Roland R. Stansbury, Director
P.O. Box 595
Franklin LA 70538
HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SOUTHERN CONSTITUTIONALISM
A lecture delivered at a meeting of the Abbeville Institute
on Seabrook Island, South Carolina, July 9, 2004
(Posted December 17, 2012)
John Remington Graham, B. A., LL. B.,
of the Minnesota Bar
On April 10, 1606, King James I granted letters patent to Sir Thomas Gates and others, thereby establishing two companies for the settlement of colonies along the Atlantic coast of North America, then called Virginia in honor of the virgin Queen Elizabeth I. The London Company, later known as the Virginia Company, was authorized to settle between 34 and 40 degrees north latitude, and the Plymouth Company was authorized to settle between 38 and 45 degrees north latitude. The first colony was established within the jurisdiction of the Virginia Company at Jamestown on the York Peninsula off Chesapeake Bay on May 24, 1607.
Later the Virginia Company granted a patent to the pilgrim fathers who sailed on the Mayflower on September 16, and sighted Cape Cod on November 9, 1620. The colonists were far north of the territory falling within the jurisdiction of the Virginia Company, and could not lawfully settle near Plymouth Rock where they had to land for the success of their mission. On November 11, 1620, forty-one freemen met in an extraordinary convention aboard ship to frame and sign a constitution of government which came to be known as the Mayflower Compact. “In the name of God, Amen,” they began, “We whose names are underwritten, loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord James, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France, and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, etc., having undertaken for the glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and the honour of our King and country to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together as a body politick for the better ordering, preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid, and by virtue thereof do enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices from time to time as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.” complete article
QUEBEC AND THE BRITISH CROWN
An address delivered before a meeting of the Rockford Institute
in honor of King George III at the
Château Frontenac in the City of Quebec on September 7, 2009
(Posted December 17, 2012)
John Remington Graham, B. A., LL. B.,
of the Minnesota Bar
Today I speak as a citizen of the United States. I make no claim of authenticity other than as a friendly observer and constitutional historian, living with my French Canadian wife and our children upon countryside in Quebec.
It is generally conceded as a fact of diplomatic history that, during the negotiations leading to settlement of the Seven Years War, certain territorial concessions were owed to the French Crown, these being either Guadeloupe and Martinique, or the vast territory of New France. Louis XV wanted the sugar-rich plantations in the Caribbean Sea. There is a myth that William Pitt the Elder, prime minister of Great Britain, was wise and shrewd enough to demand Canada, but the truth is something else: British diplomats considered Guadeloupe and Martinique more valuable, because they produced large revenues and were excellent naval bases, and, on the other hand, French diplomats considered it a good bargain to take the warm islands in preference to the forbidding upper stretches of North America which were expensive to defend and maintain. Hence, in the fourth article of the Treaty of Paris concluded on February 10, 1763, the King of France abandoned his children then living in Canada, and the unique civilization by them established under the tutelage of the Roman Catholic Church which had from the beginning considered New France as a missionary project. complete article
John Remington Graham
of the Minnesota Bar
A Short History of the War for Southern Independence, Illustrated by Southern Currency and Bonds
(Posted November 7, 2012)
The aspirations and character of a civilization are etched on the face of its money. The pieces of wartime currency of the Southern States and currency and bonds of the Confederate States discussed in this essay were acquired slowly over some years as opportunity allowed, with an eye more for historical meaning than numismatic interest. They illustrate a beautiful but melancholy story of a nation which has since disappeared in the mists of time past.
The items listed hereinafter are each identified by year of issue, government authorizing emission, denomination, Criswell or other numismatic identification number or numbers associated with a particular item, Confederate currency type where appropriate, and condition based on conventional guidelines. They can be accessed by clicking on the associated language or symbols in blue font. They do not appear at actual size, but can be adjusted for the enjoyment of the viewer.
We can start with earlier issues. The currency issued during the months following formation of the Confederate States stressed themes of peace and prosperity. The three pieces here shown were part of a third emission which appeared during the hopeful period following the victory on the field at First Manassas. Most Southerners then felt a false anticipation that all would soon return to normalcy, peace, and prosperity. full article
Interview Between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin
April 4th, 1861
(Staunton: Spectator Job Office, D. E. Strasburg, Printer 1866)
Col. Baldwin's Statement
I regret very much that circumstances beyond my control have prevented an earlier notice from me of the testimony given before the Reconstruction Committee by John F. Lewis, John M. Botts and myself in relation to my interview with President Lincoln on the 4th of April, 1861.
I regarded it as just to all parties to await the publication of the testimony in full, and when, by the kindness of friends and courtesy of public officers, I was furnished with it in advance of the regular publication, I found it necessary to submit it to the examination of the gentlemen to whose testimony I desired to appeal in support of my statement.
I publish herewith so much of the testimony as relates to the subject.
I find the report of my testimony to be substantially correct, and I refer to the account therein given as in accordance with my distinct recollection of what passed, and with what I have uniformly and invariably stated to everyone, without exception, with whom I have, at any time, conversed fully on the subject. more...
Colonization of the Negroes
Views of the President
[National Intelligencer. Washington. Saturday August 16, 1862 Vol. LXIII No. 9,364]
On Thursday afternoon the President gave an audience at the Executive Mansion to a committee of Colored Men, who had been appointed by an assemblage of their own people, held in one of their churches in this city, pursuant to an intimation that the President had something to say to them of interest to themselves and the country.
The Committee having been introduced to the President by Rev. J. Mitchell, the Commissioner of Emigration, and the chairman of the Committee having stated that they were there by invitation to hear what the President had to say to them-more....
Historical Society Papers
January to June, 1876
Rev. J. William Jones, D. D.
Secretary Southern Historical Society.
Memoir of a Narrative Received ofColonel John B. Baldwin, ofStaunton, Touching the Origin of the War.
By Rev. R. L. Dabney, D. D.
Memoir of a Narrative Received of Colonel John B. Baldwin, of Staunton,
Touching the Origin of the War.
By Rev. R. L. Dabney, D. D.
[The following paper from the able pen of Rev. Dr. R. L. Dabney will be read with deep interest, and will be found to be a valuable contribution to the history of the origin of the war.
It may be worth while in this connection to recall the fact that when soon after the capture of Fort Sumter and Mr. Lincoln's proclamation, a prominent Northern politician wrote Colonel Baldwin to ask: “What will the Union men of Virginia do now?” he immediately replied: “There are now no Union men in Virginia. But those who were Union men will stand to their arms, and make a fight which shall go down in history as an illustration of what a brave people can do in defence of their liberties, after having exhausted every means of pacification.” ]
In March, 1865, being with the army in Petersburg, Virginia, I had the pleasure of meeting Colonel Baldwin at a small entertainment at a friend's house, where he conversed with me some two hours on public affairs. During this time, he detailed to me the history of his private mission, from the Virginia Secession Convention, to Mr. Lincoln in April, 1861. The facts he gave me have struck me, especially since the conquest of the South, as of great importance in a history of the origin of the war. It was my earnest hope thatColonel Baldwin would reduce them into a narrative for publication, and I afterwards took measures to induce him to do so, but I fear without effect. Should it appear that he has left such a narrative, while it will confirm the substantial fidelity of my narrative at second hand, it will also supersede mine, and of this result I should be extremely glad. Surviving friends and political associates of Colonel Baldwin must have heard him narrate the same interesting facts. I would earnestly invoke their recollection of his statements to them, so as to correct me, if in any point I misconceived the author, and to confirm me where I am correct, so that the history may regain, as far as possible, that full certainty of which it is in danger of losing a part by the lamented death of Colonel Baldwin. What I here attempt to do, is to give faithfully, in my own language, what I understood Colonel Baldwin to tell me, according to my best comprehension of it. His narration was eminently perspicuous and impressive.
It should also be premised, that the Virginia Convention, as a body, was not in favor of secession. It was prevalently under the influence of statesmen of the school known as the “Clay-Whig.” One of the few original secessionists told me that at first there were but twenty-five members of that opinion, and that they gained no accessions, until they were given them by the usurpations of the Lincoln party. The Convention assembled with a fixed determination to preserve the Union, if forbearance and prudence could do it consistently with the rights of the States. Such, as is well known, were, in the main, Colonel Baldwin's views and purposes. Continued
Vol. II NASHVILLE, TENN., MAY, 1903 No. 5
From a Picture Given to Miss Sue Tarpley. (See page 209.)
WHY THE SOUTH SECEDED.
[Address of Hon. John H. Reagan, only surviving member of the Confederate States Cabinet, before the R. E. Lee Camp, at Fort Worth, Tex., April 19, 1903.]
Comrades, Ladies, and Gentleman: I answer your request for a statement of the cause of the war.
It would be pleasant to speak of the heroic valor of the Confederate soldiers, of the skill and intrepidity of their officers, of the patriotism and wisdom of the members of Congress who enacted the laws for the organization and conduct of the Confederate government, of the great and patient labor of the Confederate cabinet and their assistants, of the masterly statesmanship, self-sacrificing devotion, and sublime courage and constancy of President Jefferson Davis, and of the matchless devotion, services, and holy prayers of the women of the Confederacy for the success of the cause in which their fathers, husbands, and sons were engaged. But for the present I must forego the discussion of these interesting themes, and call your attention from the glories of the past to the questions of future interest. Continued
SIXTEENTH REGIMENT, NEW HAMPSHIRE
ADJUTANT, LUTHER TRACY TOWNSEND.
HENRY L. JOHNSON AND LUTHER T. TOWNSEND.
NORMAN T. ELLIOTT,
PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
WASHINGTON, D. C.
CAPTURE OF FORT BURTON, AT BUTTE Á LA ROSE.
The territory lying west of the Mississippi and south of Opelousas, called the “paradise of the south,” sometimes “the garden of the south” together with its numerous waterways, had been looked upon as valuable fields of conquest for the Union Army.
As early as October of the previous year, 1862, General Butler fitted out an expedition to secure control, if possible, of that part of Louisiana.
A fleet of five vessels sailed from New Orleans, entered Atchafalaya Bay, followed up the bayou on river bearing the same name, and entered Bayou Teche.
For the purpose of co-operating with this fleet, General Weitzel with five regiments at the same time crossed the Mississippi at Donaldsonville, and after two or three battles with the Confederates reached Brashear.
Battle Fields of Louisiana
REVISITED A SECOND TIME
LATE MAJOR 25th CONNECTICUT VOLUNTEERS.
THE FLOWER & MILLER CO., PRINTERS AND PUBLISHERS, 341 MAIN STREET.
* * *
To my Regimental Comrades:—
In February and March, 1896, I visited the scenes of our campaign of 1863 for the first time in thirty-three years, and spent about three weeks in that delightful country. On my return I published an account of my visit in a little pamphlet for gratuitous distribution among my former comrades. I made a subsequent visit to that region in February and March, 1897, and my reminiscences of this visit were published in a series of contributions to The Connecticut Catholic in October and November, 1897, and I now have collected them, in pamphlet form, and these are also intended for like gratuitous distribution among my old and beloved and alas! rapidly disappearing fellow soldiers of the Old Twenty-fifth Regiment. It is plain recital, but I believe you all will be pleased to read it, and I wrote it, and now publish it, especially for you.
Your affectionate Comrade,
The following article about Col. Richard E. Holcomb, 1st Louisiana Vols., 13th Regt. Conn. Vols., is presented with the permission of the author Carol Laun, Director of the Salmon Brook Historical Society of Granby, Conn. We at the Young-Sanders Center are attempting to assist Carol Laun with information on the origin of the Louisiana Republic Flag shown above. This remarkably preserved flag was sent home to the family of Col. Richard E. Holcomb with his personal artifacts after his death at the siege of Port Hudson in 1863.
The real mystery is how and where was this flag acquired by the Union Army in Louisiana. Was it captured after a battle in Louisiana from a Confederate Unit or was it taken from a public building in Louisiana by the Union Army. We believe that there are many amateur and professional researchers who may enjoy a challenge of helping us trace the history of this Louisiana flag. The above Louisiana Republic Flag is very rare. There are only a few known to exist today.
The following article by Carol Laun presents considerable information on Col. Richard E. Holcomb and will serve as a starting point for anyone interested in assisting to find the origin of the above Louisiana Republic Flag.
Roland R. Stansbury, Director
(Click here for full article)
Ordinance of Secession of Louisiana
Passed in the State Capitol at Baton Rouge on 26 January 1861, By a Vote of 113-17
An Ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Louisiana 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 Louisiana, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is herby declared and ordained, That the ordinance passed by us in Convention on the 22nd day of November, in the year eighteen hundred and eleven, whereby the Constitution were adopted; and all laws and ordinance by which the State of Louisiana became a member of the Federal Union, be and the same are hereby repealed and abrogated; and that the union now subsisting between Louisiana and other States, under the name of “The United States of America” is hereby dissolved. more...
THE SECESSION OF LOUISIANA
(War of the Rebellion official Records of the Union And Confederate Armies)
(Series I Vol. 1, Chapter VI., page 489-501)
January 10—February 19, 1861.
SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS
January 10, 1861.
—United States Arsenal and Barracks at Baton Rouge seized.
January 11, 1861.
—Forts Jackson and Saint Philip seized.
January 14, 1861.
—Fort Pike seized.
January 26, 1861.
—Ordinance of secession adopted.
January 28, 1861.
—Fort Macomb seized.
United States property in the hands of Army officers seized at New Orleans. more...
Was Secession Treason?
War Between the States
By: Admiral Raphael Semmes
A few more words, and we shall be in condition to answer the question which stands at the head of this chapter. Being a legal question, it will depend entirely upon the constitutional right the Southern States may have had to withdraw from the Union, without reference to considerations of expediency, or of moral right; these latter will be more appropriately considered, when we come to speak of the causes which impelled the Southern States to the step. I have combated many of the arguments presented by the other side, but a few others remain to be noticed.
It has been said, that, admitting that the Constitution was a federal compact, yet the States did in fact cede away part of their sovereignty, and from this the inference has been deduced, that they no longer remained sovereign for the purpose of recalling the part, which had been ceded away. This is a question which arises wholly under the laws of nations. It is admitted, that the States were independent Sovereignties, before they formed the Constitution. We have only, therefore, to consult the international code, to ascertain to what extent the granting away of a portion of their sovereignty affected the remainder. Battle, treating of this identical point, speaks as follows: “Several sovereign and independent States may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect State. They will, together, constitute a federal republic; their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint upon the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements.” That was just what the American States did, when they formed the Federal Constitution; they put some voluntary restraint upon their sovereignty, for the furtherance of a common object.
If they are restrained, by the Constitution, from doing certain things, the restraint was self-imposed, for it was they who ordained, and established the instrument, and not a common superior. They, each, agreed that they would forbear to do certain things, if their copartners would forbear to do the same things. As plain as this seems, no less an authority than that of Mr. Webster has denied it; for, in his celebrated argument against Mr. Calhoun, already referred to, he triumphantly exclaimed, that the States were not sovereign, because they were restrained of a portion of their liberty by the Constitution. See how he perverts the whole tenor of the instrument, in his endeavor to build up those manufactories of which we spoke in the last chapter. He says: “However men may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of the United States have chosen to impose more.....
Published quarterly by the
Louisiana Historical Association
In cooperation with
The Center for Louisiana Studies
The University of Southwestern Louisiana
(The following article is reprinted by the Young-Sanders Center with
Permission granted by the Louisiana Historical Association and
The Center for Louisiana Studies)
Volume XVI, No. 1
The United Confederate
Veterans in Louisiana
By: Herman Hattaway
Department of History
University of Missouri-Kansas City
Kansas City, Missouri
The Youthful experiences of a generation may remain forever in a whole people’s memory, poignantly recalled touchstones that determine thereafter the entire course and shape of their lives. So it was with those Southerners who fought the Civil War; “in youth a fire touched upon their hearts,” and for them the conflict became an epic. During their mature and later years, old men in gray—the former Confederate soldiers—moved by their nostalgia, banded together to share wartime recollections and to work toward certain goals. In 1889 they formed a fraternal organization, The United Confederate Veterans (UCV). Thus in their lives did the war last for nearly one hundred years, reminding one of the popular 1918 saying which predicted for World War I a few years of fighting and more than ninety of “rolling up the barbed wire.”1
The UCV came into being at New Orleans, Louisiana, on June 10, 1889. That the veterans waited for nearly a quarter of a century to form this organization has intrigued historians. (The Northern Grand Army of the Republic sprang up in Illinois in 1866 and, although it remained small until the 1880s, it spread rapidly throughout the country.)2 Varied theories explain the long Southern delay; the consensus emphasizes real or feared Northern intimidation, introspection and timidity, and widespread difficult more
1 Dixon Wecter, When Johnny comes Marching Home (Cambridge, 1944), 3.
2 Mary R. Dearing, Veterans in Politics: The Story of the G.A.R. (Baton Rouge, 1952).
This site updated on April 15, 2014