Thursday, January 27, 2011

President Lincolns famous or infamous Letter to Mrs. Bixby

President Lincolns famous or infamous Letter to Mrs. BixbyThe famous Bixby Letter / credit - Personal collection of John Tucker
While there have been many myths propagated during and hence the American Civil War, not may have come to such prominence as the supposed Abraham Lincoln letter to that of Mrs. Bixby.
 Some of you may recall the movie “Saving Private Ryan” where this letter was read. While the movie tended to lead the viewer to think the letter was factual, Hollywood sometimes does have a habit of making things up. Well the story goes that letter, noted for its compassion and prose, has been hailed since that time and even made its way into Stephen Spielberg’s movie which has  with General Marshall reading from the letter and using the letter as the reason why they were going to find Private Ryan.
 So what are the facts?
 In the fall of 1864, Massachusetts Governor John A. Andrew wrote to President Lincoln asking him to express condolences to Mrs. Lydia Bixby, a widow who was believed to have lost five sons during the Civil War. Lincoln's letter to her was printed by the Boston Evening Transcript. Later it was revealed that only two of Mrs. Bixby's five sons died in battle (Charles and Oliver). One deserted the army, one was honorably discharged, and another deserted or died a prisoner of war.
The authorship of the letter has been debated by scholars, some of whom believe it was written instead by John Hay, one of Lincoln's White House secretaries. The original letter was destroyed by Mrs. Bixby, who was a Confederate sympathizer and disliked President Lincoln. Copies of an early forgery have been circulating for many years, causing many people to believe they have the original letter.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864.

Dear Madam,--
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.
I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.
I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.
Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln
Whereas many such incidents did have merit such as The five Sullivan Brothers who were lost when the ship to which all five were assigned, USS Juneau (CL-52) was sunk on 13 November 1942. In the case of the letter to Mrs. Bixby….well we may never know the truth.
The Bixby letter is not the only document attributed to Lincoln whose authenticity has been questioned by collectors, dealers and historians. In fact, there are many documents in circulation today that have been passed off as original Lincoln pieces that are actually forgeries. Handwriting and document experts have been able to expose many of the forgers, some of whom have been acknowledged as geniuses in the art of deception.
Ironically, on November 17, 2008 a report surfaced that the original Bixby letter may have been found. But, when you read that story you find that it suggests the signature on the new letter is not that of Lincoln. But, of Hay?
It is interesting to me, however, that in The Living Lincoln: The Man and His Times, in His Own Words by Paul M. Angle and Earl Schenck Miers, that they DO NOT mention any question as to Lincoln being the author. They simply say, “Superbly eloquent as the letter that Lincoln wrote to Mr. Lydia Bixby of Boston. This message, published in the Boston Transcript, appealed to the heart of the nation.” I’m not sure if they are suggesting that it was written as a political piece of prose with that purpose in mind, or if its publication resulted in appealing to the heart of the nation. Either way, whoever was the author, it is quite a remarkable letter.
Sometimes truth is truly stranger than fiction.
For more of my blogs and Civil War artiucles, please connect to;
http://civilwarfactsandcurrentevents.blogspot.com/

John Hay, Lincoln's Secretary of State / credit - Libaray of Congress
Mrs. Lydia Bixby

http://jamestown.wgrz.com/content/president-lincolns-famous-or-infamous-letter-mrs-bixby

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Secession of a town in New York

New York town that belonged to the Confederate States of America.

As with most who write about history, no one can do it alone. I want to thank Mr. Steve Teeft, noted local Civil War historian and Director of the Echoes Through Time Civil War Museum and learning center located in the Eastern Hills Mall. Williamsville New York and to that of the late Benedict R. "Ben" Maryniak, noted local Civil War historian & author and well known and respected Buffaloian. They have been an inspiration to me.
The American Civil War was not simply blue vs. gray. Not simply North vs. south. This epic war touch everyone on different levels. Just being from the north did not mean you thought only of the Union. Id did not mean you were for or against slavery or states’ rights. This was in the truest sense of the words, a Civil War. Although civil it was not.
Then there was the New York town that belonged to the Confederate States of America.
Anyone who has dabbled in history knows of the draft riots in New York City and that the potential of the city seceding from the union, not to join the south but rather to become neutral leaving it able to deal and trade with both warring sides. This was not the case for all of New York.
The town in question is sometimes known as "Two Rod" - The real name is Town-line, NY. It is located on the boundary line between Lancaster & Alden of which the name came from.

Primarily it was a German community and rested on the northern edge of Lancaster which was a strong Democratic area, lodged between a strong Republican areas.

In 1861, many of the southern states, left the Union and joined the Confederate States of America, including Town-line. The town’s folk voted in the early summer of 1861 to leave the Union, and by a wide margin, (84 to 40) seceded from the Union. It was rumored that many of the men in town had left to join the Confederacy (documents show 12 out of 100 males of enlisting age, who did serve).
There were only 100 souls over the age of 21.
The reasons are unclear but an article in the Buffalo, New York Newspaper from 1945 cite discontent with President Lincoln’s, treatment of confederate soldiers at a POW camp in Elmira, the interest of self rule or perhaps an incident by some runaway slaves at a local underground railroad stop. It was also reported that Town Line sent five men through the union lines to fight for the Confederate States under General Robert E. Lee. Other reasons stated were that they were unhappy with being forced to comply with President Lincolns request for 75,000 men and refused to comply.  Being that most of their German community had recent left the OLD country, because of strife, and being a farming community, they were troubled. There were a number of men who did join the Union army (about a dozen, documented).

By 1864, most of the residents who succeeded in town were being badly harassed (terrorized as it was described), and packed up the plantation and their homes, and moved to a settlement in St. Catherine’s, Ontario, Canada.

When the WBTS ended, things went somewhat back to normal, just a few returned families that lived in the area.

It wasn’t until it was brought up about the 1920's (from the town advisor in Alden) that Town-line was not paying taxes, and was still technically "out of the Union", but nothing was done about it.

It came up again in the 1930's and again in 1945. The town had formed a special committee to do something about it, and this special committee chairman even wrote President Truman about their problem.


The President gave them some advice: {paraphrase: Why don’t you run down the fattest calf in Erie County, barbecue it and serve it with fixins, and sort out your problems}

They voted in Dec 1945 and they vote failed again, but in Jan 26, 1946, the persons living in Town-Line, NY officially re-joined the Union, some 26 days after the last two southern states (Mississippi & Alabama), officially joined. By rejoining this made Town-line, NY the last stronghold of the Confederacy.

The town made national news, and held a party to celebrate their rejoining and had several Hollywood starts came out (Cesar Ramaro "the joker" among others).

Today, the residents can still find reminance of the Secession around. The large fire hall, on
Broadway Road
(Rt 20) has a unique patch that they where on their arm, that reads....
"Last of the Rebels 1861-1946, Town Line, NY - Fire Dept" and their fire equipment has a saying over there department logo that states "Rebel Rescue". and on their shoulder patch.

The desk where the signing of secession and rejoining still exist at the Alden, NY Historical Society.

They may have not left the Union for the same reasons as the other southern states (that being states rights), but they did believe in town rights - and held out longer than any other state or former Confederate community.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Today is Lee-Jackson Day - NBC12 News, Weather Sports, Traffic, and Programming Guide for Richmond, VA |

Today is Lee-Jackson Day - NBC12 News, Weather Sports, Traffic, and Programming Guide for Richmond, VA

non-Civil War related but still interesting

Cyberstalking on Facebook?  The cowardly trolls of Facebook and what you need to know
Add

Cyberstalking on Facebook? The cowardly trolls of Facebook and what you need to know

caption
Cyberstalkers, The trolls of the internet / credit;http:/www.christianlittle.com/stupid-people/cornell-university-teaches-cyber-stalkers-how-to-stalk-better/
ON the WGRZ Channel Facebook page, recently I posted a subject on the Greatest Generation and the enemy that attacked them at Pearl Harbor. I used references of news reports that used the word "Jap." One person became upset with not the fact that America was attacked on that day nor that 1000’s died but rather he said the word was not PC.
From there on his comments, anger and frustration grew. With each post I made, his comments became more personal in nature and obscene. He encourages several others to persist in this venture.
It is a shame that people have to stoop so low that they engage in such gutter language and treatment. To the point of trying to gain information on you, where you live, make untrue and false statements.
I refer to them as cyber trolls. You can tell sometimes because when they have lost an argument or can no long engage they revert to such action.
So what is it? Cyber stalking is the use of the Internet or stalk, follow or harass someone. It may include false accusations, monitoring, making threats, identity theft, and damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information in order to harass. The definition of "harassment" must meet the criterion that a “reasonable person” in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person some sort of harm. This could be mental, or even sometimes physical.
Most stalking laws require that the perpetrator make a credible threat of violence against the victim; others include threats against the victim's immediate family; and still others require only that the alleged stalker's course of conduct constitute an implied threat.  While some conduct involving annoying or menacing behavior might fall short of illegal stalking, such behavior may be a prelude to stalking and violence and should be treated seriously.
So what are the signs to look for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking
makes the following remarks and bullets as to what to look for.
  • False accusations. Many cyber stalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com.
  • Attempts to gather information about the victim. Cyber stalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective. They often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.
  • Encouraging others to harass the victim. Many cyber stalkers try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way, or may post the victim's name and telephone number in order to encourage others to join the pursuit.
  • False victimization. The cyber stalker will claim that the victim (the person being stalked) is harassing him/her. This phenomenon has been noted in a number of well-known cases.
  • Attacks on data and equipment. They may try to damage the victim's computer by sending viruses.
  • Ordering goods and services. They order items or subscribe to magazines in the victim's name. These often involve subscriptions to pornography or ordering sex toys then having them delivered to the victim's workplace.
  • Arranging to meet. Young people face a particularly high risk of having cyber stalkers try to set up meetings between them
Facebook along with ,any other social media channels do offer “block” keys but that is only good for the receiver on that page. Others can still read comments posted by the stalker. The stalker can also use other media outlets to propagate their attacks.

The Boston Globe offers some advice at;
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/gallery/cyber_safety/

From the US Department of Justice:

Prevention Tips
  • · Do not share personal information in public spaces anywhere online, nor give it to strangers, including in e-mail or chat rooms. Do not use your real name or nickname as your screen name or user ID. Pick a name that is gender- and age-neutral. And do not post personal information as part of any user profiles.
  • · Be extremely cautious about meeting online acquaintances in person. If you choose to meet, do so in a public place and take along a friend.
  • · Make sure that your ISP and Internet Relay Chat (IRC) network have an acceptable use policy that prohibits cyber stalking. And if your network fails to respond to your complaints, consider switching to a provider that is more responsive to user complaints.
  • · If a situation online becomes hostile, log off or surf elsewhere. If a situation places you in fear, contact a local law enforcement agency.

    What To Do If You Are Being Cyber stalked
  • · If you are receiving unwanted contact, make clear to that person that you would like him or her not to contact you again.
  • · Save all communications for evidence. Do not edit or alter them in any way. Also, keep a record of your contacts with Internet system administrators or law enforcement officials.
  • · You may want to consider blocking or filtering messages from the harasser. Many e-mail programs such as Eudora and Microsoft Outlook have a filter feature, and software can be easily obtained that will automatically delete e-mails from a particular e-mail address or that contain offensive words. Chat room contact can be blocked as well. Although formats differ, a common chat room command to block someone would be to type: /ignore [person's screen name] (without the brackets). However, in some circumstances (such as threats of violence), it may be more appropriate to save the information and contact law enforcement authorities.
  • · If harassment continues after you have asked the person to stop, contact the harasser's Internet Service Provider (ISP). Most ISP's have clear policies prohibiting the use of their services to abuse another person. Often, an ISP can try to stop the conduct by direct contact with the stalker or by closing their account. If you receive abusive e-mails, identify the domain (after the "@" sign) and contact that ISP. Most ISP's have an e-mail address such as abuse@(domain name) or postmaster@(domain name) that can be used for complaints. If the ISP has a website, visit it for information on how to file a complaint.
  • Contact your local police department and inform them of the situation in as much detail as possible. In appropriate cases, they may refer the matter to state or federal authorities. If you are afraid of taking action, there are resources available to help you, Contact either: -The National Domestice Violence Hotline, 800-799-SAFE (phone); 800-787-3224 (TDD) -A local women's shelter for advice and support.

As with my posting on any Facebook, at no time should any follower or poster be subjected to constant attacks. Once and a while in the matter of debate on a subject, I can see some banter back and forth but for the constant trolling by persons who may wish harm on the singled out victim, is not just wrong but could become civil if not criminal in nature. To have an honest opinion is one thing and to have a debate on a post is one thing but this is now gone beyond that, to the point of stalking. Remember. Most will act in a cowardly manor and attempt to belittle you but, do not trust them. If you feel threatened, report them.
In any event, DO NOT allow these people to control your lives

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

The Civil War Preservation Trust, devoted to the preservation of Civil War battlefields

The Civil War Preservation Trust, devoted to the preservation of Civil War battlefieldsCivil War Preservation Trust logo -credit http:/www.civilwar.org/
We are into the 150th annversity of the American Civil War. While many of us remember that war from our history class, many do not realize just how much of our past is being taken away, distroyed or harmed in the name or progress. Thanks to groups such as The Civil War Preservation Trust, and the donations and contributions of many, we are saving our nations past for the future.
http://www.civilwar.org

The Civil War Preservation Trust is America's largest non-profit organization (501-C3) devoted to the preservation of our nation's endangered Civil War battlefields. The Trust also promotes educational programs and heritage tourism initiatives to inform the public of the war's history and the fundamental conflicts that sparked it.
Preservation Revolution: 
A Short History of the Civil War Preservation Trust

The Civil War Preservation Trust story began in 1987, when twenty or so stalwart souls met to discuss what could be done to protect the rapidly disappearing battlefields around them.  They called themselves the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites (APCWS) and they were spurred to action by destruction of Northern Virginia battlefields like Chantilly, where today only five acres remain.  Watching the constantly expanding suburbs of Washington, D.C., they knew that it was only a matter of time before other battlefields were similarly swallowed up.  The only way to save these sites for posterity, they decided, was to buy the physical landscapes themselves.
As word of efforts to protect these battlefields spread among the Civil War community, both membership and accomplishment lists began to grow steadily.  The dedicated supporters who answered that original call to arms remain some of battlefield preservation’s most ardent supporters, and many of those early leaders are no less involved in the organization today.  Others, like Brian Pohanka, Jerry Russell, Annie Snyder and Carrington Williams, are sorely missed, although we work to honor their memories by continuing the work they started.
In 1991, another national organization, the Civil War Trust (CWT), was founded to further efforts to protect these vanishing historic landscapes.  Eight years later, in an attempt to increase the efficiency with which preservation opportunities could be pursued, the two groups merged to become the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT).  Shortly thereafter Jim Lighthizer, a former Maryland Secretary of Transportation, became president of the new nonprofit group.  During his government career, Lighthizer pioneered the use of Transportation Enhancement highway funds for historic landscape preservation.  The program has, to date, saved more than 4,500 acres of Maryland battlefield land, and has become a model for similar projects in other states.
With a single organization combining the influence and resources of its two successful predecessors, a battlefield preservation revolution began.  At the time of the merger, APCWS and CWT had a combined membership of approximately 22,000 members.  Today, CWPT’s membership roster has roughly tripled the base of preservationists from which we draw support.  By 1999, the two organizations had saved a combined total of 7,000 acres of battlefield land, but since joining forces, CWPT has permanently preserved a further 19,000 acres of hallowed ground.  By saving battlefield land at four times the rate of the National Park Service, this organization, which began so humbly two decades ago, has become the number one entity saving battlefield land in America today.
Now in its third decade in the business of land preservation, CWPT recognizes the importance of working closely with partner groups, federal and state agencies, local governments, community-minded businesses and willing sellers who see the intrinsic benefits of historic preservation.  We will continue to use every means at our disposal to leverage the generous gifts of our donors with a variety of government grant programs.  We will continue to run a lean organization with some of the lowest overhead costs in the conservation business, devoting the most time, effort and money possible to the preservation of battlefield land.  We will continue working to educate Americans about the plight of the fields where our national identity was shaped.  And we will continue to be on the front lines of preservation, standing guard over history.

CWPT Land Preservation Techniques
The Civil War Preservation Trust preserves land utilizing several well established conservation strategies. Ultimately, these efforts are guided by our mission to preserve significant battlefield land in perpetuity. For those interested in preserving a property we invite you to contact our real estate department directly.
We work only with willing sellers and each project is unique in its own way. However, in general, there are two types of preservation transactions:
1. Preservation in which the landowner retains ownership
( i.e. Conservation Easements )
2. Preservation that transfers ownership
In order to determine what to buy and what preservation strategy best suits the project we first consult with a landmark study in the world of battlefield preservation, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission Report (“CWSAC”).
The CWSAC Report was completed in 1993 by a 15-member Commission established by Congress to identify the most historically significant Civil War sites. Out of the nearly 10,000 battles and skirmishes of the war the report identified 384 principle battlefields worthy of preservation.
Once CWPT determines whether a prospective property is listed as a CWSAC eligible site, we utilize our Geographic Information System (“GIS”) computerized mapping capabilities to locate the potential property in relation to the historic landscape.
If a property is within the recognized boundary of a CWSAC eligible battlefield we must next determine how best to preserve the property. Generally, CWPT either purchases a permanent conservation easement or purchases the property outright in order to preserve the integrity of the land. Each type of transaction is described in greater detail below.

Conservation Easements Explained
A conservation easement is defined as, “A legal agreement between a landowner and an eligible organization (qualified land trust or state entity) that restricts future activities on the land to protect its conservation values in perpetuity.” Thus, the landowner still retains ownership of the property, but the permanent easement will protect the land from future development.
In most cases a conservation easement:
Does not allow for new structures, unless they are necessary for an agricultural operation.
Restricts any changes to the topography of the landscape.
Restricts the ability to subdivide a property.

Conservation easements can be very advantageous to landowners for several reasons:
Preservation of family land in perpetuity
Federal Income Tax benefit
Certain State Income Tax benefits
Estate tax benefits
Property tax benefits
Fee Simple Transactions Explained
There are several types of transactions that transfer ownership of a property which are described in greater detail below:
1. Sale or Donation of Land
CWPT generally pays fair market value for land, but landowners can sell for less and receive tax benefits.
2. Bargain Sales
Landowner sells land to land trust for less than fair market value which creates a charitable income tax deduction based on the difference between the land's fair market value and its sale price.
3. Sale Subject to Life Estate
Landowner sells or donates a remainder interest to land trust, but retains right to live and use property; land trust gains control upon death of landowner.
4. Sale/Leaseback Option
Landowner sells land to land trust, and then leases property back.
5. Sale to Conservation Buyer
Landowner sells land to conservation buyer at fair market value, and then the conservation buyer preserves the land and benefits from tax incentives. 
Once CWPT determines the best preservation strategy, the Trust must determine how to pay for the transaction. Funding for CWPT preservation projects generally comes from the following sources:

Federal Grants (Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program, Transportation Enhancement Program, Farm & Ranchland Protection Program)
State Grants (e.g. Virginia Civil War Historic Site Preservation Fund, NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund)
Other Non-Profit Organization Grants
Landowner Donations
CWPT Member Contributions

Contact Us
For more information on possible Civil War battlefield land preservation please contact our Real Estate Department:


Tom Gilmore
Kathy Robertson
Project Manager
krobertson@civilwar.org
202.367.1861  ext. 7209



Washington, D.C.CWPT Corporate Office

1156 15th Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
(P) 202.367.1861
(F) 202.367.1865
Fee Simple Transactions Explained
There are several types of transactions that transfer ownership of a property which are described in greater detail below:
1. Sale or Donation of Land
CWPT generally pays fair market value for land, but landowners can sell for less and receive tax benefits.
2. Bargain Sales
Landowner sells land to land trust for less than fair market value which creates a charitable income tax deduction based on the difference between the land's fair market value and its sale price.
3. Sale Subject to Life Estate
Landowner sells or donates a remainder interest to land trust, but retains right to live and use property; land trust gains control upon death of landowner.
4. Sale/Leaseback Option
Landowner sells land to land trust, and then leases property back.
5. Sale to Conservation Buyer
Landowner sells land to conservation buyer at fair market value, and then the conservation buyer preserves the land and benefits from tax incentives. 
Once CWPT determines the best preservation strategy, the Trust must determine how to pay for the transaction. Funding for CWPT preservation projects generally comes from the following sources:

Federal Grants (Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program, Transportation Enhancement Program, Farm & Ranchland Protection Program)
State Grants (e.g. Virginia Civil War Historic Site Preservation Fund, NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund)
Other Non-Profit Organization Grants
Landowner Donations
CWPT Member Contributions

Contact Us
For more information on possible Civil War battlefield land preservation please contact our Real Estate Department:



Tom Gilmore

Director of Real Estate
tgilmore@civilwar.org
202.367.1861  ext. 7227




Kathy Robertson
Project Manager
krobertson@civilwar.org
202.367.1861  ext. 7209
Washington, D.C.CWPT Corporate Office

1156 15th Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005
(P) 202.367.1861
(F) 202.367.1865
Membership Headquarters

11 Public Square, Suite 200
Hagerstown, MD 21740
(P) 301.665.1400
(F) 301.665.1416

Sons of Confederate Veterans / credit SCV Camp Buffalo Guards
Sons of Unions Veterans Civil War / credit - SUVCW

Director of Real Estate
tgilmore@civilwar.org
202.367.1861  ext. 7227

Monday, January 10, 2011

Pamplin Historical Park & The National Museum of the Civil War Soldier, Petersburg, Virginia

Pamplin Civil War Park / credit-ref www.pamp;in.org
Interested in Volunteering? Pamplin Historical Park, Petersburg Va. will host a Volunteer Open House on Saturday, January 22 at 2p.m.! The Open House will be located in our Main Museum!

With the 150thj annversity of the American Civil War, what better place to be than in the heart of the eastern theater of the war. That being the Richmond/Petersburg area. And what better place to relieve that time than, PAMPLIN!!!


http://www.civilwaradventurecamp.org/
Travel back in time to the 1860s and enter the world of a Civil War soldier. As a newly enlisted private, you will don your uniform, shoulder your musket, and march off to a new adventure!

Your Civil War Adventure Camp experience offers an authentic and unique hands-on adventure for groups, families, and individuals alike! Supported by a variety of programming venues, Camps are customized based on the skills and knowledge levels of each group.
http://www.pamplinpark.org/
Your visit to Pamplin Historical Park begins at the entrance to The National Museum of the Civil War Soldier. Along the entrance ellipse, stones list the number of soldiers who served in the Civil War from each state and the approximate number who died.

Inside the museum, your first stop may be at the museum's award-winning gallery "Duty Called Me Here." Before entering, you choose a "Soldier Comrade" from a group of thirteen real Civil War soldiers. You are fitted with a personal MP3 player and through its audio technology you hear the words of your comrade as he describes his experiences as a soldier. By the end of your tour, you learn the wartime fate of your comrade.

From the museum you may continue along the pathway to Tudor Hall Plantation. The 1812 house has been restored to its wartime appearance and is furnished with period antiques.

Nearby is The Field Quarter, a venue where exhibits, a film and reconstructed buildings interpret the life of field slaves. Cabins, a chicken coop, corn crib and garden give evidence of the spartan existence of the slaves. Inside a white painted cabin you can view the exhibit "Slavery in America" and watch the thought-provoking video, "Viewpoints of the 1850s."

The Field Fortifications Exhibit provides an accurate, full-scale model of the fortifications that ringed Petersburg in 1864-65. Visitors may explore the firing step and peer over the parapet of this dramatic example of earthwork construction during the Civil War. During the summer, costumed interpreters conduct live artillery firing demonstrations at the exhibit.

The adjacent Military Encampment depicts the lives of Civil War soldiers in camp.
The Battlefield Center is a multi-faceted museum focused on the April 2, 1865 attack that ended the Petersburg Campaign and resulted in the evacuation of Richmond. The Center features an exhibit entitled "Breaking the Backbone of the Rebellion," a surround-sound theater presentation, a fiber-optics battle map, and interactive computer programs, including a Civil War quiz.

The doors of the Battlefield Center lead to The Breakthrough Trail, which winds through the historic Breakthrough Battlefield. The trail is laid out in loops that range in walks of 15 to 45 minutes. Original Confederate earthworks, rifle pits, and military dams are preserved along the trail. Interpretive waysides tell of the fighting here and introduce you to some of the participants.

Nature and history surround you on this 1.2 mile self-guided hiking trail. A peaceful journey, The Headwaters Trail affords hikers a unique opportunity to see native flora and fauna and learn a bit about Confederate fortifications. Wooden posts mark ten trail stops and indicate the route.

You may also visit The Banks House, a short drive from the Park's main entrance, and headquarters of Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant on April 2-3, 1865. The exterior of the house and adjacent slave quarter is open throughout the day.

The Civil War Store is one of America's best museum stores, featuring an outstanding selection of books, clothing, art, jewelry, collectibles, music, videos ,and a children's section.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/The-Official-Page-of-Pamplin-Historical-Park/64695582004

This author has had the oppretunity  and honor to be a part of and to work for this fine institutional and learning center. Hours due vary depending on the season

SECESSION!!! South Carolina leaves the union 20 Dec, 1860

SECESSION!!! South Carolina leaves the union 20 Dec, 1860SECESSION!!! South Carolina leaves the union 20 Dec, 1869
  • Another in a series of my blogs with respect to the 150th annversity of the American Civil War. The war that made us the country we are today.
  • South Carolina Ordinance Of Secession
        AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
        We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained,
That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.
        Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

See - http://www.civilwarhome.com/scordinance.htm
The Secession of the Southern States
The following describes what was happening in the South during this most critical time leading up to the Civil War.  Credits for the article are given at the end.
 Secession Looms 
        Young, slaveholding lawyers and planters Spearheaded secession. They came to political maturity in the 1850s at a time of intensifying sectional hostilities, and they turned to the Breckinridge movement for vindication of their rights and status against the onslaughts of the antislavery North. The Breckinridge demand for Federal protection of slavery in the territories was their answer to the Republican commitment to free soil. Their recently acquired wealth in land and slaves rested on a rickety structure of credit that required rising slave prices to keep from collapsing. Economic self-interest, as well as wounded pride, drove them to secession once Lincolns election threatened to limit Southern growth by ending the expansion of slavery.
The Fire-Eaters 
        The most prominent secessionists were known as the fire-eaters. In particular, William Lowndes Yancey of Alabama, Edmund Ruffin of Virginia, and Robert Barnwell Rhett, Sr., of South Carolina had earned this label for their long and uncompromising devotion to the cause of Southern independence. Outside the inner circle of Southern political power at the national level, and hence free of the need to fashion a middle position to hold together a bisectional party coalition, the fire-eaters consistently had taken a hard line on Southern rights. They pushed sectional issues to their logical extreme and applauded the breakup of the national Democratic party in 1860. Aided immeasurably by the fears provoked by John Browns raid, they popularized the right of secession among the Southern masses.
        As veterans of sectional agitation, the fire-eaters had learned an invaluable lesson: a united South was a myth. South Carolina had stood alone during the nullification crisis, and Calhoun had called in vain for a monolithic South to rise up and demand its rights from the Yankee aggressors. In the crisis of 1850 and 1851, the secessionists were left isolated in South Carolina and Mississippi. Unity was impossible because of statewide and regional divisions that broke along lines of geography and social development. Virtually every slave state was rife with tensions between the yeoman-dominated back country and the planter-dominated black belts and low country. A very broad division ran along a line from South Carolina westward to the Mississippi that differentiated the lower South from the slave states above it. In the upper South slaveholdings and percentages of slave owners were relatively smaller, fears of losing racial control less intense, and integration into the free-labor economies of the North tighter. Following the leadership of Virginia, the states of the upper South counseled moderation in the sectional confrontations of the 1850s.
        Now that a Republican victory had fired the Southern resolve to resist, the radicals of the lower South were determined not to repeat their mistakes of the past by waiting for the upper South to act. They rejected any plan of prior cooperation among the slave states and launched secession on their own. They pursued a strategy of separate state action and confidently predicted that wavering states would he forced to join those that had already gone out. Separate state action was indeed the key to secession. It enabled the secessionists to lead from strength and create an irreversible momentum.
        "Resistance or submission" was the rallying cry of the secessionists. The former, Southerners were told, was an honorable ace of self-defense demanded by a love of liberty and equality. The latter was the slavish servility of a dishonorable coward.  Frightened white males, often spurred on by white women, responded by rushing to join vigilance committees, military companies, and associations of "Minute Men." All these paramilitary groups pledged to defend the South against widely feared incursions of abolitionists incited by Lincolns success. Southern communities were thrown into an emotional frenzy as they mobilized on an emergency footing.
The Republican Threat 
        For all the popular hysteria they were instrumental in whipping up, the secessionists quite rationally assessed the nature of the Republican threat. The Republican stand against the expansion of slavery struck at the vital interests of the slave South. Economically, it threatened to choke off the profits of plantation agriculture by denying it access to fresh, arable lands. As a consequence, Southerners told themselves, whites would flee the slave states, and to save themselves, the dwindling numbers of whites would have to wage a preemptive war of extermination against the growing black majority. Politically, as free states were carved out of the territories, Southern power in Congress would he reduced to the point where slavery in the states could he dismantled by the ever larger political majority in the North. Most degrading of all from the Southern perspective was the humiliation implicit in submitting to the rule of an antislavery party. To do so would be an admission to Northerners and the outside world that the Southern way of life was morally suspect. Only slaves, the secessionists insisted, acted in such a servile fashion.
        The secessionists did not expect the Republicans to make an immediate and direct move against slavery They were well aware that the Republicans did not control Congress or the Supreme Court. As a new and still untested party, the Republicans would have to cooperate with Southern and Democratic politicians. But, reasoned the secessionists, such a demonstration that the slave South could, in the short run, survive under a Republican administration, would establish the fatal precedent of submitting to Republican rule and blunt the spirit of Southern resistance. In the meantime, the Republicans could use what power they had to begin the slow dismantling of slavery. The whole purpose of the Republican determination to prohibit the expansion of slavery was to put it on the road to extinction in the states where it existed.
        In addition to all the perceived horrors of encirclement by a swelling majority of free states, the secessionists warned of changes in the sectional balance that the Republicans could potentially implement. They could move against slavery in Washington, D.C., and in Federal forts and installations. They could force the introduction of antislavery literature into the South by banning censorship of the Federal mails and simultaneously position the Supreme Court to overturn the Dred Scott ruling. They could weaken or repeal the Fugitive Slave Act and prohibit the interstate slave trade, a key link in the profitability of slavery to the South as a whole. Most alarming of all from the standpoint of the secessionists was the possibility that the Republicans would use Federal patronage and appointments to build a free labor party in the South. Senator Robert Toombs of Georgia echoed the concerns of many secessionists when he predicted in 1860 that Republican control of Federal jobs would create an "abolition party" within a year in Maryland, within two years in Kentucky, Missouri, and Virginia, and throughout the South by the end of four years.
Southern Divisions Over Slavery 
        The Toombs prediction went to the heart of secessionists fears over the commitment to slavery within the South. To be sure, very few Southern whites by 1860 favored an immediate end to slavery. Most such whites had left the South in the preceding generation, either voluntarily or in response to community pressures forcing them out. Nonetheless, deep divisions existed over the future of slavery and the direction of Southern society itself.
        The Jeffersonian dream of a gradual withering away of slavery persisted in the upper South. Many whites could contemplate and even accept the eventual end of the institution as long as there was no outside interference in the process of disentanglement. In this region, as the proportion of slaves in the total population steadily declined in the late antebellum decades, slavery was increasingly becoming a matter of expediency, not of necessity. The secessionists had every reason to believe that a Republican administration would encourage the emancipationist sentiment that had already emerged among the white working classes in such slave cities as St. Louis, Baltimore, and Richmond.
        In the lower South the secessionists doubted the loyalty to slavery of the yeomanry, a class of nonslaveholding farmers who composed the largest single bloc in the electorate. Although tied to the planters by a mutual commitment to white supremacy and often by bonds of kinship, these farmers occupied an ambivalent position in Southern society. They fervently valued their economic independence and political liberties, and hence they resented the spread of the plantation economy and the planters pretensions to speak for them. But as long as the yeomen were able to practice their subsistence-oriented agriculture and the more ambitious ones saw a reasonable chance of someday buying a few slaves, this resentment fell far short of class conflict. In the 1850s, however, both these safety valves were being closed off The proportion of families owning slaves fell from 31 to 23 percent. Sharply rising slave prices prevented more and more whites from purchasing slaves. At the same rime, railroads spread the reach of a plantation agriculture geared to market production. Rates of farm tenancy rose in the older black belts, and the yeomen's traditional way of life was under increasing pressure.
        Distrustful of the upper South as a region and the yeomanry as a class, the secessionists pushed for immediate as well as separate state secession. By moving quickly, they hoped to prevent divisions within the South from coalescing into a paralyzing debate over the best means of resisting Republican rule. Since most of the rabid secessionists were Breckinridge Democrats, the party that controlled nearly all the governorships and state legislatures in the lower South, the secessionists were able to set their own timetable for disunion.
The South Secedes
        South Carolina was in the perfect position to launch secession. Its governor, William H. Gist, was on record as favoring a special state convention in the event of a Republican victory, and the legislature, the only one in the Union that still cast its states electoral votes, was in session when news of Lincolns election first reached the state. Aware of South Carolinas reputation for rash, precipitate action and leery of the states being isolated, Gist would have preferred that another state take the lead in secession. But having been rebuffed a month earlier in his attempt to convince other Southern governors to seize the initiative, he was now prepared to take the first overt step. The South Carolina legislature almost immediately approved a bill setting January 8 as the election day for a state convention to meet on January 15.
        Secession might well have been stillborn had the original convention dates set by the South Carolina legislature held. A two-month delay, especially in the likely event that no Southern state other than South Carolina would dare to go out alone, would have allowed time for passions to subside and lines of communication to be opened with the incoming Republican administration. But on November 10 a momentous shift occurred in the timing of South Carolinas convention. Reports of large secession meetings in Jackson, Mississippi, and Montgomery, Alabama, and reports that Georgia's governor, Joseph E. Brown, had recommended the calling of a convention in his state emboldened the South Carolina secessionists to accelerate their own timetable. They successfully pressured the South Carolina legislature to move up the dates of the states convention to December 6 for choosing delegates and December 17 for the meeting.
Secession In The Lower South 
        The speedy call for an early South Carolina convention triggered similar steps toward secession by governors and legislatures throughout the lower South. On November 14 Governors Andrew B. Moore of Alabama and J. J. Pettus of Mississippi issued calls for state conventions, both of which were to be elected on December 24 and meet on January 7. Moore had prior legislative approval for calling a convention, and Pettus was given his mandate on November 26. Once the Georgia legislature voted its approval on November 18, Governor Brown set January 2 for the election of Georgia's convention and January 16 for its convening. The Florida legislature in late November and the Louisiana legislature in early December likewise authorized their governors to set in motion the electoral machinery for January meetings of their conventions. Texas was a temporary exception to the united front developing in the lower South for secession. Its governor, Sam Houston, was a staunch Unionist who refused to call his legislature into special session. As a result, Texas secessionists resorted to the irregular, if not illegal, expedient of issuing their own call for a January convention.
        Within three weeks of Lincoln's election the secessionists had generated a strong momentum for the breakup of the Union by moving quickly and decisively. In contrast, Congress, acting slowly and hesitantly, did nothing to derail the snowballing movement.
        Congress convened on December 3, and the House appointed a Committee of Thirty-three (one representative from each state) to consider compromise measures. The committee, however, waited a week before calling its first meeting, and the creation of a similar committee in the Senate was temporarily blocked by bitter debates between Republicans and Southerners. When the House committee did meet on December 14, its Republican members failed (by a vote of eight to eight) to endorse a resolution calling for additional guarantees of Southern rights. Choosing to interpret this Republican stand as proof that Congress could accomplish nothing, thirty congressmen from the lower South then issued an address to their constituents declaring their support for an independent Southern confederacy A week later, on December 20, South Carolina became the first state to leave the Union when its convention unanimously approved an ordinance of secession.
        South Carolina provided the impetus, but the ultimate fate of secession in the lower South rested on the outcome of the convention elections held in late December and early January in the six other cotton states. The opponents of immediate secession in these states were generally known as cooperationists. Arguing that in unity there was strength, the cooperationists wanted to delay secession until a given number of states had agreed to go our as a bloc. Many of the cooperationists were merely cautious secessionists in need of greater assurances before taking their states out. But an indeterminate number of others clung to the hope that the Union could still be saved if the South as a whole forced concessions from the Republicans and created a reconstructed Union embodying safeguards for slavery.
        Any delay, however, was anathema to the immediate secessionists. They countered the cooperationists fears of war by asserting that the North would accept secession rather than risk cutting off its supply of Southern cotton. The secessionists also neutralized the cooperationist call for unanimity of action by appointing secession commissioners to each of the states considering secession. The commissioners acted as the ambassadors of secession by establishing links of communication between the individual states and stressing the need for a speedy withdrawal. In a brilliant tactical move, the South Carolina convention authorized its commissioners on December 31 to issue a call for a Southern convention to launch a provisional government for the Confederate States of America. Even before another state had joined South Carolina in seceding, the call went out on January 3 for a convention to meet in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4, 1861.
        The secessionists won the convention elections in the lower South, but their margins of victory were far narrower than in South Carolina. The cooperationists polled about 40 percent of the overall vote, and in Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana they ran in a virtual dead heat with the straight-out secessionists. Somewhat surprisingly, given the issues involved and the high pitch of popular excitement, voter turnout fell by more than one-third from the levels in the November presidential election. The short time allotted for campaigning and the uncontested nature of many of the local races held down the vote. In addition, many conservatives boycotted the elections out of fear of reprisals if they publicly opposed secession. The key to the victory of the secessionists was their strength in the plantation districts. They carried four out of five counties in which the slaves comprised a majority of the population and ran weakest in counties with the fewest slaves. The yeomen, especially in the Alabama and Georgia mountains, were against immediate secession. Characteristically, they opposed a policy they associated with the black belt planters.
        Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana successively seceded in their January conventions. They were joined by Texas on February 1, 1861. Like falling dominoes, the secession of one state made it easier for the next to follow. In each convention the secessionists fought back efforts for a cooperative approach or last-ditch calls for a Southern conference to make final demands on the Republicans. They also defeated attempts by cooperarionists to submit the secession ordinances to a popular referendum. Only in Texas, where the secessionists were sensitive to the dubious legality by which they had forced the calling of a convention, was the decision on secession referred to the voters for their approval. In the end the secession ordinances passed by overwhelming majorities in all the conventions. This apparent unanimity however, belied the fact that in no state had the immediate secessionists carried enough votes to have made up a majority in the earlier presidential election. Once the decision for secession was inevitable, the cooperationists voted for the ordinances in a conscious attempt to impress the Republicans with Southern resolve and unity.
        Delegates from the seven seceded states met in Montgomery, Alabama, in February. Here, on the seventh, they adopted a Provisional Constitution (one closely modeled on the U.S. Constitution) for an independent Southern government and, on the ninth, elected Jefferson Davis of Mississippi as president. Thus, nearly a month before Lincolns inauguration on March 4, the secessionists had achieved one of their major goals. They had a functioning government in place before the Republicans had even assumed formal control of the Federal government.
Secession In The Upper South
        The collapse of the Crittenden Compromise in late December eliminated the already slim possibility that the drive toward secession might end with the withdrawal of South Carolina. Still, when Lincoln took office on March 4, the Republicans had reason to believe that the worst of the crisis was oven February elections in the Upper South had resulted in Unionist victories. In January the legislatures of five states-- Arkansas, Virginia, Missouri, Tennessee, and North Carolina--had issued calls for conventions. The secessionists suffered a sharp setback in all the elections.
        On February 4, Virginia voters chose to send moderates of various stripes to their convention by about a three-to-one margin. In yet another defeat for the secessionists, who opposed the measure, they also overwhelmingly approved a popular referendum on any decision reached by the convention. On February 9, Tennessee voted against holding a convention. Had one been approved, the Unionists elected would have composed an 80-percent majority. Arkansas and Missouri voted on February 18, and both elected Unionist majorities. On February 28, North Carolinians repeated the Tennessee pattern. They rejected the calling of a convention, which, in any event, would have been dominated by Unionists.
        By the end of February secession apparently had burnt itself out in the upper South. It was defeated either by a popular vote or, as in the case of the slave states of Kentucky, Delaware, and Missouri, by the inability of the secessionists to pressure the legislatures or governors to issue a call for a convention. Despite fiery speeches and persistent lobbying by secession commissioners appointed by the Confederate government, the antisecessionists held their ground. In a region that lacked the passionate commitment of the lower South to defending slavery, they were able to mobilize large Unionist majorities of nonslaveholders. In particular, they succeeded in detaching large numbers of the Democratic yeomanry from the secessionist, slaveholding wing of their party. The yeomanry responded to the fears invoked by the Unionists of being caught in the crossfire of a civil war, and nonslaveholders in general questioned how well their interests would be served in a planter-dominated Confederacy.
        A final factor accounting for the Unionist victories in the upper South was the meeting in Washington of the so-called Peace Convention called by the Virginia legislature. The delegates spent most of February debating various proposals for additional guarantees for slave property in an effort to find some basis for a voluntary reconstruction of the Union. Although boycotted by some of the Northern states and all of the states that had already seceded, the convention raised hopes of a national reconciliation and thereby strengthened the hand of the Unionists in the upper South. In the end, however, the convention was an exercise in futility. All it could come up with was a modified version of the Crittenden Compromise. Just before Lincolns inauguration, Republican votes in the Senate killed the proposal.
Pressures For Action Mount
        Throughout March and early April the Union remained in a state of quiescence that no one expected to last indefinitely. Both of the new governments, Lincoln's and Davis's, were under tremendous pressure to break the suspense by taking decisive action. Davis was criticized for not moving aggressively enough to bring the upper South into the Confederacy. Without that region and especially Virginia, it was argued, the Confederacy was but a cipher of a nation. It had negligible manufacturing capacity and only one-third of the South's free population. It desperately needed additional slave states to have a viable chance for survival. Just as desperately, Lincolns government needed to make good on its claim that the Union was indivisible. Buchanan had been mocked for his indecisiveness, and Lincoln knew that he bad to take a stand on enforcing Federal authority.
        The upper South now became a pawn in a power struggle between Lincoln and Davis. However much moderates in the upper South wanted to avoid a confrontation that would ignite a war, they were publicly committed to coming to the assistance of any Southern state that the Republicans attempted to coerce back into the Union. In short, Unionism in the upper South was always highly conditional in nature. This in turn made the region hostage to events beyond its control and gave the Confederacy the leverage it needed to pull in additional states.
        The only major Federal installations in the Confederacy still under Federal control when Lincoln became president were Fort Pickens in Pensacola Harbor and Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. The retention of these forts thereby became a test of the credibility of the Republicans as the defenders of the Union. By the same token, the acquisition of these forts was essential if the Confederacy were to lay claim to the full rights of a sovereign nation.
        On March 5, Lincoln learned from Maj. Robert Anderson, the commander at Fort Sumter, that dwindling food supplies would force an evacuation of the fort within four to six weeks. Lincoln decided against any immediate attempt to save the fort. On March 12, however, he issued orders for the reinforcement of Fort Pickens. More accessible to the Federal navy because of its location outside Pensacola Harbor beyond the range of Confederate artillery, Fort Pickens had the additional advantage of being overshadowed in the public consciousness by Fort Sumter, a highly charged symbol of Federal resolve in the state that had started secession. Presumably, it could be reinforced with less risk of precipitating a war than could Fort Sumter.
        Lincolns initial decision not to act on Fort Sumter was also a concession to William H. Seward, his secretary of state. Seward was the chief spokesman for what was called the policy of "masterly inactivity." He believed that Unionists in the upper South were on the verge of leading a process of voluntary reunion. If the upper South were not stampeded into joining the Confederacy by a coercive act by the Republicans, Seward argued, an isolated Confederacy would soon have no choice but to bargain to rejoin the Union. Everything depended, of course, on a conciliatory Republican policy.
        In pursuing this strategy, Lincoln temporarily considered a withdrawal from Fort Sumter in exchange for a binding commitment from the upper South not to leave the Union. Seward then made the mistake of assuming that evacuation was a foregone conclusion. He was conducting informal negotiations with three Confederate commissioners who were in Washington seeking a transfer of Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter. On March 15 he informed them through an intermediary to expect a speedy evacuation of Fort Sumter. When no such evacuation was forthcoming, Confederate leaders felt betrayed, and they vowed never again to trust the word of the Lincoln administration.
        Mounting demands in the North to take a stand at Fort Sumter, combined with Lincolns growing disillusionment over Southern Unionism, convinced the president that he would have to challenge the Confederacy over the issue of Fort Sumter. On March 29 he told his cabinet that he was preparing a relief expedition. He delayed informing Major Anderson of that decision until after a meeting on April 4 with John Baldwin, a Virginia Unionist. Although no firsthand account of this meeting exists, the discussion apparently confirmed Lincolns belief that the upper South could not broker a voluntary reunion on terms acceptable to the Republican party. The final orders for the relief expedition were issued on April 6, the day that Lincoln learned that Fort Pickens had not yet been reinforced because of a mix-up in the chain of command.
        News of Lincolns decision to reinforce Fort Sumter "with provisions only" reached Montgomery, the Confederate capital, on April 8. The next day Davis ordered Gen. P G. T. Beauregard, the Confederate commander at Charleston, to demand an immediate surrender of the fort. If Major Anderson refused, Beauregard was to attack the fort. Davis always felt that war was inevitable, and for months the most radical of the secessionists had been insisting that a military confrontation would be necessary to force the upper South into secession. Davis was convinced that he had no alternative but to counter Lincolns move with a show of force.
        Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter on April 12, and the fort surrendered two days later On April 15 Lincoln issued a call for seventy-five thousand stare militia to put down what he described as an insurrection against lawful authority. It was this call for troops, and not just the armed clash at Fort Sumter, that specifically triggered secession in the upper South. The Unionist majorities there suddenly dissolved once the choice shifted from supporting the Union or the Confederacy to fighting for or against fellow Southerners.
        The Virginia convention, which had remained in session after rejecting immediate secession on April 4, passed a secession ordinance on April 17. Its decision was overwhelmingly ratified on May 23 in a popular referendum. Three other states quickly followed. A reconvened Arkansas convention voted to go out on May 6. The Tennessee legislature, in a move later ratified in a popular referendum, also approved secession on May 6. A hastily called North Carolina convention, elected on May 13, took the Tarheel State out on May 20.
        By the late spring of 1861 the stage was set for the bloodiest war in American history The popular reaction to the firing on Fort Sumter and Lincolns call for troops unified the North behind a crusade to preserve the Union and solidified, at least temporarily, a divided South behind the cause of Southern independence.
Source:  "The Confederacy" A Macmillan Information Now Encyclopedia.  Article by William L. Barney
As reported by the New York Times – December 1860
Dec. 14 – 20, 1860
The Buchanan presidency is collapsing, like a once stately mansion falling joist by joist and beam by beam into utter ruin. The only question at the start of this week was which would dissolve first, the government or the union. We saw that the union went first.
To begin the week, the two great mainstays of the president’s Cabinet departed. First Howell Cobb quit the treasury department; once a staunch union man who helped tamp down the dissolution fever of 1850, Cobb now sees secession inevitable; with his departure goes the wan hope that he could have somehow placated the secessionists in Georgia.
Hot on the heels of Cobb, the aged Lewis Cass quit state, but only after leveling a double-barreled blast of indignation that the president hadn’t acted on Cass’s advice that the forts be reinforced. His denunciation left him a hero to the unionists for a day, but his proclamation was self-serving; three weeks ago he might have helped the president find a path, but instead he merely contributed to the confusion.
Official friends gone, personal friends next. Senator Slidell of Louisiana and Senator Gwin of California, two men who had during many long years of public service been the closest and most dependable of Buchanan’s allies, visited the president at the White House and chastised him for refusing to publicly declare that no reinforcements would be sent to Charleston. That was too much for poor Buchanan. Tired of taking it in the neck from nominal allies and friends now manning both sides of the controversy, Buchanan barked that he had heard enough and was sorry he had ever taken any advice from any of them, an outburst that caused the two senators to walk out in a in huff.

Next to disappear was the president’s power. Two days after Slidell and Gwin departed, even while the agents of conciliation labored on the side of the president to forge a Congressional compromise, seven senators and 23 representatives from southern states preemptively issued a manifesto urging secession and the formation of a southern confederacy. “The argument is exhausted,” they maintained. “All hope of relief in the Union through the agency of committees, Congressional legislation, or constitutional amendments, is extinguished. The Republicans are resolute in the purpose to grant nothing that will or ought to satisfy the South. We are satisfied the honor, safety and independence of the Southern people are to be found in a Southern confederacy.”
Buchanan barely had time to assess this setback before hearing that William Browne, the editor of The Washington Constitution, had come out in favor of secession. The newspaper is widely considered to be the semi-official voice of the administration, although in this case Buchanan had offered Browne no instructions. Rebuffed by the secessionists, Buchanan was then rebuked by the unionists. For God’s sake, they groused, can’t the government take the side of the union?
Insults rained down on the Old Public Functionary, many of them assailing him for imbecility (Sen. Grimes: “Such a perfect imbecile”) or loyalty (Vice President-elect Hamlin: “I cannot see why the president is not just as guilty as the men in South Carolina.”) The final indignity was authored by one of those very men, Francis Pickens, the state’s newly installed governor. Pickens, a portly, bewigged owner of more than 400 slaves, and an ardent secessionist (“I would be willing to appeal to the god of battles, if need be, to cover the state with ruin, conflagration and blood, rather than submit,” is a recent quote), is nominally a friend of the president. He wrote Buchanan a letter, saying, “I am authentically informed that the forts in Charleston harbor are now being thoroughly prepared to turn, with effect, their guns upon the interior and the city.”
Were that true, it would contravene Buchanan’s own promise to maintain the status quo in Charleston. The governor then had the temerity to suggest that Buchanan turn Fort Sumter over to Pickens for safekeeping. Thus in one preemptory note did a governor of two days’ tenure not only suggest that the president of the United States had broken his word, but then advised said president to yield his responsibility to protect federal property to the same governor of two days’ tenure.
But this insult was not the week’s final blow.
South Carolina’s Secession Convention was called to order in Columbia on the 17th. For some delegates this was a moment reached after a 40-day sprint, and for others after a trek three decades in length, but all had come to proclaim their liberty and to sire a new nation, and the air was filled with promise and glory. “To dare! And again to dare! And without end to dare,” said the president of the convention, the scholar-planter D.F. Jamison, invoking the noble Danton’s defiance of the enemies of France.
The New York Times Announcement of the secession.
Inspired by his words, the convention then took as its first order of business the question of whether it might dare move itself to Charleston. An outbreak of smallpox had erupted concurrently with the arrival of the delegates. Rumor had it that abolitionists had contaminated a box of rags with the disease in an effort to decapitate the rebellion, and many delegates thought it would be prudent to hightail the convention to Charleston on the four o’clock train.
No, protested the longtime fire-eater William Porcher Miles, his voice acquiring the tone of a keyless bridegroom confronting a locked bed chamber on his wedding night. “We must not allow mockers to say that we were prepared to face a world in arms, but that we ran away from the smallpox.” The suitably chagrined delegates then voted unanimously to promise they would consider secession just as soon as they got to Charleston, but for now there was the matter of that train.
After being greeted in smallpoxless Charleston with applause, band music and a 15-gun salute, the delegates invested two days in procedures. Shortly after one o’clock on the 20th, however, the critical vote was cast, and by unanimous decision, South Carolina declared its independence. On the streets, delirium prevailed. As the bells of St. Michael’s Church pealed, the taverns disgorged their roisterers, who sang and marched and shot rockets into the air.
In the evening, a more solemn celebration was held. At 6:30, the members of the convention marched in ceremonious procession to the venerable Institute Hall, Jamison at their head. He carried the official Secession Ordinance, a 23-inch-by-28-inch rectangle of thick linen parchment that had been inscribed with the statement of dissolution and stamped with the great silver Seal of the State of South Carolina. As the procession entered the hall, a crowd of 3000 shouted and whistled its approval. Reverend John Bachman then blessed the proceedings, and the delegates were summoned forward, alphabetically by election district, to sign the document. It took about two hours for all 169 delegates to affix their names.
Ninety percent of these men are slave owners. Sixty percent of them own at least 20 slaves. Forty percent of them own at least 50. Sixteen percent of them own 100 slaves or more.
The final delegate to sign was the former governor, John Lawrence Manning. Like Moses holding the tablets of Decalogue, Manning lifted the Ordinance above his head. Flanked by two palmetto trees, he was joined in this tableau by Jamison, who proclaimed South Carolina to be an independent commonwealth. The members of the crowd cheered and cheered, and once the proceeding adjourned, pressed forward. Searching for souvenirs of the great moment, they began stripping the palmettos of their razor-sharp fronds, which they then waved about their heads like Napoleon’s mamelukes as they surged from the auditorium and waded into the pandemonium of the streets.
In Washington now, a mood far more somber prevails. The holiday season, normally an occasion for gaiety, has acquired a distinctly gloomy cast. Friends of decades’ standing find themselves on opposite sides; men and women whose fathers stood with Washington on the battlefields of the revolution cannot bear to meet one another’s eye. Northerners visit only Northerners, and Southerners the same; and even at those occasions, the mood is heavy.
There was one party, however, that would not be postponed, that of the wedding of John Bouligny, the popular congressman from Louisiana and one of the very few officials from the deep South who opposed secession, to Mary Parker, daughter of Washington’s wealthiest grocer. The bride’s father had produced a magnificent spectacle, filling his large home with roses and lilies and illuminated fountains. The president came, joined by his niece Harriet Lane, and was the first to kiss the bride.
It was a happy event in a beautiful setting, reminiscent of so many other happy events and beautiful settings the president had enjoyed in his younger days as a diplomat in Russia and Great Britain. But soon the mood was broken by a commotion instigated by the entrance of Lawrence Keitt, the brash, bombastic, recently resigned congressman of South Carolina. Jumping, bellowing, waving a piece of paper over his head, he shouted “Thank God!’’ again and again. Finally he elaborated. “South Carolina has seceded! Here’s the telegram! I feel like a boy let out of school.’’
When eyes at last left the jubilant Keitt, they fell on Buchanan, his face ashen, who slumped in his chair as though he had been struck. “Madam,’’ he at last said to his hostess, “might I beg you to have my carriage called?” And with that he returned to the White House, to resume his time on the rack.
Sources: To learn more about these events, please see “Days of Defiance,” by Maury Klein (Alfred A. Knopf, 1997), “Freedom Rising,’’ by Ernest B. Furgurson, (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004) and The Road to Disunion Vol. II: Secessionist Triumphant, by William W. Freehling” (Oxford University Press, 2007).
SECESSION!!! South Carolina leaves the union 20 Dec, 1869
SECESSION!!! South Carolina leaves the union 20 Dec, 1869

The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the Crittenden Compromise

The election of  Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and the Crittenden Compromise Political flag of the day / credit telegraph.co.uk
On the 6th of November, the 150th anniversary of the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, was being celebrated. This election shall in many avenues, change the fact of this nation from hence forth. The 1860 election proved to be one of the most momentous in American history at it came at a time of national crisis, and brought Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency.
The man viewed many as an abolitionist or black Republican who fought the war for the freedom of the slave, is not as you would be lead to believe. Today, he by some is viewed as a racist in some respects.
Abraham Lincoln immortalized in American history by the role that he played in abolishing the institution of slavery, but he arrived at this distinction only after a long career of opposition to abolitionism. This at first seems paradoxical, for he had always actively disliked slavery, and he came into national prominence as a politician by strenuously opposing its extension into the territories. However, in the 1850s, with the breakup of the Whig party, Lincoln parted ways with some of his oldest political associates by deciding to make common cause with antislavery activists in the newly formed Republican Party. But he was never an abolitionist, and the question that inevitably presents itself, "if he hated slavery so much, why did Lincoln not become an abolitionist?"
To answer this; Lincoln’s attitudes toward slavery and what he, as a politician, proposed should be done about it. Though the historical record has always been reasonably clear, the Great Emancipator legend has had a decidedly distorting effect on our understanding of Lincoln’s position, confusing him with those who openly advocated the abolition of slavery. In fact, Lincoln was always keenly aware that slavery, though morally wrong in his eyes, was sanctioned by law, and he frequently acknowledged that the rights of slave owners, both to retain their slaves and to have fugitive slaves returned, were clearly guaranteed in the Constitution. Before the outbreak of civil war, he advocated nothing that would directly challenge those rights. This position sharply distinguished him from abolitionists, many of whom were actively involved in supporting runaway slaves, and all of whom viewed the returning of fugitive slaves as unconscionable, whatever the Constitution might dictate. The most radical abolitionists openly denounced the Constitution for its protection of slavery and repudiated its authority.
The issue of secession was being talked about even before the 1860 election, and Lincoln's election intensified the move in the South to split with the Union. And when Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, it seemed obvious that the nation was on an inescapable path toward Civil War. Indeed, the Civil War began the next month. With it came the deaths of over 630,000 Americans from both the Union and Confederate Armys.
The players;
In the 1860 election, the Democratic Party split into two factions. The northern Democrats nominated Lincoln’s perennial rival, Senator Stephen A. Douglas. The southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckenridge, the incumbent vice president, a pro-slavery man from Kentucky.  Those who felt they could support neither party, mainly disaffected former Whigs and members of the Know-Nothing Party, formed the Constitutional Union Party and nominated John Bell of Tennessee.
Before the end of the war, the two main participants, Lincoln and Douglas will be dead.
The presidential election was held on November 6, 1860. Lincoln did very well in the northern states, and though he garnered less than 40 percent of the popular vote nationwide, he won a landslide victory in the Electoral College. Even if the Democratic Party had not fractured, its likely Lincoln still would have won due to his strength in states heavy with electoral votes.
Ominously, Lincoln did not carry any southern states being that he was not even on the ballot in 11 of them.
The Breakdown is as follows:
 
On Tuesday, November 6th, 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected with Hannibal Hamlin of Maine his Vice-President. Lincoln and Hamlin received 1,866,452 popular votes and 180 electoral votes in 17 of the 33 states. The Northern Democratic ticket of Douglas and Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia drew 1,376,957 popular votes, but only 12 electoral votes (9 from Missouri and 3 from New Jersey). The Southern Democratic ticket of Breckinridge and Joseph Lane of Oregon received 849,781 popular votes from 11 of the 15 slave states, for 72 electoral votes. The Constitutional Unionists Bell and John Everett of Massachusetts received 588,879 popular votes and 39 electoral votes (Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia).
                                                                                                                         
Even before taking office, he had to deal with the issues of the day.  His predecessor, President James Buchanan, left him with a country on the edge of Civil War.
On Dec. 11, 1860, with South Carolina’s secession looming, President-elect Abraham Lincoln wrote a letter to Illinois Rep. William Kellogg, a fellow Republican. Publicly, Lincoln was keeping silent on the emerging crisis. But his letter was designed to achieve one objective: to sabotage a sectional compromise to save the Union.
Marked “Private & confidential,” the letter instructed Kellogg to “entertain no proposition for a compromise in regard to the extension of slavery. The instant you do, they have us under again; all our labor is lost, and sooner or later must be done over. … Have none of it. The tug has to come & better now than later.”
Crittenden’s plan consisted of a package of constitutional amendments and congressional resolutions, all of which would be “unamendable.” Among their provisions, these amendments would have protected slavery in all of the slave states from future actions by Congress; permitted slavery to spread in all federal territories and future territories below the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude (which runs roughly along the northern border of North Carolina, Tennesee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona); forbidden Congress from abolishing slavery on federal property within a slave state; prevented Congress from interfering with the interstate slave trade; and indemnified owners whose runaway slaves could not be recovered under the Fugitive Slave Law.
The compromise won immediate praise; many politicians hailed it as a gesture of supreme wisdom that could forestall secession. Even William Seward, the New York senator whom Lincoln would soon tap to be secretary of state, seemed to support it.
Lincoln’s letters of the time proved decisive in the compromise’s eventual defeat. To examine the plan, the Senate had established the Committee of Thirteen; thanks in large part to Lincoln’s goading, all five Republicans on the committee opposed it. In turn two southern members on the committee, Robert Toombs and Jefferson Davis, voted against it on the grounds that such unified Republican opposition made the compromise worthless. When Crittenden took his plan to the Senate floor on Jan. 16, 1861, it was voted down 25-23. Every one of the 25 no votes were cast by a Republican.
But Lincoln was being disingenuous. His object had always been to save the Union his way: with the institution of slavery on course for “ultimate extinction,” as he put it in his 1858 House Divided speech. “I believe,” he had proclaimed in that fiery address, that “this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new – North as well as South.” Lincoln meant to guarantee that his American “house” would be united in the right way – with slavery on course for extinction – not the wrong way, with slavery spreading.
Then… An Ordinance to dissolve the Union between the State of South Carolina and other States," or the South Carolina Ordinance of Secession, 20 December 1860
Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, may be found at
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Abhorring war, Abraham Lincoln accepted War as the only means to save the Union….and the rest as they say is history…
For more information of the election and the war;
http://americancivilwar.com/north/abe_lincoln.html
www.civilwarhome.com/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/abrahamlincoln