Essays from the SIA
Finding Inspiration in Every Turn
This is your Page. This space is a great opportunity to understand Confederate viewpoints.
THE SOUTH NO LONGER ACCEPTS YOUR WHITE GUILT
By: Mindy Esposito, December 23, 2025, Nashville, Tennessee
For 165 years, the American South has been the nation’s scapegoat. When the country wants absolution without honesty, it points south. When America wants to confess without accountability, it assigns its sins to one region and calls that progress.
That made us useful.
And expendable.
Slavery was not regional. It was international. Profitable. Institutional. Financed by northern banks. Fed to northern industries. Insured by northern cities. When the reckoning came, the guilt moved south and the rest of the country moved on.
That was not truth. It was convenience.
After the war, the South was defeated and branded. Not forgiven. Not heard. From then on, Southern identity itself became evidence. Every American failure could be explained by Southern backwardness while others claimed moral clarity.
And still, we stayed.
We fed the nation.
We built it.
We defended it.
​
Southern farms. Southern ports. Southern soldiers. Southern labor. Black and white. Generation after generation. When America needed strength, it came south. When it wanted culture, faith, music, and grit, it took freely. Then it mocked the source. We accepted it longer than we should have because we still believe in the promise of America. And so did our ancestors. North and South.
That matters.
Look around the world today. Freedom is shrinking. Speech is punished. History is managed. Faith is ridiculed. And still this nation stands, not because it is perfect, but because it allows memory, argument, and correction.
Freedom is the promise of America.
As Ronald Reagan said, "America is the last best hope of earth," But hope cannot survive scapegoating.
Here is the line we are drawing:
We are proud CSA Americans. We remember our ancestors as human beings, not cartoons. We honor our dead. We work. We serve. We contribute. We believe in the promise, not the fantasy, but the hard work.
What we will not do anymore is carry your guilt.
Those are your projections. This is our home. Families do not heal by sacrificing one member. They heal by telling the truth. The South is ready. We still believe. And we are done being your scapegoat.
THE FIRST ERASURE: HOW CONFEDERATE MEMORY
BECAME THE BLUEPRINT FOR AMERICA’S CULTURAL REVOLUTION
By: Mindy Esposito, December 5, 2025, Nashville, Tennessee
​
In recent years, Americans have struggled to understand how their nation,
long anchored by shared history, faith, and civic identity, could suddenly
feel unmoored. Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s assessment of an attempted
cultural revolution explains much of this turmoil. But when viewed through
the lens of Southern history, a deeper truth becomes clear: Confederate
memory was not only an early casualty of this ideological struggle, it was
the proving ground.
Long before the nation realized what was happening, Southern monuments, graves, flags, and historical narratives were quietly placed under assault. What seemed at first like isolated controversies were in fact early experiments in coercion, censorship, and the rewriting of memory. The destruction of Confederate heritage was the pilot program for a much larger transformation. The revolutionaries learned on the South what they later unleashed on the whole Republic.
I. Confederate History as the First Test Case
The American cultural revolution could not succeed without first weakening the nation’s historical foundations. Crucially, Confederate memory offered a politically convenient target, safe to attack, unlikely to trigger broad institutional resistance, and rich with symbolic power.
Decades before the wider public felt the pressure of ideological enforcement, Confederate symbols were:
removed under cover of darkness,
vandalized without consequence,
stripped of historical nuance, and
recast as badges of collective guilt rather than memorials to the dead.
Anyone who questioned this narrative, historians, descendants, preservationists, found themselves smeared, silenced, or socially punished. What Flynn calls “behavioral conditioning” was practiced first on Southerners. If society could be trained to accept the erasure of one region’s history, activists reasoned, the rest of America would follow in time.
​
They were right.
​
II. A Nation That Forgets One Past Can Forget Any Past
Once Confederate memory was successfully recoded as shameful, the ideological project expanded outward with remarkable speed. Monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Columbus, and even Union generals were suddenly “problematic.” The Declaration of Independence became suspect. The Constitution was recast as an artifact of oppression. School curricula replaced civic literacy with grievance narratives.
What began with the Confederacy was never just about the Confederacy. It was about whether Americans could be persuaded to sever themselves from their own history.
The architects of this revolution understood something simple and chilling:
A people who are taught to hate their past can be made to surrender their future.
​III. Red Washing: How a Nation’s Memory Was Rewritten
Flynn’s term “red washing” describes the deletion, distortion, and replacement of historical memory; precisely what Confederate descendants witnessed long before the nation awakened to it.
For years, textbooks quietly shifted. Museums changed language. University departments reclassified American and Southern history as political battlegrounds. Stories of courage, faith, sacrifice, community, and reconciliation were buried beneath ideological narratives that served a modern agenda rather than truth.
By the time the public realized how radically history had been rewritten, entire generations had already been taught:
not what happened,
but what they were supposed to feel about it.
​
This was the revolution’s most powerful weapon.
​
IV. Suppressing Southern Heritage Was a Trial Run for Suppressing American Identity
Flynn describes the cultural revolution as a coordinated alliance between bureaucracies, activist networks, and media institutions. Nowhere was this alliance more boldly displayed than in the treatment of Confederate heritage.
​
The South became a controlled environment where the ideological project measured:
how much dissent people would tolerate,
how quickly institutions would comply,
how aggressively media could shape narratives,
how forcefully public symbols could be removed.
When the experiment succeeded, when monuments fell quietly and opposition was muted, the blueprint was expanded nationwide.
​
The targeting of the Confederacy was not the end goal; it was the gateway.
​
V. The Stakes: A Nation’s Soul
The erasure of memory is not simply academic. It affects how we understand liberty, duty, sacrifice, and identity. Confederate dead were once honored as American soldiers who fought bravely for their homes, respected even by their former enemies. To recast them as villains was to sever a sacred thread of national reconciliation.
And once that thread was cut, all of American memory became vulnerable.
The Founders, frontiersmen, pioneers, soldiers, inventors and every figure who once formed the backbone of our civic story, became fair game.
​
​VI. What the South Knew First, America Knows Now
For decades, Southerners warned that if history could be erased for one group, it could be erased for all. Today, the nation is waking up to that truth. Americans of every region now feel pressures once experienced almost exclusively by descendants of Confederate families:
censorship,
social punishment,
coerced conformity,
fear of speaking openly,
rewriting of the national story.
​
The South was not the outlier. It was the early warning system.
​
​VII. The Path Forward
If Flynn is correct, and many believe he is, the cultural revolution has fractured, but not vanished. Its project has been slowed but not defeated. The restoration of American civic life begins with reclaiming memory: understanding, teaching, and preserving the truth of our past so that future generations cannot be cut off from it.
​
Confederate history is part of that restoration, not only for the South but for the nation as a whole. It embodies principles the revolution sought to erase:
honor for the dead:
​
reverence for ancestors,
fidelity to local identity,
resistance to centralized coercion,
courage in the face of overwhelming power.
​
These values are not sectional. They are American.
And they are worth defending.
*****
CITATIONS & SOURCES
I. Historical Erasure, Memory Rewriting, and Ideological Use of History
Lowenthal, David. The Past Is a Foreign Country – Revisited. Cambridge University Press, 2015.
— Definitive scholarly work on how societies reshape and erase historical memory for political purposes.
Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, eds. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press, 1983.
— Seminal study showing how political groups create or overwrite historical narratives.
Banner, James M. Jr. The Ever-Changing Past: Why All History Is Revisionist History. Yale University Press, 2021.
— Explains how history is routinely reframed for political ends.
Upton, Dell. What Can and Can’t Be Said: Race, Uplift, and Monument Building in the Contemporary South. Yale University Press, 2015.
— Documents coordinated campaigns to reinterpret or remove Confederate monuments.
“The War Over Confederate Monuments.” Smithsonian Magazine, Aug. 2017.
— Shows institutional and activist alignment in reframing Southern history.
---
II. Institutional Capture, Bureaucratic Ideology, and Government Overreach
“Review of DHS Intelligence Reports.” Office of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security, Report OIG-22-91, 2022.
— Documents ideological bias and improper internal training within DHS.
“Political Activities of Federal Employees.” Government Accountability Office (GAO), 2020.
— Identifies patterns of improper political influence inside federal agencies.
The Twitter Files.
Independent investigative reporting (2022–2023) led by Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and Michael Shellenberger.
— Documents coordination between federal agencies and social-media companies on political content moderation.
Church Committee Reports (Final Report). U.S. Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, 1976.
— Historic evidence of federal agencies surveilling citizens based on ideology.
---
III. DEI as a Mechanism of Coercion or Compelled Ideology
Meriwether v. Shawnee State University. 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2021).
— Federal court ruling that DEI policies cannot compel ideological speech.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Novant Health Settlements, 2022–2024.
— Shows instances where DEI was used improperly in employment decisions.
Rufo, Christopher F. America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything. Broadside Books, 2023.
— Documents DEI training systems, activist staff pipelines, and ideological conformity pressures in government, corporate, and academic institutions.
“The Rise of Mandatory DEI Trainings.” Wall Street Journal, 2021–2024 series.
— Investigative reporting on coercive or ideologically driven DEI mandates.
---
IV. Evidence of Government Surveillance or Targeting of Ideological Groups
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review. 2013.
— The IRS targeting scandal (Tea Party and conservative groups).
FBI Richmond Field Office. Domestic Terrorism: Radical Traditionalist Catholics Memo, Jan. 2023 (withdrawn).
— Direct evidence of ideological profiling inside the FBI.
National School Boards Association Letter to DOJ, September 2021 and subsequent DOJ communications.
— Shows federal involvement in labeling parent dissent as domestic extremism.
---
V. Coordinated Activist Networks, Funding Streams, and Narrative Alignment
Gurri, Martin. The Revolt of the Public and the Crisis of Authority in the New Millennium. Stripe Press, 2014.
— Explores how activist networks reshape political structures and public narratives.
Fisher, Dana. American Resistance: From the Women’s March to the Blue Wave. Columbia University Press, 2019.
— Academic documentation of interconnected activist networks, overlapping staff, and coordinated messaging.
Capital Research Center Investigative Reports (2018–2024).
— Maps funding networks linking activist organizations across racial justice, environmental, feminist, and anti-police movements.
“How Philanthropy Shapes Progressive Activism.” The New York Times, May 2021.
— Documents shared donors, staff, and organizational overlap across multiple ideological movements.
---
VI. Memory Suppression and Ideological Reframing in Education
Stanford University. History Wars and the Classroom: Democratic Ideas in Conflict, 2018.
— Documents how historical curricula shifted toward ideology-driven narratives.
National Association of Scholars. The 1619 Project: A Critique, 2020–2022.
— Demonstrates factual distortions and ideological intent in rewriting American history.
RAND Corporation. The Ideological Exposure in K–12 Education Report, 2021.
— Shows coordinated ideological shifts in school curricula.
Schaefer, Elizabeth. “Confederate Memory in the Classroom.” Journal of Southern History, vol. 85, no. 3, 2019.
— Academic analysis of how Southern history has been selectively erased or reframed.
DEAR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WE FORGIVE YOU
By Mindy Esposito
January 17,2026, Bristol, Tennessee (passing through)
Dear United States of America,
​
We forgive you.
Not because the wounds were small.
Not because the harm was imaginary.
But because forgiveness is the beginning of truth and healing.
We forgive Abraham Lincoln for refusing peaceful separation and choosing coercion instead. For believing the Union could not survive without Southern revenue and Southern labor while denying the South the right of self government that this nation itself was born defending.
We forgive you for calling up seventy five thousand troops to march against fellow Americans. For turning political disagreement into war. For sending armies into Southern towns and farms and churches and homes.
We forgive you for stretching the Constitution beyond recognition. For centralizing power never intended to be centralized. For replacing consent of the governed with rule by force. For turning a federation of states into an empire of bureaucracy.
​
We forgive you for forced emancipation carried out through war instead of wisdom.
We forgive you for declaring millions “free” and then abandoning them to hunger, homelessness, and exploitation. For tearing families from plantations and communities without land, wages, tools, shelter, education, or protection. For setting formerly enslaved people loose into chaos and calling it justice.
We forgive you for using Black suffering as a political weapon. For celebrating proclamation while refusing responsibility. For offering promises and then withdrawing support when it became inconvenient. Even Union armies turned their backs on the very people they claimed to liberate, leaving thousands displaced, starving, and vulnerable.
We forgive you for Northern Black Codes that followed. For segregation laws, labor restrictions, vagrancy arrests, and second class citizenship imposed by the very states that preached moral superiority. For pretending the South invented discrimination while practicing it openly above the Mason Dixon line.
We forgive you for the cruelty inflicted on our Black brothers and sisters in the name of “freedom” that came without preparation, provision, or protection.
Freedom without structure is not compassion.
​
It is abandonment.
​
We forgive you for the stories told afterward. For painting an entire people as villains so the victors could feel righteous. For teaching generations that Southern bloodlines should feel shame instead of dignity. For reducing our ancestors to caricatures instead of complex human beings.
We forgive you for making the South your national scapegoat. For assigning collective guilt to children not yet born. For telling our sons and daughters that their heritage is something to apologize for instead of understand.
We forgive you for waging war not only on armies but on civilians.
We forgive you for burning towns and farms. For looting homes. For starving women and children. For terrorizing grandmothers and old men who had no weapon in their hands and no voice in the decisions of war.
​
We forgive you for the suffering inflicted on Southern families Black and White alike. For ripping food from tables. For driving families into the woods. For destroying churches, mills, barns, and livelihoods. For calling it strategy while civilians paid the price.
​
We forgive you for rewriting destruction into virtue.
​
We forgive you for erasing shared American history. For dismantling monuments to the dead. For desecrating graves and cemeteries. For removing names and symbols not to heal but to punish. For discriminating against Southern identity while calling it progress.
​
We forgive you.
​
But forgiveness does not mean submission. We will no longer accept lies taught as education. We will no longer accept censorship dressed up as compassion. We will no longer accept cultural cleansing disguised as unity.
​
We are proud of who we are and where we come from.
​
We honor our ancestors not because they were perfect but because they were just.
They built farms and towns and churches. They planted fields. They raised families. They buried sons. They loved this land long before it became fashionable to mock it.
​
We are not relics.
We are not ashamed.
And we are not going away.
We are Americans.
We are Southerners.
We are CSA Americans.
And we are taking our seat at the table.
​
You are our countrymen. You are our family. And families owe each other honesty. We will not allow our shared history to be erased. We will not allow propaganda to replace scholarship. We will not allow shame to replace memory.
We choose reconciliation but not silence.
We choose peace but not surrender.
We choose truth even when it costs us.
We forgive you.
​
Now it is time for this nation to grow up and tell the whole story.
With dignity.
With courage.
With resolve.
Love,
All CSA Americans
TRUTH BEFORE UNITY. UNITY THROUGH TRUTH.
ABOUT THAT LINCOLN QUOTE
My thanks to my friend William Alan Webb for pointing me to John B. Baldwin’s sworn testimony about his April 4, 1861, meeting with Abraham Lincoln.
​
In testimony given in 1866, Baldwin recalled urging Lincoln to withdraw Federal troops from the Southern forts in the interest of peace. According to Baldwin, Lincoln responded:
“Well … what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?”
Baldwin asked how much annual revenue was involved. Lincoln answered, “Fifty or sixty millions.” Baldwin argued that even the revenue of an entire presidential term would be a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of war.
​
This is a participant’s firsthand account, recorded under oath five years after the meeting. The image uses the wording attributed to Lincoln by Raphael Semmes. Baldwin’s testimony records a similar concern in different words. It supports the substance of the revenue concern without establishing the exact wording of the quotation in the image.
​
Calling a quotation “made up” does not settle the question. Examining the evidence does.
Sources:
John B. Baldwin, testimony before the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, 1866, reproduced in Interview Between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, available through The Valley of the Shadow archive.
The “Let the South go!” wording also appears in:
Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Is Davis a Traitor? (1866), pp. 143–144.
Frank H. Alfriend, The Life of Jefferson Davis (1868), p. 201.
Raphael Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, During the War Between the States (1869), p. 59.
Baldwin's Sworn Testimony About What Lincoln Said Fact Check
Mindy Espositio, October 18, 2026, Nashville
​
NOTE: Several readers used Google AI to dismiss Baldwin’s sworn testimony about his meeting with Lincoln. I challenged it to address that testimony, and its answer changed substantially. Here is the exchange.
I challenged the Google AI response linked in this discussion. Here is my challenge, followed by its response.
​
CHALLENGE
Your overview dismisses the revenue quotation as apocryphal without addressing the firsthand testimony supporting a related exchange. Please distinguish between authenticating the exact “Let the South go” wording and assessing evidence that Lincoln raised revenue collection in discussions about the secession crisis.
​
Explain and address these sources:
1. John B. Baldwin’s sworn testimony before the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, February 10, 1866.
Describing his April 4, 1861, meeting with Lincoln, Baldwin recalled Lincoln asking: “What about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?” Evaluate this as firsthand testimony about an earlier conversation.
​
2. The reported interview with Dr. Richard Fuller and the Baltimore YMCA delegation on April 22, 1861.
Accounts attributed to the Baltimore Exchange of April 23 and the Memphis Daily Avalanche of May 8 quote Lincoln asking what would become of the revenue and the government’s resources. Verify the newspaper reports and their wording, identify the basis of the reporter’s knowledge, and assess their evidentiary value.
​
3. Lincoln’s official Proclamation of Blockade, April 19, 1861.
Its opening paragraph states that federal revenue laws “cannot be effectually executed” in the seceded states. Explain what this establishes about revenue enforcement in Lincoln’s stated justification for the blockade.
Does this evidence support the conclusion that Lincoln expressed concern about revenue collection, even if the exact wording attributed to him by later writers remains unverified? If you dispute these accounts, identify the specific evidence and sources supporting that conclusion.
​
Separately, evaluate the proposed economic threat of a low-tariff Confederate coast. Distinguish documented concerns from predictions and later interpretations, and verify tariff rates against the actual legislation.
​
GOOGLE AI RESPONSE
(Formatting cleaned up; linked sources collected below.)
An evaluation of these primary sources from the secession crisis of April 1861 establishes that Abraham Lincoln did repeatedly express concern about revenue collection and the enforcement of tariff laws.
While historians widely reject post-war, second-hand quotes manufactured to claim Lincoln launched a war solely to secure tax money, contemporary records confirm that the mechanics of collecting federal duties and the threat of an open, low-tariff Confederate coastline were central topics in Lincoln's executive deliberations.
PART 1: EVALUATION OF THE THREE PRIMARY SOURCES
​
1. Col. John B. Baldwin’s Sworn Testimony (1866)
The Account:
In his February 10, 1866, testimony before the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, Virginia Unionist John B. Baldwin detailed a secret April 4, 1861, meeting with Lincoln. Baldwin urged Lincoln to evacuate Fort Sumter for the sake of peace.
According to Baldwin, Lincoln responded: “Well, what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?”
When Baldwin minimized the loss, Lincoln added: “And open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?”
​
Evidentiary Value:
This is a firsthand account delivered under oath, making it legally and historically significant. However, historians approach it with caution due to temporal distance: Baldwin recounted the exchange five years after the fact, following a highly polarizing war in which he served as a Confederate congressman.
While the exact phrasing may reflect Baldwin's retrospective framing, the core exchange strongly demonstrates that Lincoln was actively calculating the direct administrative and economic disruption of losing major Southern ports of entry.
​
2. The Dr. Richard Fuller / Baltimore YMCA Interview (April 22, 1861)
The Account:
On April 22, 1861, a delegation from the Baltimore YMCA, led by Baptist minister Dr. Richard Fuller, met with Lincoln to plead for a cessation of hostilities and the bypass of Union troops around Maryland.
The Baltimore Exchange (April 23) and later the Memphis Daily Avalanche (May reported that Lincoln grew exasperated, asking: “But what am I to do? ... What shall become of the revenue? I shall have no government? No resources?”
​
Evidentiary Value:
These newspaper accounts have strong contemporary value because they were printed within 24 hours of the meeting. However, their objectivity is heavily compromised. The Baltimore Exchange and the Memphis Avalanche were fiercely partisan, pro-secession, and anti-Lincoln publications.
The reporter’s knowledge relied entirely on a briefing from a highly agitated delegation trying to rally Maryland to the Southern cause. The dialogue is widely viewed by historians not as a literal transcript, but as a hostile, polemical caricature designed to portray Lincoln as an unfeeling tyrant obsessed with federal coffers rather than human life.
​
3. Lincoln’s Official Proclamation of Blockade (April 19, 1861)
The Account:
In the very first paragraph of Proclamation 81, Lincoln legally justifies the naval blockade by stating that “an insurrection... has broken out... and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed”.
​
Evidentiary Value:
This is an irrefutable, official executive text. It establishes that the inability to collect federal customs duties was a primary, foundational legal justification for implementing military force.
Under the Constitution, Lincoln could not easily wage an “act of war” against his own citizens. By framing the blockade as an enforcement mechanism for federal revenue laws rather than a formal war against a recognized foreign nation, Lincoln maintained the legal stance that secession was void and that he was merely suppressing an illegal obstruction of U.S. law.
​
SECTION CONCLUSION
Yes, this body of evidence firmly supports the conclusion that Lincoln expressed profound concern over revenue collection.
Even if the precise, dramatic wording found in partisan newspapers or post-war recollections remains unverified, the consistent overlap between Baldwin's testimony, contemporary press reports, and Lincoln's own official proclamations demonstrates that the constitutional requirement to collect duties was a primary factor driving his executive policy to hold federal installations.
​
PART 2: ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF A LOW-TARIFF CONFEDERATE COAST
The prospect of a low-tariff South adjacent to a high-tariff North posed a documented, structural threat to Northern commerce.
​
THE TARIFF COMPONENT (1861)
United States (Morrill Tariff)
• Rate: ~37% to 47% on imports
• Target: Protect domestic industry
Confederate States Tariff Act
• Rate: ~10% to 15% on imports
• Target: Free-trade/Revenue only
​
1. Documented Wartime Concerns vs. Post-War Interpretations
During the secession crisis, Northern business circles and Republican politicians expressed acute anxiety over the impending legal imbalance. Because the federal government derived roughly 90% of its revenue from customs duties, an operational, low-tariff Southern coastline threatened Northern commerce in two documented ways:
• Smuggling and Evasion:
Northern merchants openly worried that European goods would be shipped cheaply into free-trade Southern ports like New Orleans or Charleston, and then smuggled across the porous Ohio and Potomac rivers into the North, completely starving the Union of its main source of revenue.
• Diversion of Shipping Traffic:
Commercial hubs like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia feared losing their dominant transatlantic shipping traffic to Southern ports if European vessels could avoid the high Northern rates.
​
2. Verification Against Actual Legislation
The core of this economic conflict is fully substantiated by the conflicting pieces of legislation passed on the eve of the war:
• The U.S. Morrill Tariff (Passed March 2, 1861):
This heavily protective tariff was signed into law just before Lincoln took office, significantly raising rates to an average of 37% to 47% on dutiable imports. This protected Northern manufacturers but penalized agrarian consumers.
• The Confederate Tariff Act (Passed May 21, 1861):
The Confederate Congress established a revenue-only tariff that placed a modest 10% to 15% rate on most manufactured goods and completely exempted crucial industrial items.
This dramatic, legislative divergence created exactly the kind of structural economic threat that Northern merchants had predicted, providing a powerful, practical incentive for the Union to enforce a strict naval blockade to prevent the South from operating an independent global trade system.
If you would like to examine this economic friction further, we can investigate contemporary editorials from Northern business newspapers (like the New York Times or Philadelphia Press) from March 1861, or examine the Confederate Constitution's explicit ban on protective tariffs. Which aspect of the trade war should we break down?
​
SOURCES LINKED BY GOOGLE AI
​
Baldwin discussion:
https://storage.googleapis.com/.../WHAT%20ABOUT%20THE...
​
Fuller delegation discussion:
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/speccoll-news/6/
https://civilwarbaptists.com/1861-april-23/
https://dispatch.richmond.edu/1861/4/26/3/95
Blockade proclamation and analysis:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/.../proclamation-81...
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocu.../frus1873p2v3/d29
https://www.ebsco.com/.../analysis-presidential.../
Our Story
Every organization has a story, and you want to hear ours. This space is a great opportunity to give a full background on we you are, what our team does, and what our organization has to offer.