coming up next, brian greg miller -- brian craig miller. >> he teaches a variety of courses in the 19th century u.s. he is the author of many books. he has recently edited the punishment on 19thpunishment -a the nation, and i was soldier enters the civil war -- iowa soldier enters the civil war. recent book will be released by the university of georgia. he is also the book review editor for one of the main journals in our field. he will be speaking about remembering the destruction of

an army. welcome, brian. [applause] >> thank you very much to everyone here at the civil war friendte in to my dear for that very kind introduction. it is nice to be here this afternoon. you look like a very happy vibrant crowd after lunch. you are probably the army of tennessee at the beginning of this campaign more so at the end . in january of 1865, john bell hood visited with mary chesnut and the family of his recent love interest. as he sat with the preston family in conversation, stories filled the room pertaining to the civil war. he mourns the loss of so many

dead, described the battles as armyt, and the moment my "myestroyed -- bemoaned, ,"my is destroyed hurra jack preston, who offered his residence, pulled mary aside to have a brief conversation. he did not hear a word she was saying, he has forgotten us all. did you notice how he stared into the fire? the huge drops of perspiration that stood out on his four head? yes, he is going over some bitter hours. he fills the panic at nashville. jack preston pushed further. face comesn his again and again.

i cannot keep them out of those absent fits. he looks in the fire and forget me. what had happened to john bell hood, who has been described by many historians as not the brightest bulb in the confederate chandelier. he showed a lot of promise as he brigade. roughly six months after receiving command of the army of tennessee, i he rested on his crutches and stood amongst his ,riends as a battered, defeated and broken man. my talk today will try to chronicle the history, but more

importantly the memory, of his ill-fated tennessee campaign. i come to you today as a bagger for, -- a biographer, who is interested in how we have remembered this complicated figure. planrmulated a campaign that lifted the spirits of the confederacy and generated a wealth of excitement in the midst of devastating defeats around atlanta, he laughed the lock and the reek -- locked the left and the resources to standingne last victory. after he lost his leg, john bell hood returned to military command with the army of tennessee in 1864. from the moment of his arrival, drama emerged between the cap -- the federal -- confederate leadership.

john bell hood and everyone's favorite general, joseph johnston leading to johnston's removal. hass decided that johnston receded too much ground. hood faced up or carry a situation as a newly appointed commander and decided to throw his army at sherman in a series of battles around atlanta. deteroodletting did not him, -- did not deter sherman. overrmy of tennessee lost 30,000 men in the course of four months, it still remained a formidable force. according to the new orleans -- wepgn, will be covered

find a large compact patriotic army, which despite its misfortunes, it is still game. in the days following atlanta, john bell hood stood at a crossroads. he needed to orchestrate a military maneuver so bold, it could eradicate the failure in atlanta. that lee pressure felt. atlanta ando leave turn his eyes northward towards tennessee with hopes of the force within the city of nashville. and then he wanted to continue northward and drive across the ohio river and reunite with lee. threat of the very

his presence in the region would force grant to leave lee alone. many historians have called this and thee fantasy delusions of a drug addicted buffoon, the populace had a very different reaction. his movement is as promising as it is bold and daring. hood concedes part of this plan as far back as the spring of 1864. my heart was fixed upon are going to the front and regaining tennessee and kentucky. it would be of more value to us than half a dozen victories in virginia. if he found the success he wanted, the confederacy might achieve a series of stunning victories. his twin wingith army, any hopes of success in the west would likely dissipate , any hopes ofrmy

success and the west would likely dissipate. taking theeems to be movement of food very quietly, though it appears that it is one of the most important movements that has been made since the war. ella thomas wrote, the deep gloom which hung over us has been lifted and the movement of general hood has brightened the army and the people. the rank-and-file soldiers exhibited the same optimism. one soldier wrote, now we are living fine. expect better times will make it into tennessee. army was an the excellent spirits. i am pretty well fixed for the trip, a new pair of boots and a good suit of clothing. the general has the army in good fighting trim. despite the optimism, jefferson

davis remained concerned and decided to pay the army a visit. he stopped in macon, georgia, where he found himself having to defend putting hood in command. general did not possess the right qualities to command him a what i not be ?rong if you were not removed i put a manic command who i knew would strike an honest and manly blood wasny a yankees meant to nourish the soil. davis then spoke to the soldiers who were less than thrilled to see him, but he told them, he of good cheer. your faces will be turned homeward and your feet resting the soil of tennessee. hood's men prepared to disembark within the next few weeks. captain george erwin described

the spirit of boy and. uoyant.and report came of one continued shout for miles. the men shared general hood. -- cheered general hood. as he departed, he issued orders to his troops. theseued an order to troops when we started on this raid saying he would not force them to ever charge any strongly fortified position. time would tell if he could live .p to this promise when he moved northward, he started read chasing his steps from the previous -- retracing

his steps from the previous month of campaigning. he declared the federal occupants, if the place is carried by assault, no prisoners will be taken. the union troops refused to capitulate. the leader replied, i can hold this post. take it.nted,, and hood decided to follow his promise to his soldiers and not attack this garrison. no officer should allow his soldiers to burn and pillage after victory has been secured. he decided simply to observe the enemy and move northward, destroying the railroad throughout mid-october. the army of tennessee prepared to cross the tennessee river in late october. cavalry and the lack of provisions for the army, he moved further east -- west to

decatur, alabama, to cross the river there. and lowked sad spirited, some of the men were nearly barefoot. the weather being warm, they could stand it. rations were scarce, but they were ready to do or die in the attack. whole regiments are barefooted while blankets are the exception. there are some regiments who have not been paid in 15 months. the winning support for the war effort hampered supplies -- the waning support for the war effort hampered supplies. delays in dwindling supplies zapped the enthusiasm that had been exhibited by the soldiers. robert patrick roche, i have no confidence in hoods abilities.

knowledge of military affairs that joseph johnston possesses. nobody knows where to find anything or anybody and there are no bread rations. the problem with food rations led a private from texas to write, we have suffered more for the want of something to eat than on any previous one. left no breakfast of champions for the soldiers to munch on. nathanpt waiting for bedford forrest to show up. the southern populist had no

food to distribute. the crowds of spectators that did come out could not alter mother natures grape on the grip on- mother natures the region. rains swelled the rivers and horses drowned. until did not arrive november 16. he explained this to jefferson davis at high water and the fact i had to draw supplies have retarded my operations. wrote, ie delay, he have seven days rations on hand. lee's use every effort to have the supplies passed forward. the army finally crossed. hood prepared to fight and face

off against union commander john scofield near columbia, tennessee. declared to the chaplain, the enemy must give fight or i will be in nashville before tomorrow night. he sent a telegram to jefferson davis, the enemy evacuated columbia last night and are retreating towards nashville. the army is moving forward. i have no difficulty about supplies and anticipate non-in the future. -- non-in the future. hood continued his pursuit and told his army after they crossed the tennessee river, you march today to retain your valor. this can only be achieved by battle and by victory. all of the elements of soldier ship and all of the instincts of manhattan and you will render

the campaign -- instincts of manhunood. tennessee, who would have the opportunity to outflank the union army and trap john scofield. he would have a clear path to nashville and prevent additional troops on the union side from arriving. to catch him, someone had to block the main pipe in order to trap him. hood ordered benjamin to attack and block the pipe. did not know where the union defensive position was located due to the fact that the cavalry had never started the grounds. he found the general quite irritated. why have you not attack the

enemy and taken possession of that hike? he did not act because he was waiting for stewart, who was supposed to assist him. he never arrived because hood told him to stay at rutherford creek. i do not wish you to march your core up to the right. it will be to far for the men to march. no one attacked or moved to block the pike. november 30, 1864, could, who was quite is appointed, attended a very were thereakfast accusations over the failure at spring hill flew faster that morning than the biscuits did.

i wish you and your people to understand that i attach no blame to you for the failure at spring hill. if i had you there, the attack would have been made. hood decided to blame cheatham. -- a few days following spring hill, he would rescind his recommendation to the confederate government to promote cheatham. go field had escaped and joined george thomas in nashville. time, he clearly aired in not making his instructions crystal clear. furthermore, the soldiers in the army realized the tactical error had been committed, which reflected poorly on hood. every private was impressed with the fact that a blunder had been made. we were not in position to know

who was responsible for this failure. the lack of clear communication has prompted some historians to claims that could have been drugged up or drunk at spring hill. look at john gregory's claim that a few hours before spring hill, there had been a good deal of drinking among the officers. gregory claimed that she didn't had been drunk -- cheatham had been drunk. john johnson claimed whiskey was the true root of the failure at spring hill. other historians have suggested that he may have been strapped to a source since 3:00 a.m. and ofced the general at a place physical exhaustion.

any analysis that basis failure on alcohol or drug usage is problematic. it was not century, a walgreens on every corner. it is documented that drinking took place among the officers, there are no references that day .o hood being dropped there are no sources indicating that could have taken any painkillers -- that could have taken any painkillers. appears, they cannot be included in the analysis of why the army of tennessee failed at spring hill. preciseure to know the location of union forces coupled with hood inability to effectively communicate with his officers result in a failure that did not destroy this campaign. flanking scofield at spring hill would have helped hood, but the

incident is nothing more than a missed opportunity. even with the mishap, he later toembered, i decided overtake. i could no longer hope to get between him and nashville. intensernoon following breakfast, he decided to send his army forward against entrenched position overstretch of field in the small town of franklin, tennessee. in many ways, raking his earlier campaign promises. , he surveyed plan the field and announced, we will make this fight. the highest perfection in the education of troops can only be ttained

[no audio] >> live coverage today from the

civil war institute at gettysburg college. having some technical problems right now, but we will get you back to the conversation as soon as we can. while we are working to fix this problem, we will take a look at our visit to st. louis, missouri. it is celebrating its 200 50th anniversary this year and our local content vehicle recently explored the rich history. on to germans really took

this notion of bringing it into the city of st. louis and introducing it. became they, he father of the lager beer. and introduced a new wave of culture in the city. very quickly, he realized he had a market on this new beer and started employing a number of people and built up the plant. the other thing he learned to do ideas followed the latest about pasteurization, refrigeration. as soon as these things are coming into play, he was incorporating them into his plan that allowed him to be in the .orefront of everybody else he made his fortune by being smart.

the turn of the 20th century begins and there is grumbling's from the temperance women, people beginning to see that saloons and breweries are not a life, forfor the home the cultural and general. america had an alcohol problem. they were drinking too much. the women were concerned about this. the brewery starts to fear that something is in the works. many just decided they would not fight it. william, by the time you get to the eve of prohibition, besides they will not fight this. they have made enough money for everybody in the family to be fine. and sell off their logo they close their doors forever. they do not even try to fight

prohibition movement. lemp not see the name after 1920. the first part of the heeuser-busch legacy, founded his first brewery in the 1850's. decided soap maker and to purchase this struggling brewery. they introduce budweiser and 1876. -- in 1876. at that point, anheuser-busch does not look back. they have a huge growing outputs of barrels of beer per year and it is not until the 1890's that they begin to take over lemp's brewery.

anheuser-busch has a smart way of handling this notion of prohibition. they decide they will play by the law. plantave this huge active. in the years prior to prohibition, they saw it coming, and they decided they would start this product that was a malt beverage. we will test this out. it became this product that they with.d prohibition make budweiser make budweiser because they could make it just under the limit that was illegal. almost no alcohol, but they made it.

they continue to keep the >> today, we are bringing you coverage from the civil rights institute. we're having a little bit of a technical problem. we are taking a look at our visit to st. louis, missouri. it is the city's 250th anniversary this year. next vignette is about the

historic eads bridge. it is over the mississippi river connecting st. louis and east st. louis, illinois. he was a self-taught engineer and completed the bridge in 1874. vignette is about the >> i don't think people have any idea how important this bridge is. it was the symbol of st. louis. wasre the gateway arch in 1865, it was the symbol for the city.

fire as it approached the wharf, so just before it reached the wharf here at st. louis, it sent amber's, and it caught fire and proceeded to sink, so they actually had to come through the mississippi through those last few yards to get here. hey lost everything, and really grew up on and in this river. at a very young age, he had to help provide for his family, and james decided at age 16 that he would try to work the berber, so he got some jobs on riverboats where he was a clerk, what they call a much clerk, and he kept

the books, and he went up and down the river on these boats that were transporting, these were wooden riverboats all the way up to illinois near wisconsin. that he could do salvage work. commonere some very occurrences on the berber that he experienced where these snags would be hit i riverboats. these are snags of logs or timber that were submerged in the river pilots cannot see when they are piloting the boat. a wooden hole boat will strike those and think, and this happened very often. also, boiler explosions on these high-pressure steam riverboats. and he's all these things happen. he witnessed these things

happening, and sometimes the cargo was very valuable, especially these love boats possessing a lot of very valuable materials that were destined for a marketplace. and the people who owned that material wanted it back, so he do salvage work. he learned from others and he experimented and found his own what is called a snack boat that would help raise these from underneath and bring them up from the bed of the river. he also invented what is called the diving bell, which some may know of as a metal object that you can get up inside of, go down in the water and you get air supply. he did this with a wooden barrel, a hogshead arrow. inside that space had the bottom marked out. he would reach through holes that had fittings for his arms,

and he could rake up salvage from the bottom, which as you can imagine looking at this river is nothing lost by not being able to see out of the diving bell because you cannot really see anything in this muddy water. you are groping around in the dark on the bottom of the river, and at the bottom of this river, this is where he really learned what the river is. in the way that river pilots don't know, people do not know river is until they hit the bottom and they feel that shifting sand constantly moving website the water does, and that was an experience the celts with kept withtire -- he him his entire life and understood how this bridge needed to be built. they could not sit on the sand at the filthy bottom of the river because the river is constantly relocating violence, it is rico locating -- relocating islands, it is relocating shores, and of a

he knew it was tilting in. this was happening constantly. not as engineering efforts that are constitutive the river in a particular channel. large rivers like the mississippi and the ohio are kept in their channels by engineering devices, but at that time, he would have witnessed unlike any we have seen, and he would have witnessed some of that from the bottom of the berber itself. it is really important to note how essential st. louis was in the 19th century to the development of the west. even in the late 1700's, in the late 18th century, st. louis was the site for the transit of -- coming out of the hinterland of out of the wilderness and going down to louisiana and out to europe or other locations in the united states, so this lace was

really essential because of its location on the waterways. he people who were operating the riverboat trade -- they really liked the security of keeping it a riverboat avenue. they did not want a rail bridge to be brought across. really any location, but certainly not in st. louis. st. louis had been very industrialized before and then after the civil war, it really picked up, but chicago became a much more likely place for the transit of goods because of the opening of the erie canal and rail rates that were going to chicago. ande were no hills mountains to climb. people were then sending goods to chicago, and the big business interests were investing in the chicago trade. so there was something of a cartel against having anything

built here. rails could be put almost anywhere, and they were being put across the river in other locations, so to put them here would keep the riverboat trade viable, would keep the industries that are developing in st. louis viable, but it took some time for the riverboat industry to appreciate that. they did not trust the row right .- the you railway companies it is not trust the idea that they could be a part of that action. so what is so significant about this bridge is that it is the first one of st. louis. it is now the oldest one on the mississippi, and it was built in a way that no one had ever built a bridge before. it was built on these tubular steel arches. at this time in our history, world history, there is nobody building anything out of reliably formulated steel.

this needed to be carbon steel that would be durable and hold up to the compression strength pressures and be strong enough to endure the traffic that was flowing over as well as hold itself up. it had to hold his own weight and hold the weight of traffic. so he did this with these tubular steel arches, and everybody else's building suspension bridges of the time. he built it on these stone pilings that go all the way down to bedrock, which on the illinois side is quite deep. over 100 feet deep. nobody had ever built a piling or a floating below grade that far below the bottom of a river. he bridges built between 1867 and 1874. withs open july 4, 1874 the general william tecumseh sherman, who was a very

important military officer during the civil war, and a resident of st. louis, driving the final spike. one of the things they did on opening day was to walk an elephant across because it was believed that an elephant would not do anything stupid like walk on a bridge that would fall apart, so that was one of the publicity stunts i guess to show that the bridge was safe. trains drive across the lower deck, so there are really two decks to this bridge, and it was always intended for them to be two levels, one for the train on the lower level, and on the top deck is for carriage trade or nowadays automobiles and trucks as well as foot traffic and bicycles. it is a really good example of committing yourself to something. he committed himself to not just

the bridge but understanding his river and he knew the the forces of the river, that scouring action at the bottom that occurs, that can sweep a person off their feet because he was there at the bottom of the river. he knew how powerful the river mysterious the river is, how you can't predict everything about it, but you can understand its parts and you can put that together. and he really had this 19th-century scientific mind that is applying reason to things, to the world, trying to understand his world, by looking at their parks and seeing how they function together. he was really a very modern person in that sense. here is this bridge 140 years later. the bridge is still standing. and as he said, it would serve as they stall its utility. and i think with a train going

across and people using it, people still see its utility, and he was convinced that it was stand as long as we valued it that way. >> we now continue our look at st. louis, missouri, the city celebrating its 250th anniversary this year. >> and 2014, st. louis is celebrating 200 years of history . to commemorate the founding of the city, the museum is putting together an exhibit called "250 in 250." story and's public a shares with us selections from one of the exhibit's five sections. >> we are in the 50 places section of the "250 in 250" exhibit, and 50 places looks at

50 st. louis area locations that could be buildings, could be big, large size of land, or they could just be places that exist in the minds of st. louisans that is not even a physical landmark, but we brought them all together with the idea being that st. louis is a collection of incredibly diverse places, not just in terms of architecture, but in terms of their meaning and the effect they have had nationally, so we had local artist andy cross to draw all 50 places in a giant chalkboard mural right behind me and then just off from this we have an area where people can find out much more information electronically about each place in a photo gallery going through each one. at the computer stations, people can go find each one of these places that are up on the wall, and they can dive further into. we have a descriptive piece about the place, why we chose it, some of the interesting

aspects of it, and then a photo gallery, which five photos to 10 photos of the place, some of them throughout history, there are places that were formerly very noticeable and now you would never see them. when it instantly comes to mind his mound. just on the other side of the a massive native in mayn former city back 1200's in 1300's. this was a very large city, an urban area for native american culture, and we had indian mounds on the st. louis side of the river, too, and big mound was the largest of them. it was 100 some odd feet long and you cannot miss it. it was huge. in the 1860's, it became filtered for a railroad, and so aw the all that is left is small rock where the biggest thing in the city used to be. so without passing on these stories, people would never know about this kind of thing. it is really interesting because

they can see old photographs, old illustrations of where this mound was and see the site today and how this is not there anymore in the physical world. are a very diverse collection of places we have, places that st. louisans are very familiar with, like the gateway arch in forest park. we have places that no st. louisan could ever visit now, like hop alley, the first chinatown in st. louis. we have places that everybody is proud of, like francis field at washington university, which is the site of the first olympic games ever held in the united states, and we have places that people are definitely not proud of and rightfully so, like en, the slave p largest slave dealing location in st. louis. everybody was talking about the

wainwright building or the art for the old courthouse or something, and a member of our exhibit team, elizabeth picard, said when i think about the places i spend the most time at any places where i interact with people the most, it is the grocery store, so she put be puts should forward. even the common places you spend maybe your most boring time of the week when you have to go buy groceries, this is history here and it is something interesting that this is such a specific part of life. schnuck family story is interesting where they started with one small store, the butcher shop and ice cream store, and now they are a huge chain that still is very widely

used in the st. louis area, but looking at history from that of even thosea common places that you spend a lot of time at half history, which we thought was redressing. one of the other places we chose was the overarching idea of home , the idea that there are so many different neighborhoods in st. louis and there are so many different places people call , and that home is really just as much a part of the city as all of these landmarks, maybe even more so. this is where you go and you interact and you work through all of these things in your life that later become history. we wanted to show people that idea that history is not just a of old military fortresses or something like that but history can be surrounding you all the time.

>> now todd gross, president ceo of the origin historical society, speaks at the opening ceremony commemorating the 150th anniversary of the civil war in atlanta. thegroce talks about ambitions for fighting and argue that the fall of atlanta has over time come to mark the symbolic in band of the -- symbolic end of the antebellum era. in particular, i want to thank my friend, david moore, who is in the audience for asking me to be heard today. i'm quite honored. and speaking of honors, it is an honor for me to share the podium

today with you, sir, the reverend dr. vivian, thank you for your service. your leadership has helped to change the united states and to get all of america to live up to its promises, so thank you for all that you have done. very remarkable. this whole theme i think is really exciting. the civil war to civil rights. warrve on the georgia civil landing commission and was the chief advisor to the chairman, and one of the things that i said when we started that commission and that planning five or six years ago now was that we have an opportunity to do something we could not do 50 years ago in georgia on the centennial of the civil war. we have an opportunity for us all to speak and talk honestly about the civil war, its causes, s outcomes, but we also have the opportunity to reach some kind of not only understanding but reconciliation in the process of doing that.

one of the most important healing methods i think is just to be honest about things, to look at the historical evidence, to talk about it in a way that includes everybody, so i think it is exciting that 50 years ago during the civil war centennial you and i could not have been up your talking about this topic, and i think it shows just what a remarkable opportunity that this is. so thank you all for having me here today. 150 years ago, on may 7, 1864, three u.s. army's under the overall command of u.s. general william tecumseh sherman campus undert their encampments the command of general joseph e johnson. their objective was the city of atlanta, the communication, transportation, and manufacturing hub of the deep south. and after the capital of richmond, the most important city in the confederacy.

marchingh later, after over 100 miles in fighting seven major battles and countless small engagements, sherman's troops captured atlanta. the fall of atlanta was a mortal blow to the confederacy. taking the city, sherman ended the military stalemate that was feeling a growing peace movement in the united states thereby ensuring the reelection of president abraham lincoln and with that, the ultimate doom of the confederacy. gettysburg may have been the high water mark, but atlanta was where the plug was pulled on the drain. we all know the story. students of the war loved to spend hours retelling the tale of sherman's flanking maneuvers. a confederate general movement and how john hood led.

how sherman chilled the city and compelled to leave the city after cutting the last rail line following the battle of jonesboro. we know what happened. but do we understand why it matters? do we comprehend the importance to america and even the world for all practical purposes, the united states won the civil war when it captured the city of atlanta? excuse me. what impact does that even so long ago continued to exert on us today? well i'm a based on what i have read in books and the national media since the beginning of the centennial, i would have to admit that most contemporary americans at best only have a hazy understanding of our nations greatest conquest. after the passage of 150 years and tens and thousands of books

on the subject, most americans, remain unaware of what was at stake in 1861 and have little or no concept of what would have happened, how differently american and the world would be today had the confederacy been triumphant. when pressed to explain the meaning of the war, most americans offer vague answers about rights, economics, and slavery. few if any talk about how a system of government was on trial. many americans whose ancestors did not arrive until after the war did not live in a part of the country where the fighting occurred do not see the applicability to them. i was talking the group from oregon who claim they were not doing much in their state to commemorate the civil war. the war was not waged in the pacific northwest, so it is hard to make it relevant, they said.

my reply was, world war ii wasn't fought in their state either, but it is still relevant. compounding the problem is the fact where concept of democracy and one nation indivisible are taken for granted. the 19th century experiment in american self-government has become the international experience of self-government. a largely successful democratic venture that is the norm among the nations of the world, rather than the exception it was 150 years ago. looking at the war through this lens, it is different to understand what the union calls represented, and why so many considered secession nothing short of treason, and fought with determination against it. there were those to this day who insist on seeing the federal government as the

aggressor in the war. launching an illegal invasion of the southern states. on its face, the doctrine of secession of withdrawing from the union sounds reasonable, even seductive to some. a manifestation of an idea deeply embedded in our national ethos that government should exist at the consent of the governed. those folks are not just in georgia. there was talk recently in wisconsin, in their state legislature, about secession despite the fact that 12,000 young men fought to destroy that concept. should not a state dissolve its rights when it disagrees with the national government, or loses a presidential contest? in 1787, the founders had left that question unanswered.

in 1861, americans continued to disagree over the answer. to those who believed the states, rather than the people, had formed the unions and created the constitution, the answer was yes. individual states have the right to secede. to the secessionists, the federal government or federal union was nothing more than a voluntary league of independent states whose existence predated the union. this compact, the united states of america, was created by the sovereign independent states to achieve common purposes, such as trade, defense, and guaranteed to white men, certain basic rights, among which was the right to hold african americans as slaves. since the state's predated the constitutions, supporters of the doctrine of secession argued any state at any time could pull out of the government unilaterally without the consent of the other

states, it do consider the direction of the national government injurious to the states or subversive of the rights of citizens. supporters of the union on the other hand rejected the notion that there existed any right of secession, implied or otherwise. they pointed to the first line of the constitution. we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union. no state could secede and resume its former sovereignty because the states only existed as a part of the united states. having never been states in substance or a name outside of the union, whence comes this magical omnipotence of states rights, asserting a claim with power to lawfully destroy the union itself, asked president lincoln in his message to

congress. the states have their status in the union and have no other legal status. the union is older than any of the states, lincoln said, and the union created them as states. for unionists, secession was dangerous and contrary to the concept of democracy. if democracy is to work there must be acceptance by all parties in the results of an election and majority rule. secession allowed citizens to overturn the will of the majority and shut down a process of give-and-take between competing interests as envisioned by the founders. under such a system, general sherman wrote the u.s. constitution would be a mere rope of sand that would break with the first pressure. unionists believe secession posed a threat to individual

liberty that cause it would lead to anarchy and despotism. they were concerned that if secession went unchallenged, every time a minority of voters that lost election season a state or local government and pulled it out of the country, where would it end? what would happen if georgia, having left the united states, decided to secede from the confederacy? what of chatham county seceded from georgia? if the doctrine of secession prevailed, no one would ever have any confidence in the stability of any government. the united states would splinter into smaller pieces, becoming another banana republic, wracked with civil war and insecurity, conditions ripe for a dictator. at the end of the road lay tyranny. as abraham lincoln observed, whoever embraces secession and rejects a constitutional majority flies to

despotism. the idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. frederick douglass put it another way when he said americans should remember that in victory would have meant death to the republic. americans loyal to the united states were convinced that secession was dangerous to liberty because it undermined the concept established that the people are capable of governing themselves. the citizens of republic to not need a king to rule over them because they are capable of selecting their own leaders. and peacefully abiding by the decision of the majority. for unionists, secession was a threat posed by small group of slaveholders to this success and self-government. not only in america, but around the world. if secession and the confederate government were not defeated, the concept of self-rule won at enormous costs

in the revolutionary war would be discredited forever. to unionists, secession was not a vindication of the american revolution, but a betrayal of its basic concepts. the belief that secession pose a mortal threat to liberty can be seen in the lyrics of the battle cry of freedom, one of the most popular union songs of the era. all of you, i know have heard this. i'm not going to sing for you. too early to hear me singing. let me read just the chorus to you. the union forever, hurrah, boys, hurrah, down with the traitor, up with the star we will rally once again. shouting the battle cry of freedom. how many thought this had to do with emancipation? it doesn't.

this song was written in the summer of 1862 prior to the issuance of the emancipation proclamation and in response to lincoln's call for volunteers. the battle cry of freedom described in the song was not a demand for the emancipation of its enslaved black people but with a call for the young man in america to enlist and defend the rights of free white people that were being threatened by secession. we live in a world where free democratic governments are the norm. that was not the case 150 years ago. america stood almost alone among the nations as a democracy governed by a written constitution. the country established in 1787 by the founders was an unfinished experiment in

self-government. many outside of america and especially in europe doubted it could survive. secession and civil war were evidence to these monarchists and aristocrats that democracy had a fatal flaw and it simply would not work. when the people are left to choose their own leaders and chart their course, they will fall into civil war. unionists understood how the enemies of democracy perceive the civil war in this country, and believe the triumph of the national government over secession was the only way to vindicate the american revolution and ensure the example, the american example of liberty, would succeed. as one union officer wrote at the end of the war, the soldiers of the united states had the proud satisfaction that it has been our privilege to live and take part in the struggle that has decided for all time to come the republics are not a failure. president lincoln in particular understood what was at stake. he was aware that the united states represented the hope of millions of democracy loving people around the world.

our popular government has often been called an experiment, he said. people have proven they can successfully establish a government, and now they need to prove that they can maintain it against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. it is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion. lincoln declared secession illegal, and denied that slaveholders had any justification to attempts it. none of their constitutional rights of their states had been violated or lost, he said. the only thing that slaveholders had lost was an election. now they resorted to secession in order to overturn the decision of the majority. arguing that insurgent forces had seized the government of

the seceded states and that insurgent militias had illegally seized united states military installations like fort sumter. lincoln invoked the 1795 militia act, which empowered the president to call up the state militia whenever the laws of the united states are opposed or the execution therefore obstructed in any state by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. he saw it as his oath sworn duty to enforce the constitution and the laws of the united states, and restore national authority over the property of the united states. just as we could imagine that the president would be compelled to use troops to retake fort benning. lincoln also knew that if the united states did not put down the confederate independence movement, and the country was torn asunder, the enemies of democracy around the world would reclaim that republics cannot work and that government of the people, by the people, for the people would perish from the earth. united states had passed a first test in self-government during the election of 1800 when thomas jefferson defeated john adams. both sides abided by the results. for the first time, power was successfully and peacefully transferred from one party to another. constitutional government and

the rule of law have prevailed. the outcome was different in 1860. having won every election prior to that point, proslavery southerners saw their candidate defeated by lincoln. rather than submit to the first president openly committed to the eventual extinction of slavery, slaveholders in the deep south rejected the election results, passed ordinances of secession, and eventually took up arms against the united states when they fired on fort sumter. drawing inspiration from the american revolution,

secessionist based their revolt on the principles of 1776 enshrined in the declaration of independence. if the government doesn't protect its citizens right to life, liberty, and property the people have a right to rebel and establish a government. but does protect those basic rights. as the debates of the secession convention issued by those conventions to explain the reasons for secession, they claim the right of secession was threatened by lincoln's election, but not yet violated -- the right to hold other human beings in bondage, and to do so anywhere in any state or territory. to supporters of the united states, however, secession was not analogous to the american revolution. in 1861, the slaveholding states have representation in the government that the revolutionaries of 1776 did not.

slaveholders sent representatives to congress and voted on presidential candidates in a way unimaginable and unavailable to their fathers in 1776 when no american voted on matters of parliament. or at any voice in the selection of the monarch. as george washington, a southerner and a slaveholder, said the people of the united states are no longer under the spirit of 1776. we're now under the spirit of 1787, the constitution of the united states. the citizens of the united states have representation in our government and a mechanism, free elections, for redressing grievances not available to the revolutionaries of 1776. we have the option of going to the voting booth and changing our leaders, washington said, so there is no need to take up arms. based on this reasoning, washington felt justified in using federal troops to crush what he considered an illegal challenge to the authority of the united states in the same way that lincoln would over a half century later. secessionists would try to associate him with their movement.

washington had explicitly stated that his loyalty was always with a federal government he had risked so much to establish, rather than to a states rights concept that in his mind had created the near disunion and anarchy of the 1780's confederation period, and had fostered the need for a strong constitution in the first place. following washington's lead, president andrew jackson had no toleration for those who resisted federal authority under the guise of states rights. 30 years before the civil war, he warned the people of south carolina that states rights was nothing but a code word for treason, and that secession was an act of revolution because it does not break up a lead, but that does not break up a league, but destroys the unity of a nation. jackson sent this prophetic warning to secessionists. armed disunion is treason. are you ready to encourage guilt? jackson probably had in mind

section three, article three of the united states constitution where treason is defined as loving war against the united states or in giving enemies aid and comfort. lincoln faced a challenge to national authority greater on a scale that washington or jackson, but he looked to them for example as he formulated his response to secession. it is interesting that these southerners provided lincoln with a precedent and inspiration he needed to for fill his sworn duty and defend the constitution against its country's domestic enemies. echoing jackson, he spoke of secession is trying to sugarcoat treason under the guise of states rights. no state can lawfully get out of the union that resolved ordinances to the effect or legally avoid acts of violence is the united states like the

firing on fort sumter are insurrectionary or revolutionary. and like washington, lincoln declared ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors to bullets. when bullets have constitution decided, there can be no successful appeal. the doctrine of secession did not exist in a vacuum. the reason why the secession crisis threatened the nation during the winter of 1860 was slavery. the link between slavery and secession is well forged and documented by overwhelming primary source evidence. some of which i'm going to share with you. a disagreement over slavery almost prevented the formation of the nation in 1787. it pushed to the breaking point in 1850 and finally tore it apart 10 years later. for decades, slaveholders had been trying to reach an agreement. lincoln's election in 1860 was the final straw for many. they now faced a president

openly hostile to slavery and its extension. a chief executive whose political party look forward to the ultimate extinction of human bondage in the united states. the safety and the economy of the south were at stake. to give you some idea, of what slaveholders thought was threatened by a lincoln administration, consider this, slaves were worth more than all the banks, factories, and railroads in the united states combined. slave property constituted half of the south's total wealth. today's terms, a stunning $10 trillion. with a t. if the south had been its own country, it would have possessed the fourth-largest economy in the world. with so much at risk, it was time to leave the united states and restore the constitution in a new nation free of fanatics and abolitionists.

the secessionists' words spoken during the secession crisis in 1860 made clear their reasons for withdrawing their states in creating a new nation. i'm going to read some of this to you. two things i want you to keep in mind. first of all, i apologize for some of the things you're about to hear. it is shocking when you hear this for the first time. secondly, keep in mind, this is not todd groce saying this. ok? i am reading the words of the secessionists themselves. three days before the 1860 presidential election, the charleston mercury, one of the most influential newspapers in the south called for a secession convention if lincoln won the race. stating "the issue before the country is the extinction of slavery. no man of common sense who is

not prepared to surrender the institution of slavery and the safety of the south can doubt the time for secession has come. now or never." two months later, the delegates of the mississippi secession convention stated, "our position is identified with the institution of slavery. the greatest material interest in the world." this position was repeated by every seceding state as its reason for breaking up the union. following his state's secession, future confederate general henry benning was sent by the state of georgia as the official commissioner to the virginia secession convention to explain why georgia has seceded and encourage virginia to join. what was the reason that induced georgia to take the step of secession?

that reason may be summed up in a single proposition. it was a conviction. a deep conviction on the part of georgia that separation from the north was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of slavery. this conviction was the main cause. if it were not for this first conviction, preventing the abolition of slavery, this step would not have been taken. another georgian, alexander stephens, put it bluntly. in a speech which received rapturous applause, in savannah in march 1861, right after he played a key role in the confederate constitutional convention -- if anybody knows what is going on, alexander stephens knows. he is the vice president. the confederate vice president explained to the world the reason for the confederacy. "slavery was the immediate cause of the rupture and

revolution. rejecting thomas jefferson's concept that all men are created equal, he explained, "our government is founded on the opposite idea. the confederacy's foundations are laid. it's cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not the equal of the white man, and slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural position. this government is the first in the world based on this great philosophical and moral truth." the audience went berserk with cheers. secessionists may have been motivated by desire to restore the constitution as its original intent as for white men only, but in the process they created something entirely

new. the only explicitly proslavery nation ever attempted in a modern world. this is not what former confederates said after the war when they were trying to justify their actions and promote reconciliation. by the end of the 19th century was not expedient or correct for ex-confederates to say it was to defend a slave owner republic. in one of the greatest revisionism's in american history, former confederates miraculously transformed the war into the lost cause, a valiant fight for state rights and constitutional liberty against an overreaching federal government. but their words spoken in the 1890's do not square with what they very clearly and unmistakably said in the 1860's 30 years earlier. when they spoke of abolition as threatening to create an er