Southern History
Not Politically Correct History of the South
TGlist rating
0
0
TypePublic
Verification
Not verifiedTrust
Not trustedLocation
LanguageOther
Channel creation dateAug 29, 2021
Added to TGlist
Feb 04, 2025Latest posts in group "Southern History"
18.04.202518:06
Gen Stephen Dill Lee
18.04.202518:05
“Do not let your children and grandchildren forget the cause for which we suffered. Tell it not in anger. Tell it not in grief. Tell it not in revenge. Tell it proudly as fits a soldier. There is no shame in all the history. Dwell on the gallant deeds, the pure motives, the unselfish sacrifice. Tell of the hardships endured, the battles fought, the men who bravely lived, the men who nobly died.” -- General Stephen Dill Lee
The charge
To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we submit the vindication of the cause for which we fought. To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which made him glorious, and which you also cherish. Remember it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations."
General Stephen Dill Lee
Commander in Chief
United Confederate Veterans
April 24, 1906
The charge
To you, Sons of Confederate Veterans, we submit the vindication of the cause for which we fought. To your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldier's good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which made him glorious, and which you also cherish. Remember it is your duty to see that the true history of the South is presented to future generations."
General Stephen Dill Lee
Commander in Chief
United Confederate Veterans
April 24, 1906
18.04.202511:19
18.04.202510:33
18.04.202510:32
Captain Peevy ended his report by describing a quadruple murder allegedly committed by Union Lieutenant Robert H. Christian of the Missouri Enrolled Militia. Christian, known as ‘Old Grizzly,’ was one of the most “noted guerrillas in the country” and had been accused of numerous atrocities. One account, recounted years later, accused Christian of killing several men near Exeter, Missouri, in a very brutal fashion. “The men were all shot in the right eye and the top of their heads blown off. Their brains were taken out and put in their hats which were set beside their bodies.” When Christian was captured by Confederate soldiers, at the very end of the Newtonia battle in 1864, he was shot numerous times and then scalped in revenge for his grisly actions.
Peevy writes about Lieutenant Christian:
“On the border, both in Arkansas and Missouri, they are murdering every Southern man going north or coming south. West of Cassville, in Barry County, a first lieutenant (Robert H. Christian) of the Missouri militia committed one of the most diabolical, cold-blooded murders that I heard of during my trip. Four old citizens of that county had gone to the brush, fearing that by remaining at home they would be murdered. Their names were Asa Chilcutt (who was recruiting for the C.S. Army), Elias Price, Thomas Dilworth, and Lee Chilcutt. Asa Chilcutt was taken very sick, and sent for Dr. Harris, a Southern man. The doctor came as requested, and, while there, this man Christian and 17 other militia came suddenly upon their camp. Lee Chilcutt made his escape. The others were captured, and disposed of as follows: Asa Chilcutt, the sick man, was shot to death while lying on his pallet unable to move. He was shot some six or seven times by this leading murderer, Christian. They marched the others 150 yards to a ridge, and not heeding their age or prayers for mercy, which were heard by the citizens living nearby, they shot and killed the doctor and the others, all of them being shot two or three times through the head and as many more times through the body. They (the Federals) then left them, and, passing a house nearby, told the lady that they "had killed four old bucks out there, and if they had any friends they had better bury them…. I have given you the above narrative of Christian's acts at the request of the public living in that section. They look to you as the avenger of their wrongs.”
Peevy writes about Lieutenant Christian:
“On the border, both in Arkansas and Missouri, they are murdering every Southern man going north or coming south. West of Cassville, in Barry County, a first lieutenant (Robert H. Christian) of the Missouri militia committed one of the most diabolical, cold-blooded murders that I heard of during my trip. Four old citizens of that county had gone to the brush, fearing that by remaining at home they would be murdered. Their names were Asa Chilcutt (who was recruiting for the C.S. Army), Elias Price, Thomas Dilworth, and Lee Chilcutt. Asa Chilcutt was taken very sick, and sent for Dr. Harris, a Southern man. The doctor came as requested, and, while there, this man Christian and 17 other militia came suddenly upon their camp. Lee Chilcutt made his escape. The others were captured, and disposed of as follows: Asa Chilcutt, the sick man, was shot to death while lying on his pallet unable to move. He was shot some six or seven times by this leading murderer, Christian. They marched the others 150 yards to a ridge, and not heeding their age or prayers for mercy, which were heard by the citizens living nearby, they shot and killed the doctor and the others, all of them being shot two or three times through the head and as many more times through the body. They (the Federals) then left them, and, passing a house nearby, told the lady that they "had killed four old bucks out there, and if they had any friends they had better bury them…. I have given you the above narrative of Christian's acts at the request of the public living in that section. They look to you as the avenger of their wrongs.”
18.04.202510:32
On April 17, 1863, Captain Joseph G. Peevy (also spelled Peavy, Peevey, and Peavey) returned to Little Rock, Arkansas, after completing a spying/scouting mission into Union controlled Barry County, Missouri, two hundred miles to the north. Although Peevy was attached to Company B of the 11th Missouri (C.S.) Regiment, he spent a good deal of time behind enemy lines recruiting and gathering information about Union troop dispositions. Like most of Missouri, Barry County (1860 population 7,748) was sharply divided and plagued by internecine warfare. The county remained in Confederate control throughout 1861 and served as an important staging area for Ben McCulloch’s Arkansas brigade before the battle at Wilson’s Creek. After the Confederates lost at Pea Ridge in March 1862, the Union army took control of Barry County and commandeered the county court-house in Cassville as headquarters for the largest Union garrison in southwest Missouri. Cassville also controlled access to the Wire Road (also known as the Military Road), which ran from Springfield, Missouri, to Fort Smith and into northwest Arkansas.
Captain Peevy had strong family ties to Barry County, his father Isaac was the sheriff from 1840-1844 and later served as a judge for the county. Before the war, Captain Peevy also served as the county's sheriff and his wife, and five children still lived in nearby Flat Creek. Peevy was also well known as a “champion wielder of the pistol” and was reported to have killed seventy men during his lifetime in “personal encounters.” Peevy is reported to have been arrested by Federal troops early in the war and charged with being a spy. He was court-martialed and sentenced to be shot, but managed to escape and rejoin his Confederate allies.
Captain Peevy was sent on the scouting mission by District of Arkansas commander Lieutenant-General Theophilus H. Holmes on April 5th, to “obtain information” in the hotly contested area. (The district included Arkansas, Missouri, and the Indian Territory.) In his report, Peevy provided a great deal of intelligence about the Union troops in the region. However, his main interest was the dire conditions in Barry County, and he claimed Union authorities “have murdered every Southern man that could be found, old age and extreme youth sharing at their hands the same merciless fate.” Peevy also reported on the conditions in northeastern Arkansas and claimed that in Osage, “fifteen Southern houses and all of the outhouses” were burned. Peevy concluded, “They seem to have hoisted the black flag, for no Southern man, however old and infirm, or however little he may have assisted our cause, is permitted to escape them alive.”
Captain Peevy had strong family ties to Barry County, his father Isaac was the sheriff from 1840-1844 and later served as a judge for the county. Before the war, Captain Peevy also served as the county's sheriff and his wife, and five children still lived in nearby Flat Creek. Peevy was also well known as a “champion wielder of the pistol” and was reported to have killed seventy men during his lifetime in “personal encounters.” Peevy is reported to have been arrested by Federal troops early in the war and charged with being a spy. He was court-martialed and sentenced to be shot, but managed to escape and rejoin his Confederate allies.
Captain Peevy was sent on the scouting mission by District of Arkansas commander Lieutenant-General Theophilus H. Holmes on April 5th, to “obtain information” in the hotly contested area. (The district included Arkansas, Missouri, and the Indian Territory.) In his report, Peevy provided a great deal of intelligence about the Union troops in the region. However, his main interest was the dire conditions in Barry County, and he claimed Union authorities “have murdered every Southern man that could be found, old age and extreme youth sharing at their hands the same merciless fate.” Peevy also reported on the conditions in northeastern Arkansas and claimed that in Osage, “fifteen Southern houses and all of the outhouses” were burned. Peevy concluded, “They seem to have hoisted the black flag, for no Southern man, however old and infirm, or however little he may have assisted our cause, is permitted to escape them alive.”
Reposted from:
The Virginia Flaggers 🇸🇴
18.04.202505:07
Pledge To The South
“The south is a land that has known
sorrows; It is a land that has
broken the ashen crust and
moistened it with tears; A land
scarred and riven by the plowshare
of war and billowed with the graves
of her dead; But a land of legend,
A land of Song, A Land Of Hallowed
and heroic memories.
To that land every drop of my blood,
every fiber of my being, every pulsation of my heart, is consecrated forever.
I was born of her womb; I was
nurtured at her breast; and when
my last hour shall come, I pray
God that I may be pillowed upon
her bosom and rocked to sleep
with her tender and encircling
arms.”
— Senator Edward Ward Carmack of Tennessee (1858-1908)
[Photo of a now destroyed statue of Senator Carmack torn down by far left extremists in 2020]
“The south is a land that has known
sorrows; It is a land that has
broken the ashen crust and
moistened it with tears; A land
scarred and riven by the plowshare
of war and billowed with the graves
of her dead; But a land of legend,
A land of Song, A Land Of Hallowed
and heroic memories.
To that land every drop of my blood,
every fiber of my being, every pulsation of my heart, is consecrated forever.
I was born of her womb; I was
nurtured at her breast; and when
my last hour shall come, I pray
God that I may be pillowed upon
her bosom and rocked to sleep
with her tender and encircling
arms.”
— Senator Edward Ward Carmack of Tennessee (1858-1908)
[Photo of a now destroyed statue of Senator Carmack torn down by far left extremists in 2020]
Reposted from:The Virginia Flaggers 🇸🇴
18.04.202505:05
The tomb of Confederate General Robert E. Lee in Lexington, Virginia ⚡️
Reposted from:The Virginia Flaggers 🇸🇴
18.04.202505:03
“And now I turn to the consideration of a grievous reproach often directed against the men who fought in the armies of the South in the Civil War. When we claim for them the crown of patriotism, when we aver that they drew their swords in what they believed to be the cause of liberty and self-government, it is answered that the corner-stone of the Southern Confederacy was slavery, and that the soldiers who fought under the banner of the Southern Cross were fighting for the perpetuation of the institution of slavery.
That is a statement which I wish to repudiate with all the earnestness of which I am capable. It does a grievous injustice to half a million patriot soldiers who were animated by as pure a love of liberty as ever throbbed in the bosom of man, and who made as splendid an exhibition of self-sacrifice on her behalf as any soldiers who ever fought on any field since history began.
In the first place, I ask, If slavery was the corner-stone of the Southern Confederacy, what are we to say of the Constitution of the United States? That instrument, as originally adopted by the thirteen colonies contained three sections which recognized slavery. (Art. 1, Sec. 2 and 9, and Art. 4, Sec. 2.) And whereas the Constitution of the Southern Confederacy prohibited the slave trade, the Constitution of the United States prohibited the abolition of the slave trade for twenty years (1789-1808)! And if the men of the South are reproached for denying liberty to three and a half million of human beings, at the same time that they professed to be waging a great war for their own liberty, what are we to say of the revolting colonies of 1776 who rebelled against the British crown to achieve their liberty while slavery existed in every one of the thirteen colonies undisturbed? Can not those historians who deny that the South fought for liberty, because they held the blacks in bondage, see that upon the same principal they must impugn the sincerity of the signers of the Declaration of Independence? We ask the candid historian to answer this question: If the colonists of 1776 were freeman fighting for liberty, though holding the blacks in slavery in every one of the thirteen colonies, why is the title of soldiers of liberty denied the Southern men of 1861, because they too held the blacks in bondage? Slavery was an inheritance which the people of the South received from the fathers, and if the States of the North, within fifty years of the Revolution, abolished the institution, it cannot be claimed that the abolition was dictated by moral considerations, but by differences of climate, soil, and industrial interests.”
— Confederate 1st Lieutenant Randolph Harrison McKim, A Soldier’s Recollections (1910)
That is a statement which I wish to repudiate with all the earnestness of which I am capable. It does a grievous injustice to half a million patriot soldiers who were animated by as pure a love of liberty as ever throbbed in the bosom of man, and who made as splendid an exhibition of self-sacrifice on her behalf as any soldiers who ever fought on any field since history began.
In the first place, I ask, If slavery was the corner-stone of the Southern Confederacy, what are we to say of the Constitution of the United States? That instrument, as originally adopted by the thirteen colonies contained three sections which recognized slavery. (Art. 1, Sec. 2 and 9, and Art. 4, Sec. 2.) And whereas the Constitution of the Southern Confederacy prohibited the slave trade, the Constitution of the United States prohibited the abolition of the slave trade for twenty years (1789-1808)! And if the men of the South are reproached for denying liberty to three and a half million of human beings, at the same time that they professed to be waging a great war for their own liberty, what are we to say of the revolting colonies of 1776 who rebelled against the British crown to achieve their liberty while slavery existed in every one of the thirteen colonies undisturbed? Can not those historians who deny that the South fought for liberty, because they held the blacks in bondage, see that upon the same principal they must impugn the sincerity of the signers of the Declaration of Independence? We ask the candid historian to answer this question: If the colonists of 1776 were freeman fighting for liberty, though holding the blacks in slavery in every one of the thirteen colonies, why is the title of soldiers of liberty denied the Southern men of 1861, because they too held the blacks in bondage? Slavery was an inheritance which the people of the South received from the fathers, and if the States of the North, within fifty years of the Revolution, abolished the institution, it cannot be claimed that the abolition was dictated by moral considerations, but by differences of climate, soil, and industrial interests.”
— Confederate 1st Lieutenant Randolph Harrison McKim, A Soldier’s Recollections (1910)
Reposted from:The Virginia Flaggers 🇸🇴
18.04.202505:03
“I am chiefly concerned to show that my comrades and brothers, of whom I write in these pages, did not draw their swords in defence of the institution of slavery. They were not thinking of their slaves when they cast all in the balance--their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor-- and went forth to endure the hardships of the camp and the march and the perils of the battle field. They did not suffer, they did not fight, they did not die, for the privilege of holding their fellow men in bondage!
No, it was for the sacred right of self-government that they fought. It was in defence of their homes and their firesides. It was to repel the invader, to resist a war of subjugation. It was in vindication of the principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Only a very small minority of the men who fought in the Southern armies — not one in ten — were financially interested in the institution of slavery. We cared little or nothing about it. To establish our independence we would at any time have gladly surrendered it. If any three men may be supposed to have known the object for which the war was waged, they were these: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee. Their decision agrees with what I have stated. Mr. Lincoln consistently held and declared that the object of the war was the restoration of the Union, not the emancipation of the slaves. Mr. Davis as positively declared that the South was fighting, for independence, not for slavery. And Robert E. Lee expressed his opinion by setting all his slaves free Jan. 8, 1863, and then going on with the war for more than two years longer. In February, 1861, Mr. Davis wrote to his wife in these words, "In any case our slave property will eventually be lost." Thus the political head of the Confederacy entered on the war foreseeing the eventual loss of his slaves, and the military head of the Confederacy actually set his slaves free before the war was half over. Yet both, they say, were fighting for slavery!”
— Confederate 1st Lieutenant Randolph Harrison McKim, A Soldier’s Recollections (1910)
No, it was for the sacred right of self-government that they fought. It was in defence of their homes and their firesides. It was to repel the invader, to resist a war of subjugation. It was in vindication of the principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Only a very small minority of the men who fought in the Southern armies — not one in ten — were financially interested in the institution of slavery. We cared little or nothing about it. To establish our independence we would at any time have gladly surrendered it. If any three men may be supposed to have known the object for which the war was waged, they were these: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee. Their decision agrees with what I have stated. Mr. Lincoln consistently held and declared that the object of the war was the restoration of the Union, not the emancipation of the slaves. Mr. Davis as positively declared that the South was fighting, for independence, not for slavery. And Robert E. Lee expressed his opinion by setting all his slaves free Jan. 8, 1863, and then going on with the war for more than two years longer. In February, 1861, Mr. Davis wrote to his wife in these words, "In any case our slave property will eventually be lost." Thus the political head of the Confederacy entered on the war foreseeing the eventual loss of his slaves, and the military head of the Confederacy actually set his slaves free before the war was half over. Yet both, they say, were fighting for slavery!”
— Confederate 1st Lieutenant Randolph Harrison McKim, A Soldier’s Recollections (1910)
Reposted from:The Virginia Flaggers 🇸🇴
18.04.202505:02
Randolph Harrold McKim 🇸🇴
1st Lieutenant and A.D.C., 3rd Brigade, Johnston’s Division, Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate States Army ⭐️
Author of A Soldier’s Recollections: Leaves From The Diary of a Young Confederate (1910)
1st Lieutenant and A.D.C., 3rd Brigade, Johnston’s Division, Army of Northern Virginia, Confederate States Army ⭐️
Author of A Soldier’s Recollections: Leaves From The Diary of a Young Confederate (1910)
17.04.202521:31
NC Republic
17.04.202520:25
Gen Joseph E. Johnston
17.04.202520:23
On May 19, a hot and humid day, Johnston feared that all of the recent retreating was causing decline in morale, So he issued a general order:
Soldiers of the Army of Tennessee, you have displayed the highest quality of the soldier_ firmness in combat, patience under toil. By your courage and skill you have repulsed every assault of the enemy. By marches by day and by marches by night you have defeated every attempt upon your communication. Your communications are secured You will now turn and march to meet his advancing columns. Fully confiding in the conduct of the officers, the courage of the soldiers, I will lead you in battle. We may confidently trust that the Almighty Father will still reward the patriots' toils and bless the patriots' banners Cheered by the success of our brothers in Virginia and beyond the Mississippi, our efforts will equal theirs. Strengthened by His support, those efforts will be crowned with the like glories. from the Virginia Flaggers
Soldiers of the Army of Tennessee, you have displayed the highest quality of the soldier_ firmness in combat, patience under toil. By your courage and skill you have repulsed every assault of the enemy. By marches by day and by marches by night you have defeated every attempt upon your communication. Your communications are secured You will now turn and march to meet his advancing columns. Fully confiding in the conduct of the officers, the courage of the soldiers, I will lead you in battle. We may confidently trust that the Almighty Father will still reward the patriots' toils and bless the patriots' banners Cheered by the success of our brothers in Virginia and beyond the Mississippi, our efforts will equal theirs. Strengthened by His support, those efforts will be crowned with the like glories. from the Virginia Flaggers
Records
19.04.202523:59
90Subscribers25.12.202423:59
0Citation index10.04.202512:10
78Average views per post17.04.202514:16
33Average views per ad post28.03.202523:59
16.67%ER10.04.202512:10
106.85%ERRReposted from:The Virginia Flaggers 🇸🇴
26.03.202523:24
“I am with the South in death, in victory or defeat. I never owned a N*gro and care nothing for them, but these people have been my friends and have stood up to me on all occasions. In addition to this, I believe the North is about to wage a brutal and unholy war on a people who have done them no wrong, in violation of the constitution and the fundamental principles of the government. They no longer acknowledge that all government derives its validity from the consent of the governed.” Gen. Patrick Cleburne, CSA, born on this day, March 17, 1828.
Reposted from:
History Clearinghouse 📜
14.04.202523:40
"Reconstruction was one big wealth grab on the South. There's a bigger reason why movies like 'Gone With The Wind' and 'Birth Of A Nation' are criticized than 'Muh Racism.' They make people think and want to start doing research instead of going along with the status quo." - RebelGrey
Reposted from:
The New Southerner
26.03.202523:33
Lincoln the Murderous Tyrant
The North has spent over 150 years white washing one of the worst tyrants in world history into some kind of saint of brotherly love. However, facts remain and more and more of the truth, even if late in coming, is making its way to the spotlight.
In 1864, in a bid to finally break the will of the South, Lincoln and his top commanders agreed on the "Black Flag" campaign. In this official permission was given to wage unlimited war against civilians, including women and children, as well as any slaves, former slaves or free blacks. This is not to say the northern armies were not already viscous, especially when led by northern puritans like Sherman who saw this as some holy crusade, but now this was official policy from the president himself.
The North has spent over 150 years white washing one of the worst tyrants in world history into some kind of saint of brotherly love. However, facts remain and more and more of the truth, even if late in coming, is making its way to the spotlight.
In 1864, in a bid to finally break the will of the South, Lincoln and his top commanders agreed on the "Black Flag" campaign. In this official permission was given to wage unlimited war against civilians, including women and children, as well as any slaves, former slaves or free blacks. This is not to say the northern armies were not already viscous, especially when led by northern puritans like Sherman who saw this as some holy crusade, but now this was official policy from the president himself.
25.03.202501:02
General John Brown Gordon urges General Jubal Early to continue the attack in the Battle of Cedar Creek.
02.04.202500:28
George Pickett, Fitzhugh Lee and Thomas L Rosser, enjoyed a local tradition known as a shad bake. This involved attaching shad (a local herring) to boards, sticking them in the ground around a fire, then eating them. It had been a cold, hungry winter, and the shad provided the men with a rare treat. The only problem was that two miles away, Pickett's troops were being annihilated in what became known as the "Waterloo" of the Confederacy.
* "Some time was spent over lunch," recalled Rosser, "during which no firing was heard... We concluded that the enemy was not in much of a hurry to find us as Five Forks." Five Forks was the crucial crossroads which, that morning, Robert E Lee, the general-in-chief, had instructed Pickett to hold at all costs. The feasting generals heard nothing because the wooded area they were lunching in muffled the sound of gunfire. from Independent, Rhodri Marsden
Friday 27 March 2015
* "Some time was spent over lunch," recalled Rosser, "during which no firing was heard... We concluded that the enemy was not in much of a hurry to find us as Five Forks." Five Forks was the crucial crossroads which, that morning, Robert E Lee, the general-in-chief, had instructed Pickett to hold at all costs. The feasting generals heard nothing because the wooded area they were lunching in muffled the sound of gunfire. from Independent, Rhodri Marsden
Friday 27 March 2015
Reposted from:The Virginia Flaggers 🇸🇴
26.03.202523:32
"As long as unselfish patriotism, Christian devotion and purity of character, and deeds of heroism shall command the admiration of men, Stonewall Jackson's name and fame will be reverenced." -- Jubal Early
Reposted from:The New Southerner
14.04.202523:46
Terror Reign of the Jayhawkers
The Jayhawkers or otherwise known as Red Leggers were a violent abolitionist militia centered out of Lawrence, Kentucky. They had taken part in the Bleeding of Kentucky, a low key civil war in the 1850s. After the start of the Civil War, they began actively attacking into Missouri in an attempt to destroy support for the Confederacy by terrorizing and murdering the civilian population.
US Army General Blunt stated about them: "A reign of terror was inaugurated, and no man's property was safe, nor was his life worth much if he opposed them in their schemes of plunder and robbery."
The Missouri towns of Osceola, Morristown, Papinsvile, Butler, Dayton, and Columbus as well as an innumerable number of homesteads and farms were raided, pillaged, burned, with the women despoiled and the men tortured to death. This shows you once again, the tyrannical and self-righteous nature of those fighting "for the Union" to murder, rape and pillage those they considered their lessers.
The Jayhawkers or otherwise known as Red Leggers were a violent abolitionist militia centered out of Lawrence, Kentucky. They had taken part in the Bleeding of Kentucky, a low key civil war in the 1850s. After the start of the Civil War, they began actively attacking into Missouri in an attempt to destroy support for the Confederacy by terrorizing and murdering the civilian population.
US Army General Blunt stated about them: "A reign of terror was inaugurated, and no man's property was safe, nor was his life worth much if he opposed them in their schemes of plunder and robbery."
The Missouri towns of Osceola, Morristown, Papinsvile, Butler, Dayton, and Columbus as well as an innumerable number of homesteads and farms were raided, pillaged, burned, with the women despoiled and the men tortured to death. This shows you once again, the tyrannical and self-righteous nature of those fighting "for the Union" to murder, rape and pillage those they considered their lessers.
25.03.202512:18
Unknown
Reposted from:The Virginia Flaggers 🇸🇴
18.04.202505:03
“And now I turn to the consideration of a grievous reproach often directed against the men who fought in the armies of the South in the Civil War. When we claim for them the crown of patriotism, when we aver that they drew their swords in what they believed to be the cause of liberty and self-government, it is answered that the corner-stone of the Southern Confederacy was slavery, and that the soldiers who fought under the banner of the Southern Cross were fighting for the perpetuation of the institution of slavery.
That is a statement which I wish to repudiate with all the earnestness of which I am capable. It does a grievous injustice to half a million patriot soldiers who were animated by as pure a love of liberty as ever throbbed in the bosom of man, and who made as splendid an exhibition of self-sacrifice on her behalf as any soldiers who ever fought on any field since history began.
In the first place, I ask, If slavery was the corner-stone of the Southern Confederacy, what are we to say of the Constitution of the United States? That instrument, as originally adopted by the thirteen colonies contained three sections which recognized slavery. (Art. 1, Sec. 2 and 9, and Art. 4, Sec. 2.) And whereas the Constitution of the Southern Confederacy prohibited the slave trade, the Constitution of the United States prohibited the abolition of the slave trade for twenty years (1789-1808)! And if the men of the South are reproached for denying liberty to three and a half million of human beings, at the same time that they professed to be waging a great war for their own liberty, what are we to say of the revolting colonies of 1776 who rebelled against the British crown to achieve their liberty while slavery existed in every one of the thirteen colonies undisturbed? Can not those historians who deny that the South fought for liberty, because they held the blacks in bondage, see that upon the same principal they must impugn the sincerity of the signers of the Declaration of Independence? We ask the candid historian to answer this question: If the colonists of 1776 were freeman fighting for liberty, though holding the blacks in slavery in every one of the thirteen colonies, why is the title of soldiers of liberty denied the Southern men of 1861, because they too held the blacks in bondage? Slavery was an inheritance which the people of the South received from the fathers, and if the States of the North, within fifty years of the Revolution, abolished the institution, it cannot be claimed that the abolition was dictated by moral considerations, but by differences of climate, soil, and industrial interests.”
— Confederate 1st Lieutenant Randolph Harrison McKim, A Soldier’s Recollections (1910)
That is a statement which I wish to repudiate with all the earnestness of which I am capable. It does a grievous injustice to half a million patriot soldiers who were animated by as pure a love of liberty as ever throbbed in the bosom of man, and who made as splendid an exhibition of self-sacrifice on her behalf as any soldiers who ever fought on any field since history began.
In the first place, I ask, If slavery was the corner-stone of the Southern Confederacy, what are we to say of the Constitution of the United States? That instrument, as originally adopted by the thirteen colonies contained three sections which recognized slavery. (Art. 1, Sec. 2 and 9, and Art. 4, Sec. 2.) And whereas the Constitution of the Southern Confederacy prohibited the slave trade, the Constitution of the United States prohibited the abolition of the slave trade for twenty years (1789-1808)! And if the men of the South are reproached for denying liberty to three and a half million of human beings, at the same time that they professed to be waging a great war for their own liberty, what are we to say of the revolting colonies of 1776 who rebelled against the British crown to achieve their liberty while slavery existed in every one of the thirteen colonies undisturbed? Can not those historians who deny that the South fought for liberty, because they held the blacks in bondage, see that upon the same principal they must impugn the sincerity of the signers of the Declaration of Independence? We ask the candid historian to answer this question: If the colonists of 1776 were freeman fighting for liberty, though holding the blacks in slavery in every one of the thirteen colonies, why is the title of soldiers of liberty denied the Southern men of 1861, because they too held the blacks in bondage? Slavery was an inheritance which the people of the South received from the fathers, and if the States of the North, within fifty years of the Revolution, abolished the institution, it cannot be claimed that the abolition was dictated by moral considerations, but by differences of climate, soil, and industrial interests.”
— Confederate 1st Lieutenant Randolph Harrison McKim, A Soldier’s Recollections (1910)
Reposted from:The Virginia Flaggers 🇸🇴
18.04.202505:03
“I am chiefly concerned to show that my comrades and brothers, of whom I write in these pages, did not draw their swords in defence of the institution of slavery. They were not thinking of their slaves when they cast all in the balance--their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor-- and went forth to endure the hardships of the camp and the march and the perils of the battle field. They did not suffer, they did not fight, they did not die, for the privilege of holding their fellow men in bondage!
No, it was for the sacred right of self-government that they fought. It was in defence of their homes and their firesides. It was to repel the invader, to resist a war of subjugation. It was in vindication of the principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Only a very small minority of the men who fought in the Southern armies — not one in ten — were financially interested in the institution of slavery. We cared little or nothing about it. To establish our independence we would at any time have gladly surrendered it. If any three men may be supposed to have known the object for which the war was waged, they were these: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee. Their decision agrees with what I have stated. Mr. Lincoln consistently held and declared that the object of the war was the restoration of the Union, not the emancipation of the slaves. Mr. Davis as positively declared that the South was fighting, for independence, not for slavery. And Robert E. Lee expressed his opinion by setting all his slaves free Jan. 8, 1863, and then going on with the war for more than two years longer. In February, 1861, Mr. Davis wrote to his wife in these words, "In any case our slave property will eventually be lost." Thus the political head of the Confederacy entered on the war foreseeing the eventual loss of his slaves, and the military head of the Confederacy actually set his slaves free before the war was half over. Yet both, they say, were fighting for slavery!”
— Confederate 1st Lieutenant Randolph Harrison McKim, A Soldier’s Recollections (1910)
No, it was for the sacred right of self-government that they fought. It was in defence of their homes and their firesides. It was to repel the invader, to resist a war of subjugation. It was in vindication of the principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Only a very small minority of the men who fought in the Southern armies — not one in ten — were financially interested in the institution of slavery. We cared little or nothing about it. To establish our independence we would at any time have gladly surrendered it. If any three men may be supposed to have known the object for which the war was waged, they were these: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee. Their decision agrees with what I have stated. Mr. Lincoln consistently held and declared that the object of the war was the restoration of the Union, not the emancipation of the slaves. Mr. Davis as positively declared that the South was fighting, for independence, not for slavery. And Robert E. Lee expressed his opinion by setting all his slaves free Jan. 8, 1863, and then going on with the war for more than two years longer. In February, 1861, Mr. Davis wrote to his wife in these words, "In any case our slave property will eventually be lost." Thus the political head of the Confederacy entered on the war foreseeing the eventual loss of his slaves, and the military head of the Confederacy actually set his slaves free before the war was half over. Yet both, they say, were fighting for slavery!”
— Confederate 1st Lieutenant Randolph Harrison McKim, A Soldier’s Recollections (1910)
Log in to unlock more functionality.