Louis Wigfall: Confederate Politician, Texas Senator

Louis Wigfall serves as a compelling character within the context of political leadership. Often, we associate the origins of our political figures with their achievements in finance and business, which are perceived as essential for a successful political trajectory. However, Louis Trezevant Wigfall, a prominent Senator of the Confederate States of America and a fervent advocate for secession, lacked such conventional qualifications. His ascent to prominence is an intriguing tale reflective of the Old South, and his exercise of power reveals a distinct dimension of that societal framework.

Lloyd W Klein MD explains.

Louis Wigfall.

Origin and Character

Wigfall was born on a plantation in the vicinity of Edgefield, South Carolina, to a prosperous merchant from Charleston, while his mother hailed from French Huguenot lineage. Tragically, his father passed away when Wigfall was merely two years old, and he lost his mother at the age of thirteen. He had an older brother, Hamden, who met his demise in a duel, a significant detail in Wigfall's life narrative, while another brother, Arthur, rose to prominence as a bishop in the Episcopal Church. Wigfall pursued his education at what would later be known as the University of South Carolina, where he spent a considerable amount of time in taverns, with the exception of a three-month period during which he participated in the Seminole War.

Afterwards, Wigfall engaged in a lifestyle characterized by excessive drinking and gambling, ultimately depleting his inheritance and accruing substantial debts from friends and even his future spouse. He eventually returned to Edgefield, where he assumed control of his deceased brother's law practice, although he did not find success in this endeavor either. The South Carolina Encyclopedia describes him as “financially irresponsible,” noting that he wasted his moderate inheritance on vices such as gambling, alcohol, and illicit relationships.

However, these shortcomings were not the most alarming aspects of Wigfall's character. He was known for his violent disposition, frequently challenging others to duels despite the tragic fate of his brother. Notably, he was involved in at least two duels prior to the Civil War. His political affiliations led him into a series of altercations, including a fistfight, two duels, and three near-duels over a span of five months, culminating in a charge for homicide, although he was not indicted. In a notable duel with Preston Brooks, who later gained infamy for assaulting Charles Sumner in the Senate, Wigfall sustained gunshot wounds to his thighs.

Political Career

None of this helped his political aspirations, so in 1848, he moved to Texas, joining a law practice. The dynamic and often tumultuous nature of Texas politics proved to be more aligned with his temperament, as he held a seat in the Texas House of Representatives from 1849 to 1850, followed by a tenure in the Texas Senate from 1857 to 1860.

He emerged as a prominent member of a faction known as the "Fire-eaters," which included notable figures such as Edmund Ruffin, Robert Rhett, and William Lowndes Yancey. During a convention in Nashville, Tennessee, in 1850, the Fire-Eaters advocated for southern secession, emphasizing the irreconcilable differences between the North and South, and they intensified regional tensions through their use of propaganda against Northern interests. He became a staunch adversary of Sam Houston, who espoused pro-Union sentiments, and actively campaigned against him during Houston's gubernatorial run in 1857, criticizing his congressional record. In 1859, Wigfall was elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat, serving until his withdrawal on March 23, 1861, and was subsequently expelled on July 11, 1861, due to his support for the rebellion.

Position on Slavery

Wigfall's stance on slavery was characteristic of the traditional Southern viewpoint prevalent during his era. He advocated for a societal structure dominated by the planter class, which was fundamentally reliant on slavery and the principles of the chivalric code. Following the gubernatorial election of 1857, there appeared to be a shift in public sentiment towards the Union, particularly as the Know-Nothing Party began to disband. However, the John Brown Raid reignited the contentious debate surrounding slavery, likely contributing to his electoral success. Upon his entry into the United States Senate in 1859, Wigfall consistently resisted any initiatives aimed at alleviating political discord. He emerged as a prominent figure in the campaign to guarantee the rights of Southern slaveholders to migrate with their slaves into new territories. Additionally, he was a staunch advocate of nullification during his time in South Carolina and fervently supported the expansion of slavery while opposing protective tariffs.

He resorted to threats of violence in his politics as well as in his personal life. Regarding the difference of opinion about slavery that northerners had, he said, “You shall not publish newspapers and pamphlets to excite the non-slaveholders against the slaveholders, or the slaveholders against the non-slaveholders. We will have peace; and if you do not offer it to us, we will quietly, and as we have the right under the constitutional compact to do, withdraw from the Union and establish a government for ourselves; and if you then persist in your aggressions, we will leave it to the ultimo ratio regum (a resort to arms), and the sovereign States will settle that question. And when you laugh at these impotent threats, as you regard them, I tell you that cotton is king.”

Secession

The conflicts between Wigfall and Sam Houston, the Texas governor, were marked by intensity. Houston was a strong proponent of the Southern cause but believed that the best strategy was to stay in  the Union and bring about change from within, not to fight a war over secession. Wigfall labeled Houston as a coward and a traitor to the Southern cause. Wigfall stood out as one of the rare individuals in opposition to Houston who could match him in oratory skills, and he received considerable recognition for contributing to Houston's loss in the gubernatorial race of 1857.

Wigfall's role in the Democratic Convention of 1860 was of significant consequence. As a leading fire-eater, he advocated for the Democratic party's platform to explicitly demand that the Federal government ensure the protection of slavery within the territories. His efforts were instrumental in the fracturing of the Democratic party, which ultimately facilitated the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. In January 1865, he expressed his views on social hierarchy by stating, “Sir, I wish to live in no country where the man who blacks my boots or curries my horse is my equal.” His support for secession was rooted in the belief that it would provide a lasting solution to the sectional tensions of the time.

Following Lincoln's election, Wigfall played a pivotal role in drafting the "Southern Manifesto," which proclaimed that any prospects for reconciliation within the Union had vanished. He argued that the dignity and autonomy of the South necessitated the formation of a Southern Confederacy. Despite this strong stance, Wigfall did not resign from the United States Senate until he had successfully undermined all compromise efforts proposed in early 1861, demonstrating his commitment to the cause he championed.

Wigfall maintained his Senate seat even after Texas seceded on February 1, 1861, passionately advocating for the Southern cause while criticizing his Northern counterparts both in the Senate chamber and in various Capitol Hill establishments. Unlike other senators, such as Jefferson Davis, who chose to resign following their states' secession, Wigfall opted to remain in office for a period. It is widely believed that he leveraged his position to gather intelligence on military activities and procure arms for the Confederate forces.

Following secession, Wigfall's influence grew significantly, rooted in his ideological beliefs and support from his Texas constituency. He was inducted into the Provisional Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861, where he contributed to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Additionally, he represented Texas in the Provisional Confederate Congress, which established the Confederacy's provisional government and appointed Jefferson Davis as its president. During his tenure in Washington, Wigfall engaged in espionage against Federal military preparations, arranged for the transport of weapons to the South, and, after being expelled by his Senate colleagues, traveled to Baltimore, Maryland, to enlist soldiers for the Confederacy before making his way to Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate capital.

And then, he travelled to Charleston to do what he could to start a war.

Fort Sumter

Wigfall advocated an attack on Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens with the intention of encouraging Virginia and other upper southern slave states to align with the Confederacy. He recognized that the Border States and those still undecided would likely choose to secede once an armed conflict targeting the South commenced. His fervent advocacy was directed towards both the media and his political associates. Upon his arrival in Charleston, South Carolina, during the onset of the siege of Fort Sumter, diarist Mary Chestnut identified him as the only individual who appeared “thoroughly happy”. His presence during the Confederate shelling of Fort Sumter from Morris Island was seen as a reckless provocation.

While acting as an aide to General Beauregard amid the bombardment of Fort Sumter, Wigfall took it upon himself to approach the fort without prior authorization. He rowed a small boat to the island and demanded the surrender of Major Robert Anderson. Acting independently, he commandeered a rowboat on Morris Island, accompanied by Private Gourdin Young of the Palmetto Guard and two enslaved individuals, to reach Fort Sumter. Upon his arrival, he sought an audience with Major Anderson and entered the fort through an open embrasure. Wigfall informed the Federals, “Your flag is down, you are on fire, and you are not firing your guns. General Beauregard wants to stop this.” His intervention successfully halted the hostilities and he offered favorable terms for surrender.

His actions received significant media attention, enhancing Wigfall's public profile; however, the reports omitted the crucial fact that he had not communicated with Beauregard for two days prior to his actions. When the official representatives eventually arrived at the fort, they were taken aback to discover that Wigfall had extended terms to Anderson that had already been rejected by Beauregard. This misalignment between Wigfall's unilateral decision and the command structure of the Confederate forces highlighted the complexities and tensions within the leadership during this critical moment in the conflict.

Military Service

Following his pivotal involvement in orchestrating the surrender of Fort Sumter, he attained a level of public recognition that had previously eluded him. Drawing from his combative history, he opted to enlist in military service as a means to enhance his public image. On August 28, 1861, he was appointed as colonel of the First Texas Infantry, and subsequently, on November 21, Davis nominated him for the rank of brigadier general in the Provisional Army, a nomination that was later ratified by the Confederate Congress. Wigfall took command of the Texas Brigade within the Army of Northern Virginia.  2. During the winter of 1861–1862, he established his residence in a tavern located near his troops in Dumfries, Virginia, where he often summoned his men to arms at midnight, driven by fears of a Federal invasion. His anxiety was attributed to his excessive consumption of whiskey and hard cider. As a result, Wigfall's effectiveness as a brigadier general diminished, and he frequently appeared intoxicated, both on and off duty, in front of his soldiers.

Confederate Congress

So, finding military life a bit too regimented, he resigned on February 20, 1862 and took a seat in the First Confederate Congress and served throughout the war. He sat on the committees on Foreign Affairs; Military Affairs; Territories; and Flag and Seal. John Bell Hood replaced him in  brigade command, and became known as Hood’s brigade, which he personally led at Antietam.

He had started as a close friend of Jefferson Davis. Initially he served as a military aide to Davis. An arrogant man, Wigfall soon came into conflict with President Davis. After the chief executive vetoed Wigfall’s bill to upgrade staff positions in the army and limit presidential selection, Wigfall carried his fight into social circles, even going so far as to refuse to stand when Davis entered the room. Although a friend and supporter of the Confederate military, he was also an obstructionist in opposing Davis’ nominations.

What could a fire-eater like Wigfall find objectionable about Davis, the ultimate states rights advocate? Davis began to recognize that to survive, the new nation needed a powerful executive with powers that superseded state governors. Inflation, recruitment of soldiers, the building of a navy and acquiring war resources necessitated a strong central government. Davis’ nationalized the salt industry, for example, and regulated salt production, a responsibility more similar to socialism than capitalism or states rights. Meanwhile, Wigfall as senator blocked the creation of a Confederate Supreme Court and openly questioned many of Davis’ military decisions.

Wigfall proposed the first conscription law ever enacted in American history. His main legislative successes were initiating Conscription and then extending its age requirements and funding much needed railroad construction.

During the last two years of the Confederacy Wigfall carried on public and conspiratorial campaigns to strip Davis of all influence. His continuing conflict with Davis and his support of military men and strategies that Davis did not like led to his loss of influence in the final years of the war. He did very little constructive work for the people of Texas.

As the war increasingly turned against the CSA, Wigfall became the predominant critic of the Davis war effort, including his choice of commanders.

After Appomattox, Wigfall’s belligerence remained unabated. He escaped back to Texas. He spent six years in self-imposed exile in London before returning briefly to Baltimore, and later to Galveston, Texas. He never adjusted to defeat and never admitted to losing.

Wigfall was very close to Joseph E Johnston, who of course was not one of Davis’s favorites. He also early on suggested promoting Robert E Lee to commander of all Confederate armies, a post Davis would never create.

After Gettysburg and western defeats, Wigfall attacked Robert E. Lee, John Pemberton and Braxton Bragg. In January 1865 his successor as head of the Texas Brigade, John Bell Hood, is relieved of command after a loss at Franklin. The influential Wigfall announced that Davis’ “pig-headedness and perverseness” were destroying the South.

After the chief executive vetoed Wigfall’s bill to upgrade staff positions in the army and limit presidential selection, Wigfall carried his fight into social circles, even going so far as to refuse to stand when Davis entered the room.

He opposed the arming of slaves and was willing to lose the war rather than admit that Blacks were worthy of being soldiers. He stated that he didn’t want to “make a Santo Domingo of his country.” His racial prejudices remained unchanged from his youth.

He tried to foment war between Britain and the United States, hoping to give the South an opportunity to rise again. 

Famous Quotes

“We want no manufacturers, we are a nation of proud farmers who want to preserve our lifestyle'.

December 11, 1860, on the floor of the Senate; "I said that one of the causes, and the one that has created more excitement and dissatisfaction than any other, is, that the Government will not hereafter, and when it is necessary, interpose to protect slaves as property in the Territories; and I asked the Senator if he would abandon his squatter-sovereignty notions and agree to protect slaves as all other property?" [Quote taken from The Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 58.]

Regarding the Homestead Act: "It provides land for the land-less, homes for the home-less, but no slaves for the slave-less." (he actually used the N-word, which I am changing here for obvious reasons).

I realize that it is painful to read these words in their raw, unfiltered original form. The point is that when confronted with what was actually said, we see meanings that were in fact intended that otherwise gets lost in the translation, which then gets twisted into: “Slavery wasn’t all that bad.” But this is what the intent was.

Wigfall was a confederate politician from the State of Texas. He is regarded as one of the most conservative politicians of his time and place, which is really radical, who wanted to carve out a unique identify and future for Texas. He wanted to build Texas on the model of old European aristocratic systems where the few owned all of the land. But he went further: they would also own all of the people who worked on their land. He supported the use of slaves and believed that they were integral in order to preserve a system of order. Essentially, he was advocating a hereditary, aristocratic serf system that was racially based.

Although it is well recognized that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone” was slavery and racism, it is sobering to recognize that their thought leaders went way beyond that. Their dream was a class and economic system that benefitted the very few at the expense of the many, a return to medieval feudalism before the Magna Carta. And the underlying rationale was white supremacy mixed in with a superiority of heredity. It is breathtaking to think that this was only 160-170 years ago in America.

And to accomplish that, they were willing to forego industrial and manufacturing progress to keep their society in line. The hubris of thinking that they could keep technological advances out of their culture is mind blowing, and not unlike that seen in certain Middle East sheikdoms, which has also had to be modified in light of modern progress. This is the foundation of why illiteracy and poor education was the real cornerstone of the Confederacy. I believe this subject has not been addressed in the historical record to any great extent.

Summary

Wigfall's reputation for oratory and hard drinking, along with a combative nature and high-minded sense of personal honor, made him one of the more imposing political figures of his time.  It is interesting that his overarching interests became military strategy, personnel and recruitment. His advocacy of the preservation and expansion of an aristocratic agricultural society based on slave labor was his main domestic position. He was a belligerent drunkard who was happy to fight anyone physically. But he actually had a cogent, albeit outrageous and unethical, economic blueprint for what he wanted to see his country and state become. He had a vision of America that modern Americans would not recognize.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Further reading

Louis Wigfall: Southern Fire-Eater by A. L. King. Men of Secession by James Abrahamson.

King, Alvy L. Louis T. Wigfall: Southern Fire-Eater. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1970.

Lord, C. W. “Young Louis Wigfall: South Carolina Politician and Duelist.” South Carolina Historical Magazine 59 (April 1958): 96–112.

https://greatamericanhistory.net/the-fire-eaters/

https://roadtothecivilwar.org/louis-t-wigfall/

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/wigfall-louis-trezevant

https://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/wigfall-louis-trezevant/ 

https://roadtothecivilwar.org/louis-t-wigfall/

https://www.nps.gov/people/louis-wigfall.htm

https://greatamericanhistory.net/the-fire-eaters/

Airborne Hope: The Balloon Post of the 1870-71 Siege of Paris

During the Franco-Prussian War, Paris was under siege, cut off from communication, and facing dwindling supplies. In a daring move, Parisians took to the skies with gas-filled balloons to carry mail, people, and news across enemy lines. These flights, though dangerous and often unpredictable, became a vital lifeline and stand as one of the most innovative uses of aviation in wartime. This article delves into the bold balloon post operation and its significance during the Siege of Paris.

Richard Clements explains.

The Louis Blanc, piloted by Eugène Farcot. Part of the Balloon Post.

Historical Context: The Franco-Prussian War and the Siege of Paris

The Franco-Prussian War began in 1870, with Prussian forces quickly overwhelming French defenses. By September, Paris was completely encircled by Prussian troops, cutting off communication with the rest of the country. The Government of National Defense, formed by republican deputies in Paris, desperately needed to maintain contact with unoccupied France and the French government-in-exile in Tours. To address this, the Parisians turned to an ingenious solution: balloon post.

The Birth of the Balloon Post

With telegraph lines cut and roads blocked, the idea of using balloons to carry mail and messages out of Paris arose out of sheer necessity. The first balloon was launched on September 23, 1870, by Jules Duruof, a professional balloonist. His flight carried critical dispatches, and the success of this mission led to the establishment of regular balloon services. Eyewitness accounts from Gaspard-Félix Tournachon (known as Nadar) describe the public’s awe and anticipation as they watched the first balloons ascend, hoping for safe passage.

Balloon Construction and Design

Most of the balloons used during the siege were gas-filled, typically with hydrogen, which was produced by decomposing zinc and sulfuric acid. These balloons were usually made from silk or rubber and measured 26 to 33 feet in diameter, capable of carrying between 440 and 1,100 pounds of cargo, including mail, newspapers, and sometimes passengers.

While hot air balloons (dirigibles) were experimented with during this period, they were less reliable than their gas-filled counterparts and mainly used for shorter flights. The hydrogen-filled balloons, on the other hand, were much more buoyant and suited for long-distance travel.

Operational Details: Launch Sites and Flight Paths

Balloon flights were launched from various locations within Paris, such as the Gare d'Orléans. Pilots relied on wind direction to steer their balloons, as navigation tools were rudimentary. The unpredictability of balloon flight meant pilots often found themselves landing far from their intended destinations.

For instance, Le Jacquard was famously blown off course and landed in Norway, an event that caused quite a stir given the distance. Similarly, L'Archimède, piloted by naval officer Jules Buffet, flew north and crossed over Belgian and Dutch territory, eventually landing near the Belgian-Dutch border. Buffet later recounted the exhilarating flight, describing how Paris slowly disappeared from view as they rose to 6,500 feet at night, while fires and landmarks lit their way.

Cargo and Passengers

The main purpose of the balloon post was to carry mail, and by the end of the siege, more than two million letters had been sent out of Paris. In addition to mail, government dispatches, newspapers, and even homing pigeons were transported via these balloons. Some balloons also carried passengers, including government officials who needed to escape Paris.

The most famous passenger was Léon Gambetta, the French Minister of the Interior, who escaped Paris by balloon in October 1870. Gambetta’s flight was crucial, as it allowed him to coordinate resistance efforts from outside the besieged city, boosting the morale of the French population.

Successes and Failures

While many balloon flights were successful, some faced dire consequences. Of the 67 balloons launched during the siege, several failed to reach their intended destinations. Some were intercepted by Prussian forces, while others were lost to bad weather or navigational issues. For example, one balloon that tried to land near Mechelen in Belgium was startled by celebratory gunfire, causing the pilot to abort the landing, fearing it was enemy fire.

Despite these challenges, the operation was a tremendous success overall, both in terms of communication and morale. The sight of a balloon rising above the city brought hope to the people of Paris, symbolizing that they were still connected to the outside world.

Retrieving Balloons and Cargo

Once the balloons landed in friendly territory, their cargo of letters and dispatches had to be retrieved, often by locals. For example, after L'Archimède landed in Belgium, local peasants helped Jules Buffet deflate the balloon and recover the letters. The letters and dispatches were then forwarded through regular postal services, ensuring their delivery to recipients across unoccupied France.

The retrieval process wasn’t without risk. In one instance, a balloon’s descent was complicated by local villagers smoking pipes near the hydrogen-filled balloon. Such incidents highlight the unpredictability of balloon landings and the challenges of safely recovering valuable cargo.

The Impact on the Siege

The balloon post played a vital role in maintaining the morale of Parisians during the siege. Knowing their letters and dispatches were reaching the outside world reassured them that they hadn’t been forgotten. Additionally, the balloon post allowed the French government to coordinate military efforts from outside Paris, although communication was one-way, as nothing could be sent back into the city.

Legacy and Historical Significance

The use of balloons during the Siege of Paris marked a key moment in the history of aviation and military communication. The success of gas-filled balloon flights demonstrated the potential of air transport for carrying messages during times of conflict. The balloon post of the siege became a cultural symbol of French resilience and ingenuity, inspiring numerous depictions in newspapers, paintings, and books.

Conclusion

The balloon post of the Siege of Paris stands as a remarkable achievement of innovation and perseverance during a time of extreme hardship. While most of the balloons were gas-filled and expertly crafted for long-distance travel, the occasional use of hot air balloons showed the broad range of experimentation at play. Each flight, whether successful or facing challenges, carried with it the hopes of a city under siege, forever cementing its place in aviation history.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

Aubry, Octave. The Siege of Paris: 1870-1871. Macmillan, 1933.

Boyle, Andrew. Flights of Fancy: The Balloon Post During the Franco-Prussian War. Military History Press, 1971.

Lachouque, Henry. The French Army and the Franco-Prussian War. Praeger, 1968.

Marsden, William. "Balloon Post: A Pioneering Aviation Feat." History Today, vol. 22, no. 4, 1972.

Nadar, Gaspard-Félix. My Life in the Air. Oxford University Press, 1899.

Rickards, Colin. Aviation Before the Airplane: Paris Balloons of 1870. Oxford University Press, 1980.

Schwartz, Paul. "Balloons over Paris: The Role of Aviation in the Franco-Prussian War." Journal of Military History, vol. 53, no. 3, 1989.

Watson, Charles. The Balloons of Paris: A Forgotten History of Siege Warfare. HarperCollins, 1995.

The Man Who Suffered a Brain Injury – And Helped to Change Medicine

His body rests at Cypress Lawn Cemetery near San Francisco where he died in 1860. His head sits at the Warren Anatomical Museum in Boston. Here, Terry Hamburg tells us about a man who suffered a brain injury and the changes it caused – Phineas Gage.

Phineas Gage in the time after his accident.

Phineas Gage is perhaps the most famous neurological patient in modern history, called one of the “great medical curiosities of all time” and a “living part of medical folklore.” Malcolm MacMillan of the University of Melbourne records that two-thirds of introductory psychology textbooks cover Gage and his significance: "He was the first case where you could say fairly definitely that injury to the brain produced some kind of change in personality.” At the time, study of the brain is very rudimentary. Phrenologists, who accessed personalities by calculating protrusions on the skull, are still respected. The famous case of Phineas Gage will become a critical step in modern brain science.

September 1848

The young, robust, gregarious lad is employed as munitions foreman for the Rutland & Burlingame Railroad in Vermont. It is the most dangerous job in the crew. A standard blasting procedure involves boring a hole deep into rock, stuffing it with explosive powder and fuse, then using a tamping iron to pack in sand or clay to contain and direct the blast. Proud of his profession, Gage commissions an especially large custom-made tamping rod: three feet seven inches long, 1.4″ in diameter, and weighing over thirteen pounds.

The most dreaded mishap in munitions is a premature explosion.The tamping rod rockets into the left side of Gage’s face in an upward direction just past the lower jaw angle. Traversing the upper jaw and fracturing the cheekbone, it passes behind the left eye, through the left side of the brain, and flies out the top of his skull.

Gage is catapulted, lands hard on his back, convulses for a time, but is able to speak after a few minutes. He walks with little assistance and sits upright in an oxcart for a bumpy one mile ride to his town lodgings. True to the pioneer macho man legend, Gage shrugs off the injury, announcing he is not “much hurt” and expects to be back at work in a few days. His recovery from this horrific event is one of top medical stories of the era. Doctors worldwide exchange ideas and theories on the details and implications of the accident. For the next generation, it becomes the standard against which other injuries to the brain are judged. Some refuse to believe that anyone could survive such an ordeal – it must be a fabrication or a trick.

Despite his own optimism, Gage’s convalescence is long, difficult, and uneven, which requires further attendance by his physician, John M. Harlow, who garners fame as the doctor who treats the man who should not be. By April 1849, the patient is proclaimed to be in good physical health. Gage has, however, lost vision in his left eye and sustains a large forehead scar and a deep depression on top of his head “beneath which the pulsations of the brain can be perceived,” Dr. Harlow noted. “He has no pain in his head but says it has a queer feeling which he is not able to describe.”

After recovery

For a brief time after recovery, Gage exploits his newfound fame as a one-man traveling exhibit at New England venues, including an event organized by P.T. Barnum, where he is the object of both morbid curiosity and praise. This sort of exposure is soon overexposed, and the still robust Gage continues to work at various jobs as a farmer, stable and coach service owner, and a long-distance stagecoach driver, but he suffers from occasional seizures and then epilepsy, dying in 1860 twelve years after his injury. There are many reports that he underwent dramatic and negative personality changes – becoming a dishonest, ill-tempered, brawling lout. Gage’s steady work history and other contemporary assessments suggest such claims are exaggerated.

Phrenologists contended that destruction of the mental “organs” of Veneration and Benevolence caused Gage’s behavioral changes. Harlow may have believed that the organ of Comparison was damaged as well.

Dr. Harlow requests and receives the patient’s skull. He is bequeathed the most famous tamping rod in history, which Gage carried wherever he went, inscribed: This is the bar that was shot through the head of Mr Phineas P. Gage at Cavendish, Vermont, Sept 14, 1848. He fully recovered from the injury & deposited this bar in the Museum of the Medical College of Harvard University.

These artifacts, along with a plaster cast of Phineas Gage’s head created during an 1850 examination, are the most sought-out items at the Warren Anatomical Museum on the Harvard Medical School campus.

Terry Hamburg is director emeritus of the Cypress Lawn Cemetery Heritage Foundation. His recently published book Land of the Dead: How The West Changed Death In America explores how the demands of survival and adaptation in the Gold Rush western migration changed a multitude of American customs, including the way we bury and grieve for our ancestors. California and San Francisco serve as case studies. Visit his author page: https://www.terryhamburgbooks.com.

Family Separations in U.S. Immigration History: A New Issue, or as American as Baseball and Apple Pie?

Candidate Donald Trump thrust immigration issues at the Southern border into the forefront of American politics in the early weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign.   But even then, the issue was not new.

Joseph Bauer, author of Sailing for Grace (Running Wild Press 2024), explains.

A teacher, Mary R. Hyde, and students at the Carlisle Indian Training School. Source: here and here.

At least two years before 2016, large numbers of Central American families, nearly all from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador began to arrive in walking caravans at the Texas Border.  Well before Donald Trump emerged, the U.S. immigration system at the border was overtaxed.  Ronald Reagan knew it; George W. Bush (fluent in Spanish) knew it; Barack Obama knew it.  All tried to address it, explaining that congressionally authorized resources were simply inadequate to manage the realities permitted by U.S. immigration law, especially the legal right foreign nationals to seek asylum or refugee status under a federal statute essentially unchanged since 1965.

Efforts for change and improvement all died at the altar of partisan self-interest.  Legislators from across the country—not only those with constituents on the border—concluded that any solution would be more problematic to individual political fortunes than continuing the status quo and arguing the positions most favored by the particular local and regional voters they needed to be elected.

Stoked by political rhetoric from both sides, the public worried about large numbers of new citizens entering the country. Legitimate worries included concern about the strain on public health, school resources, and transportation infrastructure in local communities.  Unfounded worries included concerns about crime.  Numerous studies have documented that immigrants, including those entering legally by asylum and even those “undocumented” persons who are in the U.S. without legal status, commit crimes at materially lower rates than American-born citizens.[1]  The other objection, that newcomers cause Americans to lose or find jobs, has also been refuted. Employers hiring large numbers of workers almost unanimously want as many immigrants allowed in as is possible to fill jobs for which they cannot find applicants otherwise.  And increases in the number of immigrants, by adding to the economy and success of businesses, actually increases the wages and employment opportunities of American-born citizens.[2]

2017 and 2018

But in 2017 and 2018, the Trump administration moved, without Congressional authority, to stop the Central American caravans with a new measure:  the broadscale involuntary separation of parents from their children at the Texas border, primarily at El Paso.  The intent of the new policy was deterrence: to discourage asylum seeking families from making their journeys.  If they began to be separated, finding themselves in different countries, it was thought, the seekers would stop seeking.

The program was initially undisclosed by the administration (on the ground that it was merely a “pilot program”) and drew little public or media attention.  It worked as follows.

 A family presented itself to the Border Control agents at the crossing (the recommended pathway for entrance) or on American soil near the border, having managed to reach it by other means (not recommended, but still a legal way to seek asylum under U.S. law).  Following brief interviews, nearly all parents were either detained temporarily in a government facility without their children or summarily deported and sent to the Mexican border, again without their children.  The children, regardless of age, were immediately deemed “unaccompanied minors,” since their parents were no longer present with them, and turned over to the custody of the Homeland Security Refugee Service for temporary housing, often in a church-affiliated respite center, and then ultimately placed in either American foster homes or the home of a qualifying relative somewhere in the U.S., if such a person could be identified.  If a relative could be found at all, the process was often lengthy.

Data on the actual number of children taken from their parents during the Trump Administration are imprecise.  But studies by relief organizations such as the American Council of Catholic Bishops, the Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Service, and the Washington Office on Latin America have documented that at least 2,000 children were removed from parents between February 2017 and the date the policy became public and official in May 2018; another 2,500 were separated in the 50 days thereafter.   Some estimates are as high as nearly 6,000 children and 3,000 families.  The Trump administration ostensibly stopped the practice on June 20, 2018, in response to public furor and condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum.[3]   Anti-immigrant positions might earn votes for some politicians, but taking children from their parents earned votes for nobody.   What it did was provoke the abhorrence of  the vast majority of (but not all) Americans.

Historical context

But was the widescale forced separation of parents and children in 2018 actually new in historical American immigration policy and practice?  Could such a policy have been a reality earlier in the American experiment?  The truth—many would say sad truth—is that it was.  Two prior examples are obvious and known to most Americans.

The first was the long period of legal slavery in the U.S., when millions of African and Caribbean black men and women were forcibly transported to the United States with the approval of the federal and state governments and held here in involuntary servitude.  Those slaves who were able to bring their children with them, or who gave birth to them once here, were routinely sold to new owners, never to see their children or grandchildren again.  There is no denying that slavery in the U.S. was tragically replete with the separation of families.

The second instance was the common practice for decades in the 19th century of removing Native American children from their natural parents and tribes and placing them either in “Indian” boarding schools or the strange Christian homes of white Americans.  (A moving portrait of the practice—and its harmful effects—is depicted in Conrad Richter’s classic novel, The Light in the Forest.)  These involuntary relocations were massive.  Federal and state governments separated as many as 35% of all American indigenous children from their families, according to a 1978 report by the US House of Representatives.[4]

Most of us learned of the above practices in our American educations, if incompletely.  But many may be surprised to learn that family separation in the U.S. occurred at the hands of some state and city governments even into the early 20th century, condoned or overlooked by the federal government.   Prior to 1920, when specific immigration rules were enacted by Congress, state and city governments, motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment, removed an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 children of Irish and Polish immigrants and placed them in Protestant or Anglo-American households, away from their local areas.[5]

We can hope that such interference with the family unit, based on religious hatred, would be unthinkable today.  But it is part of our past.

2015 report

In 2015, the American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration published a report entitled

Family Immigration Detention, Why the Past Cannot be Prologue.  The report addressed the difficult and sad question of the morality of detaining whole families at the border under the Obama administration.  It preceded the family separation policy that the Trump administration implemented 3 years later, which most Americans believe was even sadder and more immoral.

The authors of the ABA report must be disappointed.  The “past” that it examined—the detention of whole families—did not improve.  Instead, it worsened, with a government policy that, at least temporarily, divided the nuclear family unit itself.

In this instance, we did not advance from the lessons of our past.  But in history, there is always hope.  Maybe we will learn them at last.

Joseph Bauer is the author of Sailing for Grace (Running Wild Press 2024), a novel that explores a white widower’s quest to fulfill a promise to his dying wife: to reunite Central American parents with their children separated from them at the Texas Border in 2018.  Mr. Bauer’s previously published novels are The Accidental Patriot (2020), The Patriot’s Angels (2022), and Too True to be Good (2023).  His latest finished manuscript of historical fiction about the lead-up to and conduct of WWII is titled, Arsenal of Secrecy, The FDR Years, A Novel.

[1] See e.g., Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-Born Citizen Rate, University of Wisconsin research study funded by the National Institute of Justice (September 2024).  This and many other studies conclude that undocumented “illegal” immigrants commit about or less than half as many crimes as Americans for the same number of persons.  This is true across all kinds of crimes, including murders, other violent crimes, and drug trafficking.  Admitted asylum seekers and refugees also commit far few crimes than American-born counterparts.

[2] Immigration’s Effect on US Wages and Employment, Caiumi, Alessandro and Peri, Giovanni, National Bureau of Economic Research (August 2024).

[3] Many sources, including an audit by U.S.  have reported that family separations at the Texas border continued in significant numbers well after the Trump Administration announced a halt to them in June 2018.  See e.g., Long, Colleen; Alonso-Zaldiver, Ricardo. “Watchdog: Thousands More Children May Have Been Separated”. U.S. News & World Report, January 18, 2019.

[4]Sinha, Anita. An American History of Separating Families, American Constitution Society, November 2, 2020.

[5]Americans today almost unanimously believe that our Constitution, by its First Amendment, assures inviolate an individual and collective right to freedom of religion and worship.  But that Amendment, until applied to State and local governments much, much later, did not prevent any state from religious discrimination in its own laws.  Catholics were so generally despised in Massachusetts in the early days of our nation that Catholic priests were forbidden by state law from living there and subject to imprisonment and even execution if they did.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel: Britain’s Greatest Engineer?

Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806–1859) is widely regarded as one of the greatest engineers in history. His pioneering work on bridges, railways, and tunnels, in addition to, ships dramatically shaped the industrial landscape of Victorian Britain and left a lasting legacy on modern engineering and transportation that eventually reshaped the world. Brunel's genius for problem-solving and his relentless pursuit of innovation made him a towering figure of the 19th century, whose contributions to society endure to this day.

Terry Bailey explains.

The ship the SS Great Eastern in 1858.

Early Life and Education

Brunel was born on the 9th of April, 1806, in Portsmouth, England, to a French father, Marc Isambard Brunel, and an English mother, Sophia Kingdom. Marc Brunel was an accomplished engineer in his own right, working on various mechanical and civil engineering projects in Britain. From an early age, Isambard was exposed to the world of engineering, with his father encouraging his intellectual curiosity and fostering his talents.

Brunel was educated at prestigious institutions in England and France, where he developed a strong foundation in mathematics, mechanics, and engineering principles. His formal education began at the Henri-Quatre School in Paris and continued at Lycée Saint-Louis before he returned to England. He then apprenticed under his father, gaining practical experience and learning firsthand from an expert engineer. This mentorship would lay the groundwork for his illustrious career, and the pair would collaborate on several major projects.

The Thames Tunnel: A Landmark Feat of Engineering

One of the earliest and most significant projects that shaped Brunel's career was the Thames Tunnel, which he worked on alongside his father. Started in 1825, this tunnel was the first to be successfully constructed under a navigable river, connecting Rotherhithe and Wapping in London. It was an ambitious project fraught with challenges, including financial troubles, technical difficulties, and hazardous working conditions.

Brunel took on a leadership role as the chief assistant engineer, displaying his characteristic resourcefulness. He helped develop innovative techniques, such as the use of a tunnelling shield—a safety structure that allowed workers to dig safely through the riverbed without the tunnel collapsing. The tunnel itself was considered a marvel of engineering at the time, overcoming immense pressures and the threat of constant flooding.

Though the Thames Tunnel was beset by numerous setbacks and took nearly two decades to complete, its successful opening in 1843 was used only for pedestrian traffic until the 1860s, when it was converted to railway use.

The Thames Tunnel solidified Brunel's reputation as a rising star in civil engineering. The tunnel remains in use today as part of the London rail network, a testament to its durability and Brunel's engineering vision.

The Great Western Railway: Revolutionizing Transportation

Brunel's most famous and far-reaching contributions came in the realm of railway engineering. In 1833, before the Thames tunnel was complete, at just 27 years old, he was appointed chief engineer of the Great Western Railway (GWR), a project that would cement his legacy. His vision was to create a seamless rail connection between London and Bristol, facilitating the movement of goods and passengers across the country with unprecedented speed and efficiency.

Brunel's design for the GWR was innovative in multiple ways, but one of his most notable decisions was to use a broad gauge of 7 feet, rather than the standard gauge of 4 feet 8½ inches. He believed the wider gauge would allow for greater stability, faster speeds, and a more comfortable ride for passengers. While the broad gauge did offer some advantages, it was ultimately phased out in favor of the standard gauge, due to the logistical complications of operating different rail systems across the country.

Nevertheless, Brunel's work on the GWR was groundbreaking.

His commitment to high-quality engineering was evident in the construction of viaducts, tunnels, and stations, all designed with precision and an eye for aesthetics. Two of the most famous structures built for the GWR are the Box Tunnel and Maidenhead Railway Bridge.

The Box Tunnel, completed in 1841, was the longest railway tunnel in the world at the time, stretching 1.83 miles, (approximately 2.95 kilometers), through the chalk hills of Wiltshire. It was an extraordinary feat of engineering, requiring meticulous planning and execution. Legend has it that Brunel aligned the tunnel's construction so that on his birthday, the 9th of April the sunlight would shine straight through from end to end.

Earlier the Maidenhead Railway Bridge, with its flat, wide arches, was another testament to Brunel's brilliance. Completed in 1838, it was revolutionary in its use of low-rise arches that allowed for a stable railway crossing without compromising the integrity of the structure. Today, the bridge remains in use, another symbol of Brunel's lasting contributions to British infrastructure.

The Clifton Suspension Bridge: A Masterpiece of Design

One of Brunel's most iconic works, the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol, stands as a symbol of his bold engineering vision. While the bridge wasn't completed during his lifetime, Brunel began work on it in the early 1830s after winning a design competition. His daring design called for a suspension bridge spanning the Avon Gorge, with a total length of 234 yards, (214 meters).

The construction of the bridge faced numerous financial and technical difficulties, however, it was eventually completed in 1864, five years after Brunel's death. Needless to say, the Clifton Suspension Bridge has since become an enduring symbol of British engineering, celebrated for both its functional design and its graceful beauty. The bridge, still in use today, is often seen as a testament to Brunel's ingenuity and his ambition to create structures that were as visually stunning as they were practical.

Engineering the Seas: Brunel's Ships

Brunel's talents were not limited to land-based engineering. His foray into maritime engineering led to the construction of three revolutionary ships that would set new standards in shipbuilding and sea travel.

SS Great Western (completed 1838): This was Brunel's first foray into shipbuilding and the world's first steamship designed for transatlantic service. The Great Western was a wooden paddle steamer, which was considered the largest passenger ship of its time. It successfully made the journey from Bristol to New York in 15 days, marking the beginning of regular steam-powered transatlantic crossings. The ship's success proved that steam-powered vessels could dominate long-distance sea travel.

SS Great Britain (completed 1845): Brunel continued to push the boundaries of maritime engineering with the SS Great Britain, the first ocean-going ship to be built with an iron hull and driven by a screw propeller. At 322 feet long, (just over 98 meters), it was the largest ship afloat at the time. The SS Great Britain combined the best of both worlds, using both sails and steam power and set a new benchmark for ship design. It revolutionized shipbuilding, influencing the design of future iron and steel ships.

SS Great Eastern (completed 1859): Brunel's most ambitious and controversial ship was the SS Great Eastern, intended to be the largest ship in the world and capable of carrying 4,000 passengers. It was an extraordinary engineering feat—692 feet long, (almost 211 meters), and 18,915 tons, (over 19218 metric tons). Unfortunately, the Great Eastern was plagued by mismanagement, cost overruns, and technical difficulties, making it a commercial failure. However, its design innovations, particularly in terms of double hull construction, had a lasting impact on shipbuilding practices.

Lasting Contributions and Legacy

Isambard Kingdom Brunel's career was marked by audacity, innovation, and an insatiable desire to push the limits of what was possible in engineering. His work on railways, bridges, tunnels, and ships not only transformed Britain's infrastructure but also laid the foundation for modern engineering practices.

Brunel's achievements extended beyond the technical. His vision of an interconnected Britain, where goods and people could move quickly and efficiently across the country and beyond, helped drive the Industrial Revolution and fostered economic growth. His pioneering use of materials such as iron, his development of new construction techniques, and his application of steam power to transport set new standards for engineering that would influence future generations of engineers.

While not all of his projects were commercial successes, Brunel's contributions to society are undeniable. His work on the Great Western Railway alone reshaped the British economy and transformed cities such as Bristol, which became key industrial hubs. Brunel's bridges, tunnels, and ships remain iconic landmarks, serving as testaments to his genius and the transformative power of engineering, in addition, to interconnecting travel.

In recognition of his extraordinary contributions, Brunel was honored in his lifetime and continues to be celebrated posthumously. In 2002, he was named second in a BBC poll of the 100 Greatest Britons, a fitting tribute to the man whose work helped build the modern world.

In conclusion, Isambard Kingdom Brunel's life and career were defined by an unwavering commitment to innovation and a drive to overcome engineering challenges. From the Thames Tunnel to the Great Western Railway, the Clifton Suspension Bridge, and his revolutionary ships, Brunel's work touched nearly every aspect of transportation in the 19th century. His inventions and achievements not only reshaped the physical landscape of Britain but also left an indelible mark on the history of engineering, making him a true visionary whose legacy continues to inspire.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The Disputed U.S. Presidential Election of 1876

The 1876 U.S. presidential election is one of the most contentious and controversial elections in American history. This election has a fraught legacy: After months of bitter fighting, lawmakers made a fateful compromise to put one man in office by effectively ending Reconstruction, leading to a century of intensified racial segregation in the South. It involved a dispute over electoral votes that was eventually resolved through a political compromise.  It was not our country’s finest moment.

Lloyd W. Klein explains.

Rutherford B. Hayes.

The Candidates

The candidates were a reform-minded Democrat and a Reconstructionist Republican. Rutherford B. Hayes was the governor of Ohio and was the Republican candidate. His campaign focused on reform and a commitment to civil rights, particularly for African Americans in the South. Before the war he had been a Cincinnati lawyer and abolitionist. He ran against Samuel J. Tilden the governor of New York, the Democratic candidate. He was known for his efforts in fighting corruption, particularly in New York City’s Tammany Hall. Tilden had been a War Democrat who opposed slavery; Tilden opposed Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election but later supported him and the Union during the Civil War.

The Democratic VP candidate was William A Wheeler, a man about whom Hayes had recently said, “I am ashamed to say: who is Wheeler?" He was a congressman from New York whose opposition was even less prominent. Wheeler was nominated because he was popular among his colleagues and had worked to avoid making enemies in Congress. In addition, he provided geographical balance to the ticket.

The Republican VP candidate was Thomas A Hendricks, the Governor of Indiana and a former US Senator and congressman. Hendricks’s record consisted of challenging the military draft and issuing greenbacks; however, he supported the Union and prosecution of the war, consistently voting in favor of wartime appropriations. Hendricks adamantly opposed Radical Reconstruction. After the war he argued that the Southern states had never been out of the Union and were therefore entitled to representation in the U.S. Congress. Hendricks also maintained that Congress had no authority over the affairs of state governments.

It was widely expected that Tilden and the Democrats would ride a popular wave into office after 16 years of Republicans and the scandals of President Grant’s administration.

Only one of these candidates had had a successful military experience in the war. Hayes, a lawyer, businessman, and abolitionist, was a war hero who went on to serve in Congress and later as Ohio’s governor, where he championed African American suffrage, Hayes was wounded five times, most seriously at the Battle of South Mountain in 1862. He earned a reputation for bravery in combat, rising in the ranks to serve as brevet major general. He was a lawyer from Cincinnati (educated at Kenyon College and Harvard) with no formal military training. After the war had returned to politics. He had displayed great courage in the Kanawha Division, working under George Crook and David Hunter.

He was not the only potential candidate with a war background. William T Sherman was the commander of the Army but had no interest whatsoever. Grant had intentionally given Winfield Scott Hancock, a Democrat, obscure assignments away from the South.  He did receive some votes in the convention in 1876 for the nomination but 1880 would be his real attempt for the office. It was widely assumed during 1875 that incumbent President Ulysses S. Grant would run for a third term as president despite the poor economic conditions, the numerous political scandals that had developed since he assumed office in 1869, and a longstanding tradition set by George Washington not to stay in office for more than two terms. Grant's inner circle advised him to run for a third term and he almost did so, but on December 15, 1875, the House, by a sweeping 233–18 vote, passed a resolution declaring that the two-term tradition was to prevent a dictatorship.

The initial favorite in 1876 was James G Blaine of Maine. He had the lead in delegates but was 100 votes short of the majority, as the southern states would not support his views. Hayes won the nomination by appealing in a conciliatory manner to the Southern Republicans, which left Frederick Douglass confused about whether the new black southern vote was wanted.

The Election Campaigns

In 1876 it was the tradition that the candidates did not campaign, and their surrogates made their cases locally. The Republicans expected to lose. The poor economic conditions made the party in power unpopular. Both candidates concentrated on the swing states of New York and Indiana, as well as the three southern states—Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida—where Reconstruction Republican governments still barely ruled, amid recurring political violence, including widespread efforts to suppress freedman voting. Democrats, whose voter base resided in the former Confederacy, had been partly shut out of the political sphere; now, with Republican Ulysses S. Grant facing charges of corruption, Tilden’s reform-minded candidacy seemed like a well-timed opportunity for Democrats to regain political power.

The Republican outlook was indeed bleak. Hayes was a virtual unknown outside his home state of Ohio. Henry Adams called Hayes "a third-rate nonentity whose only recommendations are that he is obnoxious to no one". Hayes’s most important asset was his help to the Republican ticket in carrying Ohio, a crucial swing state. For the Democrats, the newspaperman John D. Defrees described Tilden as "a very nice, prim, little, withered-up, fidgety old bachelor, about one-hundred and twenty-pounds avoirdupois, who never had a genuine impulse for many nor any affection for woman".

The Democratic strategy for victory in the South relied on paramilitary groups such as the Red Shirts and the White League. These groups saw themselves as the military wing of the Democrats. Using the strategy of the Mississippi Plan, they actively suppressed both black and white Republican voting. They violently disrupted meetings and rallies, attacked party organizers, and threatened potential voters with retaliation for voting Republican.

During the election of 1876, Southern Democrats who supported Wade Hampton for governor used mob violence to attack and intimidate African American voters in Charleston. Republican Governor Daniel Henry Chamberlain appealed to President Grant for military assistance. In October 1876, Grant, after issuing a proclamation, instructed Sherman to gather all available Atlantic region troops and dispatch them to South Carolina to stop the mob violence.

It’s a cliché to say that in America, race is always on the ballot. But in 1876, it was probably the central issue.  The election process in Southern states was rife with voter fraud—on the part of both parties—and marked by violent voter suppression against black Americans. Under Reconstruction, African Americans had achieved unprecedented political power, and new federal legislation sought to provide a modicum of economic equality for newly enfranchised people. In response, white Southerners rebelled against African Americans’ newfound power and sought to intimate and disenfranchise black voters through violence.

Voter suppression was rampant in the post-Confederacy South. Many historians argue that if votes had been counted accurately and fairly in Southern states, Hayes might have won the 1876 election outright. “[I]f you had a fair election in the south, a peaceful election, there’s no question that the Republican Hayes would have won a totally legitimate and indisputable victory,” wrote Eric Foner.

Election Night

On election night, Hayes was losing so badly that he prepared his concession speech before turning in for the night. His party chairman went to bed with a bottle of whiskey. “We soon fell into a refreshing sleep,” Hayes later wrote in his diary about the events of November 7, 1876. “[T]he affair seemed over.”

But after four months of fierce debate and negotiations, Hayes would be sworn into office as 19th president of the United States. Historians often describe his narrow, controversial win over Democrat Samuel J. Tilden as one of the most bitterly contested presidential elections in history.

Just a few days following the election, Tilden appeared poised to narrowly clinch the election. He had captured 51.5 percent of the popular vote to Hayes’s 48 percent, a margin of about 250,000 votes. But Tilden had amassed only 184 electoral votes—one shy of the number needed to reach the 185 electoral votes necessary for the presidency. Hayes, meanwhile, had 165. Election returns from three Republican-controlled Southern states—Louisiana, Florida and South Carolina—were divided, with both sides declaring victory. Together, the states represented a total of 19 electoral votes, which along with one disputed elector from Oregon would be enough to swing the election Hayes’s way.

Hayes’ proponents realized that those contested votes could sway the election. They seized the uncertainty of the moment, encouraging Republican leaders in the three states to stall, and argued that if black voters hadn’t been intimidated away from the polls—and if voter fraud hadn’t been as rampant—Hayes would have won the contested states. With a Republican-controlled Senate, a Democrat-control

The Disputed Election

At the end of election day, no clear winner emerged because the outcomes in South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana were unclear. Both parties claimed victory in those states, but Republican-controlled “returning” boards would determine the official electoral votes.  “The elections in three states—Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina—were alleged to have been conducted illegally,” the senators of those states wrote in a statement.“

Republicans and Democrats rushed to those three states to watch and try to influence the counting of the votes. The returning boards determined which votes to count and could throw out votes, if they deemed them fraudulent. The returning boards in all three states argued that fraud, intimidation, and violence in certain districts invalidated votes, and they threw out enough Democratic votes for Hayes to win. All three returning boards awarded their states’ electoral votes to Hayes.

Meanwhile in Oregon, a strange development added that state to the uncertain mix. Hayes won the state, but one of the Republican electors, John W. Watts, was also postmaster, and the US Constitution forbids federal officeholders from being electors. Watts planned to resign from his position in order to be a Republican elector, but the governor of Oregon who was a Democrat, disqualified Watts and instead certified a Tilden elector.

The U.S. Constitution provided no way of resolving the dispute, and now Congress would have to decide. As Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, and Republicans dominated in the Senate, the two sides compromised by creating a bipartisan electoral commission with five representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices.

Electors cast their ballots in state capitals on December 6, 1876. Generally, the process went smoothly but in four capitals—Salem, Oregon; Columbia, South Carolina; Tallahassee, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana—two sets of conflicting electors met and voted so that the US Congress received two sets of conflicting electoral votes. At this point, Tilden had 184 electoral votes while Hayes had 165 with 20 votes still disputed.

When the Electoral College does not give a majority to a candidate, such as ties or when there are uncertain electors involved, they are called contingent elections. An example of a tie was the 1800 election, and it required a compromise for Jefferson to be president over Burr. After that, a legal remedy was agreed on. Another contingent election was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams was ultimately elected over Andrew Jackson, a result that was reversed in 1828.

Why wasn’t the election resolved in the states, like they are supposed to be? The Constitution outlines what is supposed to happen in these situations, but it didn’t actually happen in 1876.

That year the contingent election system was bypassed when there was a contested outcome. At the height of Reconstruction, the issue was not that no candidate got a majority in the Electoral College, but rather that the three Southern states – Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina – sent multiple slates of electoral votes to Washington, DC, after the state elections were disputed. And in Oregon, there was a dispute over one elector. The question was which were the legitimate sets of electors.

The Constitution stipulates that the electoral votes be directed to the President of the Senate, who was Republican Thomas W. Ferry. Although Republicans argued that he had the right to decide which votes to count, Democrats disagreed and argued that the Democratic majority in Congress should decide.

The Compromise of 1877

A compromise was reached. In an unprecedented move, Congress decided to create an extralegal “Election Commission.  Congress created a special bipartisan commission, to determine which candidate should get the 20 disputed electoral votes. So on January 29, 1877, the Electoral Commission Act established a commission of five senators (three Republicans, two Democrats), five representatives (three Democrats, two Republicans), and five Supreme Court justices (two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent) to decide which votes to count and resolve the dispute. However, the independent Supreme Court justice refused to serve on the commission and was replaced by a Republican justice.

In the disputed Presidential election of 1876 between the Republican Rutherford Hayes and the Democrat Samuel Tilden, Congress created a special Electoral Commission to decide to whom to award a total of 20 electoral votes which were disputed from the states of Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon. The Commission was to be composed of 15 members: five drawn from the U.S. House of Representatives, five from the U.S. Senate, and five from the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority party in each legislative chamber would get three seats on the Commission, and the minority party would get two. Both parties agreed to this arrangement because it was understood that the Commission would have seven Republicans, seven Democrats, and one independent.

Obviously that independent would be the one to decide. Both parties wanted the same man: Justice David Davis, a friend and former colleague of Abraham Lincoln. Judge Davis was a brilliant and ethical man, and was reputed as such in his lifetime. This episode proves it beyond any doubt, and exactly why few know about it is astounding. Davis, who was the most trusted independent in the nation. According to one historian, "No one, perhaps not even Davis himself, knew which presidential candidate he preferred." Just as the Electoral Commission Bill was passing Congress, the legislature of Illinois elected Davis to the Senate. Democrats in the Illinois Legislature believed that they had purchased Davis's support by voting for him. However, they had made a miscalculation; instead of staying on the Supreme Court so that he could serve on the Commission, he promptly resigned as a Justice, in order to take his Senate seat. His replacement, a Republican, voted for Hayes.

In late January, the commission voted 8-7 along party lines that Hayes had won all the contested states, and therefore the presidency, by just one electoral vote. They ultimately gave the votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes even though Democrat Samuel Tilden got more popular votes.  With 185 votes to Tilden's 184, Hayes was declared the winner two days before he was inaugurated.

And just exactly how was this decision reached? Tilden and the Democrats gave up the election, which in all fairness, they probably did win because they got something in return. Disputed returns and secret back-room negotiations put Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House. The commission voted 8 to 7 to award the electoral votes from South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana (and one from Oregon) to Hayes.  But that was not the end of the election.

 

What Happened Behind Closed Doors

Democratic members of Congress threatened to prevent the count of electoral votes and delay the resolution of the election with frequent adjournments and filibusters. With the threat of delay, Democrats hoped to win some concessions from Republicans. Furious Democrats refused to accept the ruling of the special commission and threatened a filibuster. So, in long meetings behind closed doors, Democrats and Hayes’ Republican allies hashed out what came to be known as the Compromise of 1877: also known as the Wormley Agreement, the Bargain of 1877, or the Corrupt Bargain: an informal but binding agreement.

Finally, just after 4 a.m. on March 2, 1877, the Senate president declared Hayes the president-elect of the United States. Hayes—dubbed “His Fraudulency” by a bitter Democratic press—would be publicly inaugurated just two days later.

A secret backroom deal decided the election. The negotiations put Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House—and Democrats back in control of the South. Hayes would become president on the condition that he ended Reconstruction in the South. Hayes secured his win by agreeing to end Reconstruction. he filibuster of the certified results and the threat of political violence in exchange for an end to federal Reconstruction. Two issues interested Democrats—restoring their control of governments, and thus white supremacy, in the South (and removing the last of the federal troops) and a federal subsidy for railroads. However, it is doubtful that Hayes, his supporters, and Democrats reached any sort of deal beyond what Hayes promised to do in his letter of acceptance. Samuel J. Randall, the Democratic Speaker of the House, realizing that creating chaos would backfire on the Democrats, finally ruled the filibusterers out of order and forced the completion of the count in the early hours of March 2, 1877.

In fact, even as the electoral commission deliberated, national party leaders had been meeting in secret to hash out what would become known as the Compromise of 1877. Hayes agreed to cede control of the South to Democratic governments and back away from attempts at federal intervention in the region, as well as place a Southerner in his cabinet. In return, Democrats would not dispute Hayes’s election, and agreed to respect the civil rights of Black citizens. Just two months after his inauguration, Hayes made good on his compromise and ordered the removal of the last federal troops from Louisiana. These troops had been in place since the end of the Civil War and had helped enforce the civil and legal rights of many formerly enslaved individuals.

The disputed 1876 presidential election resulted in a compromise in which Republican Rutherford B. Hayes became president in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South. This effectively ended Reconstruction. Southern white Democrats, known as "Redeemers," regained control of state governments. They systematically dismantled Reconstruction-era reforms and restored white supremacy through laws, violence, and intimidation. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the establishment of Jim Crow laws, which enforced racial segregation and disenfranchised African Americans. These laws undid many of the advances made during Reconstruction. In conclusion, while the Radical Republicans initially succeeded in imposing their Reconstruction policies, their gains were largely undone by the end of the 19th century, leading to nearly a century of segregation and disenfranchisement for African Americans in the South.

More stringent enforcement and a more robust federal military presence and oversight in the South could have provided more protection for African Americans and ensured the implementation of Reconstruction policies. This would have helped prevent the rise of white supremacist groups and the rollback of civil rights gains. I don’t think extending the occupation past 1876 would have; however, the damage was done.

With this deal, Hayes ended the Reconstruction era and ushered in a period of Southern “home rule.” Soon after his inauguration, Hayes made good on his promise, ordering federal troops to withdraw from Louisiana and South Carolina, where they had been protecting Republican claimants to the governorships in those states. This action marked the effective end of the Reconstruction era, and began a period of solid Democratic control in the South. Soon, a reactionary, unfettered white supremacist rule rose to power in many Southern states. In the absence of federal intervention over the next several decades, hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan flourished, and states enacted racist Jim Crow laws whose impacts continue to be felt today. For their part, white Southern Democrats did not honor their pledge to uphold the rights of Black citizens, but moved quickly to reverse as many of Reconstruction’s policies as possible. In the decades to come, disenfranchisement of Black voters throughout the South, often through intimidation and violence, helped ensure the racial segregation imposed by the Jim Crow laws—a system that endured for more than a half-century, until the advances of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. In this sense the 1876 presidential election provided the foundation for America’s political landscape, as well as race relations, for the next 100 years.

Key decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court struck at the protections afforded by Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments and legislation. The Court’s decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), established that the 14th Amendment applied only to former enslaved people, and protected only rights granted by the federal government, not by the states.

Three years later, in United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of three white men convicted in connection with the massacre of more than 100 Black men in Colfax, Louisiana in 1873, as part of a political dispute. The men had been convicted of violating the 1870 Enforcement Act, which banned conspiracies to deny citizens’ constitutional rights and had been intended to combat violence by the Ku Klux Klan against Black people in the South.

The Supreme Court’s ruling—that the 14th Amendment’s promise of due process and equal protection covered violations of citizens’ rights by the states, but not by individuals—would make prosecuting anti-Black violence increasingly difficult, even as the Klan and other white supremacist groups were helping to disenfranchise Black voters and reassert white control of the South.

Ten years later, the debacle would also result in a long-overdue law: the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which codified Electoral College procedure. This was recently further supplemented after the events of January 6, 2020.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

Foner, Eric (2002) [1988]. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

Grant, Ulysses S. (2003) [1885]. Personal Memoirs. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.

McFeely, William S. (1981). Grant: A Biography. New York: Norton.

https://www.history.com/news/reconstruction-1876-election-rutherford-hayes

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/disputed-election-1876

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/confusion-voter-suppression-and-constitutional-crisis-five-things-know-about-1876-presidential-election-180976677/

https://guides.loc.gov/presidential-election-1876

https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/compromise-of-1877

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/1876-election-most-divisive-united-states-history-how-congress-responded/

The Andaman Islands - And Why We Need to Protect the People There

The seventy-seventh anniversary of India and Pakistan’s Independence from Great Britain recently took place, ending a nearly 200 year reign dating back to the British victory at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. But one territory of India has known a very different type of independence for much longer than that.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt explains.

Maurice Vidal Portman with Andamanese chiefs.

Only six weeks away from Indigenous People’s Day, and tucked away in the Andaman archipelago, is a small island known as North Sentinel. It’s not only one of the most dangerous places on earth, it’s also one of the most important. Unlike the other islands in the Andaman Chain including South Sentinel Island, this island is quite different.

It is home to one of the last isolated tribes on earth, the Sentinelese. It’s been nearly 1200 years since Marco Polo explored the Andaman Islands and first described what we believe were the Sentinelese mistakenly as cannibals.

After the British claimed dominion over the India in 1757 — an East India Company shipped first noticed fires on its beaches in 1771. The first colonial, Holmfray (a British surveyor) landed on the Island in 1867. That same year, the MV Ninevah ran aground on North Sentinel’s reef. The 106 passengers and crew fended off attacks by the Sentinelese until a British ship rescued them.

Maurice Vidal Portman

When Maurice Vidal Portman became British Government Administrator to the Andaman’s — he may multiple trips to the Island starting in January 1880. In one such trip, taking an elderly Sentinelese couple and their grandchildren back to Port Blair. After the elderly grandparents died of disease shortly after arriving at Port Blair, the children were returned to the island with gifts.

In 1896, a convict who escaped from a nearby penal colony drifted his way onto the shores of North Sentinel. His body was found days later full of arrows. And then there was the MV Primrose ran aground on the reefs of North Sentinel Island in 1981. After several harrowing days where the Sentinelese attempted to use boats to board the ship — the shaken crew was rescued. In 2006 — a boat with two fisherman drifted onto the beaches of the island and were killed by the Sentinelese. Most recently in 2018, American Missionary John Allen Chau landed on the island was killed by the tribe. In 1975, they even fired arrows at King Leopold III of Belgium.

Thankfully, recent history shows us that not all encounters ended in hostility. North Sentinel isn’t just a forbidden, largely unexplored island. In the 1990s, multiple trips to the island from local anthropologists even saw the tribe accepting coconuts as gifts. Sanctioned trips to the island ceased in 1997.

Although the isolated land of wonderment continues to be a magnet for encounters between one of the world’s last uncontacted tribes and modern civilization, we cannot allow it to be for many reasons, and a few of those should serve as dire warnings.

Lack of immunity

Just like those two elderly Sentinelese that Maurice Vidal Portman abducted, the Sentinelese have no immunity to modern diseases which are prevalent in our society today. Whether the tribe’s population is 50 or 400, contact with us — which they clearly don’t want — could wipe them out completely. Contact from a single American missionary could be catastrophic to the entire tribe.

Since the dawn of man, we’ve made choices about our planet. Whether because of tribal belief, invaders who abduct their elders and children, or some history that we don’t know like the Japanese occupation of the Andaman Islands, the Sentinelese want nothing to do with us. Successful trips to the island and periods of contact have frequently ended with Sentinelese standing on their haunches and brandishing weapons. We should honor their wishes.

Gateway to the past

North Sentinel Island isn’t just a forbidden, unexplored Island. It’s a gateway into our past. Around 60,000 years ago, it’s believed that the Sentinelese walked from the nearby continents and became trapped on the Island as sea levels rose. They are a window into our past, a rare look back at where we’ve come from. One that should not be disturbed.

With a world population of approximately 8,091,734,930 and a population of less than 500 on North Sentinel — the responsibility is ours to protect them. Not the other way around. The tribe preserves the lifestyle that they choose each and every day by being independently sustainable on that remote island. Even though they are technically part of India — they don’t know it.

It could be argued that we need to study their way of life and make every attempt to see North Sentinel Island. But with the dangers that it posses to the people of North Sentinel from both disease and from the unfortunate violence when outsiders are encounters, makes the status quo that has withstood for thousands of years most appropriate.

In 2004, after a tsunami had crashed into the Andaman Islands, the Indian Navy dispatched a helicopter to fly over North Sentinel to offer assistance. A lone tribesman emerged pointing a bow and arrow at the helicopter and so communicated the Sentinelese view of us — please leave well enough alone.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt is a historical writer who lives and works in Abington Township, PA.

The U.S. Civil War’s “Kill-Cavalry” Legend: General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick

Hugh Judson Kilpatrick was a Union cavalry commander who was notorious for sending his men into difficult situations but continued to be promoted despite his lack of military sense or personal integrity. It turned out that this was precisely the sort of leader the Union army needed in its cavalry arm. He was a determined and fierce fighter, which were good and necessary qualities in a cavalry leader. Still, he also had a propensity for shady dealings. Moreover, he often ordered suicidal cavalry charges against infantry. The rifled musket had rendered the cavalry charge outdated and dangerous. By the Civil War, the value of cavalry was essentially limited to screening, raiding, and reconnaissance, a lesson that Kilpatrick never seemed to grasp.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick.

Early Years

Kilpatrick graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1861, shortly after the war began, and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the 1st U.S. Artillery. In just three days he was a captain in the 5th New York Infantry On June 10, 1861, Kilpatrick gained notoriety by becoming the initial US Army officer injured in the Civil War when he was hit in the thigh by canister fire while commanding a company in the Battle of Big Bethel.

He was promoted to Lt Col of the 2ns New York Cavalry Regiment. For months he was relegated to staff jobs and minor skirmishes. That changed at Second Manassas when he was sent on a raid that culminated in a cavalry charge with consequences that became all too familiar to Kilpatrick’s leadership. He raided the Virginia Central Railroad early in the campaign and ordered a twilight cavalry charge the first evening of the battle, losing a full squadron of troopers.

His men despised him due to his arrogant attitude and disregard for their safety. He earned the unflattering nickname "Kill Cavalry" due to his reckless and impulsive style in the beginning. His camps lacked sanitary facilities and were not very comfortable, often visited by prostitutes who came to see him. He was first arrested for profiting from selling confiscated Confederate goods. The second occasion involved accepting bribes in exchange for obtaining low-quality horses for his soldiers. He was imprisoned in 1862 for corrupt activities, and later for a night of drinking. His soldiers noticed that despite his many failures and misconducts, and the fact that his official dealings were often ethically challenged, he continued to be promoted primarily due to his skill in political maneuvering, but also because he was a West Point graduate who was fearless under fire.

Promotion to Brigade Command

In February 1863, Major General Joseph Hooker established a Cavalry Corps led by Maj Gen George Stoneman, with Kilpatrick in charge of its 1st brigade, 2nd division.

In April of 1863, General Hooker began moving his troops to compel General Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia to vacate their positions at Fredericksburg. He dispatched a 10,000-strong cavalry led by Major General George Stoneman to maneuver between Lee and the Confederate capital, Richmond. At the same time, he was aiming to maneuver past Lee's defenses, a plan that led to the Battle of Chancellorsville. Stoneman's expedition shares some intriguing similarities with Stuart's raid in the month prior to Gettysburg.

Hooker's intention in sending the Union cavalry to raid instead of serving as a screen for Lee was to disrupt Lee's supply lines, sabotage railroads, and divert attention away from Hooker's main operation across the Rappahannock. Hooker anticipated that Stoneman would cut off Lee's supply route by destroying the crucial Orange and Alexandria Railroad in Gordonsville. Hooker hoped that this action would force Lee to pull out of Fredericksburg, isolating him from supply and transport.

The main cavalry brigadier of this raid was Brig Gen John Buford, a popular and effective officer. He sought out a field command and joined the Reserve Brigade in battle, where most of the Regular Army cavalry units in the east were stationed. Buford's Brigade, consisting of the First, Second, Fifth, and Sixth U.S. Cavalry, departed from their base at Falmouth, Virginia, to start their bold and ambitious raid. The very next day, they found themselves in battle with the enemy at Kelly's Ford.

However, the weather shifted and heavy rain fell for 16 days, causing the river to swell to the point where the ford was impassable. Some of his horses had broken down by the time he was able to cross. Stoneman found himself trapped in the enemy territory and was unable to cause as much chaos as expected, resulting in Hooker being unaware of Lee's movements due to Stoneman's absence.

Despite these setbacks, Kilpatrick stood out as the star of the raid. While the cavalry overall did not succeed in diverting Lee as planned, Kilpatrick gained renown for boldly seizing wagons, destroying bridges, and circling Lee, nearly reaching the outskirts of Richmond.

Promotion to Brigadier General

Kilpatrick also was conspicuous at Brandy Station, where he led one of Gregg’s brigades in a charge up Fleetwood Hill. He was promoted to Brig Gen on June 13, 1863 just 2 years after graduating from West Point.

In the middle of June 1863, General Lee was maneuvering his troops towards the west before heading north through the Shenandoah Valley, utilizing the Blue Ridge Mountains as cover. Hooker was receiving a barrage of messages from Lincoln and Stanton, instructing him to locate Lee and launch an attack. To achieve this, he needed to find a way to penetrate the strategic cavalry defense established by Jeb Stuart and Wade Hampton. Despite having fewer soldiers, the Confederate cavalry understood the importance of securing the mountain passes due to the significant consequences.

After Chancellorsville and before Gettysburg, there were major changes made in the cavalry command structure. Stoneman was sent west, and General Alfred Pleasanton took command of the Cavalry Corps. Brig Gen John Buford and his brigade were transferred to the 1st Cavalry, and he took command of the Division. Brig Gen Wesley Merritt took command of the Reserve brigade. Grimes Davis had been killed at Brandy Station, and Col. Gamble was assigned command of Buford's 1st brigade. Kilpatrick is promoted to Division command, with George Armstrong Custer promoted to brigade command.

The Union's nearest approach was during the Battle of Aldie on June 17, 1863, just 2 weeks before Gettysburg. Aldie was a town where a road passed through that connected Ashby's Gap and Snicker's Gap. Following four hours of fierce combat, the Confederate troops retreated but maintained control of the mountain passes. Kilpatrick was in charge of the advance, following the lead of division commander Brig Gen David McM. Gregg. The Confederate officer Thomas Mumford led a brigade that successfully halted the Union forces. The initial skirmish at Aldie marked the beginning of a sequence of minor battles on Ashby's Gap Turnpike, during which Stuart's troops effectively stalled Pleasanton’s advance through Loudoun Valley, preventing him from discovering Lee's army. Hooker got dismissed, but Pleasonton was the one who didn't succeed.

Gettysburg

In the Gettysburg Campaign, Judson Kilpatrick participated in several cavalry clashes against Confederate Major General J. E. B. Stuart's cavalry, such as the Battle of Aldie (June 17, 1863), the Battle of Middleburg (June 11–June 19, 1863), and the Battle of Upperville (June 21, 1863). Judson Kilpatrick was promoted to the rank of major in the regular army for his "Gallant and Meritorious Services" at the Battle of Aldie.

During his time at Upperville, he was briefly taken prisoner but managed to escape. On June 29, 1863, Major General George G. Meade appointed Judson Kilpatrick as the leader of the 3rd Division of the Cavalry Corps of the Army of the Potomac. He battled Stuart in Hanover on June 30. On July 2nd, he was still in the midst of a struggle with Wade Hampton at Hunterstown. On July 3rd, he eventually arrived at the Gettysburg battlefield. George Armstrong Custer's brigade was told to go to East Cavalry Field to join Gregg's division, while Kilpatrick and his single brigade were sent to the west side of the field.

It was clear that the end of the battle was near after Pickett’s Charge failed. Undoubtedly, Kilpatrick believed that he had been absent from the major fight. However, he then commanded a cavalry attack on the infantry positions of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's Corps on the Confederate right flank, located just to the west of Little Round Top. Trying to outmaneuver the retreating Confederates at Big Round Top and disrupt their withdrawal, Kilpatrick asked one of his commanders to attack the enemy skirmish line between Big Round Top and the Emmetsburg Road. Following the unsuccessful attempt by the 1st West Virginia Regiment to break the line, Kilpatrick insisted that another regiment, the 1st Vermont which had already suffered casualties, be brought into the fight.

But a cavalry charge against massed infantry was well known at that time to be futile.

This was truly a pointless, self-destructive assault that went against all the principles of war during that era. Kilpatrick's lone brigade commander, Brig. Gen. Elon J. Farnsworth protested against the futility of such a move. Kilpatrick essentially challenged his courage and supposedly provoked him to attack. Farnsworth replied, “General, do you mean it? Shall I throw my handful of men over rough ground, through timber, against a brigade of infantry. The 1st Vermont has already been fought half to pieces. These are too good men to kill.”

“Do you refuse my order?” snapped an angry Kilpatrick.” If you are afraid to lead this charge, I will lead it.” Demanding a retraction, the equally furious Farnsworth turned in the saddle. “General, if you order the charge, I will lead it,” he said, “but you must take the responsibility.”

The following assault unfolded exactly as Farnsworth had predicted - a complete disaster. Confederate riflemen took cover behind rocks, trees, and fences and dismounted numerous Union riders, including Farnsworth, who was struck by at least five fatal wounds. The rebellious Farnsworth, when asked to give up, decided to end his own life, as reported by Confederate Colonel William C. Oates. However, this version has been challenged by other witnesses and dismissed by the majority of historians.

Kilpatrick received much criticism for ordering the charge, but no official action was taken against him. There were no consequences for his outrageous order, and actually, he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant colonel in the regular army effective July 3, 1863, for “Gallant and Meritorious Services at the Battle of Gettysburg.”

Farnsworth was a rising star, one of the 3 “boy generals” who had just been promoted to his generalship despite his young age with 2 others  -- Custer and Wesley Merrtit – both of whom would go on to illustrious military careers. Famously, Merritt had engaged in a fistfight with Kilpatrick while they were undergraduates at West Point, and despised his vainglorious superior.

Kilpatrick, having lived up to his nickname all too well, showed no remorse. He pointed out that the Union infantry had not capitalized on the distraction created by the mounted diversion he had offered them. As for Farnsworth, he gushed sentimentally: “We can say of him, in the language of another, ‘Good soldier, faithful friend, great heart, hail and farewell.”

The Retreat From Gettysburg

Following the Battle of Gettysburg, Judson Kilpatrick’s cavalry harassed Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s retreating Army of Northern Virginia at the Battle of Williamsport (July 6–16, 1863) and the Battle of Boonsboro (July 8, 1863).

Upon reaching Williamsport, Confederate cavalry Brig. Gen. John D. Imboden, leading the operation, discovered that the pontoon bridge had been destroyed, and the wagon train carrying wounded soldiers was attacked by Federal cavalry. The Potomac River overflowed at Williamsport, Maryland on July 6, 1863, causing Imboden's wagon train to get stuck. He assembled a defensive unit comprising of an artillery battery and as many injured soldiers as possible who were able to handle muskets. In the afternoon of July 6, 1863, Buford led Union cavalry to the east of Williamsport, surrounding the town. Kilpatrick chose an alternative path that led him along the main thoroughfare. At sunset, Custer and his Michigan "Wolverines" came to battle but were promptly withdrawn.

There were insufficient healthy soldiers around to man the defenses. Imboden asked his wagoners (wagon drivers) to join the fight with walking wounded, and over 600 readily volunteered. This hastily organized force turned back attacks from Union cavalry generals  Buford and Kilpatrick, saving the wagon train. Imboden, with the river at his back, put on a stubborn defense until General Fitz Lee's cavalry arrived and the Federals were driven off

Imboden fooled the enemy by advancing a line of infantry about 100 yards beyond the crest of the ridge and then slowly pulling the men back out of sight.

On July 6, Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick's cavalry division drove two Confederate cavalry brigades through Hagerstown before being forced to retire by the arrival of the rest of Stuart's command.

By July 7, Imboden stopped Buford's Union cavalry from occupying Williamsport and destroying Confederate trains.

On the morning of July 14, Kilpatrick's and Buford's cavalry divisions approached from the north and east respectively. Before allowing Buford to gain a position on the flank and rear, Kilpatrick attacked the rearguard division of Maj. Gen. Henry Heth, taking more than 500 prisoners. Confederate Brig. Gen. J. Johnston Pettigrew was mortally wounded in the fight.

On July 16, Brig. Gen. David McM. Gregg's cavalry approached Shepherdstown where the brigades of Brig. Gens. Fitzhugh Lee and John R. Chambliss, supported by Col. Milton J. Ferguson's brigade, held the Potomac River fords against the Union infantry. Fitzhugh Lee and Chambliss attacked Gregg, who held out against several attacks and sorties, fighting sporadically until nightfall, when he withdrew. Meade chose not to attack Lee, who was entrenched, believing the position could not be successfully breached.

The Richmond Raid

In the spring of 1864, Judson Kilpatrick led a failed cavalry raid against Richmond, Virginia. This event is likely the most intriguing military initiative Kilpatrick participated in, and to this day, its true purpose remains a mystery.

Early in February 1864, Kilpatrick consulted with President Lincoln and Secretary of War Stanton. He received permission for a raid that, in conjunction with an infantry feint and another cavalry raid near Charlottesville, would approach Richmond from the north, destroying rails, canals, and Confederate infrastructure along the way. There may also have been a plan to free prisoners of war from Belle Isle.

At a social gathering on February 23, Kilpatrick encountered Ulric Dahlgren and asked him to participate in the mission. Dahlgren was the son of noted Union rear admiral John A. Dahlgren. Ulric was prepared to return to the battlefield despite losing his right leg at Gettysburg the summer before. The idea was for him to command a smaller group, circle around Richmond, and attack the capital from the southern direction.

The Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid (February 28–March 3, 1864) lived up to the “Kill-Cavalry” legend. Kilpatrick and Dahlgren set out from Stevensburg, Virginia, on the evening of February 28. The following afternoon, Kilpatrick and his detachment of 3,500 men reached Beaver Dam Station and began ripping up rails and destroying Confederate property. They failed, however, to prevent an approaching train from reaching Richmond and spreading the alarm. Confederate home guard units mobilized around the capital, and late that evening Confederate cavalrymen under Major General Wade Hampton set off in pursuit of the raiders.

By March 2, after slow progress through sleet, snow, and rain, Kilpatrick reached the inner defensive lines of Richmond. But there was no sign of Dahlgren inside the city, so Kilpatrick waited. On the night of March 2, Kilpatrick considered another attack on Richmond, but the arrival of Hampton’s troopers foiled these plans. Kilpatrick finally reached the safety of Union lines at Yorktown on March 4.

The raid turned into a fiasco when Kilpatrick’s men were stopped northwest of the city. The supporting group was routed when it could not cross the James River. Dahlgren and his detachment of about five hundred men had made it to the James River at Dover Mills but were unable to cross because of recent rains. After turning to approach Richmond from the east, Dahlgren encountered stiff resistance at the Battle of Walkerton. He retreated toward Union lines on the Peninsula, but Confederate cavalrymen and bushwhackers ambushed and killed him.

The raid accomplished nothing except minor damage to railroads and buildings. The death of Dahlgren, however, led to one of the most controversial episodes of the war when documents were found on his body and were subsequently published by the Richmond press. The papers detailed plans to assassinate Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. Public opinion in both the North and the South was aggravated, and only a disavowal by General Meade to General Lee settled the incident.

It is still unclear under whose authority the Dahlgren Papers were generated or if they were authentic. A thirteen-year-old member of Richmond’s home guard, William Littlepage, searching for valuables, instead discovered on the Union colonel’s body handwritten orders to free Union prisoners from Belle Isle, supply them with flammable material, torch the city of Richmond and capture and kill Jefferson Davis and his cabinet. The papers were eventually forwarded to Fitzhugh Lee, who brought them to Mr. Davis and Mr. Benjamin.

Outraged Confederate authorities published them in the press. Dahlgren’s father, among many others in the North, insisted they were fabrications, while the Richmond Examiner waxed indignant: “The depredations of the last Yankee raiders, and the wantonness of their devastation equal anything heretofore committed during the war.”

It has been suggested that Booth’s assassination plot was motivated by this event. It has never been determined if the papers were forged or if they written by Dahlgren, Kilpatrick, Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton or President Lincoln.Some have suggested that the papers were forged and intended to justify the numerous plots by the Confederate Secret Service to kidnap Lincoln or to blow up the White House. Nevertheless, a handwriting study performed on the papers by the Smithsonian Channel seemed to confirm that the documents are authentic and that Edwin Stanton was the originator of the assassination order.

The Western Theater – Atlanta Campaign

During his tenure as a cavalry commander in the East, Judson Kilpatrick developed an unsavory reputation as a braggart, womanizer, and reckless leader who tolerated lax discipline amongst his troops. He had been arrested for bribery at least twice. You’d expect that his military career would soon be over. Following Judson Kilpatrick’s failed raid against Richmond, Virginia in 1864, Union General-in-Chief Ulysses S. Grant demoted Kilpatrick from divisional to brigade command.

But on April 26, 1864, Kilpatrick was sent west and placed in command of the 3rd Division of the Cavalry Corps of the Army of the Cumberland. He participated as a division commander throughout the Atlanta campaign against Joseph E Johnston.

General Sherman was “mistrustful of cavalry.” Yet as one of the finest military thinkers of the Civil War, he knew only too well how critically important that arm of the service was to any large-scale campaign. He was a “nervous and somewhat careless rider,” which may have colored his opinion of his cavalry. David Evans has written that Sherman “had no affinity for horse soldiers, no grasp of their capabilities, and no patience with their limitations.”

All this became painfully obvious during Sherman’s Atlanta campaign (May-September 1864). While his infantry columns eventually triumphed and captured Atlanta after a series of hard-fought battles, his cavalry fumbled most of its strategic assignments. Some of the blame lay with Sherman, who persisted in sending his riders against the Rebel railroads that converged on the Gate City, operations for which they were ill-prepared. Wrecking iron track is not easy for lightly equipped riders, and most of the damage they inflicted was quickly repaired. Sherman’s inability to choke off Atlanta using only his cavalry was one of the great frustrations he experienced during that campaign.

On May 13, 1864, Judson Kilpatrick suffered a severe bullet wound to the thigh fighting in the Battle of Resaca. He was brevetted to colonel in the regular army for “Gallant and Meritorious Services”. Kilpatrick assisted in the capture of Atlanta in 1864.

Kilpatrick had the good fortune to receive this minor wound early in the Atlanta campaign. He was absent during many of the underachieving cavalry expeditions that so annoyed Sherman, though soon after his return in late July he undertook his own railroad wrecking operation, which delivered much less than expected.

On August 13, 1864, General Sherman issued directives for the XX Corps to retreat to the railroad bridge at the Chattahoochee River. Their primary responsibilities included fortifying the crossing, safeguarding the trains, hospitals, and artillery reserves, while the remainder of the Army was to advance collectively towards the Macon railroad situated south of East Point. In the subsequent days, Sherman's admiration for Cavalry Division Commander Judson Kilpatrick grew due to Kilpatrick's enthusiasm, initiative, and confidence, which stood in stark contrast to his other cavalry leaders. Consequently, Sherman tasked Kilpatrick with a mission to disrupt the Macon railroad near Jonesboro. After a four-day reconnaissance around Atlanta, Kilpatrick returned to report that repairs to the Macon road would require approximately ten days.

In his Memoirs, Sherman recounts a telegraphic communication sent to Halleck, stating, "Heavy fires in Atlanta, caused by our artillery. I will be all ready, and will commence the movement around Atlanta by the south, tomorrow night, and for some time you will hear little of us. I will keep open a courier line back to the Chattahoochee bridge by way of Sandtown. The XX Corps will hold the railroad-bridge, and I will move with the balance of the Army, provisioned for 20 days." This marked the initiation of Sherman's Great Left Wheel maneuver towards the railroads south of Atlanta, setting the stage for the Battle of Jonesboro and the subsequent evacuation of the city.

March to the Sea

Sherman's March, spanning approximately 300 miles across Georgia, was completed within a mere 36 days, with 25 of those days dedicated to actual marching. Despite common misconceptions, this remarkable feat was not achieved without opposition. Sherman encountered several skilled cavalry units along the way, resulting in skirmishes that required strategic camouflage of his movements and intentions.

To execute his plan, Sherman divided his army into two distinct "wings," each following separate but parallel routes that were spaced 20-60 miles apart. The southern column, known as the Army of the Tennessee, marched alongside the Georgia railroad and the Macon and Western railroad. Meanwhile, the northern column, led by the Army of Georgia, followed the Georgia railroad in a coordinated effort to advance through the region.

General Henry Slocum was in command of the left wing, composed of the newly created Army of Georgia, (XIV Corps and the XX Corps) The Army of the Cumberland. Gen. Oliver O. Howard commanded the right wing, consisting of the XV and XVII Corps of the Army of the Tennessee. Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick commanded the cavalry.  Under the leadership of General Henry Slocum and General Oliver O. Howard, the left and right wings of Sherman's army, respectively, made significant progress. Despite initial setbacks in the east, these generals proved their capabilities in the western theater, showcasing their strategic prowess. Additionally, Sherman's decision to detach armies under Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas to address Hood's threat in the Franklin-Nashville campaign further demonstrated his adept command of military operations. Sherman also detached two armies under Maj. Gen. George H. Thomas to deal with Hood in the Franklin–Nashville campaign.

Sherman faced a difficult decision when it came to selecting a cavalry leader for the March to the Sea campaign. He opted for a complete reorganization of the mounted corps under his command and brought in Major General James H. Wilson, an outsider, to take on the role. However, Wilson was needed in Tennessee to accomplish another task, leaving Sherman with the challenge of choosing a commander for the mounted force that would accompany his foot soldiers. After considering officers who had previously failed him, Sherman ultimately selected Brigadier General H. Judson Kilpatrick, a choice that many would have considered unlikely.

Asked to describe Kilpatrick, Sherman said "He's seven kinds of damned fool, but he's a good cavalry commander". Sherman decided that for his march to Savannah, he would only take one cavalry division and he picked Kilpatrick to command it because he figured "a damned fool" would be perfect for the job. Another source reports this quote as Sherman saying, “I know that Kilpatrick is a hell of a damned fool, but I want just that sort of man to command my cavalry on this expedition.”

Kilpatrick's reputation as a cavalryman was far from favorable, with one of Sherman's staff officers describing him as vain, conceited, and ungraceful. Despite these negative perceptions, Kilpatrick performed well during the March to the Sea, a feat that may have been attributed to Sherman's close supervision. This decision to appoint Kilpatrick, despite his shortcomings, proved to be a strategic choice that contributed to the success of the campaign, probably because he was closely monitored by Sherman personally.

During the March to the Sea campaign, Kilpatrick led approximately five thousand troopers, who were divided into two brigades. In the initial phase, he was assigned to the Right Wing under Major General Oliver O. Howard, who was also a veteran of the Army of the Potomac, just like Kilpatrick. His primary responsibility was to protect Howard’s exposed right flank as his columns advanced from Atlanta towards Macon, which was to be bypassed. A trooper in the 9th Ohio Cavalry was well aware that the cavalry's role was to always be positioned between the infantry and the enemy. After Stoneman, who was now also part of Sherman’s army, was captured, Kilpatrick led a raid against Macon.

Reports of violence against southern citizens during the March have been exaggerated in modern times. However, Sherman was on the verge of ordering an increase in violence after receiving a specific report from General Kilpatrick. There were several reports of Union soldiers being killed and mutilated by Wheeler’s men. General Kilpatrick had included several of these reports in his official correspondence with Sherman, who monitored the situation but did not respond to the cavalry chieftain until Thursday, December 1, 1864. Kilpatrick had been informing Sherman of numerous instances of murder and mutilation of his men after they had been taken prisoner.

Sherman wanted to ensure that Kilpatrick had communicated his concerns to Confederate cavalry commander General Joseph Wheeler before issuing any retaliatory order. Once Kilpatrick had alerted Wheeler, if he obtained substantial proof that Rebel soldiers were committing any excesses, he would receive official approval to retaliate. In such a situation, Sherman’s command was: “You may hang and mutilate man for man without regard to rank.” The killings stopped for unknown reasons. It is worth noting that almost 40 years later, Filipino soldiers opposing Wheeler in that conflict were mutilated, and Wheeler claimed that the Filipino army was responsible.

The Shirt-Tail Skedaddle

During the spring of 1865, Judson Kilpatrick was by the side of Major General William T. Sherman as they engaged in skirmishes with Confederate cavalry throughout the Carolinas Campaign. One particular event that stood out was the Shirt-Tail Skedaddle, which became a legendary and humorous moment amid the campaign.

The allure of flirtation and suggestion is not a modern phenomenon reserved only for the present day. Marie Boozer, a prominent figure during the Civil War era, was known for her captivating charm and beauty. She was considered the "it" girl of her time, captivating the attention of many suitors with her coquettish ways.

Mary "Marie" Boozer's reputation as the most beautiful lady in Columbia, SC, preceded her and continued to flourish despite the turmoil of war. Her beauty was so renowned that even prominent figures like General John S. Preston and General Sherman were captivated by her charm. The scandalous tales surrounding Boozer and her ambitious mother, as depicted in  Tom Elmore's book “The Scandalous Lives of Carolina Belles Marie Boozer and Amelia Feaster: Flirting With the Enemy” tells the story of Boozer and her ambitious, Yankee-supporting mother, who was herself considered a beauty, married four times. Essentially, the mother was promoting her daughter in a social-climbing scheme.

Following Wade Hampton's departure from Columbia SC on February 17, 1865, the town succumbed to Sherman's forces and was engulfed in a devastating fire, vividly depicted in Royster's The Destructive War. Within three days, 1400 establishments and residences were reduced to ashes. Realizing that a war-torn, burnt-out town was not conducive to their aspirations, Marie's mother made the decision to accompany the Union army, with her daughter in tow. The soldiers, naturally, were more than willing to have two attractive women join their ranks. Despite the attention from the soldiers, Marie and her mother had already chosen a particular officer to look after them: Judson Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick and Marie were frequently seen together.

Judson Kilpatrick narrowly avoided capture by Wade Hampton during the Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads on March 10, 1865. General Hampton, along with Maj. Gen. Joseph Wheeler’s Cavalry Corps, surprised Kilpatrick’s camp in an attempt to delay Kilpatrick’s cavalry and allow Lt. Gen. William J. Hardee’s infantry to cross the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville, North Carolina. Due to Kilpatrick’s overconfidence and failure to post enough cavalry pickets, Hampton and Wheeler’s attack caught the Federals off guard. Kilpatrick had to flee into a swamp wearing only a nightshirt to escape capture. Marie was left behind, reputedly in a scanty nightdress, to be cared for by the Confederate cavalry, who were (naturally) only too pleased to liberate her from the Yankees.

Despite the embarrassing incident, Kilpatrick managed to regroup his troops and recapture his camp after intense dismounted fighting. Hampton, upon learning that infantry reinforcements were on their way, decided to withdraw, having achieved his objective of keeping Kilpatrick’s cavalry occupied for a significant amount of time. The Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads left a mark on the federal commander’s reputation, but Kilpatrick’s escape in his nightshirt became a subject of ridicule known as Kilpatrick's Shirt-tail Skedaddle.

Marie overcame this minor setback to become a celebrity. She eventually made her way north, married a wealthy Northerner, and later married a French count after a dramatic divorce. Further sordid tales continue from there. Her life story became legendary, with tales of her reign as a queen of international society in Europe. Despite the initial misfortune at Monroe’s Crossroads, Marie’s resilience and subsequent adventures added to her intriguing narrative.

End of the War

On March 13, 1865, Judson Kilpatrick took part in the capture of Fayetteville, North Carolina, for which he was brevetted to brigadier general in the regular army.

• Effective the same date (March 13, 1865) Judson Kilpatrick was brevetted to major general in the regular army “for Gallant and Meritorious Services” during the Carolinas Campaign.

• Judson Kilpatrick led his cavalry during the Battle of Bentonville (March 19–21, 1865), the largest Civil War engagement fought in North Carolina, and the final battle of the Carolinas Campaign.

• In early April 1865, Judson Kilpatrick’s cavalry served as Major General William T. Sherman’s escort when Confederate General Joseph Johnston surrendered his troops at Bennett’s Place.

• On June 18, 1865, Judson Kilpatrick was promoted to the rank of major general of volunteers.

• He later became the US Ambassador to Chile, marrying a lady from a wealthy family.

One last story about Judson Kilpatrick that you just could never make up. Lieutenant General Wade Hampton, the highest-ranking cavalry officer in the history of the Confederacy, and Major General William T. Sherman's chief of cavalry, Kilpatrick, had a long history of clashes on various battlefields during the Civil War. From Brandy Station to the Atlanta campaign, these two adversaries had faced off multiple times before the Carolinas Campaign.

Following Lee's surrender at Appomattox on April 9, 1865, General Johnston led his troops to Greensboro and then sought to make peace with Sherman. Convinced that further bloodshed was unjustified, Johnston arranged to meet Sherman at James Bennett's house near Durham Station on April 17. The two officers, along with their entourages, gathered at the appointed time for negotiations.

As Sherman and Johnston conducted their discussions inside the Bennett house, General Hampton and his son relaxed outside. Hampton, dressed in his finest uniform and sporting a black felt hat with gold braid, exuded an air of confidence. Despite carrying a switch instead of his usual broadsword, Hampton's presence still conveyed a sense of authority and readiness to defend his beliefs.

Determined to end the fraternizing among his men, Hampton snarled, “Fall in!” When Kilpatrick approached to protest, remembered one witness, “Wade Hampton looked savage enough to eat ‘Little Kil’”, which prompted his antagonist to return “his looks most defiantly.”

“The war is over,” proclaimed Kilpatrick to his old adversary. “Let the men fraternize.”

“I do not intend to surrender,” snapped Hampton. He added that he would never fraternize with the Yankees, “but would retaliate with torch and sword” to avenge the style of war the North had waged. With a stern tone, Hampton again snarled at his troopers, “Fall in!”

The dialogue swiftly transitioned into a series of insults, blending humor with genuine animosity. Hampton initiated the exchange by mentioning Monroe’s Crossroads, prompting Kilpatrick to retaliate with accounts of battles where he had emerged victorious. The conversation escalated into a heated argument, drawing the attention of a crowd of officers and journalists. Johnston and Sherman eventually intervened to diffuse the confrontation.

Following the conclusion of the conflict, Hampton went on to serve as governor and later as a US Senator representing South Carolina. Kilpatrick became involved in politics and served as US Ambassador to Chile, where he met his wife. They went on to raise a family of several children.

In 1881, President James A. Garfield nominated Judson Kilpatrick to resume his role as ambassador to Chile, a decision that required Senate approval. Wade Hampton, despite their past rivalry, presented Kilpatrick's name to the Senate, leading to his unanimous confirmation for the position.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid/

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/the-dahlgren-affair-kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid-on-richmond/

https://www.battlefields.org/visit/heritage-sites/dahlgrens-cavalry-raid

https://civilwarmonths.com/2024/03/02/the-kilpatrick-dahlgren-raid-takes-a-sinister-turn/

https://www.historynet.com/kill-cavalrys-ride-sea/

https://www.wistv.com/story/22292427/columbias-it-girl-in-the-1860s-as-notorious-as-todays-celebrities/  

https://discover.hubpages.com/education/A-Southern-Belles-Notorious-Tale

https://emergingcivilwar.com/2017/02/16/wade-hampton-and-judson-kilpatrick/#:~:text=Beginning%20in%20the%20spring%20of%201863%2C%20Wade%20Hampton,Sherman’s%20chief%20of%20cavalry%20for%20his%20Carolinas%20Campaign.

Was Southern Secession and the U.S. Civil War Fought to Preserve Slavery?

An introduction by the author Jeb Smith: I have often engaged in discussions with both lay people and academics on the various causes of Southern secession. I have also read many books from both sides' perspectives of the war. I consistently hear the same arguments used to support the claim that the South left the Union to preserve slavery. I will respond here to the most common arguments and, hopefully, explain why the evidence does not support this conclusion.

This is the final part in a series of extended articles from the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here, part 3 on whether the Civil War was fought for slavery or States’ rights here, and part 4 on the Confederate Constitution here.

John S. Mosby.

Slave Owners Rebellion?

It is said that the most robust support for secession came from the areas that had the most slaveowners. Based on this information, some would argue that the cause of withdrawal was slavery. High federal support in areas with limited slaveowners, such as West Virginia, Western North Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee, are prime examples to support this claim. But first, we must ask the following questions: What about the non-slave owners in Eastern Virginia who supported the South? What about non-slaveholding Western Tennesseans and Deep South voters who supported secession? Should we claim they prove secession was in support of abolishing slavery? What about the slave states that stayed in the Union? 

 In Confederate Arkansas, 20% of their households were slave owners, while Kentucky, which remained primarily loyal to the Union, had 23% of their households that were slave owners. In North Carolina, near-unanimous support for secession was given after Lincoln's call for volunteers when only 27% of the households in the state were slave owners. Arkansas voted 65 to 5 for secession after Lincoln's call for volunteers, yet only 20% of households were slave owners. Although there were few Southern Jewish Confederates slave owners, a large portion of the group supported secession. Further, thirteen percent of the Virginia delegates from high slave-owning counties voted against secession.

A closer look shows that politics, not slavery, drove the secession movement. For example, in Western Virginia, many areas with a low percentage of slave owners supported secession, while many areas that were politically supporters of the Whigs did not. James McPherson , [who used the argument we are discussing] acknowledges, "A good many low slaveholding Democratic counties voted for immediate secession, while numerous high-slaveholding Whig counties cooperation." In his book, Reluctant Confederates, Daniel Crofts looks at this argument and finds that while slave ownership influenced secession votes, political party associations were far more critical.

"A high slave-owning country in eastern Virginia was far more likely to poll a strong secession vote than a low slave-owning county in western Virginia. But a whig county in eastern Virginia was more likely to show more union strength than a Breckinridge country, just as a Breckinridge county in western Virginia was more likely to show pockets of secession support than a whig county." 

-Daniel W. Crofts Reluctant Confederates: Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis University of North Carolina Press reprint 1993

Further, the area that would become West Virginia had long opposed unfair tax rates within Virginia.[1] West Virginia, like today, was more an extension of Pennsylvania and did not share the southern culture of Virginia. Immigrants from Pennsylvania mostly inhabited West Virginia. In Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee, Michael Korda wrote, "Mountainous northwestern Virginia...was largely populated by settlers from Pennsylvanian who were instinctively pro-union." The Appalachian areas of Western Virginia, Western North Carolina, and Eastern Tennessee had very different ethnic, political, and cultural histories. 

West Virginia supported the Confederacy more than commonly believed. Many of the Virginia votes against secession did come from the western part of the state, but that does not make them supporters of the Union. These counties were surrounded by federal territory and not so anxious to jump into a war. The most robust support for the Union came from the northern panhandle or around the railroads who had a financial interest in remaining in the Union. The rest of the state was decidedly pro-South. Further, many Ohio and Pennsylvania troops went to West Virginia recruiting stations [this was common] and formed union regiments, so the actual number of units supporting the North is inflated. 

Western Virginia's support for the Union is overstated for many reasons. Early in the conflict, much of western Virginia was controlled by the Union, and a pro-union "restored government of Virginia" was instituted. Elections were only held in areas of Union control, as pro south civilians and soldiers fled the state and thus, were not allowed to vote on whether or not to join the Union. Lincoln decided to recognize this pro north government that met in Wheeling. This Government was not officially recognized by the state of Virginia but was rather an unconstitutionally created, militarily controlled area. Therefore, basing conclusions on this occupied territory is not a fair judge of western Virginia's loyalties. 

The Union support in Tennessee seems to be exaggerated and possibly based on a limited number of Union newspapers during the war. As in Virginia, Daniel W. Crofts shows that counties that were "traditionally Democrat," the low-level slave-owning middle and western Tennessee counties, voted for secession. It was only in the Eastern area of the state where spare slave-owning counties held a strong pro-Union stance. 

Maryland's southern and eastern areas were similar in culture and politics to the rest of the South. In contrast, the pro northern areas of Maryland were heavily influenced by socialist immigrants from Europe and thus supported the North. Overall, support for the Union in Maryland also seems overstated.[2] The truth is that Eastern Tennessee, Western Virginia, and Western North Carolina remained Republican areas after the war. In contrast, the planter areas remained Democratic after the war.[3]

Lastly, if the Government did oppress a particular group, specifically slave owners, violating their rights, wouldn't we then expect strong resistance from that sector? For example, if today's politicians decided that pizza is unhealthy for us and outlawed it, then most pizza shop owners would likely be among those who would resist those efforts. Others may agree with the pizza owners but not be so willing to leave the country over it. So it should not be a surprise that slave owners were among the most dedicated secessionists. 

The Confederate Constitution did not allow States to abolish Slavery

The first argument one often hears is that the Confederate Constitution made it impossible to abolish slavery. It is true that the central Confederate government could not abolish slavery; however, neither could the federal government under the U.S. Constitution in 1861, as Lincoln accepted in his First Inaugural Address. Confederate Constitution scholar Marshall DeRosa points out that freeing slaves was a state issue in the C.S.A. just as it was in antebellum America. Some have misread Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4 of the C.S.A. Constitution, claiming it outlaws the freeing of slaves; however, this section applies only to Congress and not to the sovereign states.

As DeRosa argues that the clause even demonstrates that its authors believed non-slave states would join the Confederacy. This is also shown in Article 4 Section 2 Clause 1 and Article 4 Section 3 Clause 1. Many in the Confederacy, including vice president Stephens, thought  the non-slaveholding upper Midwest would join the Confederacy because its free trade laws would encourage states connected to the Mississippi River to join. In his infamous Cornerstone Address on March 21, 1861, Alexander Stephens said, "We made ample provision in our Constitution for the admission of other States...Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate this way." 

Professor DeRosa shows that the South wanted border states and the free Midwest states to join the Confederacy. During the constitutional convention, the delegates rejected Howell Cobb of Georgia's proposal that all states be required to be slave-owning. Senator Albert Brown of Mississippi stated, "Each state is sovereign within its own limits, and each for itself can abolish or establish slavery for itself." The state of Georgia declared, "New States formed out of territory now belonging to the United States, or which may be hereafter acquired, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as the people thereof may determine at the time of admission." So while slavery was optional, states' rights were applied in the C.S.A., regardless of their choice. In The Confederate Constitution of 1861, DeRosa summarizes, "Thus, slavery was not a constitutional prerequisite for admission, and once admitted, a state could either reorganize or prohibit the institution." 

Slavery was the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy 

The first argument I am usually given is that Alexander Stephens declared slavery to be the "Cornerstone of the Confederacy." Although his speech has been named the "Cornerstone Speech, "he focuses also on tariffs, internal improvements, and economic issues. So why is most of his speech ignored and only a few sentences pulled out and attacked? The focus is on the portion that mentions slavery because slavery is what we want to be remembered as the primary cause of secession.

His speech was unprepared and given in the deep South state of Georgia. But I also think that there are other reasons to be cautious about the importance and understanding of the speech. 

For one, it is only a transcribed piece. According to the newspaper reporter who transcribed it, it "Is not a perfect report, but only a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens." It is simply an interpretation of a portion of his actual speech. According to Stephens, in writings after the war, the speech was misinterpreted and misunderstood. He claimed he was simply restating what Judge Baldwin of the United States Supreme Court had said. The following, written in 1884 by Richard M Johnson, summed up Stephens’ speech and his use of the term "cornerstone." 

"On the subject of slavery there was no essential change in the new Constitution from the old as Judge Baldwin [of Connecticut] of the U.S. supreme court had announced from the bench several years before, that slavery was the cornerstone of the old Constitution [1781-89], so it is of the new" [1833] .

-Quote in Lochlainn Seabrook , Everything You Were Taught About American Slavery Is Wrong Sea Raven Press 2014

Later, Stephens wrote that what caused secession was a dispute over  centralization. Stephens' speech simply clarified disputed subjects in the U.S. Constitution that are now clearly defined and beyond dispute in the C.S.A. Constitution. These subjects include tariffs, internal improvement, and slavery. He was trying to assure the audience that the states would decide on these issues, not the central government.

As the Kennedy twins argue, if anyone should have been seen as speaking for the whole country, it ought to have been the Confederate President, Jefferson Davis. His three most essential speeches (Farewell to Congress, First Inaugural in Montgomery, Second Inaugural in Richmond) all speak to the causes of secession. He mentioned that the reasons for secession were liberty, state's rights, tariffs, the Constitution, and preserving the Union from Northern Democracy. Jefferson Davis said, "I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it." Davis does discuss slavery in the first of those speeches, but stresses more the sovereign right of his state, Mississippi, to secede.

Fugitive Slave Laws

Some critics claim that the South only cared for states' rights when slavery was involved. To support this claim, they point out that the South objected to Northern states nullifying the federal fugitive slave laws. This objection seems reasonable on the surface but stems from a misunderstanding of both the purpose of states' rights and the Union of 1860.

Even if we assume the premise for the sake of argument, it will only prove that the South did not care for the rights of the states in the North, not their state's rights. Since the rights of the people of each state were in place to secure its individual states citizen's rights and not another’s, this would make sense. And if one state decides not to follow the compact or contract [Constitution], disagreement will occur. This is also why the right to secession is vital to self-government. 

However, a proper understanding of states' rights is not lawlessness or states ignoring the Constitution; it is, in fact, the opposite. States' rights are in place to prevent the current politicians in power from violating the Constitution or overstepping its bounds. In this case, the northern states were violating the Constitution because, in their minds, slavery was wrong in God’s eyes. As William Seward put it, "There is a higher law than the constitution." 

Within the Constitution, southerners were already granted the right to have their property returned. Northern states were violating this. Therefore states’ rights, as Jefferson said, are the best way of preserving the authority of the Constitution over elected politicians in D.C. who would seek to abolish it. The Constitution, not men, was the authority. The wording of the United States "supremacy clause" is set out below, occurring in Article VI. The wording of the Confederate equivalent, also occurring in Article VI, is identical apart from the substitution of "Confederate" for "United."

This Constitution and the Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or to be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Only the Slave States joined the Confederacy

"Had Buchanan in 1860 sent armed forces to prevent the nullification of the fugitive slave law, as Andrew Jackson threatened to do so in 1833, there would have been a secession of fifteen northern states instead of thirteen southern states. Had the Democrats won in 1860, the northern states would have been the seceding states, not the southern." 

- James R. and Walter D. Kennedy, The South Was Right! Pelican Publishing Gretna 2008 

Some believe it is self-evident that slavery caused secession because only slave states joined the Confederacy. So if I am defending the causes of the South and saying slavery was not the sole cause of secession, then why didn't any free states join? 

Keep in mind that when the Confederacy was first formed, there were more slave states still in the Union. Furthermore, if secession was driven by slavery, why didn't all the slave states join the South? Many volunteers fought for the South from the non-slave state of California. New Jersey produced two Confederate generals, Gen. Samuel Gibbs French and Gen. Julius Adolphus de Lagnel.[4] 

Many free states nearly left the Union as well. NY almost left the Union, and a middle confederacy might have formed, which could have included Penn, NY, NJ, MD, and D.E. On March 13, 1861, a report from A R Wright Esq of Georgia said Gov Hicks of Maryland was already corresponding with New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey governors about forming a central confederacy. Delaware, Virginia, Missouri, and Ohio were also later mentioned. The rise of a radical Republican party[5] to national prominence caused all sorts of upheavals. 

The South originally planned for the northwest to join them. When Robert Smith addressed the citizens of Alabama, he believed Indiana and Illinois would join the Confederacy. He desired the entire Union (excluding New England) to eventually be drawn under the new Confederate Constitution, restoring the Union of the founders. However, when Lincoln called for war, many were unwilling to face an uphill battle against the might of the North. Further, nationalism and patriotism drove many to volunteer for the Union. 

Also, consider that the states most influenced by the Jeffersonian tradition did leave the Union. And we must not forget the North maintained slavery during the war in MO, KY, DE, Washington DC, MD, Western Virginia, northern controlled sections of the Indian territory, and Union-controlled LA and Virginia. 

John Mosby said Secession was about Slavery 

The "Grey Ghost" of the Confederacy, John Mosby, said that the South was on the side of slavery during the war. Here, critics say, we have an admission from a former confederate informing us of what we all already knew, the South left to preserve slavery. Yet we are also told that post-war southerners are part of the "lost cause" and should not be listened to. Unless, of course, it is Mosby who was telling certain historians what they wanted to hear. Highlighting one statement made after the war by a southerner turned Republican trying to gain favor does not negate the factual purposes of southern secession.

Another argument used is not historical but rather philosophical. The argument is that the South could not care for freedom since they denied that freedom to others. However, this at most shows inconsistency in how they apply liberty. It also seems to assume the South left to preserve slavery. 

In response, the South said that its citizens had more rights and were allowed more freedom than the North. The majority of states in the North did not allow individuals the freedom to own or buy human property as the "slave optional"[6] states did. All men were created equal; southerners had rights like anyone to own their property, including slaves. This is also why African-Americans, Native Americans, Jews, and others had equal rights to own slaves in the South. States had maintained legal slavery since before the Union was created. The world had accepted slavery for thousands of years. African slaves had no rights in Africa when they were enslaved.

Slavery also offered the owner freedom of another sort that we will discuss later. During an interview with historynet.com over his latest book on Lincoln, distinguished historian Eric Foner said, "To most white Southerners, owning a slave was not a contradiction to the idea of freedom, indeed rather the opposite, owning slaves made a person more free, it and enabled you to achieve the economic independence that all Americans thought was very important to freedom." 

States' Rights were just to protect Slavery

"The doctrine of States’ rights was never a mere pretense for slavery, but reflected a deep passion for self-government rooted in Southern culture as well as an earnest understanding of the Constitution rooted in Southern history."

-James Rutledge Rosch, From Founding Fathers to Fire Eaters; The Constitutional Doctrine of States Rights in the Old South Shotwell Publishing Columbia SC 2018

The claim that states' rights were just an excuse to preserve slavery is a common one. This claim was covered earlier, but additional information is needed since it is repeated so often. State's rights were vital to our Union, self-government, and our whole political system. Therefore, the next chapter also will be dedicated to this topic, and after reading it, this objection should dissipate. 

As with the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate Constitution did not allow the central Government to abolish slavery. If the South had left to preserve slavery alone, why did they also add additional powers to the states? If states' rights were to protect slavery, and slavery was protected, why the need for an even more decentralized Constitution? If the intention was to protect slavery, then the United States Constitution would have sufficed, and there would have been no need to create a document ensuring more vital states' rights.

When the Confederate government overreached into state matters on non-slavery issues during the civil war, states resisted it. This resulted in states like Georgia threatening to secede. After slavery had ended in the United States, the South still maintained the most robust states' rights philosophy in the country. 

The first state's rights advocates in the U.S., many of whom spoke out against slavery, were Southern men such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, St. George Tucker, George Mason, Patrick Henry, John Taylor of Caroline, and John Randolph. Patrick Henry called slavery "a lamentable evil,"but then said, "I deny that the general government ought to set them free." George Mason said, "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant." John Taylor of Caroline said, "The fact is that negro slavery is an evil which the United States must look in the face." 

 States' rights were also crucial to northern states before the civil war. There were Democrats in the North who were both for states' rights and against slavery. These two came together in the northern states' nullification of the fugitive slave laws. During the Civil War, Republicans wished to institute national banking, and many northern Democrats objected. Lazarus Powell stated, "The result of this course of legislation is to utterly destroy all the rights of the States. It is asserting a power which if carried out to its logical result would enable the national Congress to destroy every institution of the States and cause all power to be consolidated and concentrated here." No matter the issue, states had pushed back against federal overreach; slavery was simply one more area where the federal was intruding on the states' rights in 1860.

Preserving slavery was far from the primary goal of secessionists. During the war, Southern General Patrick Cleburne wanted to free all the slaves. Near the end of the war, Jefferson Davis sent diplomats to France and Britain, offering to end slavery if they would recognize the Confederacy.  Some Northern generals, like General George Thomas, were wealthy slave owners who fought for the North despite saying during the war, "I am wholly sick of states' rights." State's rights did not equal slavery. This misunderstanding comes from a post-war nationalistic approach to antebellum America. The next chapter will detail states' rights before the Civil War to help us understand why they were considered vital to self-government and the Union. 

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1]           See George Stillman Hillard Life and Campaigns of George B McClellan 1864

[2]           For more info, see Jeb Stuart; The Last Cavalier by Burke Davis.

[3]           See "Man Over Money" the Southern Populist Critique of American Capitalism by Bruce Palmer.

[4]           De Lagnel was appointed Brigadier General in the Confederate forces but for unknown reasons declined the rank, eventually rising to Lieutenant Colonel.

[5]           A party that has not changed in its modern form.

[6]           As the Kennedy’s described them.

The Confederate Constitution and the U.S. Civil War

During the U.S. Civil War, the Confederate States had their constitution. Here, Jeb Smith considers the constitution. He includes consideration of Confederate state sovereignty, fiscal responsibility, and anti-discrimination.

This is part 4 in a series of extended articles from the author related to the US Civil War. Part 1 on Abraham Lincoln and White Supremacy is here, part 2 on the Causes of Southern Secession is here, and part 3 on whether the Civil War was fought for slavery or States’ rights here.

Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States, in 1862.

"When the dogmas of a sectional party...threatened to destroy the sovereign rights of the States, six of those States, withdrawing from the Union, confederated together to exercise the right and perform the duty of instituting a Government which would better secure the liberties for the preservation of which that Union was established."                   

-        Jefferson Davis Inaugural Address, Richmond, Virginia, 1862 

"It was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionist was not to establish a slaveholder's reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to create the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican party."

-        Robert Divine, T.H Bren, George Fredrickson, and R Williams, America Past and Present, HarperCollins, 1995

The original states that left the Union did so as separate and sovereign republics but soon entered into a confederacy.[1] Their capital was located in Montgomery, Alabama. Delegates from the seceding states joined together and formed the Confederate Constitution on March 11, 1861. The South sought to restore the Constitution as the founders originally intended it to be. 

Confederate President Jefferson Davis said, "The constitution framed by our founders is that of these confederate states." When the state legislators of Texas joined the Confederacy, they informed the crowd gathered in Austin on April 1, 1861, that "The people will see that the Constitution of the Confederate States of America is copied almost entirely from the Constitution of the United States. The few changes made are admitted by all to be improvements. Let every man compare the new with the old and see for himself that we still cling to the old Constitution made by our fathers." As historian Marshall DeRosa summarized in Redeeming American Democracy, "The confederate revolution of 1861 was a reactionary revolution aimed at the restoration of an American democracy as embodied in the Constitution of 1789."

While the Confederate constitution was in many ways nearly identical to that of the old Union, the North had taught the South how a majority could eradicate constitutional liberty. Consequently, the Southern statesmen sought to prevent tyranny in their Confederacy. The Confederate Constitution differs from the United States constitution in various areas as the South sought to preserve self-government via diverse self-governing states. To accomplish this end, they strictly limited central powers. As a result, the differences between the documents can tell us about the causes that led to the Southern withdrawal. 

Confederate State Sovereignty

We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America. 

-        Confederate Constitution Preamble 

The creators of the southern Constitution made it clear that the states were sovereign. In the Confederacy, no one would be able to claim that authority rested with the central government as Republicans had in the old Union. The United States Constitution reads, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." the Confederate version reads, "We the people of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character ..." 

As sovereign confederated states, they could exercise nullification or secession to protect their citizens from federal coercion. We will discuss nullification and secession in more detail in a later chapter, but they were the two antebellum modes of dealing with the federal government when it stepped past its delegated powers. In The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Confederate president Jefferson Davis wrote, "It was not necessary in the Constitution to affirm the right of secession, because it...was an attribute of sovereignty, and the states had reserved all which they had not delegated." The southern states that ratified the Confederate Constitution kept the right to secession in their state constitutions. For example, the Alabama state constitution reads:

Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

According to a well-known secession document we call The Declaration of Independence, it is an inalienable right to have a government that represents you and not a distant majority or a powerful national party. Southerners believed this was no less true in 1861.

In response to claims made by Lincoln, the Confederate Constitution also declared that the people of the states had sovereignty and not the entirety of people. Each state was separate from the others and sovereign within its jurisdiction. Decentralization, or "states' rights," allowed multiple diverse sets of governments to coexist; it preserved self-governance and benefited "we the people." Decentralization, or localism, is based on populations creating laws organically for their benefit. To get a sense of what decentralization provides, imagine your preferred political party (not just your party, but your brand of the party) winning every election at every level. Not only that, you would not have to spend time and money fighting the other party to prevent men from gaining power that you don't want them to have. You could create unified blocs of society and live with like-minded people. 

On the other hand, centralization occurs when forces far from these self-governing localities impose their ways on numerous smaller localities because of their power and influence. In such a situation, the former free individuals, over time, lose their self-governance and ability to choose from a diverse set of customs. Instead, they become tools to benefit those in power in distant lands under the increasingly conformist policy. The only people decentralization harms are the powerful bureaucrats and politicians. They seek to plunder our wealth to redistribute it to friends and interest groups and purchase a voting bloc to maintain power. 

The Southern move towards decentralization is well known and widely accepted. For example, in Redeeming American Democracy, Confederate Constitution scholar Marshall DeRosa wrote, "The confederate framers placed the government firmly under the heads of the states." In The Confederate States of America, Southern historian E Merton Colter stated, "States rights dogma...produced secession and the confederacy." In his book Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E Lee, Michael Korda said the South's "first concern was states' rights." In Ken Burn's Civil War documentary, the narrator states, "The Confederacy was founded upon decentralization." Southern writer Lochlainn Seabrook, in his book The Constitution of the Confederate States of America, explained that the Confederacy put "emphasis on small government and states’ rights." Professor Marshall DeRosa quotes Judge Robertson of Confederate Virginia Supreme Court Case Burroughs v Peyton in 1864 as stating, "{The Confederate} Congress can have no such power over state officers. The state governments are an essential part of the political system, upon the separate and independent sovereignty of the states, the foundation of the Confederacy rests." 

The South removed the term "general welfare" from the preamble since Republicans used the term to claim the federal government had powers for their federally funded internal improvements. In the Confederate Constitution, the states had the right to recall powers delegated, not granted to Congress. The CSA's 10th amendment gave the state authority over the federal government. Due to the fact the states were sovereign, the Confederacy never even organized a supreme court.[2] When discussion in the South arose over a supreme court, William Yancy of Alabama said, "When we decide that the state courts are of inferior dignity to this court, we have sapped the main pillars of this confederacy." In The State Courts and the Confederate Constitution Journal of Southern History, J G DeRoulhac Hamilton wrote, "The fear of centralizing tendencies, past experiences under the federal supreme court, and a desire to protect states' rights led to the failure to establish a confederate supreme court." 

Further, the states, not Congress, had the power to amend the Constitution, and a state convention could occur to modify the Constitution without federal involvement. Just three states were needed to call a convention, so a minority section, as the South had been under the old Union, could prevent bullying by concentration of power within the Confederacy. 

The state officials elected senators to represent their states and appointed them to protect against federal officials, they were truly representing their states. They were not just another number to be counted in national party voting wars.[3] Confederate officials working in a state were subject to impeachment by that state. Even the country's capital would not be permanent but move from state to state to avoid centralizing power. 

There were no political parties within the Confederacy. Instead of power being handed over to bureaucrats, big industry, and private interest groups, the people would maintain control. The South, in general, disliked campaigns associated with elections, and the CSA Presidents could not be reelected for this reason. In 1861, Alexander Stephens told Virginians, "One of the greatest evils in the old government was the scramble for public offices—connected with the Presidential election. This evil is entirely obviated under the Constitution, which we have adopted."[4]

Fiscal Responsibility and Anti-Discrimination

"One leading idea runs through the whole—the preservation of that time-honored Constitutional liberty which they inherited from their fathers....the rights of the States and the sovereign equality of each is fully recognized—more fully than under the old Constitution...But all the changes—every one of them—are upon what is called the conservative side take the Constitution and read it, and you will find that every change in it from the old Constitution is conservative." 

-        Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, Speech to the Virginia Secession Convention, April 23, 1861

The Confederate constitution was more libertarian economically than the U.S. version. In her article, Cash for Combat, published in the Americas Civil War magazine, Christine Kreiser wrote, "The Confederacy was founded on the proposition that the central government should stay out of its citizen's pockets." 

The federal government was extremely limited in its spending. The Constitution required fair trade, a uniform tax code, and omnibus bills to be restricted. Because subsidies and corporate bailouts were excluded, lobbyists and bureaucrats would struggle to advance their agendas. To avoid special favors for supporters and to disrupt the lifeblood of corruption and political parties, Congress would handle each bill separately to guarantee that politicians could not sneak in favors for their supporters. This would help encourage actual statesmen to represent their local communities (states) at the federal level instead of purchasing campaigning politicians working for political parties and capitalists. 

The post office had to be self-sufficient within two years of ratification. The CSA President had a line-item veto on spending, and no cost overruns were allowed on any contracts. These changes would help to hold elected officials accountable and keep them honest. Politicians would be forced to give an actual cost to a proposed bill, and if it were to exceed the price, they would be held accountable. A failed project due to cost overruns would not only devastate those who pushed for it, but would turn the voters against any future proposed endeavors. And a greater consensus was needed to pass expenditure bills in the first place.

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving an advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality."

-        Alexander Stephens "Cornerstone Address," March 21, 1861

Likewise, politicians could not steal from one section of the country and give to another; they could not set one section of people against another to plunder the despised section, and Congress could not foster any one branch of any industry over another. Speaking to the Virginia

Convention, Vice President Stephens said, "No money shall be appropriated from the common treasury for internal improvement, leaving all such matters for the local and state authorities. The tariff question is also settled." These changes would help stifle any internal hatred and anger caused by setting one section or party of the country against another. 

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

[1] This article was taken with permission from a section of Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War.

[2]           Such was provided for in article III of the Confederate Constitution, but was never set up.

[3]           Of course this was also true of the United States at this time, the situation changing with the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.

[4]           For more examples of the CSA Constitution moving to decentralization, see Redeeming American Democracy Lessons From the Confederate Constitution by Professor Marshall DeRosa; The Confederate Constitution of 1861 An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism by Marshall DeRosa;; The Constitution of the Confederate States of America Explained, A Clause-by-Clause Study of the South's Magna Carta by Lochlainn Seabrook; and The Confederate States of America, 1861—1865 by E.Merton Coulter.