the fact. The people of the North were, indeed, opposed to slavery, but merely because they thought it stood in the way of their struggle for empire. I think it safe to affirm, that if the question had stood upon moral, and religious grounds alone, the institution would never have been interfered with.

The Republican Party, which finally brought on the war, took its rise, as is well known, on the question of extending slavery to the Territories---those inchoate States, which were finally to decide the vexed question of the balance of power, between the two sections.

It did not propose to disturb the institution in the States; in fact, the institution could do no harm there, for the States, in which it existed, were already in a hopeless minority.

The fat, Southern goose could not resist being plucked, as things stood, but it was feared that if slavery was permitted to go into the Territories, the goose might become strong enough to resist being plucked.

If proof were wanted of this, we have it, in the resolution passed by the Federal Congress, after the first battle of Manassas, in the first year of the war, as follows:

Resolved, That the war is not waged on our part, in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest, or for interfering with the rights, or established institutions of these States, but to defend, and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity and rights of the several States unimpaired.

[NOTE: This comes from the War Aims Resolution, also known by the names of its sponsors, Representative John. J. Crittenden of Kentucky and Senator Andrew Johnson of Tennessee: the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, or just the Crittenden Resolution. It passed the U.S. House of Representatives July 22, 1861, and the Senate July 25, 1861. There were only two dissenting votes in the House and five in the Senate. This was just over three months into the war. There is much other substantial proof such as the Corwin Amendment that Lincoln supported and passed the Northern Congress and was ratified by three states until the war made it moot, that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the North did not go to war to end slavery. They went to war because they faced economic annihilation without the South, with its 100% control of King Cotton, and its massive captive manufacturing market.]

In 1820, in the admission of Missouri into the Union, the North and the South had entered into a compromise, which provided, that slavery should not be carried into any of the Territories, north of a given geographical line.

This compromise was clearly violative of the rights of the South, for the Territories were common property, which had been acquired, by the blood, and treasure, of the North and the South alike, and no discrimination could justly be made between the sections, as to emigration to those Territories; but discrimination would be made, if the Northern man could emigrate to all of them, and the Southern man to those of them only that lay South of the given line.

By the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, introduced into the House of Representatives, in 1854, by Mr. Stephen A. Douglas, this unjust compromise was repealed; the repealing clause declaring, that the Missouri Compromise

being inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention, by Congress, with slavery in the States, and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative, and void; it being the true intent, and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory, or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form, and regulate their domestic institutions, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.

Nothing would seem more just, than the passage of this act, which removed the restriction which had been put upon a portion of the States, threw open the Territories to immigration form all the States, alike, and left the question of local government, the question of slavery included, to be decided by the inhabitants of the Territories themselves.

Marker for Semmes's house in Mobile, Alabama.
Marker for Semmes's house in Mobile, Alabama.

But this act of justice, which Mr. Douglas had had the address and ability to cause to be passed, was highly distasteful to the Northern people.

It was not consistent with their views of empire that there should be any more Southern Slave States admitted into the Union.

The Republican party, which, up to that time, had made but little headway, now suddenly sprang into importance and at the next elections in the North, swept every thing before it. The Northern Democratic members of Congress who had voted for the hated measure, were beaten by overwhelming majorities, and Republicans sent in their places; and the Republican Convention which assembled at Chicago in 1860, to nominate a candidate for the Presidency, adopted as one of the "planks of its platform"---to use a slang political phrase of the day---the principle that slavery should thereafter be excluded from the Territories; not only from the Territories North of the geographical line, of the Missouri Compromise, but from all the Territories! The gauntlet of defiance was thus boldly thrown at the feet of the Southern States,

From 1816 to 1860, these States had been plundered by tariffs, which had enriched the North, and now they were told without any circumlocution, that they should no longer have any share in the Territories.

I have said that this controversy, on the subject of slavery, did not rest, in the North, on any question of morals or religion.

The end aimed at, in restricting slavery to the States, was purely political; but this end was to be accomplished by means, and the Northern leaders had the sagacity to see, that it was all-important to mix up the controversy, as a means, with moral, and religious questions.

Hence they enlisted the clergy in their crusade against the South; the pulpit becoming a rostrum, from which to inflame the Northern mind against the un-Godly slave-holder; religious papers were established, which fulminated their weekly diatribes against the institution; magazine literature, fiction, lectures, by paid itinerants, were all employed, with powerful effect, in a community where every man sets himself up as a teacher, and considers himself responsible for the morals of his neighbor.

The contumely and insult thus heaped upon the South were, of themselves, almost past endurance, to say nothing of the wrongs, under which she suffered. The sectional animosity which was engendered by these means, in the North, soon became intense, and hurried on the catastrophe with railroad speed.

Whilst the dispute about slavery in the Territories was drawing to a focus, another, and if possible, a still more exciting question, had been occupying the public mind---the rendition of fugitive slaves to their owners.

Our ancestors, in the Convention of 1787, foreseeing the difficulty that was likely to arise on this subject, insisted that the following positive provision, for their protection, should be inserted in the Constitution: "No person held to service, or labor, in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law, or regulation therein, be discharged from such service, or labor; but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service, or labor may be due."

In 1793, a law, called the fugitive slave law, had been passed, for the purpose of carrying out this provision of the Constitution. This law was re-enacted, with some alterations, the better to secure the object in question, in 1850.

Neither of those laws was ever properly executed in the North. It soon became unsafe, indeed, for a Southern man to venture into the North, in pursuit of his fugitive slave.

Mr. Webster sought, in vain, in the latter part of his life, when he seemed to be actuated by a sense of returning justice to the South, to induce his countrymen to execute those laws, and he lost much of his popularity, in consequence.

The laws were not only positively disobeyed, but they were formally nullified by the Legislatures of fourteen of the Northern States; and penalties were annexed to any attempt to execute them. Mr. Webster, in speaking on this subject, says:

These States passed acts defeating the law of Congress, as far as it was in their power to defeat them. Those of them to whom I refer, not all, but several, nullified the law of 1793. They said in effect, 'We will not execute it. No runaway slave shall be restored.' Thus the law became a dead letter.

But here was the Constitution, and compact still binding; here was the stipulation, as solemn as words could form it, and which every member of Congress, every officer of the General Government, every officer of the State government, from governors down to constables, is sworn to support. It has been said in the States of New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio, over and over again, that the law shall not be executed. That was the language in conventions, in Worcester, Massachusetts; in Syracuse, New York, and elsewhere. And for this they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors. Now, gentlemen, these proceedings, I say it upon my professional reputation, are distinctly treasonable. And the act of taking Shadrick [a fugitive slave] from the public authorities, in Boston, and sending  him off, was an act of clear treason.

Great outcry was raised against South Carolina when she nullified the tariff law of 1830, passed in clear violation of the spirit of the Constitution; here we see fourteen States nullifying an act, passed to carry out an express provision of the same instrument, about which there was not, and could not be any dispute.

Let us again put Mr. Webster on the witness stand, and hear what he says, was the effect of this wholesale nullification by the Northern States of this provision of the Constitution. "I do not hesitate," says he,

to say, and repeat, that if the effect that part of the Constitution, which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, the South would be no longer bound to keep the compact. A bargain broken on one side is broken on all sides.

That was spoken like Daniel Webster, the able jurist, and just man, and not like the Daniel Webster, whom I have before quoted, in these pages, as the casuist, and the sophist. The reader cannot fail to see what a full recantation we have here, of Mr. Webster's heresy, of 1833, when he contended that the Constitution had been "ordained and established," by the people of the United States, in the aggregate, as one nation.

Mr. Webster now calls the States, the parties to the instrument, and claims that the infraction of it, by some of the States, releases the others from their obligations under it.

It is then, after all, it seems, a federal compact; and if it be such, we have the authority of Mr. Webster, himself, for saying that the States may withdraw from it, at pleasure, without waiting for an infringement of it, by their co-States.

But the Southern States did not desire to withdraw from it, without reason. They were sincerely attached to the Union and were willing to suffer, and endure much rather than that it should be destroyed.

They had stood, shoulder to shoulder, with the North in two wars against the mother country, and had freely spent their wealth, and shed their blood in defense of the common rights. They had rushed to the defense of New England, in the war of the Revolution, and had equally responded to her call in 1812, in defense of her shipping interests.

Mr. Madison relied much upon these ties, as a common bond of union. When Patrick Henry and other Southern patriots were warning their people against the new alliance, proposed to them in the Federal Constitution, he spoke the following fervid language in reply to them, in one of the numbers of the "Federalist."

Hearken not to the unnatural voice, which tells you, that the people of America, knit together, as they are, by so many natural cords of affection, can no longer live together as members of the same family; can no longer continue mutual guardians of their mutual happiness. * * * No, my countrymen, shut your ears against this unhallowed language. Shut your hearts against the poison which it conveys. The kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their sacred rights, consecrate their union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies.

Much of this feeling still lingered in the bosoms of Southern men. They were slow to awaken from this dream of delusion. A rude and rough hand had been necessary to disenchant them.

But they were compelled, in spite of themselves, to realize the fact at last, that they had been deceived, and betrayed into the federal compact, that they might be made slaves.

Like an unhappy bride, upon whose brow the orange-wreath had been placed, by hands that promised tenderness, and protection, the South had been rudely scorned, and repelled, and forced in tears, and bitter lamentation, to retract the faith which she had plighted.

To carry still further our simile; like the deceived, and betrayed bride, the least show of relenting, and tenderness was sufficient to induce the South to forgive, and to endeavor to forget.

This magnificent 120 yr old statue was removed by Repub. mayor Sandy Stimpson June 5, 2020. See NOTE below.
This magnificent 120 yr old statue was removed by Repub. mayor Sandy Stimpson June 5, 2020. See NOTE below.

The history of our unhappy connection with the North is full of compromises, and apparent reconciliations---prominent among which was the compromise of 1833, growing out of the nullification of South Carolina, on the tariff question; and the compromise of 1850, in which it was promised, that Congress should not interfere with the question of slavery, either in the States, or Territories.

The South, like the too credulous bride, accepted these evidences of returning tenderness, in good faith; the North, like the coarse and brutal husband, whose selfishness was superior to his sense of justice, withdrew them, almost as soon as made. The obnoxious laws which had been modified, or repealed, under these compromises, were reenacted with additional provocations, and restrictions.

So loath was the South to abandon the Union, that she made strenuous efforts to remain in it, even after Mr. Lincoln had been elected President, in 1860.

In this election, that dreaded sectional line against which President Washington had warned his countrymen, in his Farewell Address, had at last been drawn; in it,---"the fire-bell of the night,"---which had so disturbed the last days of Jefferson, had been sounded.

There had, at last, arisen a united North, against a united South. Mr. Lincoln had been placed by the Chicago Convention on a platform so purely sectional, that no Southern State voted, or could vote for him. His election was purely geographical; it was tantamount to a denial of the co-equality of the Southern States, with the Northern States, in the Union, since it drove the former out of the common Territories.

This had not been a mere party squabble---the questions involved had been federal, and fundamental. Notwithstanding which, some of the Southern States were not without hope, that the North might be induced to revoke its verdict.

Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, introduced into the Senate, a series of resolutions, which he hoped would have the effect of restoring harmony; the chief feature of which was, the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, giving the Southern States access to the Territories south of a geographical line.

Although this compromise was a partial abandonment of the rights of the South, many of the ablest, and most influential statesmen of that section, gave in their adhesion to it; among others, Mr. Jefferson Davis. The measure failed.

Various other resolutions, looking to pacification, were introduced into both houses of Congress; but they failed, in like manner.

The border Slave States aroused to a sense of their danger---for by this time, several of the Gulf States had seceded---called a Convention in the city of Washington, to endeavor to allay the storm. A full representation attended, composed of men, venerable for their years, and renowned for their patriotic services, but their labors ended also in failure; Congress scarcely deigned to notice them.

In both houses of Congress the Northern faction, which had so recently triumphed in the election of their President, was arrayed in a solid phalanx of hostility to the South, and could not be moved an inch. The Puritan leaven had at last "leavened the whole loaf," and the descendants of those immigrants who had come over to America, in the May Flower, feeling that they had the power to crush a race of men, who had dared to differ with them in opinion, and to have interests separate and apart from them, were resolved to use that power in a way to do no discredit to their ancestry. Rebels, when in a minority, they had become tyrants, now that they were in a majority.

Nothing remained to the South, but to raise the gantlet which had been thrown at her feet. The Federal Government which had been established by our ancestors had failed of its object. Instead of binding the States together, in peace, and amity, it had, in the hands of one portion of the States, become an engine of oppression of the other portion.

It so happened, that the slavery question was the issue which finally tore them asunder, but, as the reader has seen, this question was a mere means, to an end.

The end was empire, and we were about to repeat, in this hemisphere, the drama which had so often been enacted in the other, of a more powerful nation crushing out a weaker.

The war of the American sections was but the prototype of many other wars, which had occurred among the human race. It had its origin in the unregenerated nature of man, who is only an intellectual wild beast, whose rapacity has never yet been restrained, by a sense of justice.

The American people thought, when they framed the Constitution, that they were to be an exception to mankind, in general. History had instructed them that all other peoples, who had gone before them, had torn up paper governments, when paper was the only bulwark that protected such governments, but then they were the American people, and no such fate would await them.

The events which I have recorded, and am about to record, have taught them, that they are no better---and perhaps they are no worse---than other people.

CSS Alabama plaque in Simon's Town, South Africa today.
CSS Alabama plaque in Simon's Town, South Africa today.

It is to be hoped that they will profit by their dear-bought experience, and that when they shall have come to their senses, and undertake to lay the foundation of a new government, they will, if they design to essay another republic, eliminate all discordant materials.

The experiment of trusting to human honesty having failed, they must next trust to human interests---the great regulator, as all philosophy teaches, of human nature.

They must listen rather to the philosophy of Patrick Henry, than to that of James Madison, and never attempt again to bind up on one sheaf, with a withe of straw, materials so discordant as were in the people of the North, and the people of the South.

Grave site of Admiral Raphael Semmes and his wife, Anne E. Spencer Semmes, in Mobile, AL.
Grave site of Admiral Raphael Semmes and his wife, Anne E. Spencer Semmes, in Mobile, AL.

NOTE: The magnificent statue of Admiral Raphael Semmes that was put up around June 1900 was removed June 5, 2020 by a horribly misguided Republican mayor named Sandy Stimpson. Sandy Stimpson is not good enough to polish Raphael Semmes's shoes. Stimpson said "Moving this statue will not change the past. It is about removing a potential distraction so we may focus clearly on the future of our city." THAT FUTURE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE ANYBODY LIKE SANDY STIMPSON. He is more aligned with the Democrat Party that hates America. SCV camps in the area should look into what some are doing in Georgia and SUE PERSONALLY public officials like Stimpson who break the law. Republicans are safe defending Southern history. President Trump does. See:

"Republicans, There Is No Downside to Defending Southern History" at

https://www.charlestonathenaeumpress.com/republicans-there-is-no-downside-to-defending-southern-history/.

Our Confederate Ancestors: Admiral Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, Chapters 3 and 4

A Series on the Daring Exploits of Our Confederate Ancestors in the War Between the States.

Chapters 3 and 4 of the first 6 of

Memoirs of Service Afloat
During the War Between the States
by Admiral Raphael Semmes

3. From the Foundation of the Federal Government Down to 1830, Both the North and the South Held the Constitution to be a Compact Between the States.

4. Was Secession Treason?

Portrait of Rear Adm. Raphael Semmes by Maliby Sykes.
Portrait of Rear Adm. Raphael Semmes by Maliby Sykes.

Publisher's Note: The six chapters of Raphael Semmes's Memoirs of Service Afloat that I am publishing, two at a time, in these three blog articles, are an OUTSTANDING short constitutional history of our country that is not short on facts or truth. It cuts right to the chase.

ALL SCV, UDC and others should read the six chapters in these three posts but especially the two in this one, Chapters 3 and 4.

With this brilliant argument from one of the greatest naval commanders of all time, who commanded the greatest commerce raider in maritime history, the CSS Alabama, Semmes obliterates the fraudulent argument that secession was treason.

He turns it right back on the ignoramuses by pointing out that the New England States' Hartford Convention in the War of 1812, while absolutely correct about their right of secession, was unquestionably treasonous because they had demanded that we help their shipping by going to war with the British, then they changed their minds and started giving aid, comfort and support to the British.

Ironically, it was the Southern boys at the Battle of New Orleans under Andrew Jackson that defeated the British and ended that war, thus saving the New England States from dishonoring themselves any further.

The biggest absurdity in all of history is that these same New England traitors fought the War Between the States to free the slaves that they had brought here in the first place, making huge fortunes in the process like the money grubbing Yankees they were.

As with the War of 1812, they encouraged Lincoln to start the War Between the States so that they could continue their theft of Southern money that was going straight into their pockets via the Federal Government's tariffs, bounties, subsidies, monopolies, etc., proving, incontrovertibly, that the sectionalism and "tyranny of the majority" that had so worried the Founding Fathers, would, indeed, destroy the republic they had created.

CSS Alabama chasing a clipper ship.
CSS Alabama chasing a clipper ship.

Chapter III

From the Foundation of the Federal Government Down to 1830, Both the North and the South Held the Constitution to be a Compact Between the States.

One of the great difficulties in arguing the question of the relative power of the States and of the Federal Government, consists in the fact that the present generation has grown up under the shadow of the great Federal monster, and has been blinded by its giant proportions. They see around them all the paraphernalia and power of a great government -- its splendid capital, its armies, its fleets, its Chief Magistrate, its legislature, and its judiciary -- and they find it difficult to realize the fact, that all this grandeur is not self-created, but the offspring of the States.

When our late troubles were culminating, men were heard frequently to exclaim, with plaintive energy, "What! have we no government capable of preserving itself? Is our Government a mere rope of sand, that may be destroyed at the will of the States?"

These men seemed to think that there was but one government to be preserved, and that was the Government of the United States. Less than a century had elapsed since the adoption of the Constitution, and the generation now on the theatre of events had seemingly forgotten, that the magnificent structure, which they contemplated with so much admiration, was but a creature of the States; that it had been made by them for their convenience, and necessarily held the tenure of its life at sufferance.

CSS Alabama sinks the whaler Virginia.
CSS Alabama sinks the whaler Virginia.

They lost sight of the fact that the State governments, who were the creators of the Federal Government, were the governments to be preserved, if there should be any antagonism between them and the Federal Government; and that their services, as well as their sympathies, belonged to the former in preference to the latter.

What with the teachings of Webster and Story, and a host of satellites, the dazzling splendor of the Federal Government, and the overshadowing and corrupting influences of its power, nearly a whole generation in the North had grown up in ignorance of the true nature of the institutions, under which they lived.

This change in the education of the people had taken place since about the year 1830; for, up to that time, both of the great political parties of the country, the Whigs as well as the Democrats, had been States-Rights in doctrine.

A very common error has prevailed on this subject. It has been said, that the North and the South have always been widely separated in their views of the Constitution; that the men of the North have always been consolidationists, whilst the men of the South have been secessionists.

Nothing can be farther from the truth.

Whilst the North and the South, from the very commencement of the Government, have been at swords' points, on many questions of mere construction and policy,---the North claiming that more ample powers had been granted the Federal Government, than the South was willing to concede,---there never was any material difference between them down to the year 1830, as to the true nature of their Government.

They all held it to be a federal compact, and the Northern people were as jealous of the rights of their States under it, as the Southern people.

CSS Alabama in a cyclone in the Gulf Stream on 16 October 1862.
CSS Alabama in a cyclone in the Gulf Stream on 16 October 1862.

In proof of this, I have only to refer to a few of the well-known facts of our political history. Thomas Jefferson penned the famous Kentucky Resolution of '98 and '99. The first of those resolutions is in these words:

Resolved, That the several States comprising the United States of America are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their general Government; but that by a compact, under the style and title of the Constitution of the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constitute a general Government for special purposes; and that whensoever the general Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party; that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, not the Constitution, the measure of its powers, but that, as in all cases of compact among persons having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress.

It is unnecessary to quote the other resolution, as the above contains all that is sufficient for my purpose, which is to show that Mr. Jefferson was a secessionist, and that with this record he went before the American people as a candidate for the Presidency, with the following results: In 1800 he beat his opponent, John Adams, who represented the consolidationists of that day, by a majority of 8 votes in the Electoral College.

In 1804, being a candidate for re-election, he beat his opponent by the overwhelming majority of 162, to 14 votes. In the Northern States alone, Mr. Jefferson received 85 votes, whilst in the same States his opponent received but 9. This was a pretty considerable indorsement of secession by the Northern States.

In 1808, Mr. Madison, who penned the Virginia Resolutions of '98, similar in tenor to the Kentucky Resolutions, became a candidate for the Presidency, and beat his opponent by a vote of 122 to 47; the Northern majority, though somewhat diminished, being still 50 to 39 votes.

Mr. Madison was reelected in 1812, and in 1816, James Monroe was elected President by a vote of 183 to his opponent's 34; and more than one half of these 183 votes came from the Northern States.

In 1820, Mr. Monroe was re-elected over John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, by a majority of 231 votes to 13. Besides Monroe and Adams, Crawford and Jackson were also candidates, but these two latter received only 11 votes between them.

Lts. Armstrong and Sinclair on the Alabama in August, 1863.

This last election is especially remarkable, as showing that there was no opposition to Jefferson's doctrine of State-Rights, since all the candidates were of that creed. The opposition had been so often defeated, and routed in former elections, that they had not strength enough left to put a candidate in the field.

John Quincy Adams succeeded Mr. Monroe, and his State-Rights doctrines are well known. He expressed them as follows:

The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation, is, after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may heaven avert it) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties, no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests, and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the dis-united States to part in friendship with each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents, which occurred at the formation, and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the centre.

General Jackson succeeded Mr. Adams in 1828, and was re-elected in 1832. It was during his administration that the heresy was first promulgated by Mr. Webster, that the Constitution was not a compact between the States, but an instrument of government, "ordained, and established," by the people of the United States, in the aggregate, as one nation.

With respect to the New England States in particular, there is other and more pointed evidence, that they agreed with Mr. Jefferson, and the South down to the year 1830, on this question of State rights, than is implied in the Presidential elections above quoted.

Massachusetts, the leader of these States in intellect, and in energy, impatient of control herself, has always sought to control others. This was, perhaps, but natural. All mankind are prone to consult their own interests. Selfishness, unfortunately, is one of the vices of our nature, which few are found capable of struggling against effectually.

The New England people were largely imbued with the Puritan element. Their religious doctrines gave them a gloomy asceticism of character, and an intolerance of other men's opinions quite remarkable. In their earlier history as colonists, there is much in the way of uncharitableness and persecution, which a liberal mind could wish to see blotted out.

True to these characteristics, which I may almost call instincts, the New England States have always been the most refractory States of the Union. As long as they were in a minority, and hopeless of the control of the Government, they stood strictly on their State rights, in resisting such measures as were unpalatable to them, even to the extremity  of threatening secession; and it was only when they saw that the tables were turned, and that it was possible for them to seize the reins of the Government, that they abandoned their State-Rights doctrines, and became consolidationists.

One of the first causes of the dissatisfaction of the New England States with the General Government was the purchase of Louisiana, by Mr. Jefferson, in 1803. It arose out of their jealousy of the balance of power between the States.

The advantages to result to the United States from the purchase of this territory were patent to every one. It completed the continuity of our territory, from the head waters of the Mississippi, to the sea, and unlocked the mouths of that great river.

But Massachusetts saw in the purchase, nothing more than the creation of additional Southern States, to contest, with her, the future control of the Government. She could see no authority for it in the Constitution, and she threatened, that if it were consummated, she would secede from the Union.

Her Legislature passed the following resolution on the subject:

Resolved, That the annexation of Louisiana to the Union, transcends the Constitutional power of the Government of the United States. It formed a new Confederacy, to which the States [not the people of the United States, in the aggregate] united by the former compact, are not bound to adhere.

This purchase of Louisiana rankled, for a long time, in the breast of New England. It was made, as we have seen, in 1803, and in 1811 the subject again came up for consideration; this time, in the shape of a bill before Congress for the admission of Louisiana as a State.

One of the most able and influential members of Congress of that day from Massachusetts was Mr. Josiah Quincy. In a speech on this bill, that gentlemen uttered the following declaration:

If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union; that it will free the States from their moral obligation, and as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some definitely to prepare for separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must.

Time passed on, and the difficulties which led to our War of 1812, with Great Britain, began to rise above the political horizon. Great Britain began to impress seamen form New England merchant ships, and even went so far, at last, as to take some enlisted men from on board the United States ship of war Chesapeake.

Adm. Raphael Semmes, signature.
Adm. Raphael Semmes, signature.

Massachusetts was furious; she insisted that war should be declared forthwith against Great Britain.

The Southern States, which had comparatively little interest in this matter, except so far as the federal honor was concerned, came generously to the rescue of the shipping States, and war was declared.

But the first burst of her passion having spent itself, Massachusetts found that she had been indiscreet; her shipping began to suffer more than she had anticipated, and she began now to cry aloud as one in pain.

She denounced the war, and the Administration which was carrying it on; and not content with this, in connection with other New England States, she organized a Convention, at Hartford, in Connecticut, with a view to adopt some ulterior measures. We find the following among the records of that Convention:

Events may prove, that the causes of our calamities are deep, and permanent. They may be found to proceed not merely from blindness of prejudice, pride of opinion, violence of party spirit, or the confusion of the times; but they may be traced to implacable combinations, of individuals, or of States, to monopolize office, and to trample, without remorse, upon the rights and interests of the commercial sections of the Union. Whenever it shall appear, that these causes are radical, and permanent, a separation by equitable arrangement, will be preferable to an alliance, by constraint, among nominal friends but real enemies, inflamed by mutual hatred, and jealousy, and inviting, by intestine divisions, contempt and aggressions from abroad.

Having recorded this opinion of what should be the policy of the New England States, in the category mentioned, the "Journal of the Convention" goes on to declare what it considers the right of the States, in the premises.

That acts of Congress, in violation of the Constitution, are absolutely void, is an indisputable position. It does not, however, consist with the respect, from a Confederate State toward the General Government, to fly to open resistance, upon every infraction of the Constitution. The mode, and the energy of the opposition should always conform to the nature of the violation, the intention of the authors, the extent of the evil inflicted, the determination manifested to persist in it, and the danger of delay. But in case of deliberate, dangerous, and palpable infractions of the Constitution, affecting the sovereignty of the State, and liberties of the people, it is not only the right, but the duty, of each State to interpose its authority for their protection, in the manner best calculated to secure that end. When emergencies occur, which are either beyond the reach of judicial tribunals, or too pressing to admit of the delay incident to their forms, States, which have no common umpire, must be their own judges, and execute their own decisions.

These proceeding took place in January, 1815. A deputation was appointed to lay the complains of New England before the Federal Government, and there is no predicting what might have occurred, if the delegates had not found, that peace had been declared, when they arrived at Washington.

It thus appears, that from 1803-4 to 1815, New England was constantly in the habit of speaking of the dissolution of the Union---her leading men deducing this right from the nature of the compact between the States.

Aboard the Alabama, Cape Town, South Africa, 12 August 1863.
Aboard the Alabama, Cape Town, South Africa, 12 August 1863.

It is curious and instructive, and will well repay the perusal, to read the "Journal of the Hartford Convention," so replete is it with sound constitutional doctrine. It abounds in such expressions as these: "The constitutional compact;" "It must be the duty of the State to watch over the rights reserved, as of the United States to exercise the powers which were delegated;" the right of conscription is "not delegated to Congress by the Constitution, and the exercise of it would not be less dangerous to their liberties, than hostile to the sovereignty of the States."

The odium which has justly fallen upon the Hartford Convention, has not been because of its doctrines, for these were as sound, as we have seen,  as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of '98 and '99, but because it was a secret conclave, gotten together, in a time of war, when the country was hard pressed by a foreign enemy; the war having, in fact, been undertaken for the benefit of the very shipping States which were threatening to dissolve the Union on account it.

Mr. John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the United States, himself, as is well known, a Massachusetts man, speaking of this dissatisfaction of the New England States with the Federal Government, says:

That their object was, and had been, for several years, a dissolution of the Union and the establishment of a separate Confederation, he knew from unequivocal evidence, although not provable in a court of law; and that in case of a civil war, the aid of Great Britain, to effect that purpose, would be assuredly resorted to, as it would be indispensably necessary to their design.

See Mr. Adams' letter of Dec. 30th, 1828, in reply to Harrison Gray Otis and others.

We have thus seen, that for forty years, or from the foundation of the Federal Government, to 1830, there was no material difference of opinion between the sections, as to the nature of the league or compact of government which they had formed.

There was this difference between the sections, however. The South, during this entire period of forty years, had substantially controlled the Government; not by force, it is true, of her own majorities, but with the aid of a few of the Northern States. She was the dominant or ruling power in the Government. During all this time, she conscientiously adhered to her convictions, and respected the rights of the minority, though she might have wielded her power, if she had been so inclined, to her own advantage.

Constitutions are made for the protection of minorities, and she scrupulously adhered to this idea. Minorities naturally cling to the guarantees and defenses provided for them in the fundamental law; it is only when they become strong, when they throw off their pupilage, and become majorities, that their principles and their virtues are really tested. It is in politics, as in religion---the weaker party is always the tolerant party.

Did the North follow this example set her by the South? No; the moment she became strong enough, she recanted all the doctrines under which she had sought shelter, tore the Constitution into fragments, scattered it to the winds; and finally, when the South threw herself on the defensive, as Massachusetts had threatened to do, in 1803 and 1815, she subjugated her.

What was the powerful motive which thus induced the North to overthrow the government which it had labored so assiduously with the South to establish, and which it had construed in common with the South, for the period of forty years?

It was the motive which generally influences human conduct; it was the same motive which Patrick Henry had so clearly foreseen, when he warned the people of Virginia against entering into the federal compact; telling them, that interested majorities never had, in the history of the world, and never would respect the right of minorities.

The great "American System," as it has been called, had in the meantime arisen, championed by no less a personage than Henry Clay of Kentucky.

In 1824, and again in 1828, oppressive tariffs had been enacted for the protection of New England manufacturers. The North was manufacturing, the South non-manufacturing.

The effect of these tariffs was to shut out all foreign competition, and compel the Southern consumer to pay two prices for all the textile fabrics he consumed, from the clothing of his negroes to his own broadcloth coats.

So oppressive, unjust, and unconstitutional were these acts considered, that South Carolina nullified them in 1830.

CSS Alabama, Cape Town, South Africa, 12 August 1863.
CSS Alabama, Cape Town, South Africa, 12 August 1863.

Immediately all New England was arrayed against South Carolina. An entire and rapid change took place in the political creed of that section.

New England orators and jurists rose up to proclaim that the Constitution was not a compact between the States. Webster thundered in the Senate, and Story wrote his "Commentaries on the Constitution."

These giants had a Herculean task before them; nothing less than the falsifying of the whole political history of the country, for the previous forty years; but their barren  and inhospitable section of the country had been touched by the enchanter's wand, and its rocky hills, and sterile fields, incapable of yielding even a scanty subsistence to its numerous population, were to become glad with the music of the spindle and the shuttle; and the giants undertook the task!

How well they have accomplished it, the reader will see, in the course of these pages, when, toward the conclusion of my narrative, he will be called upon to view the fragments of the grand old Constitution, which has been shattered, and which will lie in such mournful profusion around him; the monuments at once of the folly and crimes of a people, who have broken up a government---a free government---which might else have endured for centuries.

Chapter IV.
Was Secession Treason?

A few more words, and we shall be in a condition to answer the question which stands at the head of this chapter.

Being a legal question, it will depend entirely upon the constitutional right the Southern States may have had to withdraw from the Union, without reference to considerations of expediency, or of moral right; these latter will be more appropriately considered, when we come to speak of the causes which impelled the Southern States to the step. I have combated many of the arguments presented by the other side, but a few others remain to be noticed.

It has been said, that, admitting that the Constitution was a federal compact, yet the States did in fact cede away a part of their sovereignty, and from this the inference has been deduced, that they no longer remained sovereign for the purpose of recalling the part, which had been ceded away.

This is a question which arises wholly under the laws of nations. It is admitted, that the States were independent sovereignties, before they formed the Constitution.

We have only, therefore, to consult the international code, to ascertain to what extent the granting away of a portion of their sovereignty affected the remainder.

Vattel, treating of this identical point, speaks as follows:

Several sovereign and independent States may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect State. They will, together, constitute a federal republic; their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint upon the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements.

That was just what the American States did, when they formed the Federal Constitution; they put some voluntary restraint upon their sovereignty, for the furtherance of a common object.

If they are restrained, by the Constitution, from doing certain things, the restraint was self-imposed, for it was they who ordained, and established the instrument, and not a common superior. They, each, agreed that they would forbear to do certain things, if their copartners would forbear to do the same things.

As plain as this seems, no less an authority than that of Mr. Webster has denied it; for, in his celebrated argument Mr. Calhoun, already referred to, he triumphantly exclaimed, that the States were not sovereign, because they were restrained of a portion of their liberty by the Constitution.

See how he perverts the whole tenor of the instrument, in his endeavor to build up those manufactories of which we spoke in the last chapter. He says:

However men may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of the United States have chosen to impose control on State sovereignty. There are those, doubtless, who wish that they had been left without restraint; but the Constitution has ordered the matter differently. To make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty, but, the Constitution declares that no State shall declare war. To coin money is another act of sovereign power; but no State is at liberty to coin money. Again, the Constitution says, that no sovereign State shall be so sovereign, as to make a treaty. These prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a control on the State sovereignty of South Carolina, as well as of the other States, which does not arise from her feelings of honorable justice.

Here we see, plainly, the germ of the monstrous heresy that has riven the States asunder, in our day.

The "people of the United States," a common superior, ordained and established the Constitution, says Mr. Webster, and imposed restraints upon the States!

However some might wish they had been left without restraint, the Constitution has "ordained it differently!"

And the ostrich stomach of the North received, and digested this monstrous perversion of the plainest historical truth, in order that the spindle might whirr on, and the shuttle dance from side to side of the loom.

CSS Alabama officers.
CSS Alabama officers.

Following the idea of Mr. Webster, that the people of the United States gave constitutional law to the States, instead of receiving it from them, Northern writers frequently ask, in what part of the Constitution, is the doctrine of secession found?

In no part. It was not necessary to put it there.

The States who formed the instrument, delegated certain powers to the Federal Government, retaining all others.

Did they part, with the right of secession? Could they have parted with it, without consenting to a merger of their sovereignty?

And so far from doing this, we have seen with what jealous care they protested against even the implication of such a merger, in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

If the power was not parted with, by explicit grant, did it not remain to them, even before the 10th Amendment was adopted, and still more, if possible, after it was adopted?

To make it still more apparent, that the common understanding among the Fathers of the Constitution was, that this right of secession was reserved, it is only necessary to refer to what took place, during the transition from the old to the new government.

The thirteen original States seceded, as we have seen, from the Articles of Confederation, not unanimously, or all together, but one by one, each State acting for itself, without consulting the interests, or inclinations of the others.

One of the provisions of those Articles was as follows:

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States, in Congress assembled, in all questions, which, by this Confederation, are submitted to them; and the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration, as any time hereafter, be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to, in a Congress of the United States, and be afterward confirmed by the legislature of every State.

Now, it is a pertinent, and instructive fact, that no similar provision of perpetuity was engrafted in the new Constitution.

There must have been a motive for this -- it could not have been a mere accidental omission -- and the motive probably was, that the Convention of 1787 were ashamed to attempt, a second time, to bind sovereign States, by a rope of sand, which they, themselves, were in the act of pulling asunder.

It was in accordance with this understanding, that both New York and Virginia, in their ratification of the new Constitution, expressly reserved to themselves the right of secession; and no objection was made to such conditional ratifications.

The reservations made by these States enure, as a matter of course, to the benefit of all the States, as they were all to go into the new Union, on precisely the same footing. [NOTE: Raphael Semmes accidentally leaves out Rhode Island, which also reserved the right of secession along with New York and Virginia, before acceding to the U.S. Constitution].

In the extract from Mr. Webster's speech, which has been given above, it is alleged among other things, that the States are not sovereign, because they cannot make treaties; and this disability also has been urged as an argument against secession.

The disability, like others, was self-imposed, and, as any one may see, was intended to be binding on the States only so long as they contract which they were then forming should endure.

The Confederate States respected this obligation while they remained in the Federal Union. They scrupulously forbore from contracting with each other until they had resumed, each for itself, their original sovereignty; they were then not only free to contract with each other, but to do and perform all the other acts enumerated by Mr. Webster; the act of declaring war included, even though this was should be against their late confederates.

The truth is, the more we sift these arguments of our late enemies, the less real merit there appears in them. The facts of history are too stubborn, and refuse to be bent to conform to the new doctrines.

We see it emblazoned on every page of American history for forty years, that the Constitution was a compact between the States; that the Federal Government was created, by, and for the benefit of the States, and possessed and could possess no other power than such as was conferred upon it by the States; that the States reserved to themselves all the powers not granted, and that they took especial pains to guard their sovereignty, in terms, by an amendment to the Constitution, lest, by possibility, their intentions in the formation of the new government, should be misconstrued.

In the course of time this government is perverted from its original design. Instead of remaining the faithful and impartial agent of all the States, a faction obtains control of it, in the interests of some of them, and turns it, as an engine of oppression, against the others.

These latter, after long and patient suffering, after having exhausted all their means of defense, within the Union, withdraw from the agent the powers which they had conferred upon him, form a new Confederacy, and desire "to be let alone."

And what is the consequence? They are denounced as rebels and traitors, armies are equipped, and fleets provided, and a war of subjugation is waged against them.

What says the reader? Does he see rebellion and treason lurking in the conduct of these States? Are they, indeed, in his opinion, in face of the record which he has inspected, so bereft of their sovereignty, as to be incapable of defending themselves, except with halters around the necks of their citizens?

Let us examine this latter question of halters for a moment.

The States existed before the Federal Government; the citizens of the States owed allegiance to their respective States, and to none others. By what process was any portion of this allegiance transferred to the Federal Government, and to what extent was it transferred?

It was transferred by the States, themselves, when they entered into the federal compact, and not by the individual citizens, for these had not power to make such a transfer.

Although it be admitted, that a citizen of any one of the States may have had the right to expatriate himself entirely -- and this was not so clear a doctrine at that day -- and transfer his allegiance to another government, yet it is quite certain, that he could not, ex mero motu, divide his allegiance. His allegiance then was transferred to the Federal Government, by his State, whether he would or not.

Take the case of Patrick Henry, for example. He resisted the adoption of the Federal Constitution, by the State of Virginia, with all the energies of an ardent nature, solemnly believing that his State was committing suicide.

And yet, when Virginia did adopt that Constitution, he became, by virtue of that act, a citizen of the United States, and owed allegiance to the Federal Government.

He had been born in the hallowed old Commonwealth. In the days of his boyhood he had played on the banks of the Appomattox, and fished in its waters.

As he grew to man's estate, all his cherished hopes, and aspirations clustered around his beloved State. The bones of his ancestors were interred in her soil; his loves, his joys, his sorrows were all centered there.

In short, he felt the inspiration of patriotism, that noble sentiment which nerves men to do, and dare, unto the death, for their native soil.

Will it be said, can it be said, without revolting all the best feelings of the human heart, that if Patrick Henry had lived to see a war of subjugation waged against his native State, he would have been a traitor for striking in her defense?

Was this one of the results which our ancestors designed, when they framed the federal compact?

It would be uncharitable to accuse them of such folly, and stupidity, nay of such cruelty.

If this doctrine be true, that secession is treason, then our ancestors framed a government, which could not fail to make traitors of their descendants, in case of a conflict between the States, and that government, let them act as they would.

It was frequently argued in the "Federalist," and elsewhere, by those who were persuading the States to adopt the Federal Constitution, that the State would have a sufficient guarantee of protection, in the love, and affection of its citizens -- that the citizen would naturally cling to his State, and side with her against the Federal Government -- that, in fact, it was rather to be apprehended that the Federal Government would be too weak, and the States too strong, for this reason, instead of the converse of the proposition being true.

It was not doubted, in that day, that the primary and paramount allegiance of the citizen was due to his State, and, that, in case of a conflict between her and the Federal Government, his State would have the right to withdraw his allegiance, from that Government.

If it was she who transferred it, and if she had the right to transfer it, it followed beyond question, that she would have the right to withdraw it.

It was not a case for the voluntary action of the citizen, either way; he could not, of his own free will, either give his allegiance to the Federal Government, or take it away.

If this be true, observe in what a dilemma he has been placed, on the hypothesis that secession is treason. If he adheres to the Federal Government, after his State has withdrawn his allegiance from that Government, and takes up arms against his State, he becomes a traitor to his State.

If he adheres to his State, and takes up arms against the Federal Government, he becomes a traitor to that Government.

He is thus a traitor either way, and there is no helping himself. Is this consistent with the supposed wisdom of the political Fathers, those practical, common sense men, who formed the Federal Constitution?

The mutations of governments, like all human events, are constantly going on. No government stands still, any more than the individuals of which it is composed.

Commander Raphael Semmes, Confederate States Navy.

The only difference is, that the changes are not quite so obvious to the generation which views them.

The framers of the Constitution did not dare to hope that they had formed a government, that was to last forever. Nay, many of them had serious misgivings as to the result of the experiment they were making.

Is it possible, then, that those men so legislated, as to render it morally certain, that if their experiment should fail, their descendants must become either slaves or traitors?

If the doctrine that secession is treason be true, it matters not how grievously a State might be oppressed, by the Federal Government; she has been deprived of the power of lawful resistance, and must regain her liberty, if at all, like other enslaved States, at the hazard of war, and rebellion.

Was this the sort of experiment in government, that our forefathers supposed they were making?

Every reader of history knows that it was not.

NOTE: The text above comes, verbatim, from Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States, Chapters III and IV, by Adm. Raphael Semmes. The paragraphs were sometimes broken up to make reading online easier.

Our Confederate Ancestors: Admiral Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, Chapters 1 and 2

A Series on the Daring Exploits of Our Confederate Ancestors in the War Between the States.

Chapters 1 and 2 of the first 6 of

Memoirs of Service Afloat
During the War Between the States
by Admiral Raphael Semmes

1. A Brief Historical Retrospective
2. The Nature of the American Compact

Admiral Raphael Semmes, commander of the legendary raider CSS Alabama.
Admiral Raphael Semmes, commander of the legendary raider CSS Alabama.
Inscription by Adm. Raphael Semmes in Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States.

Publisher's Note: Adm. Raphael Semmes, famed commander of the legendary Confederate raider, Alabama, wrote a brief, concise and brilliant history of the Articles of Confederation, the establishment of the U. S. Constitution and the right of secession, in the first six chapters of his 833 page book, Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States. The CSS Alabama took 65 prizes and is the most successful commerce raider in maritime history. Semmes, from Charles County, Maryland was in the U.S. Navy from 1826 to 1861. He fought in the Mexican War as commander of the USS Somers. He served in the Confederate States Navy from 1861 to 1865, first as commander of the raider CSS Sumter, causing 18 losses to the Union, then the CSS Alabama. Alabama was originally the newly built British steamer Enrica. After Alabama's dazzling career, she was sunk by the USS Kearsarge commanded by John Ancrum Winslow near Cherbourg, France in one of the most famous naval battles of the war, June 19, 1864. Alabama was at a disadvantage because of deteriorated gun powder and shell fuses, and a rare day of poor aim by her gunners. Semmes and survivors made their way back to America and finally Richmond where he commanded the ironclad CSS Virginia II of the James River Squadron. After Richmond fell, he became a temporary brigadier general, informally, and his sailors became an infantry unit  known as the "Naval Brigade." Most of them ended up with Johnston's army near Durham Station, North Carolina and surrendered to Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman April 26, 1865. After the war, Semmes worked as a college professor at what is today LSU, a judge, a newspaper editor, and author. He died August 30, 1877 at age 67 at Mobile, Alabama and is buried there with his wife Anne E. Spencer Semmes. The town of Semmes, Alabama is named for Raphael Semmes as were several United States Navy ships. Publishing information: Baltimore: Kelly, Piat & Co., 1869. For more information on Raphael Semmes visit the website of the Admiral Raphael Semmes Camp #11, SCV, in Mobile Alabama: https://www.scvsemmes.org/index.html. Several of the pictures in this post come from their outstanding website.

CSS Alabama, the most successful commerce raider in maritime history.
CSS Alabama, the most successful commerce raider in maritime history.
Chapter I.
A Brief Historical Retrospect.

The disruption of the American Union by the war of 1861 was not an unforeseen event. Patrick Henry, and other patriots who struggled against the adoption of the Federal Constitution by the Southern States, foretold it in burning words of prophecy; and when that instrument was adopted, when the great name and great eloquence of James Madison had borne down all opposition, Henry and his compatriots seemed particularly anxious that posterity should be informed of the manly struggle which they had made.

Henry said,

The voice of tradition, I trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom. If our descendants be worthy of the name of Americans, they will preserve, and hand down to the latest posterity, the transactions of the present times; and though I confess my explanations are not worth the hearing, they will see I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty.

The wish of these patriotic men has been gratified. The record of their noble deeds, and all but inspired eloquence, has come down to posterity, and some, at least, of their descendants, "worthy of the name of American," will accord to them the foremost rank in the long list of patriots and sages who illustrated and adorned our early annals.

But posterity, too, has a history to record and hand down. We, too, have struggled to preserve our liberties, and the liberties of those who are to come after us; and the history of that struggle must not perish. The one struggle is but the complement of the other, and history would be incomplete if either were omitted.

Events have vindicated the wisdom of Henry, and those who struggled with him against the adoption of the Federal Constitution.

Events will equally vindicate the wisdom of Jefferson Davis, and other Confederate patriots, who endeavored to preserve that Constitution, and hand it down, unimpaired, to their posterity.

The wisdom of a movement is not always to be judged by its success.

Principles are eternal, human events are transitory, and it sometimes takes more than one generation or one revolution to establish a principle.

At first sight, it may appear that there is some discordance between  Patrick Henry and Jefferson Davis, as the one struggled against the adoption of the Constitution, and the other to preserve it.

But they were, in fact, both engaged in a similar struggle; the object of both being to preserve the sovereignty of their respective States.

Henry did not object so much to the nature of the partnership, into which his State was about to enter, as to the nature of the partners with whom she was about to contract.

He saw that the two sections were dissimilar, and that they had different and antagonistic interests, and he was unwilling to trust to the bona fides of the other contracting party. "I am sure," said he,

that the dangers of this system are real, when those who have no similar interests with the people of this country are to legislate to us -- when our dearest interests are to be left in the hands of those whose advantage it will be to infringe them.

The North, even at that early day, was in a majority in both houses of Congress; it would be for the advantage of that majority to infringe the rights of the South; and Henry, with much more knowledge of human nature than most of the Southern statesmen of his era, refused to trust that majority.

This was substantially the case with Jefferson Davis and those of us who followed his lead. We had verified the distrust of Henry.

What had been prophecy with him, had become history with us. We had had experience of the fact, that our partner-States of the North, who were in a majority, had trampled upon the rights of the Southern minority, and we desired, as the only remedy, to dissolve the partnership into which Henry had objected to entering -- not so much because of any defect in the articles of copartnership, as for want of faith in our copartners.

This was the wisdom of Jefferson Davis and his compatriots, which, I say, will be vindicated by events. A final separation of these States must come, or the South will be permanently enslaved.

We endeavored to bring about the separation, and we sacrificed our fortunes, and risked our lives to accomplish it.

Like Patrick Henry, we have done our "utmost to preserve our liberties;" like him, we have failed and like him, we desire that our record shall go down to such of our posterity as may be "worthy of the name of Americans."

The following memoirs are designed to commemorate a few of the less important events of our late struggle; but before I enter upon them, I deem it appropriate to give some "reason for the faith" that was in us, of the South, who undertook the struggle.

The judgment which posterity will form upon our actions will depend, mainly, upon the answers which we may be able to give to two questions: First, Had the South the right to dissolve the compact of government under which it had lived with the North? and, secondly, Was there sufficient reason for such dissolution?

I do not speak here of the right of revolution -- this is inherent in all peoples, whatever may be their form of government. The very term "revolution" implies a forcible disruption of government, war, and all the evils that follow in the train of war.

The thirteen original Colonies, the germ from which have sprung these States, exercised the right of revolution when they withdrew their allegiance from the parent country.

Not so with the Southern States when they withdrew from their copartnership with the Northern States. They exercised a higher right.

They did not form a part of a consolidated government, as the Colonies did of the British Government.

They were sovereign, equally with the Northern States, from which they withdrew, and exercises, as they believed, a peaceful right, instead of a right of revolution.

Had, then, the Southern States the peaceful right to dissolve the compact of government under which they had lived with the North?

A volume might be written in reply to this question, but I shall merely glance at it in these memoirs, referring the student to the history of the formation of the old Confederacy, prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States; to the "Journal and debates of the Convention of 1787," that formed this latter instrument; to the debates of the several State Conventions which adopted it, to the "Madison Papers," to the "Federalists," and to the late very able work of Dr. Bledsoe, entitled "Is Davis a Traitor?"

It will be sufficient for the purpose which I have in view -- that of giving the reader a general outline of the course of reasoning, by which Southern men justify their conduct in the late war -- to state the leading features of the compact of government which was dissolved, and a few of its historical surroundings, about which there can be no dispute.

The close of the War of Independence of 1776 found the thirteen original Colonies, which had waged that war, sovereign and independent States.

They had, for the purpose of carrying on that war, formed a league, or confederation, and the articles of this league were still obligatory upon them.

Under these articles, a Federal Government had been established, charged with a few specific powers, such as conducting the foreign affairs of the Confederacy, the regulation of commerce, &c.

At the formation of this Government, it was intended that it should be perpetual, and was so declared.

It lasted, notwithstanding, only a few years, for peace was declared in 1783, and the perpetual Government ceased to exist in 1789.

How did it cease to exist? By the secession of the States.

Soon after the war, a convention of delegates met at Annapolis in Maryland, sent thither by the several States, for the purpose of devising some more perfect means of regulating commerce. This was all the duty with which they were charged.

Upon assembling, it was found that several of the States were not represented in this Convention, in consequence of which, the Convention adjourned without transacting any business, and recommended, in an address prepared by Alexander Hamilton, that a new convention should be called at Philadelphia, with enlarged powers.

"The Convention," says Hamilton,

are more naturally led to this conclusion, as in their reflections on the subject, they have been induced to think, that the power of regulating trade is of such comprehensive extent, and will enter so far into the great system of the Federal Government, that to give it efficacy, and to obviate questions and doubts concerning its precise nature and limits, may require a corresponding adjustment in other parts of the Federal system. That these are important defects in the system of the Federal Government is acknowledged by the acts of those States, which have concurred in the present meeting. That the defects, upon closer examination, may be found greater and more numerous than  even these acts imply, is at least, so far probable, from the embarrassments which characterize the  present state of our national affairs, foreign and domestic, as may reasonably be supposed to merit a deliberate and candid discussion, in some mode which will unite the sentiments and counsels of all the States.

The reader will observe that the Government of the States, under the Articles of Confederation, is called a "Federal Government," and that the object proposed to be accomplished by the meeting of the new Convention at Philadelphia, was to amend the Constitution of that Government.

Northern writers have sought to draw a distinction between the Government formed under the Articles of Confederation, and that formed by the Constitution of the United States, calling the one a league, and the other a government.

Here we see Alexander Hamilton calling the Confederation a government -- a Federal Government.

It was, indeed, both a league and a government, as it was formed by sovereign States; just as the Government of the United States is both a league and a government, for the same reason.

The fact that the laws of the Confederation, passed in pursuance of its League, or Constitution, were to operate upon the States; and the laws of the United States were to operate upon the individual citizens of the States, without the intervention of State authority, could make no difference.

This did not make the latter more a government than the former. The difference was a mere matter of detail, a mere matter of machinery -- nothing more. It did not imply more or less absolute sovereignty in the one case, than in the other.

Whatever of sovereignty had been granted, had been granted by the States, in both instances.

The new convention met in Philadelphia, on the 14th of May, 1787, with instructions to devise and discuss "all such alterations, and further provisions as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union."

We see, thus, that the very Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, equally called the Articles of Confederation a Constitution.

It was, then, from a Constitutional, Federal Government, that the States seceded when they adopted the present Constitution of the United States!

A Convention of the States assembled with powers only to amend the Constitution; instead of doing which, it abolished the old form of government altogether, and recommended a new one, and no one complained.

As each State formally and deliberately adopted the new government, it was formally and deliberately seceded from the old one; and yet no one heard any talk of a breach of faith, and still less of treason.

The new government was to go into operation when nine States should adopt it.

But there were thirteen States, and if nine States only acceded to the new government, the old one would be broken up, as to the other four States, whether these would or not, and they wold be left to provide for themselves.

It was by no means the voluntary breaking up of a compact, by all the parties to it.

It was broken up piece-meal, each State acting for itself, without asking the consent of the others; precisely as the Southern States acted, with a view to the formation of a new Southern Confederacy.

So far from the movement being unanimous, it was a long time before all the States came into the new government.

Rhode Island, one of the Northern States, which hounded on the war against the Southern States, retained her separate sovereignty for two years before she joined the new government, not uttering one word of complaint, during all that time, that the old government, of which she had been a member, had been unduly broken up, and that she had been left to shift for herself.

Why was this disruption of the old government regarded as a matter of course?

Simply because it was a league, or treaty, between sovereign States, from which any one of the States had the right to withdraw at any time, with out consulting the interest or advantage of the others.

But, say the Northern States, the Constitution of the United States is a very different thing from the Articles of Confederation. It was formed, not by the States, but by the people of the United States in the aggregate, and made all the States one people, one government. It is not a compact, or league between the States, but an instrument under which they have surrendered irrevocably their sovereignty. Under it, the Federal Government has become the paramount authority, and the States are subordinate to it.

We will examine this doctrine, briefly, in another chapter.

Chapter II.
The Nature of the American Compact.

The two principal expounders of the Constitution of the United States, in the North have been Daniel Webster and Joseph Story, both from Massachusetts.

Webster was, for a long time, a Senator in Congress, and Story a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The latter has written an elaborate work on the Constitution, full of sophistry, and not always very reliable as to its facts.

The great effort of both these men has been to prove, that the Constitution is not a compact between the States, but an instrument of government, formed by the people of the United States, as contra-distinguished from the States.

They both admit, that if the Constitution were a compact between the States, the States would have a right to withdraw from the compact -- all agreements between States, in their sovereign capacity, being, necessarily, of no more binding force than treaties.

These gentlemen are not always very consistent, for they frequently fall into the error of calling the Constitution a compact, when they are not arguing this particular question; in short, it is, and it is not a compact, by turns, according to the use they intend to make of the argument.

Mr. Webster's doctrine of the Constitution, chiefly relied on by Northern men, is to be found in his speech of 1833, in reply to Mr. Calhoun.

It is in that speech that he makes the admission, that if the Constitution of the United States is a compact between the States, the States have the right to withdraw from it at pleasure. He says,

If a league between sovereign powers have no limitation as to the time of duration, and contains nothing making it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the parties, although no violation be complained of. If in the opinion of either party it be violated, such party may say he will no longer fulfill its obligations, on his part, but will consider the whole league or compact as at an end, although it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual.

Capt. Raphael Semmes and 1st Lt. John Kell on CSS Alabama, 1863.
Capt. Raphael Semmes and 1st Lt. John Kell on CSS Alabama, 1863.

In his "Commentaries on the Constitution," Mr. Justice Story says,

The obvious deductions which may be, and indeed have been drawn, from considering the Constitution a compact between States, are, that it operates as a mere treaty, or convention between them, and has an obligatory force no longer than suits their pleasure, or their consent continues." The plain principles of public law, thus announced by these distinguished jurists, cannot be controverted. If sovereign States make a compact, although the object of the compact be the formation of a new government for their common benefit, they have the right to withdraw from that compact at pleasure, even though, in the words of Mr. Webster, "it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual.

There might, undoubtedly, be such a thing as State merger; that is, that two States, for instance, might agree that the sovereign existence of one of them should be merged in the other. In which case, the State parting with its sovereignty could never reclaim it by peaceable means.

But when a State shows no intention of parting with its sovereignty, and, in connection with other States, all equally jealous of their sovereignty with herself, only delegates a part of it -- never so large a part, if you please -- to the common agent, for the benefit of the whole, there can have been no merger.

This was eminently the case with regard to these United States.

No one can read the "Journal and debates of the Philadelphia Convention," or those of the several State Conventions to which the Constitution was submitted for adoption, without being struck with the scrupulous care with which all the States guarded their sovereignty.

The Northern States were quite as jealous, in this respect, as the Southern States.

Next to Massachusetts, New Hampshire has been, perhaps, the most fanatical and bitter of the former States, in the prosecution of the late war against the South. That State, in her Constitution, adopted in 1792, three years after the Federal Constitution went into operation, inserted the following provision, among others, in her declaration of principles:

The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and of and forever hereafter shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them, expressly delegated to the United States.

Although it was quite clear that the States, when they adopted the Constitution of the United States, reserved, by implication, all the sovereign power, rights, and privileges that had not been granted away -- as a power not given is necessarily withheld -- yet so jealous were they of the new government they were forming, that several of them insisted, in their acts of ratification, that the Constitution should be so amended as explicitly to declare this truth, and this put it beyond cavil in the future.

Massachusetts expressed herself as followed, in connection with her ratification of the Constitution:

As it is the opinion of this Convention, that certain amendments and alterations in said Constitution would remove the fears, and quiet the apprehensions of the good people of the Commonwealth, and more effectually guard against an undue administration of the Federal Government, the Convention do, therefore, recommend that the following alteration and provisions be introduced and in said Constitution: First, that it be explicitly declared, that all powers not delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised.

Webster and Story had not yet arisen in Massachusetts, to teach the new doctrine that the Constitution had been formed by the "People of the United States," in contra-distinction to the people of the States.

Massachusetts did not speak in the name of any such people, but in her own name. She was not jealous of the remaining people of the United States, as fractional parts of a whole, of which she was herself a fraction, but she was jealous of them as States; as so many foreign peoples, with whom she was contracting.

The powers not delegated were to be reserved to those delegating them, to wit: the "several States;" that is to say, to each and every one of the States.

Virginia fought long and sturdily against adopting the Constitution at all.

Henry, Mason, Tyler, and a host of other giants raised their powerful voices against it, warning their people, in thunder tones, that they were rushing upon destruction.

Tyler even went so far as to say that "British tyranny would have been more tolerable."

So distasteful to her was the foul embrace that was tendered her, that she not only recommended an amendment of the Constitution, similar to that which was recommended by Massachusetts, making explicit reservation of her sovereignty, but she annexed a condition to her ratification, to the effect that she retained the right to withdraw the powers which she had granted, "whenever the same shall be perverted to her injury or oppression."

North Carolina urged the following amendment -- the same, substantially, as that urged by Virginia and Massachusetts:

That each State in the Union shall respectively [not aggregately] retain every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Federal Government.

Pennsylvania guarded her sovereignty by insisting upon the following amendment:

All the rights of sovereignty which are not, by the said Constitution, expressly and plainly vested in the Congress, shall be deemed to remain with, and shall be exercised by the several States in the Union.

The result of this jealousy on the part of the States was the adoption of the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States as follows:

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

It is thus clear beyond doubt, that he States not only had no intention of merging their sovereignty in the new government they were forming, but that they took special pains to notify each other, as well as their common agent, of the fact.

The language which I have quoted, as used by the States, in urging the amendments to the Constitution proposed by them, was the common language of that day.

The new government was a federal or confederate government -- in the "Federalist," it is frequently called a "Confederation" -- which had been created by the States for their common use and benefit; each State taking special pains, as we have seen, to declare that it retained all the sovereignty which it had not expressly granted away.

And yet, in face of these facts, the doctrine has been boldly declared, in our day, that the Constitution was formed by the people of the United States in the aggregate, as one nation, and that it has a force and vitality independent of the States, which the States are incompetent to destroy!

The perversion is one not so much of doctrine as of history. It is an issue of fact which we are to try.

CSS Alabama, Cape Town, 12 August 1863.
CSS Alabama, Cape Town, 12 August 1863.

It is admitted, that if the fact be as stated by our Northern brethren, the conclusion follows: It is, indeed, quite plain, that if the States did not create the Federal Constitution, they cannot destroy it.

But it is admitted, on the other hand, by both Webster and Story, as we have seen, that if they did create it, they may destroy it; nay, that any one of them may destroy it as to herself; that is, may withdraw from the compact at pleasure, with or without reason.

It is fortunate for us of the South that the issue is so plain, as that it may be tried by the record.

Sophistry will sometimes overlie reason and blind men's judgment for generations; but sophistry, with all its ingenuity, cannot hide a fact.

The speeches of Webster and the commentaries of Story have been unable to hide the fact of which I speak; it stands emblazoned on every page of our constitutional history.

Every step that was taken toward the formation of the Constitution of the United States, from its inception to its adoption, was taken by the States, and not by the people of the United States in the aggregate.

There was no such people known as the people of the United States, in the aggregate, at the time of the formation of the Constitution.

If there is any such people now, it was formed by the Constitution.

But this is not the question. The question now is, who formed the Constitution, not what was formed by it?

If it was formed by the States, admit our adversaries, it may be broken by the States.

The delegates who met at Annapolis were sent thither by the States, and not by the people of the United States.

The Convention of 1787, which formed the Constitution, was equally composed of members sent to Philadelphia by the States.

James Madison was chosen by the people of Virginia, and not by the people of New York; Alexander Hamilton was chosen by the people of New York, and not by the people of Virginia.

Every article, section, and paragraph of the Constitution was voted for, or against, by States; the little State of Delaware, not much larger than a single county of New York, offsetting the vote of that great State.

And when the Constitution was formed, to whom was it submitted for ratification?

Was there any convention of the people of the United States in the aggregate, as one nation, called for the purpose of considering it?

Did not each State on the contrary, call its own convention?

And did not some of the States accept it, and some of them refuse to accept it?

It was provided that when nine States should accept it, it should go into operation; and it pretended that the vote of these nine States was to bind the others?

Is it not a fact, on the contrary, that the vote of eleven States did not bind the other two?

Where was that great constituency, composed of the people of the United States in the aggregate, as one nation, all this time?

"But," say those who are opposed to us in this argument, "look at the instrument itself, and you will see that it was framed by the people of the United States, and not by the States.

Does not its Preamble read thus: 'We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, &c., do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America'?"

Perhaps there has never been a greater literary and historical fraud practiced upon any people, than has been attempted in the use to which these words have been put.

And, perhaps, no equal number of reading and intelligent men has ever before submitted so blindly and docilely to one imposed upon by literary quackery and the legerdemain of words, as our fellow-citizens of the North have in accepting Webster's and Story's version of the preamble of the Constitution.

A brief history of the manner, in which the words, "We, the people," &c., came to be adopted by the Convention which framed the Constitution, will sufficiently expose the baldness of the cheat.

The only wonder is, that such men as Webster and Story should have risked their reputations with posterity, on a construction which may so easily be shorn to be a falsification of the facts of history.

Mr. Webster, in his celebrated speech in the Senate, in 1833, in reply to Mr. Calhoun, made this bold declaration: "The Constitution itself, in its very front, declares, that it was ordained and established by the people of the United States in the aggregate!"

From that day to this, this declaration of Mr. Webster has been the chief foundation on which all the constitutional lawyers of the North have built their arguments against the rights of the States as sovereign copartners.

If the Preamble of the Constitution stood alone, without the lights of contemporaneous history to reveal its true character, there might be some force in Mr. Webster's position; but, unfortunately for him and his followers, he has misstated a fact.

It is not true, as every reader of constitutional history must know, that the Constitution of the United States was ordained by the people of the United States in the aggregate; nor did the Preamble to the Constitution mean to assert that it was true.

The great names of Webster, and Story have been lent to a palpable falsification of history, and as a result of that falsification, a great war has ensued, which has sacrificed its hecatomb of victims, and desolated, and nearly destroyed an entire people.

The poet did not say, without reason, that "words are things."

Now let us strip off the disguises worn by these wordmongers, and see where the truth really lies.

Probably some of my readers will learn, for the first time, the reasons which induced the framers of the Constitution to adopt the phraseology, "We, the people," &c., in the formation of their Preamble to that instrument.

In the original draft of the Constitution, the States, by name, were mentioned, as had been done in the Articles of Confederation. The States had formed the old Confederation, the States were equally forming the new Confederation; hence the Convention naturally followed in their Preamble the form which had been set them in the old Constitution, or Articles.

This Preamble, purporting that the work of forming the new government was being done by the States, remained at the head of the instrument during all the deliberations of the Convention, and no one member ever objected to it.

It expressed a fact which no one thought of denying. it is thus a fact beyond question, not only that the Constitution was framed by the States, but that the Convention so proclaimed in "front of the instrument."

Having been framed by the States, was it afterward adopted, or "ordained and established," to use the words of Mr. Webster, by the people of the United States, in the aggregate, and was this the reason why the words were changed?

There were in the Convention several members in favor of submitting the instrument to the people of the United States in the aggregate, and thereby accomplishing their favorite object of establishing a consolidated government -- Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris among the number.

On the "Journal of the Convention," the following record is found: "Gouverneur Morris moved that the reference of the plan [i.e. of the Constitution] be made to one General Convention, chosen and authorized by the people, to consider, amend, and establish the same."

Thus the question, as to who should "ordain and establish" the Constitution, whether it should be the people in the aggregate, or the people of the States, was clearly presented to the Convention.

How did the Convention vote on this proposition?

The reader will perhaps be surprised to learn, that the question was not even brought to a vote, for want of a second; and yet this is the fact recorded by the Convention.

The reader who has read Mr. Madison's articles in the "Federalist," and his speeches before the Virginia Convention, in favor of the ratification of the Constitution, will perhaps be surprised to learn that he, too, made a somewhat similar motion.

He was not in favor, it is true, of referring the instrument for adoption to a General Convention of the whole people, alone, but he was in favor of referring it to such a Convention, in connection with Conventions to be called by the States, thus securing a joint or double ratification, by the people of the United States in the aggregate, and by the States; the effect of which would have been to make the new government a still more complex affair, and to muddle still further the brains of Mr. Webster and Mr. Justice Story.

But this motion failed also, and the Constitution was referred to the States for adoption.

But now a new question arose, which was, whether the Constitution was to be "ordained and established" by the legislatures of the States, or by the people of the States in Convention.

All were agreed, as we have seen, that the instrument should be referred to the States. This had been settled; but there were differences of opinion as to how the States should act upon it.

Some were in favor of permitting each of the States to choose, for itself, how it would ratify it; others were in favor of referring it to the legislatures, and others, again, to the people of the States in Convention.

It was finally decided that it should be referred to Conventions of the people, in the different States.

This being done, their work was completed, and it only remained to refer the rough draft of the instrument to the "Committee on Style," to prune and polish it a little -- to lop off a word here, and change or add a word there, the better to conform the language to the sense, and to the proprieties of grammar and rhetoric.

The Preamble, as it stood, as one presented a difficulty.

All the thirteen States were named in it as adopting the instrument, but it had been provided, in the course of its deliberations by the Convention, that the new government should go into effect if nine States adopted it.

Who could tell which these nine States would be? It was plainly impossible to enumerate all the States -- for all of them might not adopt it -- or any particular number of them, as adopting the instrument.

Further, it having been determined, as we have seen, that the Constitution should be adopted by the people of the several States, as contra-distinguished from the legislatures of the States, the phraseology of the Preamble must be made to express this idea also.

To meet these two new demands upon the phraseology of the instrument, the Committee on Style adopted the expression, "We, the people of the United States," -- meaning, as every one must see, "We, the people of the several States united by this instrument."

And this is the foundation that the Northern advocates of a consolidated government build upon, when they declare that the people of the United States in the aggregate, as one nation, adopted the Constitution, and thus gave the fundamental law to the States, instead of the States giving it to the Federal Government.

It is well known that his phrase, "We, the people," &c., became a subject of discussion in the Virginia ratifying Convention.

Patrick Henry, with the prevision of a prophet, was, as we have seen, bitterly opposed to the adoption of the Constitution.

He was its enemy a l'outrance. Not having been a member of the Convention, of 1787, that framed the instrument, and being unacquainted with the circumstances above detailed, relative to the change which had been made in the phraseology of its Preamble, he attacked the Constitution on the very ground since assumed by Webster and Story, to wit: that the instrument itself proclaimed that it had been "ordained and established" by the people of the United States in the aggregate, instead of the people of the States.

Mr. Madison replied to Henry on this occasion.

Madison had been in the Convention, knew, of course, all about the change of phraseology in question, and this was his reply:

The parties to it [the Constitution] were the people, but not the people as composing one great society, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. If it were a consolidated government,

continued he,

the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient to establish it. But it was to be binding on the people of a State only by their separate consent.

There was, of course, nothing more to be said, and the Virginia Convention adopted the Constitution.

Madison has been called the Father of the Constitution.

Next to him, Alexander Hamilton bore the most conspicuous part in procuring it to be adopted  by the people.

Hamilton, as is well known, did not believe much in republics; and least of all did he believe in federal republics.

His great object was to establish a consolidated republic, if we must have a republic as all. He labored zealously for this purpose, but failed.

The States, without an exception, were in favor of the federal form; and no one knew better than Hamilton the kind of government which had been established.

Now let us hear what Hamilton, an unwilling, but an honest witness, says on this subject.

Of the eighty-five articles in the "Federalist," Hamilton wrote no less than fifty.

Having failed to procure the establishment of a consolidated government, his next great object was, to procure the adoption by the States of the present Constitution, and to his task, accordingly, he now address his great intellect and powerful energies.

In turning over the pages of the "Federalist," we can scarcely go amiss in quoting Hamilton, to the point that the Constitution is a compact between the States, and not an emanation from the people of the United States in the aggregate.

Let us take up the final article, for instance, the 85th. In this article we find the following expressions:

The compacts which are to embrace thirteen distinct States in a common bond of amity and Union, must necessarily be compromises of as many dissimilar interests and inclinations." Again: "The moment an alteration is made in the present plan, it becomes, to the purpose of adoption, a new one, and must undergo a new decision of each State. To its complete establishment throughout the Union, it will therefore, require the concurrence of thirteen States.

And again:

Every Constitution for the Untied States must, inevitably, consist of a great variety of particulars, in which thirteen Independent States are to be accommodated in their interests, or opinions of interests. * * * Hence the necessity of molding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole in such a manner as to satisfy all the parties to the compact.

Thus, we do not hear Hamilton, any more than Madison, talking of a "people of the United States in the aggregate" as having anything to do with the formation of the new charter of government. He speaks only of States, and of compacts made or to be made by States.

In view of the great importance of the question, whether it was the people of the United States in the aggregate who "ordained and established" the Constitution, or the States, -- for this, indeed, is the whole gist of the controversy between the North and the South, -- I have dealt somewhat at length on the subject, and had recourse to contemporaneous history; but this was scarcely necessary.

The Constitution itself settled the whole controversy.

The 7th article of that instrument reads as follows: "The ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient  for the establishment of the Constitution between the States so ratifying the same."

How is it possible to reconcile this short, explicit, and unambiguous provision with the theory I am combating?

The Preamble, as explained by the Northern consolidationists, and this article, cannot possibly stand together. It is not possible that the people of the United States in the aggregate, as one nation, "ordained and established" the Constitution, and that the States ordained and established it at the same time: for there was but one set of Conventions called, and these Conventions were called by the States, and acted in the names of the States.

Mr. Madison did, indeed, endeavor to have the ratification made in both modes, but this motion in the Convention to his effect failed, as we have seen.

Further, how would the Constitution be biding only between the States that ratified it, if it was not ratified -- that is, not "ordained and established" -- by them at all, but by the people of the United States in the aggregate?

As remarked by Mr. Madison, in the Virginia Convention, a ratification by the people, in the sense in which this term is used by the Northern  consolidationists, would have bound all the people, and there would have been no option left the dissenting States.

But the 7th article says that they shall have an option, and that the instrument is to be binding only between such of them as ratify it.

With all due deference, then, to others who have written upon this vexed question, and who have differed from me in opinion, I must insist that the proof is conclusive that the Constitution is a compact between the States; and this being so, we have the admission of both Mr. Webster and Justice Story that any one of the States may withdraw from it at pleasure.

Marker at grave of Adm. Semmes and his wife.
Marker at grave of Adm. Semmes and his wife.

Propaganda In History by Lyon Gardiner Tyler

Propaganda In History.

by Lyon Gardiner Tyler

Lyon Gardiner Tyler (1853-1935) was the fourth son of our 10th United States president, John Tyler, who was president from 1841 to 1845 and later a member of the Confederate Congress. Lyon Gardiner Tyler had a distinguished career as an educator, genealogist and historian. He was the 17th president of the College of William and Mary and served from 1888 to 1919. Today's history department at William and Mary is named after him: The Lyon Gardiner Tyler Department of History. He founded the William and Mary Quarterly, a highly respected history journal, and is author of the books Parties and Patronage in the United States; The Cradle of the Republic: Jamestown and the James River; England in America; Williamsburg, the Old Colonial Capital; Men of Mark in Virginia; Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography; History of Virginia from 1763 to 1861; and his most prominent work, The Letters and Times of the Tylers. He also wrote scores of articles, addresses and booklets including A Confederate Catechism. He was a prominent critic of Abraham Lincoln and wrote several important pieces challenging Lincoln including this one, "Propaganda in History.", which was published by the Richmond Press, Incorporated, printers, in 1920 (original from Princeton University). NOTE: The spelling and punctuation are verbatim from the original article.

DURING THE WORLD WAR we heard a great deal of propaganda, and the word was used generally in a bad sense. But there is really nothing harmful in the word itself. It signifies only a means of publicity, which, when applied properly and legitimately serves a very good purpose. The Germans applied it improperly. They sent to this country millions of dollars to buy up newspapers and newspaper men to abuse the allies and make palatable their own conduct, too often brutal in the extreme. Propaganda is a form of advertisement, and it is only when advertisements are resorted to for the purpose of spreading erroneous conceptions that they are to be condemned. Quack advertisements are at all time pernicious.

Dr. Lyon Gardiner Tyler, College of William and Mary, around 1915.
Dr. Lyon Gardiner Tyler, College of William and Mary, around 1915.

A feature especially popular in this country is propaganda applied to history. This consists in using striking characters and events of the past to give importance to present matters. As long as the truth is told much good must result, for the past contains vast archives of experience, from which valuable information may be had. The reverse happens when to give prominence to particular ends, historical matter is exploited at the expense of truth.

These thoughts are suggested by what is so often read in the newspapers and periodicals of the North and even in books which have a more serious character. By sheer dint of assertion, taken up and published as if by concerted arrangement, certain things are given a character that never did belong to them. The idea seems to be with many who are active in the matter that the real truth makes no difference provided the multitude can be got to accept a certain view. This is the very essence of German propagandism, so much feared and condemned during the World War. But this is not true of all, for there are some who appear to be swept along by a force which they are powerless to resist.

Let me cite some of the cases which have been made the subject of this kind of exploitation.

1 . There is a manifest disposition to place Plymouth before Jamestown. It is an old story and goes back a hundred and fifty years to the historian Hutchinson, who asserted in his history of Massachusetts that the Virginia colony had virtually failed and that the Pilgrim colony was the means of reviving it. How far from the truth Hutchison strayed in his statement is shown by Bradford’s contemporary narrative “The Plymouth Plantation," which proves very clearly that it was the successful establishment of the Virginia colony that induced the Puritans to leave Holland for America, in preference to some Dutch plantation like Guiana.

Sir Edwyn Sandys was the patron as well of the Puritan colony as of the Virginia colony. They sailed under a patent of the Virginia Company of London granted through his auspices, and when by miscalculation they landed outside of the dominion of the Virginia Company the compact adopted by them in the cabin of the Mayflower followed the terms of the original patent. It was, indeed, owing to the Jamestown Colony that landing was at all possible. Six years before, Sir Thomas Gates had sent Argall from Jamestown, who had driven the French from their settlements in Nova Scotia and on the coast of Maine, and thus prevented them from occupying the coast of Massachusetts as they were about to do.

Sir Edwin Sandys, one of the founders of the Virginia Company.
Sir Edwin Sandys, one of the founders of the Virginia Company.
Virginia Company coat of arms.
Virginia Company coat of arms.

So far from the truth was Hutchinson’s statement that in 1620 the Virginia colony had virtually failed, that even after the massacre of 1622 Virginia had over nine hundred colonists, and the Plymouth colony but one hundred and fifty, and these, according to Bradford, were in a starving condition from which they were rescued by a ship of Capt. John Huddleston, a member of the Virginia colony. In 1629 when the Plymouth colony had 300 inhabitants, the Jamestown colony had 3,000.

But recent writers do not even admit the reservation of Hutchinson of a prior though vanishing Jamestown. That ancient settlement, with all that it stands for, is actually to be snubbed out of recognition, and the claim is now boldly advanced that the Plymouth settlement was the first colony and all Americans the virtual output of that plantation. Jamestown is not to be allowed even a share in the upbuilding of America. Can anything be more astonishing, and where is the “New England conscience" that it does not revolt against this perversion of the truth?

Among the many recent instances of this historic prevarication which have fallen under my notice, reference may be made to the columns of the Saturday Evening Post for February 7, 1920, to the World's Work for November, 1919, and to Mr. James M. Beck's book, "The War and Humanity," published by G. P. Putnam's Sons in 1917. No plea of ignorance can be advanced for these writers, and, on the other hand, it is impossible to believe that they deliberately falsified. They come under the class of propaganda victims rather than propaganda sinners. They were swept on against their own better knowledge by the spirit of propagandism so deadly to the very existence of truth.

As to the first of these, the article in the Saturday Evening Post, the person who composed the editorial entitled "Sanctuary," uses the following words: "Two ships, the Mayflower and the Buford mark epochs in the history of America. The Mayflower brought the first of the builders to this country, the Buford has taken away the first destroyer."

Lyon Gardiner Tyler as a young man.
Lyon Gardiner Tyler as a young man.

We learn from the Richmond News Leader for March 1, 1920, that Mrs. Elizabeth Henry Lyons, the historian general of the National Society of the Colonial Dames in the State of Virginia, wrote a protest against this statement and received a reply virtually admitting that the editors knew differently when they made it. Their words were that in "a strict sense" Mrs. Lyons was "historically correct," but that "they did not believe in this narrow sense of our editorial is likely to be misleading even to school boys, who are thoroughly familiar with these dates in American history." The dates referred to were 1607, when the Susan Constant and her two companion ships brought the real founders of the nation to Jamestown, and 1620, when the Mayflower brought the Puritans to Plymouth in Massachusetts.

Replica of the Susan Constant, one of the three ships to first land in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607.
Replica of the Susan Constant, one of the three ships to first land in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607.
Coin with the Susan Constant, Discovery, and Godspeed, Jamestown, 1607.
Coin with the Susan Constant, Discovery, and Godspeed, Jamestown, 1607.

There is a hint here that in a broad sense the article in the paper was correct, but on this point the learned editors did not enlighten Mrs. Lyons. There is no broader word than error and not narrower word than truth. It is the Good Book which says: "Enter ye by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad the way that leadeth to destruction."

The plain truth is that neither in its origin nor in the institutions established in New England did the Plymouth Colony lay the foundations of the American Commonwealth. It was antedated by Jamestown and the Jamestown Assembly. The 41 signers of the Mayflower Compact did not form a democracy but an aristocracy and only cautiously admitted any newcomers into partnership with them. After twenty years less than forty per cent. of the people at Plymouth had any share in the government (Palfrey, New England, II, 8). And as the years rolled by the range of power became more and more restricted till it resembled the system prevailing in Massachusetts, into which Plymouth and its associated towns were eventually absorbed in 1691.

And how was it in Massachusetts, which set the example not only for Plymouth, but for all the other New England colonies, even Rhode Island in the end. To say that the government there from its inception was an aristocracy is putting it mild. It was a tyranny of the sternest type whose equal in history can scarcely be found anywhere.

American institutions of today are democratic, and are tested by the law of reason and nature. On the contrary, in New England the suffrage was confined during the seventeenth century to a few favored members of the Congregational Church, and everything was tested by the stern decrees of the Old Testament. In Massachusetts the law divided the people into "the better class," "those above the ordinary degree," and "those of mean condition." Though there were annual elections the magistrates had not difficulty in retaining office for life through the law of preference, which universally prevailed, and the town meetings were little oligarchies governed by the minister and a select clique.1 So the Rev. Mr. Stone aptly described Massachusetts of the seventeenth century "as a speaking aristocracy in the face of a silent democracy."

Lyon Gardiner Tyler around 1900.
Lyon Gardiner Tyler around 1900.

Though the Charter of King William, in 1691, introduced several very important reforms in Massachusetts, and his firm hand in suppressing tyranny in all the other New England colonies was strongly felt, the essential principles of the Puritan governments remained the same. To the very end of the colonial days the distinctions in society were observed with such punctilious nicety that the students at Harvard and Yale were arranged according to the dignity of their birth and rank, and the ballot was very limited. Weeden in his Social and Economical History of New England sums up the character of the New England institutions in the words that "they were democratic in form, but aristocratic in the substance of the administration." By no stretch of the imagination," says Dr. Charles M. Andrews, Professor of History in Yale University, "can the political conditions on any of the New England colonies be called popular or democratic. Government was in the hands of a very few men." And even today some of the worst inequalities in elections prevail in the New England States.2

On the other hand, Virginia, where the first colony was planted, which afforded inspiration to all the rest, appealed from the first to the law of nature and of reason, which constitutes the very essence of the democratic principle. She had the first English institutions, as shown in the fist jury trial, the first popular elections, and the first representative body of law makers, and, before any Puritan foot had planted itself upon Plymouth Rock, courts for the administration of justice and for the recordation of deeds, mortgages and wills, were established facts. Instead of resting on church membership as in Massachusetts, the House of Burgesses, which was the great controlling body in Virginia, rested for more than a hundred years upon universal suffrage. There was, it is true, an apparent change in 1670 when the possession of a freehold was made the condition of voting, but it was not a real change, since the law did not define the extent of the freehold until as late as 1736; and even under the law of 1736, as shown by Dr. J. F. Jameson,3 many more people voted in Virginia down to the American Revolution than did in Massachusetts. There was a splendid and spectacular body of aristocrats in colonial Virginia, but they did not have anything like the political power and prestige of the New England preachers and magistrates.

That popular institutions were a dominating feature in Virginia is the evidence of Alexander Spotswood, who writing, in 1713, declared4 that the Assembly which met that year was  composed of representatives of the plain people; of Governor Robert Dinwiddie, who, in 1754, complained5 of the House of Burgesses for their "constant encroachment on the prerogatives of the Crown" and "their Republican ways of thinking;" of Rev. Andrew Burnaby, an English traveler, who, in 1759, wrote of the public or political character of the Virginians, as haughty and impatient of restraint, and "scarcely able to bear the thought of being controlled by any superior power;" of Col. Landon Carter, of "Sabine Hall, "who attributed6 his own defeat, in 1765, to his unpopularity with the common voters, who were jealous of any aristocratic pretentions; of J. F. D. Smythe, another British traveler before the American Revolution, who spoke of the haughtiness of the great middle class, who comprised half of the population; of Edmund Randolph, who referring to the same period described7 the aristocracy of Virginia as "little and feeble, and incapable of daring to assert any privilege clashing with the rights of the people at large;" of Colonel St. George Tucker, who denied8 that there was such a thing as "dependence of classes" in Virginia, and declared that the aristocracy of Virginia was as "harmless a set of men as ever existed;" and finally Thomas Jefferson, who, in 1814, writing9 to John Adams, while referring to the traditionary reverence paid to certain families in Massachusetts and Connecticut, "which had rendered the offices of those governments nearly hereditary in those families," derided the power of the aristocracy in Virginia both before and after the Revolution.

Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States.
Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States.

If, indeed, there was any doubt where popular institutions had the stronger hold, the doubt is removed when we notice what happened when the two communities for "the first time had the opportunity of directing without foreign restraint, the government of their own country. Soon after independence was secured, Virginia became the headquarters of the Democratic-Republican Party--the party of popular ideas--and New England became the headquarters of the Federalist Party--the party of aristocratic ideas. Real democracy was brought to New England for the first time in 1804, when Thomas Jefferson carried all the New England States but Connecticut. It was not fully accepted till 1816 when the Federalist Party passed finally out of existence.

In the work of making a constitution for the new government and or organizing it, Virginia, as John Fiske says, furnished "four out of the five constructive statesmen engaged"--Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Marshall. Not one of them was of Puritan stock. The fifth was Alexander Hamilton, a native of the West Indies and a New Yorker by adoption. In the matter of extending our territories it was the cavalier, George Rogers Clark, that conquered the Northwest Territory, now represented by five great States. And Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, New Mexico and all the West were added to the Union by Virginian and Southern Presidents, thus trebling the area of the Republic and making it a continental power. Had the Puritan influence, which opposed these annexations of territory, prevailed, the United States would be confined to-day to a narrow strip along the Atlantic Coast.

As a matter of fact, the rightful name of the Republic is the historic name of Virginia (first given by the greatest of English queens and accepted by the Pilgrim Fathers in the Mayflower compact). "United States of America," are merely words of description. They are not a name.

Now as to the writer in the World's Work. This is no less a person than William Snowden Sims, an admiral in the United States Navy. In an article, entitled "The Return of the Mayflower," he describes how Great Britain welcomed our navy at the outset of our participation in the war with a moving picture film which depicted how in 1620 a few Englishmen had landed in North America and laid the foundations of a new state, based on English conceptions of justice and liberty, how out of the disjointed colonies they had founded one of the mightiest nations of history, and how when the liberties of mankind were endangered, the descendants of the "old Mayflower pioneers" had in their turn crossed the ocean--this time going eastward to fight for the traditions of the race. Admiral Sims makes this comment: "The whole story appealed to the British masses as one of the great miracles of history--a single miserable little settlement in Massachusetts Bay expanding into the continent overflowing with resources and wealth--a shipload of men, women and children developing in three centuries into a nation of more than 100,000,000 people. And the arrival of our destroyers, pictured on the film, informed the British people that all this youth and energy had been thrown upon their side of the battle."

Not a hint of Jamestown, not a word of tribute to the men, who, in the early days before Plymouth Rock, laid down their lives by thousands that this great continent might be saved from French and Spanish dominion and Plymouth itself might exist.

Nothing more aptly describes the effect of this propagandist program than its acceptance and exploitation in England through the moving picture film described by Admiral Sims. The English managers cared nothing between Jamestown and Plymouth, but were bent from their natural regard for truth, by the wish to please the present dominant influence  in America, which they correctly located northward.

Finally, as to Mr. Beck, in his book, entitled "The War and Humanity," which Theodore Roosevelt endorsed with a "Foreword," no one can doubt that he knew better when he wrote the words which follow. They were part of an address delivered by him in 1916 at a luncheon, given to him in London by the Pilgrim Society of that city, when Viscount Brice and other eminent Englishmen were present. And yet he must not be judged too harshly. Like Admiral Sims, he was the helpless victim of propaganda. Mr. Beck said:

Never was a nation more dominated by a tradition than the United States by the tradition of its political isolation. It has its root in the very beginning of the American Commonwealth. In nine generations no political party and a few public men had ever questioned its continued efficacy. The pioneers who came in 1620 across the Atlantic to Plymouth Rock and founded the American Commonwealth desired like the intrepid Kent in King Lear 'to shape their old course in a country new,' so that the spirit of detachment from Europe was emplanted in the very souls of the pioneers who conquered the virgin forests of America.

Mark what Mr. beck said: "The pioneers who came in 1620 across the Atlantic to Plymouth Rock and founded the American Commonwealth." Not a word of the men who came in the Sarah Constant, the Godspeed and the Discovery, and prepared the way at Jamestown for all future colonization of America.

2. The second myth which has been extensively circulated is that the Plymouth settlers came to America for religious freedom. As a matter of fact, they left England for Holland because they were persecuted, and they left Holland for America, not because they were persecuted by the Dutch, but, as Bradford narrates, because they were in danger of being absorbed in the body of the Dutch nation by natural causes. Charles M. Andrews, in a recent work, declares that with the single exception of giving to New England the congregational form of worship, these humble and simple settlers were "without importance in the world of thought, literature or education."

The settlers who came with John Winthrop in 1630 were the real builders of Massachusetts, which for a century and a half was the enemy of free thought. The persecuted in England turned persecutors in America, and the colonial disputes with England turned upon the religious and political tyranny which the Puritans erected in New England. Far from religious convictions being the only driving force that sent hundreds of men to New England, hardly a fifth of the people in Massachusetts were professed Christians; and yet it was this fifth that had the power and taxed and persecuted all the rest. The liberty they wanted from England was the liberty to harass the majority of the population which did not agree with them. Seen at this distance of time England showed a marvel of patience in dealing with the people of Massachusetts in the 17th century. And yet there is not an instance of severity which has not had its respectable defenders, and Charles Francis Adams, Jr., in his "Massachusetts--Its Historians and Its History," takes notice of how these apologists have in their histories "struggled" and "squirmed" and "shuffled" in the face of the record.

John Winthrop, English Puritan lawyer, led colonizers to Mass. Bay Colony in 1630.
John Winthrop, English Puritan lawyer, led colonizers to Mass. Bay Colony in 1630.

3. The third myth of which I shall take notice is one strangely endorsed by Charles Francis Adams himself in the same book. He makes the remarkable statement that the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, written by his great-grandfather, John Adams, first fixed the principles of the American written constitution, and pioneered the way to the Federal Constitution of eight years later. This assertion has been taken up and repeated by many persons since, till it is becoming rapidly accepted as a fact by the writing and reading public of the North. As in the case of Jamestown, George Mason and the Virginia Constitution of 1776 are ignored and made to suffer from a propaganda of untruth.

4. Not to mention numerous other subjects of propagandism, there is the Lincoln myth. Hardly a single paper published north of Mason and Dixon's line can be taken up without the reader seeing something about this wonderful hero of the North. We all know that the North started out with making a hero of John Brown, but abandoned him for the much more desirable character of Mr. Lincoln. His assassination gave propagandists a good starting point, and since then never has propaganda been more active. Washington is even relegated to the background, and a highly worthy and eminent historian, Dr. Albert Bushnell Hart, calls Lincoln "The First American." The ideality given him is chiefly based upon a great fabrication sedulously taught and inculcated that Lincoln fought the South for the abolition of slavery of the negroes. This was denied to the very last by Lincoln himself, but is exploited in the recently published play of Mr. Drinkwater, an Englishman, as it has been by hundreds of other writers.

The mischievousness of this Lincoln propaganda idea was exhibited recently to the full by Rev. Charles Francis Potter, pastor of the Lenox Avenue Unitarian Church, New York, in an address delivered on March 7, 1920, at Earl Hall, Columbia University, and reported in the "Sun and New York Herald." This gentleman characterizes Lincoln as the "future social Christ" of America, and prophesied the coming of an "American Church" and an "American Bible," in which people "will find in parallel columns the stories of Christ and of Lincoln."

Absurd and blasphemous as this hysterical prophecy may appear to some, it may, nevertheless, come true. What the Roman Senate achieved by decree in the case of their emperors, may in this day be more certainly accomplished by money and propaganda. When the most elemental facts in the history of the United States are snubbed and ignored, as in the case of Jamestown, it is not at all surprising that the character of Lincoln is so represented by the Northern press that the true Lincoln is no longer recognizable. Everything in any way tending to lessen his importance is studiously kept in the background.

The writer certainly has no wish to detract from Lincoln's real merits. That he was a man of ability and originality can scarcely be questioned, but his intellectuality was not of that degree to place him in the same class with Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Marshall, Madison, Calhoun, Clay and Webster. These men attracted the public attention from their early manhood, and profoundly influenced the country throughout their lives. But Lincoln was practically an unknown factor till his nomination as President in 1860, and his influence was confined to the four years of the war. There can be no doubt that his assassination was a fortunate thing for his fame.

Nor does Lincoln appear naturally as venomous as many of his party. It is doubtless true that he would have preferred mild measures instead of severe ones. But this is an much as can be said, and to accomplish success he had no compunction or scruples whatever.

Let us consider the claims of Lincoln to the ideal character in history which has been imputed to him.

It is impossible to associate idealism with coarseness, and Lincoln, judged by every test of historic evidence, was a very coarse man. There is no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of his friend and admirer, Ward H. Lamon, who declared that "in his tendency to tell stories of the grosser sort, Lincoln was restrained by no presence and no occasion." Herndon, who was his law partner, says that "he loved a story, however extravagant or vulgar, if it had a good point," and Don Piatt declares that he managed to live through the cares and responsibilities of the war only by reason of his coarse mold. After his election Piatt saw much of Lincoln, who told stories, "no one of which will bear printing," and Hugh McCulloch tells of "the very funny stories" of Mr. Lincoln during the war, after hearing of Sheridan's victory in the Valley of Virginia--stories, he says, "which would not be listened to with pleasure by very refined ears." And General McClellan said "his stories were seldom refined."

Indeed, what kind of an ideal man is he who could open a Cabinet meeting called to discuss the Emancipation  proclamation with reading foolish things from Artemus Ward, and, when visiting the field of Sharpsburg, freshly soaked with the blood of thousands of brave men, could call for the singing of a ribald song?10

Artemus Ward, nom de plume of Charles Farrar Browne, humor writer, comedian.
Artemus Ward, nom de plume of Charles Farrar Browne, humor writer, comedian.

Certainly it would never do to put Lincoln's letter11 to Mrs. Browning on the subject of marriage in a column parallel with the stories of Christ. Its grotesque humor, its coarse suggestions and its base insinuations against the virtue of a lady to whom he had proposed and by whom he had been rejected, are shocking enough without subjecting it to such a test.

Mr. Lincoln's kindness in individual cases and professions of charity in his messages, which have been greatly exploited, by no means prove that he had any exalted sense of humanity. The recognized expression of humanity among nations is the international law, and Lincoln and his government acted repeatedly contrary to it.

How stands history in regard to the claim of humanity? Here is the testimony of the late Charles Francis Adams, a Federal Brigadier General, and President of the Massachusetts Historical Society:

Our own methods during the last stages of the war was sufficiently described by General Sheridan, when during the Franco-Prussian war, as the guest of Bismarck, he declared against humanity in warfare, contending that the correct policy was to treat a hostile population with the utmost rigor, leaving them, as he expressed it, 'Nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war.'

The doctrine that there must be no humanity in warfare proclaimed by Sheridan was also voiced by Sherman in his letter to General Grant March 9, 1864:

Until we can repopulate Georgia it is useless for us to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses and people will cripple their military resources. . . . I can make the march and make Georgia howl.

General Halleck wanted the site of Charleston, thick with the heroic memories of the Revolution, sowed with salt, and General Grant, in his letters to General David Hunter and General Sheridan, issued orders to make the beautiful Valley of Virginia "a barren waste." Nothing need be said of the ferocious spirit of the lesser tribe of Federal commanders.

And Lincoln, in spite of the fine catchy sentiment of his Gettysburg speech, gave his sanction to the same policy when he said in response to a protest against his employment of negro troops: "No human power can subdue this rebellion without the use of the emancipation policy and every other policy calculated to weaken the moral and physical forces of the rebellion."

Secretary Chase, in his diary, shows that on July 21, 1862, in a Cabinet meeting the President expressed himself as "averse to arming the negroes," but shortly after, on August 3, 1862, the President said on the same question that "he was pretty well cured of any objections to any measure except want of adaptedness to putting down the Rebellion." To the spoliators Hunter, Sheridan and Sherman, he wrote his enthusiastic commendations and not a word of censure.

By an act of Congress, approved July 17, 1862, and published with an approving proclamation by Lincoln, death, imprisonment or confiscation of property were denounced on five million white people in the South and all their abettors and aiders in the North. To reduce the South into submission Lincoln instituted on his own motion a blockade, a means of war so extreme that despite its legality under the International Law, it evoked from the Germans the most savage retaliation when applied to them. He threatened with hanging as pirates Southern privateersmen and as guerillas regularly commissioned partisans. He suspended the cartel of exchange, and when the Federal prisoners necessarily fared badly for lack of food on account of the blockade and the universal devastations, he retorted their sufferings upon the Confederate prisoners--thousands of whom perished of cold and starvation in the midst of plenty. Indeed, he refused to see or hear a committee of Federal prisoners permitted by Mr. Davis to visit Washington in the interest of the suffering prisoners at Andersonville.

Lord Palmerston, the British Prime Minister, denounced in Parliament Butler's order against the women of New Orleans as "too indecent to be put in the English language," but Lincoln neither had it rescinded nor rebuked the author of it.12 And such was his idea of popular government that he gave permission to the tenth part of the people of a rebellious State to form a government for the State. Indeed, private relief which even the Germans allowed in the late war to prisoners, was not always permitted by the Northern authorities in the War for Southern Independence. A notable instance of refusal was afforded in December, 1864, when certain ladies of England asked permission to distribute $85,000 among the Confederate prisoners. Mr. Charles Francis Adams, the United States Minister, became humanely the medium of their request, but Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, made refusal in terms as insulting almost to Mr. Adams as to the charitable ladies concerned. Lincoln had a fine opportunity in this case to show that he meant what he said of "charity" in one of his messages, but he did not interfere.

Henry John Temple, Lord Palmerston, Prime Mins. of UK, 1857.
Henry John Temple, Lord Palmerston, Prime Mins. of UK, 1857.

Medicines were made contraband, and to justify the seizure of neutral goods at sea a great enlargement of the principle of the "ultimate destination" was introduced into the International Law. The property of non-combatants was seized everywhere without compensation, and within the area embraced by the Union lines, the oath of allegiance was required of both sexes above sixteen years of age under penalty of being driven from their homes. Houses, barns, villages and towns were destroyed in the South; and in the North, by the authority of the President, thirty-eight thousands persons are said to have been arrested and confined as prisoners without trial or formal charge. Even the act for which Lincoln has been most applauded in recent days--his emancipation proclamation--stands on no really humanitarian ground.

He declared to a committee of clergymen from Chicago that in issuing his emancipation proclamation he would look only to its effect as a war measure, independent of its "legal" or "constitutional" character or of "its moral nature in view of the possible consequences of insurrection or massacre in the Southern States." This declaration, which involved directly the admission that, if he were once convinced that emancipation would contribute to ending the war, he would proclaim it regardless of massacre, is not exactly such as would recommend him as a champion of humanity to the Southern people. Massacre of women and children is a dreadful thing.

When we come to examine Lincoln's statecraft, it appears to indicate a lack of decision utterly at variance with the inordinate estimate placed upon his abilities by modern propagandists.13 These people never tire of blaming Mr. Buchanan for not at once using force to suppress the "rebellion," and yet have not a word of censure against Lincoln for allowing a whole month to pass without taking any action. That he declared in his inaugural address that he intended to hold the forts and public property was no more than what Mr. Buchanan had also said, and this declaration was subject to developments. Even James Schouler, in his history, states that "so reticent, indeed, of his plans had been the new President, while sifting opinions through the month, that it seemed as though he had no policy, but was waiting for his Cabinet to frame one for him." Is this the kind of appearance that a President who is expected to lead in matters should assume before the nation?

After the meeting of the Cabinet on March 15, 1861, in which five of the members opposed action, Lincoln's mind more and more tended to the same conclusion. It is idle to say, as many of his panegyrists do, that Lincoln had no knowledge of Seward's assurances to Judge Campbell that the troops would be withdrawn from Fort Sumter. Mr. Schouler is an admirer, but he cannot agree with this view and asks very pertinently why if this was the case, Lincoln should have agreed to give notice of a contrary action.

It appears, indeed, that the policy of giving up Fort Sumter went to the extent of the preparation of an editorial for a New York paper to defend Lincoln,--a copy of which was furnished Gov. Francis Pickens, of South Carolina, "by one very near the most intimate counsels of the President of the United States."14 But after signing an order for withdrawing the troops, Lincoln reconsidered when the governors of seven of the Northern States, which were under control of the tariff interests, assembled in Washington about the first of April, 1861, and protested against it.

That the final determination turned on the tariff question is not surprising when one considers the obstinacy of the North in adhering to protection in 1833. Only a miracle saved the country at that time from war. On March 16, 1861, Stanton, who had been a member of Buchanan's Cabinet, wrote to the ex-President that "the Republicans are beginning to think that a monstrous blunder was made in the tariff bill (the Morrill tariff included ranges from 50 to 80 per cent.), that it will cut off the trade of New York, build up New Orleans and the Southern ports and leave the government no revenue." There was a Confederate tariff of from ten to twenty per cent., and Lincoln's fears of it were ultimately excited.

So on April 1, Seward materially changed his attitude by placing in Judge Campbell's hands a written memorandum to the effect that the President might desire to supply Fort Sumter, but would not do so without giving notice. On April 4 Lincoln had an interview with Col. John B. Baldwin, who came from the Virginia Convention, and in response to an appeal told him he had come too late, and asked "what would become of his tariff if he allowed those men at Montgomery to open Charleston as a port of entry with their ten per cent. tariff?"15 That day Lincoln drafted instructions to Major Anderson at Fort Sumter that relief would be sent, and ordered him to hold the fort. Notice was given to Gov. Pickens of South Carolina, but it reached him only as the first part of the relief squadron was leaving New York. This scarcely deserved the ascription of a reasonable or honorable notice.16

The same sort of uncertainty and vacillation hedged about Lincoln's action on Emancipation. He suppressed several measures looking to that end by his generals, and on Sept. 13, 1862, declared that Emancipation was absolutely futile and likened the policy to "the Pope's bull against the comet." He asked: "Would my word free the slaves when I cannot even enforce the Constitution in the Rebel States? Is there a single court or magistrate or individual who would be influenced by it there?"17 And yet on September 23, he decided to do what he had refused to do ten days before. The only circumstance which had happened in the interval was the battle of Sharpsburg, but this certainly did not affect the substance of the objections which he had urged on Sept. 13. No court, nor magistrate, nor individual in the South was by that battle put in better mind as to the question. In the North the effect of the proclamation, according to Lincoln himself, "looked soberly in the face is not very satisfactory." The Republicans were defeated in the elections which followed, and Mr. Rhodes, the historian, writes that "no one can doubt that it (the proclamation of emancipation) was a contributing force." It is difficult to understand what single fact places Lincoln's action on a higher plane than that of Lord Dunmore during the American Revolution.

Nevertheless, the propagandists have been successful in disseminating the idea that Lincoln was the great emancipator and that all his shuffling and equivocation was the fine evidence of consummate leadership on his part.

The propagandist has in similar manner smoothed away all exceptions affecting the relations of President Lincoln to his Cabinet. And yet such exceptions existed, if any confidence is to be placed in Charles Francis Adams, Sr., who in his "Memorial Address" on Seward represents him as practically subordinate to his Secretary of State. And while Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, repels the charge and claims that the President was the dominating mind, his narrative of the incredible liberties taken by Seward, and the President's indifference to them, till roused by others to a proper sense of his dignity, does not redound much to Lincoln's credit. Welles complains much of the assumptions of Seward, but doubtless forgot his own action in the Trent Affair, when he publicly approved the conduct of Wilkes, subsequently disavowed by Lincoln. If, indeed, Lincoln did not, on the side, give Welles permission to act as he did, which is very probable, what was this approval but officiousness on Welles' part meriting signal rebuke? And if Welles did write with Lincoln's permission, what was Lincoln's final action in apologizing to Great Britain, but a species of camouflage unworthy a President of the United States.

This deference, if not submission to his secretaries, is said by others to have been even more manifested by Lincoln with Stanton, his Secretary of War, than with Seward, his Secretary of State. John C. Ropes declares that Lincoln and Stanton constantly interfered with military plans greatly to the detriment of military success, and the history of the Virginia campaigns is a history of official blunders in the appointment by Lincoln of incompetent generals. Charles Francis Adams, Sr., declares in the same "Memorial Address" on Seward that Lincoln was "quite deficient in his acquaintance with the character and qualities of public men or their aptitude for the positions to which he assigned them. Indeed he never selected them solely by that standard." Welles, in his rejoinder, does not deny that such appointments were made, but retorts only by saying they occurred chiefly on the recommendation of Mr. Seward "who was vigilant and tenacious in dispensing the patronage of the State Department." This does not help the case. The very point against Lincoln is that he did not exert his own individuality sufficiently against a lot of impudent secretaries. It is impossible to supposed that any other man, in the whole list of Presidents, would have rested under such vassalage.

Lincoln's weakness of character is aptly illustrated by his course at other times. He never could rise above the idea that the South was fighting for slavery, and though the South resented the suggestion as an insult he more than once proposed to his Cabinet to pay the South for their slaves, if they would return to the Union. But his Cabinet, for quite different reasons, resisted the project, and Lincoln submitted. Indeed, his very last act showed how incapable he was of withstanding the influence of men of superior power like Stanton. On his visit to Richmond, after the evacuation in April, 1865, he authorized the Virginia Legislature to be called together, and yet he had hardly returned to Washington when, succumbing to the vehement protests of Stanton, as Stanton himself says, he recalled the permission, excusing himself on grounds which are plainly matter of afterthought.18

Much important detail is furnished by Dr. Clifton B. Hall towards enabling us to judge of Lincoln's character in his recent life of "Andrew Johnson, Military Governor of Tennessee." The object of the appointment was the restoration of Tennessee to the Union, but Lincoln, despite his professions of "charity," instead of selecting a cool, conservative person for the position, took Andrew Johnson--a man whom Dr. Hall describes as one of the most venomous and hated men in Tennessee. He not only took him, but stood by him, and condoned all his violence, which got him into fierce quarrels with all the Federal generals at any time in Tennessee. That Andrew Johnson was in large degree a demagogue, as Dr. Hall states, is undoubtedly true, and yet he had certain qualities, which exhibited under other conditions, command our admiration and esteem. No one can tell how far Lincoln would have allowed the radicals to go after the war in their reconstruction of the South. His action referred to in regard to the Virginia Legislature is not particularly encouraging, but Johnson's conduct is a matter of history. However violent he was, while the war was going on, and for a year later, he proved himself incapable of the meanness of continuing to persecute a defenseless and conquered people; and asserting his authority as President, as any self-respecting man would have done, he turned the truculent Stanton out of office, thereby risking expulsion from his own high position at the hands of a crazy and malignant Congress.

In prosecuting the war Lincoln appealed to a great idea--the Union--which he declared was his sole idea in prosecuting the war, but the old Union was founded on consent and the Union he had in mind was one of force. His war, therefore, was contrary to the principles of self-government expressed in the Declaration of Independence and to the modern principle of self-determination, now the accepted doctrine of the world--a doctrine not only endorsed by the present President of the United States, but by both houses of Congress. In recent years, we have seen Norway and Sweden separate in peace, and much of Europe was reconstructed on new national lines.

The truth is, there never was a war more inconsistent in principle than that waged against the Southern States in 1861. Besides the great territory which it occupied the Southern Government placed in the field armies as vast as Napoleon's, and for four years waged a war on equal terms with the great and populous North, aided by recruits from Europe and enlistments from the South's own population. Indeed, we have Lincoln's own statement that without the aid of the Southern negro troops he would have had "to abandon the war in three weeks."19 As a matter of fact the old Union consisted from the first of two nations which had been brought together by British taxation, and the South's fight for independence was only in obedience to the logic of the real facts.

The present Southerners are glad to be free of slavery and are loyal citizens of the Union, but this is far from saying that they approve the violent methods by which slavery was abolished and the Union restored.

In conclusion of this article on propaganda, I may cite a few sentences from Robert Quillen in the Saturday Evening Post for January 24, 1920, which the editors might have taken to heart when preparing their editorial about Plymouth Rock.

Since the purpose of propaganda is to present one side of a case, it is from its very inception a distortion of facts, and an avoidance of the whole truth. . . . Truth lies at the bottom of a well and we are poisoning the well. . . . Propaganda has made doubters of us all.

Was the divine Pocahontas after all correct, when in her interview with John Smith in England in 1616 she characterized the white race as hopeless liars?

The exact language of Pocahontas was: "Your countrymen will lie much."

Tyler Mem. Garden at Wm. and Mary, tribute to Lyon Gardiner Tyler, his father and grandfather.
Tyler Mem. Garden at Wm. and Mary, tribute to Lyon Gardiner Tyler, his father and grandfather.

NOTES:

1 For the working of the ballot in New England, see Baldwin in American Historical Papers, IV, p. 81.

2 Jones, The Rotten Boroughs of New England in North American Review, CXCVII, p. 486.

3 New York, Nation, April 27, 1893.

4 Letters of Alexander Spotswood, II, p.1.

5 The Official Records of Robert Dinwiddie, I, p. 100.

6 William and Mary Quarterly, XVI, 259.

7 Henry, Patrick Henry, I, 209.

8 William and Mary College Quarterly, XXII, 252.

9 Ibid., XXIII, 227.

10 Don Piatt in Rice, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln, p. 486; George Edmunds (Mrs. Minor Meriwether), Facts and Falsehoods, 73-90.

11 Lamon, Life of LIncoln, 1872, p. 181. Nicolay and Hay, Letters and Speeches of Abraham Lincoln, I, 17-19.

12 This order was directed against any "gesture" of a woman expressive of contempt of a Federal soldier, but in the American Revolution the women of Boston appear to have regarded spitting at the British prisoners taken at Saratoga as patriotic. (See Lady Riedesel's Journal.)

13 Publisher's Note: Modern propagandists include everybody who is politically correct, which include most of academia, nearly all of the news media, and most of those on the political left. The politicization of history by academia since the 1960s has mostly changed history, as a serious, important discipline, from a search for truth, to just another leftist political position. Like Orwell said, whoever controls the past, controls the future; and who controls the present, controls the past.

14 Francis Pickens' Letter in William and Mary College Quarterly, XXIV, 78-84.

15 Gordon, Life of Jefferson Davis, 124.

16 See "Lincoln and Fort Sumter," in Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine, II, 211-214.

17 Nicolay and Hay, Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, VIII, 30, 31.

18 Conner, Life of John A. Campbell, 174-198.

19 Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, X, 190.