THE SOUTHERN MESSENGER EDUCATION PAGE

For Classroom History Curriculum

 http://www.scv674.org/SH-Table.htm

        Great Example of Reconstruction

The Banner Messenger, Vol. IX, No 37 Buchanan, GA  Thursday September 29, 1892.   Letter issued by Capt. S. D. Bradwell, State School Commissioner.  To all Boards of Education in the State:     Georgia law requires that history not be taught in Georgia schools.  Some educators felt that it should be taught, but the law is explicit on what can be taught.  The letter warned that teachers who were conducting history classes might forfeit their pay for all classes.

---

 

Government and Education

Public schools … as American as apple pie. Or are

they? From the mid-1600s to the mid-1800s, public

schools were quite rare. One in three of America’s

Founders had just a few months or less of formal

schooling. Yet, they were well educated – largely at

home. When public schooling became more common, it

was local with parental oversight. Quality? Take a look at

any McGuffey Reader, then in wide usage. Their content

puts today’s school curriculum to shame.

 

Recently, over 500 college seniors from 55 top schools

took a high-school-level American history test … four

out of five scored a "D" or worse! None of the colleges

even require American history to graduate. This is the

educational system into which the federal government

pumps many billions of your tax dollars each year.

 

Wasting cash is bad, but subverting young minds is far

worse. "Free education for all children in public schools"

-- a quote from the U.S. Constitution? No. It’s the 10th

plank of The Communist Manifesto! Control of

education is key for totalitarians. Castro’s "school"

quickly resumed indoctrinating Elian. When Vietnam fell,

independent thinkers were sent to re-education camps.

America’s youth are today targeted by radical federal

Pavlovian programs.

 

Our freedoms cannot survive a dumbed-downed

citizenry. A first step in restoring quality education is to

boot out the federal bureaucrats. Your congressman

must oppose any bill that permits federal meddling in

our schools. America can again become a land of

informed, moral people by returning education to its

free-market roots.

The Abolitionists are still among us, raging as roaring lions. The goal is now to abolish history, specifically, the history of the Southern Confederacy. Abolitionists, better than many Christians, understand the importance of symbols. So every symbol and vestige of heritage of the Old South must be abolished. Hence the Confederate battle flag must go, along with the statues of Confederate heroes, the street names honoring such heroes, and the memories of the Confederacy.

The Abolitionists tried to reeducate and reprogram the South. One hundred plus years of controlling government schools and imposing Yankee-fied textbooks on students has failed. Twelve bold Southern scholars and poets proclaimed that failure in the classic book, I'll Take My Stand. The high school boys who yearned for pickup trucks and deer season never read that book; but, thankfully, they didn't bother to read the textbooks either. Hank Williams, Jr.'s song "If the South Had Won, We'd Have Had It Made" and Charlie Daniel's "The South's Gonna Do It Again" did more to fortify Southern school boys in trusting the "fierce pull of blood" (to quote William Faulkner) than the schools did in erasing memory and heritage. The flags went on the license plates and baseball caps and the battle raged on.                                                                                   Rev. Ben House 

Martin Barker  replies to a student   Dear Crystal;

SOUTHERN HERITAGE:
Webster defines Heritage as: “1. Something inherited; inheritance; birthright.”
Webster defines Southern as: “1. Of or relating to ... the south. 2. n. A native of the south, esp. U. S., of the South.

What descendants of Southern ancestors have inherited or have claim to are moral standards of chivalry forever gone from our modern society at large. It encompasses a time when a man's word was as good as a binding contract. This inheritance denotes a duty of loyalty beyond ones personal comfort or gain. Loyalty, even when the cost might entail forfeiture one's life.

Duty was cherished as an example of being a part of Southern culture. Men and Women were expected to not only follow the examples set by their forefathers, but to love those examples and pass them on to their children.

After the War of Northern Aggression, while the South laid in ruins and personal fortunes were totally destroyed along with all the infrastructure of the Confederacy, all that remained was a spirit that no aggressor could take or destroy. These same men and women who so valiantly defended their homes and way of life were forced to call upon God and reserves of personal perseverance to rebuild their homes without benefit of Federal handouts or constructive intervention. The intervention that did come was under the auspices of “Reconstruction,” which was little more than the aggressor
keeping his heel on the neck of the vanquished. That act coupled with the war itself, possibly cemented the resolve of spirit you see today in those of us who revere our heritage.

This spirit then was our inheritance! It is a spirit of independence and self determination that was bred from the beginning of the Union and carefully worded in the Constitution of The United States. It is this spirit that many today resent, and some seek to destroy.

The relics of “The Old South,” specifically the Confederate Battle Flag and Confederate monuments, stand as a memorial and reminder of that spirit to those of us who celebrate our Confederate ancestors. Those who do not share this heritage find those reminders repulsive. Many of them, instead of accentuating the positive side of their own heritage, seek to destroy ours.

So, Crystal, our Southern Heritage is pride, spirit and humility. Pride in that our forefathers stood up to tyranny, spirit in that although defeated in battle their spirit was not broken and we are still willing to stand up to tyranny, and humble in that living in an occupied nation (The Confederacy was a Nation) we submit ourselves to the service of the well being of the reunified Union.  I hope this helps you in some small way.  Martin Barker

How Did Black Southerners Respond When War Was Declared?                                        Original Source Material                                                                                                       From: vp09@earthlink.net

Full bibliographic references  and other essays are at  www.rebelgray.com/BLACKREBS.htm  

Lincoln's war destroyed the original constitutional relation between the states and the federal government. His own defenders say so  in spite of his explicit, clear, and consistent professed intent to "preserve" that relation.

The Civil War wasn't just a victory of North over South; it was a victory for centralized government over the states and federalism. It destroyed the ability of the states to protect themselves against the destruction of their reserved powers.

Since the Constitution doesn't forbid the states to secede, the North found it necessary to violate the Constitution in order to suppress Southern independence. Lincoln was forced to usurp legislative powers by raising troops and money and by suspending the writ of habeas corpus; when Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled such acts unconstitutional, Lincoln wrote an order for Taney's arrest! He never followed through on that, but he did illegally arrest 31 antiwar members of the Maryland legislature and install a puppet government. He went on to crush freedom of speech and press throughout the North. Such was Lincoln's idea of "preserving the Constitution" and "government of the people, by the people, for the people."  Joseph Sobran

The Enumerated Powers and Duties. The very first sentence of the first
Article of the Constitution states: “All legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Neither the president
nor Supreme Court justices can make laws— except by usurpations tolerated by
Congress. The legislative power, together with the power of the purse, makes
Congress the most powerful [if they are not gutless as ours now appear to
be] of the three branches of the federal government.
Congressional Powers.
Many, but not all, of the powers of Congress are contained in Article I,
Section 8. The full list, including the law—making powers, follows:
>Levy Taxes. >Borrow money on the credit of the United States.
>Declare war. >Spend when authorized by an appropriations bill.
>Pay the federal debts. >Constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme
Court. >Coin Money. >Raise armies, a navy, [and now an air force] and
provide for the common defense. >Control the postal system. >Establish
federal courts lower than the Supreme Court. >Standardize the value of
currency. >Call a convention on the application of two–thirds of the
states.
>Override presidential vetoes. >Regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
>Regulate patents & copyrights. >Make its own rules and discipline its own
members. >Establish bankruptcy laws. >Fill a vacancy in the presidency in
cases of death or inability. >Conduct a census every ten years. >Provide
for punishment of counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and other federal crimes.
>Standardize weights & measures. >Introduce constitutional amendments and
choose the mode of ratification.
>Est laws governing citizenship. >Limit the appellate jurisdiction of the
federal courts, including the Supreme Court. >Est uniform times for
elections. >Exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.
>Receive electoral votes for the presidency. >Oversee all federal property
and possessions. >Keep & publish a journal of its proceedings. >Initiate
all bills for raising revenue (House only!). >Approve treaties,
cabinet–level appointments, and appointments to the Supreme Court (Senate
only!)
>Impeach (House only) and try (Senate only) federal officers.
These are the powers of Congress; there are no non–enumerated powers.
Leaving nothing to interference, the Constitution even specifies that
Congress may pass laws “necessary and proper” for executing its specified
powers. Congressmen have simply to study and apply the Constitution in order
to restore sound government. That most fail to do so is not the fault of the
Founders, but of the people who elect the congressmen and send them to
Washington.
Informed constituents should always evaluate how their U.S. representative
and senators vote in light of the constitutionally authorized powers of
Congress. They should use this knowledge not only to apply informed pressure
on their congressmen but to inform and activate their fellow citizens.
Executive Powers
The powers of the presidency follow
>Appoint Supreme Court justices and other federal judges (subject to Senate
confirmation). >Execute federal laws. >Convene &/or adjourn sessions of
Congress under extraordinary circumstances. >Conduct foreign affairs.
>Appoint cabinet-level officers (subject to Senate confirmation). >Veto b
ills. >Temporarily fill vacancies that may occur during the recess of
Senate. >Grant pardons and reprieves to federal offenders. >Recommend
measures to Congress to consider. >Report to Congress on the state of
the union. >Serve as commander in chief of the armed forces. >Commission
U.S. military officers. >Make treaties (subject to Senate confirmation).
Judicial Powers
The power of the federal Judiciary is limited to judging:
>all cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties;
>all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls;
>all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;
>controversies to which the U.S. is a party; and
>controversies between two or more states, a state and the citizens of
another state, citizens of different states, and citizens of the same state
claiming lands under grants of different states.
The chief justice of the Supreme Court has the exclusive authority to
preside at the Senate trial of an impeached president. The Constitution only
established a Supreme Court and granted to Congress the power to establish
lower federal courts (Article III, Section1). Thus Congress possesses the
power to abolish all federal courts except the Supreme Court. Congress can
also limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme court itself (see
Article III, Section 2). And of course, Congress can also impeach federal
judges, [such as Alcee Hastings of Florida who is now serving as a U.S. Rep
in direct violation of the Constitution] who are to serve only during times
of good behavior. The limited powers of the federal Judiciary and the checks
that Congress has over it make it the weakest of the three branches of
government.
Under our system of government, the federal government may not execute any
non-enumerated power, no matter how desirable, unless the power in question
is first granted to the federal government through the amendment process
(Article V). To do so without constitutional amendment is usurpation. States
may exercise numerous powers not listed above, although the articulars vary
from one state to the next depending on the state constitution. End of
quote.

When in the course of human events, those who are entrusted with any
particular duty decide to abdicate that responsibility and do other things,
they become irrelevant, at best, and tyrants at worst. When those charged
with preserving the liberty of a nation decide that it is more important to
guard their elite status, their rank and privilege, their salaries and
retirement, then those individuals and the institution which they comprise
becomes irrelevant.
The Constitution clearly provides that only Congress shall Declare WAR.
The founding Fathers greatly feared the inevitable tyranny of allowing one
man, or even one branch of government, the absolute power to determine
foreign policy and military policy for the nation. For this reason, they
established a "separation of powers", giving Congress the power to declare
war, and calling the President into the role of Commander in Chief when war
is declared.
It is perversion of the Constitution for the President to send troops when
and where he will, and to authorize himself with "Presidential Decision
Directives," such as PDD 25, which he claims is the basis on which Michael
New was ordered into Macedonia. (And which he then classified so that even
Members of Congress are not allowed to read it! It is an 8 page PDD, and an
unclassified summary consisting of 13 pages was made public to selected
members of congress).        Chester L McWhorter Sr

Confederate Memorial Day Address
by Larry Beane
Cumming, GA, 22 April 2000

First of all, I would like to thank the Hiram Parks Bell Camp of the Sons of
Confederate Veterans for inviting me to speak on this solemn and important
occasion.

Confederate Memorial Day is perceived by much of America as a quaint
Southern eccentricity, a stubborn gathering of a few odd people locked into
a nostalgic anachronism. Northerners, especially, find such celebrations
curious. Many transplants to Georgia are shocked to learn that Confederate
Memorial Day is actually still a State Holiday.

Now, I am myself a transplant to Forsyth, and to Georgia. But as an ethnic
Southerner who grew up in the North, I have a unique vantage point to
observe the cultural differences between North and South, between the
worldviews of Northerners and Southerners. But unlike many transplants, I
did not come to Georgia because my job sent me here, nor did I come looking
for prosperity. My wife and I chose to come to Georgia precisely BECAUSE of
Georgia's Southern heritage. To us, those who celebrate Confederate
Memorial Day are not the oddballs and the eccentrics - but rather those who
do NOT honor the memories of the Confederate dead are, to us, the folks that
we find strange and abnormal.

Like that of our Confederate ancestors, OUR generation is caught in a
whirlwind of rapid change and a sense that the old ways are swiftly becoming
caught in the rapid-moving stream of modernity. We too are in a war to
preserve the status quo from change. Like our ancestors, we also reject the
notion that all change is good, that all "progress" is an improvement, and
that long-standing social, political, and economic contracts need to be
abolished simply because self- declared social elites claim this to be the
case.

But unlike our ancestors, we are not in a literal war waged with shot and
shell, fought with infantry, artillery, and cavalry, executed with ‘right
wheels' and ‘ready, aim, fire.' Unlike our ancestors, we are not starving
and dying on a horrific battle ground in a melee of gunpowder, explosions,
and the shrieks of dying men. We are not being shot at. We are not being
killed. But we are in a war nonetheless.

We are in a war of CULTURE.

Our enemies are advocates of ‘change.' They do not merely seek to
surgically remove the elements of our culture that can and should be
reformed for the better. No, our enemies seek a sudden and irrevocable
revolution in the way we think, communicate, govern ourselves, and exist in
the context of family and society.

One simple example is the social construct of manners. The South is known
for "please," "thank you," "sir," and "ma'am." Southern gentlemen hold
doors for Southern ladies. Southern children rise for Southern elders.
Southern hats are removed when the Southern anthem Dixie is played or sung.
Southern people say grace before Southern meals. Southern culture is
ensconced in manners and politeness. Now, to some outside the South, this
is a refreshing attitude that calls to mind a time when civility and charm
were encouraged and expected. But to others, such antiquated mores and
customs are ridiculed, lampooned, and mocked.

Sadly, this Southern trait of politeness is giving way to the more brusque
and base "modern" and "progressive" means of communication. How often do
you hear someone at Kroger bark at the clerk: "Gimme a pound of
hamburger!" - no "please," no "thank you," not even a smile. Not even a
"hello" or "how are you?" But "GIMME" spoken like a spoiled and petulant
child. Sometimes, the customer is chatting away on a cell phone unable to
even make eye contact with the butcher. And this is progress? This is an
example of "change" so desired by the mockers of Southern culture?

Is it really to much to say "thank you?"

Perhaps this is why much of the United States mocks Southerners for
celebrating Confederate Memorial Day. In the mass media, we are told nearly
on a daily basis that since it is the year 2000, we need to "let go" to "get
in step" with the times, we need to "change," we need to "rejoin the rest of
the country" - we need to become "progressive" and stop wasting our thoughts
on the past. Mockers - which sadly are not all Northerners - would have us
give up our Southern identity, cease flying Confederate flags, abolish
Confederate Memorial Day, and learn to talk to the butcher like a dog - the
way that is perfectly acceptable in much of the country. After all, it is
the year 2000, isn't it? And when the year ends in three zeroes, isn't that
some sort of urgent imperative to "change" our entire moral code and social
contract? Yes, because of Y2K, the argument goes, we should cease saying
"y'all" and start saying "hey you." We should stop singing Dixie and start
singing whatever the top-40 charts tell us is popular.

After all, this is the year 2000.This Confederate Memorial Day celebration
is really about saying "thank you." It goes beyond mere politeness. Our
gratitude in this case is deeper than waving to a fellow driver who lets you
change lanes, or saying "thanks" to the waiter who doesn't charge you for an
extra cup of coffee. No, we are saying "thank you" because hundreds of
thousands of men gave their lives. When their State and country called,
these men put on the uniform and were willing to sacrifice their very mortal
existence. These men had wives, children, homes, farms, parents, and
communities. These were real, living, breathing people. They had hopes and
dreams just as we do today. But when their country called, they left it all
behind. A quarter of a million Confederate soldiers kissed their wives and
children, marched away from home for the last time, and never came back.
This ceremony today is a public act of appreciation. It is an affirmation
and an acknowledgment that we do not take their sacrifice for granted. It
seems so little in exchange for their precious lives.

As these men breathed their last on the battlefield, bled to death in the
hospital, and died of starvation and exposure in prison camps, they wondered
if their families were all right. They wondered if they would be remembered
back home. They wondered if they were dying in vain.

The mockers of today - the same people who gloat over the loss of the
Confederate States of America and the devastation of our land - would say
"yes, the Confederate soldier died in vain." They taunt us - as well as our
Fallen Dead - with hateful rhetoric that these men suffered and died for
nothing. But we know better. We are here today to answer the dying
veteran's three questions. First, yes, your families ARE all right. We
suffered some tough times after your deaths. Your families endured brutal
invasion, oppressive occupation, and corrupt puppet governments. But we
survived. We struggled through poverty, two world wars, and a great
depression. But we survived. We limped through Korea, Vietnam, and the
Civil Rights Movement. But we survived. We are still here, and we still
fly your flag and sing Dixie.

And yes, you men ARE remembered. Confederate memorial Day is still a
holiday in Georgia and many other States. Your flag is incorporated in two
State flags - including Georgia's. The Sons of Confederate Veterans has
more then 25,000 members - many times larger than its Yankee counterpart.
People still flock by the thousands to museums, battle re-enactments, and
battlefield parks. War Between the States books still fill the shelves in
book stores.

And no, you men did NOT die in vain. Yes, your cause of political
independence did not come to fruition. Your government was toppled. Your
Constitution was raped. But, ironically, in losing the political battle,
the South won the war of cultural independence. For in defeat, a nation was
born. The South's unique experience as a region and as a people is shared
by no other group of Americans. We were forged in the furnace of war,
occupation, and reconstruction. The battle flag carried by the men that we
honor today, has become a de facto national symbol of a proud, defiant, and
freedom-loving people.

The Confederate soldier gave us something more lasting and permanent than a
mere political nation. The Confederate soldier gave us an example of
manhood, of valor, of courage, of a burning desire for freedom, devotion to
duty, and love for one's family in spite of the odds, in the face of
overwhelming force, and in the very jaws of death.

These men did not request temples and pyramids in their honor. But they did
want to be remembered. It is fitting and proper that the citizens and
States who asked these men to lay down their lives say "thank you."  Our
neighboring State of South Carolina said "thank you" in 1962 by
commemorating the centennial of the War with a war memorial. Not made of
marble or bronze, this memorial was, and is, a simple cloth replica of the
military ensign these men rallied around in battle. The Memorial battle
flag was placed on the Dome of the State Capitol in Columbia. It still
flies today in graceful deference and submission to the sovereign U.S. and
State flags. It occupies the half-mast of the Capitol flag-pole as an
official "thank you" from the government and people of the Palmetto State
for the 26,000 men - soldiers, sailors, and marines - who did not come back
home.

However, there are people today who don't believe in saying "thank you."
Worse yet, there are people who want to take away your right to say "thank
you." The NAACP has launched a boycott of the Palmetto State in an effort
to force the State to cease saying "thank you" to the men that she asked to
die in her defense. The NAACP has made its goals clear: the complete
annihilation of any tax-supported monument, memorial, flag, ceremony, or
historical display that says "thank you" to any Confederate soldier,
anywhere. It is not enough that they refuse to say "thank you" to the men
who died - they wish to CRIMINALIZE the gratitude shown by the State of
South Carolina to her soldiers that died in her defense.

The South Carolina State Senate has just voted to bring down the flag. The
bill will now go to the house. The NAACP has already said they will not
support the current bill, since it leaves a single flag on State property to
fly on a short pole. Even with this pathetic concession - this slap in the
face to the veterans of the State - this bill is not in accordance with the
NAACP's "final solution" of complete and total eradication of all public
gratitude to these fallen military heroes.

This war against dead soldiers is being led by NAACP officers and other
racial agitators who are themselves millionaires, who drive luxury cars,
live in mansions, vacation abroad, rub elbows with heads of state and
diplomats, and make more money than even the President of the United States.
Yes, the business of convincing all of us of their "oppression" has served
them well. They live better than any of our Confederate Dead could have ever
hoped to.

And this juggernaut is coming to Georgia. Our beloved State also said
"thank you" to her veterans with the then-approaching centennial in 1956.
In that year, the State flag was changed to incorporate the beloved
soldier's flag in the design. For thirty years, this design was not
questioned. It offended no-one. The currently-anti-flag Atlanta Journal
and Constitution was on record in 1956 of enthusiastically supporting the
flag. For thirty years, the NAACP had no complaints about the design.
Martin Luther King never uttered a word about being "offended." In those
days, Southerners, black and white alike, still universally believed in
saying "thank you."

But in the year 2000, Martin Luther King III - whose name and parentage
guarantees that he will never have to work a day in his life, a man who has
never been denied the right to vote, a man never forced to sit in the back
of a bus or use segregated drinking fountains, a man who lives off the
coat-tails of his father - now claims that our State flag - our "thank you"
flag - has to go. He is calling for a similar boycott against us next year.
Jesse Jackson, another "oppressed" multi-millionaire agrees. Not only do
they not believe in saying "thank you," they seek to impede your ability to
do so. They want to criminalize any official act of "thank you" on behalf
of any level of government - in spite of the fact that these same
governments asked these men to die in their defense. Make no mistake,
ladies and gentlemen. If they have it their way, you and I would be jailed
today for meeting on public property in a public Confederate ceremony. We
may even one day be eligible to be tried in a Federal court on "hate crimes"
charges for saying "thank you" to our heroic veterans.

This is what the forces of "change" want. They want government suppression
instead of gratitude. They seek to impose the atheistic, vile, and deviant
culture of Madison Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard upon us. They do not want
you to sing Dixie, say prayers, nor teach your children that marriage is a
lifelong sacred pact between one man and one woman. They want movies and
television to portray you as evil, backward, and stupid. They want a
paternalistic, Marxist government that penalizes you for hard work and
claims authority over every aspect of life - even compelling you to answer
questions about how many toilets you have in your house. They seek racial
division and discord through discredited and failed quota systems. They
seek to elevate deviant sexual behavior to a benign lifestyle choice that
you will be compelled to accept. They seek to infiltrate orthodox
Christianity and turn the Church into an impotent social club devoid of
theology. They want public schools to be breeding grounds of socialism and
gun control.

Part of their agenda is to train us into not saying "thank you." They seek
to cut us off from our past by rewriting our history and brainwashing us
into hating our own ancestors. These elites demand that we accept, without
question or dissent, their blatant and Orwellian lies about our history in
an effort to bring about their version of Utopia. Unfortunately, in their
multicultural, "tolerant" Paradise of the future, people like you and me
will simply have to be disposed of.

So what do we do?

First of all, we need to look to our ancestors that we honor today. These
men set the standard. These men set the precedent. These men did not die
merely for States Rights, for Constitutional principles, nor to defend their
homes and lands from enemy invasion. Yes, they did fight for all of these
things - but NOT ONLY for those things alone. They fought for these things
in the context of bequeathing them to their children and grandchildren.
These men fought desperately to leave us a free country and a culture
unadulterated by a larger American culture already intent on
self-destruction.

So we must understand that just as our revolutionary ancestors fought for
their grandchildren, who in turn grew up to defend liberty as Confederates -
who in turn fought for us - we have the obligation to fight today for
generations yet unborn. We have the obligation to leave them a culture and
a nation cleaner and freer than the way we inherited it. In spite of the
odds, we must fight.

How do we do that? Again, let us take the clues from our ancestors of the
War Between the States generation: our great-grandmothers. For it was the
women of the South who kept our civilization alive in the aftermath of
defeat and reconstruction. These unsung heroes are the very people who
started Confederate Memorial Day. Year after year, it was the Steel
Magnolias of Southern womanhood who stoically kept the children fed, nursed
the wounded, comforted the dying, ran the farms and family businesses in the
face of economic hardship, the ever-present danger of brutal invasion, and
under the constant stress of knowing their husbands could die any day.
Indeed, our great-grandmothers are also worthy of our thanks and praise.
They also have lessons to teach us. They saw to it that their fathers,
brothers, husbands, and sons would never be forgotten - by erecting
monuments and memorials across the South in the decades after the war. Our
grandmothers transmitted our civilization to the next generation - with
grace, dignity, and unselfish devotion to their families. They never forgot
to say "thank you" - and neither must we.

It is fitting that we meet annually to publicly declare our gratitude to our
great-grandfathers - and to our great-grandmothers. But this is not enough.
We owe it to our brave and heroic dead to do more. If you are not a member
of the Sons of Confederate Veterans or its ladies' auxiliary - the Order of
Robert E. Lee - you should be. If you have no Confederate ancestry, there
are still many organizations you can join and support. Confederate heritage
is American heritage. No-one who wants to fight will be turned away. Every
Georgian - men and women alike, regardless of ancestry - can have a Sons of
Confederate Veterans' license plate on his car. Support our heritage by
flying a Georgia or Confederate flag at your home 24-7. Write letters to
the editor in defense of our heritage. Teach your children to sing Dixie
and recite the salute to the Confederate flag. Teach them the history of
the War for Southern Independence, as well as your family's or your
community's role in that great and noble cause. Don't swallow the lies of
the elites in media, government, and academia. Truth is on our side! Write
letters to your State Representatives encouraging them to draw the line at
our State flag. Tell them our fallen heroes are entitled to this simple
"thank you" - it was earned with their blood! They did not die in vain in
an evil cause - they died for Georgia, for freedom, and for you and me.

Beyond all of these things, there is something else we all can do to wage
this war. We can take our Southern identity seriously. We don't have to
take part in the violent, vulgar, and vapid culture of New York and Los
Angeles. We can - and should - secede from the Godless and self-absorbed
culture that dominates most of the U.S. By saying "please" and "thank you,"
by opening doors for ladies, by showing chivalrous deference to children and
the aged, by saying grace before meals, by attending church faithfully, by
educating ourselves about our history and unique culture, by being
hospitable to strangers, and taking our religious beliefs seriously in our
daily lives. And most of all, by doing all of these things in front of our
children, setting for them a real example of honor and righteousness - we
are continuing the struggle for independence waged by our valiant ancestors
of 135 years ago. We are insuring that their Cause of Independence will
continue forward to the next generation.

Thanks again to the Hiram Parks Bell camp of the Sons of Confederate
Veterans. Most of all, "thank you" to our great-grandfathers and
great-grandmothers for all they did for us. Thanks be to God for giving us
such a noble heritage - and the honor of its defense. May we prove
ourselves worthy in word and deed.

Thank you and God bless you.     Larry Beane

A history professor at St. Louis Community
College, who takes issue to the claim that "Black History Month is necessary
because current history textbooks fail to pay homage to contributions" of
black Americans. Instructor Brian Elsesser states that text books are
closely reviewed to make sure that Black Americans are not ignored. For
instance, he gives the example that there are checks to make sure
"references of Robert E. Lee do not outnumber references to Frederick
Douglas." Plus he mentions that every book has a chapter entirely devoted to
slavery.

Elsesser also mentions that we are in a lamentable state when students know
more about Malcolm X than about Harry S. Truman. He concludes his letter
with the conclusion, "We don't need a special month of ethnic studies laced
with pop culture to make up for bad textbooks; we need to begin taking
American History seriously."

Jerry C. Brewer

School Shootings: The Fruits of Our State Religion

A litany of disbelief has become the predictable response in the wake of
school shootings and murders. While looking for answers, Neighbors,
classmates, friends and acquaintances express incredulity that quiet kids
from “good families” could commit acts so heinous. The recent school
shooting at Fort Gibson, Oklahoma was no exception.

Most people in Fort Gibson shook their heads in disbelief when a
seventh-grade honor roll student was arrested in the shooting of four
classmates. ‘He’s not that kind of kid,’ many said. ...But what kind of
child is? (Lisa Tatum, “Common Threads Found in School Shooters,” The
Sunday Oklahoman, Dec. 19, 1999).

These crimes are the things toward which American society has inexorably
journeyed for at least four decades. They are the evil fruits of a society
which exalts self above others and worships at the shrine of Secular
Humanism. Webster defines “humanism” as “...a doctrine or way of life
centered on human values: esp : a philosophy that asserts the dignity and
worth of man and his capacity for self realization through reason and that
often rejects supernaturalism.” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary).
When the 1960s’ nihilistic philosophy of “Do Your Own Thing” replaced the
ancient verities of objective morality, and divine revelation confirmed by
the miraculous, (Hebrews 2:1-4), it created a moral vacuum into which
humanism rushed. A religion of self-denial was replaced with one of
“self-fulfillment” and “self-esteem” as individuals began a quest to “find
themselves.” Nothing short of moral anarchy, that emphasis on “self” has
become a narcissistic world view for much of society, including pampered
children who kill their classmates. 
Casting aside the ancient verities of objective morality, embodied in
biblical precepts, society proclaimed the religion of human subjectivity
and education moved from an objective foundation of right and wrong to the
sands of “self-esteem.” That be-all and end-all of a state-run education
system has now brought a plague of violent death to school children across
our land. Immunized to life’s realities by “sensitivity training” and
loosed from moral restraints by the state-sponsored dogma of Darwinian
Evolution, it should be no surprise that youngsters from “good homes” are
now killing their classmates. After all, if we are nothing more than
glorified apes, why should it be wrong for us to kill one another? That
perspective was chillingly reported in the wake of the Fort Gibson
shooting.

Helen Smith, a forensic psychologist in Knoxville, TN., who
works with
violent children---many of them murderers, has interviewed nearly 4,000
violent youths from Harlem to rural Tennessee...She says a distinct
personality trait stands out in school shooters: narcissism. Narcissistic
youths are those who do not care about other people’s feelings, Smith said.
They think they are special and entitled to rights others do not have.
(Tatum).

Narcissism is the fruit of a nihilistic culture. Nihilism is defined as,
“...a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that
existence is senseless and useless...a doctrine that denies any objective
ground of truth and esp. of moral truths...that conditions in the social
organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake,
independent of any constructive program or possibility.” (Webster’s New
Collegiate Dictionary).
Nihilism was the mantra of the 1960s, expressed in the cry, “Burn, baby,
burn.” A generation bent on destroying all religious and moral restraints,
they offered nothing to replace them but self. “Do your own thing,” was
their catechism and humanism their religion, and after worshipping at that
shrine for more than three decades they have produced a generation of
narcissistic killers. Of the 1960s, Robert Bork wrote,

Nihilism was the order of the decade. It came in two varieties:
hedonism
and political rage. Some students or dropouts exhibited both. The Hippies
rejected middle-class morality for an unprecedented permissiveness. The
incessantly repeated slogans were taken seriously: ‘If it feels good, do
it,’ ‘Do your own thing,’ and ‘It is forbidden to forbid.’ (Bork, Slouching
Towards Gomorrah, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., NY, 1996, p. 50).

Narcissism is the antithesis of all Jesus taught about self-denial, loving
God and loving one’s neighbor. (Matthew 10:38-39; Matthew 22:37-40).
Secular Humanism is the all-pervading state religion of American society
that has produced the fruit of narcissistic nihilism. It legitimizes the
murder of the unborn in the name of “self-choice,” destroys homes in the
name of “self-fulfillment,” broadcasts filth on our airwaves in the name of
“self-expression,” creates narcissistic youngsters in public schools in the
name of “self-esteem,” and constitutes a danger far greater to our nation
than any foreign enemy. 

Protests and threatened boycotts caused Calvin Klein to cancel his
semi pornographic ad campaign showing teenagers in sexually provocative
poses---a girl of 13 or 14 for instance, on her back, skirt lifted to show
her panties. Columnist John Leo of U. S. News & World Report called the ads
‘decadent.’ But a spokesman for Klein said that the ads were perfect for
today’s independent generation: ‘people who do only what they want to do.’
...There are words to describe the Klein attitude. One, obviously, is
narcissism; the other nihilism. One who is absorbed in himself and his
sensations, believing in few or no moral or religious principles, in
nothing transcendental, is a nihilist. A culture that preaches narcissistic
nihilism is asking for trouble. (Bork, pp. 125, 126).

Sowing the wind in the 1960s, America is reaping the whirlwind on the
threshold of a new century. The nihilism of that decade replaced God with
man, self-denial with self-esteem and love of righteousness with
narcissism. It should then come as no surprise, that in this age of
“heightened sensitivity” we have lost the capacity to love our fellow man
and that “good kids” kill their classmates. Having become inured to evil,
we no longer have a sense of moral outrage. Blithely ignoring the blood of
aborted babies that drips from the hands of Supreme Court Justices, we
paradoxically cry, “Why?” when school children murder their classmates. The
same secular, state religion that allows the former results in the latter.
Leaving nothing in its place but the vanity of soul expressed by Robert
Ingersoll at his brother’s grave when he said, “Life is a narrow vale
between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities,” Secular Humanism
repudiates Christ’s teaching of self-denial. Into the ears of the young, it
whispers its lie that, “ye shall be as gods,” (Genesis 3:5), while telling
them they are mere bits of matter, with no reason for being or a destiny
beyond this mundane sphere. Perhaps Pogo said it best: “We have met the
enemy and he is us.”    Jerry Brewer
308 South Oklahoma
Elk City, OK 73644

John Griffin contributed this article:

Education, Where do we go from here?

After working with on line committees, a final thought is that a standardized curriculum, age and grade appropriate should be developed by the SCV that could be made available to every teacher to teach Southern Heritage, History and Culture. We should work together to develop this curriculum guide, along with resources to support it’s teaching and have it available to all schools. We should be leading the instruction of teachers, showing them "how to do this" and where to find our Southern history.

I had always thought we needed to have some sort of FAQ to help educate or members, and now the school project to help our members educate or kids. Perhaps we should look at a national effort to develop our own history text and/or CD-ROM, keep it as cheap as possible, but lay out our story. Also with accompanying lesson plans, outlines, supplemental projects, supplemental and resource readings.

It may come down to creating teaching units to be used by our members and teachers to promote a Southern perspective, especially with regards to the war. Some may do this now as a supplement to their text. Of course, the problem for most of us teachers is usually one of time.

I was hoping this would be a beginning step to show what some of the action plans could be, some of the ideas, problems, possible solutions. It would be great to meld this with our FAQ project and develop some curriculum units. I believe it would be a worthy endeavor for our organization. Wouldn't it be great if we could get a corporate sponsor too?

One compatriot tells us

" Either way, my children will leave with a complete understanding of this tragic episode in our history, not the traditional pap fed them in classrooms across the nation. We have a lot to overcome out there,  but I, as I know you and many of our members are not going to give up."

I think many of us believe reaching the children and getting them tuned into discovering the truth is our only hope. I have found that by opening up some ideas and putting information out for them to review, and allowing them to draw their own conclusion works well out west here. If you preach too much that turns them off. If you start off with..."here is something that many of you take as fact..." and then give some examples of how it is Yankee propaganda...."and here is something you probably can't find in a text book, but thought you might like to hear of it...." and then give them access to books, internet sites, etc.

What is the old saying...converts make the best zealots? I have been moved by hearing many a student say ..."how come all this information has not been put into our textbooks....? or "why hasn't anyone ever told us about this before?"

If there was a book that our organization could agree to, then we could write lesson plans and activities, etc from it.

Questions:

1) Do you think there is a book that we could come to consensus to agreeing is "the best" to use?

2)What are the costs and how could we overcome this to put the books and curriculum into the schools?

3) Can we target one or two grade levels?

(In our schools 4th, 8th, and 10-12 grades study US History)

4) Could we make this a supplemental addition to the local curriculum and could we assist in the delivery of information (help teach, demonstrations, living histories, pre-presentation seminars for teachers to help orientate them to the material)?

5)Is there a book in the public domain that is no longer under copyright that we could re-print and thus only have the actual printing costs?

6) Should we look at CD-ROM versions and web sites that could deliver this information and making it available to anyone FREE to use? (nation-wide internet access goal is fast approaching)

7) Use of graphics, maps, photos, drawings, etc. would be very important to keep the interest (one picture=1000 words).

8) What about some states, divisions out there that were working on curriculums, can we hear from them and develop this project into a national access system?

Lots of questions, but to me this is so very important it should be a big focus. We have many battles for heritage (protecting our flag, cemeteries, monuments) let's don't forget to protect our children's education. Perhaps if we invest resources and energies now, the other heritage battles can be won when the next generation is "in power" because they had a good "Southern" education.

Just some thoughts. 

John Griffin

Is There Any Hope for Our Schools?
by Lt. Commander Randy Young

We have all seen examples of it, and most of us have experienced it. The
washing-over or the complete lack of history that favorably portrays the
South in the classrooms of America is an epidemic that has been 140 years in
the making, and appears to be a problem that will get worse before it gets
better.
Immediately following the War for Southern Independence, a systematic
removal of positive references in regard to the southern region as a whole
began, and continues to this day. The reason behind this effort was simple:
to remove the luster of uniqueness that has long been associated with the
region to better "homogenize" it into the Union.
It would seem, however, that in 1999, again nearly 150 years after the
Southern independence movement, scholars and administrators would not be so
hesitant at the inclusion of accurate portrayals of Confederate and Southern
history in their efforts to educate the young people of America.
Yet this is far from the actual case. We have already seen a high profile
case in North Carolina where a course on Southern history was yanked from
the curriculum of a college, no less, because it was deemed as politically
incorrect. The reaction from the education field was split nearly right down the
middle in regard to whether the course content was in fact accurate and
needed, or merely inaccurate and unnecessary in the age of the coming
millennium. Newspapers were plastered with letters and editorials in
reference to this, and again, opinion was divided.
What is the problem here? It appears that again, the basic Lincolnian
fundamental of Federal control over the individual state or person is at the
core. At least in the public school arena, the curriculum is often dictated
by Federal funds that specifies which core lessons will be taught from the
material available from that money. Simply stated, If a school or school
system decides to deviate from the "approved" areas of content in a
curriculum area, they risk their funding being taken away. In essence, the
message can be deciphered as "teach what we think you should be teaching, or
you do not get our funds.."
Public schools in America in 1999 can not exist without Federally based
funding. Even though much of that funding may be distributed through state
as opposed to Federal entities, the money in question is still Federal in
its origin. As a result, lack of individual creativity (or courage) on
behalf of the teacher leads to lessons not included in approved texts and
materials being virtually nonexistent.
What can be done? While the classroom teacher is limited by
"standardized" standards, they do have a certain amount of individual
freedom when it comes to actually facing their individual classes on a daily
basis. Even though the texts and standards they are using to base their
lessons on are often government based and approved, they do have the
freedom and ability to inject information they deem worthy into their
lessons for the benefit of their students.
Here is where Southerners have a window of opportunity. We must be
proactive enough not to merely complain that our children may not hear what
we know to be the accurate history of our region in their classes; rather,
we must meet with our children's teachers, and remind them that we feel this
knowledge should be a priority for all children. More times than not, these
teachers simply have not thought about it, or, more often, have not been
given a reason to.
And, in that light, we must remember that the teachers themselves are more
than likely uneducated in regard to accurate Southern history. Again, we
must not blame them, for they are victims of the same system today's students
(and many of their parents) are.
Rather, we should take the time and energy to compile and offer factually
based information to our educators for them to present to their students -
making sure not to present rumor or hearsay that renders our history
susceptible to attack and demeans the very reason behind our concerns. Only
by enlightening our teachers to facts they themselves may not be aware of
can they offer the same to our children.
Education in the new millennium can offer lessons in Southern history that
perhaps have never been covered in the public education forum. But for that
to occur, we as concerned citizens must take a positive and active role in
helping it happen.    Randy Young

THE DEATH OF FATHER ABRAM RYAN,
POET LAUREATE OF THE CONFEDERACY

"And the graves of the dead,
with the grass overgrown,
May yet form the footstool
of Liberty's throne;
And each simple wreck
In the way-path of might
Shall yet be a rock
In the temple of Right."

From Father Abram Ryan, "The South"


The Poet Laureate of the Confederacy, Father Abram Ryan,
died on April 22, 1886, in the convent of St. Bonifacius
of the German Franciscans in Louisville, Kentucky.
He passed away aged only 48 and the death was unexpected.

Father Ryan's wit could be sharp and stinging, but he had
a natural kindly way. An example of his wit is from New
Orleans, where he was a priest under the reign of General
B.F. "Beast" Butler. He had been accused of refusing
to bury a Federal soldier and was summoned before Butler.

Butler: I am told that you have refused to bury a dead soldier,
because he was a Yankee.

Ryan: Why, I was never asked to bury him, and never
refused. The fact is, General, I would like very well to 
bury the whole lot of you.

Butler: Good morning, Father - Good morning, Father.
You may go.

In April 1886 Father Ryan had come to make his annual 
Lenten retreat, and he had chosen a pleasant convent for 
the place. St.Bonifacius was situated about a mile from the 
then Louisville center. The church was built in 1838 and the pastoral
residence, in which Father Ryan died, was erected in
1858. When entering he was seemingly in good health and
spirit. With him he brought the manuscript, "The Crown for
Our King", on the life of Christ, and he wanted to complete
it. 

Near nine o'clock Father Ryan passed away and one of the 
brothers of the convent went into the death-chamber. He is 
recorded as having said: "I laid the shroud a little to one side 
and was greatly struck with surprise. He looked very beautiful,
and as if he were only forty years of age; whereas on the
first day that he arrived he had seemed to me and old man,
fully eighty years old." Marc Alvan, the Louisville sculptor, 
afterwards took a death mask of the poet and later made a 
bust of Father Ryan from it. 

Father Ryan was born in Norfolk, Virginia, in 1840. Matthew
Abraham and Mary Coughlin Ryan, his parents, were
natives of Clonmel, County Tipperary, Ireland, and
migrated to the United States some time in the decade
after 1828. That the first name of the poet is not
Abraham but Abram must have been because of
a certain lawyer by the name of Lincoln. Ryan was
educated for the priesthood , but when the WBTS broke out,
he entered Confederate service with his brother. 

At the close of the war he was located for a while near Nashville,
Tennessee, having taken part in the battle of Franklin,
Tennessee, on October 30, 1864. During the later
war years he served as parish priest in Clarksville,
Nashville and Knoxville.

In 1866 Father Ryan moved to Augusta, Georgia, and served
as an assistant at St. Patrick's Church. In 1868 he became
the founding editor of 'The Banner of the South', the
official paper of the Bishop of Savannah and many of
his poems were published there.

After he removed to Biloxi, Mississippi, near Beauvoir, where he
became closely acquainted with President Jefferson Davis.
In 1870 Ryan went to Mobile, Alabama. The poet's fame had
reached the city. The first time he preached a large crowd
was gathered in the old cathedral. Every service added to
his fame and his Sunday discourses gathered around
2,000 people. His sermons were truly prose poems. He
lectured widely for charitable causes and nobody could
raise more money in that part of the South. In 1878 Father
Ryan sought and obtained the Catholic church at Biloxi,
Mississippi. Later Ryan returned to Mobile and was
made pastor of St. Mary's Church, a small parish 
church on the outskirts of the city. In 1883 he started
lecturing all over the South. His health had started failing
already in 1881 and he left for health resorts in Europe
visiting England, Italy, France and Germany, received
everywhere with the greatest of respect. In 1883 he was
for a while at Boston College as a lecturer.

Father Ryan's poetry is full of strength with beautiful 
images, patriotism and a fine flow of words. He also
wrote extensively in periodicals.

His collected poems were published in 1879. Father
Ryan is buried in Mobile Cemetery near the grave
of Admiral Raphael Semmes. Mobile in 1913 erected
a monument in his honour and in Louisville
there is a bronze placque on the front wall of St. Bonifacius
Church, marking the site of the monestary where the
poet died.

Bertil Haggman

.

Georgia Division of SCV

CSA and Southern History 

A Curriculum Project

(a work in progress)

 

 Posted so that all may have access to this information, to study and to learn the truth about "The War for Southern Independence, also referred to as "The War Against Northern Aggression" or "The War Between States."  It was not a "Civil War" and it was not a war to abolish or preserve slavery.  

If you learned or are learning about the "Civil War" in school you need to review our curriculum.  You will be amazed at the facts left out of nearly all the textbooks.  Students, parents, teachers, administrators, school boards, and citizens...we encourage you to review our curriculum, check out many of the referenced readings and draw your own conclusions.  We believe the facts will speak for themselves.  

Sincerely,

John Griffin, 

member and webmaster of SCV Camp #674,footnote committee member, GA Division, SCV CSA History Curriculum Project, Educator, Zillah School District, Zillah, WA.

 

For more information that you likely were not taught in school visit our FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) page.

Note: This is a work in progress.  Currently the footnoting is continuing on this project.  As it nears completion it will be posted here.  In the mean time we have some files of foot notes, references, and recommended reading lists available upon request.

PART I. THE UNION AS CREATED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS

The Articles of Confederation

 

In 1774 the First Continental Congress met. In 1775 the Second Continental Congress met and continued in existence until 1781. This congress passed the Declaration of Independence and drew up Articles of Confederation. This was done in hopes of forming a loose union amongst the newly declared independent states who were still in the midst of their revolution against Great Britain.

 

On June 11, 1776, a committee was appointed by the Continental Congress to prepare a form of government amongst the 13 independent states in the New World. The committee reported on July 12, of the same year, but no plan was agreed upon until November 2, 1777. The delay was due to the fact that each state was afraid that some of its rights might be encroached upon, so, finally, it was decided that each state was to have only one vote in Congress. Then again they disputed over the question of revenue, and it was decided that revenue should be raised by requisition on the states. The question of the public lands also prevented some colonies from giving hearty co-operation. Marylanders would not ratify the Articles of Confederation, even after they were adopted, so long as Virginia and other states refused to give up their claims to western territory. Finally, the states agreed to surrender their territory to the United States, then Maryland ratified the Articles of Confederation and they went into force, March 2, 1781.

 

A call was made to hold a general convention of the states, in September of 1786, to regulate trade among all the states. Representatives from only five states met in Annapolis, Maryland. There were too few states in attendance to accomplish anything definite, but they recommended that another convention should meet in Philadelphia, to provide "a Federal Government adequate to the necessities of the Union."

 

The Constitution

 

In 1787 delegates from 12 of the existing 13 states met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for "the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." Rhode Island declined to attend. Patrick Henry, an ardent champion of state sovereignty, suspected that the convention planned to establish a strong central government at the expense of state power. Although named a delegate, he stayed away because, as he put it, he "smelt a rat."

Samuel Adams, who also declined to attend the convention, shared Henry's suspicions. The convention met behind closed doors. The doors were locked and the members pledged themselves to secrecy. This pledge was faithfully kept for fifty years. After James Madison's death, his journal was published, and the particulars, as to parties and debates in the convention became known to the world. Some members advocated three republics; others one, with three presidents. Several issues arose in the convention that required compromise. Equal and fair representation by each state in the union was settled by creating a Senate, where each state had equal representation, and a House of Representatives, where each state was represented according to its population. 

Another compromise involved the counting of Negroes in determining representation. Northern states felt that Negroes should not be counted, as the Southern states had many more Negroes than did Northern states. Southern states felt the Negro population should be counted. The issue was settled by counting five Negroes as equal to three white men when determining representation.

In a third compromise the abolition of the slave-trade was introduced. South Carolina opposed immediate abolition. New England ship-owners made great profits by the trade. The New England states, South Carolina and Georgia voted that Congress should be powerless to stop the trade before 1808, extending the slave trade for twenty more years. Important to all states was the issue of states rights, which brought about the tenth amendment which states, "the powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people." This was brought about after Massachusetts demanded "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."

Each state firmly believed, that because they had freely entered into the Constitution they could withdraw from it as they saw necessary. Each state was to remain a separate entity and retain their individual sovereignty. Virginia, and New York, in their ratification of the Constitution, stated that the reserved the right to secede from the union whenever the National Government used its powers to the oppression and injury of the people.

 

Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey ratified the Constitution in 1787. The following year Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia and New York ratified the Constitution. It was not until 1789 that North Carolina ratified the Constitution. Rhode Island finally ratified the Constitution in 1790. Prior to the ratification by all states there was no complete Union. The Union was

created by the states, with the consent of each individual state.

 

It is most important to realize that the formation of the United States, under the Constitution, did not create a new "nation" or a new nationality that would supersede the existing statehood. The people still remained citizens of the state in which they lived. The "U.S. citizen" did not exist. Daniel Webster himself said that all states are nations.

II. REGIONAL DIFFERENCES

Cultural Differences

 

The southern states and northern states were predominately settled by two different cultures of people. The settlers of the South were primarily, but not exclusively, of Celtic descent. The ancient Celts spoke various forms of an Aryan, or Indo-European language known as Celtic, or Keltic. They were called Celts because of the language they spoke, rather than because of the race to which they belong.

 

Celts were famous for their wit, their love of liberty, and their bravery in battle. In about 500 B.C. the Celts were found mainly in the areas now known as Southwestern Germany. They soon spread over most of western Europe. In the British Isles they were divided into two branches. One branch, which included the Irish, the Manx, and the

Highland Scots, spoke Gaelic. The other branch, to which the Welsh, the Cornish, and the Bretons belonged, spoke Brythonic. The Celts in Europe developed the Gaulish language. A majority of the settlers of the South came, primarily, from the western areas of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. These areas were populated by the Celtic tribes who were earlier driven out of the inner regions of England. Settlers of the Northern states

were primarily of English, Dutch and German descent.

 

At the time of the federal census of 1790, well over three-quarters of the people living in New England were of English origins; New York, having originally been a Dutch colony, retained a large Dutch component in its population, but the single largest group, comprising something over two-fifths of the people, was English; Pennsylvania was heterogeneous - two-fifths of the people were of Celtic origins, a third were German,

fewer than a fifth were English.

 

From Pennsylvania southward Celts dominated the frontier, where they constituted from 60 to nearly 100 percent of the total population. In the North Carolina tidewater districts, from 39 percent of the population in Edenton to 48 percent in Newbern were Celts, but in the upland interior they constituted 63 percent of the population in the Fayette district and almost 100 percent in the Hillsborough district. In the western Virginia counties of Fayette and Lincoln, Scots and Irish alone numbered nearly 80 percent of the population.

 

Such ratios of Celts to Englishmen suggests that the North and the South were settled and dominated numerically during the antebellum period by different people with significantly different cultural backgrounds.

 

The people of the South were referred to as "Crackers." This goes back to Old England, describing a person who is carefree, likes music, likes to drink and fight, likes to tell stories and crack jokes, or just simply likes to have a good time.

 

The first Celts were a mixed people. They tended to be fair-haired and light-skinned, but some had darker-colored hair and complexion. Southerners themselves like to explain their special culture in terms of ideals. Instead of being restless, unstable, and ruthlessly progressive, they said, they put their surplus energy into the life of the mind, and cultivated the greatest of all arts, the art of living. The South fostered conversational talent, while her platform oratory stimulated political thought more forcibly than the newspaper articles of the North.  The Southern ideal approximated closely to the ideals of eighteenth-century English life.

 

The well-born Southerner was convinced that he was a man of far more spirit and resource than the Northern counterpart. The Southern way of life, with much hunting, general use of horses, frequent marksmanship contests, the existence of two fine schools of war, the Virginia Military Institute at Lexington, and the South Carolina Military Academy or "Citadel" at Charleston; and the memory of Southern prowess in the Mexican War, bred a deep conviction in Southerners of their people and their homeland.

 

Education for utility was steadily gaining ground in the North; education for character and grace held sway in the South, and the scope of education was far from identical. The nation, by 1850, had just over six thousand academies, of which the very respectable number of 2,640 were in the Southern states. Estimates of the section's

enrollment in these schools ran as high as two hundred thousand. The University of North Carolina early in the 1850's established professorships of civil engineering and agricultural chemistry.

 

Memphis, Tennessee, in the 1850Æs, boasted of six newspapers, two medical schools, one of extremely high standards. Several boys' academies existed, two seminaries for women, and a Mechanic's Institute which offered a library, free lectures, and a night school with technical courses.

 

Vicksburg, Mississippi, in 1850, had a public library of five hundred volumes. The public school system, which an energetic Yankee superintendent, Dr. J.G. Holland, had briefly taken in hand in 1848, was one of the best in the South.

 

In 1860 Virginia had twenty-three colleges enrolling 2,824 students, as against New York's seventeen colleges listing 2,970 students; and Georgia's thirty-two colleges with 3,302 students nominally overshadowed the eight Massachusetts colleges with 1,733 registrants.

 

South Carolina had as many as a hundred thousand volumes in its public libraries. The South was a form of society rather than an area. Its special psychology, traditions, and principles ran far back into history. The doctrines on the Virginia school on State Rights and strict construction, crystallized by Madison and Jefferson in the Resolutions of 1798-99, continued to find a wide acceptance.

 

It was a land of simple dogmatism in religion, of Protestant solidarity, of people who believed every word of the Bible, and of faith frequently refreshed by emotional revivalism.

 

All visitors to the South quickly found out that two Americas really existed: the North and the South. Most of the go-ahead spirit and nearly all the "we-can-whip-universal-nature brag" was concentrated in the North; much of the leisure, courtliness, and pride in the South.

 

Many Southerners felt a deep-seated injury in the centralizing tendencies of the federal government. A belief that consolidated power spelled danger had become deeply ingrained. The Southern states followed the rule that the best government was the least government. The South was adamant in standing for no high protective tariffs, no ship subsidies, no national banking and currency system; in short, none of the measures which business enterprise deemed essential to its progress.

 

North and South had always, from early colonial days, found difficulty in understanding each other. William Byrd of Virginia and John Winthrop of Massachusetts Bay had approached life from totally different points of view. By 1830, the divergent psychologies of the two sections presented the most serious obstacles to understanding.

What an Alabamian meant by "liberty" and "democracy" was something different from what a New Yorker meant by those terms.

 

The Yankee and the Westerner thought of the Union with the high emotional fervor which they had learned from Daniel Webster. They thrilled to the term with an intense spirit of nationality, a passionate attachment to the republic as a whole, a conviction that the people must stand as a unit in defense of national honor and freedom.

 

The dominant elements of the Lower South held a quite different conception. Their Union had to be yoked with State Rights. It was, next to their sectional liberties, most dear. They viewed the union as did John C. Calhoun, whose view was "a peculiar association in which sovereign States were held by high considerations of good faith; by the exchanges of equity and comity; by the noble attractions of social order; by the enthused sympathies

of a common destiny of power, honor and renown."

 

Naturally, the South thought of itself more and more as a separate nation. By 1857 the major Protestant denominations in the North and the South had split. One major political party, the Whigs, had first split in half and then disappeared. A deepening divide surfaced within the press, pulpit and education. With every passing year, the fundamental assumptions, tastes, and cultural aims of the North and South became more divergent.

 

The South was even distinct in that it had developed it's own dialect within the English language that is unlike any other region in the world. The South was almost exclusively dependent on agriculture. Their warm climate

provided an excellent environment for farming. The people of the North were very industrious. They were strong believers in education, they liked to read and write. Southerners read for personal enjoyment and cultivation; Northerners read to invent or to write.

 

This would explain why the history books on early America detail a lot of New England history. Even though there were Southerners living in Jamestown, Virginia, for some 13 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts, you will find that the New Englanders wrote most all of the early history books and, thus, we study New England history quite extensively, even today.

 

Different standards, ideas, aims, outlooks, ideals; a different color of life and throb of pulse; different glories and different shames; different precedents and traditions; different fears and elations, had come to characterize the two sections, which in a word, were by this time lapped in two different cultures.

 

One must remember that the South has it's own distinct culture with it's own special history, heroes, traditions and values. The South gave the world Southern architecture, authors, chefs, statesmen, musicians, painters and outstanding leaders in many fields. The Southerner maintained a special bond with the land and her people.

 

The Southerner would demonstrate qualities of courage, devotion to duty, an indomitable spirit, a close attachment to home, family, state, nation and their firm belief in spiritual values.

 

The Population Shift

 

The population of the North and the South was comparatively equal at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. The federal government could approach regional issues on an even keel and, at worst, at least work out a compromise on issues. Both the North and the South had equal representation in the Senate and the House.

 

Within the next 70 years the nation's total population increased 800%, up to a total of 31 1/2 million people. New York's population had grown by 1,140% and had grown to 2 1/2 times that of Virginia. This growth in the North would attribute to the shift in representation in the House of Representatives, which is where all federal government appropriations were created. This would give the North total control of federal government spending. As the North grew in population so did their representation grow accordingly.

 

The population of Chicago doubled between 1852 and 1855, leaping from 38,000 people to 80,000. Milwaukee, which probably counted a greater proportion of foreign-born inhabitants than any other American city, had more than tripled in size within a decade.

 

The large influx of foreign population, which had neither state attachments nor state pride, had increased the Northern preference for a strong central government. The South was plainly falling behind in the race for population. Of the eight and a half million increase during the decade, the states of the future Confederacy claimed only about two million. By 1860 twenty-one new states had entered the union but only 9 were Southern states. This attributed to the Northern advantage in the Senate.

 

The balance was gone. This imbalance allowed the representatives of the North to force unfair tariff laws upon the states of the South. These unfair tariffs would force the South to buy manufactured goods from the North at high prices rather than buy cheaper imported goods from Europe. This growing imbalance played an important role in the 1828 threat of secession by South Carolina over unfair tariff laws that raised the prices of some imported goods as much as 45 to 50 percent, and South Carolina's passing of a Nullification Act in 1832 that declared the federal tariffs null and void, based on the sovereignty of the states and the state's rights.

 

The North was gaining more and more power on the federal level. Their true desire for the upper hand on the federal level could not be denied when in 1836 the question arose on the annexation of the Republic of Texas into the Union. The North openly opposed this annexation simply due to the fact that the South's powers in the federal government would be strengthened.

 

By 1861 there were about four million persons of alien birth living in the states that remained in the Union as opposed to only about one fourth of a million residing in the states of the Confederacy. Probably one out of every four or five U.S. soldiers was of foreign birth and only one out of every twenty or twenty-five Confederate soldiers were of foreign birth. German-born immigrants made up about 200,000 U.S. soldiers. There were about 150,000 Irish, Canadians and English totaled about 50,000. Forty-five of the North's 583 general officers were of foreign birth, including twelve Germans and twelve Irishmen.

 

It has been estimated that 15,000 to 20,000 Irish-born soldiers marched in the Confederate army and they outnumbered any other foreign group on the Southern side. Among the Confederacy's 425 general officers, only nine were foreigners, five of whom were Irish.

 

 

Southern Class Structure

 

In Southern society the major planters flourished at the apex of the social pyramid. They owned the largest plantations, the most slaves, and often the largest debts to Northern banks and financiers. According to Southern agricultural lore, an efficient plantation unit numbered about a thousand acres, worked by 50 to 100 slaves. Using that yardstick about 8,000 Southern planters qualified as major planters in 1850. 

 

William H. Russell, a military correspondent for the London Times, sampled the hospitality of planter John Burnside at Houmas Plantation in March, 1861, located about sixty miles north of New Orleans. Russell recorded his impression in his diary. According to his diary, he climbed a high bank to a road edged with a white picket fence that extended as far as he could see. Through a gateway, he discovered a tree-lined avenue adjoining a red brick walk. Proceeding, he came upon a white house surrounded by a carefully manicured lawn. Colorful climbing flowers clung to the six white Doric pillars that spanned the front, providing shade and fragrance to those who lounged on the first or second floor verandas. The house itself, surrounded on three sides by the imposing

columns and the porches they enclosed, rose in impressive new-Greek style to a widow's walk around the square cupola that crowned the structure.

 

Russell wrote that the fields of the plantation were as flat as a table top. He could see some slave cottages, plantation offices which looked "like large public edifices in the distance." All together, Russell discovered, the plantation contained 40,000 acres, 18,000 of which remained to be cleared, drained and cultivated.

 

These planters were the ones who did not favor secession. They had achieved wealth, status, and substantial land ownership. They financed their speculative undertakings through Northern banks and financial institutions. They were making money and enjoying life - traveling abroad and sending their children to fine schools. They had reached the pinnacle status of the Southern aristocrat. Their continued financial success was based upon (as they saw it) the continuation of slavery in the South. Plantation slavery, they declared, was a rational institution; it had logic and purpose and was engaged in purely as a financial investment to make the planter more money. Slaves were essentially property and treated as such by the planters. Slaves were viewed as assets by the planters and

were purchased to increase the wealth of the planter, not because the planter hated Africans and simply wished to make their lives as miserable as possible.

 

Since slavery already existed and was protected under the existing U.S. Constitution and the Southern states, it was assumed, would block any Constitutional amendment abolishing the practice many planters did not favor secession. As they viewed it, they stood to lose what they had already achieved.

 

There were actually many "Souths", only one of which represented the major planter whose measure could not be taken merely by the number of acres he cultivated. Incomplete statistics indicate that there were in the pre-War Between The States period about 700 of the 1,000 acre, 50-100 slave plantations in Alabama, and perhaps 900 in

Georgia. Long before 1860 the major planter's lifestyle had become the Southern model.

 

The second-rank planters who owned from 10 to 50 slaves emulated the major planter in many ways. There were about 84,000 such individuals in 1850. They were "on the make". They exploited the richness of the soil for all it was worth and put the profits back into their businesses. They enjoyed less leisure time than did the major planters. They worked in the fields, often alongside their slaves, and few of them employed overseers. As

their economic condition improved they upgraded their style of living.

 

A third group included most of the slaveholders in the South - over 154,000 in 1850 - all those who held nine slaves or fewer. About 60 percent of this group owned farms ranging in size from 50 to 300 acres. Over 60 percent of the non-slaveholding farmers of the South operated farms of about the same size as the small planter.

 

In the Appalachian highlands and the sandy pine woods dwelt yet another group of Southerners often referred to as Southern Highlanders. They were herdsmen, forced off the lower grasslands who moved into the grasslands of the pine belt and grassy hills and valleys of the highlands. These folks, who preferred the life of the hunter or herdsman to that of the farmer or planter, were then driven into the highlands and pine woods as the

agrarians preempted the better lowland soils. They built rough cabins, often cleared several acres and grew vegetables and perhaps some cotton or tobacco as well.

 

About 500,000 Southerners of yet another class, often simply labeled "poor whites," inhabited the South in 1860. They shared the pine woods and the highlands with the herdsmen, or they could be found on the edges of towns, or indeed in almost any corner of any Southern state, barely subsisting on neglected or unproductive lands. They lived primarily by hunting, fishing, and occasionally produced a few garden vegetables. The source of this poor white class is not clear, but the fact that almost every frontier in American history had similar elements suggests that they might have been bypassed by the Southern frontier and driven to less desirable areas by migrants and greater zeal.

 

Thus, except for the highlanders and poor whites, the smaller planters and non-slaveholding farmers composed the bulk of the white population in the South. By 1850, non-slaveholding white farmers were increasing more rapidly as a group than were slaveholders.

 

Although primarily a rural land, the South in 1860 had a lively urban population that included merchants and manufacturers centered in 20 cities with over 10,000 population each, the largest of which were Baltimore and New Orleans. By 1860, the South had more than $96,000,000 invested in about 20,000 factories. Nearly 110,000 factory workers were turning out products worth approximately $155,000,000 annually. Many of the laborers

toiled in the plants only a portion of their time, for many of the factories still operated on the old domestic or putting-out system. The professional classes of the South were not unlike anywhere else, except that their prosperity depended upon the success of the planters. The doctors, lawyers, journalists, and career-military officers - economically and socially tied into the planter economy.

 

Another class that existed in the South were the "free blacks". "Free", in reference to Southern black Americans who were not slaves. They had been freed by former masters legally, had bought their way out of slavery from masters who allowed it, or had been born to manumitted slaves. Most of the 250,000 free blacks lived in Virginia and Maryland, but clusters could also be found in Louisiana, particularly around New Orleans, in North Carolina, Tennessee, and in the border states of Kentucky and Missouri. Free Southern blacks in most communities held unskilled jobs, working usually as farm hands or day laborers. Some were trained as artisans and followed trades such as carpentry or shoemaking.

 

A few became wealthy, like Thomy Lafon, a New Orleans tycoon who amassed a fortune of over $500,000. The "Charleston Mercury" reported in its Sunday, September 8, 1861, edition that free blacks in Charleston, South Carolina, had contributed $450 to the Confederate war effort.

 

Some free blacks became slaveholders themselves. Carter G. Woodson, a pioneer black historian, reported that 4,071 free blacks held 13,446 slaves in 1830. The largest concentration of black slaveholders were around New Orleans (753 owners with 2,351 slaves) Richmond, and in Maryland.

 

The final class we find in the South is the black slave. The slave existed in a closed system. Some masters allowed their slaves to purchase their freedom but the vast majority were the unconditional property of their masters. The master defined the slave's role, provided them with a clear and simple script, judged their performance, and rewarded or punished them according to its quality. In this closed system the slave had only limited contacts with free society. The masters provided the food, clothing, and shelter for their slaves.

 

Many slaves worked under the "task" system. This system provided the slave with a set of tasks to be completed within a given period of time. Should those tasks be completed before the given period of time had elapsed, the slave could then spend time in leisure, hire themselves out (with the foreknowledge of the master), or could work producing goods that could be sold, with the slave retaining all of the profits made from the sale. It was under the task system that some slaves were made able to buy their freedom.

 

Economic Issues

 

The U.S. Gross National Product (GNP) of the 1850's was driven by Southern exports (cotton, tobacco and sugar). By 1860 Southern agricultural exports accounted for at least 3/4 of the total federal budget. Southerners viewed this situation as one in which money was leaving the South and going to the North to fuel the Northern industrial revolution. Southerners were quick to point out that the South also furnished the largest parts of the nation's exports. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1850, cotton alone accounted for nearly half of the nation's foreign shipments, $71,984,616 out of $144,376,000. Ten years later the situation remained unchanged. The exportation of domestic produce in 1860 was $333,576,000 of which raw cotton represented $191,807,000.

 

The financial panic of 1857 saw the South best the collapse much better than the North. Senator James Hammond, of South Carolina, stated, "When the abuse of credit had... annihilated confidence, when thousands of the strongest commercial houses in the world were coming down and hundreds of millions of dollars of supposed property were evaporating in thin air, when you came to a deadlock and revolutions were threatened, what brought you up? Fortunately for you, it was the commencement of the cotton season, and we have poured upon you 1,600,000 bales of cotton just at the crisis to save you from destruction."

 

The South was not receiving, proportionally, what they were contributing to the federal government. Unfair tariffs also placed the South in a financial situation that forced them to trade their agricultural goods, primarily cotton, with Northern factories. This allowed Northern factories to purchase Southern agricultural goods inexpensively. The factories could then sell their manufactured goods, made with those Southern agricultural products, to the South at inflated prices that were protected by federal tariffs on imported goods. The North used these tariffs to protect their industries from what they felt was excessive foreign competition.

 

The true reason for the war, wrote Richmond and Charleston newspapers, was that the North placed unequal burdens on the Southern people. The protective tariff, the fishing bounties, the charges of brokers, bankers, and shippers, all wrung a vast tribute from the South.

 

A plantation owner with 2,000 slaves declared, "Most of us planters are in debt; we should not be if out of the Union. We should have a direct trade with Europe. We should get a better price for our cotton, and our goods would cost us fifty per cent less than now... We must do it now or never. If we don't secede now the political power of the South is broken."

 

"We must separate," Edmund Ruffin was writing in 1857, "and the sooner it is done, the greater will be the relative strength of the Southern party, and the more sure will be the success of the movement."

 

South Carolina Governor Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000. South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the

$70,000,000 raised annually by duties. In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000.

 

Mississippi Governor John J. Pettus, wrote that Lincoln's election demonstrated that men eager to "destroy the peace, property, and prosperity of the Southern section" had gained control of the government, and that Mississippi must provide surer safeguards for life and liberty than could be hoped for.

 

Howell Cobb, Senator James Hammond, A. Dudley Mann, and others labored to establish direct trade with Europe and direct mercantile and banking connections with England, as the one way to lift the South to economic independence.

 

The extent to which the South cherished the ideal of separate nationality was demonstrated in the resolutions of the Southern Commercial Convention, which was held at Savannah, Georgia, after the election of Pres. James Buchanan. Not only did this body call for direct trade with Europe, as opposed to the "triangular trade" that had enriched New York, it also called for the construction by the Southern states and territories of a

railroad from the Mississippi, by way of El Paso, to the Pacific. The body also urged the Kentucky legislature to build the final Louisville-Cumberland Gap link in the railroads connecting the Potomac and Mississippi rivers. More so, the convention called for Southern ships to be built in Southern yards, and Southern seamen trained in large numbers by Southern states.

 

The crusade for Southern economic independence was compounded in half a hope to retain the more accessible profits, and half a desire to promote Southern nationalism. Convention succeeded convention. The most important were a series of Southern Commercial Conventions beginning in 1852 and ending in 1859. They adopted endless

resolutions - that the duties on railroad iron ought to be repealed or reduced; that a line of Southern steamers should ply direct from Southern ports to Europe; that a Southern route should be chosen for the railway to the Pacific; that all good citizens should use Southern manufactures; that people should buy Southern books, and visit Southern summer-resorts. Eloquent speeches were made. Banquets were held, where governors and mayors uttered valorous words. Articles of the do-or-die variety were printed in newspapers. Meanwhile, Southern railroad conventions were also held, and Macon, Georgia, witnessed in 1852 a convention of planters from all the cotton states dedicated to the worthy cause of making sure that cotton never dropped below ten cents a pound. Sen. James Hammonds wrote to Howell Cobb on March 29, 1859, "Give the South direct trade, give it a fair tariff, land, and taxation system, and it will yet lead the world."

 

State's Rights

 

The South stood by their beliefs in the existing Constitution, in that it provided for state sovereignty. Southerners felt that they should be governed locally and that the federal government was an agent of the states, to be used to the advantage of all of the states. The South felt that Northern politicians were trying to create a strong centralized federal government. They felt that the North was trying to shift powers away from the states and to the federal government.

 

The tendency toward a greater national power worried practical Southerners who, like Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, thought the strong government an instrument for sectional exploitation. "All that we ask of you is - keep your hands out of our pockets," said Stephens.

 

The South viewed a strong centralized government as a form of a monarchy. The South well remembered their War for Independence from Great Britain and they did not desire to come under such rule again. The South could see that the federal government was becoming more and more like the old government that their forefathers had shed their blood to free them from.

 

John Caldwell Calhoun

 

John C. Calhoun was an American statesman who was born in 1782, near Abbeville, South Carolina. He was an honor graduate at Yale in 1804. He played an important part in national affairs for forty years. He served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. He also served as Secretary of War, Secretary of State, and Vice-President.

 

He is best remembered as the theorist of the doctrines of state rights and nullification. It was John C. Calhoun's leadership in these doctrines that inspired the South's effort to achieve national independence in the War Between The States. 

 

Calhoun felt that his beloved South Carolina, and the South, were being exploited by the protective tariff. Calhoun wrote "The South Carolina Exposition" for his state's legislature in 1828. It declared that no state was bound by a federal law which it believed was unconstitutional.

 

The nation, Southerners said, was a confederation of sovereign independent states. Already the South had suffered heavily from the North in taxation, tariffs, and an unequal distribution of national benefits; and they would not tolerate the erection of a consolidated democracy, for this, as Calhoun had predicted, would end in control, proscription, and political disenfranchisement.

 

John C. Calhoun applied a theory of checks to the Constitution, involving state rights and state power of nullification. The general government was, in his view, not at all a national government; it was a confederated government, a political union to which the sovereign confederated states were parties. The government had not been created, nor the Constitution ratified, by the people as a whole, but by the people as organized into separate

states. The terms or conditions of the union were stipulated in the Constitution; and if they were violated, the parties to the compact had a right to withdraw from their engagement. Each state, that is, was judge of the measures and limits of the general government, and if it found them transgressed, might interpose its veto against any further action. The Southern people viewed John C. Calhoun as the "Sentinel of the South." Even though Calhoun died in 1850, long before the start of the War Between The States, his theory of checks to the Constitution involving state rights served as part of the foundation for government for the Confederacy.

 

Calhoun believed that liberty, if forced on a people, was a curse, for men must be capable of self-government before they can enjoy liberty.

 

 

Independence

 

When the South seceded from the union and came under attack by the United States, Southerners felt that their conflict equated that of the American Revolution. Many called it the Second American Revolution.

 

A kindling sense of patriotism swung even the dubious from their old allegiances. To join the new movement seemed (especially to the youth) an affirmative, progressive, heroic act. To resist it seemed negative and timid. Many churches in the South preached resistance. The official journal of the powerful Baptist denomination in Mississippi urged citizens to insist upon their full rights within the old nation, or win them outside in a new nation.

 

The Seal of the Confederacy even includes an equestrian image of George Washington. The South viewed George Washington as the father of their new country. The South even officially declares its founding date as February 22, 1862, which is the 130th anniversary of George Washington's birth.

 

Each state believed that they were sovereign and independent and were only part of the union because they had voluntarily agreed to enter into that union. Each Southerner cherished the liberty that their forefathers had fought to secure for them. The South wholeheartedly desired to co-exist peaceably with the United States.

 

 

Indentured Servitude

 

In 1607 three English ships arrived safely at Jamestown, Virginia, to found the first permanent English colony in the New World. Most of the passengers, other than the officers and gentlemen, were indentured to work for the Virginia Company for seven years in return for their passage and keep. At the end of that period they could either return to England or take up land for themselves in Virginia and work for the company as free laborers.

 

In a country where land was cheap and plentiful and resources abundant, the paramount need was for a large labor supply. Consequently, a system was adopted whereby people coming from Europe could be indentured to individuals as well as the Company. As an inducement to the colonists in the early years, for each indentured servant they brought in they were granted a "head-right" of fifty acres of land free. Although the practice of

granting fifty acres to the importer, and generally to the servant at the end of his period of indenture, gradually died out indentured servants, each of whom signed a contract to work for a master for a specified number of years, usually three to five, in return for his passage and room and board in the New World, after which he would be given a certain amount of clothes and other provisions to help him begin life on his own, along with various amounts of land if he so desired.

 

As the colony grew and prospered, the number of indentured servants continually increased. Out of almost 5,000 settlers in 1635, about half had arrived indentured to furnish the necessary labor to tame the wilderness into farms and plantations. By 1671 the number had grown to 6,000 and ten years later there were 15,000 indentured workers in Virginia alone. With the gradual development of the other colonies the demand increased proportionately, and it is generally estimated that indentured servants comprised over 60 percent of all immigrants into the colonies down to 1776.

 

The establishment of the Royal African Company in 1662, however, with its encouragement and official support of slavery, doomed the indentured servant system in the southern colonies when the tobacco and cotton crops demanded a huge supply of cheap labor which the system could not produce. And slavery also had other major economic advantages. The slave was owned for life, not just a few years, so he would not have to be continually replaced. Consequently, by 1800 there were virtually no indentured servants in the South.

 

In the Middle and New England colonies, however, where slavery was not economically feasible, there was a strong demand for indentured servants, particularly during the first half of the 18th century. Massachusetts in 1710 passed an act offering 40 shillings a head to any captain who brought in a male servant from age 8 to 25. Particularly needed were skilled workers such as experienced seamen, carpenters, blacksmiths, silversmiths, coopers, weavers, and bricklayers. Consequently Europeans came by the thousands, particularly Germans, who freely bonded themselves for a number of years in return for learning a trade of even just the language and customs of the new country.

 

Between 1737 and 1746 sixty-seven ships landed 15,000 Germans at Philadelphia alone. It was remarkable that any of them survived the crossing. Packed into unsafe and unsanitary ships "like so many herrings," they died by the score. The horrible conditions of these floating hells equaled those of the infamous "middle passage" for the African slave trade. Food was totally inadequate and often so rotten as to be inedible. In many instances the immigrants fought for the bodies of rats and mice in order to stay alive. On at least one ship cannibalism was resorted to and the bodies of six dead humans were consumed before another vessel brought relief to the maddened passengers. Disease and sickness were rife in the filthy holds of the ships as dysentery, smallpox, and typhus swept through them. Statistics indicate that in 1711, for example, only one out of three survived the crossing.

 

This high mortality often caused extra hardship for many of the survivors, as all passengers, living and dead, had to be paid for if possible before the ship's captains would release the immigrants. Thus it was not unusual to see a widow sold to pay for her husband's passage as well as her own, meaning she would have to serve double the normal time of indenture. Children were sold to pay for deceased or unwell parents. Consequently, families were often broken up, just as in the slave trade, never to meet again.

 

In the northern colonies, where the indentured immigrants served mostly as house servants and apprentices, they were also usually treated fairly, and after becoming freemen had every opportunity to succeed. A good example was Paul Revere, whose father had come to Massachusetts as an indentured servant.

 

By 1770 the colonies found it cheaper to hire native-born youngsters as apprentices, rather than pay the passage for indentured servants. As a result, and particularly after the Revolution with its emphasis on equality, the system gradually died out and by the early 19th century had virtually ceased to exist in the North.

 

 

The Slavery Issue

 

Even though the slavery issue was not the direct cause of regional conflict, it became a factor. As friction built between the two regions, more and more issues came between them.

 

Most,