Lincoln Parish School Board Special Education: Fill & Download for Free

This is the story of a forgotten woman.…But the reason why she’s forgotten might be an understandable one.…But maybe she’s worth remembering anyway.I dunno.You be the judge.In her lifetime she was a bestselling author, whose second novel was taken seriously enough by a British prime minister that he wrote a 10,000-word negative review of it.She was, for several years, a towering figure in the culture of her time, late Victorian and Edwardian England. She was friends with Theodore Roosevelt and Henry James.She was a serious and ambitious writer, a public intellectual, whose works sold hundreds of thousands of copies.She also worked for good causes, like the education of the poor, and founded what was basically Britain’s first kindergarten.She lived long enough to visit the Western Front in World War 1, and report on it.But she doesn’t show up in popular books about goodnight stories for rebel girls, or celebrations of great women in history.Not simply because people haven’t heard of her; but because those who do know about her, are aware that, frankly, she kind of wasn’t a rebel girl.Still, I’m willing to bet that most of you have not heard of her, or that if you have, all you know is her rather strange pen-name.Dear friends.It’s my melancholy pleasure to introduce Mary Augusta Ward.Known to her contemporaries, and to posterity, as Mrs Humphry Ward (1851–1920.)Mary Ward, c. 1890.She was born Mary Arnold in Tasmania, then known as Van Diemen’s Land, where her father Tom was an Inspector of Schools at the time. His father had been Thomas Arnold, the legendary headmaster of Rugby public school, which meant that Tom’s brother, the poet and critic Matthew Arnold, was Mary’s uncle.When Mary was very small, Tom Arnold did something that would turn out to have a lasting influence on his eldest daughter.He converted to Catholicism.This made his position as a school inspector untenable, and in 1856, the family, which by then included Mary’s two surviving younger brothers Willie and Theodore, moved to England.Five-year-old Mary was left at the family home with her grandmother and aunt, while her mother, father and brothers went to Dublin, where he’d been made a tutor at the new Catholic university.In 1858, seven-year-old Mary was sent to boarding school.In 1861, ten-year-old Mary was sent to another boarding school.In 1865, she was sent to another boarding school, the rest of the family having moved in the meantime to Oxford. Her father had converted back to Anglicanism again. (He would later re-convert back to Catholicism.)In Oxford, she finally went to live with her family, after nine years of being away from them. She had, in the meantime, acquired five new siblings.The young Mary Arnold was apparently quite a firecracker. She was frequently disciplined at school for unruly behaviour, and her modern biographer John Sutherland notes that at the age of 14, she seems to have fallen seriously in love with one of her teachers, Miss May, a passion she later wrote about in her 1894 novel Marcella, where Miss May appears as ‘Miss Pemberton’:A tall slender woman with brown, grey-besprinkled hair falling in light curls after the fashion of our grandmothers on either cheek, and braided into a classic knot behind—the face of a saint, an enthusiast—eyes overflowing with feeling above a thin firm mouth—the mouth of the obstinate saint, yet sweet also: this delicate significant picture was stamped on Marcella's heart. What tremors of fear and joy could she not remember in connection with it? what night-vigils when a tired girl kept herself through long hours awake that she might see at last the door open and a figure with a night-lamp standing an instant in the doorway?Maybe it’s just the literary conventions she worked within, but her fiction retains a lot more enthusiasm for female beauty than for the male version. Mary Ward’s men are seldom very vividly described, but she lingers over the physical appearance of her female characters.Miss May wasn’t the only woman that Mary was attracted to. Years later, as a young married woman in her early thirties, she met and, according to her memoirs, ‘fell in love with’ the beautiful Laura Tennant, a young socialite, ‘one of the most ravishing creatures I have ever seen’. Laura Tennant married Alfred Lyttleton and died in childbirth aged 24.To the best of my knowledge, little to nothing has been made of the queer figurations that are in Mary Ward’s writing; nobody cares enough about her work to want to.But anyway, Victorian society soon taught her to suppress any tendencies to unruly behaviour or same-sex passion.She was unlucky in her education, and she knew it.She went to school when primary schools in England were almost entirely unregulated, the Elementary Education Bill of 1870 being some years off, and for the rest of her life she resented the fact that her shiftless younger brother Willie got a better education at Rugby than she’d received, simply because he was a boy.In Oxford, although she wasn’t a student, the adults around her recognised that she was intelligent. She got much encouragement from male educators such as the Rector of Lincoln College, Mark Pattison, who almost certainly fancied teenage Mary (he had a well-known thing for much younger women), and who obtained permission for her to browse undisturbed in the lower parts of the Bodleian Library. She later remembered those times of reading old (and new) books as among the happiest of her life.Mark Pattison, livin’ the dream, as you can see.Through Pattison, she met George Eliot, arguably the greatest English novelist of the era, and sat at the great woman’s feet, imbibing her wisdom.Slowly, Mary Arnold began to try her hand at writing, and to think of herself as someone who had something to say.In 1871 she met Humphry Ward, a Fellow at Brasenose College, and they formed what used to be called an ‘understanding’.I would show you a picture of Humphry, but I’ll explain later why I have not.In 1872, Humphry and Mary got married. She was only 20.Mary Ward in her wedding gown, aged 20: photograph by Lewis Carroll.Over the next ten years, the Wards attempted to establish themselves as a couple of some substance in Oxford society.Mary got herself established as a journalist and columnist, writing pieces for The Times, the Saturday Review, the Pall Mall Gazette and other periodicals.She had three children, Arnold, Julia and Dorothy.Dorothy went on to become her mother’s devoted assistant and disciple.Julia, who loved her mother but was no stooge, married George Macaulay Trevelyan, who would go on to write the 1944 classic English Social History, and Julia herself would write her mother’s first biography.Of Arnold…we will talk later.In 1881 Mary wrote a children’s book, Milly and Olly, which she published under the married name that she would use for the rest of her life.In 1884 she published her first novel for adults, Miss Bretherton. Neither book exactly set the world on fire.By the late 1880s, Mary and Humphry Ward were a couple with a young family who had great ambitions for themselves, but were getting basically nowhere, socially and professionally speaking.It didn’t help that Humphry, who the society of the time would have considered the natural achiever of the family, was a right glass of warm water, failing to distinguish himself in most of the things he attempted. He lacked…vim. He behaved as though opportunities ought to just come to him. They didn’t.However, in Victorian England this was not necessarily an obstacle to a chap’s advancement, as long as he was well-spoken and had been to the right college, which Humphry had.In 1882, Humphry got a permanent position as art critic of The Times, where over the next few decades he earned a place in art history as the critic whose finger was absolutely not on the pulse of the most exciting things in modern art. The story was told that he once told the painter James Whistler what he thought was good and bad about his work. In response, Whistler was crushing as he only could be:My dear fellow, you must never say this painting is good and that is bad. Good and bad are not terms to be used by you. Say ‘I like this and I don’t like that’ and you’ll be within your right. And now come and have some whisky. You’re sure to like that.It’s now time for me to explain why I haven’t decorated this answer with a picture of Humphry.If you do a google image search for ‘humphry ward’, there are no pictures of him.Only of his far more productive and talented wife.In 1885 Mary sold her planned but as yet unwritten second novel Robert Elsmere to the publisher Smith, Elder & Co.It took her three more years to actually write it, and it was only published after George Smith, her publisher, had asked that it be cut down from its original enormous length.In the course of writing it, she suffered a serious physical breakdown and developed the writer’s cramp that she’d suffer from for the rest of her life.But when Robert Elsmere was finally published, it sold over a million copies.What is Robert Elsmere about, and why did it sell so well?Robert Elsmere is, as you can see, a novel of heroic dimensions. The above is the original three-volume library edition. My paperback copy, a reprint of the one-volume sale edition, has 576 pages.In brief: in the wild fells of Westmoreland (present-day Cumbria) lives the fragile widow Mrs Leyburn and three daughters: beautiful, pious and dutiful Catherine; sarky, sexy, violin-playing Rose; and the reserved and sardonic Agnes (who, if this were a contemporary novel, would probably be the protagonist.) The late Mr Leyburn was hella pious, and drummed into his children the importance of duty above all else, but Catherine’s the only one who really internalised the lesson.Early on, we are introduced to the title character, Robert Elsmere, the local rector, a young, passionate, intellectual red-headed bloke who’s committed to good works. He falls hard for one of the Leyburn girls.Is it Rose, the most entertaining one? No! It’s Catherine, the boring one! Never mind, because although Catherine Leyburn is devoted to doing what her father wanted to do, even at the expense of her own happiness, she’s not a total cipher, a mere straw woman of duty and piety. Much against every inch of her religious upbringing, she finds herself falling in love with Elsmere, and the enormous first third of the novel ends with them getting married.In the second part of the novel, we join Robert and Catherine Elsmere in his parish in Surrey, where he’s visited by his old tutor Langham, a rather cynical freethinker. Langham, for his part, starts to get all quivery in the presence of Rose, who for her part finds him Byronic and fascinating with all his talk of, um, ‘thought’.But the real meat of the novel is in the conflict between Elsmere and the local squire, Mr Wendover.Wendover is a bitter and sarcastic old man with a fantastic library full of German philosophy. He’s allowed his agent Henslowe let the estate fall to ruin, with tenants living in hovels, because he lives for his hobby of study and reading and ain’t give a damn about charity. Elsmere manages to persuade Wendover to see for himself just how crappy his tenants’ lives are, whereupon Wendover overcomes his distaste for the good-working clergyman and becomes more friendly.However, the middle of the novel is taken up with Elsmere’s confrontation with Wendover, in which Wendover’s corrosive scepticism ends up destroying Elsmere’s faith. Robert Elsmere ceases to believe that Jesus did miracles, was the son of God, was resurrected, etc.And here’s the crucial thing:Mary Ward herself had ceased to believe those things too. Her hours of reading in the Bodleian Library had opened her eyes to the groundbreaking scholarship of the likes of Strauss and Feuerbach.The rest of the novel is the working-out of the consequences, and includes some decent social comedy, and some romance between Rose and Langham, and some fairly heart-rending conflict between Robert and Catherine, who still believes.In the context of late Victorian society, Robert Elsmere cut to the heart of how the public was feeling about religion. It laid out in the most detailed and authentic way just how and why many people were losing their faith.And because it laid these things out in terms that the average reader could immediately grasp, it was a hit.Mary Ward wrote about how she’d been on a train waiting to depart, and a young woman had rushed up to the carriage, having just got the first volume from the library, and was boasting to a friend about it. Mary didn’t reveal that she herself was the author, but sat in the compartment while the young woman devoured the book.Robert Elsmere made her reputation. She was 37 years old.William Ewart Gladstone, who was at the time in between serving a term as British prime minister, read it and couldn’t put it down. He was astounded by what he regarded as its heretical qualities, and decided to write a long review about how dangerous the book was.The result was that the book sold even more copies.After Robert Elsmere, Mrs Humphry Ward wrote another 22 novels. But she never quite reached that level of fame and success again.One of them, 1898’s Helbeck of Bannisdale, is regarded by many people as better than Robert Elsmere, and not just because it’s considerably shorter. (I’ve started it, and my first impression is that it probably is—it’s certainly tighter.)But for the most part, although she often succeeded in getting very lucrative deals for novels such as The Marriage of William Ashe and The Case of Richard Meynell and Diana Mallory, her sales slowly dropped off.And here we have to ask the question:Why did Mary Ward publish her books using her married name, rather than her own?From her very first book, Mary used ‘Mrs Humphry Ward’ as her authorial name.She had a lifelong tendency to form friendships with intellectual men and—this is crucial—seek their approval. Some of this is due to the looming presence in her life of her grandfather, Thomas Arnold, and uncle Matthew.When she wrote anything, she tended to offer it to the men in her life who she regarded as her intellectual superiors, to see if they thought it was okay. She didn’t do this with Robert Elsmere, but she did do it with later works.If they didn’t approve, which happened whenever they thought she was being too controversial, she would tone the book down.Robert Elsmere itself had been even longer in its original draft. Her modern biographer John Sutherland commented that it would have been better if she’d written it as a saga, because the need to cut it down to novel-length meant cutting out a lot of the intellectual disputation, which resulted in a book that was both very long and also curiously underwritten.Mary Ward fairly quickly became the breadwinner in her family, and she was so successful as a writer that she won a lot of bread.But as time went by, she was also consumed by the need to seem successful and respectable. One of her most-used phrases in later life was What will people think?In spite of her reputation in early middle life for religious unorthodoxy (a 1976 book about Robert Elsmere is entitled Victorian Heretic), as she got older, she started to go to church, which she hadn’t done in a long time.She bent over backwards to encourage her husband and son in their professional lives, while not doing the same for her daughters. Humphry dabbled in art collecting, and wasted tons of the money she earned on ‘Rembrandts’ that weren’t Rembrandts. Mary could barely bring herself to mildly tick him off about this.Her son Arnold seems to have been a complete tool. Quarrelsome, arrogant, addicted to gambling and not very talented, he had an undistinguished career in the military and then was a largely insignificant Tory MP. Mary steadily paid off his gambling debts with the profits from novels she pumped out too often; she should have written less and taken more care about her books, but the family always needed money to support the lifestyle it wanted.She did valuable charity work. She helped found Somerville College, one of the first two women’s colleges in Oxford. She went on to found the Passmore Edwards Settlement, an organisation for working with the London poor, and on her death it was renamed the Mary Ward Settlement. It’s now the Mary Ward Centre, an adult education college. The centre’s website does not mention who Mary Ward was.But in 1908, she did the thing that is probably the main reason why she’s not celebrated today.1908 was a year when the women’s suffrage movement was really getting going, and the resistance to it was really hotting up.In that year, Mary was approached by Lord Curzon and the Earl of Cromer and asked if she’d like to be the figurehead of the Women’s National Anti-Suffrage League.According to her daughter Janet, Mary ‘groaned but acquiesced’.She couldn’t say no to a request for help from powerful men, even if, as in this case, she was supporting something as transparently boneheaded as the anti-suffrage movement.For the next several years, she appeared at one meeting after another, making speeches about how voting was not the business of women, and having to listen to idiot men rant on about how weak and stupid women were.What was her argument? It certainly wasn’t that women were too stupid to vote—at least, it wasn’t quite that. She pointed out that in her twenties she’d helped found a women’s college, and had inaugurated a series of educational lectures for women.Instead, she argued that the growth of the British Empire meant that the country was facing a host of new problems:constitutional, legal, financial, military, international problems—problems of men, only to be solved by the labour and special knowledge of men, and where the men who bear the burden ought to be left unhampered by the political inexperience of women.It was a circular argument, really: Women shouldn’t be allowed to gain political experience because they’re too politically inexperienced.And as the reader has probably guessed, it impressed fewer and fewer people as time went by. In 1918, the Representation of the People Act granted the vote to women over 30 who met certain property qualifications, and ten years later all women over 21 were granted the vote.Mary Ward wasted most of her last years in a futile effort to delay women getting the vote. She thought that men in general knew better, and that a woman’s place was to support the men in her life, in spite of the fact that she was easily the most intellectually gifted and energetic member of her own immediate family.Mary Ward in 1914.The books kept coming out; some good, some not so good.Theodore Roosevelt got her to write a series of reports about Britain’s efforts in the war, and she duly got permission from the Government Propaganda Department to go to the front and write some stirring stuff about our boys. She duly delivered, along with some outraged sentences about the horribly unpatriotic Irish having their beastly Rising while a war was going on.The Coryston Family drew on the troubles of her own family with honesty and power. She wrote novels that dealt with the experience of war: Sutherland recommends The War and Elizabeth, which captures the uncertain mood of 1917, and Harvest, which is about violent crime. I haven’t got to them yet.She published her memoirs, A Writer’s Recollections, which contained fond memories of departed friends like Henry James.In 1920, she died from heart failure, after a long period of chronic bronchitis and heart disease.In 1917, Mary Ward’s nephew, Aldous Huxley, who would go on to be, well, Aldous Huxley, met Virginia Woolf at Heal’s in London. They strolled up and down talking about his aunt. Woolf recalled the conversation in her diary:The mystery of her character deepens; her charm and wit and character all marked as a woman, full of knowledge and humour—and then her novels. These are partly explained by Arnold, who brought them near bankruptcy four years ago and she rescued the whole lot by driving her pen day and night.Huxley loathed Arnold Ward, as did Arnold’s sister Janet. In fact, most people who knew Arnold Ward ended up disliking him.Mary Ward was an intelligent and talented woman, whose career shows how such a person’s energies can be wasted if they find themselves in a society which doesn’t value them. She herself shared a lot of the values of that society, which is why she allowed her tyrannical sense of duty to lead her into the anti-suffrage movement. She groaned, and acquiesced.And then, as Virginia Woolf said, her novels.You can buy most of Mrs Ward’s fiction in Kindle form for a few quid, or read it on Gutenberg, if you so wish; at long last her work is valued at the same price as classic writers who are far more famous.There was very little public mourning at her death. The Times gave her a two-column obituary. Virginia Woolf noted in her diary ‘it appears she was a woman of straw after all—shovelled into the grave and already forgotten.’There have been no dramatic revivals of interest in her work. Only recently, in the era of digital publishing and print-on-demand, has there been new scholarly editions of any of her novels. My copy of Robert Elsmere is an Oxford World’s Classic from the late 1980s, long out of print. Henry James wrote an admiring review of the book (earning her undying gratitude), in which he described very well what it’s like to read:It suggests the image of a large, slow-moving, slightly old-fashioned ship, buoyant enough and well out of water, but with a close-packed cargo in every inch of stowage-room. One feels that the author has set afloat in it a complete treasure of intellectual and moral experience, the memory of all her contacts and phases, all her speculations and studies.The literary critic Q.D. Leavis was notorious for being brutal about any hint of fakeness, ‘sophistication’ or inauthenticity in a book, and indeed for her general waspishness (which she shared with her husband F.R.), but even she found a good word to say about Helbeck of Bannisdale:The novel … incarnates a Protestant-Catholic deadlock and ends tragically, for the situation is inevitably tragic. In it Mrs Ward maintains the impartiality and wide understanding through natural sympathies that she had achieved in life, as a girl in a difficult but not unhappy home. The situation, the conflict and the insoluble deadlock have stature from being representative, not modish, and so transcend the merely personal feelings of the author …Mary Ward was once a bestselling author, a giant of her time.Other answers to this question have suggested such diverse authors as G.K. Chesterton, Somerset Maugham, and even Charles Darwin—still well-known, if not as widely read as they used to be.Mary Ward was a serious woman; even ‘heavily’ serious, like the caricature of a Victorian writer. But she had a sense of humour, even if she seldom put it in her novels. (Robert Elsmere always lightens up whenever Rose comes in.)I think she would look at the idea that these authors are not widely read anymore, and be bitterly amused.She could tell those boys what it’s like to have your entire literary career completely vanish.Thanks for reading.Sources:Henry James, ‘Mrs Humphry Ward’, in Essays, American & English Writers, 1984, Library of AmericaQ.D. Leavis, ‘Women writers of the nineteenth century’, in Collected Essays Vol 3: The Novel of Religious Controversy, 1989, CambridgeJohn Sutherland, Mrs Humphry Ward: Eminent Victorian, Pre-Eminent Edwardian, 1990, OUPJanet Penrose Trevelyan, The Life of Mrs Humphry Ward, 1923, accessed at The Life of Mrs. Humphry Ward by Janet Penrose TrevelyanMrs Humphry Ward, Robert Elsmere, 1987, OUPMrs Humphry Ward, Helbeck of Bannisdale, 1983, PenguinMrs Humphry Ward, The Works of Mrs Humphry Ward, 2 vols, Kindle editionMrs. Humphry [Mary Augusta] Ward, 1851-1920: An Introduction to her Life and Works - a fine short online biography with pictures.

They are all related to Yankee greed.“The Evening Post, the New York Tribune, and other anti-slavery journals in this city are discharging themselves of such a mass of special and minute information about the movements of slavers, and the activity of the slave trade in New York, New London, New Bedford and Boston, that it seems highly probable they are stockholders or secret agents in the business.These ports, in which the slavers are fitted out belong to the most rabid anti-slavery States, and there can be no doubt that the vessels are the property of the Republicans in those several places. The profits of the trade are so great that they can well afford to contribute a hundred thousand dollars or more towards the election of an anti-slavery President [Lincoln]. From lists published a short time ago In the Post and Tribune, it appeared that eighty-six* slavers had Sailed from this port and the other ports we have mentioned, and from other cases since reported, the number cannot be now far short of one hundred sail. The net proceeds on a cargo of five hundred slaves are at the lowest estimate $100,000, which is only an average profit of $200 per head. The sum of the profits of the “blackbird fleet” at one hundred vessels would therefore amount to ten millions of dollars, and this estimate makes an allowance of five million for expenses and losses.From facts and figures it is evident that it is a most profitable, prosperous business, and accordingly we are informed by the Post that steamships are about to give new activity to the traffic, and that they will be packed with some 3,000 negroes, whose aggregate prices would sum up about a million of dollars. One instance is mentioned by both our anti-slavery contemporaries, of 450 negroes being landed on the 30th of June from an American bark, and sold publicly in the streets of Trinidad at an average of $650 each. The gross proceeds of this cargo would be $292,500, which, for one hundred “blackbirds.” Would amount to upwards of twenty-nine millions of dollars, leaving a clear profit of from twenty to twenty-five million. It is added, in the Post, that the Governor of Trinidad received in this transaction $30,000 hush money.Now, it may be fairly asked, how those who are not implicated or interested in the trade themselves can be so well posted in this matter of bribery, or make up the lists of slavers which have appeared in their journals? How can they be so minutely informed of the names of the vessels, their captains, the ports from which they have sailed, the number of slaves they land, the prices received for them, and the “hush money” to corrupt Governors, unless they are secret partners in the trade? If they are possessed of all this information, they must have known of the fitting out of every vessel before she sailed. Why did they not give information to the authorities before the bird had flown, unless they had an interest in concealing her flight till it was too late. Once these ships bare made their voyages and landed their cargoes, and the owners have realized fortunes, they or their agents may then inform the public that such operations were made, the legal evidence against those concerned being no longer in existence.They can thus afford to be severe in their denunciations of the slave traffic, and call it “infernal,” having the prices of the Africans in their pockets, or snugly deposited to their credit in banks, and they can also afford to bleed copiously for the purchase of campaign documents to secure the election of Old Abe Lincoln. Like sleek Joseph Surface, in the “School for Scandal,” who zealously preached up sentiments of morality to his wild brother Charles at the very moment that he had Sir Peter Teazle’s wife concealed for a criminal purpose in his room, the anti-slavery loaders are most enthusiastic against the slave traffic at the very time that they are enjoying its profits and doing a thriving business In human flesh.”Jim Crow Laws were imposed on the South to supply Massachusetts Mill's with cotton DURING the Civil War by the Union Army. The most egregious lie told about Reconstruction is that Jim Crow was created by resurgent Confederates to suppress and dominate Black people. A close examination shows this not only to be incorrect, but almost diametrically the opposite of what really happened.From "Civil War in Louisiana" by WintersUS Treasury Agent George Denison who earlier accused US General Banks of "re-instituting Slavery" reported that the delegates to the Unionist Constitutional Convention in 1864, "were making fools of themselves" in reference to voting themselves salaries and budgets, but also reported, "Prejudice against the colored people is exhibited continually-prejudice bitter and vulgar" and the whole policy respecting the Colored People is ungenerous and unjust." They did not even abolish slavery.Superintendent of the of the Freedmen's Bureau Thomas W Conway in Louisiana reported to US General Hurlbut in charge of Civilian affairs (after being removed in Memphis for his mishandling of military affairs in Tennessee, particularly at Ft Pillow) that the Bureau that there had been 1500 "Plantations under cultivation under military orders" and 50K Freedmen on the Plantations "managed by the Bureau." He further reported he, "found it necessary...in order secure payment of wages, to make seizures either of produce or other property" He seized over $22K.The Superintendent reported that the "Old Planters,...pd more promptly, more justly and apparently with more willingness, than the Lessees from other parts of the country." Governor Hahn,who instituted laws that prohibited Blacks from Voting, was elected to the US Senate and was replaced by Lt Governor J. Madison Wells in March 65, who promptly earned the enmity of US General Banks (Massachusetts) by appointing Southerners to office, Banks complained bitterly to Washington, but US General E.S. Canby, now in full military command replaced Banks and sided with Wells, because the Scalawags caused him less problem than the Carpet Baggers.Hulburt issued orders Feb 4 1865 that "All Freedmen being care for by the Government, who were able to work, be forced to sign labor contracts" All Labor contracts were to be supervised by the Freedmen's Bureau or his agents. The Lessees complained about the regulations and "Red Tape" taking up too much of their time "negotiating labor contracts" with Federal Agents" but "part of the delay was occasioned by the fact that the Negroes were dissatisfied with the payments of the last yr." On April 14th 1865 Alexander Pugh wrote, "I have agreed with the Negros today to pay them monthly, It was very distasteful to me, but i could do no better."Besides admitting to Orville Browning that the Blacks were not receiving the "desired benefit of Union occupation, " Lincoln was terribly concerned with the state of affairs in Louisiana and wrote General Canby, “Frequent complaints are made to me that persons endeavoring to bring in cotton in strict accordance with the trade regulations of the Treasury Department, are frustrated by seizures of District Attorneys, Marshals, Provost-Marshals and others, on various pretenses, I wish, if you can find time, you would look into this matter within your Department, and finding these abuses to exist, break them up, if in your power, so that fair dealing under the regulations, can proceed.”General Canby and Superintendent Conway did an excellent job trying to be fair to all, but Canby was removed in 1866, and there was little Conway could do alone with the dozen or so teachers who remained. Northern economic considerations trumped Black suffrage in the South, Jim Crow was born in a Massachusetts Cotton Mill."Reconstruction in Mississippi, 1865-1876"By Jason Phillips.This angry article is typical of the nonsense we read condemning the Ex-Confederates, but he slipped up and included this, without explaining it was AFTER the Unionist Government was enacted."In 1865 deep prejudice appeared in Mississippi’s notorious Black Codes enacted in late November by the newly elected Mississippi Legislature. One of the first necessities of Reconstruction was to define the legal status of former slaves. Instead of embracing change Mississippi passed the first and most extreme Black Codes, laws meant to replicate slavery as much as possible. The codes used “vagrancy” laws to control the traffic of black people and punished them for any breach of Old South etiquette.""Louisiana's Black Heritage" we learnthe American Missionary Society sent 20 teachers for the 50K Freedmen.Union General Banks promised to assist the 20 teachers, but reneged on his promises. The Gens de Couleur Libres provided the vast majority of what little education the Freedmen received.Lincoln led Republicans controlled both houses of the 37th Congress. One of their select committees was the “Committee on Emancipation and Colonization.” The following resolution from that committee explains exactly what motivated Northern “anti-slavery.” Anti-slavery meant nothing more than “anti-black;” and to rid the country of an “inferior race” to prevent amalgamation. It was this kind of immoral racism that led to Southern secession in the first place. Is it any wonder that the MISSISSIPPI Declaration of Secession laments that the North “seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.” If this is why the South was “pro-slavery,” in order to protect their black neighbors from Northern racism, what else are we not being told about the cause of secession and war?37th Congess.No. 148. REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON EMANCIPATION AND COLONIZATION,In the House of Resentatives, July 16, 1862:“It is useless, now, to enter upon any philosophical inquiry whether nature has or has not made the negro inferior to the Caucasian. The belief is indelibly fixed upon the public mind that such inequality does exist. There are irreconcilable differences between the two races which separate them,as with a wall of fire. The home for the African must not be within the limits of the present territory of the Union. The Anglo- American looks upon every acre of our present domain as intended for him, and not for the negro. A home, therefore, must be sought for the African beyond our own limits and in those warmer regions to which his constitution is better adapted than to our own climate,and which doubtless the Almighty intended the colored races should inhabit and cultivate.Much of the objection to emancipation arises from the opposition of a large portion of our people to the intermixture of the races, and from the association of white and black labor. The committee would do nothing to favor such a policy; apart from the antipathy which nature has ordained, the presence of a race among us who cannot, and ought not to be admitted to our social and political privileges, will be a perpetual source of injury and inquietude to both. This is a question of color, and is unaffected by the relation of master and slave.The introduction of the negro, whether bond or free, into the same field of labor with the white man, is the opprobrium of the latter... We wish to disabuse our laboring countrymen, and the whole Caucasian race who may seek a home here, of this error... The committee conclude that the highest interests of the white race, whether Anglo-Saxon, Celt, or Scandinavian, require that the whole country should be held and occupied by those races.”General Lee exclaimed:"The best men in the South have long desired to do away with the institution of slavery, and are quite willing to see it abolished. UNLESS SOME HUMANE COURSE, BASED ON WISDOM AND CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES IS ADOPTED, you do them great injustice in setting them free.”CSA Governor Henry W Allen Jan 1865"To the English philanthropist who professes to feel so much for the slave, I would say, come and see the sad and cruel workings the scheme.--Come and see the negro in the hands of his Yankee liberators. See the utter degradation--the ragged want--the squalid poverty. These false, pretended friends treat him with criminal neglect. William H. Wilder, He says the negroes have died like sheep with the rot. In the Parish of Iberville, out of six hundred and ten slaves, three hundred and ten have perished. Tiger Island, at Berwicks Bay, is one solid grave yard. At New Orleans, Thibodaux, Donaldsonville, Plaquemine, Baton Rouge, Port Hudson, Morganza, Vidalia, Young's Point and Goodrich's Landing, the acres of the silent dead will ever be the monuments of Yankee cruelty to these unhappy wretches. Under published orders from General Banks, The men on plantations were to be paid from six to eight dollars per month, In these orders the poor creatures after being promised this miserable pittance, were bound by every catch and saving clause that a lawyer could invent. For every disobedience their wages were docked. For every absence from labor they were again docked. In the hands of the grasping Yankee overseer, the oppressed slave has been forced to toil free of cost to his new master. I saw a half-starved slave who had escaped from one of the Yankee plantations, he said "that he had worked hard for the Yankees for six long months--that they had 'dockered' him all the time, and had never paid him one cent!" The negro has only changed masters, and very much for the worse! And now, without present reward or hope for the future, he is dying in misery and want. Look at this picture ye negro worshippers, and weep, if you have tears to shed over the poor down-trodden murdered children of Africa."On November 27 1864 Colonel Chivington attacked Chief Black Kettle’s lodges on the Sand Creek in present day Colorado. The Cheyenne thought they were at peace under a treaty agreement and were unprepared. Chivington responded to queries about the children should be treated with, “Damn any man who sympathized with Indians… I have come to kill Indians and believe it is right honorable to use any means under God’s heaven to kill Indians…Kill and scalp all, big and little, Nits make Lice.”FORT LYON, COLO. TER., January 16, 1865.Personally appeared before me Lieutenant James D. Cannon, First New Mexico Volunteer Infantry, who, after being duly sworn, says:That on the 28th day of November, 1864, I was ordered by Major Scott J. Anthony to accompany him on an Indian expedition as his battalion adjutant. The object of that expedition was to be a thorough campaign against hostile Indians, as I was led to understand. I referred to the fact of there being a friendly camp of Indians in the immediate neighborhood, and remonstrated against simply attacking that camp, as I was aware that they were resting there in fancied security under promises held out to them of safety from Major E. W. Wynkoop, former commander of the post at Fort Lyon, as well as by Major S. J. Anthony, then in command. Our battalion was attached to the command of Colonel J. M. Chivington, and left Fort Lyon on the night of the 28th of November, 1864. About daybreak on the morning of the 29th of November we came in sight of the camp of the friendly Indians aforementioned, and was ordered by Colonel Chivington to attack the same, which was accordingly done. The command of Colonel Chivington was composed of about 1,000 men. The village of the Indians consisted of from 100 to 130 lodges, and, as far as I am able to judge, of from 500 to 600 souls, the majority of which were women and children. In going over the battle-ground next day I did not see a body of man, woman, or child but was scalped, and in many instances their bodies were mutilated in the most horrible manner--men, women, and children's privates cut out, &c. I heard one man say that he had cut a woman's private parts out, and had them for exhibition on a stick. I heard another man say that he had cut the fingers off of an Indian to get the rings on the hand. According to the best of my knowledge and belief, these atrocities that were committed were with the knowledge of J. M. Chivington, and I do not know of him taking any measures to prevent them. I heard of one instance of a child a few months' old being thrown in the feed-box of a wagon, and after being carried some distance left on the ground to perish. I also heard of numberless instances in which men had cut out the private parts of females and stretched them over the saddle bows, and wore them over their hats while riding in the ranks. All these matters were a subject of general conversation, and could not help being known by Colonel J. M. Chivington.JAMES D. CANNON,First Lieutenant, First Infantry, New Mexico Volunteers.Sworn and subscribed to before me this 27th day of January 1865, at Fort Lyon, Colo. Ter.W. P. MINTON,Secretary of War Edwin Stanton's genocide policy against Native Americans and Blacks became the model for the Final Solution. One million Freedmen starved to death under Union Contraband policy before Confederates were allowed to vote. See “Sick From Freedom” by Downs.Hitler wrote glowingly about Lincoln in Mien Kampf not Davis.Robber Barons are generally defined as ruthless, unscrupulous and immoral industrialists and financiers who exploited resources and corrupted Government during later part of 19th Century. They are known for creating Monopolies in America and an international empire for the Nation. Jack Beatty's "Age of Betrayal" in the best in-depth study of the social consequences of the political and economic development of the Robber Baron Oligarchy from the end of the Civil War to WW I. Beatty credits Jay Gould with being the archetype. He did deal in Senate Seats like a Used Car Salesman does his merchandise, and Grant's first act as President was a gold market deal with him, but Gould was working in a system created in New York Union Club in 1840s.This exclusive all W.A.S.P. Men's Club was symbolic of the transfer from State political domination objectives of the earlier Philadelphia and Boston Clubs, to achieving their goals through controlling Federal economic policy. New York Harbor connected more easily with the growing Ohio Valley than New England and infrastructure development was having interstate legal issues.Clearly they believed, with justification, that Washington had to assume greater responsibility for regulating interstate projects and set out to increase their political influence to that end. Hence "Union" in their connotation meant united for "Manifest Destiny." This is not intentionally Evil, but the hubris that came with the realization of their goals certainly led to callous contempt for traditional Christian values and even for Religion generally and the results were evil.Industrialisation did not come from any new mechanical or agricultural techniques, most "innovations" were known from Roman Times. Advances in risk management mathematics for investors, allowed for growth and expansion of Corporations and particularly the insurance companies.The Dutch East India Company was the first corporation and among its more lucrative pursuits was the Atlantic Triangle Trade of Rum, Sugar and Slaves. None brought more Slaves to the American Colonies.Yale University was established by Slave shipping profits and named after the head of the DEIC. Here I think we have the Robber Baron archetype. We certainly find the institution that bound later generations of Robber Barons with its espousal of Social Darwinism and the racial science of Eugenics.At the Union Club, Yale alum, Textile and RR industry leaders used wealth of the slave trade corporations to expand into Banking, as in the case of slave trading Brown Family of Brown Brothers-Harriman and Sugar Plantation owning Jacob Astor. Here Yale Alum, Barlow Family would instigate the Civil War with Cornelius Vanderbilt, who pd for Union expedition against NOLA, and with Samuel Barlow's law partner Edwin Stanton who convinced Buchanan to resist Secession. Barlow was Vanderbilt's attorney.Most think of Rockefeller, Carnegie And JP Morgan as the Great Robber Barons following in footsteps of Gould, but Yale showed the way for Brown, Barlow and Vanderbilt who were only emulated by the Founders of Standard Oil, US Steel and Wall Street Banks. Their excesses pale next to starting and exploiting the Civil War.Through Barlow and Greeley Press and Union League censorship of the rest, the Massachusetts Mills, Illinois RRs and NY Banks started the GOP, then the Civil War and lied about their motives every step of the way. But after Roosevelt stopped the Monopolies that grew during Reconstruction, the Yale affiliated industrialists would continue on and out do the earlier Robber Barons, in duplicity, by inspiring and motivating the Nazis with business agreements and loans.From earlier days of Robber Baron Oligarchy, a Yale graduate, Samuel Bush would work on the Industrial Boards to facilitate Robber Baron needs, his son Prescott would run Union Bank and help Hitler. Prescott's son ran Zapata Oil. But Yale Graduates don't run the Country anymore so apparently Robber Barons are extinct.