The Recent Past FROM A SOUTHERN STANDPOINT. Reminiscences of a Grandfather. “FORSAN ET HÆC OLIM MEMINISSE JUVABIT.” BY RICHARD H. WILMER, BISHOP OF ALABAMA. ____________________________________________ NEW YORK: THOMAS WHITTAKER, 2 AND 3 BIBLE HOUSE. 1887. THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED TO The Cause of Truth, Right, and Peace, IN LOVING MEMORY OF ALL WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR ITS MAINTENANCE; AND IN BROTHERLY RECOGNITION OF ALL WHO LIVE TO VINDICATE AND DEFEND IT. “ The wisdom which cometh from above is first pure, then peaceable.”
PRELIMINARY. Page 10. But some friends,— partial friends, perhaps,— who have run their eyes over the manuscript, warmly urge its publication, . . . Yielding to their wishes, I send the volume forth, to add a drop more to the flood of publications which is sweeping on to swift and sure oblivion. There is one word which I must say at the outset, in order that my language and position may be clearly understood and fairly interpreted. I speak plainly . . . The spurious charity of these latter days demands from me a degree of reticence, caution, and suppression which I have not exercised in these pages, and which I deem utterly inconsistent with that divine charity which “rejoiceth in the truth.” Men are not candid enough with each other. They will attack each other in secret, but they will not talk face to face. Page 11. This may beget a sort of love, and pass for charity, but it is not the love which is “without dissimulation.” In my judgment, many errors abound, and acquire a sort of respectability because they are not candidly and charitably exposed. Truth is not so hard to find as men think. Error is founded in ignorance, prejudice, pride, and passion. Let “knowledge with fervent charity” prevail, and men will be drawn nearer together in heart and mind. All else will fail save charity. Temporary fraternizations,— such as those among the denominations,— where all consent to suppress some conviction by way of a truce, discard the very element of love which “rejoiceth in the truth.” Aggregations of men bound together by mechanical appliances only, fall to pieces for the want of that cement of love which is “the very bond of peace and of all virtues.” Judged by the modern ideas of charity, I trust that I shall be condemned as an uncharitable man, for I enjoy the ill judgment of some people; but, judged by a higher standard, I hope to stand acquitted before God, even as I am in all conscience, for “ rejoicing in the truth.” When, then, in these pages I speak of the North and Northern men, I have not in my eye that large body of people whose culture, refinement, and large-hearted generosity challenge my admiration, and has oftentimes elicited my personal gratitude. “ 0, si sic omnes! ” Page 12. But I speak of that fanatical, and at times dominant, element, which having waged a destructive war (and for that it becomes me to make no moan), and after having destroyed our wealth, and laid waste our territory, and revolutionized our domestic and political life, persistently aims at our humiliation, still plies us with ignominious epithets, and, to use a vulgar current phrase, “still waves the bloody shirt.” I was written to some years ago by an editor of the North, who wished to know the reason for the solidarity of the South, and whether I, in my position, could not write or do something to dissolve it. He must have been “an innocent,” or thought me one. The weather at the time was cold beyond precedent, and our waters were frozen over. I replied to him in one sentence: “The solidarity of the South is due to the same cause that just now makes our water solid,— unfriendly breezes from the North.” Page 13. No malignant evil was ever remedied by treating it as a matter of no consequence. If there be ever any real movement towards Christian unity, it must be preceded by some clear and distinct conviction of the nature, causes, and guilt of schism. Page 14. One chief reason for giving these reminiscences to the public, is that I may help to keep sacred in the memory of the rising generation the traditions of their fathers. . . I have a special fear that Our young people, as they recede farther and farther from our times, will gather their views of the recent past from partisan histories rather than from sacredly preserved traditions. The school-books and histories of our times are, as a general rule, from Northern sources: their authors naturally look at all these matters with other eyes than ours. I cannot endure to think that any descendant of mine shall open, say, a catechism, and find Benedict Arnold, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee chosen out to exemplify Treason and Rebellion. Page 15. It was bruited abroad that there was such a catechism, but I can hardly believe without ocular demonstration, I want Our young people to know what I know,— that the two men last named in the list of “traitors” were men who exemplified through life every trait of honor and loyalty. Nor can I endure to think that my grandsons shall be set down to read histories which tell them that their ancestors were “tyrants to their servants,” “rebels against their government,” and “traitors to their country.” So far as in me lies, this shall never be; and shame to every man who loves not to pluck the nettles from the graves of his sires, and strew them with flowers! Page 21. CITIZENSHIP. There is one matter about which I feel especially solicitous that you should be rightly informed; and that is, the political history of your own country, and section of country. We have passed through, during the last twenty-five years, a mighty revolution. That revolution effected a mighty change in the character of our government and institutions. It is most important for you to understand the merits of that conflict of ideas which convulsed the minds of the people, North and South, and finally culminated in a sectional war, which turned a million of men to ashes, and covered the whole land with mourning. Even at this present moment, as I write, we seem to walk on molten lava, whose surface is scarcely cooled. Page 24. THE CONSTITUTION. WHEN we look back to the early history of the United States, we find that certain colonies, peopled from the British Isles for the most part, were stretched along the Atlantic coast. Disaffection sprang up among the colonists, principally because of taxes laid upon the people, without privilege of representation. By little and little, they came at last to war. The conflict was waged with varying fortunes for some years. Epithets of “rebels” and “traitors,” etc., were as freely applied to our forefathers on the part of the Mother Country, as by the North to ourselves in our so-called “Rebellion.” The issue, as you know, was decided in favor of the revolting colonies, whose “Declaration of Independence” was made good by the arbitrament of war. These colonies, thus set free to govern themselves (their independence as separate States having been acknowledged by Great Britain), soon began to cast about for an alliance among themselves closer than that of the “Articles of Confederation” which they had adopted. The materials to be united were in some respects heterogeneous, their interests somewhat conflicting, and their ideas of the government to be formed widely variant. However, after much debate, they finally united under the “Constitution of the United States,”— the same instrument that now exists, except (besides some amendments made soon after its adoption) the important and radical changes which resulted from the war between the States. I do not purpose going into a minute history of the events which led to this consummation, nor to touch upon the original differences of opinion which required to be harmonized and adjusted before the Constitution found general acceptance and adoption. Two quite equally divided parties struggled for the mastery,— the one contended for a strong central government, the other for a more decided recognition of the sovereignty of the several States. The result was a Constitution which aimed to embody both features, and it required a bloody war to settle the meaning of the Constitution. In other words, the party which could bring the greatest number of soldiers into the field had their own way in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, and thus, practically, the question concerning the power to secede was for the time determined; the question of original right under the Constitution not being, by gunpowder, determinable. Page 26. Let me digress for a moment at this point, to pay my willing tribute to the genius of Alexander Hamilton, in my judgment, the largest-minded statesman that this continent has produced. Hamilton was the leader of the Federal party, and contended for a government with such centripetal power that it could not fly to pieces in the revolution of affairs. Had his principles fully obtained, and been ingrafted in the Constitution,— or, rather, had been made the framework of the same,— questions of secession could not have well arisen, or at least could not have arisen upon an interpretation of the Constitution. His broad views of human affairs, and his far-seeing sagacity, taught him that all confederated sovereignties tended to consolidation. His views, if they had to the full prevailed, would have rendered impossible the agitation of secession, as a right under the Constitution. Consolidation has taken place, but by war. He wanted it to take place, and to hold its place, by original formation. His ounce of prevention would have saved many pounds of cure. The history of nations, without exception, goes to show that there is no longevity in confederated or united sovereignties,— in proof, the Saxon Heptarchy, the principalities of Germany, the republics of Italy, the Dukedoms of France, etc. But Hamilton’s views did not wholly prevail. Page 27. All such differences as existed between him and the opposite party were settled by the adoption of a compromise Constitution, recognizing enough of State sovereignty to keep up the idea of separate and independent action on the part of the several States, and, at the same time, absorbing so much power, defined or implied in the Federal Government, as to cripple the States, and render them helpless in an hour when they might attempt to redress a wrong, or, if that seemed hopeless, to fly for safety— secede was the word used to express the idea. Whether the original Constitution was the best that could have been framed, is one question; how it was really made, is quite another. Had the idea of the Federalists prevailed fully, the question of right to secede could never have arisen. But it did not fully prevail. Thus, antagonistic views existed as germs in the very Constitution itself, and bayonets were called in to skewer the people together. An examination of the present Constitution as amended by war has somewhat of a post-mortem character. WAR OF THE STATES. BUT how came the Southern States to secede, and which section of the country must bear the responsibility of the work of its consequent horrors? Page 26. A vast question indeed, and one upon which libraries will be written before new events shall have buried this question among other dead issues. The ablest and fairest exposition of this question, in my judgment, is from the pen of Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States while they lasted. It is a calm and statesmanlike review of the whole subject-matter. Davis will be pilloried in Northern histories as an “arch-rebel,” and traitorous to the core. So much for the truth of partisan history! While, on the contrary, his whole history will show that he was a calm, clear-headed, and large-hearted man, chosen in the hour of need for his known merits, and on the strength of his history, which was not obscure nor ignoble. That he failed, was not extraordinary; that he held out so long, was the marvel. I write from much knowledge of the man. If you would understand him and the history of his times, read his book, “ The Rise and Fall of the Southern Confederacy,”— unanswered and unanswerable, as we of the South think. But there was a feature in the history of the Southern struggle for independence which you must understand in order to do justice to your ancestors in regard to the part which they felt constrained by their interest, by their sense of personal self-respect, and by their loyalty, to maintain to the end. Page 29. Slavery existed in the United States at an early day. It was not confined to the Southern section. Northern vessels brought the slaves from Africa, and they were held in bondage whenever it was found profitable to hold them. The climate of the South best suited the native African, and his labor was found more profitable upon a Southern soil. Consequently, the larger population of slaves were gathered in the Southern section of this country. They constituted the greater part of the wealth of the Southern States. Their status must be provided for in the Constitution, and thus a guaranty be afforded that the Southern States should be protected in the possession of their property. For a while things went on smoothly; but, very soon, strong and fanatical ideas began to take possession of Northern minds. It manifested itself in every possible way,— in efforts to legislate slavery out of the District of Columbia; in efforts to circumscribe the area of slavery by excluding it from the Territories, the common home and property of the peoples of all the States; in incendiary pamphlets; in books of fiction; in books for the schoolroom; in organizations for kidnapping slaves, and helping them to their freedom; in fierce debates upon the floors of Congress, and at last in an invasion by armed men of the soil of Virginia, with implements of war to arm the emancipated slave. Page 30. This last event occurred in October, 1859. And there are living men who enroll the leader of that murderous band in the noble Army of Martyrs. God help them! Up to this time the General Government had committed itself to no act which could be construed as offensive and aggressive towards the South. But events rapidly progressed. The abolition spirit had grown with great rapidity and intensity. It soon became a political power, then a political party, and finally succeeded in electing a President upon a platform of principles which was undisguisedly hostile to Southern institutions and property. With the more violent members of the “Republican” party,— for such was their name,— the “Constitution” of the country (a solemn compact between the States,— and the sole guaranty under which the Southern States held their institutions) was denounced as a “Covenant with Hell,” because it protected the South in their property. In some instances State legislation obstructed by penal laws the restoration of slaves, a right to which had been secured in the Constitution. The question now arose,— and it was a question so large, and involving so much that was dear and valuable, that it stirred every heart,— “What shall we do ? Hitherto we have been able to appeal to the General Government. Page 31. That Government will soon be in the hands of men, the most violent of whom will without scruple invade our rights.” “Shall we secede, and live to ourselves? ” said the believers in the right of secession. “Shall we wait, and see whether the incendiary will apply his torch? ” said the more timid and cautious. “Shall we go out from the Union as separate States, or shall we act with others? ” said the more wary co-operant. “Shall we wait until we receive the blow, or shall we give it ourselves? ” said the multitude. Such were the questions that agitated every family circle throughout the country. People answered this question, as people always do, according to their kind— each after his own order. Some thoughtful and far-seeing men saw at a glance that if a movement were to be made, it should be made at once. They argued, that, if you saw a man about to enter your premises with harsh and dangerous intent, it would not be wise to wait until he had struck you down before you took measures of self-defence; and they contended that the attitude of the Republican party, now for the first time in power, with all their past history and utterances to interpret their intended deeds, was hostile, and would be aggressive, and that the Constitution of the country would no longer be a shield and defence to them. Page 32. But, on the other hand, there were other men, equally sincere, who loved the Union with a deep devotion (such men as Bishop Meade and General Lee), and who were willing to sacrifice all, save honor, to their country’s cause. In a word, some were for going out at once, some for waiting, some for temporizing, some few for yielding. Meanwhile, events moved fast. State after State seceded. The believers in State sovereignty esteemed it loyalty to follow the action of their respective States. Following the logical sequence, they scrupled not to seize upon the fortresses at the mouths of their harbors. They argued, and with reason, that these fortresses were erected for the defence of the cities which they protected; they were builded in part with the money of the people whose interests they were designed to guard, and were the common property of the States which they respectively defended. Now, it looked as if the General Government was about to use these forts to injure the Southern States. They were proceeding to garrison and provision them for war— notably, the Fortress of Sumter, which protected the city of Charleston, and also commanded the city with its guns. The Federal Government manœuvred so as to make the South seem to take the initiative in the conflict. Page 33. By an attempt to re-enforce Fort Sumter, which, in effect, meant to batter down Charleston, they compelled the Southern troops to fire the first gun, and thus secured the prestige which, on the surface, made the South appear to be the aggressive party. This fired the whole North, brought out a proclamation for troops by the President of the United States, and thus was fired in turn the heart of the South; and the whole country was plunged into a sectional war with an intensity of passion which has seldom, if ever, had its parallel in history. All thought of continued Union vanished from the mildest and most conservative men. Henceforth the Union man in the South was reckoned to be traitorous, and was so branded. In the Far South, with the exception of a very few, every Southern man of honor and character and standing ranged himself under the banner of his own State. The whole country was in arms, and very soon, as the histories of the time will show, in mourning. The war was fierce, bloody, and protracted. The issue, although at times looking favorable to the South, was not long doubtful. The North had population, arms, and access to the world. The Southern ports were blockaded, powder had to be made or smuggled, and she was shut out from the world to her own resources. Besides, her population, originally smaller than that of the North, was divided. Page 34. Nearly all of the Southern border States furnished men to the Federal Government; and, in the progress of the war, the negroes by tens of thousands were enlisted by their emancipators. Thus, a small remnant fought nearly the whole nation. In the progress of the war, the North refused to exchange prisoners; and, inasmuch as they had the most men, the South suffered most from this barbarous policy, compelling us to keep a large number of prisoners when we had hard work to feed our own men, and then, forsooth, making the prisoners, whom they held, responsible for the alleged privations of the prisoners for whom they would not exchange. The policy was to swap down on the part of the strongest side. But this is a long story, and contemporary history is full of mutual criminations and recriminations. The fact is, however, that the records show more deaths proportionately among the prisoners in Northern hands than among those in our hands; and this is a sufficient answer in the large to the charges of cruelty to prisoners, which you will read of in Northern histories. But I must not dwell longer on this matter. A word, however, upon two points before leaving this subject. Page 35. I spoke of the firing on Fort Sumter. Northern history expatiates on that fact, and iterates and reiterates the words, “The South fired the first gun.” It sounds as if it had some meaning; but it is all sound, and signifies nothing. “Who was the aggressor? Who compelled the first gun to be fired? Who imperilled first the solemn compact between the States? ” The whole antecedent history will fasten the blame elsewhere. If a man attacks me with gun in hand, and I shoot quicker than he does, it is true that I fired first; but, if he had not made the aggressive movement, there would have been no gun fired at all. The approach of the fleet to re-enforce Sumter ignited the match that fired the first gun. Another illustration. A boy puts a chip on his head, and dares another to knock it off. Instead of knocking the chip, suppose he knocks the head, which, if fighting be allowable, is the wisest policy. After the fight, the boy with the chip can say truly that the other hit the first blow. It is true; but, if he had hit the chip first, he would have received the first blow. But, when men are angry, nothing but fight will cool their blood; and fight they did, most lustily. History records no more gallant struggle under more gallant leaders than the South made. The issue being against us, multitudes changed their opinions, and said, “They must have been striving against right, or God would have given them the victory.” Page 36. But such reasoning cannot hold. It proves too much. Right, in the end and long future, will get its reward, but in ways and modes of God’s own ordination, and not after man’s measurements or upon men’s small balances, which are not equal to judge and weigh such magnitudes as are involved in the divine plan with nations. I attempt to rescue a child that has fallen into the sea. I struggle manfully to save it, but I am drowned in making the attempt. It does not follow at all that I did wrong in making the effort to save the child. I would have failed much in duty if I had not made the effort. This is very plain, when applied to a small and familiar matter. It is equally true, if not equally plain, in the greatest matters. We fail to see it in great matters, because we cannot see far enough, and, particularly, because we estimate success by pitifully small standards. A man often saves his whole life by losing his physical, his present, life. Life must be estimated, not only by its extent, but by its intent; not only by its length, but by its breadth and depth. He who gives his life unselfishly for another, or for right or truth or honor, in the true sense of that word, has not lost, but has saved, his life. Page 37. On the other hand, he who can look on, and see right and truth, or even a human life, threatened and imperilled, and make no effort to help, may, in a sense, have saved his life; but he has, in the deepest sense, lost it. He has already lived too long for his own good. This, now, my children, is an illustration, in the small, of great and eternal principles. Never measure duty or right by worldly and utilitarian standards. Some day, I hope, you will rejoice if you shall have to give your life a sacrifice to duty and truth. The life of our dear Lord was a great failure, tried by the worldly standards of His day. But where was there ever such a life, even upon principles of utility, when viewed in the large? When I think of the pure and noble-minded men who died on fields of battle for the South (and I withhold not my meed of recognition of like-minded men who were ranged on the other side),— men whom I knew and loved— Christian men, who gave themselves, life, and all, for what they deemed to be duty,— I cannot hope for any better portion than to be permitted to range myself by their side “on the other banks of the river.” DOMESTIC SLAVERY. Now, a word about another matter that I briefly touched in a former page,— Domestic Slavery! It was the occasion of the war in a certain way, and it was done away with as one of the results of the war. Page 38. The time will probably come when my descendants will look back, and wonder how their grandfathers could have held human beings in bondage. ¹ I am concerned that they who come after me shall have some idea of the institution of slavery as it existed in Virginia; for I was more conversant with its character as displayed in the older States, where it was more patriarchal, less profitable, and in all respects milder, than in the South-western States, where absenteeism, that curse to the laborer, was more common. ¹ If it shall be regarded as an unpardonable offence to have held human beings in bondage, let it be borne in mind that it was an offence shared originally by all the United States. There lies before me, as I write, a little newspaper (about eight by twelve inches in size) entitled “THE NEW ENGLAND WEEKLY JOURNAL.” “ MONDAY, April 8th, 1728.” In the column of advertisements of sermons, tracts, etc., I see the following:— “ A very likely Negro Woman, who can do Household work, and is fit Either for Town or Country Service, about 22 Years of Age, to be sold. Inquire of the Printer hereof.” “ A Very Likely Negro Girl, about 13 or 14 Years of Age, speaks good English, has been in the Country some Years, to be sold. Inquire of the Printer hereof.” (Spelling and capitalization as in the paper.) I have inserted the foregoing advertisements with the hope that they may serve as “conductors” to convey some of the lightning wrath of our Northern unfriends quietly and harmlessly to the ground. The Southern States would never have received cargoes of slaves but for Northern vessels, and Northern people kept them in bondage as long as it was profitable so to keep them. The philanthropy which sweeps away at a breath the wealth of other people, involves a very easy and cheap humanity. Page 39. If you will read the allegations from the Northern side, and at all believe them as truly descriptive of slavery as it existed in the large, you will believe— to draw it mildly— a very large lie. That there were cases of oppression and violence and grievous wrong, is not to be doubted; for some men, in all countries and all ages, will be violent and oppressive— even to their wives and children. But because there have been cases where slaveholders have inflicted cruelty and wrong upon their slaves, it no more proves that cruelty was the characteristic of slaveholders, than it proves that men in the Northern States habitually maltreat their families, because, every now and then, some brute kicks to death a wife or child. People will be to their families— to their wives, children; and servants— what they are themselves. If kind and just in character, they will be just and kind to all around them. Then, superadd to this consideration the fact that men in the large consult their interests, and that it was greatly to their interest to treat their slaves well, and you have, besides the character of the owner, his clearest interest to treat well all his dependants. Slavery— like matrimony from the husband— takes its character from the master. If he be just and kind, his rule will partake of those characteristics. Page 40. So with the father in his family, etc. As an illustration of a certain class of Northern ideas on this subject,— shortly after the war, I met with an honesthearted man from the North. We fell, naturally, into conversation on the subject of domestic slavery. He asked me, “ Is it true that in the South you were accustomed to hitch your negroes to the plough, and drive them? ” He asked the question seriously. I asked him, “How many negroes would it take to draw a plough to any purpose? ”— “Eight or ten, I calculate,” said he. “Well,” said I, “how much is a mule worth? ”— “One hundred dollars,” said he. “How much was a negro? ”— “One thousand dollars,” said he. “Well,” said I, “do you think— to say nothing of our kind feelings towards our negroes— that we had no more sense than to use ten negroes, which were worth ten thousand dollars, to do a work which a mule, costing one hundred dollars, would do better? ”— “Why,” said he, “I never thought of that.”— “Of course you didn’t,” I said: “there are many things of which you never thought on the same subject.” The above is a pretty fair specimen of the notions of some ignorant and fanatical minds, many of which were wider still from the truth. “ Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Reminiscences of RECONSTRUCTION. Book Library: Excellent ! scanned Book copy. At A Georgia Camp Meeting At The Cotton Picker’s Ball “If the South had only wanted to protect slavery . . .” “Southern States were not interested in returning and paying unfair tariffs . . . .” TaxJudas.com Proposed 13th Amendment Marching Through Georgia!

The Recent Past
FROM A SOUTHERN STANDPOINT.
Reminiscences of a Grandfather.

“FORSAN ET HÆC OLIM MEMINISSE JUVABIT.”

BY RICHARD H. WILMER, BISHOP OF ALABAMA.

____________________________________________

NEW YORK: THOMAS WHITTAKER,
2 AND 3 BIBLE HOUSE. 1887.

THIS VOLUME IS DEDICATED TO

The Cause of Truth, Right, and Peace,

IN LOVING MEMORY OF
ALL WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR ITS MAINTENANCE;
AND IN BROTHERLY RECOGNITION OF ALL
WHO LIVE TO VINDICATE AND DEFEND IT.

“ The wisdom which cometh from above
is first pure, then peaceable.”

PRELIMINARY.

Page 10.
But some friends,— partial friends, perhaps,— who have run their eyes over the manuscript, warmly urge its publication, . . .
Yielding to their wishes, I send the volume forth, to add a drop more to the flood of publications which is sweeping on to swift and sure oblivion.
There is one word which I must say at the outset, in order that my language and position may be clearly understood and fairly interpreted.
I speak plainly . . . The spurious charity of these latter days demands from me a degree of reticence, caution, and suppression which I have not exercised in these pages, and which I deem utterly inconsistent with that divine charity which “rejoiceth in the truth.” Men are not candid enough with each other. They will attack each other in secret, but they will not talk face to face.

Page 11.
This may beget a sort of love, and pass for charity, but it is not the love which is “without dissimulation.” In my judgment, many errors abound, and acquire a sort of respectability because they are not candidly and charitably exposed. Truth is not so hard to find as men think. Error is founded in ignorance, prejudice, pride, and passion. Let “knowledge with fervent charity” prevail, and men will be drawn nearer together in heart and mind. All else will fail save charity. Temporary fraternizations,— such as those among the denominations,— where all consent to suppress some conviction by way of a truce, discard the very element of love which “rejoiceth in the truth.” Aggregations of men bound together by mechanical appliances only, fall to pieces for the want of that cement of love which is “the very bond of peace and of all virtues.”

Judged by the modern ideas of charity, I trust that I shall be condemned as an uncharitable man, for I enjoy the ill judgment of some people; but, judged by a higher standard, I hope to stand acquitted before God, even as I am in all conscience, for “ rejoicing in the truth.”

When, then, in these pages I speak of the North and Northern men, I have not in my eye that large body of people whose culture, refinement, and large-hearted generosity challenge my admiration, and has oftentimes elicited my personal gratitude. “ 0, si sic omnes! ”

Page 12.
But I speak of that fanatical, and at times dominant, element, which having waged a destructive war (and for that it becomes me to make no moan), and after having destroyed our wealth, and laid waste our territory, and revolutionized our domestic and political life, persistently aims at our humiliation, still plies us with ignominious epithets, and, to use a vulgar current phrase, “still waves the bloody shirt.”
I was written to some years ago by an editor of the North, who wished to know the reason for the solidarity of the South, and whether I, in my position, could not write or do something to dissolve it. He must have been “an innocent,” or thought me one. The weather at the time was cold beyond precedent, and our waters were frozen over. I replied to him in one sentence: “The solidarity of the South is due to the same cause that just now makes our water solid,— unfriendly breezes from the North.”

Page 13.
No malignant evil was ever remedied by treating it as a matter of no consequence. If there be ever any real movement towards Christian unity, it must be preceded by some clear and distinct conviction of the nature, causes, and guilt of schism.

Page 14.
One chief reason for giving these reminiscences to the public, is that I may help to keep sacred in the memory of the rising generation the traditions of their fathers.  .  . I  have a special fear that Our young people, as they recede farther and farther from our times, will gather their views of the recent past from partisan histories rather than from sacredly preserved traditions. The school-books and histories of our times are, as a general rule, from Northern sources: their authors naturally look at all these matters with other eyes than ours. I cannot endure to think that any descendant of mine shall open, say, a catechism, and find Benedict Arnold, Jefferson Davis, and Robert E. Lee chosen out to exemplify Treason and Rebellion.

Page 15.
It was bruited abroad that there was such a catechism, but I can hardly believe without ocular demonstration, I want Our young people to know what I know,— that the two men last named in the list of “traitors” were men who exemplified through life every trait of honor and loyalty.
Nor can I endure to think that my grandsons shall be set down to read histories which tell them that their ancestors were “tyrants to their servants,” “rebels against their government,” and “traitors to their country.” So far as in me lies, this shall never be; and shame to every man who loves not to pluck the nettles from the graves of his sires, and strew them with flowers!

Page 21. CITIZENSHIP.
There is one matter about which I feel especially solicitous that you should be rightly informed; and that is, the political history of your own country, and section of country. We have passed through, during the last twenty-five years, a mighty revolution. That revolution effected a mighty change in the character of our government and institutions. It is most important for you to understand the merits of that conflict of  ideas which convulsed the minds of the people, North and South, and finally culminated in a sectional war, which turned a million of men to ashes, and covered the whole land with mourning. Even at this present moment, as I write, we seem to walk on molten lava, whose surface is scarcely cooled.

Page 24. THE CONSTITUTION.
WHEN we look back to the early history of the United States, we find that certain colonies, peopled from the British Isles for the most part, were stretched along the Atlantic coast. Disaffection sprang up among the colonists, principally because of taxes laid upon the people, without privilege of representation. By little and little, they came at last to war. The conflict was waged with varying fortunes for some years. Epithets of “rebels” and “traitors,” etc., were as freely applied to our forefathers on the part of the Mother Country, as by the North to ourselves in our so-called “Rebellion.” The issue, as you know, was decided in favor of the revolting colonies, whose “Declaration of Independence” was made good by the arbitrament of war. These colonies, thus set free to govern themselves (their independence as separate States having been acknowledged by Great Britain), soon began to cast about for an alliance among themselves closer than that of the “Articles of Confederation” which they had adopted. The materials to be united were in some respects heterogeneous, their interests somewhat conflicting, and their ideas of the government to be formed widely variant. However, after much debate, they finally united under the “Constitution of the United States,”— the same instrument that now exists, except (besides some amendments made soon after its adoption) the important and radical changes which resulted from the war between the States. I do not purpose going into a minute history of the events which led to this consummation, nor to touch upon the original differences of opinion which required to be harmonized and adjusted before the Constitution found general acceptance and adoption. Two quite equally divided parties struggled for the mastery,— the one contended for a strong central government, the other for a more decided recognition of the sovereignty of the several States. The result was a Constitution which aimed to embody both features, and it required a bloody war to settle the meaning of the Constitution. In other words, the party which could bring the greatest number of soldiers into the field had their own way in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, and thus, practically, the question concerning the power to secede was for the time determined; the question of original right under the Constitution not being, by gunpowder, determinable.

Page 26.
Let me digress for a moment at this point, to pay my willing tribute to the genius of Alexander Hamilton, in my judgment, the largest-minded statesman that this continent has produced. Hamilton was the leader of the Federal party, and contended for a government with such centripetal power that it could not fly to pieces in the revolution of  affairs. Had  his principles fully obtained, and been ingrafted in the Constitution,— or, rather, had been made the framework of the same,— questions of secession could not have well arisen, or at least could not have arisen upon an interpretation of the Constitution. His broad views of human affairs, and his far-seeing sagacity, taught him that all confederated sovereignties tended to consolidation. His views, if they had to the full prevailed, would have rendered impossible the agitation of secession, as a right under the Constitution. Consolidation has taken place, but by war. He wanted it to take place, and to hold its place, by original formation. His ounce of prevention would have saved many pounds of cure. The history of nations, without exception, goes to show that there is no longevity in confederated or united sovereignties,— in proof, the Saxon Heptarchy, the principalities of Germany, the republics of Italy, the Dukedoms of France, etc. But Hamilton’s views did not wholly prevail.

Page 27.
All such differences as existed between him and the opposite party were settled by the adoption of a compromise Constitution, recognizing enough of State sovereignty to keep up the idea of separate and independent action on the part of the several States, and, at the same time, absorbing so much power, defined or implied in the Federal Government, as to cripple the States, and render them helpless in an hour when they might attempt to redress a wrong, or, if that seemed hopeless, to fly for safety— secede was the word used to express the idea. Whether the original Constitution was the best that could have been framed, is one question; how it was really made, is quite another. Had the idea of the Federalists prevailed fully, the question of right to secede could never have arisen. But it did not fully prevail. Thus, antagonistic views existed as germs in the very Constitution itself, and bayonets were called in to skewer the people together. An examination of the present Constitution as amended by war has somewhat of a post-mortem character.

WAR OF THE STATES.
BUT how came the Southern States to secede, and which section of the country must bear the responsibility of the work of its consequent horrors?

Page 26.
A vast question indeed, and one upon which libraries will be written before new events shall have buried this question among other dead issues.

The ablest and fairest exposition of this question, in my judgment, is from the pen of Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States while they lasted. It is a calm and statesmanlike review of the whole subject-matter. Davis will be pilloried in Northern histories as an “arch-rebel,” and traitorous to the core. So much for the truth of partisan history! While, on the contrary, his whole history will show that he was a calm, clear-headed, and large-hearted man, chosen in the hour of need for his known merits, and on the strength of his history, which was not obscure nor ignoble. That he failed, was not extraordinary; that he held out so long, was the marvel. I write from much knowledge of the man. If you would understand him and the history of his times, read his book, “ The Rise and Fall of the Southern Confederacy,”— unanswered and unanswerable, as we of the South think.

But there was a feature in the history of the Southern struggle for independence which you must understand in order to do justice to your ancestors in regard to the part which they felt constrained by their interest, by their sense of personal self-respect, and by their loyalty, to maintain to the end.

Page 29.
Slavery existed in the United States at an early day. It was not confined to the Southern section. Northern vessels brought the slaves from Africa, and they were held in bondage whenever it was found profitable to hold them. The climate of the South best suited the native African, and his labor was found more profitable upon a Southern soil. Consequently, the larger population of slaves were gathered in the Southern section of this country. They constituted the greater part of the wealth of the Southern States. Their status must be provided for in the Constitution, and thus a guaranty be afforded that the Southern States should be protected in the possession of their property. For a while things went on smoothly; but, very soon, strong and fanatical ideas began to take possession of Northern minds. It manifested itself in every possible way,— in efforts to legislate slavery out of the District of Columbia; in efforts to circumscribe the area of slavery by excluding it from the Territories, the common home and property of the peoples of all the States; in incendiary pamphlets; in books of  fiction; in  books for the schoolroom; in organizations for kidnapping slaves, and helping them to their freedom; in fierce debates upon the floors of Congress, and at last in an invasion by armed men of the soil of Virginia, with implements of war to arm the emancipated slave.

Page 30.
This last event occurred in October, 1859. And there are living men who enroll the leader of that murderous band in the noble Army of Martyrs. God help them! Up to this time the General Government had committed itself to no act which could be construed as offensive and aggressive towards the South. But events rapidly progressed. The abolition spirit had grown with great rapidity and intensity. It soon became a political power, then a political party, and finally succeeded in electing a President upon a platform of principles which was undisguisedly hostile to Southern institutions and property. With the more violent members of the “Republican” party,— for such was their name,— the “Constitution” of the country (a solemn compact between the States,— and the sole guaranty under which the Southern States held their institutions) was denounced as a “Covenant with Hell,” because it protected the South in their property. In some instances State legislation obstructed by penal laws the restoration of slaves, a right to which had been secured in the Constitution. The question now arose,— and it was a question so large, and involving so much that was dear and valuable, that it stirred every heart,— “What shall we do ? Hitherto we have been able to appeal to the General Government.

Page 31.
That Government will soon be in the hands of men, the most violent of whom will without scruple invade our rights.” “Shall we secede, and live to ourselves? ” said the believers in the right of secession. “Shall we wait, and see whether the incendiary will apply his torch? ” said the more timid and cautious. “Shall we go out from the Union as separate States, or shall we act with others? ” said the more wary co-operant. “Shall we wait until we receive the blow, or shall we give it ourselves? ” said the multitude. Such were the questions that agitated every family circle throughout the country. People answered this question, as people always do, according to their kind— each after his own order. Some thoughtful and far-seeing men saw at a glance that if a movement were to be made, it should be made at once. They argued, that, if you saw a man about to enter your premises with harsh and dangerous intent, it would not be wise to wait until he had struck you down before you took measures of self-defence; and they contended that the attitude of the Republican party, now for the first time in power, with all their past history and utterances to interpret their intended deeds, was hostile, and would be aggressive, and that the Constitution of the country would no longer be a shield and defence to them.

Page 32.
But, on the other hand, there were other men, equally sincere, who loved the Union with a deep devotion (such men as Bishop Meade and General Lee), and who were willing to sacrifice all, save honor, to their country’s cause. In a word, some were for going out at once, some for waiting, some for temporizing, some few for yielding. Meanwhile, events moved fast. State after State seceded. The believers in State sovereignty esteemed it loyalty to follow the action of their respective States. Following the logical sequence, they scrupled not to seize upon the fortresses at the mouths of their harbors. They argued, and with reason, that these fortresses were erected for the defence of the cities which they protected; they were builded in part with the money of the people whose interests they were designed to guard, and were the common property of the States which they respectively defended. Now, it looked as if the General Government was about to use these forts to injure the Southern States. They were proceeding to garrison and provision them for war— notably, the Fortress of Sumter, which protected the city of Charleston, and also commanded the city with its guns. The Federal Government manœuvred so as to make the South seem to take the initiative in the conflict.

Page 33.
By an attempt to re-enforce Fort Sumter, which, in effect, meant to batter down Charleston, they compelled the Southern troops to fire the first gun, and thus secured the prestige which, on the surface, made the South appear to be the aggressive party. This fired the whole North, brought out a proclamation for troops by the President of the United States, and thus was fired in turn the heart of the South; and the whole country was plunged into a sectional war with an intensity of passion which has seldom, if ever, had its parallel in history. All thought of continued Union vanished from the mildest and most conservative men. Henceforth the Union man in the South was reckoned to be traitorous, and was so branded. In the Far South, with the exception of a very few, every Southern man of honor and character and standing ranged himself under the banner of his own State. The whole country was in arms, and very soon, as the histories of the time will show, in mourning. The war was fierce, bloody, and protracted. The issue, although at times looking favorable to the South, was not long doubtful. The North had population, arms, and access to the world. The Southern ports were blockaded, powder had to be made or smuggled, and she was shut out from the world to her own resources. Besides, her population, originally smaller than that of the North, was divided.

Page 34.
Nearly all of the Southern border States furnished men to the Federal Government; and, in the progress of the war, the negroes by tens of thousands were enlisted by their emancipators. Thus, a small remnant fought nearly the whole nation. In the progress of the war, the North refused to exchange prisoners; and, inasmuch as they had the most men, the South suffered most from this barbarous policy, compelling us to keep a large number of prisoners when we had hard work to feed our own men, and then, forsooth, making the prisoners, whom they held, responsible for the alleged privations of the prisoners for whom they would not exchange. The policy was to swap down on the part of the strongest side. But this is a long story, and contemporary history is full of mutual criminations and recriminations. The fact is, however, that the records show more deaths proportionately among the prisoners in Northern hands than among those in our hands; and this is a sufficient answer in the large to the charges of cruelty to prisoners, which you will read of in Northern histories. But I must not dwell longer on this matter. A word, however, upon two points before leaving this subject.

Page 35.
I spoke of the firing on Fort Sumter. Northern history expatiates on that fact, and iterates and reiterates the words, “The South fired the first gun.” It sounds as if it had some meaning; but it is all sound, and signifies nothing. “Who was the aggressor? Who compelled the first gun to be fired? Who imperilled first the solemn compact between the States? ” The whole antecedent history will fasten the blame elsewhere. If a man attacks me with gun in hand, and I shoot quicker than he does, it is true that I fired first; but, if he had not made the aggressive movement, there would have been no gun fired at all. The approach of the fleet to re-enforce Sumter ignited the match that fired the first gun. Another illustration. A boy puts a chip on his head, and dares another to knock it off. Instead of knocking the chip, suppose he knocks the head, which, if fighting be allowable, is the wisest policy. After the fight, the boy with the chip can say truly that the other hit the first blow. It is true; but, if he had hit the chip first, he would have received the first blow. But, when men are angry, nothing but fight will cool their blood; and fight they did, most lustily. History records no more gallant struggle under more gallant leaders than the South made. The issue being against us, multitudes changed their opinions, and said, “They must have been striving against right, or God would have given them the victory.”

Page 36.
But such reasoning cannot hold. It proves too much. Right, in the end and long future, will get its reward, but in ways and modes of God’s own ordination, and not after man’s measurements or upon men’s small balances, which are not equal to judge and weigh such magnitudes as are involved in the divine plan with nations. I attempt to rescue a child that has fallen into the sea. I struggle manfully to save it, but I am drowned in making the attempt. It does not follow at all that I did wrong in making the effort to save the child. I would have failed much in duty if I had not made the effort. This is very plain, when applied to a small and familiar matter. It is equally true, if not equally plain, in the greatest matters. We fail to see it in great matters, because we cannot see far enough, and, particularly, because we estimate success by pitifully small standards. A man often saves his whole life by losing his physical, his present, life. Life must be estimated, not only by its extent, but by its intent; not only by its length, but by its breadth and depth. He who gives his life unselfishly for another, or for right or truth or honor, in the true sense of that word, has not lost, but has saved, his life.

Page 37.
On the other hand, he who can look on, and see right and truth, or even a human life, threatened and imperilled, and make no effort to help, may, in a sense, have saved his life; but he has, in the deepest sense, lost it. He has already lived too long for his own good. This, now, my children, is an illustration, in the small, of great and eternal principles. Never measure duty or right by worldly and utilitarian standards. Some day, I hope, you will rejoice if you shall have to give your life a sacrifice to duty and truth. The life of our dear Lord was a great failure, tried by the worldly standards of His day. But where was there ever such a life, even upon principles of utility, when viewed in the large? When I think of the pure and noble-minded men who died on  fields of battle for the South (and I withhold not my meed of recognition of like-minded men who were ranged on the other side),— men  whom I  knew and loved— Christian men, who gave themselves, life, and all, for what they deemed to be duty,— I cannot hope for any better portion than to be permitted to range myself by their side “on the other banks of the river.”

DOMESTIC SLAVERY.
Now, a word about another matter that I briefly touched in a former page,— Domestic Slavery! It was the occasion of the war in a certain way, and it was done away with as one of the results of the war.

Page 38.
The time will probably come when my descendants will look back, and wonder how their grandfathers could have held human beings in bondage. ¹ I  am concerned that they who come after me shall have some idea of the institution of slavery as it existed in Virginia; for I was more conversant with its character as displayed in the older States, where it was more patriarchal, less profitable, and in all respects milder, than in the South-western States, where absenteeism, that curse to the laborer, was more common.

¹ If it shall be regarded as an unpardonable offence to have held human beings in bondage, let it be borne in mind that it was an offence shared originally by all the United States.
There lies before me, as I write, a little newspaper (about eight by twelve inches in size) entitled

“THE NEW ENGLAND WEEKLY JOURNAL.”
“ MONDAY, April 8th, 1728.”

In the column of advertisements of sermons, tracts, etc., I see the following:—

“ A very likely Negro Woman, who can do Household work, and is fit Either for Town or Country Service, about 22 Years of Age, to be sold. Inquire of the Printer hereof.”

“ A Very Likely Negro Girl, about 13 or 14 Years of Age, speaks good English, has been in the Country some Years, to be sold. Inquire of the Printer hereof.”
(Spelling and capitalization as in the paper.)

I have inserted the foregoing advertisements with the hope that they may serve as “conductors” to convey some of the lightning wrath of our Northern unfriends quietly and harmlessly to the ground. The Southern States would never have received cargoes of slaves but for Northern vessels, and Northern people kept them in bondage as long as it was profitable so to keep them. The philanthropy which sweeps away at a breath the wealth of other people, involves a very easy and cheap humanity.

Page 39.
If you will read the allegations from the Northern side, and at all believe them as truly descriptive of slavery as it existed in the large, you will believe— to draw it mildly— a very large lie. That there were cases of oppression and violence and grievous wrong, is not to be doubted; for some men, in all countries and all ages, will be violent and oppressive— even to their wives and children. But because there have been cases where slaveholders have inflicted cruelty and wrong upon their slaves, it no more proves that cruelty was the characteristic of slaveholders, than it proves that men in the Northern States habitually maltreat their families, because, every now and then, some brute kicks to death a wife or child. People will be to their families— to their wives, children; and servants— what they are themselves. If kind and just in character, they will be just and kind to all around them. Then, superadd to this consideration the fact that men in the large consult their interests, and that it was greatly to their interest to treat their slaves well, and you have, besides the character of the owner, his clearest interest to treat well all his dependants. Slavery— like matrimony from the husband— takes its character from the master. If he be just and kind, his rule will partake of those characteristics.

Page 40.
So with the father in his family, etc. As an illustration of a certain class of Northern ideas on this subject,— shortly after the war, I met with an honesthearted man from the North. We fell, naturally, into conversation on the subject of domestic slavery. He asked me, “ Is it true that in the South you were accustomed to hitch your negroes to the plough, and drive them? ” He asked the question seriously. I asked him, “How many negroes would it take to draw a plough to any purpose? ”— “Eight or ten, I calculate,” said he. “Well,” said I, “how much is a mule worth? ”— “One hundred dollars,” said he. “How much was a negro? ”— “One thousand dollars,” said he. “Well,” said I, “do you think— to say nothing of our kind feelings towards our negroes— that we had no more sense than to use ten negroes, which were worth ten thousand dollars, to do a work which a mule, costing one hundred dollars, would do better? ”— “Why,” said he, “I never thought of that.”— “Of course you didn’t,” I said: “there are many things of which you never thought on the same subject.” The above is a pretty fair specimen of the notions of some ignorant and fanatical minds, many of which were wider still from the truth.

“ Uncle Tom’s Cabin.”
Reminiscences of RECONSTRUCTION.
Book Library: Excellent ! scanned Book copy.

At A Georgia Camp Meeting
At The Cotton Picker’s Ball

“If the South had only wanted to protect slavery . . .”
“Southern States were not interested in returning and paying unfair tariffs . . . .”
TaxJudas.com

Proposed 13th Amendment

Marching Through Georgia!

The Cause of Truth, Right, and Peace,

“ The wisdom which cometh from above is first pure, then peaceable.”

“ The wisdom which cometh from above
is first pure, then peaceable.”