August 2017

Welcome to the monthly newsletter. If you wish to be notified of each new issue, send an email to subscribe@floridareenactorsonline.com. ALL Writers are welcomed: Confederate, Union, and Civilian. If you wish to submit an article, or have any questions, send an email to webmaster@floridareenactorsonline.com. YOS, Ham

For additional event information, please visit the EVENTS page for a complete listing.

September 8-10: Battle of Tunnel Hill, GA Sept. 29 - Oct. 1: Rifles, Rails & History - Tavares, FL Sept. 29 - Oct. 1: Occupation of Palatka, FL Sept. 29 - Oct. 1: Parrish Train Raid, FL EVENT CANCELED - Nov. 10-12: Raid on the Suwannee River EVENT CANCELED - Mar. 9-11: Nature Coast Reenactment - Kirby Farms,

Williston, FL

In Memoriam

Col. Dwight Dovel

Written by Pastor Phil DuFrene

Be an encourager...you never know where it will lead

Dwight Dovel died on May 11th. You likely don't know Dwight, yet he had a significant influence on my ministry to seafarers.

Dwight was an infantry Viet-vet with a Purple Heart to prove it. He ended up in Florida, became a building contractor and local archaeologist.

He was also a Civil War re-enactor. He founded the 75th Ohio Volunteer Infantry and commanded the Union forces for events across central Florida.

I started re-enacting in 2000 and chose the impression of a battlefield chaplain. That fall I had the opportunity to participate in a national re-enactment of the Battle of Chancellorsville in Virginia. It would be my first event as chaplain. I'm sure they wondered what I would be like. Would I hang back? Would I be some hellfire and brimstone preacher? Would I push my faith on them?

Almost quit before I started I had second thoughts about going because of the cost and time off work. I called Dwight, who I barely knew, and said "I won't be able to make it." He wouldn't hear of it. Nope. I had to come. He wanted me there. They needed a chaplain. So, I went. Armed with a few sentences of instruction and wisdom from my Army chaplain friend Mike, I fell in with the troops and had a great time. We felt sorry for the chartered bus driver who took us home. We reeked from four days in high humidity, wool clothing, smoky campfires, dirt and sweat. Pee-ouuuuu! (He got an extra tip for "hazard duty.") I took on the role of Rev. John Weakly, the original 75th's Methodist chaplain. What a privilege to visit Eaton, Ohio and stand behind the pulpit he preached at and visit his grave.

I'm still reenacting. I've dragged hundreds of wounded off the field, prayed over "dying" soldiers, died in battle, preached sermons and had heart-to-hearts with my friends. Dwight once told me, "Every re-enactor in Florida knows about you."

So where does Dwight fit into this?

Dwight loved people and good times. Having a chaplain in the ranks was just part of the hobby. But his insistence I come gave me the Best School of Chaplaincy I could ever attend.

It taught me how to be a working man's chaplain...to be like Christ without pushing Christ. To encourage all people toward faith in God. I found people of strong faith in Christ who didn't worship like me. I learned to roll with the punches when the talk got rough. I learned that when guys laughed and joked and said, "Hey, boys, put away the cards and whiskey ...here comes the chaplain," it was a sign of acceptance. I learned that to earn respect you stay with the guys in the camp, on the march and on the field...you sweat, yell and get dusty along with them.

Though Dwight seldom came to chapel he made sure chapel happened. He would sit in the front and always declare, "Don't sit next to me 'cuz fire from heaven will probably strike me!" We all enjoyed the laugh.

I was always welcome at the infamous and raucous 75th Infantry campfires. Dwight would warn me that my ears might hurt if I hung around! I assured him that my ears weren't made of thin crystal glass and there wasn't nothin' they hadn't already heard.

Then one evening I privately said to Dwight at the campfire, "You know what makes a good chaplain?" He said, "What?" I said, "A good chaplain knows when to leave the campfire." He just smiled and I slipped away to work on tomorrow's sermon. A chaplain knows when to quietly leave and let people enjoy their life their way.

Dwight pushed me toward an opportunity

After Dwight's passing I realized my best chaplain training came from being a re-enactor...and I would've missed that if he hadn't demanded, "We need you at Chancellorsville."

To be honest, I know little about institutional chaplaincy. God bless the institutional chaplain. Seafarers are simply glad someone comes to visit them, encourage them, listen to their stories and concerns, and look at family photos. They appreciate reminders of morality and integrity, the re-enforcement of their father's wisdom and encouragement toward faith in God.

And sometimes there's an appropriate and respectful opening to present Christ. (1 Peter 3:15...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.) Chaplaincy is caring for the whole person without qualification or veiled agenda.

I won't judge Dwight's faith. We talked about Christ. When his own father passed away Dwight said, "He made his peace with God." None of us can know the deep conversations a person has with God in their last days. I hope Dwight made true peace with God. Maybe in his last days he said, "God, I don't know you very well, but I remember something Chaplain Phil said..."

Those of us who knew him truly honor his memory. And I remember his no-nonsense encouragement that opened a great door of opportunity, training and friendship.

Be an encourager

There's a takeaway for all of us: when we encourage others who are hesitant to do a good thing, we never know where it might lead them. I'll vouch for that.

Meanwhile, my ships keep coming and it's time to go to the mission field again. Time to recharge the Wi-Fi, fill the jelly bean jar, get more socks and check the literature. Thank you for making it all possible through your prayers and gifts. Yours in Christ, Phil DuFrene

After Action Report:

Battle of Mobile Bay

by Ron Boyce

The Pawnee Guard participated in the annual Battle of Mobile Bay reenactment at Ft. Gaines, the weekend of May 20-21. Although a Florida based unit, the Pawnee often travels to events further out including national events up north. The members live throughout the southeast, from Tampa the Panhandle of Florida and even south Georgia.

The members covered on Ft Gaines with their rowed launch in tow. After settling into their quarters Friday afternoon, they headed out to the fort to participate in an evening soiree hosted by the lovely ladies of the fort. Fort Gaines played an integral role in the defense of Mobile Bay, protecting the western entrance to the bay, which was a one of the last Confederate ports still actively sending and receiving blockade runners. The brick fort built in the traditional pentagon style has additional batteries added before the Spanish American war, but the interior and most

of the walls are still as they were during the Civil War. Troops can stay in the fort in barracks complete with bunk beds, the storage rooms, or out in the courtyard in tents as well as outside the fort in tents. Saturday dawned windy, with a choppy sea running and intermittent rain. A storm had passed the night before and downed several flies and some tents, but the reenactors hung in there and when the battle time came, the sun peeked out and joined in. The Pawnee Guard launched their boat loaded with Marines and moved around the point to just opposite the fort's walls. The gunboat started the bombardment and the army troops and 2 howitzers joined in as the Marine Guard approached the beach to assault the fort from the sea. The Pawnee landed in heavy surf, and joined in the assault. The Marines from the Alabama detachment moved up and took the center, Pawnee on the right flank, and the 2 howitzers with a dismounted federal cavalry guard on the left flank. They all concentrated on the corner bastion which was manned by the Confederate Artillery unit Manning the walls. A Confederate Marine detachment operated a howitzer on the center wall as a heavy artillery unit manned a main gun on the northern bastion. The Pawnee engaged the northern gun crew at first as they moved in towards the fort's high wall. When they closer, they swung in towards the corner bastion and placed the defenders under enfilade fire which soon led to the surrender of the fort.

The entire Union detachment entered the fort, took the surrender of the stalwart defenders and marched them out of the fort. Rain came back off and on and came on stronger Sunday. The reenactors stayed on hoping it would break but it didn't and Sunday's battle had to be canceled. Despite the weather, everyone had a great time and enjoyed the camaraderie of the unit and the chance to do an a rare amphibious assault. For more pictures, see the Pawnee Guard Facebook page. For more information on the Pawnee Guard, check their website at www.pawneeguard.com or email us at

pawneeguard@gmail.com.

Biscuit Recipe Used by Confederate Soldiers

FEBRUARY 27, 2017 / SANDRAMERVILLEHART

Confederate soldiers were often low on supplies and food rations. They had to make do with what ingredients found nearby. Confederates published a fun book of recipes in 1863 called Confederate Receipt Book. I tried one of the biscuit recipes. In reading the recipe before starting, one thing that struck me was that they used cream of tartar. Other food recipes called for tartaric acid. I hadn’t used that in biscuits and wondered if it was a readily-available ingredient for Southern soldiers. A little research showed that many plants, including grapes, have tartaric acid, which is an organic acid. The process of making wine creates cream of tartar. It is a leavening agent. Since food supplies were often scarce for Southern soldiers, it makes sense that they used whatever they had on hand and adapted it.

Measure 4 cups of all-purpose flour into a mixing bowl. Add 3 teaspoons of cream of tartar and mix thoroughly. Add 2 tablespoons of shortening. Use a fork to cut the shortening into the flour mixture. It won’t look much differently after combined because it’s not a lot of shortening. Most modern recipes call for ½ cup or ¾ cup of shortening (or butter) but I wanted to try the Confederate soldiers’ recipe so I didn’t alter it.

Dissolve 1 teaspoon of baking soda into about 1 ½ cups of warm water. Stir and add to the dry ingredients to make a dough. If more water is needed, add a little at a time until the dough is the right consistency. You may notice, as I did, that there is no salt in this recipe. I didn’t add any.

I imagined that soldiers baked their biscuits in a skillet. I greased the skillet with shortening—not cooking spray because the men in Civil War camps didn’t have that. I baked my biscuits in a 425 oven for twenty minutes and then increased the temperature to 450 for another 4 or 5 minutes because they were taking longer than normal. I usually bake food at 425 if the recipe calls for 450 because it’s easy to burn. Next time I will bake these biscuits at 450 for 12 to 14 minutes or until lightly browned. They rose nicely in the oven, almost doubling. They looked great. The consistency was really nice, but I missed the salt. It would have tasted better with a teaspoon of salt in the flour mixture. I wondered at first if salt was often in short supply. Maybe that was the reason for omitting salt from biscuits. Then another possibility occurred to me. Salting meat was a way of preserving it before refrigeration. If the meat was already salty, the soldier probably didn’t need it in the biscuits, too. Most Civil War soldiers didn’t know much about cooking at the beginning of the war. Mothers, wives, and sisters usually did the cooking and baking back at home. The men adapted pretty well . . . and even published a few of their recipes! -Sandra Merville Hart Sources A Compilation of Over One Hundred Receipts, Adapted to the Times. Confederate Receipt Book, Applewood Books, 1863. “Tartaric Acid,” Wikipedia.com, 2017/02/06 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartaric_acid.

Why we need confederate monuments

By Caroline E. Janney

Article originally published by the Washington Post

Confederate monuments aren’t just testaments to the nation’s past, but to how Americans have fought over their history (REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst)

Since the horrific church shooting in Charleston, S.C., two years ago, calls to remove Confederate flags and monuments have swept the South from Virginia to Texas. Contrary to contemporary claims that chants to “take it down” are a product of liberal campaigns for political correctness or a new target of the Black Lives Matter movement, contests over Civil War symbols and memorials have divided the country for more than 150 years.

Calls to “take it down” have been offered as a solution to modern race relations — a way to construct more inclusive communities. But in removing monuments, we not only eliminate memorials to the Confederacy, but also erase the history of those who fought against the values the monuments claim to represent.

For many, the memory of the war proved as polarizing as the war itself. Bitter debates over the placement and meaning of monuments emerged as early as 1865 in the North and the South. And these debates revealed time after time that there has never been a single historical interpretation of what the Civil War meant — for Unionists or Confederates, for black or white.

Recent monument controversies, in particular, have focused on the character of the people whom they depict, such as memorials to Robert E. Lee. But these monuments reveal more about who built them and why they did so than the figure they propose to honor.

Consider, for example, the controversy stirred over a memorial erected not in the former Confederacy to celebrate a military leader, but rather in a small Union town that honored a black man. In October 1931, descendants of Confederate veterans gathered in Harpers Ferry, W.Va., to unveil their memorial to Heyward Shepherd, a black man who died during the abolitionist John Brown’s 1859 raid. In 1867, former Confederates began calling for a memorial to Shepherd as a victim of Brown’s misguided attempt to destroy the South and incite civil war. For decades, nothing happened. But when the local black college dedicated a tablet to Brown in 1918, the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) renewed their efforts to reclaim the commemorative landscape.

Although they discovered that Shepherd was a free man accidentally killed in the raid, they chose to celebrate him as a loyal and faithful slave who had refused to participate in Brown’s abolitionist plot. With the rising prominence of civil rights groups like the NAACP speaking out against white supremacy, this narrative of Shepherd offered an alternative: a loyal black man who accepted his place in a segregated society. The monument divided the African American community and exposed different political philosophies on how to confront the pervasive economic and social system of white supremacy. While some hoped that the monument might increase interracial harmony by stressing the fidelity of a black man, others expressed outrage with the UDC’s manipulation of history.

At the dedication, Pearl Tatten, the black music director and daughter of a Union soldier, unexpectedly rose and offered a different narrative. Rather than framing John Brown as a radical abolitionist who killed a faithful slave, she heralded Brown as the valiant defender of freedom who “struck the first blow” against the tyranny of slavery for which her father and other Union soldiers fought.

Condemning the memorial as the “Uncle Tom Slave Monument,” black leaders and the black press followed her lead and launched blistering attacks. But they did not settle for words alone. If whites insisted upon “giving the Confederate point of view” in memorializing a so-called faithful slave, African Americans would counter with their own. The following year, they dedicated another memorial to Brown — one that depicted him as a hero whose traits challenged acceptable black behavior in the Jim Crow South.

Despite continued opposition, the original stone monument to Shepherd remained. Forty years later it sparked renewed conflict between Confederate groups and the NAACP. Removed by the National Park Service (NPS) for renovations in 1976, the memorial was tucked away in storage. After an inquiry by the UDC, the NPS agreed to return it — if it was accompanied by interpretive plaque that explained its controversial history.

Both the UDC and the NAACP vehemently disagreed with this compromise. The UDC saw no need for a sign, while the NAACP saw no need for the memorial. Not wanting to exacerbate tensions, the park elected instead to return the stone memorial to the street but cover it with plywood.

For fourteen years, the memorial remained covered. When another round of queries forced the park to remove the plywood in 1994, administrators agreed only with the provision that an interpretive

sign be added giving the memorial’s history and a tribute to Brown written by civil rights activist W.E.B Du Bois.

Neither side was any happier with this compromise than they had been with the proposal 14 years earlier. Confederate heritage groups derided the need for an interpretive sign. Monuments should speak for themselves, they declared. NAACP leaders hoped that the monument might be dumped in the Potomac River, castigating the Confederate heritage groups for implying that Shepherd and “thousands of other” African Americans supported the Confederacy.

Today the Shepherd memorial still stands in its inconspicuous spot along Potomac Street. And while its inscription is at the very least misleading, its presence — along with the NPS plaque — offers valuable lessons about the contested nature of Civil War memory.

If the NPS had not returned the Shepherd monument and provided the interpretive sign, it would have overlooked the African American activists who fought to reclaim their history of the Civil War as part of their quest for equal citizenship. In fact, it would be easier to forget that the Civil War’s legacy has always been contentious. But the war and its symbols have always held different meanings for different groups, and confronting that history is imperative.

As New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu asked in his May address on the removal of that city’s Confederate monuments, how should an African-American mother or father explain to their child who Robert E. Lee was and why he towered above the city’s landscape?

Landrieu’s removal of the statues, however, does precisely what he rails against: It omits the past. Empty pedestals are just that: void of meaning all together.

The stone sentinels that dot our landscape serve as artifacts of the past, as evidence of where we have been as a nation. Of where we might yet go. And they offer us the opportunity — if we will only take it — to question why more than 150 years after the Civil War, so much divisiveness yet remains.

155 Years After Confederate Sub Sank, Researchers Find What They’ve Been Looking

For In Wreckage

By Alexander Smith

Published by American Web Media

1864 marked a pivotal year in maritime warfare. That’s when H.L. Hunley launched into the water and sank a ship in battle. It was the first ever to do so. This Confederate submarine sank the Housatonic. The explosion of the submarine tore a hole in the Housatonic and sank both vessels. The submarine sank to the bottom of the sea with eight crew members on board. The vessel would sit at the bottom of the ocean, slowly deteriorating, until Americans had enough technology to dredge it back up to the surface in 2000. That’s when the researchers made the chilling discovery about the submarine… The human remains found in the Hunley were officially buried in a military ceremony in 2004. Although they were official put to rest, CNN reported that researchers were cleaning caked-on debris from the submarine and made another discovery. They found a tooth near where 24-year-old crew member Frank Collins had reportedly sat. Dr. Doug Owsley, forensic expert with the Smithsonian Institution, said, “Collins was the largest man among the Hunley crew. He rarely used tobacco, if at all, and unlike some of his crewmates who have worn notches in their teeth from pipes, he has ‘tailor notches,’ which means he used his teeth in activities involving metal needles.” “It’s that ‘wow’ moment when you step back and realize what you’re doing,” Johanna Rivera, one of the conservators, told CNN affiliate WCIV-TV in Charleston. It was determined that the tooth wound up where it was after the crewmen had died. Besides the tooth, the researchers found textiles and a thin metal wrapped around a hand crank. This showed them how the crew had operated the submarine. “When you’re turning an iron bar in front of you, or below you, you’re going to need something to keep your hands from chafing or rubbing them raw,” archaeologist Michael Scafuri told WCIV. The new findings provided insight into how the submarine was operated but still researchers don’t know why the submarine sank after its bold and successful strike on the Union ship. However, researchers have some theories why the submarine sank after attacking.

The first suggests that the Hunley was swamped by a Union vessel. Another suggests that it plunged to avoid detection and never made it back up. When the submarine was recovered, a latch in the forward part of the vessel was found to be ajar. This could have caused the catastrophic results. Or a treasure hunter might have found it years before the researchers. The human remains were all found still seated at their stations. The men did not panic and try to escape from the hatch. Although some of the mysteries of the H.L. Hunley have been answered, others still remain undiscovered. Nevertheless, work will still be conducted on the Confederate submarine for some years. Conservationists need to remove the sediment that has built up in the vessel. When the submarine is finished being restored it will go on display in a museum though it is unclear where as of yet. What do you think about this historic Civil War submarine? Should it be displayed in a national museum?

The Morrill Tariff

and Civil War

by Ralph Epifanio

One tasked to pinpoint the root cause of the Civil War will find the topic far more complicated than generally thought. Research will reveal less a cause, than a long list of events. (Can history be accurately studied in any other way?) These events contributed to an unraveling of relations between sections, separated from each other by more than geography. From the start, our United States has always been far from that. Countries within a country, each chafing under expression of the other's expressed self-interest, the resultant build-up of unresolved tension could have had but one conclusion. The scenario can best be described as a "domino effect," where one domino trips a second, the second a third, and so on. But what was the final domino to fall, the one that ended in a bang, that is the question.

What follows is an 85 year time line that stretches from hope to hate. 1775-83 - In a great civil war, men of different races join in a fight to overthrow their government, and start anew. 1776 - The Declaration of Independence declares that "all men are created equal." 1786 - A convention to strengthen the Articles of Confederation is proposed. That great orator, Patrick Henry of Virginia, fearful that results would weaken states' rights, claims "I smell a rat," and declines an invitation to attend. Events prove that he was dead-on in his suspicions. 1787 - Behind the secrecy of a closed-door debate, sectionalism reigns over the convention. Obstacles are overcome by two major, and many minor compromises. The Great Compromise (proposed by Roger Sherman of Connecticut) results in a two-house legislature. The 3/5 compromise (proposed by Sherman and James Wilson (Pa.) counts each slave as 3/5 of a person toward representation. The resultant "living document" of freedom, the U.S. Constitution, creates a revolutionary government. Several signers foresee that elemental, unresolved conflict will someday result in war. 1791 - The St. Dominguez (Haiti) slave uprising cause fear that the same thing could happen in America. These fears lead to conspiracies--some imagined, some not-- and martial laws. 1793 -The Fugitive Slave Law mandates the return of escaped slaves. 1803 -The Louisiana Purchase promises American expansion westward, which many interpret to mean slavery will follow that western migration. 1807 - Jefferson signs a law stating that the foreign slave trade will end in 1808. But Art. I, Section 9 of the Constitution states, "…a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Despite—or perhaps as a result of—this contradictory statement, the trans-Atlantic slave trade continues for another 52 years. 1817 - In a sign of sectional difference, John C. Calhoun's Bonus Bill (idea of joining nation with a perfect system of roads and canals) is vetoed by Pres. James Madison. 1817 - The Erie Canal opens, benefitting the North in general, and New York State in particular, making the latter "The Empire State." 1820 - The Missouri Compromise defines the limits of slavery. 1821 - As a result of the Mexican War for Independence, Spain leaves mainland North America, and Americans migrate into the Texas. 1822 - Denmark Vesey plots a slave uprising in Charleston, SC, and thus reignites Southern fears of another St. Dominguez race war.

1828 - The "Tariff of Abominations" creates a 45% trade barrier, which promotes northern industry at the expense of southern agriculture. 1829 - Mexico emancipates its slaves. 1831 - Nat Turner leads the Southampton Insurrection, giving rise to night patrols. 1832 - The 1828 Tariff is lowered to 35%. 1832 - The South Carolina Exhibition & Protest warns of secession. President Andrew Jackson ends the revolt with a threatened invasion of federal troops. 1833 - A compromise tariff ends the Nullification Crisis. 1836 - Texan Revolution (fought principally over the right to own slaves) results in the formation of a Republic of Texas. 1839 - The Armistad Mutiny; the slave leader Cinque leads a revolt aboard that slave ship. 1844 - The telegraph revolutionizes communication. 1845 - Texas is admitted as a slave state. 1845-6 - Fremont's explorations in California open the door to western migration. 1846-8 - The Mexican-American War is orchestrated by President Polk. 1847 - The Wilmot Proviso excludes slavery from the far west. 1848 - The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo allows the U.S.to annex 550,000 sq. miles of Mexico. 1848 - The California Gold Rush creates an unprecedented human migration to our west coast. 1848 - Secession Crises; South Carolina leads a second secession movement. 1850 - His "Seventh of March Speech" ends the career of Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, and the subsequent rise of Radical Republican Charles Sumner. 1850 - The Compromise of 1850 admits California as a free state, organizes Utah and New Mexico territories, and creates Arizona and Nevada as unorganized territories. Texas is reimbursed for "lost land." It also reinforces the Fugitive Slave Law and abolishes--in theory--the sale of slaves in the District of Columbia. (Note: this compromise allowed time for ten more years of industrialization in the North.) 1852 - Uncle Tom's Cabin, or "Life Among the Lowly," by Harriet Beecher Stowe, becomes the most popular book in the world. (Later, Lincoln--upon introduction to Stowe--comments, "So this is the little lady who started the [Civil] war?")

1853 - The Gadsden Purchase leads to the Southern Pacific Railroad route through the Mesilla Valley. 1854 - The Kansas-Nebraska Act offers popular sovereignty as the way to determine if a new state will be slave or free. 1854-9 - The Bleeding Kansas crisis; guerrilla warfare erupts between those who support slavery and those against (free-soilers). Also, the Topeka [free], Lecompton [proslavery] and Wyandotte [free] Constitutions each propose a different form of state government. 1855 - Abolitionists ship crates of Sharps rifles to Kansas in an attempt to arm free-soilers. These shipments are called "Beecher's Bibles" (named after Minister Henry Ward Beecher). 1856 - The sack of Lawrence, Kansas; border Ruffians attack a free-soil stronghold. 1856 - S.C. Rep. Preston Brooks retaliates for Sumner's mocking insults of his uncle, S.C. Senator Andrew Butler, by severely beating Charles Sumner with his cane. 1856 - Pottawatomie Massacre; John Brown attacks and kills suspected pro-slave farmers in Kansas, hacking the men to death with a broad sword.

1857 - The Dred Scott Decision; Roger Taney leads the Supreme Court in upholding the Fugitive Slave Act. 1858 - Lincoln delivers the "House Divided Speech," claiming that a house divided cannot stand. 1858 - The Lincoln-Douglas debates: Douglass wins the Illinois senatorial seat, but Lincoln rises to national prominence. 1859 - John Brown's Raid on Harper's Ferry enflames the South, leading to the widespread formation of Southern militias. 1859 -The Democratic Party splits into a northern and a southern party, with two conventions. 1860 - Vermont Representative Justin Morrill introduces (April), then reintroduces (November) his "Morrill Tariff Bill." 1860 - Lincoln carries the Republican Party platform to a November 6th victory. 1860-1 - Secession of slave states; 11/13 states and 2 territories secede. Rebellious states seize the US properties within their borders: armories, forts, mints, etc. 1861 - April 15; the firing on Fort Sumter. 1861 - April 19; on the anniversary of Lexington & Concord, during the 6th Massachusetts militia's march through Baltimore, they are attacked by local "Minute Men," resulting in the Battle of Baltimore.

1861 - Call to Arms; Lincoln calls for 75,000 volunteers 1861 - July 21: Union Army invades the South, resulting in the Battle of 1st Manassas; "The Rebellion" begins. Miscellaneous

"Collective Consciousness" Rebellion/response unfolds Press Coverage of events (sensationalistic, rather than accurate journalism) Principle of States' Rights Plantation owners' outstanding loans to northern banks Westward expansion Transcontinental Railroad Passing of the "Great Triumvirate": Clay, Calhoun and Webster Rise of Radical Republicans: Rep. Thaddeus Stevens( R-Pa.) and Sen. Charles Sumner (R-

Mass.) Robert E. Lee is offered, and declines, command of the U.S. Army, subsequently taking a

commission in the Army of his native state, Virginia

Background into two mid-19th century politicians Having put all these important events into place, we need to pinpoint what actually triggered the Civil War. How did a 74-year-long war of words explode into one fought with the most terrible weapons the world had ever seen? Facing off in this blood feud were two great armies, whose clash resulted in the death of close to a million people, the destruction of half a country, and the rise to global prominence of the other. Today, we picture these armies as representing two different geographic regions of the United States. That perception took form over time, and its viewpoint is described as historiography. In actuality, it was generally true, but not strictly so. At the precise moment that the die was cast, it was a war of "brother against brother, and father against son"...not to mention that it also happened to involve thousands of immigrants from Europe, and an estimated 50,000 Canadians. Each was divided in ideology, but only a fraction of the number owned slaves. Interestingly enough, the answer to the who and why they fought may lie close to the Canadian border, and involve cousins. Having previously settled 65 miles apart, in the near northernmost state of Vermont, were two branches of the same family tree: the Stevens family of Danville and the Morrills of Strafford. As fate would have it, icons of each would eventually settle into House seats in the same Congress. From 1859 to 1868, Thaddeus Stevens and Justin Morrill literally sat just yards apart in the 36th through 39th Congresses.

Thaddeus Stevens was born on April 4, 1792 in Danville, Caledonia County, Vermont to Joshua and Sarah (Morrill) Stevens. He attended the University of Vermont, then Dartmouth, where he graduated with a law degree in 1814. A year later, he moved to York, Pennsylvania, and in 1816 relocated to Gettysburg. Thaddeus was extremely bright, but had a clubfoot, for which he was ridiculed mercilessly in his youth. This disability probably limited his social life, and also might be the reason for his being accused of murdering a pregnant black woman. Or maybe not. It was a time in history when white and black mixed, but did not legally wed.

Years later, Thaddeus did share his Pennsylvania home with longtime companion Lydia Hamilton Smith, a woman of color, whom he referred to as Mrs. Stevens. She not only accompanied him to Washington, but was present at his death, and named in his will. Smith, or "Mrs. Stevens" was later characterized in films by D.W. Griffith's 1915 "Birth of a Nation", and in Steven Spielberg's 2012 "Lincoln." Stevens became a very wealthy man, in no small part due to his Caledonia Furnace. Its name reflected that of the Vermont county in which he was born. The iron works were destroyed by Jubal Early during Lee's Gettysburg campaign, in retribution for Stevens' open hatred of the Confederacy. Justin Morrill was born 18 years after Stevens, but in the same month (April 14, 1810). His place of birth was the town of Strafford , Orange County (which is adjacent to Caledonia County), Vermont. Morrill's parents were Nathaniel Morrill and Mary Hunt Morrill. He attended the Thetford Academy, which is still in existence today. Morrill is described as a "businessman," but details are sketchy, even at his homestead, a State of Vermont historical site in Strafford. Both the Stevens and Morrills can trace their families back to Irish immigrant Abraham Morrill (1614-1662); to his son Isaac Morrill (1646-1713); and to third generation Abner Morrill (1709-1766). At that point, the family branches off, with direct links to Justin Morill: Joseph Morrill (1703-1745) ; Joseph Morrill II (1726-1805); Smith Morrill (1749-1813); Nathaniel Morrill (1779-1854); and finally Justin Smith Morrill (1810-1898). Thaddeus Stevens' lineage picks up with Isaac's son Abner Morrill (1709-1766); Abner Morill II (1741-1829); then his daughter Sarah "Sally" Morrill (1767-1854), who married Joshua Stevens. Thaddeus was their second born. Thaddeus Stevens entered the U.S. Congress in 1849. He served the Pennsylvania 8th District from 1849-1853 and the 9th District from 1859-1868. A Republican, he was Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congress' most powerful, from 1861-1865. Justin Smith Morrill served in the House from 1855-1867. In the 36th Congress (1860-1861), he was seventh chair in the House Ways and Means (Stevens was fourth), moving up to second chair in the 37th and 38th Congresses (1861-1863 and 1863-1864), continuing under Stevens, who was first, or Chairman. In the following, 39th Congress (1865-1867), Morrill rose to Chairman. After Stevens died in 1867, Morrill was elected a U.S. Senator (1868), and served Vermont until his death in 1898.

Caledonia Furnace

The fact that these men were cousins, both born in Vermont, both Republicans (two of 116 in a House seating arrangement that was much tighter than today's), and served concurrently in the U.S. House of Representatives, leads one to believe that they had strong ties. Congressional records concur. And when Stevens died in 1868, Morrill presented his eulogy. According to a House of Representatives Librarian, “Thaddeus was the party leader in the House, and also Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, so had a lot of party business to attend to. As a result, he left much of the (Ways and Means) work to Morrill." "Stevens formalized a trend begun in the late 1850s of dividing the committee’s responsibilities along jurisdictional lines. According to Elbridge G. Spaulding, the committee would meet at the beginning of each session and divide the workload among several subcommittees consisting of three to four members each. Justin S. Morrill, a tariff expert, headed a subcommittee on taxation, and Spaulding, a former state treasurer, was the chairman of a subcommittee on currency and loans, while Stevens remained personally in charge of appropriations bills at the full committee. Later, Stevens became Chairman of Appropriations, and Morrill stepped up to be Chairman of House Ways and Means." In their personal (nonpolitical) business, Stevens--a lawyer--as previously mentioned, owned and operated the Caledonia Furnace (ironworks). When Morrill wasn't serving his constituents, he returned to his home in Strafford, Vermont, where he was a farmer. The importance of these facts will shed some light on one of Justin Morrill's signature bills, the Morrill Tariff.

Farm Economics of the 1860s At this point, a short overview of farm economy is important. Whether a large land owner or a small one, farming was a difficult way to provide for a family. Besides natural disasters--such as endless cycles of drought, floods, killing frosts, insect infestations, hailstorms, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.--the cost of farm tools, seed, and hired farm hands (whether slaves or wage workers) to help with planting and harvesting, added additional expenses to the seasonal cycles. Homes, barns, and outbuildings required upkeep, as they were subject to wear and tear, as well as the long term effect of the weather. Farm tools needed regular repair and eventual replacement. Fences needed to be built, repaired, and replacement. Wells had to be dug, roads maintained, and taxes paid. Farm stock, such

as oxen, horses, mules, cows, sheep, goats, chickens, geese, etc., were another necessary investment. Debt, like an ever-present mortgage, loomed like a cloud over everything. In short, farm life was a tough one. At the time of Stevens' and Morrill's births, slavery existed in every state, although not everyone had slaves. A slave could cost upwards of $1000--a substantial investment. These chattel had a dangerous, and too often short, work life. Weather, disease, fire, and accidents took their toll. They had to be clothed, fed, housed, and taken care of, even nursed back to health when sick. Down time (winter, between crops, etc.) made no difference: the slave and his family were dependents. Pregnant women needed rest, children cared for while they grew up, and old, worn-out workers fed and taken care of when their productive years were over. While social security did not exist for the rest of the population, especially in the industrial cities of the North, on slave plantations a form of it did. As mentioned, the vast majority of farmers did not have slaves. For times when extra hands were needed, such as when crops had to be planted or harvested, those farmers would hire workers to fill labor intensive and short-lived windows of opportunity. Immigrants, such as vast numbers of Irish, provided a steady stream of itinerant workers, but had to be housed, fed, and paid. Truth be told, if it was a risky or dangerous job, it was the Irish who did it. What sane plantation owner would risk his investment in a costly slave, when a wage-earning Irishman would do? Even if money was tight, and it often was, essentials were just that: seed, tools, staples and clothing (whether for white family members or Negro slaves), still had to be provided, and this was usually done on credit. Even slaves were, more often than not, bought on credit. When harvest time came, so did the creditors. It was not unusual for land rich and cash-poor farmers to fall prey to bankruptcy. In the case of well-respected members of the plantation class, such as Thomas Jefferson, a creditor's full satisfaction might be delayed for years--but never forgotten. Upon the debtor's death, liability would pass on to his heirs. (This is one reason why so many slaves who were promised freedom were not given their manumission.) Vultures in human form started circling the corpse. Death demanded not only the reading of a will, but also a thorough inventory, down to the last tool, inkwell, and fork--even eyeglasses--so the creditors got their due. In summary, farming--no matter what the crop--was a tough way to earn a living. Anything and everything could go wrong. And if it did, the farmer could lose the farm that he and his ancestors labored for a lifetime(s) to accumulate. In the best of times, the payoff was probably far less than one could hope for. The life of a plantation owner, in particular, was not the carefree existence most of us picture. Plantation crops were, for the most part not edible, so food had to be bought and paid for. Also, crops like tobacco and cotton were hard on the soil, so more and more land hand to be brought under cultivation, resulting either in steady expansion, or outright moving to a new place. (This was one reason why southerners had their eye on westward expansion.)

1860 Economics American government of the mid-19th century was as very different from that of today as to be completely unrecognizable to us. With 31,443,321 people (3,953,576 southern slaves were considered "property"), there was little need for the kind of extensive federal services that we now have. The

largest arm of the federal government was its postal service, with 30,000 employees. Next came a widely spread army of 16,402 men. The U.S. Navy had a fleet of 52 ships, about 20% of which were being serviced. And last came the 5,837 federal employees. In 1860, there were no internal taxes, such as an income tax. Most of the money that financed the federal government came from tariffs, or a tax on goods imported from other countries. Major cities, like Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, Savannah, Galveston, New Orleans, etc., all had Custom Houses, whose employees inspected ships and collected import tariffs.

New York's Custom House, by far, was the most important, with 700 employees who helped to collect what amounted to almost 75% of the custom revenue for the entire country. The total value of goods imported into the U.S., July 1, 1859 to June 30, 1860, was $362 million, of which $279 million passed through the Port of New York. That works out to 65% of the total U.S. revenues. (https://deadconfederates.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/importsatnewyork1859-60.pdf) Besides the military and strictly federal expenses, most of the tariff money collected was spent on projects that benefitted the industrial North and undeveloped West, primarily transportation improvements: roads, canals, bridges, railroads, ports, lighthouses, and even Custom Houses. Collecting taxes from all parts of the country, and spending it mostly on improvements that disproportionately benefited the northern states, served to rankle southern politicians, and they continually voiced their objections on the floor of Congress. "In addition to generating revenue, a tariff hurts the ability of foreigners to sell in domestic markets. An affordable or high-quality foreign good is dangerous competition for an expensive or low-quality domestic one. But when a tariff bumps up the price of the foreign good, it gives the domestic one a price advantage. The rate of the tariff varies by industry.

New York Custom House

"If the tariff is high enough, even an inefficient domestic company can compete with a vastly superior foreign company. It is the industry's consumers who ultimately pay this tax, and the industry's producers who benefit in profits. "As early as the Revolutionary War, the South primarily produced cotton, rice, sugar, indigo and tobacco. The North purchased these raw materials and turned them into manufactured goods. By 1828, foreign manufactured goods faced high import taxes. Foreign raw materials, however, were free of tariffs. "Thus the domestic manufacturing industries of the North benefited twice, once as the producers enjoying the protection of high manufacturing tariffs, and once as consumers with a free raw materials market. The raw materials industries of the South were left to struggle against foreign competition. "Because manufactured goods were not produced in the South, they had to either be imported or shipped down from the North. Either way, a large expense, be it shipping fees or the federal tariff, was added to the price of manufactured goods for Southerners. Because importation was often cheaper than shipping from the North, the South paid most of the federal tariffs." http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/ This fact was not lost on the South, because the cost that mostly agrarian society was dear. Even as early as the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the South argued for a greater say in how it would all work, and understood the importance of representation in Congress, and every vote counted. This led to such things as our bicameral Congress, one with two senators from every state to offset the other house, which was based upon population. The 3/5 compromise meant that each slave was counted as part of the population, adding representatives to its white minority-- but they could not vote. Any time a new state was admitted, the arguments returned. The logic was that each slave state added should at least be balanced by a free one, a result of the Missouri Compromise. When Missouri was admitted, so was Maine. Every concession made to one region, required one given to the other(s). What must also be kept in mind is that most shipping meant just that. Roads were both inadequate and insufficient. Until the arrival of the great canal boon years, and then railroad expansion, it was far less expensive to ship manufactured goods from Europe to America than it was to ship those same goods overland 100 miles. Even shipping things in the cargo hold of a coastal freighter to a southern port more than doubled the cost. In addition, foreign manufactured goods were usually lower in cost, and considered superior in quality, to most American manufactured goods. This is where the import tax came in. To protect American industry, most of which was in the North, import duties were imposed to keep U.S. factories competitive.

Tariffs "Although they opposed permanent tariffs, political expedience, in spite of sound economics, prompted the Founding Fathers to pass the first U.S. tariff act. For 72 years, Northern special interest groups used these protective tariffs to exploit the South for their own benefit. Finally, in 1861, the oppression of those import duties started the Civil War." http://www.emarotta.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

In the spring of 1860, Justin Smith Morrill, considered one of the founders of the Republican Party, proposed a tariff on several classes of imported goods. He did so for several reasons: (1) He foresaw so-called protective tariffs as a way to draw industrial (read: northern) states to the Republican Party; (2) By selecting products that were produced in abundance by American interests, he could boost their income (and political support) by penalizing imports of the same nature; (3) To (disproportionately) discourage manufactured goods, the tariff for these was 20%, while that for raw materials was 10%--thereby leaving the door somewhat ajar for northern industries; (4) Necessity gained favor over need. Luxury items were taxed at an even higher 30%. The following list is from the final version of the bill (passed March 2, 1861), "Thirty-sixth Congress, Session II, Chapter 68," and gives one an idea of just how invasive an import tariff can be to the consumer who must pay it. Among those imported items that were charged a tariff were: "sugars, syrups, & molasses; brandy, distilled spirits, cordials, etc.; cigars, snuff, & tobacco; bar-iron, pig iron, scrap-iron, band & hoop-iron; smooth, &c; smooth & c. sheet-iron; steel; coal; lead; copper; white lead & c.; linseed oil; candles; salt; beef, pork, corn, rice, etc.; spices, currants, figs, nuts, &c.; unmanufactured wool & hair; sheep skins; carpets; mats, rugs, screens & c; woolen cloths and manufactures of wool; yarns; blankets; shawls; delaines; oil & floor-cloths; manufactures of cotton, unbleached, & c.; plain-woven cotton goods; cotton goods with more than 200 threads to the inch; cotton thread; shirts & c., made frames & c.; cotton velvet, and manufactures not otherwise provided for; linens, duck &c.; hemp; cordage; cotton bagging; sheetings; other manufactures of hemp; flax; silk & silks; glass in sheets; rough plate cylinder; window glass; glassware; porcelain glass; china & porcelain ware; earthen and stone ware; dried, pickled and salted fish; books, periodicals, and pamphlets". Take note of what is and what is not among those things protected by tariffs. Iron products (think Thaddeus Stevens' Caledonia Foundry) and wool (Justin Morrill, himself a sheep farmer, represented what was once the most productive wool producing state in the country). What is not listed is raw cotton. The GNP in 1860 was $131 million; cotton represented $78 million of that. So the South was not protected from imported cotton, but, because they did not have mills, paid a stiff penalty for buying English textiles and other necessary goods. Besides their own needs, slave owners imported huge quantities of basic clothing for their slaves, nearly 4,000,000 of them. Morrill's first attempt at his tariff passed the House, but the South rallied to defeat it in the Senate, where their votes held more sway. Nonplussed, Morrill reintroduced a similar bill in November. By this time, it was probably evident that war was coming.* This tariff, co-sponsored by cousins Morrill and Smith, might very well have been planned as a funding effort to arm the North--and eventually was. (It fell far short, however, and America's first income tax added to the Federal Treasury.)

*Note that, under the gathering clouds of war, construction on the new Charleston, SC Custom House--begun in 1853--was halted in 1859 by the U.S. Government for that very reason. It was finally completed in 1870. Charleston, SC – Custom House

South Carolina, of course, refused to pay for a northern army, and seceded shortly thereafter, followed by the City of New York, which owed much of its business to southern cotton interests. Cotton was king in New York, and comprised 2/3 of the city's commerce, financing industries that included banking, blacksmiths and ironworkers, haberdasheries, furniture makers, warehousing, insurance, legal representation, real estate owned by southern cotton growers (who rented or kept homes when in town on personal business), taverns, whorehouses and other "entertainment," and shipping--which included shipbuilding and repair, sail making, rope making, coopers, sailors, outfitters of slave ships (think chains, food supplies, etc.). Although New York City (which was only Manhattan at that time) reversed course after the firing on Fort Sumter, all or part of 13 south-leaning states eventually joined the Rebellion. Border States, such as Maryland--location of the first battle of the war--also resisted, but Lincoln "arrested" the problem early on. Given the current momentum of that pendulum which we call historiography, claiming that Morrill's Tariff was the "last straw" in the South's battle against what they saw as northern self-interest, loses traction. However, a strong argument weighs in on that. First, we need to look at what occurred earlier in the 19th century. From 1800, when the tariff was 10%, to 1815 (6.5%), tariffs averaged approximately 9.5%. In 1820, the rate jumped to 20%; in 1825, 22.3%; in 1830 35%. That averages out to 25%, and resulted in the "Nullification Crisis," which led to an attempt by South Carolina to (a) nullify federal laws that were not in their best interest; and (b) threats by South Carolina to secede. President Andrew Jackson warned that he would send troops south if necessary, thus blocking other states from joining SC, and delaying the crisis until 1861. Later, Congress also took steps to lower the tariff and ease the tension. Jackson was a southern Democrat, and those seeking higher tariffs were Whigs (after 1854 Republicans). Under Jackson's leadership, tariffs were lowered to an average of 13.5% from 1835 to 1845, but when the Whigs took over Congress and passed the Tariff of 1842, rates shot up again to 22.6% from 1845-1855. In general, this partisan difference in tariff "protectionism" lasted well into the 21st century. It rears its capital head once again under the current (2016-?) GOP administration. One thing that is true even today: if tariffs on foreign goods are high, imports slacken. If tariffs are low, imports increase (hence an argument for free trade). In many cases, lower tariffs--barring protection of American industry--will increase the amount of import taxes due to a higher volume of goods that find their way to American shores. Ask yourself: if goods are cheaper, do you buy more, or less? To look at this another way, we need not judge past politics with a modern view. While people's expectations remain basically the same, they have always been, and continue to be, motivated by self-interest. What did we learn in school about the American "Revolution"? Taxes took their toll on the people who paid them, and what were considered unjust taxes thus resulted in a rebellion. The war of 1861-5 is sometimes referred to as "The Second American Revolution." Politicians then, as now, make decisions based on the almighty dollar. We are, after all, a capitalistic culture, for as Calvin Coolidge once said, "The business of America is business."

The Morrill Tariff, among other things, included the entire woolen industry. Wool, either in its raw form, or manufactured into cloth and blankets, was one of the biggest businesses in America. Of particular value was fine wool sheared from Spanish merino sheep that had been smuggled into the country, beginning in the late 18th century. Two key sheep growing states were Morill's Vermont and neighboring New Hampshire, where the terrain left it virtually impossible to grow anything but sheep. Vermont figured prominently in the production of fine

wool, perhaps some of the finest in the world, as it won prizes for length and weight at international exhibitions.

In 1860, American sheep produced almost 60 million pounds of wool. But the American economy demanded more, so increasing amounts of wool were imported, until the value of raw wool imports exceeded domestically grown wool by nearly $3 million per year. In 1860, America's biggest competitor was Great Britain, whose 50,000,000 sheep produced 250,000,000 pounds of wool a year. Being raw wool (headed for the New England mills), it was taxed at the lowest rate. So this tariff, while encouraging the northern mills to first buy American wool, was low enough to allow its wholesale purchase. Thus the tariff benefitted the North either way. Key woolen manufacturing states were in New England, specifically New Hampshire and Massachusetts, although mills were spread throughout the northeast. The 2,200 employees of Bay State Mills, in Lawrence, Massachusetts, for example--the largest producer of cassimeres, shawls, and other fancy woolens in the world--produced 2,000,000 pounds of woolens a year. The Amoskeag Manufacturing Company in Manchester, New Hampshire "operated 64 mills, covering a mile and a half of ground, housing 700,000 spindles and 23,000 looms which turned out 500,000 yards of cloth a week." It was the largest textile mill in the world, and was in operation for nearly a century. (Source: historical marker on the site.) The British also exported wool cloth, manufactured from raw wool imported from their colonies, including Australia (53,500,000 pounds a year). Imports to America at that time were double US

Merino Sheep

production of 59,673,953 pounds, which increased during the Civil War, as cotton production declined. These were taxed at 20%. Once again, this benefitted the North. Being close to America's population centers--Boston, New York, Philadelphia--and westward-bound transportation, such as the great canals and railroads, shipping any products that passed through northern hands benefitted that section--and don't forget, it was Yankee shipping that brought it into the country. Due to few local mills, southerners were forced to purchase imported woolen cloth, which was taxed at high tariff rate. Even if they bought American products, they had to pay to have it shipped from New York. They lost either way. The same thing could be said of iron and steel. Today, we bemoan the high cost of shipping things cross country. Now add the sales tax. Usually it is 6-7%. Shipping plus sales tax can add up quickly. What if you had to pay a 35%, or even a 20% tax on your Amazon orders? And if the money you spent on taxes went to a government fund that you didn't particularly approve of, how loudly would you object? Ready to secede yet? Ironically, by walking out of Congress when they seceded, Southerners pretty much guaranteed that the Morrill Tariff would be passed. During the Civil War years, it averaged 31%, and by 1870 it was up to 44.6%--the highest in history. (By comparison, in 2010 a typical tariff was 1.3%.) Let's look back in to hear what writers of that time had to say about the cause of The Rebellion. Two days before Lincoln’s election in November of 1860, an editorial in the Charleston Mercury summed up the feeling of South Carolina on the impending national crisis: “The real causes of dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the Government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government, from a confederated republic, to a national sectional despotism.” With the election of Lincoln and strengthened Northern dominance in Congress, Southern leaders in South Carolina and the Gulf states began to call for secession. The U.S. Senate finally passed the Morrill Tariff on March 2, 1861, on an outrageously partisan vote. Not a single Southern Senator voted for it. It was immediately signed into law by President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvania Democrat. Lincoln endorsed the Tariff in his March 4 inaugural speech and promised to enforce it even on seceding Southern states. The South was filled with righteous indignation. (Source: The Tribune Papers.com - http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2014/01/05/true-causes-of-the-uncivil-war-understanding-the-morrill-tariff/) The life of Robert Barnwell Rhett (born Robert Barnwell Smith) followed a political path that defined the term "southern fire eater" (pro-slavery, secessionist). He pointed to taxes as being the cause of southern discontent. The following is from his speech at the South Carolina secession convention in December, 1860. And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

On December 28, 1861, in a London weekly publication, Charles Dickens--who was a strong opponent of slavery--said these things about the war going on in America: The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States. If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel. (Source: Tariffs http://civilwarcause.com/relationship.html) James Spence, addressing the issue in his book "The American Union" (published 1862), wrote: “The cotton States had indeed seceded previously; but why? Because, as we have seen, political power had passed into the hands of the North, and they anticipated from the change, an utter disregard of their interests, and a course of policy opposed to the spirit of the Constitution, and to their rights under it. Was it possible to offer to the world more prompt or convincing proof than this tariff affords, that their apprehensions were well founded.” More recently, Leonard Scruggs, in his book "The Uncivil War," wrote: In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Thaddeus Stevens, the most powerful Republican in Congress and one of the co-sponsors of the Morrill Tariff, told an audience in New York City on September 27, 1860, that the two most important issues of the Presidential campaign were preventing the extension of slavery to new states and an increase in the tariff, but that the most important of the two was increasing the tariff. Stevens, a Pennsylvania iron manufacturer, was also one of the most radical abolitionists in Congress. He told the New York audience that the tariff would enrich the northeastern states and impoverish the southern and western states, but that it was essential for advancing national greatness and the prosperity of industrial workers. Stevens, who would become virtually the “boss" of America after the assassination of Lincoln, advised the crowd that if Southern leaders objected, they would be rounded up and hanged. http://www.universalmediainc.org/pdf/Un-Civil%20War%20Shattering%20Chapter.pdf His analysis concurs with that of Thomas D. Lorenzo, an Economics Professor at Loyola University in Maryland. In 1860, Pennsylvania was the acknowledged key to success in the presidential election. It had the second highest number of electoral votes, and Pennsylvania Republicans let it be known that any candidate who wanted the state’s electoral votes must sign on to a high protectionist tariff to benefit the state’s steel and other manufacturing industries. As Luthin writes, the Morrill tariff bill itself "was sponsored by the Republicans in order to attract votes in Pennsylvania and New Jersey."

At the Republican National Convention in Chicago, the protectionist tariff was a key plank. As Luthin writes, when the protectionist tariff plank was voted in, "The Pennsylvania and New Jersey delegations were terrific in their applause over the tariff resolution, and their hilarity was contagious, finally pervading the whole vast auditorium." Lincoln received "the support of almost the entire Pennsylvania delegation" writes Luthin, "partly through the efforts of doctrinaire protectionists such as Morton McMichael . . . publisher of Philadelphia’s bible of protectionism, the North American newspaper." The U.S. House of Representatives had passed the Morrill tariff in the 1859-1860 session, and the Senate passed it on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration. President James Buchanan, a Pennsylvanian who owed much of his own political success to Pennsylvania protectionists, signed it into law. The bill immediately raised the average tariff rate from about 15 percent (according to Frank Taussig in Tariff History of the United States) to 37.5 percent, but with a greatly expanded list of covered items. The tax burden would about triple. Soon thereafter, a second tariff increase would increase the average rate to 47.06 percent, Taussig writes. So, Lincoln owed everything--his nomination and election--to Northern protectionists, especially the ones in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He was expected to be the enforcer of the Morrill tariff. Understanding all too well that the South Carolina tariff nullifiers had foiled the last attempt to impose a draconian protectionist tariff on the nation by voting in political convention not to collect the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations," Lincoln literally promised in his first inaugural address a military invasion if the new, tripled tariff rate, was not collected. At the time, Taussig says, the import-dependent South was paying as much as 80 percent of the tariff, while complaining bitterly that most of the revenues were being spent in the North. The South was being plundered by the tax system and wanted no more of it. Then along comes Lincoln and the Republicans, tripling (!) the rate of tariff taxation (before the war was an issue). Lincoln then threw down the gauntlet in his first inaugural: "The power confided in me," he said, "will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion--no using force against, or among the people anywhere" (emphasis added). "We are going to make tax slaves out of you," Lincoln was effectively saying, "and if you resist, there will be an invasion." That was on March 4. Five weeks later, on April 12, Fort Sumter, a tariff collection point in Charleston Harbor, was bombarded by the Confederates. No one was hurt or killed, and Lincoln later revealed that he manipulated the Confederates into firing the first shot, which helped generate war fever in the North. ( Source: https://mises.org/library/lincolns-tariff-war. You can read more of DiLorenzo in his book, "The Real Lincoln." It can be ordered from Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761536418/ludwigvonmisesinst/) The facts and politics of the real Abraham Lincoln were better known in his own time than we could ever piece together so far removed from the crises that he created. Here is another look at how "his tariff" pushed the South over the edge. Lincoln met secretly on April 4, 1861, with Colonel John Baldwin, a delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention. Baldwin, like a majority of that convention, would have preferred to keep Virginia in the Union. But Baldwin learned at that meeting that Lincoln was already committed to taking some military action at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. He desperately tried to persuade Lincoln that military action against South Carolina would mean war and also result in Virginia’s secession. Baldwin tried to persuade Lincoln that if the Gulf States were allowed to secede peacefully, historical and economic ties would eventually persuade them to reunite

with the North. Lincoln’s decisive response was, “And open Charleston, etc. as ports of entry with their ten percent tariff? What then would become of my tariff?” Despite Colonel Baldwin’s advice, on April 12, 1861, Lincoln manipulated the South into firing on the tariff collection facility of Fort Sumter in volatile South Carolina. This achieved an important Lincoln objective. Northern opinion was now enflamed against the South for “firing on the flag.” Three days later Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the Southern “rebellion”. This caused the Border States to secede along with the Gulf States. Lincoln undoubtedly calculated that the mere threat of force backed by a now more unified Northern public opinion would quickly put down secession. His gambit, however, failed spectacularly and would erupt into a terrible and costly war for four years. Had it not been for the Morrill Tariff there would have been no rush to secession by Southern states and very probably no war. The Morrill Tariff of 1860, so unabashed and unashamed in its short-sighted, partisan greed, stands as an astonishing monument to the self-centered depravity of man and to its consequences. No wonder most Americans would like to see it forgotten and covered over with a more morally satisfying but largely false version of the causes of the Un-Civil War. (Source: The Un-Civil War - Shattering the Historical Myths, by Leonard Scruggs. You can purchase Mr. Scrugg's book on Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Shattering-Historical-Myths/dp/098343560X) Karl Marx, like most European socialists of the time, favored the North. In an 1861 article published in England, he articulated very well what the major British newspapers, The Times, The Economist, and Saturday Review, had been saying: “The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.” So, student of history, which was it, slavery or money that started the Rebellion?

Sources: For more in-depth information about sheep farming in 19th century America, see Manufactures of the United States in 1860-Compiled from the Original Returns of the Eighth Census; under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, 1865. Sheep in America, 1860 https://books.google.com/books?id=CwQ57OV14AQC&pg=PR26&lpg=PR26&dq=sheep+in+America+1860&source=bl&ots=R7LaMuoUCB&sig=3FhbZIQUFTvIQCsPINAO2BN8i7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq2cL31vnSAhVsz1QKHVFXCHQQ6AEIPTAI#v=onepage&q=sheep%20in%20America%201860&f=false

Ft. Sumter

Looking for something? Have something for sale? Send your ad, written exactly as you want it to

appear, along with your contact information. All ads run for 1 month. You must email again if you want it to run again. No more than 1 small picture per ad.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ FOR SALE: I have the following items I wish to sell thru the site. (1) 16x20 marquis tent with poles & long stakes: no ropes $125 OBO; (2) 9' Aframe/wedge tent with poles & 9 stakes $80 OBO; 8' fly for use with A frame or stand alone with poles & long stakes $40 OBO; (3) ten tables 2'x3' (Loafers Glory quality tables)$35 each OBO Brandon Barszcz brandon.barry58@yahoo.com (813) 681-8388 I live in Valrico, Florida near Brandon

FOR SALE: My 81 year old father in law was a member of the NSSA for years and is now looking to sell his period correct items to anyone interested. He wants $500 for all clothes, leather goods and flag. He says the shoes are hand made with wooden pegs and wants $100 for them. All clothing items are XL and shoes are size 10We have pics of all items to include firearms. You can text me at 334-701-4586 for pics and more info. Thanks! Bruce Archer - Dothan, Alabama - baarcher1@me.com EDITOR’s NOTE: I only run a sample of the pictures of available items. For a full list, please contact the seller.

FOR SALE: Hi, My name is Elizabeth F., and I realize this is an unusual request. I have 27 volumes of Harper's Pictorial History of the Civil War, which you might be familiar with. They are paper, measuring 16 1/8" long and 11 1/8" wide. The front and back covers are in very poor condition, but the insides are quite good. They are dated 4/16/1894 - 10/15/1894. My thought is that someone who is really interested in the Civil War and wants the information for himself will find them worthwhile. They aren't really good for resale. I would like to get $100 since there are 27 of them. If you know of anyone, or if your group is interested, I would happy to provide more explanation and information. I am sincerely, Elizabeth F. in Altamonte Springs, 407-834-5399

FOR SALE: CONFEDERATE PASSPORTS...Great Novelty item: I would sell for 1 for $4.00 of 2 for $6.00 apiece and include postage. I am in Sarasota so a local member could pick them up. Please contact Tim Fortier at tfortier561@gmail.com or send requests to my mailing address at 507 Kumquat Court, Sarasota, FL 34236. Thank you!!

©Copyright 2015 in compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, by Florida Reenactors Online. All rights reserved.

Violators of our copyright will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. For more information, contact webmaster@floridareenactorsonline.com