From: colonel@37thtexas.org
To: jwessels@cincypost.com

Of course the statue of someone who opposed Lincoln has to be removed! How else can the rewriting of history and the deification of Lincoln proceed unimpeded?

Maybe Allen opposed Lincoln because of Lincoln’s outright hypocrisy on the issue of slavery. After all, in 1861 as President-Elect Lincoln did support the Corwin Amendment which would have forever preserved and protected slavery as it then existed. Five of the letters he sent to state Governors urging their support for ratification still exist.

Shall we look at the text of the Corwin Amendment and a bit of "inconvenient truth?" Consider the following and note which "noble" Union state was first in line to ratify the amendment eight months ahead of any other state:

"Article Thirteen: No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." – Submitted to the Senate by Corwin and supported by President-Elect Lincoln as the proposed 13th Amendment to the Constitution as voted on by that body on February 28th, 1861. The Senate voted 39 to 5 to approve this section passed by the House 133-65 on March 2, 1861. Two State legislatures ratified it: Ohio on May 13, 1861; and followed by Maryland on January 10, 1862. Illinois bungled its ratification by holding a convention.

When will Ohio issue an apology for ratifying an amendment designed to protect slavery forever? Will you write an editorial supporting an official apology by your state government?

Then again, maybe Allen’s opposition to Lincoln was fed by Lincoln’s December, 1862, offer to the South for gradual compensated emancipation with slavery not ending completely until 1900.

Of course, the Southern states did not exercise either opportunity because secession and armed defense were not for the purpose of preserving slavery. If they had been why would the South have passed up chances to forever preserve slavery and return to the Union or avoid further bloodshed and gradually wean itself from slavery?

Maybe it was Lincoln’s documented flip-flopping on his "opposition" to slavery that angered Allen and which was so clear to other observers:

"…So Englishmen saw it. Lincoln’s insincerity was regarded as proven by two things: his earlier denial of any lawful right or wish to free the slaves; and, especially, his not freeing the slaves in ‘loyal’ Kentucky and other United States areas or even in Confederate areas occupied by United States troops, such as New Orleans." – "The Glittering Illusion: English Sympathy for the Southern Confederacy," Sheldon Vanauken, 1989, Washington, DC: Regnery/Gateway

How about considering whether Lincoln’s heavy-handed abuse of power and outright violations of the Constitution – including his illegal actions against another OHIO Congressman who dared to oppose him – might have grown Allen’s opposition to him:

"Among the unconstitutional and dictatorial acts performed by Lincoln were initiating and conducting a war by decree for months without the consent or advice of Congress; declaring martial law; confiscating private property; suspending habeas corpus; conscripting the railroads and censoring telegraph lines; imprisoning as many as 30,000 Northern citizens without trial; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, after Vallandigham – a fierce opponent of the Morrill tariff — protested imposition of an income tax at a Democratic Party meeting in Ohio; and shutting down hundreds of Northern newspapers." – "Constitutional Problems under Lincoln," James G. Randall, 1951, Urbana: University of Illinois Press

One must suppose that Allen saw what happened to Vallandigham – rousted from his bed, illegally court-martialed by a military tribunal and sentenced to confinement for the duration of the war – and considered himself lucky. Perhaps you should actually consider the courage it took to continue to oppose Lincoln in light of Vallandigham’s fate.

Maybe Allen looked at this and saw the callous hypocrisy in Lincoln’s "Gettysburg Address" when Lincoln sarcastically referenced "government of the people, by the people and for the people" which had already "perished from this earth" under Lincoln’s tender mercies.

Maybe the final straw for Allen was when Union Colonel Turchin was court-martialed by the Union Army and convicted of war crimes for the savagery he encouraged his troops to undertake in destroying Athens, Alabama, and for which he was recommended for separation from service and "other punishment as may be deemed appropriate." Lincoln’s response was not only to pardon the only person convicted of war crimes during the war (and by his own side) but to promote him to Brigadier General.

Ah, yes, the noble and moral Lincoln.

You are correct – the statue and memory of any Ohioan who opposed "Saint Lincoln" must be removed. That way Ohio’s role in trying to preserve slavery can also be conveniently removed.

It is certain that you never saw either of these two quotes or considered the contrast between them:

"Send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit this." – Abraham Lincoln, as cited in "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln," Roy Basler, ed. 1953 New Brunswick, N.J.,: Rutgers University Press

"There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race." – Col. Robert E. Lee, United States Army, December 27, 1856

Of course, Irish-born Confederate Major General Patrick Cleburne in his January, 1864, letter which proposed the mass emancipation and enlistment of Black Southerners into the Confederate Army predicted why you think the way you do:

"Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late…It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision…"

It is obvious from your opinion piece that your education in history has been woefully lacking and that you have no real intellectual basis from which to comment on Lincoln, Allen, Davis or Lee. Take a few history courses not designed to simply deify Lincoln and the "Holy Crusade" and then try again.

By any chance have you ever read George Orwell’s "1984" and considered the function of the "Ministry of Truth?" There are interesting similarities and parallels between that and the current press.

Through painstaking research and thorough, uncommented documentation we celebrate the courage, sacrifice and heritage of ALL Southerners who had to make agonizing personal choices under impossible circumstances.

"The first law of the historian is that he shall never dare utter an untruth. The second is that he shall suppress nothing that is true. Moreover, there shall be no suspicion of partiality in his writing, or of malice." – Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

We simply ask that all act upon the facts of history. We invite your questions.

Your Obedient Servant,

Colonel Michael Kelley, CSA
Commanding, 37th Texas Cavalry (Terrell’s)
http://www.37thtexas.org
"We are a band of brothers!"

". . . . political correctness has replaced witch trials and communist hearings as the preferred way to torment our fellow countrymen." "Ghost Riders," Sharyn McCrumb, 2004, Signet, pp. 9

"I came here as a friend…let us stand together. Although we differ in color, we should not differ in sentiment." – LT Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA, Memphis Daily Avalanche, July 6, 1875