The Last Words, The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States, by Michael R. Bradley – A Summary, Part Three: Prologue, Setting the Stage, by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Three of Four

Posted on November 7, 2022November 7, 2022 by Gene Kizer, Jr. | 3 Comments

A Summary of

The Last Words

The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States

by Michael R. Bradley

Part Three

Prologue, Setting the Stage

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Part Three of Four

The Last Words, The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States, by Michael R. Bradley, front cover.

(Continued from Part Two)

GREAT BRITAIN was the dominant economic and military power on earth in the 1860s. The cotton gin, short for "cotton engine," had revolutionized cotton production, which had led to an ironclad relationship between the South and Great Britain:

By the eve of the Civil War, Great Britain was largely clothing the Western world, using Southern-grown, slave-picked cotton.¹

All Southerners had to do was establish formal trade and military treaties with Great Britain, with whom they already had an "ironclad" relationship because of cotton, and the North would not be able to beat the South in a war.

Lincoln knew all this and was not going to allow the free-trade Confederate States of America to rise to power on his southern border.

He knew that the future of the American nation for at least the next century, maybe forever, was at stake right then.

That's why, with four times the white population of the South, enormous weapon manufacturing capability, a pipeline to the wretched refuse of the world with which to feed Union armies (25% of the Union army was foreign born), an army, navy and other advantages at that point in history, he sent five hostile military missions into Southern waters in March and April, 1861 to start a war.²

Several Northern newspapers such as the Providence (R.I.) Daily Post saw exactly what Lincoln was doing. In an editorial entitled "WHY?" published the day after the commencement of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, April 13, 1861, it wrote:

We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a party better than he loves his country. . . . Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor.

The New York Herald eight days earlier wrote:

We have no doubt Mr. Lincoln wants [President Davis] to take the initiative in capturing . . . forts in its waters, for it would give him the opportunity of throwing [to the South] the responsibility of commencing hostilities.³

One gets little debate in Woke academia or the idiot news media on the cause of the war because vigorous debate is impossible. Those institutions are virtually 100% liberal and tow the Woke liberal line so the enraged mob doesn't show up at their office or, God forbid, accuse them of being a racist.

Forty years ago, historian Joe Gray Taylor wanted to examine the causes of the war but quickly concluded that esteemed historian David H. Donald was "correct when he said in 1960 that the causation of the Civil War was dead as a serious subject of historical analysis" and that "A 'Southern' point of view on the secession crisis no longer exists among professional historians."⁴

Without a "'Southern' point of view on the secession crisis" you can never get to the truth of American history. You can not have a debate with only one side presented. The Bible in Proverbs 18:17 says "The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him."

In the 1960s, academia and the news media went from truth as their standard, to the political advantage of the left as their standard, because, as stated, they are virtually 100% liberal.

Like the political operatives they are, so much of their history is filthy politics, not truth. They want to control the past so they can control the future, like Orwell said:

Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.⁵

To have a debate and get at the truth both sides need to be represented 50/50 so they can challenge each other to the full extend of their intelligence, knowledge and passion and see who has the stronger argument.

Politicized academia and the idiot news media are 100/0 so truth is impossible yet if you don't agree with their Woke history, you are a racist hatemonger who deserves to die and certainly not have a career.

Esteemed historian Eugene Genovese (Roll Jordan Roll, The World the Slaves Made, et al.) said 30 years ago that to speak positively about the Old South

is to invite charges of being a racist and an apologist for slavery and segregation. We are witnessing a cultural and political atrocity an increasingly successful campaign by the media and an academic elite to strip young white Southerners, and arguably black Southerners as well, of their heritage . . . ⁶ (Bold emphasis added)

The destruction of century old historic monuments to Southern war dead is also a cultural and political atrocity, and it is immoral.

Those monuments are gifts from the people of the past to the people of the future. Their destruction denies the people of the future the opportunity to gaze on them and read the inscriptions and ponder for themselves what happened in the past.

Much has been written in the past 40 years on the politicization of our history and its unavoidable result, the falsification of our history. Allan Bloom, in his 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind, confirms that "humanities and social science departments within universities [where History resides] had abandoned objectivity and truth and become hopelessly politicized."⁷

David Harlan, in his book The Degradation of American History, explains how it began. He says that, starting in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Movement, leftist historians began criticizing American history as elitist. He writes that academia wanted to expose the complicity of white men "in the violence and brutality that now seemed to be the most important truth about American history." They "feel no need to say what is good in American history."⁸

Keith Windschuttle, in The Killing of History, writes that most young people today are "taught to scorn the traditional values of Western culture - equality, freedom, democracy, human rights - as hollow rhetoric used to mask the self-interest of the wealthy and powerful. This teaching, Bloom argued, had bred a cynical, amoral, self-centered younger generation who lacked any sense of inherited wisdom from the past."

Windschuttle points out that for 2,400 years history has ranked "with philosophy and mathematics as among the most profound and enduring contributions that ancient Greece made, not only to European civilization, but to the human species as a whole." History's "essence" has been to "tell the truth, to describe as best as possible what really happened" but today, in much of academia and the news media, "these assumptions are widely rejected."⁹

Many in the humanities and social sciences "assert that it is impossible to tell the truth about the past" because "we can only see the past through the perspective of our own culture and, hence, what we see in history are our own interests and concerns reflected back at us."

Because of this, supposedly, the entire point of history is no longer valid therefore "there is no fundamental distinction any more between history and myth" or between "fiction and non-fiction."¹⁰

In other words, nothing exists except what Woke political liberals in academia and the idiot news media tell us exists.

Academia's hate is having their desired effect. Dr. Edward M. Gilbreth noted in his Post and Courier (Charleston, S.C.) column on July 15, 2021 that in the demographic of 18-24 year olds, a recent Issues and Insights poll finds that only "36 percent of them say they are very or extremely proud to be Americans."

In contrast, that same poll finds that "68 percent of adults say they are 'very' or 'extremely' proud to be an American, with another 15 'moderately' proud." The 18-24 demographic was the only one less than 50%.

Dr. Gilbreth concludes that "attempts to describe the country as corrupt, racist, unfair and in need of 'transformation' have not had much impact on the general population" but it has on young people.

Distinguished professor emeritus of History of the University of South Carolina in Columbia, Clyde N. Wilson, states:

[D]espite the thirst for history and the centrality of historical thinking in our consciousness, academic historians have never been more irrelevant, incestuous, and unreadable.¹¹

We are living in Orwell's Oceania, where, as James S. Robbins writes in Erasing America, Losing Our Future by Destroying Our Past:

Progressives seek to demean and demolish, elevating the victims of the past as an indictment of the present. They wield history as a weapon on behalf of the aggrieved, never gratified by the progress made. Indeed, as one supposed injustice after another is rectified, their attacks become fiercer, their complaints more numerous, . . .¹²

Somebody needs to tell race-obsessed academia that this is 2022 and not 1922 or 1822. We have had a Civil Rights Movement in America. There is unlimited opportunity for everybody. If you fail in America, it's your own fault.

There is not a single law in the entire country discriminating against non-whites because of skin color, which is why millions break our laws every month to come here.

In fact, there is often discrimination against whites and Asians in such things as college admissions (of course, where else but academia would you find such obvious discrimination).

We don't want academia's identity politics and racist hate like Critical Race Theory, or the news media's fake history like the 1619 Project.

The primary theme of the 1619 Project is that the American Revolutionary War was fought because the British were about to abolish slavery. That is a complete fraud, an invention without a shred of evidence. Not a single letter, speech, document, nothing.

Peter W. Wood states in 1620, A Critical Response to the 1619 Project:

The 1619 Project aligns with the views of those on the progressive left who hate America and would like to transform it radically into a different kind of nation.¹³

Wood points out that Nikole Hannah-Jones, creator of the 1619 Project, has stated many times her goal is reparations. He concludes there is "only bitterness and anger" in the 1619 Project, that it "is a bucket lowered into the poisoned well of identity politics."¹⁴

Next Week:

A Summary of

The Last Words

The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States

by Michael R. Bradley

Part Four

Prologue, Setting the Stage

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Part Four of Four, Conclusion

NOTES:

¹ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 10. Eli Whitney patented his cotton gin in 1794.

² Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 142. Mitcham states that by the first of April, 1861, the following five military expeditions were "in, steaming toward, or about to sail for Southern territorial waters:

1) the Welles-Fox Expedition, heading for Charleston;

2) the Rowan Expedition, also heading for Charleston;

3) Captain Adams' ships, lurking off Santa Rosa Island;

4) Colonel Brown's Expedition, heading for Pensacola;

5) Porter's Expedition, also steaming for Pensacola."

³ Editorial, New York Herald, April 5, 1861, in Mitcham, It Wasn't About Slavery, 147.

⁴ Joe Gray Taylor, "The White South from Secession to Redemption," in John B. Boles and Evelyn Thomas Nolen, Interpreting Southern History, Historiographical Essays in Honor of Sanford W. Higginbotham (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987), 162-164.

⁵ George Orwell, 1984 (New York: New American Library, 1950), 32. This was one of the slogans of Big Brother's English Socialist Party of Oceania, INGSOC.

⁶ Eugene D. Genovese, The Southern Tradition, The Achievement and Limitations of an American Conservatism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), xi-xii.

⁷ Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, in Keith Windschuttle, The Killing of History, How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 10.

⁸ David Harlan, The Degradation of American History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), xv. This paragraph, written by me, comes verbatim from the Introduction to my book, Charles W. Ramsdell, Dean of Southern Historians, Volume One: His Best Work (Charleston: Charleston Athenaeum Press, 2017).

⁹ Keith Windschuttle, The Killing of History, How Literary Critics and Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past (New York: The Free Press, 1996), 1-2.

¹⁰ Windschuttle, The Killing of History, 2, 7.

¹¹ Clyde Wilson, February 12, 2019 Review of Historical Consciousness or the Remembered Past by John Lukacs (Schocken Books, 1985) in The Abbeville Review, https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/historical-consciousness, accessed February 12, 2019. Dr. Wilson taught in the History Department at the University of South Carolina for over 30 years. He is primary editor of The Papers of John C. Calhoun and author or editor of over 30 books and over 600 articles, essays and reviews.

¹² James S. Robbins, Erasing America, Losing Our Future by Destroying Our Past (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2018), 3.

¹³ Peter W. Wood, 1620, A Critical Response to the 1619 Project (New York: Encounter Books, 2020), 3.

¹⁴ Wood, 1620, A Critical Response to the 1619 Project, 172.

The Last Words, The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States, by Michael R. Bradley – A Summary, Part Two: Prologue, Setting the Stage, by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Two of Four

Posted on October 31, 2022November 1, 2022 by Gene Kizer, Jr. | 1 Comment

A Summary of

The Last Words

The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States

by Michael R. Bradley

Part Two

Prologue, Setting the Stage

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Part Two of Four

The Last Words, The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States, by historian Michael R Bradley, front cover.

(Continued from Part One)

THAT IS WHY ABRAHAM LINCOLN said over and over and over that the war was being fought for the preservation of the Union, not to end slavery.

Lincoln wrote Horace Greeley August 22, 1862, sixteen months into the war, and again made that clear. The italics are Lincoln's:

. . . My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do thatWhat I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help the Union.¹

To Southerners, the Union had become a violent, lawless threat to their safety. Northerners financed John Brown and sent him and his murderers into the peaceful communities of the South to rape, destroy and kill then hailed him as a hero when brought to justice.

The Republican Party printed Hinton Helper's The Impending Crisis of the South as a campaign document, which called for the throats of Southerners to be cut in the night. Republicans printed hundreds of thousands of copies and distributed them coast to coast.

George Washington warned that sectional political parties would destroy the country but Wendell Phillips proudly stated that the Republican Party

is the first sectional party ever organized in this country. It does not know its own face, and calls itself national; but it is not national it is sectional. The Republican Party is a party of the North pledged against the South.²

Northerners began realizing how critical the Union was to their well being. Editorials like "The Value of the Union" began appearing all over the North. New York City threatened to secede from New York State over its enormous trade with the South.

Horace Greeley acknowledged the right of secession and self-government in a long emotional editorial entitled "The Right of Secession"³ in which he quoted the Declaration of Independence stating "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; and that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and institute a new government."

That was the most widely quoted phrase in the South in the secession debate that took place in the year prior to states seceding.

Greeley went on: "We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood" and

if it justified the secession from the British Empire of Three Millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.

Greeley says "we could not stand up for coercion, for subjugation, for we do not think it would be just. We hold the right of Self-Government sacred" and we should "Let Them Go!" but when this sniveling hypocrite realized Southern secession would affect his money, he wanted war like the rest of the North.

Northerners were pouring drool like a pack of starving wolves before tearing a lamb to bits to win the election of 1860, control the Federal Government and rule the country with their larger population.⁴

That is exactly the "tyranny of the majority" the Founding Fathers warned about, but as South Carolina stated:

[W]hen vast sectional interests are to be subserved, involving the appropriation of countless millions of money, it has not been the usual experience of mankind, that words on parchments can arrest power.⁵

So many of the politicized "historians" in academia and the idiot news media today proclaim that slavery was the cause of the war but one can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the North did not go to war to end slavery.

All Northern documents before and up to two years into the war after hundreds of thousands of men had been killed strongly supported slavery.

Six slave states, or 25% of Union states, fought for the North the entire war.⁶ That, alone, proves the war was not fought over slavery.

If the North was fighting a war to end slavery, they would have first ended it in their own country by passing a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery.

Instead, they passed the Corwin Amendment, which would have left black people in slavery forever even beyond the reach of Congress in places where slavery already existed.

Lincoln strongly supported the Corwin Amendment and lobbied the governors to pass it in their states. He said in his first inaugural, "holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." Five Union states ratified the Corwin Amendment before the war made it moot.⁷

The Northern War Aims Resolution passed in July, 1861, three months into the war stated:

. . . That this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions [slavery] of the States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution [which allowed and protected slavery], and to preserve the Union. . . . ⁸ (Bold emphasis added)

Even the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation issued September 22, 1862, just weeks before the actual Emancipation Proclamation, states in the first paragraph:

I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States, and each of the States, and the people thereof, in which States that relation is, or may be, suspended or disturbed. (Bold emphasis added)⁹

There are legion statements by Abraham Lincoln out there supporting slavery such as this one in his first inaugural made before he stated his support for the Corwin Amendment:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

The proof is overwhelming and conclusive that the North did not go to war to free the slaves.

The North went to war because its economy was dependent on Southern cotton and without it they were headed for economic annihilation.

In 1860, the South was "producing 66 percent of the world's cotton, and raw cotton accounted for more than half [over 60% alone] of all U.S. exports."¹⁰

The American cotton industry before the war was awesome to behold. The New York Tribune agriculture editor, Solon Robinson, in 1848, wrote about "'acres of cotton bales'" on the docks in New Orleans:

Boats are constantly arriving, so piled up with cotton, that the lower tier of bales on deck are in the water; and as the boat is approaching, it looks like a huge raft of cotton bales, with the chimneys and steam pipe of an engine sticking up out of the centre.¹¹

King Cotton was "the backbone of the American economy" and "the North ruled the kingdom."¹² Southerners grew the cotton and Northerners did everything else:

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.¹³

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that "'Cotton thread holds the union together; unites John C. Calhoun and Abbott Lawrence. Patriotism for holidays and summer evenings, with music and rockets, but cotton thread is the Union.'"¹⁴

Without the South, the North was in serious economic trouble. Southerners had made protective tariffs unconstitutional. They had a 10% tariff for the operation of a small federal government in a States' Rights nation.

At the same time, economically ignorant Northerners passed the astronomical Morrill Tariff that was 37 to 50% higher. It threatened to reroute the Northern shipping industry into the South overnight because nobody was going to ship into the North and pay a 47 to 60% tariff when they could ship into the South and pay 10%.

The Morrill Tariff meant that Northern ship captains would have a hard time getting cargoes in the North but in the South they would be guaranteed all the cargoes they could handle of cotton and other valuable Southern commodities to transport around the world.

Those same ship captains would then be able to bring cargoes back from around the world and into warm water Southern ports where they would be put on boats in the Mississippi, and on railroads, and shipped to all parts of the Union.

Northerners could have passed a tariff competitive with the South but they didn't.

Because of Northern greed and economic stupidity, the Morrill Tariff threatened to give Southerners a gift of much of the commerce of the entire country.

The Northern manufacturing industry faced obliteration too because over half of its market was its captive market in the South. Independent Southerners would not be buying overpriced goods from people who sent murderers into their country to kill them.

Southerners had for decades wanted free trade with Europe so they could get out from under extortionate Northern prices for inferior goods jacked up by Yankee tariffs and monopolies.

South Carolina almost seceded thirty-three years earlier over the Tariff of Abominations, and should have.

Next Week:

A Summary of

The Last Words

The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States

by Michael R. Bradley

Part Three

Prologue, Setting the Stage

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Part Three of Four

NOTES:

¹ Letter, A. Lincoln to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862, in Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953) V:388.

² Wendell Phillips quotation in Albert Taylor Bledsoe Is Davis A Traitor; or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to The War of 1861? (Baltimore: Innes & Company, 1866); reprint, (North Charleston, SC: Fletcher and Fletcher Publishing, 1995), 250. Lincoln, whom over 60% of the country voted against, "was the first and only sectional president in American history." See Donald W. Livingston, "The Secession Tradition in America" in David Gordon, ed., Secession, State & Liberty (New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2002), 27.

³ "The Right of Secession," The New-York Daily Tribune, December 17, 1860, in Howard Cecil Perkins, ed., Northern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1964), 199-201.

⁴ Alexis de Tocqueville predicted in Democracy in America that if any one state got control of the federal government it would make the rest of the country tributary to its wealth and power and that is exactly what happened except it wasn't one state but all the close-knit Northern states with their commercial-industrial interests.

⁵ "Address of the People of South Carolina, Assembled in Convention, to the People of the Slaveholding States of the United States," adopted 24 December 1860 by the South Carolina Secession Convention, Charleston, S.C., in John Amasa May and Joan Reynolds Faunt, South Carolina Secedes (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1960), 82-92.

⁶ The Union slave states were Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, New Jersey, and West Virginia, which came into the Union as a slave state just weeks after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. The Emancipation Proclamation exempted all six Union slave states as well as Confederate territory already under Union control.

⁷ Union states ratifying the Corwin Amendment are "Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Illinois." See Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr. It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 127.

⁸ The War Aims Resolution is also known by the names of its sponsors, Representative John. J. Crittenden of Kentucky and Senator Andrew Johnson of Tennessee: The Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, or just the Crittenden Resolution. It passed the U.S. House of Representatives July 22, 1861 and the Senate July 25, 1861. There were only two dissenting votes in the House and five in the Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crittenden-Johnson_Resolution, accessed April 19, 2022.

⁹ The next paragraph of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation expressed another of Lincoln's beliefs, that black people should be shipped back to Africa or into a place they could survive: ". . . the effort to colonize persons of African descent, with their consent, upon this continent, or elsewhere, with the previously obtained consent of the Governments existing there, will be continued." See "Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, September 22,1862" at https://www.archives.gov/

exhibits/american_originals_iv/sections/transcript_

preliminary_emancipation.html, accessed 4-12-22.

¹⁰ 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), 7.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, xxvi.

¹⁴ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 37.

The Last Words, The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States, by Michael R. Bradley – A Comprehensive Summary, Part One: Prologue, Setting the Stage, by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part One of Four

Posted on October 24, 2022October 24, 2022 by Gene Kizer, Jr. | No Comments

Prologue

Setting the Stage

To understand the past you have to look at the past the way the people who lived in the past looked at it. It was the present to them just as today is our unfortunate present. So-called historians and journalists judging the past by the goofy standards of today falsify history and feed us political propaganda. They aren't seeking truth. Read the words of the people of the past, study the conditions of their lives and make up your own mind.

by Gene Kizer, Jr.,
Charleston Athenaeum Press

Lieutenant T. J. Cureton of Company B, the Waxhaw Jackson Guards, fought all three days at the Battle of Gettysburg in the famous Twenty-sixth North Carolina Regiment. They were nearly wiped out the first day and survivors were in Pickett's Charge two days later on July 3, 1863.

Cureton describes the charge that third day in a letter after the war stating that Union artillery opened on them "a half mile of the works" but Confederate lines "crossed the lane in splendid order when about two hundred yards from their works the musketry opened on us."¹

By the time those North Carolina boys got to within forty yards through booming cannons, smoke and murderous fire with dead and mangled bodies all around "our regiment had been reduced to a skirmish line" but still kept "closing to the colours."²

Through the confusion he heard a cry from Davis's Mississippi Brigade to the left and turned to see it wiped off the face of the earth by artillery fire like "chaff before a 'whirl wind'"³

He sums it up:

[T]he gallant old 26th Regiment had sixty-seven muskets and three officers present on the night July 3 1863 of the eight hundred and fifty carried in the fight July 1st 1863.⁴

Death 'reigned with universal sway' in the War Between the States.⁵

In the book This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War, historian Drew Gilpin Faust writes:

In the middle of the nineteenth century, the United States embarked on a new relationship with death, entering into a civil war that proved bloodier than any other conflict in American history, a war that would presage the slaughter of World War I's Western Front and the global carnage of the twentieth century.⁶

Dead soldiers in the War Between the States

were equal to the total American fatalities in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War combined.⁷

Faust writes that 620,000 died. Those are the long-accepted figures of Union officer William F. Fox who, in the 1890s, counted losses regiment by regiment.⁸

Fox knew his numbers were low because of incomplete records from the devastated South and other problems with undercounting.

Fox's numbers were updated in 2011 by historian J. David Hacker who analyzed census records for three decades, the decades before, during and after the war, using techniques such as comparing female survival rates with male, to come up with a range of 650,000 to 850,000 deaths. The midpoint, 750,000, has become widely accepted. James McPherson calls that number "plausible."⁹

That number is more horrifying when one considers that there were only 31.4 million people in the country when the war started.¹⁰

Compare the 750,000 dead of the War Between the States with the 419,400 dead of World War II out of a national population of 132,164,569.

Consider the carnage. Faust quotes historian James McPherson:

[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.¹¹

Historian Phil Leigh writes:

At least five percent of the white population of the eleven Confederate states, from which the government drew her soldiers, were killed during the Civil War. If America were to go to war presently and suffer the same death ratio [as the South], the number of killed would total seventeen million. That is more than forty times the number of American deaths during World War II.¹²

Leigh is making the point that:

Given the magnitude of such losses, nobody with common sense could believe that the prime motive to erect and display memorials to seventeen million dead . . . would be anything other than to honor their memory.¹³

The War Between the States was not only bloody, it changed our government forever. It is commonly referred to as the central event in American history.

We went from the republic of the Founding Fathers in which states were supreme and sovereign,¹⁴ to a consolidated national government that was supreme over the states.

Southerners had wanted their states supreme and sovereign forever: States' Rights. The Preamble to the Confederate Constitution makes that clear:

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. (Bold emphasis added)

But Northerners wanted the federal government supreme. They were the "Federals" in the war.

They wanted to control the country's economy, banking, money, commerce, taxes, tariffs and wealth by controlling the federal government.

Federal legislation giving Northerners monopolies, bounties and subsidies for their businesses that were always paid out of the national treasury had made them rich and powerful. Georgia's declaration of causes for its secession had accurately stated:

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all.¹⁵

Yet, Southerners were producing the wealth of the country with their agriculture. Southern agricultural commodities "accounted for close to 82% of [the] U.S. export business"¹⁶ in a global plantation economy. Cotton alone was over 60% of U.S. exports in 1860.

And Southerners were paying 83% of the country's taxes while 80% of the tax money was being spent in the North.¹⁷

To show what was truly at stake in the country just before the war, contrast these Northern and Southern statements within three weeks of each other starting with Georgia Senator Robert Toombs who gives us a perfect analogy - the North as a suction pump sucking money out of the South - via

bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands.¹⁸

Here is The Daily Chicago Times in abject panic December 10, 1860, a week before South Carolina's secession convention was to convene:

In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow. If protection be wholly withdrawn from our labor, it could not complete, with all the prejudices against it, with the labor of Europe. We should be driven from the market, and millions of our people would be compelled to go out of employment. (Bold emphasis added)¹⁹

The title of the editorial above is "The Value of the Union," which shows why the Union was the lifeblood of the North. It had given them all their wealth and power. Without it their economy was dead. (to be continued - scroll down for NOTES)

Next Week:

A Comprehensive Summary of

The Last Words

The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States

by Michael R. Bradley

Part Two

Prologue, Setting the Stage, by Gene Kizer, Jr., Part Two of Four

NOTES:

¹ Letter from T. J. Cureton to Colonel J. R. Lane, 22 June 1890, Lane Papers, in Archie K. Davis, Boy Colonel of the Confederacy, The Life and Times of Henry King Burgwyn, Jr. (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985), Appendix, 351.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid. The Twenty-sixth North Carolina Regiment covered itself in glory at Gettysburg. William F. Fox, in Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, states that it suffered "the severest regimental loss during the war."

⁵ Drew Gilpin Faust, This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008), xiii. The statement was made by a Confederate soldier.

⁶ Faust, This Republic of Suffering, xi.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ William F. Fox, Regimental Losses in the American Civil War (Albany, N.Y.: Joseph McDonough, 1898).

⁹ Rachel Coker, "Historian revises estimate of Civil War dead," published September 21, 2011, Binghamton University Research News - Insights and Innovations from Binghamton University, http://discovere.binghamton.edu/news/civilwar-3826.html, accessed July 7, 2014. See also Bob Zeller, "How Many Died in the American Civil War?", January 6, 2022, https://www.history.com/news/american-civil-war-deaths, accessed 3-8-22; and Jennie Cohen, "Civil War Deadlier Than Previously Thought?", https://www.history.com/news/civil-war-deadlier-than-previously-thought, accessed 3-8-22.

¹⁰ The United States Census Bureau on their website lists 31,443,321 as the population of the United States in 1860 according to the "Eighth Census under the Secretary of the Interior." https://www.census.gov/history

/www/through_the_deades/fast_facts/1860_fast_facts.html, accessed 3-7-22.

¹¹ Faust, This Republic of Suffering, xii. She cites James M. McPherson, Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) pp. 3, 177, n. 56.

¹² Phil Leigh, "Ketanji Jackson and the Confederate Flag," Civil War Chat,

Ketanji Jackson and the Confederate Flag

accessed 3-22-22.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ The Treaty of Paris at the end of the Revolutionary War stated in 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." (Emphasis used by Christopher Memminger in the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union," adopted December 24, 1860 in S.C.'s secession convention, from where this quotation was taken.).

¹⁵ Report on the Causes of the Secession of Georgia adopted by the Georgia Secession Convention, Tuesday, 29 January 1861, in the Journal of the Georgia Convention, in The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1900); reprint, Historical Times Inc., 1985, Series IV, Volume 1.

¹⁶ Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 114.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Robert Toombs, "Secessionist Speech, Tuesday Evening, November 13" delivered to the Georgia legislature in Milledgeville November 13, 1860, in William W. Freehling and Craig M. Simpson Secession Debated, Georgia's Showdown in 1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 38.

¹⁹ Daily Chicago Times, "The Value of the Union," December 10, 1860, in Howard Cecil Perkins, ed., Northern Editorials on Secession, Vol II (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1964), 573-574.

The Last Words, The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States, by Michael R. Bradley, now available in ebook, softcover and hardback

Posted on October 18, 2022October 18, 2022 by Gene Kizer, Jr. | 3 Comments

[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. : In the past few weeks, we have expanded our distribution network to include, not only Amazon, but the Ingram Book Company, the largest wholesale book distributor in the world. We'll be in select bookstores, libraries, universities (they NEED it!) and retail outlets - bricks and mortar, and online - worldwide. We are extremely proud to announce that historian Michael R. Bradley's outstanding new book, The Last Words, The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States, is our first title on both Ingram and Amazon and is now also available here on our website as an ebook, softcover and hardback.

When Dr. Bradley first approached me with the idea for The Last Words, I immediately knew it would be an important book in this day and age of nauseating politicized historians and journalists whose idea of historical truth comes from the New York Times and Communist Manifesto.

Dr. Bradley had dug out the seventeen extant farewell addresses of commanders on both sides - eight Confederate and nine Union - so that readers can see and hear in their own minds the actual words of the men who fought the war. They knew exactly what they were fighting for and they said so.

Over the next few weeks, I will publish on the blog the Prologue, Epilogue and Appendices to The Last Words and many of the farewell addresses with Dr. Bradley's analysis.]

**From the Introduction to The Last Words by the author:**

Never mind that anyone touring a battlefield cannot find a single monument to Union soldiers which boasts that the men fought to end slavery. They all honor the bravery of those who fought and died, and speak of preserving the Union. Perhaps this emphasis on preserving the Union is why historians almost always call the United States forces the “Union Army” despite the fact that this name displaces slavery as the central factor supposedly causing the war.

From the Prologue by Gene Kizer, Jr. :

Dr. Michael R. Bradley has given us the words of some of the most important participants in the War Between the States at a critical point in American history, when the republic of the Founding Fathers died and the federal government became supreme over the states.

Lee had surrendered and the war was nearly over but units were still on battlefields and had not yet broken up. Not all commanders addressed their men. Many just broke up and started home as best they could.

The seventeen extant farewell addresses Bradley has dug out are an excellent representative for all the other soldiers in the war. They tell us exactly what men on both sides were feeling after all that death and destruction, and why they had fought.

The addresses also talk about the future in our reunited country.

As one might imagine there was jubilation on the Northern side at their victory, and deep disappointment on the Southern but not despair. There was a manly, dignified acceptance of the loss, and pride in their victories that were more impressive because Southerners were outnumbered four to one by a well-armed, well-fed, well-clothed invader whose army was 25% foreign born, while they, themselves, were often hungry and ragged.

Southerners were ecstatic to fight for their sacred cause of independence and die for it, and hundreds of thousands had.

Basil Gildersleeve, a Confederate soldier from Charleston, South Carolina, states well the feeling in the hearts of the Southerners. He wrote this in his book, The Creed of the Old South, published 27 years after the war:

All that I vouch for is the feeling; . . . there was no lurking suspicion of any moral weakness in our cause. Nothing could be holier than the cause, nothing more imperative than the duty of upholding it. There were those in the South who, when they saw the issue of the war, gave up their faith in God, but not their faith in the cause.

One of the best orations was given by perhaps the greatest soldier of the War Between the States on either side, Confederate Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest, who is often attacked by academia's jealous, politicized historians, but his address, like his deeds and life, is towering and speaks for itself.

One of the sweetest and saddest was from Confederate Major General Robert F. Hoke who writes that the Southern "star has set in blood, but yet in glory."

The address by the white officer, Lieutenant Colonel Charles Tyler Trowbridge of the United States Colored Troops, from Morris Island in Charleston where they were stationed, is fascinating. Bradley gives us much detail about the USCT. Black units were always commanded by white officers because blacks were not permitted to rise higher than sergeant. Often black troops and officers were looked down on by other Union soldiers. Nathan Bedford Forrest is often accused of atrocities at Fort Pillow but the USCT has a record of the same type atrocities during the attack on Petersburg, Virginia in 1864. Bradley points out that many of the Union's black troops were not volunteers but were rounded up and coerced, or a "loyal" (Union) slaveholder would enlist his slave and receive the enlistment bonus. Trowbridge, himself, was arrested and court-martialed for murder in Newberry, South Carolina but found "not guilty" by a friendly court, which brought a harsh rebuke from Major General Charles Devens who had brought the charges against him. Despite often poor officers, Bradley writes that the USCT "generally" fought well as noted by a Confederate officer paying his enemy a compliment at the Battle of Nashville.

Michael Bradley is a distinguished historian with an impressive educational background including an M.A. and Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University. See "About the Author" for a complete biography.

He is from the Tennessee-Alabama state line region near Fayetteville, Tennessee and his love of home and its history are obvious and a pleasure to read. One always writes best on what one loves most and is most fascinated by.

Many of his books are about the War Between the States in Tennessee, or Nathan Bedford Forrest and his men, but he has written on topics ranging from the Revolutionary War to death in the Great Smoky Mountains.

He taught United States History at Motlow College near Tullahoma, Tennessee for thirty-six years.

In 1994 he was awarded the Jefferson Davis Medal in Southern History, and in 2006 he was elected commander of the Tennessee Division, SCV. He was also appointed to Tennessee's Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission.

Michael Bradley has given us biographical information on the seventeen commanders giving the farewell addresses, and exciting narrative history researched in minute detail on each unit and their battles. If you love history, it does not get better than this.

You will thoroughly enjoy this book and learn a great deal about why men on both sides fought in the War Between the States and what they planned to do afterward.

I am very proud to be Michael Bradley's publisher and friend.

Gene Kizer, Jr.
May 10, 2022

Please order The Last Words on www.CharlestonAthenaeumPress.com and take advantage of SPECIALS that include The Last Words with Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument. by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Another Special includes The Last Words, and Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, The Irrefutable Argument., AND the two-DVD set on black Confederates, Mixed Up with All the Rebel Horde, Why Black Southerners Fought for the South in the War Between the States, featuring national authority on black Confederate soldiers, esteemed Professor Edward C. Smith.

July 15, 2022 is the release date for Michael R. Bradley’s outstanding new 400 page book, The Last Words, published by Charleston Athenaeum Press.

Posted on June 15, 2022June 16, 2022 by Gene Kizer, Jr. | 3 Comments

The-Last-Words_FRONT-COVER-for-BLOG-650-pix-111K

Charleston Athenaeum Press will resume regular weekly blog posts later this month.

From the Introduction to The Last Words by the author:

"Never mind that anyone touring a battlefield cannot find a single monument to Union soldiers which boasts that the men fought to end slavery. They all honor the bravery of those who fought and died, and speak of preserving the Union. Perhaps this emphasis on preserving the Union is why historians almost always call the United States forces the “Union Army” despite the fact that this name displaces slavery as the central factor supposedly causing the war."

From the Prologue by Gene Kizer, Jr.:

The addresses also talk about the future in our reunited country.

Southerners were ecstatic to fight for their sacred cause of independence and die for it, and hundreds of thousands had.

All that I vouch for is the feeling; . . . there was no lurking suspicion of any moral weakness in our cause. Nothing could be holier than the cause, nothing more imperative than the duty of upholding it. There were those in the South who, when they saw the issue of the war, gave up their faith in God, but not their faith in the cause.¹

One of the sweetest and saddest was from Confederate Major General Robert F. Hoke who writes that the Southern "star has set in blood, but yet in glory."

Michael Bradley is a distinguished historian with an impressive educational background including an M.A. and Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University. See "About the Author" for a complete biography.

He is from the Tennessee-Alabama state line region near Fayetteville, Tennessee and his love of home and its history are obvious and a pleasure to read. One always writes best about what one loves most and is most fascinated by.

He taught United States History at Motlow College near Tullahoma, Tennessee for thirty-six years.

You will thoroughly enjoy this book and learn a great deal about why men on both sides fought in the War Between the States and what they planned to do afterward.

I am very proud to be Michael Bradley's publisher and friend.

Gene Kizer, Jr.
May 10, 2022

Thank You! You can PURCHASE COPIES from our website soon:

www.CharlestonAthenaeumPress.com

¹ Basil L. Gildersleeve, The Creed of the Old South, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1915; reprint: BiblioLife, Penrose Library, University of Denver (no date given), 26-27. Gildersleeve is known as one of the greatest classical scholars of all time.

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 Fourteen, Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes, Part Two

Posted on May 18, 2022May 19, 2022 by Gene Kizer, Jr. | 2 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 Fourteen
Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes
Part Two

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

_The_Pro-Slavery_Riot_on_November_7_1837_Death_of_Rev_E_P_Lovejoy--Alton-Illinois-Wikimedia-Commons-59K

At the end of this article beneath the notes I have cited is "Actual Citation from Book," Complicity's notes from Chapter Eight. The picture comes from Wikimedia Commons.

ABOLITIONIST ELIJAH P. LOVEJOY WAS KILLED BY A MOB in Lincoln's Illinois twenty-four years before the War Between the States.

He had been a "schoolteacher and minister from Maine" educated "at Colby College and Princeton" who early on was more concerned about "the evils of blasphemy and drinking" than slavery.¹ In those years, he was living in St. Louis, Missouri and described himself as: not in favor of immediate emancipation, and not an abolitionist.

That changed in April, 1836 when Lovejoy saw the charred remains of a free black man, Francis McIntosh, "a porter on a ship docked in St. Louis," who had been drinking and killed a policeman after an altercation following a fight between two whites.²

McIntosh had been taken to jail but a mob formed that night and came for him. The sheriff "fled, leaving McIntosh alone and locked in a cell." The mob

broke in, carried McIntosh to a locust tree on the commons, and tied him to the tree with a chain. Rails, planking, and wood shavings were piled around his legs. Some of the wood was wet, chosen so it would not burn too quickly.³

An "elderly black man was given 75 cents to keep the fire burning through the night."⁴

The next day Minister Lovejoy "went to the scene" and a few days later, on May 5, 1836, the headline of his newspaper, the Observer, was: "Awful Murder and Savage Barbarity." In the article he wrote:

'We stood and gazed for a moment or two upon the blackened and mutilated trunk---for that was all which remained---of McIntosh before us, and as we turned away, in bitterness of heart, we prayed that we might not live.'⁵

Lovejoy did not question McIntosh's guilt but did not like the mob violence.

A judge whose name was "Luke Lawless," believe it or not, was in charge of an investigation and blamed violent black men and "publications like the Observer." Nobody was charged.⁶

Lovejoy was converted and "began his campaign, calling for the emancipation of all enslaved people, and despite growing public outrage, he would not stop."⁷

St. Louis was a "booming frontier town" and Missouri was a slave state, one of six slave states that would later fight for the Union the entire war.

There was much strong Confederate support in Missouri and duel governments; and Missouri was represented in the Confederate Congress, and had a star in the Confederate flag, but did not secede.

Lincoln and the North were glad to have six slave states fight for them. Three of those Union slave states still had slavery months after the war ended. Those three did not end slavery until the Thirteenth Amendment kicked in, in December, 1865.

The six Union slave states prove the war was not fought over slavery. If it was, the North would have abolished slavery in the Union slave states immediately but they did the opposite. They supported the Corwin Amendment, which left black people in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress, in the places where slavery already existed. Illinois was one of the five Union states ratifying the Corwin Amendment before the war made it moot.

The other Union slave states besides Missouri, were Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and West Virginia, which came into the Union as a slave state, ironically, within weeks of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

The owners of the Observer had asked Lovejoy to stop his antislavery rants but he refused. After several attacks on his home and offices, the owners encouraged him to move "his family and the newspaper across the Mississippi River to Alton, in the free state of Illinois" which he did. He arrived with his family safely but while the Observer's press was on the docks "a small group crossed the river from St. Louis and dumped it into the river."⁸

A "former sea captain from Massachusetts spearheaded the effort to replace the press."⁹

There is a bit of farce in a sea captain from Massachusetts helping to replace Lovejoy's abolitionist press at a time when Boston, Massachusetts was one of the largest slave trading ports on the planet along with New York, and Portland in Lovejoy's home state of Maine. All were carrying on a vigorous illegal slave trade and still making huge fortunes as they had when the slave trade was legal.

W.E.B. Du Bois writes in The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870:

'The number of persons engaged in the slave-trade, and the amount of capital embarked in it, exceed our powers of calculation. The city of New York has been until of late [1862] the principal port of the world for this infamous commerce; although the cities of Portland and Boston are only second to her in that distinction. Slave dealers added largely to the wealth of our commercial metropolis; they contributed liberally to the treasuries of political organizations, and their bank accounts were largely depleted to carry elections in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.'¹⁰

The above quotation refers to 1862, which was a year into the War Between the States, and 54 years after the slave trade was outlawed by the United States Constitution.

Subscriptions to the Observer increased and Lovejoy received money from other abolitionists around the country. He was now a full-fledged radical abolitionist:

He sent letters to leading newspapers throughout the United States asking for their positions on slavery, then published their answers with his own critical commentary. He published a passionate letter he had written in the voice of a slave. He attacked Alton's Fourth of July festivities with a bitter editorial that anticipated Frederick Douglass's famous address, 15 years later, "What to a Slave Is the Fourth of July?" He editorialized against the slave trade in Washington, D.C., saying that slavery in the nation's capital made every man a slaveholder. He became secretary of a local antislavery group, and he proposed establishing an antislavery society in Illinois. A rumor circulated that from his pulpit one Sunday he had sworn that if his wife died, he would 'marry a black woman before Saturday.'¹¹

What is missing from a virtue-signaling abolitionist like Elijah Lovejoy is a realistic plan to end slavery. Even Lincoln admitted he did not know how to end slavery at that time.

Northern states purported to phaseout slavery with gradual, compensated emancipation but most Northern slaves were sold back into slavery in the South just as they were to be freed, such as before the slave's 21st birthday. This is a disgraceful but absolute fact. Alexis de Tocqueville joked that Northerners did not end slavery. They just changed the slave's master from a Northern to a Southern one.

The 1830s was a time of violence against abolitionists who were denounced as "'amalgamationists, dupes, fanatics, foreign agents, and incendiaries,'" according to Leonard L. Richards, "author of a study of antiabolitionist mob action in Jacksonian America."¹²

William Lloyd Garrison "was dragged through Boston at the end of a rope" in 1835. He luckily was rescued by some individuals and put in jail for the night for his own protection.¹³

Alton, Illinois was in a financial crisis in 1837 but Lovejoy showed no sympathy for them. He charged them with being speculators and said we have "'become a nation of gamblers.'" Other publications editorialized against Lovejoy.¹⁴

On September 5, 1837 Lovejoy wrote to his mother that "'my press has again been mobbed down.'"¹⁵

Before dawn on November 7, 1837 "a new press for the Observer arrived on the steamboat Missouri Fulton." It was guarded as "it was hoisted to the top floor of a stone warehouse."¹⁶

That night "about 60 volunteers again guarded the warehouse" but things were quiet so most left after a while.¹⁷

At 10 p.m. the mob arrived: "'We want that printing press!'"

The mob threw rocks and battered the warehouse door. Many were drunk and firing guns. A man was killed which added to the mob's fury.¹⁸

A "makeshift" ladder outside the warehouse allowed James Rock to climb and "set fire to the wooden roof" with flaming pitch. As it burned

Lovejoy and Royal Weller ran from the building and aimed up at Rock, but Dr. Thomas Hope and Dr. Horace Beale, covered by darkness, had perfect sight of the open door, and they shot both.¹⁹

Weller survived but "Lovejoy took five bullets, including three in his chest and one in his stomach. He staggered back into the warehouse and fell dead at the feet of his defenders."²⁰

The fire was put out and the press pushed into the street and destroyed.

By the wee hours, the crowd was mostly gone, and at daylight, Lovejoy's dead body was carried home in a wagon that was mocked by bystanders the whole way.

Two days later, at age 34, Lovejoy was "buried in Alton between two oak trees. A cold, heavy rain fell on the small group that gathered for the funeral."²¹

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 Fifteen
Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes
Part Three

(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 Thirteen, Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes, Part One)

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), 163.

² Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 164.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 165.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ 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), 179. Du Bois is quoting the Continental Monthly, January, 1862, p. 87, the article "The Slave-Trade in New York."

¹¹ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 166.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 167.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 168.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 169.

Complicity,
Actual Citation from Book

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 Thirteen, Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes, Part One

Posted on May 12, 2022May 12, 2022 by Gene Kizer, Jr. | 3 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 Thirteen
Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes
Part One

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

At the end of this article beneath the notes I have cited is "Actual Citation from Book," Complicity's notes from Chapter Eight. The picture comes from page 162.

DESPITE HOW GOOD COMPLICITY IS in proving the North's slave trading and barbarism toward its insurrectionist slaves such as burning them at the stake or tying them to a wagon wheel and beating them to death with crow bars, this book is still written by virtue signaling New Englanders who are determined to establish that the War Between the States was fought over slavery.

It never occurs to those people that their book, Complicity, proves the war was not fought over slavery.

The authors show in great detail that the North was utterly dependent on Southern cotton, "the backbone of the American economy." Southerners grew the cotton and Northerners did everything else:¹

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.²

But it never occurs to them that without Southern cotton their country was dead. The imminent economic devastation already had Northerners calling for war, which Lincoln was glad to give them in March and April, 1861, when he sent five hostile naval missions to Pensacola, Florida and Charleston, South Carolina to get it started.

We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a party better than he loves his country. . . . Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor.

Northerners were about to lose their shipping industry because most of it was cotton, and they would lose their manufacturing industry because most of it manufactured for its captive market in the South.

Southerners wanted to buy higher quality goods from Europe at competitive market prices and not be forced to buy overpriced Northern goods from Northern monopolies with prices jacked up by Yankee tariffs.

So, Complicity's Chapter Eight opening statement that "The start of the Civil War as a political war over slavery..." is as false as their previous statement that America was founded in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620.

I am proud to say that America was founded at Jamestown, Virginia in the South in 1607, thirteen years before the Puritans finally got around to coming here.

Complicity gets back on track stating that immediate abolition of slavery like William Lloyd Garrison wanted "would mean social and economic chaos."³

In 1831

the only kind of abolitionism that had popular support was that promoted by the American Colonization Society, which had chapters in the North and the South. The society's goal was to send freed blacks to Africa. Few white people in America, no matter how strongly they felt about slavery, thought that blacks and whites could or should ever coexist in the same society.⁴

Abraham Lincoln supported the American Colonization Society and believed all his life that blacks should be sent back to Africa or into a climate they could survive. See Colonization After Emancipation: Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement by Phillip W. Magness (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2011); and Forced into Glory, Abraham Lincoln's White Dream by Lerone Bennett, Jr. (Chicago: Johnson Publishing Company, 2000).

This chapter's "Hated Heroes" are radical abolitionists such as Prudence Crandall, Elijah Lovejoy, and John Brown, though John Brown is a murderer who did more than anybody else to cause a war in which 750,000 died and over a million were maimed.

One of the major reasons for Southern secession was the North's support of Brown's violence and plans for wide-scale murder in the South. Their celebrating him as a hero convinced Southerners they would not be safe in a Union dominated by supporters of John Brown.

Nor would they be safe in a Union controlled by the Republican Party. The Republican Party printed hundreds of thousands of Hinton Helper's The Impending Crisis, which called for the throats of Southerners to be slit in the night. It distributed them coast to coast as a campaign document in the election of 1860.

Prudence Crandall in 1831 was a twenty-eight year old Quaker who "opened a school in Canterbury, Connecticut, to which she would soon welcome black girls and, by doing so, invite its destruction."⁵

Crandall's school started all white but a young black woman, Sarah Harris, asked to be admitted and after soul searching, Crandall admitted her.

Whites started leaving Crandall's school so she threw out the remaining whites and advertised in Garrison's Liberator that "her school would reopen 'for the reception of young ladies and little misses of color.'"⁶

Most in Canterbury opposed Crandall:

Andrew Harris, a doctor who lived nearby, refused to treat her black students. A week after the Liberator ad appeared, gubernatorial hopeful Andrew Judson, also a close neighbor and, like Harris, a former trustee of Crandall's school, spoke at a hastily called town meeting. No school for 'nigger girls' would ever stand across the street from his house, he reportedly vowed, promising that if black students did show up he would use a colonial law to have them arrested as paupers.⁷

Two abolitionists wanted to speak but were shouted down and "confronted with 'fists doubled in their faces' and driven from the church where the meeting was held."⁸

In the next year there were attempts to "crush the school" that went from "town meetings to court trials to the appeals court" and

Crandall and her students increasingly became targets of community anger. Local merchants would not do business with the school, and the stage driver refused to transport its students. Boys threw manure into the school's well; neighbors refused requests for pails of fresh water. Rotten eggs and rocks were thrown at the school building---Crandall kept one of the rocks on her mantel---and its students were followed through the streets, hooted at and harassed.⁹

There was hostility to black education across the North.

The Noyes Academy in Canaan, New Hampshire opened in March 1835 and by the summer a "demolition crew hitched a long train of oxen to the academy and dragged it off its foundation" reportedly with students still inside.¹⁰

In New Haven, Connecticut in September 1831, residents "voted 700-4 against allowing a school for young black men to open near Yale." Their rationale was:

'What benefit can it be to a waiter or coachman to read Horace, or be a profound mathematician?'¹¹

In May 1833 "The Connecticut legislature passed the 'Black Law,' making it illegal for out-of-state students of color to attend a school without local permission."¹²

Legislators

called in a Hartford phrenologist, an expert in the then-credible "science" of determining character from the shape of a person's skull. The phrenologist testified that Negroes could not be educated beyond a certain level and could never be fit citizens. Although the committee report that backed the law decried the 'horrid traffic' in human slavery and admitted a need to help 'the unhappy class of beings, whose race has been degraded by unjust bondage,' it concluded: 'We are under no obligations, moral or political, to incur the incalculable evils of bringing into our own state colored immigrants from abroad.'¹³

Canterbury's "citizens rang church bells, fired guns, and lit bonfires to celebrate the new law" then a month later "on June 27, 1833, authorities arrested Crandall and her younger sister Almira, who had joined her as a teacher, for breaking the law."¹⁴

Almira was let out as a minor and Crandall was offered bail by numerous supporters but she would not accept it and dared them to put her in jail.

She only spent one night because "Respectable white women did not go to jail." Townspeople

complained bitterly that abolitionists spread the lie that Crandall had been placed in the cell that a notorious wife strangler had recently occupied. Later, Crandall explained that she'd been put in a room that the condemned man had stopped in on his way to being hanged.¹⁵

She said the jailer had been "'very polite.'"

There were two more court actions. In the first, there was a hung jury.

In the second, Crandall was found guilty, but appealed.

Prominent citizens were part of the trial on both sides and it ended up being an important case because it was decided that blacks could not be citizens. It was quoted later as a precedent in the Dred Scott case.

There was much rhetoric in the appeal in July 1834. The law was called "'obnoxious'" by Crandall's lawyer, William W. Ellsworth, because, supposedly, only Southern states had laws like it: "'It rivets the chains of grinding bondage and makes our State an ally in the unholy cause of slavery itself.'"

The hypocrisy of New Englanders even in this time period is breathtaking. Apparently Ellsworth did not know that Connecticut and the rest of New England were enthusiastic slave traders who had, until recently, been sending their ships to Africa to return with poor Africans chained to their decks in vomit and feces to make the money that built New England and the North.

And after the slave trade was outlawed by the U.S. Constitution in 1808, New Englanders carried on a vigorous illegal slave trade, so much so that W.E.B. Du Bois said Boston and New York were the largest slave trading ports on the planet in 1862, a year into the War Between the States.

Also Ellsworth, on his hypocritical high horse, apparently hadn't heard about the Northern and Western states that had "obnoxious" laws forbidding blacks from even visiting much less living there.

Ellsworth's opposing attorney, chief prosecutor Andrew Judson said:

'The consequences will inevitably destroy the government itself, and this American nation---this nation of white men---may be taken from us and given to the African race!'¹⁶

The Appeals Court dismissed the case on technicalities.

Crandall "held on to her school" during the trials. After she lost she said:

'It is my opinion that the colored scholars under my care made as good, if not better progress than the same number of whites taken from the same position in life.'¹⁷

Crandall had a lot of courage and determination but:

On the night of September 9, 1834, Crandall, her husband, and some of her students were inside the Canterbury schoolhouse when they heard loud voices outside and then banging on the doors. Glass was shattered and windows were ripped from their frames. Men invaded the first floor of the school and started overturning furniture.¹⁸

The attackers "may have tried to set the building on fire."

Crandall gave up and moved west "following in the path of her father, who, threatened for supporting her and her school, had already moved west."

She settled in Elk Falls, Kansas, and died in 1890.¹⁹

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 Fourteen
Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes
Part Two

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

NOTES:

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

² Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, xxvi.

³ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 155.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 157.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 158.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 159.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 160.

¹⁶ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 161.

¹⁷ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 163.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Ibid.

Complicity,
Actual Citation from Book

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 Twelve, Chapter Seven: The Other Underground Railroad

Posted on May 4, 2022May 4, 2022 by Gene Kizer, Jr. | 5 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 Twelve
Chapter Seven: The Other Underground Railroad

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

At the end of this article beneath the notes I have cited is "Actual Citation from Book," Complicity's notes from Chapter Seven. The picture come from page 138.

NORTHERN KIDNAPPING GANGS were "organized gangs who, like outlaws from the Old West, became legends in their own time."¹ Their prey were free blacks in the North whom they would kidnap in various ways and sell into slavery in slave states.

One of the most notorious gangs was led by a woman, Patty Cannon, "said to be so strong she could jerk a 300-pound sack of grain to her shoulders, or a grown man off his feet." Her chief accomplice was her son-in-law identified as "'the celebrated Joseph Johnson, negro trader.'"²

They operated "from the Delmarva Peninsula of Maryland and Delaware, both [Union] slaves states, to free Pennsylvania where the Philadelphia waterfront was one of their favorite hunting grounds."³

Kidnappers, like slave ship captains, murdered their victims when they thought they needed to. In April, 1829, "the skeletons of one adult and three children were discovered on a farm that Patty Cannon had occupied. One of the children, thought to be about seven years old, had a crushed skull."⁴ Cannon had clubbed "the child to death in an effort to get rid of incriminating evidence" according to the testimony of a former gang member.⁵

In New York, in 1835, kidnappings "led to the creation of the first important black self-defense association." It was led by David Ruggles who later provided "the most famous fugitive slave in American history, Frederick Douglass" shelter.⁶

The Fugitive Slave Act, which was part of the Compromise of 1850, "gave new federal protections to slave catchers and, by extension, better cover to kidnappers posing as slave catchers." As a result, many free blacks in the North left for Canada.

Another gang, the vigilante "'Gap Gang'" in Lancaster, Pennsylvania "terrorized free blacks for years" and participated in an 1851 gun battle known as the Christiana Riot that left a slave owner and three blacks dead.⁷

The opposition to the Gap Gang was led by William Parker, an escaped slave, who had lived in Pennsylvania for a decade and "had begun to fight back against the Gap Gang." In his memoir, he wrote:

Kidnapping was so common . . . that we were kept in constant fear. We would hear of slaveholders or kidnappers every two or three weeks; sometimes a party of white men would break into a house and take a man away, no one knew where; again a whole family might be carried off. There was no power to protect them, nor prevent it.⁸

Parker thought most whites in the area were "'negro-haters' who didn't much care who the Gap Gang seized."⁹

In Cincinnati in January 1856:

[A] Kentucky slave owner and federal agents cornered a group of fugitives, including a mother named Margaret Garner who had vowed never to let her children return to slavery. As the agents broke into their hiding place, Garner cut her young daughter's throat and was trying to kill two of her boys.¹⁰

A "federal magistrate ruled that Garner and her surviving children should be returned to their owner" who sold them South. Tragically:

On the journey, literally down the river into slavery, Garner's youngest child died along with two dozen other people in a boat accident. Garner eventually was sold in New Orleans.¹¹

More common methods of kidnapping were to lure victims "under the guise of law. Kidnappers might accuse their victims of petty crimes or enlist accomplices to testify, falsely, that they were escaped slaves." Blacks "accused of being runaways had almost no legal recourse."¹²

Blacks in Philadelphia in 1799:

felt sufficiently threatened by kidnappings that they submitted a petition to Congress equating them with the African slave trade. Callous men, it said, 'are employed in kidnappings those of our Brethren that are free' and 'these poor, helpless victims like droves of cattle are seized, fettered and hurried into places provided for this horrid traffic, such as dark cellars and garrets, as is notorious at Northurst, Chester-town, Eastown and divers other places.¹³

Patty Cannon, mentioned earlier, "became locally famous as 'the fascinating hostess' at the tavern owned by her daughter's second husband, Joe Johnson." A Cannon biographer wrote that "'Patty Cannon was fond of music, dancing and sensual pleasures'" and was "'As strong as a man, she was witty, black-eyed and the reputed brains and accomplice of a notorious kidnapping ring.'"¹⁴

Her husband, Jesse Cannon, "was rumored to have been sentenced to have his ears nailed to a pillory, and upon release to have his earlobes cut off."¹⁵

In 1826, Joseph Watson, mayor of Philadelphia:

received letters from two plantation owners in Rocky Springs, Mississippi. A man named Ebenezer Johnson had shown up there weeks earlier trying to sell several youths. One of the plantation owners, John Hamilton, told the mayor he'd become suspicious of Johnson after sixteen-year-old Samuel Scomp secretly told him he'd been kidnapped from Philadelphia. As proof, Scomp removed his shirt to show Hamilton the scars from beatings he said he'd suffered on his journey south.¹⁶

Hamilton got a magistrate "who demanded to see Johnson's ownership papers" which consisted of a bill of sale from his brother Joe. Both Johnsons were part of the Cannon gang.¹⁷

The Mississippians, "more suspicious than ever"

let Ebenezer leave, supposedly to get better proof of ownership. But Hamilton kept the young slaves and, while Johnson was gone, he and a neighbor questioned them more closely. They took a sworn statement from Scomp and included it in their letter to Mayor Watson, urging him to publish the details and start an investigation. Watson did both, and later took his own deposition from Scomp.¹⁸

Scomp said he was never a slave but an apprentice in New Jersey who ran away to Philadelphia to find work.

A "mulatto man" named Smith offered him a quarter to "help unload watermelons."

Scomp was led to a sloop where two other men tied his hands. One said Scomp was an escaped slave. The other was Joseph Johnson, a member of the Cannon gang and Smith's accomplice in this scheme.¹⁹

Smith brought in four more captives that day, and that night, the sloop sailed. A woman was added and the now-six captives ended up at Patty Cannon's house then on another ship for Alabama then headed 600 miles to Mississippi.

Along the way a small boy died from frostbite and beatings.

Hamilton could easily have kept all the captives but he was a wealthy planter who "disapproved of illegal slave dealings."

Mayor Watson, in Philadelphia, "obtained indictments against the Johnson brothers and two accomplices" but back in Mississippi, Ebenezer Johnson sued Hamilton for the return of his supposed property.

Ultimately, Scomp and "another of the originally kidnapped boys" got back to Philadelphia.

In December, 1826, Mayor Watson "received another letter from Mississippi, this one from Natchez, sent by former governor David Holmes and a friend. It said new slaves in the neighborhood were claiming to have been kidnapped from Philadelphia by Joseph and Ebenezer Johnson. Enclosed was a statement from one of the victims, a boy named Peter Hook."²⁰

Hook's story mirrored Scomp's.

Hook said "he was born in Philadelphia and in June 1825 had been lured aboard Joe Johnson's boat by a black man. He'd soon found himself chained in the hold with four other boys" and later "they were chained to the floor of an attic." Two girls were captives "elsewhere in the attic."

They were in the attic for six months.

Hook said he was sold in the Natchez area with three other boys "for $450 apiece."

Watson "got more arrest warrants" but by 1828, "only 10 of the three dozen kidnap victims eventually identified had been returned."²¹

The black man who had lured Scomp and Hook onto Johnson's boat was John Purnell. He was convicted of "two counts of kidnapping," fined $4,000 and "sentenced to 42 years in jail." Another black man died waiting on his trial.

The Johnson brothers escaped with their kidnapping loot to start their own plantations.

Patty Cannon stayed in the area but the skeletons of some of her victims were discovered on her former farm.

She was indicted with Joe and Ebenezer but only Patty was jailed. She died "amid rumors that she'd poisoned herself." One account said she had admitted to "killing 11 people with her own hands, and to poisoning her husband."

In 1841, in a book The Narrative and Confessions of Lucretia P. Cannon, the "first murder was of an infant girl killed in April 1822. In its formal language, the indictment noted, 'Patty Cannon with both her hands about the neck of the said infant . . . did choke and strangle, of which said choking and strangling the said female child . . . then and there instantly died.'"²²

Cannon "was buried in a pauper's grave," her body exhumed later and "her skull studied by phrenologists." Her skull was later "passed on to the public library in Dover, Delaware."²³

Other kidnapping gangs continued to operate such as George V. Alberti's that was "more cunning."

Alberti was eventually convicted of fraud because he tried to deliver a victim "to an apparently honest slave owner" who said the victim was not who Alberti said he was.

That didn't end his career but later he was convicted in another case and the judge said at his sentencing:

'Think for a moment how great the magnitude of stealing an infant, born in a free state, and binding it in the galling chains of slavery for a little money . . . This case is without parallel in atrocity, and is the most aggravated, legally, of any of its kind that has been presented to an American court of justice.'²⁴

He was fined $1,000 and sentence to ten years hard labor but later the Democrat governor of Pennsylvania, William Bigler, pardoned him.

Alberti "said that he'd captured more than 100 blacks" in his kidnapping career.

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 Thirteen
Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes
Part One

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

NOTES:

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

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 139-140.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 141-142.

⁸ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 142.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 142-43.

¹³ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 143.

¹⁴ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 145.

¹⁵ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 146.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 147.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 148.

²¹ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 149.

²² Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 151.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 152.

Complicity,
Actual Citation from Book

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 Eleven, Chapter Six: New York’s Slave Pirates, Part Two

Posted on April 27, 2022April 27, 2022 by Gene Kizer, Jr. | No 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 Eleven
Chapter Six: New York's Slave Pirates
Part Two

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

At the end of this article beneath the notes I have cited is "Actual Citation from Book," Complicity's notes from Chapter Six. The picture come from page 133.

TYPICAL OF THE UTTER BRUTALITY of the New England and New York slave trade carried on under the same American flag Yankees carried in the War Between the States, was "a flotilla of illegal slave ships" from the North to Rio de Janeiro around 1843.

One ship:

[A] New York brig named the Kentucky, arrived in Brazil drenched in blood from one of the most gruesome revolts ever recorded.¹

It started "when the Kentucky's accomplice ship, the Porpoise, sailed into Rio with two child slaves on board, both boys branded on the chest with the mark of their Brazilian owner."

The Porpoise "though registered in Maine, had been turned over to Maxwell, Wright & Company, U.S. coffee traders in Rio who chartered her out, though an English broker, to one of Rio's wealthiest slave merchants, Manoel Pinto da Fonseca."²

Fonseca got control of the Kentucky in January, 1844 and "sent it to the east coast of Africa to rendezvous with the Porpoise." The two ships demonstrate the "depth of U.S. involvement in the illegal slave trade."³

Both ships were trying to get a full cargo but slaves were in short supply right then so "Fonseca's agent settled for 500."⁴

The two crews "working quickly" began to "build a slave deck in the hold of the Kentucky" with the Porpoise next to her.

Boston's Thomas Boyle, "second mate of the Kentucky," testified that the Kentucky had been turned over to a Portuguese captain but its American captain, George Douglass of Philadelphia "purposely left the American colors behind [with the Portuguese captain] when the two ships left Africa."⁵ They had painted over "Kentucky of New York" and renamed it "Franklyn of Salem" in Rio.

The now-named Franklyn of Salem, with a Portuguese captain, delivered its slaves.

Later, that captain told Boyle there had been a slave revolt and 27 slaves were killed but that was a lie. A lot more had been killed, not in a revolt, but executed.

A revolt had taken place and nobody died, but in the days that followed, 47 of the rebellious slaves, "46 men and a woman had been strung from the yardarms, shot, and thrown overboard. If one of the rebels happened to be shackled to a slave whom the crew wanted to save, the execution was especially gruesome." This is the account of "William Page, an English sailor on the Kentucky" from a deposition:⁶

If only one of two that were ironed together was to be hung, a rope was put round his neck and he was drawn up clear of the deck, beside the bulwarks, and his leg laid across the rail and chopped off, to save the irons and release him from his companion. . . . The bleeding negro was then drawn up, shot in the breast, and thrown overboard.
The legs of about one dozen were chopped off in this way. When the feet fell on deck, they were picked up by the Brazilian crew and thrown overboard, and sometimes at the body, while it still hung living; and all kinds of sport were made of the business. When two that were chained together were both to be hung, they were hung up together by their necks, shot and thrown overboard, irons and all.
When the woman was hung up and shot, the ball did not take effect and she was thrown overboard living, and was seen to struggle some in the water before she sunk.⁷

Page said there were horrible floggings ordered for other of the slaves that revolted. They were "stretched flat on the deck and tied hand and foot":

They were then whipped by two men at a time, by the one with a stick about two feet long, and with five or six strands of rawhide secured to the end of it . . . and by the other with a piece of hide . . . as thick as one's finger, or thicker, and hard as whalebone, but more flexible.⁸

The "20 men whipped survived in agony, but all 6 of the women who were whipped soon died."⁹

Page testified that the Philadelphian, Capt. Douglass, rushed from the Porpoise to the Kentucky when necessary to give the Kentucky the legitimacy of an American captain under the protection of the American flag:

Page said the American flags that Douglass left on the Kentucky [with the Portuguese captain] flew constantly. Such testimony prompted the U.S. ambassador to Brazil, Henry Wise, to comment, 'Without the aid of our citizens and our flag, [the slave trade] could not be carried on with success at all.'¹⁰

NO Confederate battle flag every flew over a slave ship.

The Confederate battle flag was a soldier's flag used on some of the bloodiest battlefields in history by men defending their homes from a barbaric invasion.

The Confederate battle flag has more honor, valor and glory attached to it than most flags in history, and no flag has more.

That is the reason certain groups, which have no right to the Confederate battle flag, use it as their own. They want to be associated with the courage and honor the battle flag represents.

Most Yankees had great respect for the Confederate battle flag and said so constantly.

British diplomats in Rio:

noted that 43 vessels of various nations had brought 16,200 new slaves to Brazil, and that the most successful slave voyages were those of ships that flew the American flag.¹¹

Slaves were needed in Brazil to satisfy the enormous worldwide demand for coffee.

The Mary E. Smith "began its voyage in Boston in August, 1855." A deputy U.S. marshal "tried to arrest its defiant owners, who gave him a choice: Get off the ship, or go to Africa. He got off the ship."¹²

The ship was later seized off the coast of Brazil with a cargo of "Africans dying of thirst and hunger" because the ship could find no safe place to land.¹³

Brazil cracked down on slave trading in the 1850s which sent New England and New York's slave traders, with others, to the sugar plantations of Cuba.

The Wanderer, "a racing yacht built on Long Island" was notorious. It was owned by "Southern members of the New York Yacht Club allied with Charles A. L. Lamar" of Georgia. It landed 400 slaves on a private island off the coast of Georgia around 1858.

Lamar and others were tried but there were no convictions. A "special prosecutor appointed to the cases later claimed the entire voyage was a conspiracy organized in New York."¹⁴

The Nightingale, "a yacht bigger and more exotic than the Wanderer" was seized by the U.S. Navy with "nearly 1,000 Africans on board and another 600 waiting on the beach" just days before the War Between the States began.¹⁵

The Nightingale was named for Swedish singer Jenny Lind and "had been built a decade before in Maine, across the Piscataqua River from Portsmouth, New Hampshire." It had been sold in New York in January 1860 to Francis Bowen, "'the Prince of Slavers.'" ¹⁶

After it was seized, its third mate, "Minthorne Westervelt, a young man from one of New York's wealthiest families" was tried but the jury deadlocked.¹⁷

Authorities tried to catch the Ocilla out of Mystic, Connecticut but it got away with landing slaves in Cuba. It's crew were identified as Philadelphians.

The Huntress "of New York, owned by a New Yorker and a New Bedford, Massachusetts, native, was found burned after landing 500 slaves" in Cuba. A crew member said 250 other slaves had died of thirst and their bodies were thrown overboard.¹⁸

The illegal slave trade "catered to an international plantation economy."

W.E.B. Du Bois, whose book The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870 is still authoritative, regretted he didn't look at the economics of the slave trade further: "Laws codify morality; economics ignore both."

That is a true statement as proven by the War Between the States that was fought because the Northern economy faced economic annihilation when the Southern states seceded and suddenly the North could not count on the rivers of cotton it had to have constantly.

Instead, Lincoln and the North would have to face the South as a powerful competitor with 100% control of King Cotton and a low 10% tariff viz-a-viz the North's astronomical Morrill Tariff that was 47 to 60% higher.

The South, once military and trade alliances with Great Britain were signed, could not be beaten by the North in a war, and Lincoln knew it.

That's why Lincoln sent five hostile military missions into Southern waters in March and April, 1861.

He wanted the war started as quickly as he could so he could throw up his blockade and chill relations between the South and Great Britain.

Lincoln announced his blockade before the smoke had cleared from the bombardment of Fort Sumter.

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 Twelve
Chapter Seven: The Other Underground Railroad
Part One

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

NOTES:

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

¹ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 128.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 129.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 130.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 131.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 132.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Ibid.

Complicity,
Actual Citation from Book

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 Ten, Chapter Six: New York’s Slave Pirates, Part One

Posted on April 20, 2022April 20, 2022 by Gene Kizer, Jr. | 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 Ten
Chapter Six: New York's Slave Pirates
Part One

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

SLAVE-Pict-Beginning-of-Chap-Six p120 44K

At the end of this article beneath the notes I have cited is "Actual Citation from Book," Complicity's notes from Chapter Six. The picture come from page 120.

NEW YORK CITY was the slave trading capital of the planet along with Boston in the 1860s as the War Between the States raged.

New York was "the hub of an international illegal slave trade that, like the latter-day traffic in drugs, was too lucrative and too corrupt to stop."¹

Slave ships were built, sold and outfitted in New York "with crates of shackles and the supersized water tanks needed for their human cargo." Officials

uncaring or bribed, look the other way as slave ships sailed from New York harbor under the flimsiest of disguises. The traffickers relied on fake owners, forged documents, and, most shamefully, the American flag's guarantee of immunity from seizure by foreign nations.²

The trade was so flagrant and accepted that "New York newspapers reported the names of ships leaving for slave voyages." The New York slave trade went on until the 1880s:

During the peak years in 1859 and 1860, at least two slave ships left from New York every month, according to one cautions estimate. Most could hold between 600 and 1,000 slaves. So in each of those years, News York ships might have carried as many as 20,000 new Africans into bondage.³

As previously stated, slave traders were much more brutal than slave masters because slave traders did not have to live with their slaves. All they did was drop them off and collect their money.

Most of the illegal slave trading in the 1860s and beyond was with "Spanish-controlled Cuba, one of the last open slave markets in the Western Hemisphere."⁴

In August 1860, the U.S. Navy intercepted the Erie that was "sailing suspiciously close to the mouth of the Congo." It was flying an American flag but when boarded officers found "900 newly purchased Africans." Half were children already in bad shape and 30 would die in the next two weeks before they could be delivered to Liberia, "the sanctuary and dumping ground for slavery's refugees."⁵

The Erie and her crew were sent back to New York, where they had started, to face charges.

A second ship at the same time and place as the Erie, the Storm King, was seized with

620 Africans, half of them children. The next month the Cora loaded with 700 Africans, was captured. All three were New York ships.⁶

The Erie's captain was Nathaniel Gordon, "son of a Portland, Maine, sea captain and a seasoned slave trader."

Most slave ship captains "hailed from the North, especially New England, which had dominated American shipping since colonial times."⁷

In the 1850s, "the coffee plantations of Brazil were a market." U.S. diplomats "reported that Gordon had landed 500 slaves near Rio de Janeiro, then burned his ship to escape capture."

Most captains did not have as long a career as Gordon. Their biggest threats were the diseases of the African coast, and slave insurrection.

In 1820:

[T]rafficking in slaves was made an act of piracy and a capital crime for U.S. citizens, though the law was hardly a deterrent. For the next four decades, prosecutions for piracy were rare, and convictions were nonexistent.⁸

Gordon was prosecuted and it took two trials but he was convicted and hanged on February 21, 1862 "despite a petition for mercy signed by 11,000 sympathetic New Yorkers." He was "the first and only American ever executed for participating in the African slave trade."⁹

The illegal New York slave trade involved all kinds of subterfuge such as switching "from legitimate merchant vessel to slave ship and back again" as well as "duplicate sets of ownership papers, and even duplicate captains and crews---one American and one foreign."¹⁰

Illegal slave ships blended easily with New York's legitimate commerce, and "official indifference" encouraged it. A captain who was arrested then released in New York to go to Rio "to gather information for his defense" never returned and bragged "'You don't have to worry about facing trial in New York City. . . . I can get any man off in New York for $1,000.'"¹¹

The British were the most determined to stop illegal slave trading --- probably because of their enormous guilt in establishing the slave trade worldwide and carrying it on for over a century and a half --- but American slave ships were protected from the Brits. The British were not allowed to board ships flying the American flag.

Funny how New York and New England liberals hate the Confederate battle flag but it never flew over slave ships like the American flag did.

The American flag flew over New York and New England slave ships for over 200 years.

The Confederate battle flag was always a soldiers flag carried on some of the bloodiest battlefields in history by hungry, often barefoot Confederate boys defending their homes from the Northern invasion.

In truth, the Confederate battle flag is one of the greatest symbols of valor and virtue in all of history. The victories achieved under it against a more numerous, better armed enemy make it as glorious as any great flag in the annals of war.

Britain abolished slavery in its colonies in 1833 then "begun to negotiate treaties that gave its vaunted navy the right to police the slave trade. By the 1850s, the only holdout that mattered was the United States," which did not allow the Brits to detain American ships. Only the American navy could do that.¹²

The U.S. Navy did assign a squadron that was never any larger than five ships to patrol thousands of miles of African coast:

In the two decades before the Erie was seized, the U.S. Africa squadron had caught exactly two ships actually loaded with slaves. British commanders complained that their U.S. counterparts let blatant slave ships pass unchallenged.¹³

In 1862, Lincoln signed a treaty that was approved by the Senate in secret because of fear of a backlash. It allowed the Brits to board and search American ships.

American diplomats did complain about Britain because it "allowed its own merchants to export goods to Africa that they knew supported the slave economy."¹⁴

Britain's behavior was worse than that.

It appears they were running a con game that allowed them to continue slave trading at least to a degree:

[W]hen its navy captured slave ships, Britain didn't always return the "liberated" slaves to Africa. Often it delivered them to years of indentured labor on plantations in its Caribbean colonies.¹⁵

Slave traders went to New York when they couldn't get away with slave trading in other places:

In June, 1860, one of [John Albert] Machado's whalers, the Thomas Watson, aroused such suspicion while outfitting for an African voyage in new London, Connecticut, that customs officials there denied it clearance. So the Thomas Watson sailed to New York and left from there. Months later it landed 800 slaves in Cuba.¹⁶

There was an entire industry that supported the illegal slave trade in New York in the 1860s:

It included ship fitters, suppliers, recruiters of crews, and bribed marshals and customs agents. Ship owners and captains accused of violating slave trade laws often were defended by Beebe, Dean & Donohue, leading admiralty lawyers with offices at 76 Wall Street.¹⁷

Horace Greeley's New-York Daily Tribune in June, 1861, two months into the War Between the States, complained that "'the slave-traders in this city have matured their arrangements so thoroughly that they almost invariably manage to elude the meshes of the law. Now they bribe a jury, another time their counsel or agents spirit away a vital witness. . . . Fortunately, however, a new class of men [Lincoln appointees] now have direction of affairs, and a stop will be put to this iniquitous complicity with crime. . . . To effect this it will be necessary to purge the courts and offices of these pimps of piracy, who are well known, and at the proper time will receive their desserts.'"¹⁸

Greeley was a virtue signaling hypocrite who shows that the press in 1860 in New York was as big a fraud as it is today.

During President Trump's administration the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for the Russia Hoax which turned out to be a lie paid for by the Democrat Party and its operatives.

The racist New York Times birthed another fraud, the 1619 Project, with its primary theme that the American Revolution was fought because the British were about to abolish slavery.

There is no evidence whatsoever for that absurd claim. Not a letter, statement, document, speech, nothing. The American Revolution was fought because the colonies were fed up with being controlled and taxed by Great Britain like Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence.

It was worse for the South in 1860. Southerners were paying 85% of the taxes while 80% of the tax money was being spent in the North.¹⁹ South Carolinians stated in one of their documents:

The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States that the Colonies did toward Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British Parliament.²⁰

That address ends with "No man can, for a moment, believe that our ancestors intended to establish over their posterity, exactly the same sort of Government they had overthrown."

The hypocrite Greeley in slave-trading New York published a long emotional editorial entitled "The Right of Secession" on December 17, 1860, the day South Carolina's secession convention convened. Greeley was known for saying that our "erring sisters should be allowed to depart in peace."

This was before he realized that an independent South with 100% control of King Cotton and committed to free trade would bury the North economically.

In "The Right of Secession," Greeley writes:

--- We have repeatedly asked those who dissent from our view of this matter to tell us frankly whether they do or do not assent to Mr. Jefferson's statement in the Declaration of Independence that governments "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed: and that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government," &c., &c. We do heartily accept this doctrine, believing it intrinsically sound, beneficent, and one that, universally accepted, is calculated to prevent the shedding of seas of human blood. And, if it justified the secession from the British Empire of Three Millions of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not some one attempt to show wherein and why? . . . ---we could not stand up for coercion, for subjugation, for we do not think it would be just. We hold the right of Self-Government sacred, even when invoked in behalf of those who deny it to others . . . if ever 'seven or eight States' send agents to Washington to say 'We want to get out of the Union,' we shall feel constrained by our devotion to Human Liberty to say Let Them Go! And we do not see how we could take the other side without coming in direct conflict with those Rights of Man which we hold paramount to all political arrangements, however convenient and advantageous.²¹

Horace Greeley and those like him are cowardly dishonorable men.

Three months after writing this, with the Northern economy collapsing all around him, he wanted war like the rest of the North.

So much for his preventing the "shedding of seas of human blood." Greeley got 750,000 dead and a million wounded and he didn't care a damn.

The slave trade in 1861 in New York "had grown so brazen that anyone who read a New York newspaper would have known how it worked."²²

New York ships "sailed to Rio de Janeiro or, later, Havana, where they might take aboard a second captain and crew" whom they would list as passengers.

When on the African coast "came a sudden switch in nationality. Just before or even while slaves were being loaded, the foreigners would declare themselves owners and commanders of what---moments before---had been a U.S. vessel."

The American crew "made the return voyage as working passengers on the now-foreign slave ship" or they returned on a ship that "was the slave ship's accomplice."²³

Abolition "threatened entire national economies that were still dependent on slave labor." At this point "the illegal slave trade became more profitable and, if possible, more horrific" because ships "grew larger, able to stow close to 1,000 Africans chained in pairs between their narrow decks."²⁴

Some slave traders built steam ships but "those new vessels led to new kinds of suffering on the centuries-old Middle Passage. The hot boilers could cause skin ulcers. Water-distilling machines that malfunctioned could poison an entire cargo of slaves."²⁵

Wooden vessels became disposable and would often be destroyed so there was no evidence.

The profits were enormous:

In 1861, a British diplomat estimated that a single successful voyage might yield a 250 percent profit to the owners of an average slave ship. The asking price for slaves in Africa at that point was about $50, while the selling price in Cuba was more than $1,000. The diplomat's calculations included deductions for bribes fixed at $120 per slave, $25,000 for the vessel, and $30,000 for the crew. Captains were probably paid close to $4,000, enough to make a man rich.²⁶

Slave traders counted on 10% of the slaves dying though that number could be higher:

On its way to Cuba in 1857, one of the largest New York slave ships, the Haidee, lost 200 of its 1,100 slaves.²⁷

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 Eleven
Chapter Six: New York's Slave Pirates
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 Nine, Chapter Five: Newport Rum, African Slaves, Part Two)

NOTES:

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

² Ibid.

³ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 122.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 121.

⁶ Ibid.

⁷ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 122.

⁸ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 123.

⁹ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 123-124.

¹⁰ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 124.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 125.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 125-126.

¹⁹ Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn't About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 111.

²⁰ The Address of the People of South Carolina, Assembled in Convention, to the People of the Slaveholding States of the United States, December, 1860.

²¹ "The Right of Secession," The New-York Daily Tribune, December 17, 1860 in Howard Cecil Perkins, ed., Northern Editorials on Secession (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1964), 199-201.

²² Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 126.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Farrow, Lang, Frank, Complicity, 126-127.

Complicity,
Actual Citation from Book

A Summary of

The Last Words

The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States

by Michael R. Bradley

Part Three

Prologue, Setting the Stage

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Part Three of Four

A Summary of

The Last Words

The Farewell Addresses of Union and Confederate Commanders to Their Men at the End of the War Between the States

by Michael R. Bradley

Part Two

Prologue, Setting the Stage

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Part Two of Four

NOTES:

Prologue

Setting the Stage

From the Introduction to The Last Words by the author:

From the Prologue by Gene Kizer, Jr. :

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 Fourteen Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes Part Two

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

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 Fifteen Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes Part Three

NOTES:

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

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 Thirteen Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes Part One

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

NOTES:

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

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 Twelve Chapter Seven: The Other Underground Railroad

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

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 Thirteen Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes Part One

NOTES:

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

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 Eleven Chapter Six: New York's Slave Pirates Part Two

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

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 Twelve Chapter Seven: The Other Underground Railroad Part One

NOTES:

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

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 Ten Chapter Six: New York's Slave Pirates Part One

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

Next Week:

A Comprehensive Review of

COMPLICITY

**From the Introduction to The Last Words by the author:**

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

Part Fourteen
Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes
Part Two

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

Part Fifteen
Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes
Part Three

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

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

Part Thirteen
Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes
Part One

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

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

Part Twelve
Chapter Seven: The Other Underground Railroad

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

Part Thirteen
Chapter Eight: Hated Heroes
Part One

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

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

Part Eleven
Chapter Six: New York's Slave Pirates
Part Two

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

Part Twelve
Chapter Seven: The Other Underground Railroad
Part One

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

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

Part Ten
Chapter Six: New York's Slave Pirates
Part One

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

Part Eleven
Chapter Six: New York's Slave Pirates
Part Two

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