One of the arguments one always hears is that the southern states seceded to protect state rights … sometimes as a way to counter claims that white southerners seceded to protect slavery. Anyone familiar with American history knows that white southerners were far more consistent in their protection of slavery than state rights, and that they had no problem violating state rights in their efforts to protect slavery, a clear recognition of the relationship of means (which might, or might not, include state rights) and ends (the protection of slavery).
Once the Confederacy was established, however, it soon found its commitment to state rights challenged by war. Continue reading
Civil War News has published an article in which Dr. Thomas P. Lowry claims that the results of a polygraph test demonstrate that he is telling the truth about being falsely accused by the NARA of tampering with a document signed by Abraham Lincoln.
Just thought someone might want to know, although this would seem to be old news.
In the category of “Better Late than Never … Maybe,” news comes that Senators Jim Webb (D-Va) and Mary Landrieu (D-La) have reintroduced legislation to establish a Civil War Sesquicentennial Commission.
Although there have been demands for such a commission from some corners, I wonder whether at this point such a commission would really add very much to the commemoration (as opposed to a few more lines on some people’s resumes). By the time such a commission gets going, it may find itself in the position of following and improvising instead of leading anything.
One of the more interesting “what-ifs” of the Civil War involves the notion that Georgia governor Joseph E. Brown and William T. Sherman might have been able to work out an agreement that would have meant an entirely different march through Georgia for Sherman and his men.