The Civil War – Confederate Activities in February 1861

The Confederate Government Is Formed

On February 6, 1861, the six seceded states—South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, soon to be joined by Texas—sent delegates to Montgomery, Alabama, to attend a constitutional convention. Two days later a constitution was adopted which mirrored, in its language, the Constitution of the United States.

"On February 9th, the convention chose Jefferson Davis as President of the Confederate States of America, with Alexander H. Stevens, of Georgia, as Vice-President. A week later, on February 18, Mr. Davis appeared on the steps of the Alabama State House and delivered his inaugural address, stating a hope for peace, and relying for it on a principle of nature, not of law:

I enter upon the duties of the office with the hope that the beginning of our career, as a Confederacy, may not be obstructed by hostile opposition to our separate existence, which, with the blessing of Providence, we intend to maintain.

Our present political position. . .illustrates the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them at will whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.” In the case of the Union, of course, those “ends” were expressed to be: to establish “justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves (not including African Negro slaves) and our posterity.”

 The Constitution of the Confederacy embraced these same predicates as the basis of its government. President Davis, in his address, explained the theory of American government as he understood it, this way:

The right proclaimed at the birth of the United States. . . recognizes in the people the power to resume the authority delegated. Thus the sovereign States here represented have proceeded to form this Confederacy; and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government has remained, so that the rights of persons and property have not been disturbed. The agent through which they communicated with foreign nations has changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations. . . .

If we may not hope to avoid war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit us if we fail

The Confederate President’s Cabinet

Mr. Davis selected as his cabinet, Mr. Toombs of Georgia, Secretary of State, Mr. Mallory of Florida, Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Benjamin of Louisiana, Attorney General, Mr. Reagan of Texas, Postmaster General, Mr. Memminger of South Carolina, Secretary of the Treasury, and Mr. Walker of Alabama, Secretary of war.

President Davis Sends Envoys to Washington

On February 25th, President Davis appointed three men—A.B. Roman, Martin J. Crawford, and John Forsyth—to act as his envoys or “commissioners,” to travel to Washington and present themselves to the Union government; in Davis’s words, “to the end that by negotiation all questions between the two governments might be resolved peaceably.” Mr. Forsyth arrived first in Washington, on February 27th , the day the Peace Convention finally adjourned. He attempted to present to President Buchanan a letter from President Davis, but Buchanan declined to meet with him or receive the letter, on the grounds that his term of office had all but expired, so that the matter was for his successor, Mr. Lincoln, to resolve.

The Peace Convention

On January 19th, the Assembly of the State of Virginia had issued a resolution, inviting the States to send delegates to a conference in Washington, to debate measures and design a political solution to the crisis secession posed.

Resolved, Virginia wants to employ every reasonable means to avert so dire a calamity as war between the states, and is determined to make a final effort to restore the Union and the Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers of the Republic: Therefore, an invitation is hereby extended to all such States, as are willing to unite with Virginia to adjust the present controversies, so as to afford to the people of the slaveholding states adequate guarantees for the security of their rights.

The convention was called to order on Monday, February 1, and finally adjourned on Wednesday, February 27th. In the sessions that daily occurred between these dates, the delegates debated the elements of a plan that might induce the seceded states to return to the Union, chief among the planks was the idea that slavery not be confined to the existing slave states. Late in the course of the convention, Salmon Chase, of Ohio, a national leader of the Republican Party and soon to be Lincoln’s Secretary of the Treasury, addressed the Convention.

“Whatever our actions may be here, dismiss the idea that all that is necessary to secure amendments to the constitution, is to secure for them the sanction of a majority in this hall.:”

“The result of the national election has been spoken of as the effect of a sudden impulse, as an irregular excitement of the public mind; that, upon reflection, the hastily-formed opinions which brought about Lincoln’s election will be changed. I cannot take this view. I believe that the election must be regarded as the triumph of principles cherished in the hearts of the people of the free states. Chief among these principles is the restriction of slavery within existing State limits; not war upon slavery within those limits, but fixed opposition to its extension beyond them. By a fair and unquestionable majority (plurality actually) we have secured that triumph. Do you think we will throw it away?

Do you say that all we propose embodies no substantial guarantees of immunity to slavery through the preservation of Federal powers? We reply that we think the Constitution as it stands, is sufficient. If you think otherwise, we are ready to join you in recommending a National Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution in the regular way. Kentucky, a slave state, has proposed such a Convention; Illinois, a free state, has joined in the proposition. Join us, then, in recommending such a Convention, and assure us that you will abide by its decision. We will join you and give a similar assurance.

The only alternative to this proposition is the proposition that the present Congress be called upon to submit to the States a thirteenth amendment embodying the amendments recommended by the committee. In order to submit these to the States by Congress, a two-thirds vote in each House is necessary. That, I venture to say, cannot be obtained. Were it otherwise, who can assure you that the proposed amendment will obtain the sanction of three-fourths of the States, without which it is a nullity?

Gentlemen say, if this proposition cannot prevail, every slave state will secede. Let me say for the people of the free states, that they will not surrender their Constitution nor give up the Union without great struggles and great sacrifices. If forced to the last extremity, the people will meet the issue as they best may; but be assured they will meet it with unity.

Gentlemen, Mr. Lincoln will be inaugurated on the 4th of March. He will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States—the whole of it. That oath will bind him to take care that the laws be executed throughout the United States. Will secession absolve him from that oath? Will it diminish one jot its awful obligation? If the President does his duty and undertakes to enforce the laws, and secession resists, what then? War! Civil war!”

A vote then was taken on the proposition being considered—“The Union is indissoluble and no State can secede from the Union.” The Ayes were: Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The Noes were: Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia. So the proposition was not agreed to.

On the last day of the Convention, the following proposition was passed and sent to the Congress for ratification. “Neither the Constitution nor any amendment thereof shall be construed to give Congress the power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish slavery in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland and the owners.” The Ayes were: Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia. The Noes were: Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. New York and Kansas were divided. So the proposition was adopted. The following delegates dissented from the votes of their states: Mr. Clay of Kentucky, Mr. Cook of Illinois, Mr. Slaughter of Indiana, Mr. Chase of Ohio.

On the day before Mr. Lincoln was swore into office, the Congress of the United States approved the proposed thirteen amendment to the Constitution, substantially in the form presented to it by the Peace Convention and, after passing it to the States for ratification, adjourned its last session; though the Senate remained in executive session to consider the new president’s appointments. All intelligent persons knew the amendment had no chance of ratification and, thus, Virginia’s effort at peace had failed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some in Mississippi Want to Commemorate Civil War on License Plates

There is an interesting debate heating up on the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. In Mississippi a group is trying to highlight some of the region’s most prominent leaders. Proposing a new commemorative license plate every year, the group Sons of Confederate Veterans is attempting to get Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest on license plates for 2014. This may not be the best choice because General Forrest was also a KKK grand wizard. Needless to say, some Mississippians (namely, the state’s chapter of the NAACP) are not exactly thrilled by the idea.

General Forrest is famous for his leadership within the KKK and for his role in “leading a massacre of black Union soldiers.” Sounds exactly like the kind of guy whose face you want to see on the back of the car in front of you every day on the road, right? The celebration of this particular general’s career is pushing all the wrong buttons with many in Mississippi, and the local NAACP has come out strong in condemning the act:

“He should be viewed in the same light that we view Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden,” Derrick Johnson, the president of the NAACP in Mississippi, told The Associated Press, adding that the Klan was a “terrorist group.”

“The state of Mississippi should deny any vanity tags which would highlight racial hatred in this state,” he said.

For many who live in northern or western states, the concept of Confederate pride in the year 2011 is extremely difficult to understand, much less defend. But the group behind the movement to get Gen. Forrest on a license plate claim that the general redeemed himself “in his own time,” according to Sons of Confederate Veterans representative Greg Stewart, and “we should respect that.”

Today’s Americans, particularly those from northern and western states just do not understand that many in the south see the “Civil War” in a completely different light and are quite proud of hundreds of thousands who took part in the “struggle for states rights”. I can appreciate that, but I think they should be more careful about celebrating the part of their history involved in the despicable acts of groups like the KKK. 

In the south they do not see the war as a fight to free the slaves. They see it as an attempt by the Federal government to intrude on their way of life and dictate to them how they should live. To them the issue of slavery was just one (important) example of this intrusion. The creation of groups such as the KKK and the horrible way freed slaves suffered in the south was magnified as a backlash to the way the south was treated following the war.

Live Long and Prosper....

Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth

I have not blogged about the situation in Mexico before but I have been following it closely and it is very disturbing. Many Americans focus on the problems associated with guarding our southern border and that all too often is associated more with the question of illegal immigration than the potential for violence and criminal activity spilling over into the United States. In point of fact, this “spilling” is already happening at an alarming rate. We have seen murders, kidnapping and drug smuggling in many places (from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California).

While watching these developments I found the following analysis of the situation on STRATFOR (a global intelligence company) and it covers the subject with surprising clarity and very thoroughly. I have secured permission to reprint it in my blog in its entirety. It is a bit long perhaps, but I highly recommend it as it will truly open your eyes to this growing problem.

Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth is republished with permission of STRATFOR.

For several years now, STRATFOR has been closely watching developments in Mexico that relate to what we consider the three wars being waged there. Those three wars are the war between the various drug cartels, the war between the government and the cartels and the war being waged against citizens and businesses by criminals.

In addition to watching tactical developments of the cartel wars on the ground and studying the dynamics of the conflict among the various warring factions, we have also been paying close attention to the ways that both the Mexican and U.S. governments have reacted to these developments. Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects to watch has been the way in which the Mexican government has tried to deflect responsibility for the cartel wars away from itself and onto the United States. According to the Mexican government, the cartel wars are not a result of corruption in Mexico or of economic and societal dynamics that leave many Mexicans marginalized and desperate to find a way to make a living. Instead, the cartel wars are due to the insatiable American appetite for narcotics and the endless stream of guns that flows from the United States into Mexico and that results in Mexican violence.

Interestingly, the part of this argument pertaining to guns has been adopted by many politicians and government officials in the United States in recent years. It has now become quite common to hear U.S. officials confidently assert that 90 percent of the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels come from the United States. However, a close examination of the dynamics of the cartel wars in Mexico — and of how the oft-echoed 90 percent number was reached — clearly demonstrates that the number is more political rhetoric than empirical fact.

By the Numbers

As we discussed in a previous analysis, the 90 percent number was derived from a June 2009 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress on U.S. efforts to combat arms trafficking to Mexico (see external link).

According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.

The remaining 22,800 firearms seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were not traced for a variety of reasons. In addition to factors such as bureaucratic barriers and negligence, many of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities either do not bear serial numbers or have had their serial numbers altered or obliterated. It is also important to understand that the Mexican authorities simply don’t bother to submit some classes of weapons to the ATF for tracing. Such weapons include firearms they identify as coming from their own military or police forces, or guns that they can trace back themselves as being sold through the Mexican Defense Department’s Arms and Ammunition Marketing Division (UCAM). Likewise, they do not ask ATF to trace military ordnance from third countries like the South Korean fragmentation grenades commonly used in cartel attacks.

Of course, some or even many of the 22,800 firearms the Mexicans did not submit to ATF for tracing may have originated in the United States. But according to the figures presented by the GAO, there is no evidence to support the assertion that 90 percent of the guns used by the Mexican cartels come from the United States — especially when not even 50 percent of those that were submitted for tracing were ultimately found to be of U.S. origin. 

This point leads us to consider the types of weapons being used by the Mexican cartels and where they come from.

Types and Sources of Guns

To gain an understanding of the dynamics of the gun flow inside Mexico, it helps if one divides the guns seized by Mexican authorities from criminals into three broad categories — which, incidentally, just happen to represent three different sources. 

Type 1: Guns Legally Available in Mexico

The first category of weapons encountered in Mexico is weapons available legally for sale in Mexico through UCAM. These include handguns smaller than a .357 magnum such as .380, .38 Super and .38 Special.

A large portion of this first type of guns used by criminals is purchased in Mexico, or stolen from their legitimate owners. While UCAM does have very strict regulations for civilians to purchase guns, criminals will use straw purchasers to obtain firearms from UCAM or obtain them from corrupt officials. It is not uncommon to see .38 Super pistols seized from cartel figures (a caliber that is not popular in the United States), and many of these pistols are of Mexican origin. Likewise, cartel hit men in Mexico commonly use .380 pistols equipped with sound suppressors in their assassinations. In many cases, these pistols are purchased in Mexico, the suppressors are locally manufactured and the guns are adapted to receive the suppressors by Mexican gunsmiths. 

It must be noted, though, that because of the cost and hassle of purchasing guns in Mexico, many of the guns in this category are purchased in the United States and smuggled into the country. There are a lot of cheap guns available on the U.S. market, and they can be sold at a premium in Mexico. Indeed, guns in this category, such as .380 pistols and .22-caliber rifles and pistols, are among the guns most commonly traced back to the United States. Still, the numbers do not indicate that 90 percent of guns in this category come from the United States.

Additionally, most of the explosives the cartels have been using in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Mexico over the past year have used commercially available Tovex, so we consider these explosives to fall in this first category. Mexican IEDs are another area where the rhetoric has been interesting to analyze, but we will explore this topic another time. 

Type 2: Guns Legally Available in the U.S. but Not in Mexico

Many popular handgun calibers, such as 9 mm, .45 and .40, are reserved for the military and police and are not available for sale to civilians in Mexico. These guns, which are legally sold and very popular in the United States, comprise our second category, which also includes .50-caliber rifles, semiautomatic versions of assault rifles like the AK-47 and M16 and the FN Five-Seven pistol. 

When we consider this second type of guns, a large number of them encountered in Mexico are likely purchased in the United States. Indeed, the GAO report notes that many of the guns most commonly traced back to the United States fall into this category. There are also many .45-caliber and 9 mm semiautomatic pistols and .357 revolvers obtained from deserters from the Mexican military and police, purchased from corrupt Mexican authorities or even brought in from South America (guns made by manufacturers such as Taurus and Bersa). This category also includes semiautomatic variants of assault rifles and main battle rifles, which are often converted by Mexican gunsmiths to be capable of fully automatic fire.

One can buy these types of weapons on the international arms market, but one pays a premium for such guns and it is cheaper and easier to simply buy them in the United States or South America and smuggle them into Mexico. In fact, there is an entire cottage industry that has developed to smuggle such weapons, and not all the customers are cartel hit men. There are many Mexican citizens who own guns in calibers such as .45, 9 mm, .40 and .44 magnum for self-defense — even though such guns are illegal in Mexico.

Type 3: Guns Not Available for Civilian Purchase in Mexico or the U.S.

The third category of weapons encountered in Mexico is military grade ordnance not generally available for sale in the United States or Mexico. This category includes hand grenades, 40 mm grenades, rocket-propelled grenades, automatic assault rifles and main battle rifles and light machine guns.

This third type of weapon is fairly difficult and very expensive to obtain in the United States (especially in the large numbers in which the cartels are employing them). They are also dangerous to obtain in the United States due to heavy law-enforcement scrutiny. Therefore, most of the military ordnance used by the Mexican cartels comes from other sources, such as the international arms market (increasingly from China via the same networks that furnish precursor chemicals for narcotics manufacturing), or from corrupt elements in the Mexican military or even deserters who take their weapons with them. Besides, items such as South Korean fragmentation grenades and RPG-7s, often used by the cartels, simply are not in the U.S. arsenal. This means that very few of the weapons in this category come from the United States.

In recent years the cartels (especially their enforcer groups such as Los Zetas, Gente Nueva and La Linea) have been increasingly using military weaponry instead of sporting arms. A close examination of the arms seized from the enforcer groups and their training camps clearly demonstrates this trend toward military ordnance, including many weapons not readily available in the United States. Some of these seizures have included M60 machine guns and hundreds of 40 mm grenades obtained from the military arsenals of countries like Guatemala.

But Guatemala is not the only source of such weapons. Latin America is awash in weapons that were shipped there over the past several decades to supply the various insurgencies and counterinsurgencies in the region. When these military-grade weapons are combined with the rampant corruption in the region, they quickly find their way into the black arms market. The Mexican cartels have supply-chain contacts that help move narcotics to Mexico from South America and they are able to use this same network to obtain guns from the black market in South and Central America and then smuggle them into Mexico. While there are many weapons in this category that were manufactured in the United States, the overwhelming majority of the U.S.-manufactured weapons of this third type encountered in Mexico — like LAW rockets and M60 machine guns — come into Mexico from third countries and not directly from the United States.

There are also some cases of overlap between classes of weapons. For example, the FN Five-Seven pistol is available for commercial purchase in the United States, but the 5.7x28 armor-piercing ammunition for the pistol favored by the cartels is not — it is a restricted item. However, some of the special operations forces units in the Mexican military are issued the Five-Seven as well as the FN P90 personal defense weapon, which also shoots the 5.7x28 round, and the cartels are obtaining some of these weapons and the armor-piercing ammunition from them and not from the United States. Conversely, we see bulk 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ammunition bought in the United States and smuggled into Mexico, where it is used in fully-automatic AK-47s and M16s purchased elsewhere. As noted above, China has become an increasingly common source for military weapons like grenades and fully automatic assault rifles in recent years.

To really understand Mexico’s gun problem, however, it is necessary to recognize that the same economic law of supply and demand that fuels drug smuggling into the United States also fuels gun smuggling into Mexico. Black-market guns in Mexico can fetch up to 300 percent of their normal purchase price — a profit margin rivaling the narcotics the cartels sell. Even if it were somehow possible to hermetically seal the U.S.-Mexico border and shut off all the guns coming from the United States, the cartels would still be able to obtain weapons elsewhere — just as narcotics would continue to flow into the United States from other places. The United States does provide cheap and easy access to certain types of weapons and ammunition, but as demonstrated by groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, weapons can be easily obtained from other sources via the black arms market — albeit at a higher price.

There has clearly been a long and well-documented history of arms smuggling across the U.S.-Mexico border, but it is important to recognize that, while the United States is a significant source of certain classes of weapons and ammunition, it is by no means the source of 90 percent of the weapons used by the Mexican cartels, as is commonly asserted.

~~~~~~~

Live Long and Prosper....