Letters To The Editor

Originally published April 2016 · p. 3

Rebuttal Letter With Southern Perspective TO THE EDITOR: Mr. Dennis Middlebrooks, of Brooklyn, New York, dismisses my letter to the editor in the January issue as another “tired neo-Confederate rant,” and then goes on to deliver another rendition of the tired “propaganda of the victorious” (as Voltaire termed history.) His point about the preponderance of legally-elected Southern presidents in the early years of the United States is irrelevant to my letter, as is his curious comparison about the thirteen colonies not having dominated the British government prior to colonial secession, so I will not address those issues. What I will address are three erroneous points in his letter. First, Mr. Middlebrooks states that “the South’s response to the legal election of Lincoln was armed insurrection in the defense of the perpetuation and expansion of slavery.” This is incorrect. The response of some of the Southern States (only seven “Cotton States,” not “the South” at large) was an attempt at peaceful secession from the Union by the same method all States acceded to the Union when they ratified the Constitution – through their respective sovereign conventions. I will not argue with Mr. Middlebrooks that one reason (but not the only reason, as any reading of these Ordinances of Secession will readily reveal) was to preserve slavery within their respective sovereign bounds. But Mr. Middlebrooks is incorrect when he says these States seceded in order to expand slavery. Quite to the contrary, by these States’ acts of secession from the Union of States, they willfully gave up any claims to the common U.S. Territories and thereby willfully gave up any claims to their rights to carry slavery into them! It is ironic to note also, that the secession of the Southern States peacefully removed much of slavery from the United States altogether. One would think that the abolitionist Northerners would have happily said “Goodbye – and good riddance!” to those people whom they evidently hated so much, but they did not. Why not? The second fallacy in Mr. Middlebrooks’ argument is his assertion that the South’s response to Lincoln’s lawful election was armed insurrection. There was no war until Lincoln willed it. With these Southern States out of the Union, the Northern industrial economy would lose its major source of cotton for its mills, a large portion of its markets for its manufactured goods, a large portion of its tariff income (remember, there was no income tax back then), and control of the mouth of the Mississippi. The nascent industrial economy would collapse. Virginia, the “Mother of States and of Statesmen,” told Lincoln that she thought the course taken by the “Cotton States” was unnecessary and a mistake, but that she would brook no coercion by the Lincoln administration to drive these States back into what was up until that time a voluntary Union of sovereign States. Lincoln did not listen to Virginia. He listened instead to the industrialists, the financiers, the railroad magnates, and the crony capitalists who had gotten him elected. So he rebuffed all attempts of Southern envoys to settle the situation diplomatically, and launched an armada to Charleston to provoke the first shot, get the war he wanted, and drive the Southern States back into the Union at the point of the bayonet. The governor of Virginia was astonished when Lincoln called for troops, and refused to send them – while charging Lincoln with inaugurating civil war. The Virginia Convention, which had just voted by a large majority to remain in the Union, immediately passed an Ordinance of Secession. Virginia’s decision exposes the speciousness of Mr. Middlebrooks’ argument that the South’s response to Lincoln’s election was armed insurrection. The South’s response to Lincoln’s election was – in seven cases - secession. The South’s response against Lincoln’s war of invasion, conquest, and coerced political allegiance was the secession of the States of the Upper South, and armed defense. Finally, Mr. Middlebrooks gives a litany of Southern takeovers of federal property on the soil of the sovereign States that had seceded, as well as the firing on the armed steamer The Star of the West. But the first act of war was waged by the United States on Christmas Day, 1860, in Charleston Harbor, five days after South Carolina had seceded from the Union, when Maj. Anderson burned the gun carriages and spiked the guns at Fort Moultrie, and slipped into Fort Sumter. The account is the very first entry to be found in the Official Records of the War. Before the South is condemned too harshly, may I remind the readers that the Massachusetts Minutemen fired the first shots in the war of 1775, and that Boston still celebrates “Evacuation Day” – commemorating the evacuation of a British fort on her sovereign soil. And may I also remind Mr. Middlebrooks that his home State of New York joined the Union with the specific provision that she reserved the right to withdraw from it at any time she felt it was arrayed against her interests and liberties. No one at the time objected. Later, the New England States came within a hair of seceding from the Union during the Hartford Convention. No one at the time objected. As Massachusetts has writ large on her license plates, it is “The Spirit of America.” I sometimes think we have forgotten all of that. H. V. Traywick Jr. Richmond, Va.

TO THE EDITOR: A record of the Savannah Volunteer Guards at Sailor’s Creek is being compiled. I am seeking the present location of the Guards’ flag that was captured at Sailor’s Creek, Va., April 6, 1865, by Warren Dockum, Co. H, 121st New York. The flag was scarlet silk, fringed with gold, featured an altar and a single star in silver; and in gold bore the inscription, “For Our Altars and Our Hearths.” The inscription might have been in Latin Pro Aris Et Focis. It was last known to have been seen in Savannah, Ga., in April 1905 at the Savannah Volunteer Guards armory building. The Guards were also known as the 18th Georgia Battalion Infantry. If you have any information please contact: Gregory C. White Canton, Ga. [email protected]

Thank You TO THE EDITOR: I love the “new” Civil War News and the FABULOUS color photographs! Glad to see you decided to keep the Book Reviews as well as the Civil War News Briefs too as well as the listings of the Civil War Round Tables! My friends and I were discussing the other day how our favorite newspaper is the CWN despite the fact it doesn’t have a sports section. (LOL). Only kidding. I wonder if you or any of your readers have read about any attempts by Union and Confederate Soldiers to point any commanding officers? It would not surprise me at all if any CSA troops tried to do that to Gen. Braxton Bragg who was pretty despised by his men! Tom Yockey, Jr. Florissant, Mo.

TO THE EDITOR: In reference to the newspaper format. There are enough Civil War magazines already. I was really let down when I read that you were going to magazine format. Keep the political correctness out or you will lose your subscribers. I have been a subscriber for approximately 10 years. Political correctness is lousy. I stopped subscribing to another Civil War magazine for that very reason. David Crewe, Va.

Enjoying The TO THE EDITOR: I wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed my new copy of the Civil War News. It is wonderful! I love it. Keep up the excellent work. I will subscribe for many, many years to come. Richard Sacolic Strattanville, Pa.