For the Confederacy the decision to secede came down to votes in the various state legislatures. If you add up the votes in the states, a little over 770 men decided the fate of over 12 million. This was definitely a case of the rule of the mivro-minority.

It may be sad reportage, but this release sounds like a Yankee academic passing off common knowledge, at least in the Old Confederacy, as original research.

If anyone would like more information on this book, you can send a request through this comment board.

I had heard the quote from the VP.

I question the woman issue — women in the North were also disenfranchised, so I find it hard to believe that this was a reason the South lost. It seems to me to be a feminist stretch, although it could be exactly right.

I think the overwhelming reason the South lost — aside from the moral question — was simply that the North was able to produce more stuff needed to win wars than the South. That, combined with a moral imperative, almost guaranteed success.

I’ve heard, and would like verified, that the Russian Czar NIcholas helped turn the tide of the US Civil War by providing warships to help keep blockade runners from England and France away from the Confederate States. There is rumored to be a memorial in Boston dedicated to the Russian Navy; thanking them for their assistance, and that there were skirmishes between the Russian Navy and
the blockade runners. The blockade runners wanted to trade weapons for cotton.

Sounds like yankee babble with no research! Stephanie McCurry certainly knows nothing about Southern women or she couldn’t have written such drivel!

South Carolina governor plus 3 other rice plantation owners had so much wealth they controlled politics and the policies of the south at that time. Money and greed ruled their decisions. Everyone else seemed to go along for the ride, including RE Lee.

Well whoopdee doo! It’s another book about the Southern Confederacy as the “Evil Empire.” How novel. Somebody pass me my “No-Doz” before I slip into a wackademic -induced coma.

“What the secessionists set out to build was something entirely new in the history of nations,” – Really? I guess Stephanie McCurry never heard of ancient Athens or hundreds of other political sovereignties throughout history who built civilizations using slavery?

And yeah, we know, we know – half a million slaves went running off to join da’ Union army and sum o’ dem fights wid Massa Linkhum’s boys. Problem is, that still leaves over 3 million slaves back on the farm, or in some cases, marching with the Rebel army under their own power. Maybe the next time someone writes one of these books and claims that “the slaves freed themselves,” they could perhaps elaborate on how many slaves were actually CARRIED OFF by Union troops against their will as opposed to going voluntarily?

“What the Yankees didn’t take they wasted and set fire to it…. They done one more thing too. They put any colored man in the front where he would get killed first and they stayed sorter behind in the back lines…….. When they come along they try to get the colored men to go with them and that’s the way they got treated.” (Liney Chambers, Arkansas, The Slave Narratives)

“The….nig***s, as a general thing, preferred to stay at home, particularly after they found out that we wanted only the able-bodied men, and to tell the truth, the youngest and best looking women. Sometimes we took them off by way of repaying influential secessionist. But a part of these we soon managed to lose, sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in other ways.” – (Thomas J. Myers, Lieutenant, U.S.A., February 26, 1865)

Southern women brought down the war effort because they were sore about being second class citizens? Poor Stephanie either she doesn’t get out much or she’s never met a Southern woman. She also ignores the fact that the women of the north faced the same kind of thing. Colonel Arthur Freemantle, who, unlike Stephanie, actually visited the South during the war, had this to say about Southern women….

“…no Confederate soldier is given his discharge from the army, however badly he may be wounded; but he is employed at such labor in the public service as he may be capable of performing, and his place in the ranks is taken by a sound man hitherto exempted. The slightly wounded are cured as quickly as possible, and are sent back at once to their regiments. THEIR WOMEN TAKE CARE OF THIS…..” (“Three Months in the Southern States,” Colonel Arthur Freemantle, copyright, 1991, University of Nebraska Press, Page 306)

The attitudes of the Southern women that I know mirror that of the woman whose fiancé declined on volunteering for the army. She sent him a package of women’s underwear with a note which read, “Wear these or volunteer!” Needless to say, he volunteered. (“The Quarterly Review”, “The American War”, London, January – April, 1863, vol. 113, pp. 322 – 353)

Freemantle, an English officer and subject who himself opposed slavery, had this to say about the motivation of the Southern people and what they were fighting for as well as against. My guess is that he would take issue with contentions of the sort that are advanced in books like this one.

“But the mass of respectable Northerners, though they may be willing to pay, do not very naturally feel themselves called upon to give their blood in a war of aggression, ambition and conquest. For this war is essentially a war of conquest. If ever a nation did wage such a war, the North is now engaged with a determination worthy of a more hopeful cause, in endeavoring to conquer the South; but the more I think of all that I have seen in the Confederate Sates of the devotion of the whole population, the more I feel inclined to say with General Polk – “How can you subjugate a people such as this?”” (“Three Months in the Southern States,” Colonel Arthur Freemantle, copyright, 1991, University of Nebraska Press, pp 308-309)

And while it has become all the rage among hack-ademics these days to “prove” that it was the South and the (allegedly) shabby cause for which it was fighting that caused its downfall and not overwhelming size and power of the Union army, one cannot escape the fact that the North had 4 times the South’s manpower and 10 times its industrial capacity. No, you can’t escape it no matter how many theses you write about how flawed the South was. You can’t escape it because even the South’s opponents noticed it themselves and spoke openly about it.

“Look at the opposing armies and you will see two striking truths. First, the Northern men are superior in numbers, virtue, intelligence, bodily strength, and real pluck; and yet on the whole they have been outgeneraled and badly beaten. Second, the Northern army is better equipped, better clad, fed and lodged; and is in a far more comfortable condition, not only than the Southern army, but any other in the world; and yet, if the pay were stopped in both, the Northern army would probably mutiny at once, or crumble rapidly; while the Southern army would probably hold together for a long time, in some shape, if their cause seemed to demand it. The animating spirit of the Southern soldier is rather moral than pecuniary; of the Northern soldier it is rather pecuniary than moral.” (Gen. Samuel Howe, US Army, February 20, 1862, Confederate Veteran Magazine, July, 1930, page 251)

Y’all will pardon me if I don’t wet my pants with excitement over the debut of this book. There are 3 things that the world today has far too many of: Sensitivity Training Courses, Adam Sandler movies, and books like this one.

Bill, after reading the book, where do you think Dr. McCurry could have improved upon her hypothesis? Can you cite some specific weaknesses we can all discuss?

I did not read the book, I did not say that I did, and further, I have no intention of reading it. What I am saying is that her contentions, as described in this article are nothing new. There are numerous books like it on the market covering the same thing and from where I sit, it’s getting a bit repetitive. ‘The South didn’t lose because it was overwhelmed because of superior forces, it lost because of its own people or because it was fighting for a bad cause, it was a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight, yada yada yada….’ As I said, the world needs a book like this like it needs another Adam Sandler movie. Funny how I don’t see any wackademics taking the opposite tack on this subject. Differing opinions are supposed to be what the study of history is all about but I sure as hell don’t see any these days.

I doubt Dr. McCurry would argue against many of the traditional and well-founded reasons why the North was destined to win the war. I think this is a scholar’s attempt to add some detail to that important moment in our nation’s history.

One point of interest. After Appomatox Lee’s army was counted, with stragglers, as about 25,000, while Grant’s army, extending back to Washington, was about 3,000,000. The South’s advantage was always in leadership until the later years. Lincoln had the advantage of being able to change generals until he found Grant and Sherman. In the early years women, as far as the diaries and letters indicate, were for the war. In the later years the same sources indicate many women were asking their men to come home to help with the farm because they were starving. Economics was a definite force once it was ruthlessly applied.

Bill-You totally forgot to mention how “Black Troops were actually treated by the Yanks”.All you have to do if you are a “visual learner” is watch”Glory”.Then read some-Non-fiction books on Northern Military History! Give the Author a break for trying to open previously closed eyes to “New”opinions in history and please read the Book!

First, I am not a “visual learner,” at least not when it comes to history. My bookshelves are overflowing and it is time to get yet another.

Second, “Glory” has some major holes in it. At best I’d give it a C+. Like most Hollywood produced history movies, parts of the actual script have been changed or embellished to appeal to contemporary audiences who wouldn’t know a history book if it fell off the top shelf and hit them on the head.

Third, I am indeed, quite aware of how black union troops were treated by their “white comrades.” The word I would choose would be “abysmal.” I have said many times, if I had to be someone in the “Civil War,” the last thing I’d want to be is a black man wearing a blue uniform.
http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/vallante-black-history-month37.phtml

Fourth, the author hasn’t broken any new ground or opened any “eyes.” “The Lost Cause as a Myth” theory is as old as the hills and this is yet another such book in a long line of books looking to do the same thing in a slightly different way.

Finally – I would no more care to have this book than I would care to have a case of cholera.

Bill-It so nice to see that you have such a” great”open mind!Please read my friend’s books”Sic Semper Tryanis”–”The last Confederate Heroes”.It has always been a tradition of mine to Look At Both Sides!

Bill-Where was Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg? Picket was full of courage but stupid!What do you know about the Lincoln Assassination–Your version?

Hey Herb – I like my mind just the way it is thank you, whether you consider it “open minded” or not. “Both sides”? I haven’t seen many books by contemporary authors which stand in opposition to the “Lost Cause as a Myth” theory. These days, for all practical purposes, there is no such thing as “both sides.”

I stopped reading most contemporary books quite a while ago. Once in a while I see something that interests me but for the most part I go to orginial sources or books that were written over 40 years ago….back in a time when people didn’t seek to demonize the people of the past but instead tried to understand them. Ever since Nolan’s “The Myth of the Lost Cause” it’s been one long train of books in a similar vein and this one looks like one of them. Read one, you’ve read them all.

Don’t see the point of your second post. Stuart was off on a ride, Pickett followed orders. The gray did not have a monopoly on “stupid.” It took the blue 4 long years and almost 700000 casualties to beat a country that had one fourth its population and one tenth its industrial capacity.

I am no expert on Lincoln’s assassination and cannot remember reading one book totally devoted to it, but, if I had to be in charge of Lincoln’s assassination the first place I’d start looking would not be anywhere in the South. It would be in the North, at members of his own party who had something to gain by getting him out of the way. (Stanton and Thaddeus Stevens would be my prime suspects.) Lincoln is not my favorite – not by a long shot. He had no business doing what he did. But in the end, he was not a sadist and was not in favor of rubbing the South’s nose in it. Powerful people in the Republican party were, however, in favor of exactly that, and after Lincoln was gone, that’s exactly what they did.

Bill—You are very correct about the Lincoln Assassination and Northerners in NYCity wanting Lincoln out of the way.I am very interested in the Southern Opperatives here in Western New York and the Finger Lakes Region.Many of them worked out of Canada and helped John Surratt escape to Canada.I was told by Lincoln-GuRu-Assasination Historians not to let it out about the Catholic Church-Jesuits-and their role in the John Surratt escape.I feel that true History must be told.I also feel that Stanton was involved along with many others.The South was fighting for states rights and a way of life.The North really was fighting for wealthy people and $$$$ and trade.I am one of the few Northerners who is banned from some Northern on-line forums because” I tell it like it is”!!!

Bill-I have a letter from from a VA.soldier telling his wife to “Plant the Corn and Potatoes and Do Not talk to strangers”.He came home after the battle of Dinwiddie Court House.This was before Appomatox.Isn’t it true that the South used “old”men and “Young Children” to fight for the “lost cause “at the end of the war?What do you think of the gist of the soldier’s letter?Do you really think that a nation would have a “suicide clause” in it’s Constitution?Like session[ If you do not like the government-Leave].That is why the South was considered as “Conqured Provinces” during Reconstruction and the South was Not Considered as a separate Nation!

Lots of soldiers’ letters out there. I’d be worried too if I were a soldier in the trenches at petersburg – I’d be worried about my family running afoul of yankee armies which were penetrating deeper and deeper in the South. I truly don’t know if I would stay or go to protect my family. Not sure what your point is there.

As far as “old men and young boys” – they were not drafted. They volunteered. I know of no instances where Confederate authorities conscripted kids or raided nursing homes and forcibly sent out kids and seniors. I do know Southerners who had ancestors who marched out to battle at the end of the war, of their own accord, as teenagers – 15 or 16 years old. In one case that ancestor and other young boys, did battle with “Potter’s Raiders,” a group of Sherman’s thugs who were headed their way. Such incidents have never been referred to as “using kids and old men to fight for the lost cause,” not until the last 20 or 30 years or so when south-bashing has become all the rage. It used to be called “fighting to defend one’s home.” I prefer the latter description.

“Towards the end of the War, a unit of Sherman’s army, which had just burned nearby Columbia, South Carolina, headed towards my family’s hometown of Sumter, presumably to do the same to it. My great grandfather rode out to fight Potter’s Raiders, along with some other teenagers, old men, and the wounded and invalids from the local hospital, a mission as hopeless as it was valiant. And with their families and homes and their own lives in mortal danger, defending slavery was the last thing on their minds. ” http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/regenstein-rebut-boteach051907.phtml

There is also the incident of the June 9, 1864 fight, known as the “battle of the old men and young boys” , when a 125 man home guard unit of Petersburg Va. composed of old men and young boys, held up a union cavalry force for a couple of hours, thereby buying time for regular army units to get into position and save the city from capture. These people weren’t forced marched out there against their will. They volunteered, unless of course you put stock in General Ben Butler’s “they robbed the cradle” comment. More likely, he was pi**ed off about his forces being stopped by a bunch of ragtag civilians.
http://www.craterroad.com/9junebattle.html

And as far as a “suicide clause” is concerned, there is no “suicide” involved in a group of states seceding. The union would have continued as before – only with fewer states and less territory.

First, may I remind you, that when 11 southern states left the union for 4 long years, the “union”, as it were, still continued to function. All 3 branches of the union’s government functioned. The supreme court still met and rendered decisions, Lincoln and the executive branch performed all the duties and responsibilities of that branch, Congress met and passed legislation. In addition, territiories were administrated, new states added, elections were held, etc. In short, the union still functioned. And it would have continued to function had the south won its independence or been allowed to go in peace. “All we ask is to be left alone.” Many Confederates of various ranks and social standings said the same thing – that was what the south was asking for and that was what it was fighting for. Which brings me to my next point…..

“Consent of the Governed.” – not only is it found in the Declaration of Independence, but it is a principle that the founding fathers risked all for. Does it seem logical to you that they would deny the very principle that they fought so long and hard for, by creating a new political entity that would deny that very principle to their posterity? The South withdrew its consent to be governed by the “United States.” They did what their forefathers did with England. And just imagine if you will, what would have happened at the Constitutional Convention, if someone had proposed an amendment which read “Once in the Union you can never leave”? Or, “Once in the Union you need someone else’s permission to leave”? Can you honestly see any delegate ratifying a document that contained this?

And finally – Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you cannot secede. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you may secede. I submit it does not need to say you may secede in order for you to do that. Read the tenth amendment.

You might also want to ask yourself why, when Massachusetts in 1803, threatened to leave the union over the Louisiana Purchase, president Thomas Jefferson did not threaten it with military force. Instead he essentially said ‘go in peace.; Or you might ask yourself why Massachusetts representative Josiah Quincy threatend “dissolution of the union” over the admittance of Louisiana into the union as a state in 1811, no one jumped up and said “you can’t do that”! And why was it that President James Madison did not threaten military force against the New England states when they met at the Hartford Convention in 1814 to discuss, among other things, formation of a new confederation? Why was it that when Constitutional Scholar William Rawle published his 1825 book, “A View of the Constitution”, a book which says specifically that secession, while not desireable, is indeed a right that a sovereign state has, no one yelled “Hey, you’re wrong”! Instead, his book was used at West Point. I might also add that Josiah Quincy was still alive and kicking in 1861. FYI, he supported Lincoln’s attack on the South – a complete reversal of his stance 50 years earlier.

Secession was a part of our early history. The Founders left it open and hoped it would never happen. It was only in the 1830s that a new political theory began to develop – call it “The Indivisible Union” theory. As time went on and the country grew and the country’s needs changed, more and more people jumped on this theory until in 1854 it found a home in the planks of the newly formed Republican Party. I submit then, that the Founders, never intended the union to be a compulsory one. They hoped it would last, they did not mandate that it be so. Lincoln and his boys made it mandatory, and they did it by using brute force.

Would the Founders have been disappointed to see 11 states leave the union? They surely would. But they would have been horrified to see the remaining states launch a military invasion of those states, a military invasion which amounted to nothing more than a war of conquest. Ask yourself a question – is a “union” that is held together by the force of bayonets really worth having?

Keep repeating – “all we ask is to be left alone.” Then look at how the English viewed things.

The Times of London, September 13, 1862, pp. 7-8
” If the Northerners on ascertaining the resolution of the South, had peaceably allowed the seceders to depart, the result might fairly have been quoted as illustrating the advantages off Democracy; but when Republicans put empire above liberty, and resorted to political oppression and war rather than suffer any abatement of national power, it was clear that nature at Washington was precisely the same as nature at St. Petersburg. There was not, in fact, a single argument advanced in defense of the war against the South which might not have been advanced with exactly the same force for the subjugation of Hungary or Poland. Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms. “

Bill,
In your comments you mention the ‘consent of the governed’ as a point to be considered. What about the better than 6 million slaves? As far as I know they were not asked for their opinion. Do you think they would have agreed to remain as slaves? Their votes would have reversed the legislatures that wanted sessession. Remember, most of the people in the 11 states were not given the choice of a vote. The decision in every state was made by the legislature, controlled by people with a lot to lose if slavery was outlawed. (Which was not even considered but was shouted by the ‘fireeater’ extremists. A point to consider with Hamas and Al-Kieda.)
As for the Times of London, remember their idea of democracy was for England only. The rest of the ‘United Kingdom’, such as India and Ireland was that they were territories whose only obligation was to supply riches for the Mother Country. To ensure this they used force of arms.

Bill–I do not want to change your mind,just open your mind!The way to change the Constitution is by Amendment,not by session!Even the Articles of Confederation as a trial government was a legal “Law of the Land”.When it was changed it was peaceful with no Civil War!Why did you Rebs want to practice chemical warfare and put poison in Northern cities water?Release the prisoners to cause riots in Yankee cities.What did you hope to do by raiding St.Albans Vermont?Why did you even think to bring up Poland and Hungary?It is like comparing Apples to Oranges!Can you admit that it was the uneducated share-croppers that wanted to keep Slavery alive-Free the slaves,now they are almost equal to the share-croppers!Long Live the South and it will rise again.Correct-Bill ?

Stephen

First – put away your Hamas and Al Qaeda analogies. They don’t hold water. In fact, such analogies only prove your ignorance. Disagree with someone these days? Call him a terrorist or compare him to one. Childish behavior I’d say! There is no analogy here. And learn to spell “Al-Kieda” if you please.

Next, stop inflating numbers. 3.5 to perhaps as many as 4 million slaves were in the U.S. in 1860, not 6 million. Stop trying to overstate your case.

Next – “No one asked their (the slaves’) opinion”? No, no one did. No one took airplanes either. No one bought cars in the “cash for clunkers program” either and no one stopped for coffee at the 7-11. Such things did not exist at that time, nor did universal suffrage – not in the South and not in the North. Get your head out of the 21st century if you really do want to understand what was happening in the 19th century and why. Stop applying 21st century ideas and standards to the 19th century.

If you are concerned about people being given the right to vote, you might want to see how many northern states allowed their “free negroes” to vote or to even enter a courtroom. In the 4 or 5 northern states that did allow black men to vote, their numbers were either negligible or, as in the case of New York, black men had to meet property qualifications that white men did not have to meet. In no northern state was a black man allowed to go into a courtroom. (except for Massachusetts, which may have changed that law in 1860, I’m not sure)

The fact of the matter is that slavery was legal at that time and that slaves did not vote. You can hold your breath if you wish but you will get no apology or regret from me on either score. Indeed, there will be snowball fights in hell before you hear regrets or apologies coming out of my mouth on this subject. That is the way things were and that’s all there is to it. And women were not allowed to vote either. That comes much later. The electorate, in both north and south, was composed of white men at that time. Again – that’s the way it was and that’s all there is to it.

And as far as the people in 11 states having a say in secession, please spare us the “planters dragged the rest of the unwilling South into a bloody war” gambit. It’s getting old and tired. Just ask the yankee soldier how hard the Confederate soldier fought. Then go re-read the comments of General Howe and Colonel Freemantle in my first post. Then tell me that the Confederate soldier was an unwilling pawn being led into a war. The comments of Howe and Freemantle are not the only such comments I have in my possession, I assure you.

And as far as secession goes, it was approved in 7 states with 4 more following after Fort Sumter via state conventions, a technique common to a “Republic.” In at least one case that I know of, Virginia, there was an election. In the Virginia election following Lincoln’s call for volunteers to invade the South, I seem to recall that secession prevailed by 137000 – 37000. I’d say that’s a majority, wouldn’t you? No one was dragged unwillingly into anything, if that’s what you’re driving at. As far as anyone being dragged unwillingly into war, I might remind you that in November 1864, with the war going heavily in the Union’s favor, 1.8 million northern voters out of 4 million turned out at the polls to vote against Mr. Lincoln. You can make arguments all you want about some Southerners not wanting war or secession. I can easily make the same arguments if not better ones about the North.

And I can easily see why you would dismiss the London Times’ comments. Not because the British believed in Democracy only for themselves and not their colonies, (all the major powers had colonies and none of their colonists had the same rights as the citizens of the mother country), but because its comment speaks the truth and indeed hits the nail on the head. There is little or no difference between what Lincoln did and what the Czar did. The truth hurts, eh?

Herb – First, my mind is “open.” I’ve been reading about the war for 50 years. The last 10 years have been spent investigating the social and political aspects of it as opposed to simply the military aspects. As I told you earlier, I don’t get my history by watching tv or the “hysterical channel.”

Second, – the way to change the Constitution is by amendment not by secession? The South did not want a change in the Constitution. They wanted their own Constitution. Show me where it says they can’t have that.

Further, if you are so upset about the alleged instances that you cite (and I am not completely convinced that they occurred as Jane Singer and others said they did), then why did you yankees see fit to burn up whole sections of entire states? We didn’t come up to your neck of the woods and invade you. You invaded us. Do you really want to go tit for tat on atrocities? You’d lose. We didn’t start it, you did. And the atrocity ledger is more heavily weighted in your direction than it is mine. And stop reading Jane Singer’s book. She and it are absurdities. We robbed a bank? Oh heavens! You burned down entire states, dislocated families from their homes and destroyed their foodstuffs and left them to starve, you gang raped slave women in Columbia South Carolina and in other places and you made it all ok by calling it “Total War.” And you did it all because you did not want us to let us go off on our own. “All we ask is to be left alone” and you guys couldn’t manage it.

Why did I bring up Poland and Hungary? I didn’t, the London Times did. They saw a similarity between what the Czar of Russia was doing to those countries and what Lincoln and his party were doing to the South. Guess I’m not alone in my observations, eh? And while you are talking about releasing prisoners into cities, I could ask you why you chose to starve southern prisoners in places like Elmira, or Point Lookout, or Camp Douglas. We at least have an excuse – our food was running out. Your excuse was……?

You think we played dirty some of the time? LOL! In my estimation, we did not play dirty enough! When Lee crossed into Pennsylvania, he issued orders to his troops not to take retribution on the civilians of Pennsylvania. And they didn’t. I can’t say the same about Sheridan, or Sherman, or Butler, or Hunter, or Col. Montgomery or a host of other union officers. Be thankful I wasn’t in charge of the army of Northern Virginia in 1863. As soon as I crossed the Keystone State’s border I’d have started lighting bonfires that you could have seen from space.

Sherman was right – war is indeed hell. And if Southerners had realized that, and realized the depths to which their opponents were willing to sink in order to win, perhaps the results would have been different. Don’t preach to me about the South playing dirty. Clean up your own back yard first.

Bill–You are a piece of “Work” to say the least! I have never read Jane Singer’s book.My opinion of her club is that they are a “mutual admiration society”.None of them has ever taught at a university as a History prof,they are “ego maniacs.”My Yankee ancestor was a POW at Camp Ford in Texas.I read his diary and published his story.NO prison-North or South was an Embassy Suites.This certainly been fun bantering back and forth,but face it,We won-you Lost.

Herb – I’m a “piece of work?” LOL! Coming from you I consider that a compliment. And as far as “we won, you lost”, yeah, that is correct and I get that comment all the time…usually from folks who believe that might makes right.

Yeah, it’s been real alright.

Bill—You do know Your History.It has been fun!We are going on vacation to the 1000 islands.We will start it up when I come back! Good Times!

Bill-How have you been?What do know about the Confederate Operative Sarah Slater in Canada with John “Harrison” Surratt?My daughter is getting married in Cleveland this week,Talk to you later.