Sherman's Army of Emancipation in Georgia

From: Bernhard1848@att.net

The African slaves who saw Sherman's rabble in blue as "agents of God" would quickly learn that they were really petty criminals who would rape, burn and plunder regardless of color, and hang black servants from their thumbs in order to elicit confessions about hidden valuables. It is also well known that the freedmen's "day of jubilee" in the North were illusory; those States had already erected sturdy laws and barriers to keep Southern black's from emigrating, including Lincoln's own State of Illinois.

But the newly-freed slaves would have these looters as examples to follow as the Georgia Capitol building in Milledgeville fell under their ruthless hands, and quite unfortunately saw how Northerners could conduct themselves as "legislators."

Bernhard Thuersam, Executive Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
Post Office Box 328
Wilmington, NC 28402
www.CFHI.net

Sherman's Army of Emancipation in Georgia:

“By the time their brief stay in Madison had ended, Sherman, Howard and Slocum were giving sober thought to a problem which had been growing steadily since they left Atlanta. What were they going to do with the hordes of Negroes who wanted to march with the troops to what they knew vaguely as “freedom?” In their confused minds they had generated and blossomed the firm belief that all they had to do when the Yankees came along was fall into line, with their squalling babies, their bleating, barking animals and their variegated personal possessions and follow the liberators to Paradise. At almost every crossroads community, and indeed at almost every plantation, there would be droves of them, eager, ready and waiting to join the procession. Many read deep religious meaning into the events they were witnessing. To them these marching men in blue were agents of God sent to earth to end their earthly troubles.

It never occurred to them that they might not be wanted or that there might not be enough food for both them and the army. Nor did they give a thought to where they would go, how they would be treated once they got there or what would happen to them eventually in that strange land in the North about which they had been dreaming, but about which they knew nothing. It took some strong talk to dissuade them from going along. Many who went anyhow soon wished they hadn’t.

They (Sherman’s troops) spread desolation broadcast---taking everything in their way in the breadth of about 20 miles. Corn, fodder, meal, flour, horses, mules, hogs, cattle, sheep, poultry of every description, servants that could be enticed and forced off, and these in great numbers, (were taken)…we heard of a great many private dwellings, gin houses, and much cotton burnt by the enemy on their different routes---some within sight; also that several private citizens were shot….In the country, families were frequently ill-treated and their houses sacked.

The Capitol building (in Milledgeville) was spared (from burning). General Slocum posted guards for the protection of private homes, but the troops nevertheless enjoyed full freedom in many, and in the Capitol and places of business. In the State Library on the first floor of the Capitol, Major Connolly looked on in strong disapproval, though without protesting, while a mob (of drunken soldiers and Negroes) attacked the accumulation of valuable volumes and carried away what struck their fancies. He blamed his commander in chief for allowing such a thing to happen…”Sherman will, some day, regret that he permitted this library to be destroyed and plundered.”

From other rooms drunken soldiers and Negroes grabbed up handfuls of valuable fossils and mineral specimens. Many left with armfuls of Georgia State bonds and paper currency, which they found in the treasurer’s office. One colored man, dazzled by all this wealth, shouted his delight: “Bress de Lord, we’re richer dan poor massa now!” Soon the soldiers and Negroes fell to fighting amongst themselves for the treasures.

(Sherman’s) troops, satiated with food and leisure became bored, as armies do when they stop marching. So somebody suggested a mock session of the Georgia House of Representatives, using the seats, podium, gavel and other official paraphernalia left behind…The session opened with a round of drinking. A “Committee on Federal Relations” was appointed and retired to a committee room. Its members forgot all about Federal relations for a while and entered into an animated and noisy discussion of the comparative merits of various brands of (stolen) whiskey.

The “legislators” waiting for the “committee’s” report were not idle. General Kilpatrick, whose cavalrymen had a reputation for heavy drinking and ruthless treatment of civilians and their property, kept them in high hilarity with recitals of his gallant campaigns against enemy wine cellars and whiskey storerooms. They had managed to draw up some resolutions….the Georgia Ordinance of Secession was termed “highly indiscreet and injudicious,” a “damned farce,” which is hereby repealed and abrogated.” They promised that Sherman’s men “will play the devil with the Ordinance and the State itself”…and also whip the State into the Union.

(Those 163 Days: A Southern Account of Sherman’s March, John M. Gibson, Bramhall House, 1961, pp. 45-51)

Suspect in shooting over confederate flag arrested
 

By Emanuel Cavallaro
Staff Writer
Thursday, August 14, 2008

Springfield, Ohio — Authorities have arrested a man suspected in a July shooting incident that was connected to a dispute over a confederate flag.

Investigators with the Clark County Sheriff's office arrested Frederick A. Griffin Jr. without incident at his 1215 West Liberty St. home on Thursday, August 14.

The 18-year-old Griffin is suspected in a July 28 shooting of 27-year-old Joshua Knox. The shooting incident apparently stemmed from an argument about a confederate flag Knox's cousin was carrying at the Clark County Fair. Knox later told the News-Sun he was neither at the fair that day nor was he involved in the argument.

Knox said that on the evening of the shooting about 15 people he didn't recognize showed up at his cousin's house at 43 1/2 Jamestown Road in South Charleston, following a series of threatening phone-calls to the house throughout the day.

When Knox entered the house with a baseball bat and asked the people to leave, he got into a brief struggle, after which someone shot him in the upper thigh with a small caliber firearm.

"I heard the shot and I felt my leg was burning," Knox later said. He was treated and released from the hospital the same day

Copyright © 2008 Springfield News-Sun

Student fights Anderson Co. Confederate flag ban
 

Friday, August 15, 2008

With all the rotten news out there, here's something to shed a little ray of hope. A young Southerner in Knoxville endured multiple suspensions for wearing a Southern pride shirt to school. The case goes back for years, but he's still fighting. His comments this week display the Southern fighting spirit that many thought had been brainwashed out of the present generation:

Outside court Thursday, Tommy Defoe, a former student, said, "They're trying to say the Confederate battle flag is offensive to others and it's not. They can't prove that it is, you know. I mean, it's my heritage. It makes me mad that they would say that about it."

Mr. Defoe, you deserve a salute from Southerners everywhere. Deo Vindice!

Mistrial declared in Confederate Flag case
 

Posted: Aug 15, 2008
Reporter: Stephen McLamb

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT)-- After twelve hours of deliberations over three days, a federal judge declares a mistrial in the case of an Anderson County student who filed suit after not being allowed to wear clothing with confederate symbols to school.

Tommy DeFoe is disappointed the jury could not reach the verdict he wanted, but that's not stopping him.

The court will have to set a new trial date and do it all over again.

For DeFoe, he may not have won the war, but he feels at least he's won a battle.

"If I hadn't have stood up for my rights, everybody else's right, hadn't have stood up for the South and the Confederate flag nobody else would."

Tommy DeFoe says his commitment to his cause is as strong as ever, even after a federal judge declared a mistrial after jurors said they could not reach a unanimous verdict.

But DeFoe's attorney Van Irion believes it was close.

"Based on juror reactions during the trail the jurors were for our side and that there was one we were pretty sure was pretty adamant against us."

Defense attorney Arthur Knight disagrees saying he doesn't believe Irion knows what the jury's positions were, but Irion he they offered to lower the bar and let the jurors continue deliberating for a less than unanimous verdict but the defense declined.

Knight says, "Maybe this is just my Christian background but that's maybe a little bit more gambling than I like to do."

As the parties wait for a new trial date, could there be a settlement?

Anderson County School Board Chariman Dr. John Burrell says, "I don't think we can settle as long as we have the same policy with the Board of Education."

Because they didn't lose, Irion hopes this will at least put other school districts banning the flag on notice.

Irion says, "If you're banning things based on the fact it's offensive, that violates the Constitution."

So for now, DeFoe hopes to pull back, reorganize and one day be back on the battlefield.

DeFoe says, "Nobody else would because nobody's going to do it because everybody's scared of them and I ain't scared of them, and this ain't overwith. It ain't over.”

We attempted to talk to five of the eight jurors after the trail to find out just how many people were holding up a unanimous verdict but they declined comment.

Irion hopes the court will set a new trial date next week.

Gray Television, Inc. - Copyright © 2002-2008

JUDGE DECLARES MISTRIAL IN TENNESSEE FLAG CASE
 

Saturday, August 16, 2008

KNOXVILLE, TN – Federal Judge Thomas Varlan today declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury in the case of Tommy Defoe, a former Anderson County High School student who sued his school board over its ban of Confederate clothing and symbols. Significantly, according to SLRC records, this was the first Confederate flag school free speech case actually to go to a jury this generation.

The eight-person Jury had deliberated for a total of 13 hours over three days after getting the case on Wednesday afternoon.

Defoe’s attorneys, former Southern Legal Resource Center board member Van Irion and SLRC Chief Trial Counsel Kirk Lyons, immediately stated they will seek a new trial. According to Lyons, Varlan will hold a status conference in 2-3 weeks.

“Short of actually winning in this first round, we are now absolutely where we want to be,” said Lyons. “This shows how strong a case we have, and now we get to do it again with another jury. Tommy Defoe says “Bring it on!”

Reports indicated the jury was hung at 7-1 in favor of Defoe. Witnesses who had observed the trial closely intuited that the seven pro-flag votes included four transplanted Yankee jury members, with the lone holdout being a local Tennessean. “That’s speculation, of course, but it’s educated speculation,” said SLRC Executive Director Roger McCredie.

From behind the lines a report and plea for assistance

From: tandpam@shawneelink.net

All,

I have been greatly lacking in posting, but certainly not in trying to stay in touch with what is going on in the Cause.

A skinny update would be, I am trying to work two jobs, and still play music at night. Pam was directed by her doctor to give up her city clerks position, because the added stress was nearing the point of her stroking out. If that wasn't enough my momma has been in and out of the hospital so many times of late, I have lost track, and we are running the roads between here and her home doing our best to help out.

Happenings at Mole Church have been anything but dull as well. With the recent influx of gangsta trash from upstate moving into our tiny community (relative to the new prison here), we have had more than our share of skirmishes. Gang life has actually become a part of this once sleepy little oilfield and farming community. You see them everyday, with their baggy pants and underwear showing, their $300 sneakers, and that rap crap blaring from whatever they are driving. Following in tow are the little white trash wannabees lost souls. I would imagine they are the ones actually doing the bad deeds. Such as, the kicking in of our backdoor, the turning over of the 300 pound concrete bench in the memorial area damaging it all to hell, the latching on to all three flag poles at once bending them so badly that I took the center one completely down, and the remaining two look as if they have been through a hurricane. These are just a few of many incidents we have experienced since spring.

We have filed several police reports, but with only one officer and he working a part time schedule at that and most of the problems occurring in the wee hours of the morning, catching the little bastards in action has not happened. But it will eventually happen I promise y'all that!

Pam and I , are back to sleeping in shifts, which is not the best way to get rested for the following work day yet, it does provide a little more sense of security when one knows the other is on picket line.

We had it too good up here for too long I guess. We've had the respect of most of the community for years from our acts of charity to various community organizations with fundraisers and benefit concerts and such. But, everyone knows it only takes one bad apple to spoil the lot.

We have decided that the logical move is to fence the Memorial area in. Fences, like locks do not necessarily keep the bad guys out, but it should make them think twice, as it is not as easy to scale a fence in escape as it is to run away when the area is wide open as it is at this time.

When the fence is up, I hope to be able to replace the flag poles. My plan is to build new ones out of used 2 inch oilfield pipe. There will be no bending them like they did the aluminum ones.

I know times are hard all over for nearly everyone. But if you deem our efforts of the past 9 years of honouring our venerable CSA vets buried here worthy, and your heart tells you to, and if you can without placing a burden on your own family, then I ask for any financial assistance we can receive. Be it even a couple damnyankee dollars. If you wish to help please send a check in any amount payable to Behind Enemy Lines, earmark the check "for memorial renovation" . I give you my word that every penny will go to the memorial area. We need to raise somewhere in the area of $350, for the picket fence, the flag poles, repairs to the bench, and an additional security light.

I thank you in advance on behalf of my family and myself, and apologize for the length of this report.

Blessin's

T Warren, Heritage Officer Capt James Knox camp 2022 Ga Division SCV
425 Jonathon Street
Bridgeport, IL. 62417

Good intentions are becoming

From: torpenhow@charter.net

RE: Condescension isn't becoming

<<

/\/.\/\/. COMMENTS: I live in greater Greenville SC but missed this letter to the editor of the Greenville News since I don't touch daily newspapers if I can help it (the chemical detox is so complicated, due to their poison content). Good for Lewis Wallenzine for writing it. Perhaps he was being deliberately ironic in referring to "a mutual compromise between state leaders and the NAACP". It's certainly true in that the people (i.e. voters and taxpayers) weren’t asked their opinion.

What we have is a heritage BETRAYAL. Instead of the politicians doing what the people obviously wanted, what happened was analogous to a very public "debate" in which a gang of thugs argue that the police should burglarize a home for them, with the police at length agreeing to do it.

There's your "compromise", South Carolina-style.

I compulsively set the record straight about this, in hopes of offering "values clarification" for any fence-sitters.

Jury mulling dress code involving Confederate flag

From: vaproto@optonline.net

http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-37/121876375541510.xml&storylist=alabamanews

My God! Either the American public has gotten too stupid to live or we’re so caught up in political correctness and fearful of “the race card” that we have literally ceased to function! "I think it is extremely difficult for lay individuals on juries to decide complex constitutional questions, and I think that is being borne out in this case," school board attorney Arthur S. Knight III said. What an ass! “Complex constitutional questions?!” What complex constitutional questions! Where in the Constitution is there any reference to “being offended”? But there’s one hell of a big reference to freedom of speech and expression – it’s called the First (not the Second or the Third or the Fifth) Amendment! What is going on here! The Judge should have told these folks that “being offended” is a right nor is “offending” someone a crime. If rioting breaks out because someone is or some people are “offended”, then they are the criminals, not the person whose clothing caused their little minds to implode!

Since when did extortion become an accepted social strategy? Since the “civil rights” movement, I guess.

Val

DIALOGUE ON WHO STARTED THE WAR/WHO WAS THE AGGRESSOR

From: mtgriffith1@yahoo.com

Mike: Ok, so you’re a typical Lincoln apologist, the kind that someone is likely to encounter in the online Civil War discussion groups.

Ulysses: Yeap.

Mike: Ok, how can you say the South started the war when the South tried to establish peaceful relations with the U.S., sent a peace delegation to negotiate those relations and also to establish close trade relations, offered to pay compensation for all federal installations in the South, offered to pay its share of the national debt, and was not the one to send an unwanted military force into territory that the other side claimed as its own?

Ulysses: Fort Sumter! The Confederates fired on Fort Sumter.

Mike: But no was killed. Plus, the South offered to pay for the fort, allowed the federal troops there to leave in peace, and continued to express its desire to be allowed to go its own way in peace. How was that event a justification for a massive invasion? The U.S. has suffered far more serious attacks on federal entities without resorting to an invasion in response. So how does the bloodless attack on Sumter mean the South started the war?

Ulysses: The South fired the first shot.

Mike: Well, yes, in response to the pending arrival of an unwanted, armed federal naval convoy.

Ulysses: Well, uh. . . .

Mike: And why was that convoy heading toward Sumter anyway? Why did it include a warship, hundreds of troops, and a huge amount of ammo? Why didn’t Lincoln just withdraw the garrison from the fort and accept the Confederacy’s offer for peaceful relations and close trade relations?

Ulysses: The South was resisting federal authority! Lincoln was bound by law to enforce federal authority!

Mike: Where in the Constitution was Lincoln prohibited from allowing the Southern states to leave in peace as long as they paid their share of the national debt and paid compensation for federal installations in the South? Where in the Constitution does it say a state can’t revoke its ratification? Or that ratification is irrevocable? Or even that the Union was supposed to be permanent? Or that the federal government had the right to force a state to remain in the Union against its will?

Ulysses: Uh, ummm, well, uh . . . oh yeah, the Supremacy Clause!

Mike: That just says the Constitution is the supreme law of the land for all states that belong to the Union.

Ulysses: It doesn’t say “for all states that belong to the Union”!

Mike: But that’s the clear meaning in the context of the rest of the document. When Rhode Island and North Carolina still had not ratified the Constitution, were they bound by the Supremacy Clause?

Ulysses: Well, no, of course not. They hadn’t joined the Union yet. But once they joined the Union, they were bound by it forever!

Mike: Again, where in the Constitution does it say that a state could not revoke its ratification? Where does it say the Union was supposed to be permanent?

Ulysses: Ummm, well, hold on. . . . Uh, well, uhhh. . . .

Mike: Let me save you some time: The Constitution contains not word about prohibiting a state from rescinding its ratification. And twice at the constitutional convention the founding fathers rejected proposals to allow the federal government to use force to compel the obedience of a state. Further, the 10th Amendment says that all rights and powers not granted to the federal government remain with the states and with the people. Since the power to compel a state to remain in the Union is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, the logical conclusion is that the states retained the right to withdraw from the Union. So what right did Lincoln have to send an unwanted armed naval convoy to Fort Sumter?

Ulysses: Well, the South had seized several federal installations!

Mike: Only after Major Anderson’s garrison destroyed the guns at Fort Moultrie and occupied Fort Sumter.

Ulysses: Garrison was merely moving his men to another *federal* installation.

Mike: But the citizens of SC had voted to rescind their ratification and to resume the independent status that they possessed before ratification. Under the original American concept of the people’s sovereignty, the citizens of each state were the ultimate sovereign for their state. So once they exercised their sacred right to determine the governance of their state and to withdrew their state from the Union, federal authority ceased to exist in their state.

Ulysses: No, the people’s sovereignty meant that the people of all the states as a whole were sovereign, not as citizens of their respective states.

Mike: Where do you see that in the Constitution?

Ulysses: Uh, well, Daniel Webster and then Abraham Lincoln talked about it.

Mike: But no such concept is found in the Constitution. When the Constitution was ratified, what concept of the people’s sovereignty was in operation? Madison explained at length that the decision of the citizens in one state was not binding on the citizens of any other state and that the Constitution was not ratified by the people as a whole but by the people as citizens of their respective states.

Ulysses: Huh? Where did he say that?

Mike: Federalist Paper No. 39: “. . . this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. “

And years later he corrected Webster on this very point when Webster was spouting the “one people” nonsense:

“It is fortunate when disputed theories, can be decided by undisputed facts. And here the undisputed fact is, that the Constitution was made by the people, but as embodied into the several States, who were parties to it; and therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity.” (Letter from James Madison to Daniel Webster, March 15, 1833)

And notice that he added that the Constitution was “therefore made by the States in their highest authoritative capacity.”

Ulysses: Uh . . . ummm . . . well, but the states weren’t sovereign before they joined the Union. Lincoln said so!

Mike: But the federal union was created when nine states ratified the Constitution, and Madison said the states made the Constitution “in their highest authoritative capacity.” In fact, there would have been no constitutional convention in the first place if the states hadn’t called one and sent delegates to it.

Ulysses: Uh . . . humm . . . . uhhhhh. . . . But the Union existed before the Constitution. The Union was created when the Declaration of Independence was issued. And then there was the union under the Articles of Confederation.

Mike: But the DOI itself said the states were “free and independent states.” Have you read the DOI? Do you know it says that?

Ulysses: Ummm, well. . . .

Mike: Indeed, the states themselves argued they were sovereign before the DOI was issued, and several of them functioned as sovereign entities well before the DOI was published. Additionally, the AOC union was very different than the federal union. Furthermore, the Articles of Confederation acknowledged that each state “retained” its *sovereignty.* You can’t “retain” what you don’t already have.”

Samuel Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a justice on the Supreme Court under George Washington, said that even as colonies the states were "each of them . . . a sovereign and independent state” and “that each of them had a right to govern itself by its own authority and its own laws, without any control from any other power on earth” (Ware v. Hylton, 1796, 3 Dallas 224).

In addition, Madison said the states formed the federal union “in their sovereign capacity” and that “there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide” if the “compact made by them” had been violated:

“The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority, of the constitution, that it rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated and consequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” (The Virginia Report of 1799-1800, Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798)

Ulysses: Umm, well, uh, but that’s only if all the states act in unison.

Mike: You’re simply restating the “one people” heresy. That’s directly contrary to the original concept of the people’s sovereignty and to how the Constitution itself was ratified. You’re simply assuming that Madison intended to imply that all the states had to act to interpose or none of them could, just because he used the plural. However, he used the plural when he said “formed by the sanction of the states” and “made by them” but specified that the union was formed “by the sanction of the states, GIVEN BY EACH IN ITS SOVEREIGN CAPACITY.”

The “states” plural formed the Union, but “each” state, singular, did so in its sovereign capacity. So plural usage does not mean only plural action. Look what Madison said in Federalist Paper No. 39:

“Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.”

So, if each state gave its assent “in its sovereign capacity” and if “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution” was considered “as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act,” how, then, can you argue that no state could withdraw from the Union without the consent of all the other states? If each state had the sole and absolute right to decide to join the Union, then each state has the sole and absolute right to decide to leave the Union. That’s just basic logic.

Ulysses: Uh. . . . Uh. . . . But the South still fired the first shot! So the South started the war!

Mike: Using this logic, we should label the American Patriots as the aggressors and the British as the peacemakers, and blame the Patriots for starting the Revolutionary War.

Ulysses: Now that’s absurd. The Patriots would not have fought if the British hadn’t tried to keep the colonies in the empire against their will. . . . Uh . . . wait . . . uh, hold it! Ummm. . . .

Mike: A very good point. And would the South have fought if Lincoln had not sent armies into the South to try to force the Southern states to remain in the Union against their will?

Ulysses: That’s different!

Mike: How?

Ulysses: The Patriots agreed that they were rebels. There’s a right of revolution but not of secession.

Mike: One, the Patriots did not agree that they were rebels. They resented that label. The Patriots called the British “unjust invaders,” even though the British claimed they were merely enforcing British authority. Two, the Patriots claimed the colonies had a natural right to be independent and that the British should let the colonies go in peace. Sound familiar?

Ulysses: Uh. . . . Humm. . . . The South shouldn’t have fired the first shot. When they did that, they gave Lincoln the right to invade.

Mike: So resisting the control of a government that you have democratically voted to leave gives that government the right to invade you? Using that logic, the British were morally in the right and the Patriots were morally wrong. Why didn’t Lincoln just allow the South to leave in peace as it wanted to do?

Ulysses: Firing on a federal fort isn’t a “peaceful” act!

Mike: But we’ve already established that the fort was no longer federal property after the citizens of SC voted to revoke their ratification of the Constitution. And the Confederates only fired on the fort when they found out that an armed federal naval convoy was en route to the fort.

Let’s put it this way: If the Patriots had attacked Long Island outside Charleston harbor after the British seized it on June 7th, 1776, if they had found out that a British convoy was en route to resupply the occupying garrison, would that have made the British invasion morally justified? Would the sending of an unwanted armed British naval convoy have been a “peaceful act” or an act of aggression?

Ulysses: Uh. . . . Ummm. . . . Well, but . . . uh. . . . You see, uh. . . .

Mike: Be honest, did Lincoln have any intention of allowing the South to leave in peace?

Ulysses: Well, uh, no.

Mike: Right. Exactly. And did the South have any intention of invading the North to force the Northern states to join the Confederacy?

Ulysses: Well, uh, actually, uh, no.

Mike: That’s right, they didn’t. So what was Lincoln really trying to accomplish by sending an armed naval convoy to Sumter? I mean, if this was really about enforcing federal authority at Fort Sumter, why didn’t Lincoln simply send down a large naval force and retake Sumter after the Confederate attack? Why did he launch an invasion of Virginia in response to a bloodless attack on Fort Sumter?

Ulysses: Uh. . . .

Mike: And, furthermore, isn’t it true—obviously true--that Lincoln sent the convoy because he wanted to provoke an attack so he could use the attack as an excuse to invade? Why did Lincoln tell his friend Orville Browning, “The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter -- it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could” (Oliver Browning Diary, July 3, 1861)? Why did he tell Gustavus Fox, “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result” (Letter from Abraham Lincoln to Gustavus Fox, May 1, 1861)?

I mean, come on. We can both read English: “The plan succeeded. . . . You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter.” So Lincoln’s sending the convoy to Sumter really had nothing to do with getting food to the garrison there, did it?

Ulysses: Uh. . . . Well. . . .

Mike: So let me ask you again, since Lincoln had no intention of letting the South go in peace, and since he sent the convoy to Sumter precisely in order to provoke an attack so he could use it as a pretext for an invasion, how can you say the South started the war? Didn’t the war really start when Lincoln decided not to let the South go in peace? Wasn’t the first act of real act of aggression Lincoln’s sending an unwanted, armed naval convoy to Sumter?

Ulysses: Uh . . . . Humm. . . .

Mike: I mean, again, if Lincoln had not sent federal armies into the South, would there have been a war?

Ulysses: Well, no.

Mike: Exactly. The side that starts the war is the side that provokes the other side and then uses the response to that provocation as a pretext to invade the other side. That side is the aggressor, not the side that is provoked and that defends itself against an invasion.

Ulysses: Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. . . .

Mike Griffith
Civil War website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id163.htm
http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/griffitharticles2.htm

Correction on my post

From: vaproto@optonline.net

Chuck,

The word “not” was left out of my post about the student’s trial:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/SouthernHeritage/read/message.html?mid=1721594038&sort=d&start=3709

The sentence reads:

The Judge should have told these folks that “being offended” is (NOT) a right nor is “offending” someone a crime.

I probably left it out in the original – I was a tad angry at the time and probably didn’t read it over carefully enough. I also don’t know if it can or should be corrected, but I thought I’d point it out.

Val

Re: T Warren

From: btzoumas@bellsouth.net

Chuck,

I used to be amazed that those who claim the "Noble Banner of the South" is all about "hate" and those who fly it as well, are the very ones who commit such acts that emanate from hate. That they claimed the high road from being victims of hate for so many decades. Therefore, one would think that, according to them, they would not do to us what they "claimed" we did to them. Right?

"They" used to claim that it is wrong to judge someone by the "colour of their skin", that "they are not all alike", that "their blood is red just like everyone else", right? But, many years ago, whenever the media would televise any portion of a Klan rally, I began to notice it would be the protesters, mostly Black, who were acting in such a fashion, their faces would be contorted in such a way, that would display the epitome of hate. Now, while I completely disagree with the concept of "hate legislation", "hate" is a fair/valid topic for discussion. Since it is "they" who make the claim that "we" are about hate since we vigorously defend, and just as vigorously display, that Noble Banner of the South - the Confederate Battle Flag - then it is fair that we can throw the charge of hate right back at "them", whenever we see it.

Now, similarly to Mr. Warren, I too was a victim from a couple of White "thug" wannabe's, though no where near as serious as his property damage. The antenna on my car, from which I would clip three Confederate Battle Flags, was broken off twice. I suspect a couple of White kids, who have not lived here since about six months afterwards, did the deed because I used to see them hanging out with a particularly ominous looking Black man. As I said, just a suspicion. Nothing has happened since they moved.

So, what is the lesson here? Ignorance and hate are universal, and are a permanent element of the human character, that nobody has a monopoly on them. Therefore, we are all in desperate need of the forgiveness of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ.

About the money Mr. Warren is requesting, I have a simple plan that ought to work. His $350 request divided by 70 equals $5. Chuck, if you have at least 70 subscribers to your SHNV, then each one of us could send him a measly $5.00. This should be no burden to any of us. It is a meal at Burger King. A six pack of beer. I will be sending my $5 this weekend. Will y'all? Mr. Warren is absolutely deserving of our respect, and our help. Remember, respect is earned, not given and is not deserved by everyone. Courtesy is given, not earned and is deserved by everyone. Mr. Warren has earned our respect and deserves our courtesy!

Sincerely,

Jimmy L. Shirley Jr.

****************************************

Please send a check in any amount payable to Behind Enemy Lines, earmark the check "for memorial renovation”. I give you my word that every penny will go to the memorial area. We need to raise somewhere in the area of $350, for the picket fence, the flag poles, repairs to the bench, and an additional security light.

T Warren
425 Jonathon Street
Bridgeport, IL. 62417

Which flags come down?

It seems important to many that we take down the Confederate flags that remind some of us of racism, and put them away for good. What about taking down all flags that remind anyone in this country of racism? Where to start?

What about the flags that flew over the slave ships leaving Africa with their holds full of human cargo in the 1700s? What flag was flying over the slave auction center, the Market House, in Philadelphia in 1805?

What flags were flying over the ships from Rhode Island that were trading guns and rum for slaves in 1806?

Which flag was in the chamber of the Supreme Court in 1857 when it declared Dred Scott still legally a slave? Which flag could be seen by the people in the "slave pens" in Washington, D.C., in 1860?

Which flag was flying over the New York-owned slave ship Wildfire as it was captured carrying a slave cargo in 1860 in the Caribbean?

Which flag flew over the U.S. Capitol as newly inaugurated President Abraham Lincoln endorsed the permanent legalization of slavery in 1861? And which flag flew over the Supreme Court of the United States in 1898 when "Jim Crow" laws were ruled legal?

Maybe the question is not where to begin, but where to end.

Milton Scarboro
Greenville

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080816/OPINION/808160323/1004/NEWS01

Confederate Flag Case

From: BettyHill111@msn.com

Here is a letter I wrote Neil Boortz because he apparently is an ankle grabber where the Confederate Flag is concerned:

Just what is your problem with free speech? I'm sure other folks wear their Malcolm X and Black Pride T-shirts to school. Oh I forgot the problem seems to be extortion. If we don't get our way we will riot or something awful. Bow down to extortion. Fools like you really make it easy for them. What ever happened to individual freedom? you may talk the talk but you don't walk the walk.

Betty Hill
Dallas Ga

Confederate Monument at Charlotte City Hall

From: ballybaypubs@midmaine.com
To: mnewsom@charlotteobserver.com

Let me get to the point here.

Do you have any respect for citizens' rights to preserve their heritage?

Have you any respect for your neighbors?

How would you like it if I were to criticize your right to preserve your heritage or are you one of those rare individuals who doesn't have one?

Peter Carminati
Stonington, Maine

Plain English still allowed!!?!?

From: torpenhow@charter.net

RE: JUDGE DECLARES MISTRIAL IN TENNESSEE FLAG CASE
http://shnv.blogspot.com/2008/08/judge-declares-mistrial-in-tennessee.html

/\/.\/\/. COMMENTS: HAH! The student in question isn't squeamish -- he's amazed it's taking the jury "so long to figure out that I'm right"! In an age of constant pussyfooting, what could be better than seeing a young man willing to fight this fight (after 13 suspensions!) and saying exactly what he thinks in an un-doctored Southern accent?

So much of the time with a hot issue, even the best of our spokesmen beat around the bush to the media -- partly, it's true, because they know plain English simply won't make it out of the newsroom into homes. If you play your cards right they have to quote you and it has to be politically incorrect!

IT IS INDEED AMAZING that there is any discussion, much less argument, much less conflict, much less trials, much less federal juries on Confederate flag "issues". It's astounding -- proof that truth is stranger than fiction and humanity is getting stupider by the minute!

Remembering C.S.A. News

From: csanews@i-1.net

Greetings!

I'd like to take the time to mention the C.S.A. News Group, which is now in the process of being updated after a considerable length of time. This group dates back to 25 June 2005, so it is not at all new and even more, C.S.A. News itself was created during December 1989 as a published newsletter. It was the first such publication to propose the liberation of the Confederate States of America, and the filling of the now valid but vacant seats in the Confederate States Government. Howbeit not necessarily in those words!

The original owner was the late Mr. David Martin, one of four men along with their families, who helped found the modern Confederate Movement, the second person being I myself. The newsletter once served as the official newsletter of one of our still existing Confederate Organizations, for approximately a year and a half, after which its leadership established their own.

C.S.A. News has been at the center and foundations of the modern rebirth of the Confederate Cause from the beginning. You can be certain, we will be present for the victory celebrations, after the liberation has become a matter of history.

As the present owner of C.S.A. News I have, shall we say a long term dream, that C.S.A. News might one day be transformed into a slick News Magazine by that same name, in memory of its original owner and Confederate Patriot, the late Mr. David Martin.

He was the first to say the Confederacy is not gone with history, but it is here and now. History may well pass by the little newsletter known as C.S.A. News, and place it in the files of forgotten memories.

But before it does, we should pause to remember, it was on its pages, the Confederate Cause was reborn, after 124 years. Before C.S.A. News, the Confederate Cause was nothing more then a matter of history, a memory of a long ago time and a paradise lost.

It is a direct result of Mr. David Martin and C.S.A. News, that we dare to believe, we could actually liberate the Confederate States of America, and restore the Confederate States Government.

God Save the Confederacy

Thomas E. Guinn
Founder
Confederate Legion
http://www.csanews.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/csa_news/

Kudos, huzzahs and laurel wreaths

.........are due to YOU, CHUCK DEMASTUS, upon your announcement that SHNV now has over 3100 subscribers. Congratulations and 1,000 thanks to you as well! You've done it all on a volunteer basis for how long now? It's got to be close to ten years, even though it seems it only started about ten weeks ago.

I'll be passing your announcement along in one of my occasional "9 from /\/" general news and views emailers, and copying that edition to you. If will contain a great deal that is even more politically incorrect than your druthers allow. Any SHNV readers who would like to be added and are already well-known to me as compatriots on that other front which can't be named here, let me know.

Nelson Waller
torpenhow@charter.net

Sherman's Army of Emancipation in Georgia

From: Bernhard1848@att.net

The African slaves who saw Sherman's rabble in blue as "agents of God" would quickly learn that they were really petty criminals who would rape, burn and plunder regardless of color, and hang black servants from their thumbs in order to elicit confessions about hidden valuables. It is also well known that the freedmen's "day of jubilee" in the North were illusory; those States had already erected sturdy laws and barriers to keep Southern black's from emigrating, including Lincoln's own State of Illinois. But the newly-freed slaves would have these looters as examples to follow as the Georgia Capitol building in Milledgeville fell under their ruthless hands, and quite unfortunately saw how Northerners could conduct themselves as "legislators."

Bernhard Thuersam, Executive Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
Post Office Box 328
Wilmington, NC 28402
www.CFHI.net

Sherman's Army of Emancipation in Georgia:

“By the time their brief stay in Madison had ended, Sherman, Howard and Slocum were giving sober thought to a problem which had been growing steadily since they left Atlanta. What were they going to do with the hordes of Negroes who wanted to march with the troops to what they knew vaguely as “freedom?” In their confused minds they had generated and blossomed the firm belief that all they had to do when the Yankees came along was fall into line, with their squalling babies, their bleating, barking animals and their variegated personal possessions and follow the liberators to Paradise. At almost every crossroads community, and indeed at almost every plantation, there would be droves of them, eager, ready and waiting to join the procession. Many read deep religious meaning into the events they were witnessing. To them these marching men in blue were agents of God sent to earth to end their earthly troubles.

It never occurred to them that they might not be wanted or that there might not be enough food for both them and the army. Nor did they give a thought to where they would go, how they would be treated once they got there or what would happen to them eventually in that strange land in the North about which they had been dreaming, but about which they knew nothing. It took some strong talk to dissuade them from going along. Many who went anyhow soon wished they hadn’t.

They (Sherman’s troops) spread desolation broadcast---taking everything in their way in the breadth of about 20 miles. Corn, fodder, meal, flour, horses, mules, hogs, cattle, sheep, poultry of every description, servants that could be enticed and forced off, and these in great numbers, (were taken)…we heard of a great many private dwellings, gin houses, and much cotton burnt by the enemy on their different routes---some within sight; also that several private citizens were shot….In the country, families were frequently ill-treated and their houses sacked.

The Capitol building (in Milledgeville) was spared (from burning). General Slocum posted guards for the protection of private homes, but the troops nevertheless enjoyed full freedom in many, and in the Capitol and places of business. In the State Library on the first floor of the Capitol, Major Connolly looked on in strong disapproval, though without protesting, while a mob (of drunken soldiers and Negroes) attacked the accumulation of valuable volumes and carried away what struck their fancies. He blamed his commander in chief for allowing such a thing to happen…”Sherman will, some day, regret that he permitted this library to be destroyed and plundered.”

From other rooms drunken soldiers and Negroes grabbed up handfuls of valuable fossils and mineral specimens. Many left with armfuls of Georgia State bonds and paper currency, which they found in the treasurer’s office. One colored man, dazzled by all this wealth, shouted his delight: “Bress de Lord, we’re richer dan poor massa now!” Soon the soldiers and Negroes fell to fighting amongst themselves for the treasures.

(Sherman’s) troops, satiated with food and leisure became bored, as armies do when they stop marching. So somebody suggested a mock session of the Georgia House of Representatives, using the seats, podium, gavel and other official paraphernalia left behind…The session opened with a round of drinking. A “Committee on Federal Relations” was appointed and retired to a committee room. Its members forgot all about Federal relations for a while and entered into an animated and noisy discussion of the comparative merits of various brands of (stolen) whiskey.

The “legislators” waiting for the “committee’s” report were not idle. General Kilpatrick, whose cavalrymen had a reputation for heavy drinking and ruthless treatment of civilians and their property, kept them in high hilarity with recitals of his gallant campaigns against enemy wine cellars and whiskey storerooms. They had managed to draw up some resolutions….the Georgia Ordinance of Secession was termed “highly indiscreet and injudicious,” a “damned farce,” which is hereby repealed and abrogated.” They promised that Sherman’s men “will play the devil with the Ordinance and the State itself”…and also whip the State into the Union.

(Those 163 Days: A Southern Account of Sherman’s March, John M. Gibson, Bramhall House, 1961, pp. 45-51)

RE: Confederate Monument at Charlotte City Hall

From: MNewsom@charlotteobserver.com
To: ballybaypubs@midmaine.com

Mr. Carminati,

Thanks for reading and taking the time to respond, even if you didn't like what I wrote.

If you'll note, I never advocated taking the monument down. I only speculated that a good number of people would not like it to remain.

I'm actually of mixed mind about it. It's important to remember history, definitely. But a Confederate monument erected in 1977? When there are others already in the city? It made me wonder if it was more about resisting integration, because in the 1970s in Charlotte there was very controversial busing for school integration -- than honoring the war dead. I am trying to research its placement, but to date haven't learned much more.

Regards,
Mary Newsom

Confederate belongs in the history books

From: wildbill4dixie@yahoo.com
To: birney@cdispatch.com
CC: gburnett@cdispatch.com

Re: http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2008/08/03/columns/column01.txt

http://www.cdispatch.com/articles/2008/08/03/columns/burnett/burnett9999.txt

Gee, first it was the Confederate flag, now it’s the word “Confederate”? Tell me something, WHEN did the flag or the word “confederate” become so offensive? Please show me the date.

Watch the movie “Animal House” carefully and you will see that when fraternity pledge “Pinto” takes his girl up to his room during the “Toga Party”, that there is a Confederate flag on the wall of his room. I don’t remember anyone moaning and groaning about it when “Animal House” hit the theaters in 1978!?

Also, attached find photos of a friend’s fraternity flag (class of ’76). The fraternity flag is composed mostly of the Confederate battle emblem and no one was complaining.

Also attached find a picture of African American students (from his college’s African American Awareness Society), posing for a picture in front of the statue of a Confederate soldier in 1973. The black students in the picture don’t appear phased at all by its presence.

I have another friend who graduated UVA in 1986. Confederate flags were quite common among fraternities when he was in school. No complaining, no whining were noted.

Indeed, it would appear that in the not-too-distant past, the Confederate flag was simply a part of Americana and no one thought much about it. So, perhaps you and Ms. Burnett can pinpoint the date when the name “confederate”, or the confederate flag, or even “Dixie”, became oh-so-bad and oh-so-painful and oh-so-hurtful? Let’s have it, when was that date? Y’all must know something I don’t and I’m just dying to know!?

Newsflash for you - the opinions of those who don’t want all things “Confederate” to be relegated to the historical dustbin matter just as much as yours do. To “many” in the South, “Confederate” is something important, whether you agree with it or not. Where is it written that your opinion must hold sway over theirs? If you really don’t like something and it’s that “painful” for you, you always have the option to not look, go somewhere else, or in this case, attend another school. There is an old saying, one that is seldom used these days but which nonetheless still has great merit – “The world does not revolve around you!”

And yes, that one letter writer who said “…you (Ms. Burnett) were treated very well…” is absolutely correct. Until two students from the opposing team taunted her and apparently made her self-conscious, Ms. Burnett seemed to be doing just fine and she never thought twice about anything “confederate”. I submit that if her self-esteem is that impaired that she should seek professional help instead of expecting the world to change on her behalf.

As far as what other people think of your community, don’t be too worried. The only people who are going to think ill of you are:

**the people who can’t think for themselves because they have allowed others to do their thinking for them, and,

**people who come complete with axes to grind and phony grievances to air and who have forgotten the cardinal rule of life (see above, i.e., “the world does not revolve around you”)

Bill Vallante
Commack NY
Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp 1506 (Associate)
Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp 3000 (Associate)
Sons of Confederate Veterans Camp 1369 (Associate)

SLAVERY
AND
ABOLITIONISM,
AS VIEWED BY A
GEORGIA SLAVE.

BY

HARRISON BERRY,
THE PROPERTY OF S. W. PRICE, COVINGTON, GEORGIA.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA:
M. LYNCH & CO., PUBLISHERS.
PRINTED AT THE CRUSADER OFFICE.
1861

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1861,
By A. M. EDDLEMAN & BROTHER,
For the use of Harrison Berry, (a slave, the property of S. W. Price, of Covington, Georgia,) in the Clerk's office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

PREFACE

TO COMMENT ON MR. LINCOLN'S INAUGURAL.

I could not hope for the acquiescence of my Southern masters in this my views on Mr. Lincoln's Inaugural, were it not from the fact, that his party is a mixed up affair of colored and white, all equally bent and determined to carry out their views, regardless of the affecting consequences whatever; and when we read the speech of a colored man by the name of Charles L. Redmond, delivered in Boston at an Anti-slavery Convention, held in May, 1856; when we hear him say, "remembering Washington as a Slaveholder, he (Redmond) could spit upon him;" and when we hear him applauded in the highest degree of mirth, by his factional party, while the conservative men groan under the sound of that blasphemous language, may be an excuse for one poor Slave whom that party pretends to be helping, (but is actually doing him harm;) and when my Southern masters take into consideration the many tricks fixed up to deceive the poor Europeans, who are constantly immigrating to their States, by telling them that if they vote for the pro-slavery candidate, it will be the means of enslaving them, I am in hopes will be a pleader for their sympathies with this my presumption.

The Anarchy predicted by my first edition, written some eight months before the election, stating that the election of a sectional man to the Presidency would inevitably bring about the state of things which stands before us in a monstrous form at the present time, may be conceded to me as a good guesser, at least. Under these considerations, together with others stated in the commentary, I hope they will forgive me for Making the attack, and extend to me that sympathy I do so earnestly desire.

HARRISON BERRY.

CERTIFICATES.

From Hon. L. J. Gartrell.

From evidences in my possession of the most reliable character, I am satisfied that the Slave, Harrison Berry, is the author of a pamphlet, entitled "Slavery and Abolitionism, as viewed by a Georgia Slave." I know him personally, have conversed with him, and believe him capable of writing it.

LUCIUS J. GARTRELL,
Late member of Congress, 4th District.

From W. W. Clark, Esqr.

I am the owner of the wife of Harrison Berry--have had him hired for two years--have seen and read his manuscript--and can certify to the fact that he is the author of a pamphlet entitled "Slavery and Abolitionism, as viewed by a Georgia Slave." He is a "Southern Rights" negro--a good and honest servant, and his book is worthy of public consideration and patronage.

W. W. CLARK,
Attorney at Law, Covington, Ga.

From A. G. Ware, Esqr.

I have had ample opportunity to know, and am satisfied beyond doubt, that Harrison Berry is the author of a pamphlet entitled "Slavery and Abolitionism, as viewed by a Georgia Slave." I saw the original manuscript, and have read the printed work--they are identical. I have known Harrison for several years, and know him to be competent to write such a work.

A. G. WARE,
Agent Macon & Western Railroad, Atlanta, Ga.

From Rev. Lewis Lawshe.

I have known Harrison Berry since 1842. I know his old master, the late David Berry, and all of the family. Harrison has all the time been a good servant. It has always been his highest ambition to do his duty at anything his master set him at. Harrison is a sensible boy, and pretty well educated, and is, without a doubt, the bona fide author of the pamphlet entitled "Slavery and Abolitionism, as viewed by a Georgia Slave." He has expressed the same sentiments to me in conversation, that are set forth in his book, saying that he would let Fred Douglass, and other Abolitionists, know that the slaves of the South were not fools enough to believe that they were benefitting them, or even intended to try to benefit them. There is not a shadow of a doubt, in my mind, but what Harrison Berry did write the above named book, as I have had sufficient opportunity to know the fact, having been acquainted with him for the last nineteen years.

It would be well for every Planter to obtain a copy of his work, and read it to his slaves.

LEWIS LAWSHE.

From the Banner & Baptist.

"ABOLITION AND SLAVERY," BY A SLAVE.--This pamphlet is now going on its mission. Many, no doubt, would be pleased to see it, besides those who have sent their orders. The work bears ample evidence of having been written entirely by the professed author. No one will suppose that a negro, with but limited education, could write anything like a model work on such a subject. But Harrison Berry has done well, and his book ought to be, and will be read. We think no farmer would be the loser to read it to his negroes.

From the Journal of Commerce, Jr.

THE TESTIMONY OF A SLAVE.--We have received from Atlanta, Georgia, a pamphlet entitled "Slavery and Abolitionism," written by a negro who subscribes himself "Harrison Berry, the property of S. W. Price, Covington, Georgia." This man is a full blooded African, forty-five years of age, and learned to read and write while employed as an errand boy in a law office. He has since been a hard student, and has acquired a fair amount of information. This pamphlet is published by himself, and copy-righted for his benefit exclusively. He says in the preface: "I am a slave, and have been all my life, and therefore claim the opportunity, at least, of knowing what Slavery is, and what it is not." He was induced to write upon the subject of Slavery from a firm conviction that Abolitionist agitators are the worst enemies of the slave.

There could be no more befitting rebuke to the Abolition meddlers, than is conveyed in the words which come from this oppressed subject of their sympathy, who is "a slave," and "knows what slavery is." Moreover, the simple facts noted above, are evidence sufficient to refute the assertion that the slave is a down-trodden creature, kept in ignorance, and debarred from all privileges. But it seems he is able to speak for himself.

From the Griffin Union.

HARRISON BERRY.--We have just finished reading a pamphlet from the pen of this personage. We know Harrison, and know him to be a Slave, and a black one at that; and although the matter of his pamphlet is not arranged with that perspicuity and system that would mark an accomplished writer, there are truths told by Harrison that it would be well for many white men, and all black ones, to ponder and profit by. That Slavery is the proper status for the black man, no one can doubt, who will properly investigate the subject. In his native wilds he is a savage, with no hope of improvement. A free man among white people, he is inferior, and cannot rise to a level with his neighbors, and has all his work to do when in health, under disadvantages that few can overcome; and, when sick, he has no one to care for him; whilst the Slave has only his work to do when in health with all the advantages his masters position and superior management can afford him, and, when sick, his master is bound by law and interest to provide for his necessities. And it is true, as Harrison says, that the Abolitionists are his worst enemies, inasmuch as all their efforts only tend to draw the cords of servitude more tightly around him, and deprive him of many indulgencies that he would otherwise enjoy.

PREFACE.

IN offering this address to the public, I do it with the most profound humility, knowing it to be a task worthy of a better learned and more intelligent writer than myself. But when it is taken into consideration, the cause by which I was actuated may be an excuse for my presumption; for I am a Slave, and have been all my life, and, therefore, claim the opportunity, at least, of knowing what Slavery is, and what it is not. And in showing the effect the agitation of Slavery has upon the Slaves generally, I have endeavored to keep within the boundaries of moderation, unless forced by undoubted facts to depart therefrom. In speaking of the citizens of the Northern States, I have, in a great many places, summed them all up together; but my intention is to cast no reflections, whatever, upon the conservative citizens of that section. My address is to the fanatical Abolitionists, who call themselves Republicans. To them, and them alone, have I written.

Written by

HARRISON BERRY,

INTRODUCTION.

HARRISON BERRY, the author of these pages, was born in Jones county, Georgia, November, 1816, and is now a little more than forty-four years old. He was born a Slave, and became the property of Mr. David Berry, but was given to his daughter as a part of her marriage portion. This daughter married Mr. S. W. Price, who, in turn, became the owner of Harrison, and so remains at the present time. Harrison removed, with his old master, David Berry, to Butts county, Georgia, when about ten years old, and was placed in the Law Office of John V. Berry, a son of the former. His business was to wait upon his young master, run on errands, go to the Post Office, and to perform other like service. These employments were such as to leave a good deal of time at his own disposal, which he was induced to improve in learning to read and write.

When he became older and stronger, he was put to work on the farm, but continued to improve his mind by reading such books as were furnished him by the younger members of the Berry family; so that by the time he had grown to man's estate, he had made considerable proficiency in History, and had picked up a fair share of general information.

At the present time he is engaged in the business of Boot-making. He was induced to write upon the subject of Slavery from a firm conviction that Abolitionist agitators are the worst enemies of the Slave, and from the settled opinion that Slavery is according to the Divine Law. He believes, furthermore, that Southern Slaves are in a much better condition than if they had remained in their native land, and this opinion has been formed after a fair and impartial examination of the subject in the light of history, philosophy and religion. While the work has imperfections, (and what human work has not?) still the reader will find much to interest him in these pages, and I would bespeak for the author a favorable reception of his little offering to the cause of Truth and Justice.

H. C. HORNADY.

TO THE PUBLIC.

COVINGTON, July 7, 1860.

HARRISON:--I have been so busily engaged that I could not reply to your first letter. By this letter I give you full permission to print and publish your MS. I presume that this statement will be sufficient, as I give you permission to use this letter as may best suit your desire. I wish you success.

S. W. PRICE.

HARRISON is the property of Mr. Price, of Butts county, Georgia; is a Shoemaker by trade, and has been steadily employed at his trade for many years. In the latter part of 1853 he was employed by F. M. Eddleman & Bro., Shoe dealers in this city, and remained in their employ for several years afterwards, with some intermission. As I was one of that firm, and actively engaged in the business, I had every opportunity to become acquainted with his sentiments, and to judge of his ability to express himself upon paper. I am not aware when and where he learned to write, but when he came into our employ he could write legibly. This pamphlet was written under most unfavorable circumstances, and is, as I know, the result of much labor on his part. His daily service was performed in the Shoe-shop, and his nights, and I might add Sundays, were devoted to reading and writing. The original manuscript was written, for the most part, in the shop, and as conveniences for writing are not usually provided in such places, the lap-board was converted into, or, at least, made to serve the purpose of a table. I frequently found his manuscript in the shop, and would sometimes read it, as a matter of amusement. As I saw it in this way, it was, to me, quite an unconnected affair. Nevertheless, in its chaotic state, the ideas intended to be conveyed were often forcibly and truthfully set forth. I was not aware, until 1857, that he had any notion of collecting this matter together in the form of a pamphlet, and, while I did not

doubt his ability to do so, still I did not, at that time, suppose he would do so. In the latter part of 1857, however, he informed me that he had prepared and arranged the manuscript, and desired that I should read it. I did so hurriedly, and returned it, advising him to get others to examine it.

The original manuscript was, however, afterwards sent to Col. Logan, of Griffin, for his inspection, and while in his possession was destroyed by fire.

In 1860, Harrison applied to me again to examine his production, which he had re-written, and made some additions. I read it carefully, and wrote him that there were some errors of fact in it that should be corrected before it went to press. He afterwards informed me that he had gone over it and had made the corrections to which he supposed I alluded, and thus it went to the press.

I will not merely say that I think he wrote it, for I can safely say that I know him to be the author--the sentiments are his for I have heard him express them time and again, long before I ever dreamed of his writing a book.

Harrison fully understands the position of a Slave, and has uniformly kept himself in his proper place. He is neither insolent or impudent, but humble and polite. He is honest and trustworthy, and has ever enjoyed the confidence of those who know him. His complexion is fully up to the African standard, not having, I suppose, a particle of white blood in his veins. He says he was, when a boy, the blackest, ugliest little negro in the region, and was frequently annoyed by travelers stopping, as they were passing the road, to comment upon his extreme color. He has been, and is yet, a hard student; has read a great deal, and his reading has been varied.

While in the employ of my brother and myself he read Josephus, and compared it minutely with Sacred History. He reads for information, and not for amusement, and always put forth his greatest effort to understand his subject.

His hate for an Abolitionist is supreme, and when expressing his contempt for them, generally exhausts the vocabulary of adjectives at his command. At first I thought this strange, and had my doubts as to his sincerity. But now I have no doubt on that point. I have heard him give his reasons frequently, and consider them forcible and good. He has remarked to me often, when applying for a pass, that the privileges of Slaves had been curtailed

on account of the foolish interference of Abolitionists. He thinks that but for this interference of Abolitionists, Slaves would be allowed all the privileges they are capable of enjoying. He thinks Slavery is the proper condition for the negro, resulting in more happiness than nominal freedom. He has often remarked in my hearing, that there was no such a thing as a free negro in this country, (meaning the whole country.)

His pamphlet is published by himself, copy-righted for his benefit, and the profits from its sale, should any arise, will be his. I cheerfully commend it to the public, believing that it should be liberally patronized. The time he has devoted to writing his book, is generally occupied by other Slaves in making their pocket change.

A. M. EDDLEMAN.

SLAVERY AND ABOLITIONISM.

HAVING, for several years, viewed the agitation of the question of Slavery to be an evil dangerous and highly detrimental to the common good, and particularly that of the South, I was moved, in 1857, to write an address to the Abolition party, showing, as plainly as I could, the inconsistency of their proceedings. I gave it to the editor of the "Empire State," at Griffin, after it had been examined by gentlemen of Atlanta, Covington and Newnan; but its being consumed in the late conflagration in Griffin, necessitates me to write another. Seeing my views forcibly exemplified in the late treason at Harper's Ferry may be a guarantee to me, granted by all conservative men, the privilege of addressing them again. This privilege might be more readily admitted, when you take into consideration that I am one of those whom the Abolitionists pretend to be helping.

I will now examine what this monster is--this seven-headed, ten-horned beast. It seems to be one of considerable power, for it now threatens the dissolution of a Union formed by men who are not paralleled by any that have graced the annals of history. Well, then, if this Union was so dearly obtained, it then follows that its citizens ought, of all things, to love and cherish it. And one who does not do it, is unfaithful to his country; but one who seeks to disturb its peace, while it is endeavoring to deal, with an impartial hand, to each constituent, the portion designed him by the Constitution, is a traitor of the deepest dye.

Yet, we find men doing it. And for what? For nothing but because the people of one section of the country wish to engage in a branch of business which would not be profitable to those of the other, notwithstanding it is as lawful a branch of business as that of manufacturing--the Constitution granting them, each, the same protection. Nevertheless, they claim it to be unlawful; and when it is shown to be both Constitutional and lawful, they then, being left no other alternative, flee from that to the Higher Law--which I intend to discuss in its proper place.

Kind reader, I expect, by this time, you would like to hear what that question is. I answer, SLAVERY. Well, let us see what Slavery is. An eminent writer says: "A Slave, in the ordinary sense of the term, is an individual at the absolute disposal of another, who has a right to employ him and treat him as he pleases." But let us see what he says after this. Hear him: "But the state of Slavery is susceptible of numerous modifications; and it has been usual, in most countries where it has been long established, to limit, in various ways, the power of the master over the Slave." You see, this eminent writer talks like a book.

Kind reader, I now beg you to bear with me a little, while I discuss, in a very abridged manner, the origin of Slavery. It seems that an authentic account of the origin of Slavery is hard to get hold of. The best to be found is only probable; and I think the most probable conjecture is, that it grew out of a state of war. The captives taken in war, in ancient times, seem to have belonged to the victors; and these they had the exclusive right to treat as they pleased. And it was the custom of the Africans to put to death all that could not be advantageously enslaved, centuries before it existed in any part of Europe or America. It is not only in Africa we find Slavery existing centuries ago, but in the midst of the chosen people of God; for it was the law in Judea for the parents to sell their children. So it was in Rome. And it did not stop at that; for if a citizen got in debt over what he was able to pay, he was taken and sold for the same. So we see Slavery existing thousands of years ago.

But let us see where and when it commenced with us. We find that in 1442, the Portuguese commenced the traffic. It was, however, of trifling extent, until the sixteenth century, when, in consequence the rapid destruction of the Indians employed in the mines of St. Domingo or Hayti, that Charles V. authorized, in 1517, the introduction into the island of African Slaves, from the establishment of the Portuguese on the coast of Guinea. The importation of Africans once begun, it rapidly spread itself over Europe and America. Sir John Hawkins was the first Englishman who engaged in it; and such was the ardor of our countrymen engaged in it, that they exported, from Africa, over 300,000 Slaves between the years 1680 and 1700; and between 1700 and 1786, 610,000 Africans were imported into Jamaica; and, adding those imported into other continental colonies, and those shipped to the other Islands, the quantity must have been immense.

The same writer says: "But those who inquire dispassionately into the subject, will come to the Conclusion, that, instead of being injured, the Slaves have gained by being carried from the New to the Old World."

Let us see what he says next. He says: "Speaking generally, the Negroes are in the lowest state of abandonment, possessing merely the rudiments of the most indispensable arts--a prey to the vilest superstition and tyranny, without any tincture of learning, and with little or no regard for the future. The circumstances under which they are placed in their native land may, perhaps account for the low state in which we find them. But, however explained, the genuine Negroes of Africa are admitted, even by those least inclined to depreciate them, to be, for the most part, either ferocious savages, or stupid, sensual and indolent."

So, we see what he says; but I shall not stop to comment on that now, but will notice it in its proper place.

Kind reader, I will now jump over the years from 1786 to 1794, and see what Congress thought of Slavery at that time.

By the Act of March 22, 1794, the Slave Trade was prohibited. The Act of May 10, 1800, applied to foreigners residing in the United States, and forbid citizens being engaged in foreign ships in the Slave Trade. By the Act of March 2, 1807, vessels with Slaves on board were to be forfeited--the naval forces to be employed to enforce the Act. By the Act of April 20, 1818, the importation of Negroes, or persons of color, to be held to service or labor, was prohibited. By Act of March 3, 1819, the naval ships would send to the United States, for confiscation, any ships detected in the Slave Trade; and a bounty was offered, of $25, for each Negro captured and delivered to the United States Marshal. By Act of May 15, 1820, the Slave Trade was declared to be piracy; and any citizen detected in the Trade should suffer death. By the Act of September 20, 1850, the Slave Trade in the District of Columbia was prohibited; no Slaves to be brought into the District for sale as merchandize, and all Slave depots to be broken up.

Now, it does look to me like Congress was working at the abolition of Slavery the right way, and the only way it can ever be accomplished. For Slavery might be abolished in the States for awhile, but if it were not stopped at its source, it would only break through with tenfold velocity. It would inevitably diffuse itself throughout the world in such a manner that it would be

next to impossible to ever stop its progress, or mitigate its effects. But these Northern agitators of Slavery were not satisfied with the proceedings of Congress on the subject. They, I suppose, intended to abolish it in the States first, and then march their forces to the Atlantic, and embark them on board of canoes, and take the vessels on the high seas engaged in the Slave Trade, and bring them to taw, too! These would-be-called philanthropists seemed to have forgotten the old maxim that, "if you wish to find the spring, go to the head of the branch;" for they could stop the boil, and then the strength of the current would be greatly mitigated. But their discrimination seems to be quite limited. Had it not been, they could have seen, long ago, that the agitation of Slavery put a manacle on the hands of every Slave south of Mason and Dixon's Line. But I don't think they cared for that. The Sacred Scriptures, by which they pretend to be governed, would have taught them, at a mere glimpse, that to preserve peace in a country, even at a sacrifice, was the best mode of sustaining their country.

I will simply point out a few passages of the Scripture, by observation, and not by the letter, as they will be perfectly understood by ten-year old boys, familiar with the Bible. It is well known that the New Testament teaches peace--peace--peace--prosperity and happiness, from the first of Matthew to the end of Revelations; and that, too, in one uninterrupted chain of admonition. We see Slavery in Judea long before the coming of Christ, for we see it in Abraham's days. He had some three hundred born in his own house; and, certainly, if they were born in his own house, they must have been his. And if it had been a sin in the sight of God and His angels, Abraham, being a righteous man, conversing with and entertaining angels directly from Heaven, would, it is very likely, have been very severely rebuked for having those illegal servants, and requiring them to wait on and serve the angels, while they dined in his house. But this is but one of hundreds of instances of the like character. But, coming down to the Christian era, we find it more fully developed; for it was not an angel, but God Himself saw it, was among it, tolerated it, and supported it, in, and by, the teachings of His sublime Gospel. For He was willing for Cæsar to have his, and God His. We see, then, that Christ did not hesitate a moment to cause to be restored to its rightful owner the penny with the image of Cæsar, that Pagan usurper, that idol-worshiper, who would compel

whole nations to adore his wicked and polluted idols. This wicked monarch's image we see thus acknowledged by Christ Himself; to be honored, rather than disturb the peace of the people. And how much more ought it to be the duty of a wicked and rebellious set of Abolitionists to render unto the South her rights? We see the Apostles teaching peace all through the New Testament. We see, in the Epistles, they exhort Servants to be obedient to their masters; and not only in words do we find this, but in all their practice. For, on one occasion, when a Slave had run away from his master, and went to Paul, he does not hesitate a moment, but sends him back to his lawful owner. This shows that Christ and the Apostles had quite a different view of Slavery to that of our modern factionists of the United States.

I might enlarge on this question in this place, had I time and space; but, as I shall have to recur to the Sacred Writings again, in the course of this address, I will leave it for the present.

We will now examine some of the leading principles of the Abolition party. It is not that I am opposed to freedom, that actuates me to address them in the manner which I do, for I believe it to be one of the greatest blessings earthly, when not contaminated with fanatical dispositions. But rather would I die, were I a citizen of the United States, than to disturb the peace, or act in any way that would be detrimental to the onward progress and prosperity of my country. For, of all the Governments that now exist, or have ever existed, this perhaps is the least contaminated with injustice--the Constitution granting to every native born, or adopted citizen, the freedom of speech, and the power, at the ballot-box, of making their own laws to be governed by. What a lesson it ought to be to the American citizen, to view four-fifths of Europe and Asia having no more power to make the laws by which they are governed than the Slaves of this country who are not citizens! I sometimes think that a man living in, and enjoying, the many advantages this country has over others, and who would act with a party that is endeavoring to frustrate the conservative ones, ought to be denounced as a traitor, and excluded from all public trust, from the simple fact that he would prostitute all the power guaranteed to him in his office; and consequently, is no longer worthy of public confidence. In this land of Republican freedom, such a character is, of all citizens, the most dangerous. The management of the Government being in the hands of the people, it is emphatically their duty to brand with infamy any person, or persons,

who would presume to rebel against the great Constitutional compact; that others might know the Consequences of entering into a like rebellion. But, yet, we have some such, standing in the first positions within the gift of the people. And how do they get there? I answer, by deceiving and gulling the great masses of the people; that is how they get there. Let every man give to his children the best education he can afford, and the natural capacity of the child is capable of receiving; and let the parents instil into their bosoms the importance of the Union of the States, and the preservation of peace and harmony. Thus educated and instructed, while a child, it would be as hard to erase it from his heart as to mar the natural form of his body; and, in a few years you would have a majority that could, and would, defy all the fanaticism that could be engendered by the whole combined Abolition faction. We have no cause to complain of the hard tried Editors of true patriotism. God knows they have had every thing to contend with. It matters not how wide may be the views of conservative Editors on questions of internal improvement, taxes, tariffs, or any other question of policy. Whenever the rights guaranteed to them by the true patriots of '76 is encroached upon, they present one solid phalanx, and drive back the opposers of their liberties. These are they who stand on watch, as sentinels, for the main army of occupation. These are the ones who sit on the towers of the walls, and when they see danger, cry with a loud voice, "To arms, to arms!" But what must I say about the fanatical Editors? Can I say they are not designedly deceiving their followers? Don't they know that the old hobby horse is down long ago? Don't they know that the one they now have in the field is the same old horse, and that everybody knows the old fellow's make, notwithstanding they have rubbed vitriol all over him, and have changed his color? You had just as well turn the old fellow out to grass, for he's broken down--he never had any bottom at first. But, say you, we have never had a fair chance, from the fact that we never had a rider until the last race.

Kind reader, I must now stop nonsense, and proceed to facts. In the first place, I should like to know for what purpose the Abolitionists oppose Slavery? Secondly, I should like to know what advantage it is, or can be, to them? If they don't wish to speculate in some way or other, why are they so sensitive on the subject of Slavery? The agitation excludes them entirely from a religious design, as I have shown above. For, without that peaceful and

philanthropical principle taught by Christ and His Apostles, no genuine religion can exist. It would be better for them, if they are acting on religious principles, to suffer wrong for the preservation of peace, than to exact their rights at the expense of disturbances. This is plainly proven by Holy Writ, when it says, "Blessed is the peacemaker." Well, then, tell me what business have you with Slavery? It is known, by all sensible men, that it existed before the formation of the Constitution of the United States Government; and if it was tolerated then, it must, without a change in that instrument, be so now. You call yourselves Republicans; and if you are, in the strict sense of the word, you are compelled to abide by its teachings; and if governed by its teachings, you must necessarily be governed by the teachings of the Supreme Court. Its decisions are the laws of the land. It cannot be said that you are so ignorant as to believe that you are benefitting the Slaves, for you are an educated class of gentlemen, who take the Southern papers, and are thereby enabled to see and read for yourselves, that the Slaves are much worse treated when that question is agitated. My dear sirs, upon you and your heads will cry more blood than any planter, or planters, of the South; for when the masters and Slaves are getting on just as well as they wish to, you commence your infernal agitations. The master goes to town, he gets his paper, he reads that the Abolition party is making a great to-do about freeing the Slaves; he becomes sullen, contrary and ill; he goes to the field, and if the least thing is wrong, he is in the right humor for a fuss; he accuses the Slave of idleness; the Slave commences quarreling, the master makes at him; the Slave perhaps runs away; he is caught, and then made to feel the anger of a master goaded to madness by the officious intermeddling and hypocritical sympathy of a people who neither understand, nor wish to understand, his true position or his interest. And for what? Simply because the Abolitionist is endeavoring to take the property of a half century's hard labor, and leave the poor old man without a Slave, who had invested the last cent he had in Slaves; and now the Abolitionists are to take them from him, and leave him penniless. Now, to say that this is a general thing, I have no intention of doing; but that such a state of things has happened, under my observation, is without a doubt. And, as I have said above, speaking of Congress legislating on the Slave Trade, if you intend to find the spring, go to the head of the branch. Now, if our masters were

allowed to enjoy the property acquired by the toils of so many years, in peace and safety, what do you suppose would be the relation between master and Slave? I need not add, that the use (disconnected with the abuse) of Slavery is not a sin. So your fanatical factions, causing the abuse, become the primary oppressors of the Slaves. Yes, indeed, you are absolutely the worst enemy the Slave has ever had to encounter with yet, and, I hope, ever may have. But the present state of things is nothing to what it would be, if you were permitted to carry out your pernicious proceedings, now being organized under the name of Republicanism. But I will recur to that when I have done with the States. Now, as the master waits all night for the return of the Slave that has run away from him, seeing, in the morning, he is absent, he goes over to his neighbor's house, and asks him to look out for him. Says he, "I went to town yesterday after my paper, and when I had gotten it, I saw a statement of the organization of an Abolition Convention, resolving that Slavery was a sin, and a reproach upon any free people, and that they would never desist from its agitation, until they had eradicated the last string that bound it to the country. I, of course, became somewhat grum when I saw it; and, on going to the field, after getting home, in that grum state, I, perhaps, might have been too much vexed to have judged correctly the amount of work that should have been done. I, at any rate, thought they had not done enough, and scolded Tom for not having done more; he commenced muttering, which only added fuel to the fire already kindled within me; so I was in a bad fix to take his insolence, and made at him, when he ran away. I would like to get hold of him, for if any of those Abolitionists should happen to get hold of him, they would carry him off."

Now, let us hear the consolation of his neighbor. He says: "Yes; and let me tell you what happened at my house last Sunday. As I was going to the lot, I saw my Bob have a newspaper, reading very attentively; and, on going to him, and asking him to let me see it, I found that he was reading the paper that had the very same proceedings of that Convention of the Abolitionists you were speaking of. So I lurked around my negroes' houses that night, to see if I could hear Bob say anything about the Convention to the other negroes; and, sure enough I did, for I heard him tell them that they would not be Slaves much longer, for the Abolition party intended to set them all free, at the risk of

their lives. He was going on at a terrible rate; and, on peeping through a crack, I saw two of Mr. Jones' boys there too. So I slipped back to the house, and thought I would watch their manoeuvres the next morning; and when morning came, I found them to be dull, careless, and very slothful. So I took them up, and whipped every one of them, and gave Bob two hundred lashes; then I got on my horse and rode over to Mr. Jones', and told him what I had heard Bob say in the presence of his two boys, and what I had done to mine. He called up his two boys and whipped them too. So you see how the thing is shaping. We must have our property protected against this diabolical set of Abolitionists, and our Legislatures must give us more power over our Slaves. And any man that will not agree to make the laws more binding on Slaves, can't get my vote, nor any one else that I can in the least influence."

Thus, they extort from their candidates a promise to legislate on the laws regulating the privileges of Slaves. The question is argued before the House, and, in the course of their argument, this circumstance of Bob's reading the paper is fully detailed, and hence proceeds the law prohibiting Slaves to be taught to read in this State. Now, it is not all astonishing to me to see this law so vigorously enforced, when aided by such an allied army of fiends as you Abolitionists are.

Well, kind reader, leaving the States, we will take a short view of the modern party that call themselves Republicans. They deny the name of Abolitionists, and call themselves the only true Republican party now existing, who, consequently, must be right. But when we view the treason of John Brown at Harper's Ferry, we must beg leave to pause for a moment, at least. But think not that I shall undertake to detail the attempt of Brown's treason, for that would be more than I could do, had I the wisdom of a Solomon, the expertness of a Byron or the discrimination of a Webster. The horror lying at the bottom of that attempt is more than I could describe. All I could say would not change its position before the people. My nerves would not suffer me to write it down, were I calculated to do so. Therefore, I can give you nothing but my imagination. I can imagine that I see gibbets all over the Slave-holding States, with negroes stretched upon them like slaughtered hogs, and pens of lightwood on fire! Methinks I hear their screams--I can see them upon their knees, begging, for God's sake, to have mercy. I can see, them chained together

by scores, and shot down like wild beasts. These are but shadows to what would have been done, had John Brown succeeded in his plan of getting up a rebellion among the Slaves. Yet these gentlemen say they have nothing to do with Slavery in the States. It would be hard to give you a correct account of these fanatics, were I not in possession of the Inaugural Address of the Governor of the State of Ohio, delivered January 9, 1860. I take it for granted that he must be a leading character of the would-be-called Republican party, by his majority. I shall detail what he says on the Slavery question--i. e., the most prominent points; and I shall, at the same time, offer an abridged commentation throughout the address.

Hear him. He says: "On the subject of Slavery, the people of this State occupy no equivocal position." (All hands and the cook Abolitionists.) "They reject the modern dogma, that Slavery is essential to Republics, that such systems must fail without it, and that Slavery must be extended and perpetuated to extend and perpetuate our form of Government." But, in opposition to it, they have deliberately declared "that, in their judgment, Slavery is a pernicious wrong, and that patriotism and humanity unite in demanding their resistance to its extension into any free Territory, now, or that may be owned by the United States."

See what he says next: "They deny the binding authority of the dictum of the Supreme Court of the United States, asserting a right of property in one man over another, as a fundamental principle, and making the Federal Constitution the instrument of rendering it universal, as not limited to the reach of the local power which created the relation of master and Slave; but, on the contrary, we declare that the idea that there could be property in men was expressly excluded from the Constitution; which contains no such words as Slave, or Slavery, in any of its provisions, and in which every clause construed, or that can be construed, as referring to Slavery, regards it as the creature of State legislation, and dependent wholly upon State legislation for its existence and continuance."

Now, let us see what this means. He calls the decision of the Supreme Court a dictum, which, if his party had made, he would have called a dictus! He don't think it right to abide by it; notwithstanding it was referred to that Court, and owns to its authority to decide. He wants the Territories shaped in such a manner that he can carry his hogs there, but don't want a Southerner

to carry his slaves there, He don't want Slavery to be tolerated because the Constitution don't say Slave or Slavery.

"They deny that the Constitution guarantees to the Slaveholding States any other than their local rights, in connection with the use of Slavery, but such as it expressly declares: First, that the Foreign Slave Trade should not be abolished before 1808; second, that any law or regulation which any State might establish in favor of Freedom, should not impair the legal remedy supposed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to exist by Common Law for the reception, by legal process, in such States, of Fugitives from labor or service, escaping from other States; and, third, that three-fifths of all Slaves should be counted, in settling the basis of representation in the several States. Beyond these, the framers of the Constitution intended to make no peculiar concessions to the Slave-holding States, and these were made because they had a Union of the States to create; and, to their ardent and generous minds, the voluntary removal of Slavery by the actions of the States themselves, without Federal interference, seemed not only certain but close at hand. The people of Ohio have further declared that in their opinion, the people of a Territory have no power under the Constitution, or from any other legal source, to establish Slavery as one of their institutions during their Territorial existence; that the exercise of such a power would be a manifest usurpation of the individual rights of the citizens of the Territories, and utterly subversive of all popular sovereignty, which demands, as a primary essential condition, the recognition of inalienable personal rights. They insist, also, that coupled with the power is the duty of Congress to prohibit, by express enactment, the extension of slavery into any Free Territory of the United States--that the exercise of this power has been repeatedly approved of by every department of the State and National G