Monthly Archives: February 2022

Complicity, How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery, by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank of The Hartford Courant – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Two, Introduction; Chapter One: Cotton Comes North, Part One

Posted on by | 1 Comment
A Comprehensive Review of
COMPLICITY
How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery
by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank
of The Hartford Courant
Part Two
Introduction;
Chapter One: Cotton Comes North,
Part One
by Gene Kizer, Jr.
From Page 7 of Complicity.
From Page 7 of Complicity.

At the end of this article beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," Complicity's notes from the Introduction, and Chapter One.

THE INTRODUCTION TO COMPLICITY makes it clear that the North got rich and powerful because of its enthusiastic relationship with slavery yet it has hidden its history well. Few people, as the authors of Complicity found out, know about the North's enormous involvement with slavery.

Northerners were slave traders, the flesh peddlers, who, along with the Brits before them, made huge fortunes buying and selling Africans into slavery. They built much, perhaps most, of the infrastructure of the Old North with profits from the slave trade.

Northerners created a powerful manufacturing industry thanks in large part to a huge, wealthy, captive market in the South, and they built a shipping industry that shipped mostly slave-picked cotton all over the world.

While Southern history has been falsified to the point where esteemed historian Eugene Genovese called it a "cultural and political atrocity," Northern history has been whitewashed making it a lie:

[T]he North's story is thought to be heroic, filled with  ardent abolitionists running that train to freedom, the Underground Railroad. The few slaves who may have lived in the North, it has been believed, were treated like members of the family. And, of course, Northerners were the good guys in the Civil War. They freed the slaves.1

The statement above is about as far from the truth as you can get.

Northerners chained hundreds of Africans at a time, side by side, to the decks of their slave ships. Slaves were so crammed in they could barely move.

They had to lay in vomit, feces and urine for months, the stench made worse by the stifling heat below deck where there was no ventilation during the Middle Passage. Many died and lay there among the living for days. It was said you could smell a slave ship five miles away.

Those poor Africans had been sold into slavery by other Africans, the result of tribal warfare. They were held in slave forts called barracoons in places like Bunce Island off the coast of modern Sierra Leone where they waited on Yankee and British slave ships and their passage through hell.

Even beyond slave trading, the Yankee record is not good.

When a Northern state ended slavery, always through a plan of gradual, compensated emancipation that would free the slave on, say, his 21st birthday, the poor slave would never see a day of freedom. Thrifty Yankees sold him South just prior to the date he was to be free. This is well documented by books such as Edgar J. McManus's Black Bondage in the North (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1973).

Northerners were slave traders until the last major slave country on earth, Brazil, abolished it around 1888. During the War Between the States, 53 years after the slave trade was outlawed by the U.S. Constitution, Boston, New York and Portland were the largest slave trading cities on the planet as W. E. B Du Bois noted in his book, The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America, 1638 to 1870.

The American experience with slavery "was defined by commerce and violence, in the North as well as the South." New York City was a prime player, which is why Mayor Fernando Wood "declared that his city should secede from the Union along with the Southern states, in large part because of New York's economic dependence on the cotton trade."2

Northern merchants, shippers, and financial institutions, many based in New York City, were crucial players in every phase of the national and international cotton trade. Meanwhile, the rivers and streams  of the North, particularly in New England, were crowded with hundreds of textile mills. Well before the Civil War, the economy of the entire North relied heavily on cotton grown by millions of slaves---in the South.3

Boston manufacturers, before 1860,

were desperately currying favor with the Southern politicians and planters whose millions of slaves delivered the product necessary to their wealth and financial survival. These business men were, after all, in textiles, and what would they do without cotton?4

After the Revolutionary War "tens of thousands of black people were living as slaves in the North. Earlier in that century, enslaved blacks made up nearly one-fifth of the population of New York City."5

Around the same time:

Rhode Island was America's leader in the transatlantic trade, launching nearly 1,000 voyages to Africa and carrying at least 100,000 captives back across the Atlantic. The captains and crews of these ships were often the veteran seamen of America: New Englanders.6

In the 1800s before the war:

New York City's bustling seaport became the hub of an enormously lucrative illegal slave trade. Manhattan shipyards built ships to carry captive Africans, the vessels often outfitted with crates of shackles and with the huge water tanks needed for their human cargo. A conservative estimate is that during the illegal trade's peak years, 1859 and 1860, at least two slave ships---each built to hold between 600 and 1,000 slaves---left lower Manhattan every month.7

The first Americans came here looking for religious freedom and found "a wild and hostile continent." They were anxious to conquer it so they could compete with Europe. They needed labor:

How could they not have been in a hurry to settle this wilderness, put together a workable way to govern themselves, and, both as a nation and as individuals, earn a living?8

The Introduction ends with:

Slavery has long been identified in the national consciousness as a Southern institution. The time to bury that myth is overdue. Slavery is a story about America, all of America. The nation's wealth, from the very beginning, depended upon the exploitation of black people on three continents. Together, over the lives of millions of enslaved men and women, Northerners and Southerners shook hands and made a country.9

Chapter One
Cotton Comes North
Part One

THE EPIGRAPH of Chapter One is the answer given by a "prominent Southern editor" when asked by The Times of London, "What would New York be without slavery?"

The editor answered:

The ships would rot at her docks; grass would grow in Wall Street and Broadway and the glory of New York, like that of Babylon and Rome, would be numbered with the things of the past.10

Complicity is a good book with respect to documenting the North's enormous participation in slavery.

It is, however, from the North's viewpoint, and written by Northerners. They do not know the broader American history, and they definitely do not know Southern history.

For example, Chapter One opens with: "The election of an antislavery president had finally forced the South to make good on years of threats, and the exodus of 11 states from the Union had begun."11

It does not mention the years of secession threats made by New England. There were at least five serious threats of New England secession such as in the War of 1812, with the Louisiana Purchase, the admission of Texas, anything that would dilute New England political power.

Complicity also talks about the first seven states to secede - the Cotton States, led by South Carolina - then it simply states that "by the end of May, the Confederacy was complete."

What completed the Confederacy was the secession of Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina in which 52.4% of white Southerners live. Those four states seceded over nothing to do with slavery. They seceded over their abhorrence at federal coercion and Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers to invade the Cotton States.

There was nothing in the Constitution in 1861 giving Lincoln the power to do that or requiring him to do it. The idea that the federal government had a legitimate power to invade a state, kill its citizens and destroy its property, is absurd.

As stated earlier, New York City's lifeblood was slave-picked cotton, the "root of New York's wealth."12 Cotton was the nation's number one export and in the four decades before the war:

New York had become a commercial and financial behemoth dwarfing any other U.S. city and most others in the world. Cotton was more than just a profitable crop. It was the national currency, the product most responsible for America's explosive growth in the decades before the Civil War.13

Cotton "created New York."

By the eve of the war, hundreds of businesses in New York, and countless more throughout the North, were connected to, and dependent upon, cotton. As New York became the fulcrum of the U.S. cotton trade, merchants, shippers, auctioneers, bankers, brokers, insurers, and thousands of others were drawn to the burgeoning urban center. They packed lower Manhattan, turning it into the nations's emporium, in which products from all over the world were traded.14

Complicity includes an egregious error when it calls Massachusetts the "birthplace of America." Massachusetts might be the birthplace of New England, "virtue signaling," and Puritan bigotry, but it is not the birthplace of America. Jamestown, Virginia is the birthplace of America. Settlers were there in 1607. They were not in Massachusetts until over a decade later, in 1620.

New England became dominated by textiles which means it was utterly dependent on slave-picked cotton:

By 1860, New England was home to 472 cotton mills, built on rivers and streams throughout the region. The town of Thomson, Connecticut, alone, for example, had seven mills within its nine-square-mile area. Hundreds of other textile mills were scattered in New York State, New Jersey, and elsewhere in the North. Just between 1830 and 1840, Northern mills consumed more than 100 million pounds of Southern cotton. With shipping and manufacturing included, the economy of much of New England was connected to textiles.15

Massachusetts industrialists made it clear they supported the South:

On the evening of October 11, 1858, a standing-room-only audience of politicians and businessmen honored a visitor at a rally at Faneuil Hall, long the center of Boston's public life. The wealthy and powerful of New England's preeminent city lauded the 'intellectual cultivation' and 'eloquence' of the senator from Mississippi, and when Jefferson Davis walked on thte stage, the Brahmins of Boston gave him a standing ovation.16

Faneuil Hall was given to Boston by slave trader Peter Faneuil.

 

Next Week:

A Comprehensive Review of

COMPLICITY
How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery

by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank
of The Hartford Courant

Part Three
Chapter One: Cotton Comes North,
Part Two

 

(Click Here to go to last week's blog article:

Complicity, How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery, by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank of The Hartford Courant - A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part One, Foreword, Preface)

 

NOTES:
(Scroll down for:
Complicity, Actual Citation from Book)

1 Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank, Complicity, How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery (New York: Ballantine Books, Copyright 2005 by The Hartford Courant Company), xxv.

2 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, xxvii.

3 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, xxvi.

4 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, xxvii.

5 Ibid.

6 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, xxviii.

7 Ibid.

8 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, xxix.

9 Ibid.

10 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 3.

11 Ibid.

12 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 4.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid.

15 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 6.

16 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 6-7.

Complicity,
Actual Citation from Book

NOTES-Intro-Chap-One-1---p-
NOTES-Intro-Chap-One-2---p-
NOTES-Intro-Chap-One-3---p-

Complicity, How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery, by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank of The Hartford Courant – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part One, Foreword, Preface

Posted on by | 4 Comments
A Comprehensive Review of
COMPLICITY
How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery
by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank of The Hartford Courant
Part One
Foreword, Preface
by Gene Kizer, Jr.
FRONT COVER 2

IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE this 2005 book was written by journalists in this day and age when so many of them are politicized race-obsessed frauds, but it was; and regardless of its shortcomings, it is a good book and tribute to The Hartford Courant and the authors.

Complicity,1 when it first came out, was ignored by the New York Times, which prefers pretend history like the 1619 Project with its primary theme that the American Revolution was fought because the Brits were about to abolish slavery. There is not a shred of evidence of that, not a letter, article, speech or statement by anybody. Nothing. But, then, truth and honor are not the standards of the New York Times.

The inside front cover of Complicity states:

Slavery in the South has been documented in volumes ranging from exhaustive histories to bestselling novels. But the North's profit from---indeed, dependence on---slavery has mostly been a shameful and well-kept secret . . . until now. In this starting and superbly researched new book, three veteran New England journalists demythologize the region of America known for tolerance and liberation, revealing a place where thousands of people were held in bondage and slavery was both an economic dynamo and a necessary way of life.

One reason for Complicity's veracity is its extensive use of primary sources rather than the politicized drivel that comes out of most of academia and the news media these days.

Complicity shows how the North's Triangle Trade of "molasses, rum, and slaves" which was run "in some cases by abolitionists" produced great wealth for New England and especially Connecticut.

Northerners brought all the slaves here after buying them from other blacks in Africa such as at Bunce Island off the coast of modern Sierra Leone. Slaves were a commodity, a way for Northerners and the British before them to make money, and they did. It is clear from Complicity that much of the infrastructure of the Old North was built on profits from the slave trade.

Northerners were slave traders well after it was outlawed by the U.S. Constitution in 1808. W.E.B. DuBois wrote in his famous work, The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870, that Boston, Portland and New York were the slave trading capitals of the planet in 1862, a year into the War Between the States.2

That's one reason New York City, when the South began seceding, threatened to secede from both New York state and the United States. NYC loved its trade with the South. Shipping cotton was much of that trade as well as financing the Northern slave trade and Southern agriculture.

Northerners traded in slaves until Brazil, the last major slave country on earth, outlawed slavery, around 1887.

The book, Complicity, started as a special report to The Hartford Courant which was so good "the Connecticut Department of Education sent [it] to every middle school and high school in the state" and it became required reading in many colleges.

Complicity should be required reading in every state in the union but instead we get the utterly false 1619 Project, which is pushed hard by the NY Times, the Pulitzer Center and other leftists for whom truth is whatever gives the Democrat Party more power.

The Foreword is written by Harvard professor Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham3 who writes that "the Massachusetts Bay Colony became the first of the American colonies to give legal recognition to the institution of slavery." Their recognition preceded Virginia's.4

She points out the irony:

[C]lergy-led Boston, this seventeenth-century 'city on a hill,' would soon become a bustling port for the trade in human flesh. Religion proved no match for profits. In Rhode Island, in the Narragansett Bay area, large landholdings used sizable numbers of slaves to provision the mono-crop plantations in the Caribbean with  foodstuffs. Such cities as Boston, Salem, Providence, and New London, bustled with activity; outgoing ships were loaded with rum, fish, and dairy products, as slaves, along with molasses and sugar, were unloaded from incoming ships. Up until the American War for Independence, the slave trade was a profitable element of the New England economy.5

Massachusetts "never formally abolished slavery, but rather left it to acts of private manumission . . .".

Private manumission was also how slavery was dying out in the South and would have ended completely without Lincoln's war that killed a million people and maimed another million.

Higginbotham brings out some good points of history but still virtue-signals with regard to the North and its slave traders and business people who got filthy rich because of slavery. They made huge amounts of money manufacturing for the South and shipping Southern cotton. Cotton alone, in 1860, was 60% of U.S. exports. Add to that the other Southern commodities, which all total, were producing the wealth of the United States.

Higginbotham celebrates the anti-slavery societies in the North but does not mention that the South had those too, many more than in the North, until violent abolitionists supporting murderers like John Brown caused the South to close ranks for its safety.

She does point out Northern racism and admits blacks were not welcome in the North. Northerners wanted blacks to leave the North just as Abraham Lincoln wanted blacks to leave the entire country. See Colonization after Emancipation, Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement, by Phillip W. Magness and Sebastian N. Page (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, copyright 2011, first printing 2018).

Higginbotham does not point out that racist Northerners didn't want slavery in the West because they didn't want blacks anywhere near them in the West. This was Lincoln's position too. He made it clear in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates that the West was to be reserved for white people from all over the planet. No blacks allowed.

Higginbotham does not seem to realize that abolitionists were hated in the North for much of the antebellum period. Abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy was murdered in 1837 at age 34 in Lincoln's Illinois. Only around 3% of the Northern electorate were abolitionists.

None of these virtue-signaling abolitionists had a plan for emancipation that would work such as the Northern states, themselves, had used to end slavery. The Northern states ended slavery like every other nation on earth (except Haiti), with gradual, compensated emancipation.

The reason Northerners didn't suggest a plan that could work is because anti-slavery in the North was political, especially during the elections of 1856 and 1860. It was not a movement for the benefit of the black man. It is better described as "anti-South" rather than anti-slavery. It was political agitation against the South for the purpose of rounding up Northern votes so the North could take over the Federal Government and rule the country.

They wanted to continue with their bounties, subsidies and monopolies for Northern businesses, and high tariffs that took money out of the South and deposited it into Northern pockets. Southerners were paying 85% of the taxes but 75% of the tax money was being spent in the North.

Despite plans for compensated emancipation in place in some Northern states, six slave state still fought for the North in the War Between the States. West Virginia came into the Union as a slave state during the war, ironically, just weeks after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. The Emancipation Proclamation specifically exempted the Union slave states.

Three Northern slave states still had slavery months after the war ended. It took the second Thirteenth Amendment (remember, the first Thirteenth Amendment was the Corwin Amendment that left black people in slavery forever where slavery already existed -- it was supported strongly by Abraham Lincoln and ratified by five Northern states including Lincoln's Illinois before the war made it moot).

The special report "Complicity," that led to the book, came about after The Hartford Courant published a story: "Aetna 'Regrets' Insuring Slaves".

The Courant's journalists started wondering if the Courant, itself, had been complicit in slavery and they found out it had, that it had published ads for the sale of slaves and the capture of runaway slaves.

They wanted to find a slave whom Aetna had insured and write about his or her life.

What they discovered shocked them to their cores. They thought slavery was a Southern evil, that Northerners were the good guys in the war because they had the Underground Railroad and Harriet Beecher Stowe. But now:

[I]t was becoming clear that Connecticut's role in slavery was not only huge, it was key to the success of the entire institution. . . . We were now looking at nothing less than an altered reality.6

The more they looked for their ties to slavery, the more "unshakable" was the proof they found:

It became obvious that our economic links to slavery were deeply entwined with our religious, political, and educational institutions. Slavery was part of the social contract in Connecticut. It was in the air we breathed.7

They found out there were 5,000 African slaves in Connecticut in 1775 and "in 1790 most prosperous merchants in Connecticut owned at least one slave." So did half of the ministers.8

The special report, "Complicity," had gotten enormous interest. The authors received a proposition from a literary agent to "broaden their thesis" and include the entire North and not just Connecticut.

A year-and-a-half later the completed book, Complicity, How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery, came out.

The preface ends with this:

What was true of Connecticut turned out to be overwhelmingly true of the entire North. Most of what you'll read here was gleaned from older, often out-of-print texts, and from period newspapers, largely in Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts.

We are journalists, not scholars, and want to share what surprised, and even shocked, the three of us. We have all grown up, attended schools, and worked in Northern states, from Maine to Maryland. We thought we knew our home. We thought we knew our country.

We were wrong.9

 

Next Week:

A Comprehensive Review of

COMPLICITY

How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery

by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank

of The Hartford Courant

Part Two

 

Click Here to go to last week's blog article:

The Four Declarations of Causes for Secession Do Not Prove the War Was Fought Over Slavery

 

1 Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank, Complicity, How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery (New York: Ballantine Books, Copyright 2005 by The Hartford Courant Company).

2 W. E. B. Du Bois, The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870 (New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1896), 178-80.

3 The inside back cover of Complicity states that Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of History and African and African American Studies at Harvard University. She is co-editor with Henry Louis Gates Jr., of African American Lives.

4 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, from the Foreword by Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, xii.

5 Ibid.

6 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, xviii.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, xix.

The Four Declarations of Causes for Secession Do Not Prove the War Was Fought Over Slavery, by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Posted on by | 10 Comments
The Four Declarations of Causes for Secession Do Not Prove the War Was Fought Over Slavery
by Gene Kizer, Jr.

ACADEMIA'S ABSOLUTE PROOF that the War Between the States was fought over slavery is based primarily on the declarations of causes for the secession of four of the first seven Southern states to secede: South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas.

However, those four declarations prove nothing of the sort.

There were 13 Southern states represented in the Confederate government. That 13 included Missouri and Kentucky, which were divided states that did not actually secede. They remained Union slave states - two of six Union slave states - the entire war (WHAT! UNION SLAVE STATES! I thought the war was fought over slavery with the Union fighting to end slavery! Man, they should have started with their own country).

In fact, three of the six Union slave states - New Jersey, Kentucky and Delaware - had slavery several months after the war. It took the second 13th Amendment in December 1865 for slavery to end in those three Union slave states.

Remember, the first 13th Amendment was the Corwin Amendment that left black people in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress, in places where slavery already existed. It was passed by the Northern Congress, ratified by several states and strongly supported by Abraham Lincoln before the war made it moot.

The Corwin Amendment was the true feeling of the North on the slavery issue though it is only one small piece of the irrefutable evidence that the North did not go to war to end slavery.

Back to the six Union slave states: The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately exempted them as well as slaves in already captured Confederate territory. That prompted Lincoln's secretary of state, William H. Seward, to state "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."

It also gave Charles Dickens a good laugh at Lincoln's phoneyness and hypocrisy, especially since all of Lincoln's life he favored sending blacks back to Africa or into a place they could survive. See Colonization after Emancipation, Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement by Phillip W. Magness and Sebastian N. Page (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2011).

All 13 states represented in the Confederate government produced a legal document such as an ordinance of secession that withdrew the state from the Union. Tennessee's was called a Declaration of Independence.

Most of the ordinances of secession were straight-forward documents referring to a state's ratification of the Constitution then withdrawing the state from it, as well as proclaiming its sovereignty, etc. Alabama and Arkansas did go a little beyond pure legalese in discussing some issues but nothing like a declaration of causes.

Only four of the 13 Confederate states issued declarations of causes. Nine did not.

Those four declarations are the basis for the entire argument against the South because politicized academia and the ignorant news media simply ignore substantial evidence they don't agree with.

They ignore the six Union slave states, the Corwin Amendment, the War Aims Resolution (war is being waged for Union, not to end slavery), Lincoln's very clear statements that the war is about preserving the Union, and a ton of conclusive evidence that slavery was not the cause of the North's invasion of the South.

The North was interested in its economic dominance and wealth, not ending slavery, and Northerners sure did not want a bunch of desperate freed slaves to come North and be job competition. That's why so many Northern and Western states had laws forbidding free blacks from living there or even visiting for long including Lincoln's Illinois.

Anti-slavery in the North in 1856 and 1860 was political, to rally votes so Northerners could control the federal government and continue their bounties, subsidies and monopolies for Northern businesses, and their high tariffs like the Morrill Tariff. Remember, they were the "Federals" in the war because they wanted to establish the supremacy of the federal government over the states, which they would then control with their larger population.

Northern anti-slavery should be labeled, more accurately, "anti-South" - political agitation against the South - not anti-slavery. It was not a moral movement for the benefit of the black man.

Even the slavery in the West issue was based, not on concern for blacks, but the opposite: Northern racism. They didn't want slavery in the West because they did not want blacks near them in the West.

It all started with the Wilmot Proviso. U.S. Representative David Wilmot of Pennsylvania on Augusut 8, 1846 introduced a proviso prohibiting slavery in the territory won from Mexico after the Mexican War. Wilmot admitted his racist motivation was to keep blacks out of the West. He said, among other things: "The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent. Let us keep what remains for ourselves . . . for free white labor."1

Lincoln said the exact same thing in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, that the West was to be reserved for free white labor from all over the world. No blacks allowed.

The four declarations of causes are statements as to why states seceded, what their grievances were, and such. They are not declarations of war. Southerners expected to live in peace. After all, Yankees threatened to secede five times before Southerners finally did.

Nobody questioned the right of secession, not even Horace Greeley during the time that South Carolina was seceding in December, 1860. Greeley strongly supported the right of secession ("let the erring sisters go") until he realized it would affect his money then he wanted war like the rest of the North.

Wars are always fought over money and power, never because one country does not like the domestic institutions in another. Would you send your precious sons off to die to free servants in another country? Hell no.

Lincoln sent his hostile naval forces to Charleston and Pensacola to start the War Between the States in April, 1861 because a free trade South with European military alliances and 100% control of the most demanded commodity on the planet - cotton - would quickly rise to dominance in North America. The North would not be able to beat the South in a war in such a situation.

That's why Lincoln wanted to use his enormous advantages at that point in history, and fight.

He wanted to establish the North as the dominant cultural and economic region of our great country, and he did. It's been that way for over 150 years though many of the big cities of the North and West today are on a death spiral thanks to woke liberal policies that encourage violent crime and discriminate against the law-biding. Recent mass thefts in San Francisco, New York and other bastions of liberal wokeness by mobs of violent criminals have forced businesses to board up and leave rather than serve the public. That is a clear sign of a sick, decaying culture.

The four declarations of causes all mention several reasons for seceding. All mention the many constitutional violations of the North. The North was untrustworthy.

All mention Northern terrorism against the South such as John Brown who wanted to murder Southern men, women and children with a bloody slave insurrection like they had in Haiti. Brown was funded by the "Secret Committee of Six" out of Massachusetts. They gave him $679,000 in 2017 dollars. Seven of Brown's raiders who escaped Harper's Ferry were protected by Iowa and Ohio whose Republican governors would not extradite them to Virginia to stand trial as the Constitution required. Brown was celebrated and glorified in the North for wanting to murder Southerners.

Of course, this shocked the South and caused it to realize that Northerners were already at war with them, so they debated the issue and voted to secede.2

The most widely quote phrase in the secession debate in the South in the year prior to states seceding comes from the Declaration of Independence:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

South Carolina's Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, adopted December 24, 1860, is a fascinating constitutional and early American history lesson. It proves South Carolina's sovereignty and the sovereignty of all the states. The caps are in the original document. Here's part of it:

Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: "ARTICLE 1-- His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof." / Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

Georgia's declaration goes into great detail on the economic causes of secession. As Georgia's famous senator, Robert Toombs, said, the North was a suction pump sucking wealth out of the South and depositing it into the North constantly. The Georgia declaration states:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all.

That is a powerful statement as to why the Union was critical to Lincoln and the North, but was the opposite of the States' Rights philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the South.

Even Mississippi's declaration that begins with an assertion that it is identified with slavery as the basis of its economic well-being makes several critical points. It affirms the constitutional violations of the North but states about the North:

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better. / It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives. / It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security. / It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system. / It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

Texas's declaration of causes includes:

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States. / The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

Read these declarations and especially know your own state's if you live in South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia or Texas. Northern constitutional violations are extremely important. If you can't trust the North to obey the Constitution, you can't trust them with anything.

Northern support for terrorists like John Brown was a huge issue. The North was already at war with the South. Would you allow yourself to be ruled by people who sent murderers, thieves and arsonists into your peaceful towns to kill your family and neighbors, destroy your property, poison wells, and encourage the unimaginable horror of slave insurrections with rape and murder from which there would be no survivors like in Haiti?

The economic theft also mentioned was huge. Southerners were paying 85% of the taxes yet 75% of the tax money was being spent in the North.3

Nobody in the North, ever a single time, suggested a workable plan for gradual, compensated emancipation such as the Northern states, themselves, and all other nations on earth except Haiti, used to end slavery.

The reason why is that Northerners were not about to spend their hard earned sweatshop money to free the slaves in the South who would then go North with crime and violence, and be job competition.

They would rather do as they did and just pass laws that forbid black people from settling or even visiting Northern and Western states for long.

The four declarations of causes indicate that slavery was one of the causes of secession for four states, but only for those four.

The other nine did not issue declarations of causes, and four of the Southern states, in which 52.4% of white Southerners lived, unquestionably seceded over nothing to do with slavery.

Those four states --- Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina --- rejected secession at first but after Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South, they were horrified by the prospect of violent federal coercion. They were utterly disgusted that the federal government would illegally and unconstitutionally invade sovereign states, kill their citizens and destroy their property to force them to obey a Northern sectional majority.

Another thing that proves the war was not about slavery: when Lincoln called for his immoral invasion, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy.

There were nine slave states in the Union, soon to be 10 with the admission of West Virginia as a slave state into the Union during the war, ironically, just weeks after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect.

There were only seven slave states in the Confederacy.

The nine Union slave states on April 12, 1861 when the war started were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina.

The seven Confederate states were South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

Nothing the North or dishonest academia or anybody else says matters anyway. The South had the right to secede and did so properly.

Among the conclusive evidence of the right of secession is the reserved right to secede demanded by New York, Rhode Island and Virginia before they acceded to the Constitution. All the other states accepted the reserved right of secession of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, thus they had it too, since all states entered the Union as exact equals.

Southerners seceded democratically with conventions of the people to decide the one issue of secession just as the Founding Fathers had used conventions of the people to decide the one issue of accepting or rejecting the United States Constitution.

The Founding Fathers established the precedent of using conventions of the people to decide single, important issues. Southerners followed it to the letter.

Southerners wanted to be free to govern themselves just like the colonists had wanted when the British became tyrannical with their taxes that were minuscule compared to the 85% Southerners were paying in 1861, of which 75% of the tax money was being spent in the North.

Southerners expected to live in peace but, as stated, Lincoln and Northern business leaders and banks knew that a free-trade South with 100% control of King Cotton, and British trade and military alliances, would quickly be unbeatable in a war. The South would then rise to dominance in North America.

Lincoln started his war so he could throw up his naval blockade and chill relations between the South and Europe.

This is confirmed by Lincoln's own commander inside Fort Sumter, Major Robert Anderson, who was at ground zero on April 12, 1861, when the war started.

Of all the participants in the drama, Anderson, alone, was in the best position to judge who started the war.

When Anderson was informed that reinforcements would be sent after the South had been lied to over and over with the false promise that Fort Sumter would be evacuated, he wrote back to Secretary of War Cameron and Lincoln:

. . . a movement made now when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout out country. . . . We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. . . . (emphasis added)

Major Anderson sees that the war "is to be thus commenced" by Abraham Lincoln, president of the North, the first sectional president in American history whom over 60% of even Northerners voted against in 1860.

Lincoln, whose goal was to establish the Northeast as the dominant economic and cultural section of our country, succeeded, though over a million people had to die, which included 750,000 soldiers, with another million maimed.

 

1 Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men (Chicago: Open Court, 1996), 90.

2 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History,  2020), 98-101.

3 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 103.

It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. – A Comprehensive Review by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Fifteen, Conclusion: Chapter XV, The Costs and Results of the War

Posted on by | No Comments
A Comprehensive Review of
It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War by Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.
Part Fifteen, Conclusion
Chapter XV
The Costs and Results of the War
by Gene Kizer, Jr.
Mitcham-500-103K

At the end of this article, beneath the notes I have cited, is "Actual Citation from Book," Mitcham's endnotes for Chapter XV.

MITCHAM OPENS his concluding chapter with "the total number of deaths as a result of the Civil War was about 1,000,000" which includes 750,000 soldiers and tens of thousands of Southerners who "died in the aftermath of the war from starvation, malnutrition, disease, or injury."1

Always keep in mind that the population of the entire country in those days was only 31.4 million.

During World War II, the population was 133 million and roughly 400,000 died vis-a-vis 1,000,000 in the War Between the States.

Despite being outnumbered four to one, and outgunned maybe 200 to one, Confederate valor is unsurpassed in the history of the world. James McPherson writes in Drew Gilpin Faust's This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War:

[T]he overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and that of all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II.2

Southerners fought to the bitter end for independence and lost only after four bloody years because of overwhelming Northern resources, as General Lee said at the end of the war, such as the North's pipeline to the wretched refuse of the world to feed Union armies. That's why 25% of the Union army was not born here.

Blacks suffered enormously at the hands of the Union army. It has now come out that a substantial number of Union blacks were coerced into joining, and when they did, their families back home were not taken care of in the least despite Yankee promises. Many suffered mightily, were cold, ragged and starved to death.

There are accounts of dead blacks being buried by Yankees in mass graves along with dead horses and mules, all thrown together in wagons then thrown into unmarked ditches dug for that purpose. These are documented in Jim Downs' excellent book, Sick from Freedom: African American Death and Suffering During the Civil War and Reconstruction, which Mitcham says "should have won a Pulitzer Prize."3 More below from Downs.

The whole story of blacks in the War Between the States is a half-truth, which makes it a lie. Thousands of Confederate blacks are ignored because that does not suit political liberals in academia and the news media.

Just one irrefutable example proves substantial black participation in combat on battlefields with the Confederate army. A Yankee official, Lewis H. Steiner, M.D., Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission, observed, firsthand, the exodus of Stonewall Jackson's army from Frederick, Maryland in 1862. Steiner writes in his official report:

Wednesday, September 10, 1862: At 4 o'clock this morning the Rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until 8 o'clock P.M., occupying 16 hours. The most liberal calculation could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in the number. They had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and they were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of generals and promiscuously mixed up with all the Rebel horde (emphasis added).

I named a two-DVD set featuring Professor Edward C. Smith, a well-known authority on black Confederates, Mixed Up with All the Rebel Horde, Why Black Southerners Fought for the South in the War Between the States.

Steiner writes that there were "over 3,000 Negroes." That number could be much higher. Steiner was observing from a distance starting in the dark before dawn, and he would not be able to distinguish light-skinned African Americans from white Confederate soldiers.

So it's not unreasonable to think that 3,000 to 5,000 of every 64,000 Confederate soldiers were black meaning, from this one example, there could have been 50,000 or more armed Confederate blacks, at one time or another, marching with whites against the Union army. Of course, thousands of blacks served in the Confederate army in other capacities.

To get at the truth about the past, you have to read the words of the people of the past and make up your own mind. Academia and the news media are so politicized most of them are worthless as historians seeking truth.

Mitcham called the aforementioned book, Sick From Freedom: African American Death and Suffering During the Civil War and Reconstruction, by Jim Downs, "his masterpiece." Mitcham writes and quotes Downs that the war:

'produced the largest biological crisis of the nineteenth century . . . wreaking havoc on the population of the newly freed.' Tens of thousands of freed slaves died due to the 'exigencies of war and the massive dislocation triggered by emancipation.' Downs estimated that 1,000,000 of the 4,000,000 freed slaves suffered serious illness or death. We do not know how many died, but there were tens of thousands of deaths, especially among black children.4

As a result of the war, Southerners lost 60% of their capital and "one in four of its [the South's] young men of military age killed; one in four others crippled."5

Mitcham's previous assertion that money was the cause of the War Between the States, is backed up.

He writes that the "true value of Southern property fell from $6.3 billion to $4.2 billion. At the same time, the true value of United States' property increased from $16.2 billion to $30.1 billion."6

After first supporting the right of secession, by the spring of 1861 Yankees could see their economy crumbling around them as jubilant Southerners thrilled at being out from under greedy Yankee control.

Southerners would now be able to manufacture for themselves and have low tariffs and free trade with the rest of the world. With 100% control of the most demanded commodity on earth, King Cotton, the Southern future was as bright as the Northern future was sinking.

So, for money and control, Lincoln started his war that killed a million people and maimed another million. He knew he had overwhelming advantages at that point in history and he thought he could win easily. He knew that if he could beat the South, a powerful competitor would be destroyed and the North would rule our great country via its political control of the federal government by the larger Northern population. "Northern property values almost doubled." That kind of money is what the North was fighting for.

Before the war, "not a single political party advocated emancipation. And none advanced the ideas of compensation and integration beyond words."7

The rot in American history that academia and the news media have given us today, started in the 1960s as Mitcham points out.

Prior to the 1960s, historians "did not believe the war was only about slavery, despite the Myth of the Noble Cause. For most, it was all about restoring the Union and coast-to-coast economic nationalism, controlled by Northern financial and commercial interests."8

He points out that "evidence suggests that an independent Confederacy would have ended slavery like other countries in the Western Hemisphere, and race relations in the South and in America would be better than they are now."9

Some of his evidence is "that there were more free black people in the South than in the North in 1860. Every other country in the world except Haiti freed its slaves without war."10

Mitcham believes that "given the history throughout the Western Hemisphere, it was more likely to happen than not" that slavery would have been ended by the South.11

I agree completely because technology created machines in the latter part of the nineteenth century that would pick cotton faster than black people and nobody in his right mind would pay for a slave who came with a birth to death commitment when he could buy machines to pick cotton faster, better and cheaper.

Mitcham writes:

The agitation of abolitionists and the greed of the Northern financial, mercantile, industrial, railroad, and commercial interests were the real roadblocks to freedom. This explosive agitation culminated in the election of the unscrupulous Lincoln and the passage of the punitive Morrill Tariff, which was not replaced until 1913.12

Another big reason Northerners did not want to end slavery was because most were racist. Many Northern and Western states had laws preventing blacks from living there. Northerners did not want slavery in the West because they did not want blacks near them in the West. They surely did not want to free the slaves who would then move north and be job competition.

Of course, this argument is ignored by politicized academia and the news media because it does not help them elect Democrats.

Based on the experience of other countries nearby "the Civil War probably ended slavery only thirty to thirty-five years earlier than would have been the case had the institution been allowed to die out organically."13

This was Lincoln belief too because he talked about a plan of compensated emancipation that would have freed the slaves by 1900 though he never made a serious proposal. Just talk.

Mitcham points out that had slavery been allowed to die out:

The South (including blacks) would have been spared a brutal war, the scorched-earth policy of certain Union war criminals, plunder, pillage, starvation, military dictatorship, a decade of military occupation, the incredible corruption of Reconstruction, the manipulation of black people by the Republican party to keep itself in power, and the needless deaths of tens of thousands (and probably hundreds of thousands) of freed black people. Millions of people (both white and African-American) would have been spared the crushing poverty of the New South era.14

Yankees used black people for political gain "but made no provisions for the suddenly displaced African Americans, and indeed, there is no evidence they even thought about them."

The Emancipation Proclamation, which freed no slaves, or few, and left slavery in place in the six Union slave states, was issued "to encourage slave revolts and end the possibility of a diplomatic alliance between the Confederacy, Britain, and France."

Of course, the people of the Northern states that forbid blacks from living there or even visiting looked down on black people:

The Yankee generals dubbed them "contrabands," a derogatory term never used by the Rebels and roughly equal to the word Untermenschen (subhumans), a term the Germans used in the 1930s and 1940s to describe Jews, Slavs, and other people they considered inferior. They tossed them into 'contraband camps,' which were the first modern concentration camps. . . . Able-bodied men were separated from their families and forced to work on plantations, which were under Northern management. They faced being defrauded of their minimum wages or not paid at all.15

Mitcham goes on:

In some camps there were also multiple rapes of black women by Union soldiers every night.16

The Union Army leased plantations to "'Carpetbaggers'" who forced blacks to work there but often did not pay them or let them leave. Private Samuel H. Glasgow of the Twenty-Third Iowa wrote that these plantation lessees "'did not have the best interests of the former slave at heart . . . Cotton closes their eyes to justice . . . '".17

U.S. brigadier general John P. Hawkins said the plantation system was "'nothing but a system of slavery.'" He suggested the army "'send for their former masters and tell each one to claim his slaves, [because] his treatment of them was parental compared to what we now permit.'"18

Yankee contraband camps were unsanitary and "tens of thousands" died of disease and malnutrition. The U.S. Army made the situation worse by "force-marching some of the camps to new locations, some hundreds of miles away."19

Suffering in the South continued after the war. In 1866 there were crop failures and 1867 "was a year of famine with mortality rates which Downs described as 'chilling.'"20

Smallpox "raged throughout the South and West from 1862 through 1868. Weakened and malnourished black people were especially susceptible, often dying at rates three or four times higher than Southern whites, who were themselves malnourished. Black children were particularly hard hit. In one six-month period in 1865, 30,000 died in North Carolina and South Carolina alone."21

Yankee carpetbaggers and scalawags raised taxes "300 percent to 400 percent higher than they had been in 1860, even though property values had declined significantly." In Mississippi, in 1871, "3,300,300 acres were for sale due to tax defaults" which was "15 percent of all taxable land."22

None of that tax revenue went to former Confederates or blacks. It all went into the pockets of carpetbaggers and scalawags.

After the war many Southerners admitted slavery was wrong but "they steadfastly denied that it was cruel. The survivors of the antebellum South went to their graves firm in this opinion."23

It took decades, until World War II, for the South to recover economically. Reconstruction "left behind a system of segregation and peonage (sharecropping) that did not exist before the war."24

Before the war, five Southern states were in the top ten American states for per capita income. After the war, none were.

Of course, as stated, this was the purpose of Lincoln's war. He did not want economic competition from such a powerful region as the South on his Southern border.

Lincoln was president of the North, the first sectional president in American history. He and Northern leaders knew the South would ascend to economic and political dominance with 100 percent control of King Cotton and its low, free trade tariff of 10% vis-a-vis the North's astronomical Morrill Tariff that was 47 to 60% higher.

The South had other powerful advantages too, like excellent ports and good weather. The South was already producing the wealth of the nation with cotton and other commodities. Cotton alone was 60% of U.S. exports in 1860.

Imagine the revenue that would be turned back on the South. Of course, that same revenue would be denied to the North and Lincoln could not tolerate that.

With European recognition of the Confederacy and subsequent trade and military alliances, the South would be unbeatable by the North very quickly.

Again, Lincoln and Northern leaders knew this and were in a panic over it. With four times the white population of the South and overwhelming manufacturing and shipping at that point in history, they thought it would be easy to win a war.

They found out differently as the old song goes:

Three hundred thousand Yankees
Is stiff in Southern dust;
We got three hundred thousand
Before they conquered us.
They died of Southern fever
And Southern steel and shot;
I wish it was three millions
Instead of what we got.25

It is hard to believe Yankees who invaded a peaceful region that just wanted to govern itself and had seceded by a democratic debate and vote, are considered the heroes of American history in this day and age while monuments to Confederates defending their homes and families are toppled by ignorant thugs.

The one thing you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt is that the North did not go to war to free the slaves. Three Northern slave states of the six that Lincoln exempted with his Emancipation Proclamation, had slavery months after the war. It took the second Thirteenth Amendment in December, 1865 to finally free the slaves in all the Yankee slave states.

Perhaps the most despicable today are the politicized frauds in academia and the news media who are destroying our country with their racist Critical Race Theory and their fraudulent history like the 1619 Project.

Southerners, fighting for independence like the Founding Fathers in 1776, are the true heroes of American history. The most widely quoted phrase in the secession debate in the South in the year prior to states seceding comes from the Declaration of Independence:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Mitcham's final paragraph states that:

It should be clear by now to any open-minded reader that the war was not just about slavery and certainly not primarily about slavery. It was chiefly about money . . . 26

(Click Here to go to previous week: Part Fourteen: Chapter XIV, Tyranny and Emancipation, Part Two)

NOTES:
(Scroll down for:
It Wasn't About Slavery, Actual Citation from Book)

1 Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 173.

2 Drew Gilpin Faust, This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008), xii.

3 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 174.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 175.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 175-176.

15 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 176.

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 176-177.

19 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 177.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 178.

24 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 178-179.

25 Oh I'm a Good Old Rebel, by Hoyt Axton. Many others have done this song. It was created in the 1860s by former Confederate major James Innes Randolph. Here are Axton's lyrics, https://genius.com/Hoyt-axton-oh-im-a-good-old-rebel-lyrics, accessed 2-2-22.

26 Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 179.

It Wasn't About Slavery,
Actual Citation from Book

Chap-XV-CONCLUSION-2-3-22-NOTES 1 98K
Chap-XV-CONCLUSION-2-3-22-NOTES 2 56K