Observing President’s Day: Lincoln

By Zach Foster

It’s no mystery that President’s Day is yet another symbolic American holiday degraded to becoming an excuse to sell cars, mattresses, and throw barbeques.  Many Americans can’t even grasp a rough idea of what the holiday represents.  This phenomenon of ignorance is not uncommon in today’s society.  Let us explore this holiday and the meaning behind it.

President’s Day was originally observed as George Washington’s birthday and became a federal holiday via an 1880 act of Congress.  It was celebrated on Washington’s actual birthday (February 22) until the mid twentieth century, when the observance of the holiday changed to the third Monday of February, making it easier for the country to rest and observe the holiday on a weekday, much like Memorial Day and Thanksgiving.  Over time, people also began to celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s birthday since he was also born in February (February 9).  Let us take a moment to observe the contributions theat Abraham Lincoln made for the United States.

Abraham Lincoln was born to a very poor Kentucky family.  Much of his education was self taught, and the few books he had around in his youth included the Holy Bible and Aesop’s Fables.  He moved to Illinois where he practiced law and eventually practiced politics.  His political tenure included several terms in the Illinois State Legislature, one term in Congress, and a failed bid for the Senate.  In 1832 he was elected to serve as an officer in the Illinois militia during the Black Hawk War (part of the Indian Wars).  Over the years his popularity as a statesman and orator grew. 

He joined the fledgling Republican Party in 1856 and ended up becoming one of its leaders.  He was elected President in 1860, resulting in the secession of the Southern states.  Though opposed to slavery, he was prepared to allow it to continue if it would prevent the dissolution of the Union.  Lincoln led the United States through its greatest military, political, and moral crisis: the American Civil War.

During his tenure he also set the stage for the emancipation of Southern slaves and the eventual demise of the system of slavery in America.  Though still regarded as a controversial and unpopular figure by many Southerners today, Lincoln’s plan for Reconstruction was minimally punitive and all-inclusive in rebuilding the country.  Unfortunately, he was murdered by John Wilkes Booth toward the close of the war.  His corrupt Vice President Andrew Johnson assumed the Presidency, and infighting between him and Congress led to the hard-line Radical Republicans imposing a highly punitive and exclusive Reconstruction, heightening postwar tensions and giving rise to corrupt black and pro-North militias, militant violent hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and the eventual institution of the Jim Crow system.  Though his plans for a harmonious rebuilding of America were shredded by radicals, Lincoln is remembered for his kindness, his courage, and his ability to lead.

Remarks With Sudanese Foreign Minister Ahmen Ali Karti

January 26, 2011

SECRETARY CLINTON: I am pleased to welcome to the State Department today the foreign minister of Sudan. Minister Karti is here consulting with our government on a number of the issues that Sudan is dealing with in the very important period of what is occurring with the South and their vote and the full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.

We very much appreciate the Government of Sudan’s cooperation and assistance in ensuring a peaceful referendum, and we look forward to continuing to work with the minister and the government as we move forward.

FOREIGN MINISTER KARTI: Well, I thank you. I’ve been here for the first visit – first official visit to State and I very much commend the way and thank the way I was received and welcomed. And all doors were open for me to discuss the issues of bilateral relations and issues both of standing issues, also brand new issues in Sudan. We have been able to go on with the process with the South and for sure with the assistance and help of U.S.

We came here also to thank U.S. Administration for all they had done for the people of Sudan and for making it possible for us, two partners, to sit down together, go on until concludes that agreement and throughout the implementation till it is peacefully a point, a very important point of time. And we are here also to look toward the future and are also ready to cooperate and work together with (inaudible) the Secretary and everybody who is here.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Minister.

FOREIGN MINISTER KARTI: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all very much.

Successful Completion of Polling in the Southern Sudan Referendum

By Hillary Rodham Clinton

The completion of a peaceful, orderly Southern Sudan referendum marks a significant achievement for the Sudanese people and a historic step toward full implementation of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The United States commends the millions of Southern Sudanese people who participated in this historic process, and applauds both northern and southern leaders for creating conditions that allowed voters to cast their ballots freely and without fear, intimidation, or coercion. The successful vote was also a credit to the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission, the Southern Sudan Referendum Bureau, and more than 40 countries and international organizations. We welcome the positive statements issued in recent days by international observer missions from the African Union, Arab League, Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, European Union, and the Carter Center.

As we await the official results of the referendum, we reaffirm our commitment to remain a steadfast partner to both parties as they continue to work toward full implementation of the CPA and to develop their post-CPA relationship. The parties have an opportunity to forge a durable peace between the North and the South, and to build positive relationships with the international community. We hope they will seize this moment, and the United States supports their efforts to ensure a peaceful, more prosperous future for all Sudanese.

Joint Statement on the Start of Polling for the Southern Sudan Referendum

Following is the text of a joint statement by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Støre, and United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague on the start of polling for the Southern Sudan referendum.

Begin Text:

We welcome the start of polling today for the Southern Sudan Referendum. This represents a historic step towards completion of Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement. We recognise the significant progress which has been made in recent weeks towards preparing for the referendum, including the successful completion of voter registration and other technical arrangements. We welcome the preliminary reports of the UN Secretary General’s Panel on the Referenda in Sudan, Carter Center, European Union, and other international and domestic observation missions, which stated that arrangements are now in place that provide a firm foundation for a credible referendum to take place.

We call for all efforts to ensure peaceful and credible completion of the referendum process in a manner which reflects the will of the people of South Sudan. The Southern Sudan Referendum Commission and Southern Sudan Referendum Bureau have made enormous efforts under significant pressure and deserve to be commended for their work. We welcome the leadership shown by both Sudanese parties. President Bashir has made clear that his Government will respect the outcome of the Referendum. We welcome this commitment.

We are encouraged by the strong public commitments of both Presidents Bashir and Kiir to continue negotiations on post-referendum issues and to foster cooperation between the North and South regardless of the referendum result. We welcome these commitments as well as their pledge that the safety and security of all peoples in Sudan will be protected throughout this process. It is vital that these commitments are upheld.

The situation in Abyei remains of deep concern. We commend the people of Abyei for their patience in recent months. The outstanding issues must be resolved in a calm and measured manner and we emphasise again to both parties their responsibilities to urgently resolve the impasse. Clear communication is also vital to reassure the communities on the ground that their concerns will be addressed and underscore that the parties will reconvene negotiations at the earliest possible date. It is also of great importance that popular consultations in Blue Nile and Southern Kordofan states are conducted expeditiously and inclusively.

The work of the many domestic and international observation and monitoring groups is crucial. We welcome their continuing engagement. We also welcome the strong leadership by the United Nations Mission in Sudan. We will work closely with all international partners to maintain strong international support for the referendum process, and successful completion of the CPA.

U.S. Special Envoy Gration to Travel to Sudan

Office of the Spokesman

Washington, DC

U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration departs this evening for Sudan to observe the Southern Sudan referendum and demonstrate U.S. support as the parties work to implement this cornerstone of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. Special Envoy Gration, with U.S. Senior Advisor for North-South Negotiations Ambassador Princeton Lyman, will meet with government representatives, the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission, and United Nations officials. He then will travel to Juba to observe the opening of polling on January 9 for the Southern Sudan referendum.

Special Envoy Gration also will travel to Darfur with Ambassador Dane Smith, the administration’s newly appointed Senior Advisor on Darfur, to meet with government officials, United Nations and African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) leadership, and civil society groups.

Expectations & Implications: A Discussion on the Southern Sudan Referendum

Scott Gration

Special Envoy to Sudan Philip J. Crowley

MR. CROWLEY: Hello and welcome to the Department of State in Washington, D.C. I’m P.J. Crowley. I’m the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. And this is another conversation with America where we talk to a key diplomat or a national security leader about critical issues facing the United States and the rest of the world. Today, we’re here to talk about the future of Sudan with General Scott Gration, our Special Envoy for Sudan.

Scott, you’ve made how many trips to Sudan since the Obama Administration started?

MR. GRATION: I’m coming up on my 24th.

MR. CROWLEY: Twenty-four trips. And what Sudan faces in the coming days and the coming months is a critical referendum on the future of South Sudan, and we’ll talk about something called the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the way forward on this crucial issue.

Scott, thank you very much for joining us.

MR. GRATION: It’s great to be here, P.J.

MR. CROWLEY: So let’s talk about Sudan. There is this thing called the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. What is Sudan facing starting with this referendum in the coming days?

MR. GRATION: Well, this is a really big deal because this vote gives the Southern Sudanese the opportunity to decide whether they want to be united as they have been since 1956, or to choose independence. And that’s what we’re trying to do, put together a process that was mandated back in 2005 under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, and now is the fruition. In fact, it is -- the referendum will take place on the sixth anniversary of the signing, that signing that ended 22 years of civil war in the South.

And so we’re looking forward to an opportunity where the Southern Sudanese can go out not only in Southern Sudan, but the Southern Sudanese that are in the North and in eight countries where the diaspora are located. They’ll have an opportunity to express their will, and then that will decide whether they become a new country or they remain united.

MR. CROWLEY: And maybe the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, or CPA, it perhaps represents continuity in United States foreign policy and the international commitment to Sudan. What’s a little bit of the history of the CPA going back to trying to end the civil war during the Bush Administration?

MR. GRATION: Well, this has really been a cornerstone of our policy in Sudan, supporting the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. We were there at the Machakos Accord, we were there in Naivasha where this document was finalized and signed. And the fact is our Secretary of State Colin Powell was out there. We had a special representative, Senator John Danforth who helped work through a lot of the issues. And the fact is we have been a partner with the IGAD community, with other people, other nations, right from the very start. So this is a very important peace document, and we’re working very hard to make sure it gets implemented fully.

Now, the referendum is just one piece of this. There’s border demarcation. There’s citizenship element. There’s what happens to the oil. Now, these aren’t specific to the document, but they are part of the document. The document sets up a framework where the North and the South can negotiate and reach agreements on these very special issues.

In addition to that, there’s popular consultations in Kordofan and in the Blue Nile where they have an opportunity to mold their future. And there’s also the issue of Abyei, a very sensitive issue that hasn’t been decided yet, but that’s part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement too, to decide, if the South becomes independent, what happens to this piece of property in southern Kordofan that belongs, according to the Hague Treaty, to the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms.

MR. CROWLEY: Now, you’ve made 23 trips to Sudan thus far. Six months ago, nine months ago, did you have confidence that this referendum might come off the way it is poised to?

MR. GRATION: Well, P.J., you always have to be optimistic. Otherwise, you wouldn’t get up in the morning. And so I’ve been optimistic that this could happen, and I’m very pleased that, in fact, we are poised, and there really is no technical reason why we can’t have this referendum. Sure, there’s things that might come up at the end, but right now we’re five days away, and it looks to me like this will come off and start on the 9th. And it will continue for seven days, and then there will be a process where the votes are counted, we make sure that we have the 60 percent turnout, and then we’ll get an official result sometime after that, something maybe in the last week in January, the first week of February, at which time we’ll know what the Southern Sudanese have decided.

What we’re looking for is not the outcome, though, P.J. We’re looking to make sure that there’s a process where the people have an opportunity to express their free will, a process that happens on time, that happens peacefully, and that is transparent. Because in the end, the international community, along with the people of the North and the South, have to say “Yes, this really is the will of the people and we’ll accept the results.”

MR. CROWLEY: Now, South Sudan represents something like a third of the current land mass –

MR. GRATION: Right.

MR. CROWLEY: -- of Sudan. Is it ready to be its own country?

MR. GRATION: Well, sure there’s things that need to be done to make it more ready, but yes, I believe that if the South chooses to be independent – they’ve been autonomous for almost six years. In other words, they’ve had a system of self-governance. They have a military called the SPLA. And several countries, including the United States, have been helping them transform from a guerrilla organization to an organization that can defend their borders and defend their people. They have a civil police organization, and we’ve been very much involved in helping train that organization to respect human rights and to provide a framework for civil society protections and security.

So yes, there’s things that need to be done in terms of developing the agriculture. There’s things that need to be done in terms of education. Southern Sudan has been plagued with a literacy rate that’s very low. It’s below 20 percent. And so we’re working very hard to make sure that we can help them in the four areas of literacy. One is just the standard primary school, and then the second thing is teacher training. There’s only about 20 percent of their teachers that are qualified and ready to teach, so they need some really – a lot of help in terms of teacher education. And then we have a lot of Sudanese that are highly educated but they’ve been living in the North, and some of these are coming south, and so there’s going to have to be that translation mode where people from the South who have been living in the North who speak Arabic, who studied in Arabic, need to come south and learn numeracy and literacy in terms of being able to communicate in the languages that are more spoken in the South.

And then the final piece is a lot of people, because they’ve been at war for 40 years, missed an opportunity to get educated. So we have a whole segment of the adult population that needs to have adult education. This is going to be a lot of work. We’re looking at public-private ways of funding this and getting involved. We’re looking at seeing if some institutions, like the Bush Institute* and others, will want to get involved. Teach for America has an international arm. We’re looking at those. And of course, the standards of USAID and UNICEF will have to play a very large role in the education program.

MR. CROWLEY: Now, under the CPA, with the referendum starting this coming weekend, the South Sudanese, if they choose, will be independent as of next July. Now, that sets up a kind of very intensive six-month period. What needs to be done in the post-referendum phase?

MR. GRATION: Well, you’re exactly right. The interim period of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement comes to an end on the 9th of July, and anytime after that the South can choose to become independent if that’s what the people vote for. We don’t know if it’s going to happen on the 10th or sometime later, but yes, it could happen as early as July 10th.

Now, in my view, the longest border that the South will share with any country is that 1,936-kilometer border that is between the North and the South. And the fact is if you take a look at the oil, the infrastructure for the oil transportations in the North, much of the transportation and communication infrastructure is in the North. And there’s things like airspace control, those kinds of things that it’s going to probably take a little while to do that transition period or transformation period or independence.

And so in my view, probably the biggest thing that has to happen is building the relationship between the North and the South as two independent countries, if that’s what they choose. Because they’re going to have to communicate. They’re going to have to cooperate. There’s going to have to be agreements on security, agreement on political things, and certainly some agreements on economic issues. And then the citizenship issue has to be resolved, and that’s why the border demarcation piece is so important.

So again, we’ll continue to work with both the North and the South to help them through this phase, to help them get the relationships that they need to make sure that they can operate at peace with each other and promote peace in all of Africa and especially that community where they live.

MR. CROWLEY: And how much of that border is currently resolved? There’s still some questions.

MR. GRATION: There are some questions. There’s about 320 kilometers that are still under dispute. There are five areas. Some probably will be easy to figure out because we have the data going back to when the British and the Turks were working in that area. And what we’ve decided is that the border that was in existence on the 1st of January 1956 will be the border. But there’s some areas that weren’t gazetted, some areas that we’re demarcated, and some areas that moved after that point, and some before. So we’re going back and researching the documents and researching the agreements that were made, and we’re going to have to figure this out. Some may have to go to arbitration, but I believe we can come up with a solution for all those 320 kilometers that are under dispute.

MR. CROWLEY: And you mentioned earlier Abyei. Now, the original CPA called for two referenda.

MR. GRATION: Right.

MR. CROWLEY: One will take place – the parties have not been able to resolve the question of how to determine the future of Abyei. Talk a little bit about Abyei. What does it represent and what are some of the complex elements of that issue?

MR. GRATION: Well, this is probably the toughest issue that we’ve had to face as we’ve come up to full implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. And the reason is, is that, first of all, it was an area that was under arbitration, and the Permanent Court of Appeals in The Hague gave a definition to Abyei, but there’s still a competition as to who really has rights to the land. The Ngok Dinka believe that they have the rights to the land, the nine chiefdoms of the Ngok Dinka. At the same time, the Misseriya believe that they have historical rights, that they’ve been passing through that area for hundreds of years to get to water, to get to grazing land, and that they have rights.

And so this is a problem and it’s become very emotional, it’s become politicized, and there’s a lot of passions associated with this. We’ve been working hard with both parties to create an atmosphere and an environment where they could come up with a solution. So far, they have not been able to come up with a solution, but I think that they’re going to have to, at some point, demonstrate the political will, the political courage, and the political leadership to make some concessions and to make an agreement that will serve all the people of that region. Because the Misseriya still need to come down to water and grazing lands, and it is true that the Ngok Dinka have had this ruling and they have rights to that land.

So we’ll have to see how they resolve it, but this is one of those things where all we can do is help, but the parties themselves have to come up with a solution that meet the needs of their constituencies and meet the needs of their two parties.

MR. CROWLEY: And then there’s Darfur. Now, most people know more about Darfur and the challenge there. Update us a little bit. What is happening today in Darfur?

MR. GRATION: P.J., we’ve spent a lot of time on Darfur. On my last trip, I spent three days in Doha and three days in Darfur, and it is a big issue for us. We have not abandoned Darfur while we’ve been thinking about the referendum. Sure, the referendum is the nearest thing and is getting a lot of publicity, but at the same time, I am probably spending more time right now on Darfur than I am even on the referendum.

And the things that we’re working on are a couple. One is we’ve just got to stop the civil war, the fighting that’s going on between the rebel groups and the government. This is causing a dislocation of the people, it is causing more suffering, and it’s causing more IDPs, or internally displaced people. That has got to stop.

At the same time, the people have to have places to go back to, and so we’re working to make sure that there’s overall security, and that there’s an infrastructure and a stabilization, where the infrastructure – so there’s water points, there’s education, there’s medical, so that when the people decide to return, they have something to go back to. And that the basic problems that started this conflict – the resource issues and that kind of thing between those that grow and those that graze – that those issues are solved, that there’s opportunities to create wealth, that there’s opportunities for jobs. And so we’re looking at systemic issues and we’re looking at the combat issues and we’re trying to create a situation where the people of Darfur can have a future that was better than the past.

At the same time, we know that we’re not going to get a peace unless we take care of the justice and the accountability issues and that there’s reconciliation. And so we’re looking at compensation, we’re looking at wealth sharing, we’re looking at power sharing, and we’re looking to make sure that people have avenues to get those wrongs righted and be able to move forward.

MR. CROWLEY: In the CPA, it’s about North and South, but how does the future of South Sudan, which does not directly affect Darfur but – how does that – does one affect the other ultimately? Is there a dynamic here that will have an impact on Darfur even though the CPA itself does not involve Darfur?

MR. GRATION: Darfur is a very complex issue. We had to start out by working on the conflict between Chad-supported rebels and Sudanese-supported rebels, and so that problem we were able to resolve. We are now working on a ceasefire between the JEM, which is the Justice and Equality Movement, and some of the other movements. But we’re going to have to resolve a lot of issues, and so there’s a lot of external players and internal players.

In the South, if the South becomes unstable, it could also involve spillover. And at the same time, if we can’t solve the problem of Darfur, then the South will have to take refugees. And so all of these issues – the North needs to be strong, because the South needs a strong partner to the North. The South needs to be strong. And Darfur needs to be resolved.

The bottom line is you’re exactly right; unless we get all of the three elements working and improving with a brighter future and a stronger infrastructure – and that’s why the international community and the United States has to remain involved. We have to make sure that if the South chooses to be independent, that they have an opportunity to grow and become strong and become a vibrant and prosperous nation. The same with the North – there will be 30-some million people in the North; they need the same kind of future. And of course, Darfur, with its roughly 8 million people, they need a future where they can start stabilizing, where kids can grow up without living in an environment where they either live in an IDP camp or they live with conflict and danger.

These are the things we’ve been working on. These are the things that the Obama Administration is committed to. Our objectives are to implement fully the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and we’re making great progress. The other thing, though, is to end the conflict in Darfur definitively, to end the gross human rights abuses and the genocide, and that’s what we’re working on. And then of course, we want to make sure that the whole region is not a place where terrorists can come back to, it is not a place that will foster terrorism and things that will actually destroy the country but also spill over into the neighborhood. These are the things we’re working on, and I believe we’re making good progress in each of those three areas.

MR. CROWLEY: Why have you made this investment or why has the President made this investment in Sudan? I mean, there’s lots of things, there’s lots of challenges around the world, but why is Sudan important to the United States?

MR. GRATION: It’s interesting that one of the senior leaders in Africa, somebody who I’ve spent a lot of time listening to, said to me, “Sudan is so important, because if we’re not successful in bringing peace and stability to Sudan, from Cairo to Cape Town, and from Dakar to Djibouti, we will have unrest.” And the more I think about it and the more I’ve seen, Sudan is one of the biggest countries in the – in Africa, certainly, and one of the major countries of the world, and it’s huge. It’s as big as from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River. People don’t realize how big this thing is.

And so if there’s unrest and if there’s problems, it’s going to spill over. But the thing that I go back to – it comes down to the individuals, the people. I take a look at the children who, in many cases, have not seen peace, have not seen prosperity. I take a look at the South. They’ve been fighting for 40 years – 22 years in the last fight before the CPA was signed. I take a look at people that have missed opportunities for education, missed opportunities to reap the benefits that we take for granted in the rest of the world. Those people need a chance. And that’s why we’re doing it – to make sure that the people who have suffered so much in Darfur, the people that have lost almost 2 million people in the South, that their future doesn’t include that kind of pain, that kind of suffering, and that kind of death. That’s why we’re involved.

But more than that, there’s a security issue, there’s an economic issue, and there’s a political issue. And I believe if we can solve Sudan, then the whole continent of Africa has a brighter future.

MR. CROWLEY: Do you think that there are leaders, North and South, who can see that long-term potential and rise above the conflict that they have been fighting for four years?

MR. GRATION: Yeah, one of the things President Obama has asked us to do is to take a look at how do we internationalize and multilateralize this problem. And so we’ve worked on building a network of contacts, a network of partners who are involved. And it not only includes the two parties – and they’re the ones that have to make the decisions and the agreements – but it includes the nine neighbors, and it includes all the rest of Africa, and it includes the international community. And we’ve been working very hard through the P-5, and Ambassador Rice has been very helpful there.

Secretary Clinton has been absolutely superb. She has made telephone calls. She has written letters. She’s become very, very involved in building a coalition in and around Sudan that will be able to help make sure that there’s that support mechanism, the things that you’re talking about. And certainly, her contacts with Egypt and certainly Ethiopia – Prime Minister Meles has been a very large supporter – and countries to the south, the IGAD countries are heavily invested. And President Deby, of course, made great efforts to solve the problem between Khartoum and N'djamena and made a historic trip on – almost a year ago, on the 8th of February, where he went across and restored relationships and started the rapprochement that has been able to help us stop the fighting in Darfur.

My point is this: People are invested. We’ve built a very strong team both within the government, where we have almost a hundred people working on Sudan every day, down to the international community, where many people are involved and many countries are involved in a very serious and committed way.

MR. CROWLEY: And then what – how does Darfur fit into this? What do you want to see either from North – from the Government of Khartoum or from some of the rebel elements that are still active in Darfur?

MR. GRATION: Well, this is a very critical time. And because of that, we brought on another very experienced ambassador, Dane Smith. And right now – we had in Doha, with the Government of Qatar and with the AU-UN mediation team led by Djibrill Bassole, that’s coming to an end. And somewhere in the next 30 to 60 days, that will be transitioning to Darfur under the Darfur-Darfur Conference, so that civil society can be more involved. And we’ve actually put together a framework agreement – when I say “we,” the international community led by the UN-AU mediator – and that needs to be implemented. So that’s why the process is moving to Darfur.

So there’s going to have to be more of a bigger footprint in Darfur and there’s going to have to be more international community efforts in Darfur. And when we do get this peace or stabilization or more security, then the international community is going to have to come in with stabilization programs and development programs because Darfur’s in the same place. We have almost three million people living in IDP camps that have access to food and shelter and water that’s being provided. That can’t continue. You can’t have sustained emergency operations. We need to have sustainable development. And that means we’re going to have to work hard on a plan and we’re going to have to work hard on implantation programs that allow the Darfuris to have that same thing that we talked about in the South: agriculture, education, infrastructure, wealth creation opportunities. That’s going to be a big job, but it has to happen.

MR. CROWLEY: My last question: If we sit here a year from now, what will you hope to see in Sudan?

MR. GRATION: I hope to be able to take my family there on a vacation. I hope to be able to travel with peace and security. I hope to see the sights that Sudan has and meet the wonderful people that are there in Sudan, and I would hope that they would be able to come to America without restriction. And I would hope to see an economy that’s vibrant, and I would love to see a country that’s developing along with the rest of the world. I think it can happen. And I think what this Administration has been able to do in the last two years sets the foundation for a future that is bright and sets the foundation so that the kids that are now five years old, the age of my grandchildren, that they’ll have the same future as my grandchildren. And they don’t have that today, but I think they deserve it, I think they need it, and that’s what I’ve been working for.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let’s hope that that vision comes to pass, and we’ll invite you back and see how close we came. Scott, thank you very much. Thank you for your hard work. And we’ll look to see what happens here in Sudan in the next six months.

MR. GRATION: Thank you, P.J. It’s been an honor.

MR. CROWLEY: And thank you very much for joining us for a conversation with America, and we’ll see you again soon.

Southern Sudan Referendum

The people of Sudan will make history by holding their first referendum on Jan. 9 to continue the pursuit of their vision for democratic change for a peaceful future. Expectations & Implications: A Discussion on the Southern Sudan Referendum between Special Envoy Gration and Assistant Secretary Crowley will be available on Jan. 6.

The United States continues to urge the parties to fully implement the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The January 9, 2011 referendum on self-determination for Southern Sudan is a cornerstone of the CPA. The U.S. is determined to avoid destabilization or delay. The U.S. supports the CPA parties as they make preparations to conduct a peaceful referendum that reflects the will of the Sudanese people on January 9. For the latest status of referendum preparations, see the dates listed on the left.

Eyewitness Report: Our Side of the Story

Jefferson Davis, President of the C.S.A.

This is the last in a series of articles featured on the Political Spectrum as part of Secession Week.

The object of this work has been from historical data to show that the Southern States had rightfully the power to withdraw from a Union into which they had, as sovereign communities, voluntarily entered; that the denial of that right was a violation of the letter and spirit of the compact between the States; and that the war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States was in disregard of the limitations of the Constitution, and destructive of the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

The author, from his official position, may claim to have known much of the motives and acts of his countrymen immediately before and during the war of 1861-'65, and he has sought to furnish material far the future historian, who, when the passions and prejudices of the day shall have given place to reason and sober thought, may, better than a contemporary, investigate the causes, conduct, and results of the war.

The incentive to undertake the work now offered to the public was the desire to correct misapprehensions created by industriously circulated misrepresentations as to the acts and purposes of the people and the General Government of the Confederate States. By the reiteration of such unappropriate terms as "rebellion" and "treason," and the asseveration that the South was levying war against the United States, those ignorant of the nature of the Union, and of the reserved powers of the States, have been led to believe that the Confederate States were in the condition of revolted provinces, and that the United States were forced to resort to arms for the preservation of their existence. To those who knew that the Union was formed for specific enumerated purposes, and that the States had never surrendered their sovereignty it was a palpable absurdity to apply to them, or to their citizens when obeying their mandates, the terms "rebellion" and "treason"; and, further, it is shown in the following pages that the Confederate States, so far from making war or seeking to destroy the United States, as soon as they had an official organ, strove earnestly, by peaceful recognition, to equitably adjust all questions growing out of the separation from their late associates.

Another great perversion of truth has been the arraignment of the men who participated in the formation of the Confederacy and who bore arms in its defense, as the instigators of a controversy leading to disunion. Sectional issues appear conspicuously in the debates of the Convention which framed the Federal Constitution, and its many compromises were designed to secure an equilibrium between the sections, and to preserve the interests as well as the liberties of the several States. African servitude at that time was not confined to a section, but was numerically greater in the South than in the North, with a tendency to its continuance in the former and cessation in the latter. It therefore thus early presents itself as a disturbing element, and the provisions of the Constitution, which were known to be necessary for its adoption, bound all the States to recognize and protect that species of property. When at a subsequent period there arose in the Northern States an antislavery agitation, it was a harmless and scarcely noticed movement until political demagogues seized upon it as a means to acquire power. Had it been left to pseudo-philanthropists and fanatics, most zealous where least informed, it never could have shaken the foundations of the Union and have incited one section to carry fire and sword into the other. That the agitation was political in its character, and was clearly developed as early as 1803, it is believed has been established in these pages. To preserve a sectional equilibrium and to maintain the equality of the States was the effort on one side, to acquire empire was the manifest purpose on the other. This struggle began before the men of the Confederacy were born; how it arose and how it progressed it has been attempted briefly to show. Its last stage was on the question of territorial governments; and, if in this work it has not been demonstrated that the position of the South was justified by the Constitution and the equal rights of the people of all the States, it must be because the author has failed to present the subject with a sufficient degree of force and clearness.

In describing the events of the war, space has not permitted, and the loss of both books and papers has prevented, the notice of very many entitled to consideration, as well for the humanity as the gallantry of our men in the unequal combats they fought. These numerous omissions, it is satisfactory to know, the official reports made at the time and the subsequent contributions which have been and are being published by the actors, will supply more fully and graphically than could have been done in this work.

Usurpations of the Federal Government have been presented, not in a spirit of hostility, but as a warning to the people against the dangers by which their liberties are beset. When the war ceased, the pretext on which it had been waged could no longer be alleged. The emancipation proclamation of Mr. Lincoln, which, when it was issued, he humorously admitted to be a nullity, had acquired validity by the action of the highest authority known to our institutions—the people assembled in their several State Conventions. The soldiers of the Confederacy had laid down their arms, had in good faith pledged themselves to abstain from further hostile operations, and had peacefully dispersed to their homes; there could not, then, have been further dread of them by the Government of the United States.

The plea of necessity could, therefore, no longer exist for hostile demonstration against the people and States of the deceased Confederacy. Did vengeance, which stops at the grave, subside? Did real peace and the restoration of the States to their former rights and positions follow, as was promised on the restoration of the Union? Let the recital of the invasion of the reserved powers of the States, or the people, and the perversion of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by the Constitution, answer the question. For the deplorable fact of the war, for the cruel manner in which it was waged, for the sad physical and yet sadder moral results it produced, the reader of these pages, I hope, will admit that the South, in the forum of conscience, stands fully acquitted.

Much of the past is irremediable; the best hope for a restoration in the future to the pristine purity and fraternity of the Union, rests on the opinions and character of the men who are to succeed this generation: that they maybe suited to that blessed work, one, whose public course is ended, invokes them to draw their creed from the fountains of our political history, rather than from the lower stream, polluted as it has been by self-seeking place-hunters and by sectional strife.

From The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis

Image used courtesy of wtps.org.

Zach Foster: On the Confederate Flag, Part 4

A selection from “On the Confederate Flag” 2nd Edition, December 2010

By Zach Foster

This is one in a series of articles being featured on the Political Spectrum as part of Secession Week.

Click to view On the Confederate Flag, Part 3

Let us forgive!

The smoothest way for Americans to forgive secession and the cause of the Civil War, since many Americans still haven’t gotten over it, is to clearly see and accept the opposition’s reasons, whether one agrees with them or not.  Political correctness, though it for the most part makes life better for people of different backgrounds, can occasionally do harm.  There were mistakes made on both sides of the political struggle preceding the war and Americans need to accept this.  It was the South’s mistake for abandoning diplomacy and for abandoning the Union, but it is also the North’s fault for rigidly refusing to appeal to Southern political and economic needs.

Though it was the South’s attempt to form a foreign nation, they were defeated and brought back into the Union.  The Civil War has been over for 145 years, yet Americans still feel resentment towards one side or another.  When people think of the Civil War, they think of blue and gray, or of slavery and freedom.  What many fail to think of is whom a civil war involves—one people, fathers and sons, brothers and friends—killing each other.  Most of the military leaders in the Civil War, both Union and Confederate, were old friends and classmates from military school, and the members of the Congress were former colleagues.  It is difficult for people to imagine going to war against half of their own high school graduating class.  It is doubtful as to whether any American has ever pulled the old High School yearbook from his shelf, opened it up to the pictures and said to himself, Someday there will be a Civil War and I’m going to have to kill him, him, him, and many others because our beliefs differ.  This is what happened to America and this is the reason why Americans need to forgive.

There is a compelling argument in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War explaining how Secession was more legal than the American Revolution.  Regardless of its argued legitimacy, the Confederate States of America was a movement of Southern people.  Nonetheless, those Southerners were Americans, born of the same nation as their Northern counterparts.  Yes, the South tried to secede, but it failed.  Yes, the North invaded and burned the Southern states into submission, but the same Southern culture and traditions have survived since those states were readmitted into the Union.  It seems as if some intellectual schools of die-hard Southerners have been sore losers and, even worse, their die-hard Northern counterparts have been sore winners!

It was the revered hero Abraham Lincoln whose vision of reconstruction was “malice toward none; with charity toward all... to bind up the nation's wounds.”  Tragically, the South lost its best post-war friend when Lincoln was assassinated.  Reconstruction occurred, though not according to Lincoln’s plan.  The vengeful Northern politicians and military governors imposed a punitive system of Reconstruction which failed to reinstate patriotism toward the Union among the spiteful Southern population.  Reconstruction failed to rebuild the Southern infrastructure, failed to educate the emancipated slaves who lacked many skills after a lifetime of servitude (an issue faced today by many North Korean defectors living in the South), and it succeeded only in driving people apart.  This failed form of Reconstruction gave rise to the oppressive Jim Crow system.

Americans need to acknowledge that the Civil War is physically over, but that the division still exists today.  All Americans need to extend a hand of brotherhood to other Americans whether their ideologies agree or not.  Southerners today (with the exception of hate groups and neo-secessionist movements which are few in number) may wave the Confederate flag, but they are loyal to the United States of America.

Let their heritage be honored

Unlike other civil wars, the veterans of the losing side of this country’s civil war were not severely punished.  Other wars such as the Chinese Civil War saw the losing side driven from the mainland and forced to settle on a small island to avoid violent persecution, with horrid persecution of those left behind.  The Vietnam War saw a sloppy evacuation of Saigon by helicopter, followed by ten years of refugees fleeing from imprisonment and execution.  This did not happen after the American Civil War, nor was it the objective of either side.  The Federal objective in the war was to preserve the Union.  This objective was carried out successfully.

Still, there are Southerners who speak out against the “tyranny” of the United States government circa 1860.  These individuals are being just as misinformed and overly dramatic as those on the other side of the debate, crying that the flag is a constant reminder of hatred and oppression.  These two extremes are reactionary stances and both are counterproductive.  All sides are guilty, and Americans need to accept this and put the past behind them as they look forward to bind those wounds that never healed.

Some people have tried to move on.  The Northern veterans of the Civil War have received the national and historical accreditation that they deserve.  Southerners have received only local honors by their descendants until groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans emerged nationally.  Just as Southerners need to forgive the United States Armed Forces, the armed forces whom many Southern sons and daughters serve, the rest of the American population needs to forgive and honor the Confederate Veterans who suffered the loss of a war and public scorn similar to that which burdened the Veterans of the Vietnam War.  In later decades, Confederate veterans were given pensions by their state of residency.  To this pension system, the Federal government did not object or intervene.  In all parts of the country, regardless of which side they belonged to, the government acknowledged veterans of the American Civil War.

Moving beyond politics, it’s interesting to note how both flags of the Civil War have moved on from being symbols of war and politics to finding a place as pop-culture symbols.  There are many rock and country music groups that have adopted these flags into their album artwork and merchandise.  There are also many stores, including Army surplus, where people can easily buy both flags to own or display.

The Confederacy has also established a legacy in history and folklore, with Robert E. Lee arguably becoming the most revered man in Southern history.  Several other Confederate leaders have lived on as well.  To this day, some of the U.S. Army’s most famous military bases where elite soldiers are trained are named after Confederate generals Braxton Bragg, John Bell Hood, A.P. Hill, and Robert E. Lee.  This legacy is acceptable, since a great many other military bases are named for Northern military leaders.

On the appropriateness of flying the Confederate flag

The Confederate flag, though it is a symbol of the history and culture of the American South, is not a political flag—it is a symbolic one.  There are only two instances in which it should be appropriate to fly the rebel flag in public places.  The first instance is for memorial services for fallen ancestors, or for the graves of Confederate dead.  The second instance is for historical context, such as the flag’s use in battle re-enactments, museums, battle sites, or important Southern anniversaries.

Though instances exist in which flying the rebel flag can be appropriate, by no means should the flag fly above Old Glory or any other version of the US flag.  Furthermore, the rebel flag should not be flown over government buildings.  There was a hot national issue in 2007 regarding the rebel flag being flown over the South Carolina State Capitol building.  Though photographs indicate that the rebel flag was below the United States flag, it was incorrect to fly a secessionist flag over a government building of a US state.

It is appropriate to fly the flag over monuments to Confederate veterans, since they represented their communities and their states which happened to have seceded at the time.  It is also highly appropriate to fly the rebel flag on private property in observance of the First Amendment.

Another topic of debate is the appropriateness of the rebel flags flying over the graves of Confederate military dead.  This is acceptable and practical, since the rebel soldiers fought and died for that flag.  They are entitled to their desired flag over their gravesites.  This courtesy is an American military tradition.  During World War II, when German prisoners died in stateside captivity or in escape attempts, the US Army would give those POWs proper military burials, including religious benediction and their coffin being draped with the red flag with the swastika.  During the Cold War, Soviet soldiers would occasionally die in air or submarine espionage missions.  If their bodies were retrieved, they were given their own burial rights, including benediction by Russian Orthodox priests and their coffins being draped with the red Soviet flag with the hammer and sickle.  By these standards, the American rebels—our brothers—ought to be allowed their rebel flags at their graves.

For any ceremonial instances that are not historically oriented in which the Confederate flag must be displayed, one format is appropriate.  Such a format is to fly the United States flag highest, followed by the corresponding state flag, and then the rebel flag.  For this order to be changed deliberately and out of historical or cultural context would be a symbolic challenge to US sovereignty, and possibly a violation reaching beyond the protection of the First Amendment.

Moving On

The United States is a diverse and multicultural country.  Though the Civil War has been long over, it continues to divide Americans.  It is only with the understanding of the evolution of the meaning of the Confederate flag that Americans can accept it as a reminder of the lost cause of secession, and of the deaths of hundreds of thousands over differences in ideology.  The flag itself is just a symbol now of things that may have been, but never were.  The days when terrorists brutalized Southern blacks while waving the flag are long gone. The rebel flag hates no more than the person waving it, and so it should not be regarded as a symbol of hate.

The Civil War was fought because people abandoned diplomacy and turned prematurely to settling their disputes with weapons.  People are guilty on both sides, and only through understanding this can Americans take up the responsibility of binding the country’s wounds and healing.  It is our responsibility as Americans, regardless of regional background and pride, to educate ourselves and each other, to understand each other, and to love each other both in the common history and traditions we share and in the wonderful differences which broaden our horizons.  “…malice toward none; with charity toward all…”

For further reading

On secession, the Civil War, and Reconstruction

The Civil War: A History, by Harry Hansen, Signet Classics, 2002

Time: Abraham Lincoln-An illustrated history of his life and times, Time Inc. Home Entertainment, 2009

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War, by H.W. Crocker III, Regnery Press, 2008

On Native American Confederates

p. 101-102 “The Battle of Pea Ridge,” The Civil War: A History, by Harry Hansen, Signet Classics, 2002

“Native Americans in the Civil War,” NativeAmericans.com,

http://www.nativeamericans.com/CivilWar.htm

Red Fox: Stand Watie and the Confederate Indian Nations During the Civil War Years in Indian Territory, by Wilfred Knight, Arthur H. Clark Publishing, 1987

General Stand Watie’s Confederate Indians, by Frank Cunningham, University of Oklahoma Press, 1998

On Black Confederates

Black Southerners in Gray: Essays on Afro-Americans in Confederate Armies, edited by Richard Rollins, Rank and File Publications, 1994

Black Confederates, Edited by Charles Kelly Barrow, J.H. Segars, and R.B. Rosenburg, Pelican Publishing, 2001

Southern Heritage 411, http://www.southernheritage411.com/

On H.K. Edgerton

“A Divisive Flag Makes it to D.C.,” by Brian McKenzie, 2009, http://www.southernheritage411.com/hke.php?nw=301

On Hispanic Confederates

Hispanic Confederates, by John O’Donnell-Rosales, Clearfield Company, 1997

A Life Crossing Borders: Memoirs of a Mexican-American Confederate, by Santiago Tafolla, Arte Publico Press, 2009

About the author

Zach Foster lives with his family in southern California.  He is currently working towards earning degrees in Political Science and U.S. History and proudly serves as a Sergeant in the California State Military Reserve.  He currently writes for American Heroes Press and the Political Spectrum (http://political-spectrum.blogspot.com) and aspires to one day run for Congress.  His ancestry traces back to both sides of the Civil War.

T-shirst image used courtesy of Matchtingtracksuits.com. Cherokee image used courtesy of inc-art.com. Crossed flags image used courtesy of Sodahead.com. They are included via fair use and the propertyy of their respective owners, not the article author.

Eyewitness Report: Black Confederate Soldiers

Excerpts from The "Slave Narratives"

This is one in a series of articles featured on the Political Spectrum as part of Secession Week.

86% of the 2,300 former slaves that were interviewed in the 1930s had positive things to say about their masters and/or slavery.

Frank Childress, 85, Mississippi

"Yassuh, I'se the one what fought on both sides," he claims proudly, "but I neber fought for de Yankees till dey captured me and put me in a corral and said, 'Nigger, you fought for de South; now you can fight for de North."

Blewitt, Peter 87, Mississippi

"I went to war with my master---Henry Blewitt---to look after his hoss. I was with my old marsta at Vicksburg. I had charge of five horses dere and had to keep dem hid under a cliff. Old Masta and my father was both killed in the Vicksburg siege. They was fighting down close to de river just before de battle was ovah. I was back at de camp wid de hosses. After dat I went back to Old Miss, with Capt. Stephens who lived in Newton County. After de war I stayed on wid old Mistess until 1872. Old Miss had three chillun: Betsy, Willie and Henry. I nussed all dem chilluns, and worked 'round de house. I attended to de stock and milked de cows. Nearly all Old Miss's slaves stayed on wid her atter de war was over. She was good to us and we didn't have no udder place to go. We's satisfied dere, and stayed wid her till she sold out and went to Californy.

Boggan, Manda 1847, Mississippi

"I believes I had de bes' master in de worl'. I gits ter thinkin' ob de days back in slavery time an' wishes ole Mars could ev alwa's cared fo' us. He was a preacher an' sho' did live his religion, an' taught us slaves ter walk in de straight an' narrow way. He wouldn't 'low no overseers wukin' his slaves, 'cause he wont gwine ter hab 'em beat. He got wuk a plinty out 'en us, fer when yo' turn a bunch ob niggers a loose an' let 'em sing, pray, an' shout all dey wants ter he's sho' gwine ter turn de wuk off.

Bohanon, Georganna 104, Mississippi

I worked awful hard when I wus growing up but I is too ole to remember anything about back yonder and my folks wus allus good to me and I wish I had stayed a slave.

Brewer, Wiley 103, Mississippi

"Yas'm, I went to de war. Marster took me wid him, and I fit, too, I killed a thousand Yankees... You look like you don't believe dat, Miss, but it's de truth. Mistis always told me to tell the truth, and I ain't never told nobody no lies. Some ub dem Yankees I shot and some uv 'em I drowned. Marster always told me Yankees was de worst friends I had, so when dey come round after de war telling me de Government was gonna give us 40 acres and a mule, I knowed it wan't so and went back to Marster. He let me work for him, part de time as wage hand and part as sharecropper till he died. I saved my money and bought me a mule, and en about 32 years ago I bought me a farm. Dat's where me and my wife lives now, just a few miles from Columbus. I calls my house 'Rasling Jacob'.

Bell, Bettie Massingale, Alabama,

"Yer sees, young marster, Marster John Massingale was sho' good to his slaves. He gib each slave wid a fam'ly a sep'rate piece of groun' tu raise his own stuff on, an' Marster John Massingale allers tuck dere stuff dat dey raised to Claiborne whar he allers tuck his cotton tu sell an' ship on de steamboats."

*Note, these quotes were written in a specific manner to preserve the accent and dialect they were spoken in and the dignity of the Southern pride of the people who spoke these words.  This technique has been used various times in American literature, most notably Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn, which was written in several Southern dialects.

Source: Southern Heritage 411

Karl Marx: The American Civil War, Part 3

By Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

This is one in a series of articles featured on the Political Spectrum as part of Secession Week.

Written: between March 7 and 22, 1862;

First published in Die Presse, 85, March 26 and 27, 1862.

Chapter 2

Click to view Chapter 1, part 2

With Fort Donelson the enemy’s artillery, baggage and military stores fell into the hands of the Unionists; 13,000 secessionists surrendered on the day of its capture ; 1,000 more the next day, and as soon as the advance guard of the victors appeared before Clarksville, a town that lies further up the Cumberland River, it opened its gates. Here, too, considerable supplies had been accumulated for the secessionists.

The capture of Fort Donelson presents only one riddle: the flight of General Floyd with 5,000 men on the second day of the bombardment. These fugitives were too numerous to be smuggled away in steamers during the night. If certain precautions had been taken by the assailants, they could not have got away.

Seven days after the surrender of Fort Donelson, Nashville was occupied by the Federals. The distance between the two places is about 100 English miles, and a march of 15 miles a day, on very bad roads and in the most unfavourable season of the year, redounds to the honour of the Unionist troops. On receipt of the news that Fort Donelson had fallen, the secessionists evacuated Bowling Green; a week later, they abandoned Columbus and withdrew to a Mississippi island, 45 miles south. Thus, Kentucky was completely reconquered for the Union. Tennessee, however, can be held by the secessionists only if they give and win a big battle. They are said in fact to have concentrated 65,000 men for this purpose. Meanwhile, nothing prevents the Unionists from bringing a superior force against them.

The leadership of the Kentucky campaign from Somerset to Nashville deserves the highest praise. The reconquest of so extensive a territory, the advance from the Ohio to the Cumberland in a single month, evidence energy, resolution and speed such as have seldom been attained by regular armies in Europe.

One may compare, for example, the slow advance of the Allies from Magenta to Solferino in 1859 — without pursuit of the retreating enemy, without endeavour to cut off his stragglers or in any way to outflank and encircle whole bodies of his troops.

Halleck and Grant, in particular, offer good examples of resolute military leadership. Without the least regard either for Columbus or Bowling Green, they concentrate their forces on the decisive points, Fort Henry and Fort Donelson, launch a swift and energetic attack on these and precisely thereby render Columbus and Bowling Green untenable. Then they march at once to Clarksville and Nashville, without allowing the retreating secessionists time to take up new positions in northern Tennessee. During this rapid pursuit the corps of secessionist troops in Columbus remains completely cut off from the centre and right wing of its army. The English papers have criticised this operation unjustlyEven if the attack on Fort Donelson had failed, the secessionists kept busy by General Buell at Bowling Green could not dispatch sufficient men to enable the garrison to follow the repulsed Unionists into the open country or to endanger their retreat. Columbus, on the other hand, lay so far off that it could not interfere with Grant’s movements at all. In fact, after the Unionists had cleared Missouri of the secessionists, Columbus became an entirely useless post for the latter. The troops that formed its garrison had greatly to hasten their retreat to Memphis or even to Arkansas in order to escape the danger of ingloriously laying down their arms.

In consequence of the clearing of Missouri and the reconquest of Kentucky, the theatre of war has so far narrowed that the different armies can co-operate to a certain extent along the whole line of operations and work to achieve definite results. In other words, for the first time the war is now assuming a strategic character, and the geographical configuration of the country is acquiring a new interest. It is now the task of the Northern generals to find the Achilles’ heel of the cotton states.

Before the capture of Nashville, no concerted strategy between the army of Kentucky and the army on the Potomac was possible. They were too far apart from each other. They stood in the same front line, but their lines of operation were entirely different. Only with the victorious advance into Tennessee did the movements of the army of Kentucky become important for the entire theatre of war.

The American papers influenced by McClellan are full of talk about the “anaconda” envelopment plan. According to it, an immense line of armies is to wind round the rebellion, gradually tighten its coils and finally strangle the enemy. This is sheer childishness. It is a rehash of the so-called cordon system... devised in Austria about 1770, which was employed against the French from 1792 to 1797 with such great obstinacy and with such constant failure. At Jemappes, Fleurus and, more especially, at Montenotte, Millesimo, Dego, Castiglione and Rivoli, the final blow was dealt at this system. The French cut the “anaconda” in two by attacking at a point where they had concentrated superior forces. Then the coils of the “anaconda” were cut to pieces one after another.

In densely populated and more or less centralised states there is always a centre, with the occupation of which by the enemy the national resistance would be broken. Paris is a brilliant example. The slave states, however, possess no such centre. They are sparsely populated, with few large towns and all these on the seacoast. The question therefore arises: Does a military centre of gravity nevertheless exist, with the capture of which the backbone of their resistance will be broken, or are they, just as Russia still was in 1812, not to be conquered without occupying every village and every plot of land, in short, the entire periphery?

Cast a glance at the geographical shape of the secessionists’ territory, with its long stretch of coast on the Atlantic Ocean and its long stretch of coast on the Gulf of Mexico. So long as the Confederates held Kentucky and Tennessee, the whole formed a great compact mass. The loss of both these states drives an enormous wedge into their territory, separating the states on the North Atlantic Ocean from the States on the Gulf of Mexico. The direct route from Virginia and the two Carolinas to Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and even, in part, to Alabama leads through Tennessee, which is now occupied by the Unionists. The sole route that, after the complete conquest of Tennessee by the Union, connects the two sections of the slave states goes through Georgia. This proves that Georgia is the key to the secessionists’ territory. With the loss of Georgia the Confederacy would be cut into two sections, which would have lost all connection with one another. A reconquest of Georgia by the secessionists, however, would be almost unthinkable, for the Unionist fighting forces would be concentrated in a central position, while their adversaries, divided into two camps, would have scarcely sufficient forces to put in the field for a joint attack.

Would the conquest of all Georgia, with the seacoast of Florida, be required for such an operation? By no means. In a land where communication, particularly between distant points, depends much more on railways than on highways, the seizure of the railways is sufficient. The southernmost railway line between the States on the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast goes through Macon and Gordon near Milledgeville.

The occupation of these two points would accordingly cut the secessionists’ territory in two and enable the Unionists to beat one part after another. At the same time, one gathers from the above that no Southern republic is viable without the possession of Tennessee. Without Tennessee, Georgia’s vital spot lies only eight or ten days’ march from the frontier; the North would constantly have its hand at the throat of the South, and, at the slightest pressure, the South would have to yield or fight for its life anew, under circumstances in which a single defeat would cut off every prospect of success.

From the foregoing considerations it follows:

The Potomac is not the most important position in the war theatre. The seizure of Richmond and the advance of the Potomac army further south — difficult on account of the many rivers that cut across the line of march -could produce a tremendous moral effect. From a purely military standpoint, they would decide nothing.

The outcome of the campaign depends on the Kentucky army, now in Tennessee. On the one hand, this army is nearest to the decisive points; on the other hand, it occupies a territory without which secession cannot survive. This army would accordingly have to be strengthened at the expense of all the rest and the sacrifice of all minor operations. Its next points of attack would be

Chattanooga and Dalton on the Upper Tennessee, the most important railway junctions of the entire South. After their occupation, the link between the eastern and western states of Secessia would be limited to the lines of communication in Georgia. The further problem would then be to cut off another railway line, with Atlanta and Georgia, and finally to destroy the last link between the two sections by the capture of Macon and Gordon.

On the contrary, should the anaconda plan be followed, then, despite all the successes gained at particular points and even on the Potomac, the war may be prolonged indefinitely, while the financial difficulties together with diplomatic complications acquire fresh scope.

End.

Image used courtesy of the Marxist Internet Archive.