Ten Neo-Confederate Myths

March 9, 2013 | vanity

[BroJoeK]

Servant of the Cross: "Everybody knows what the Civil War was fought over. "Johnny Reb" said it very plainly in the movie Gettysburg .... I'm fighting for my RATS!"

DemocRATS!

;-)

[BroJoeK]

miliantnutcase: "I think you owe Rush 20 bucks for his catch phrase."

I love Rush's catch phrases, use them here all the time.
And never fear, I would be happy to pay Rush 50% of all the profits I make doing it...

Oh, wait... I don't make...

;-)

[BroJoeK]

eyedigress: "I have read your posts and you are quite unfamiliar with the monetary aspect of the Civil War.
The trade on the Mississippi was issue #1."

I'm not as unfamiliar as you might suppose, but the purpose of this thread is to review and refute some of the most commonly seen Neo-Confederate myths.

So I'd say that "trade on the Mississippi was issue #1" was a great Neo-Confederate myth, and I might consider it for my list except for two things:

1. I've never seen that myth before today, and

2. Since there's no evidence of any kind to support it, why spend time refuting it?

Of course, if you can produce some evidence, then we might have something to work with, but your idea seems so far fetched, I'd wonder why you even bother?

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Arkansas, Tennessee, North Caolina and Virginia did not leave the union until Lincoln called up troops to quell the 'rebellion."

You are correct. I should have made that clear.
Secession happened in two phases:

1. Phase I: Seven Deep South states seceded to protect slavery against "Black Republican" Lincoln.

2. Phase II: Four Upper South states refused to secede just to protect slavery, but felt forced once war began at Fort Sumter, and was declared on May 6, 1861.

[BroJoeK]

wfu_deacons: "ON April 4, 1861 the Virginia secession convention voted not to secede.
The convention did not vote to secede until April 17, 1861 after Lincoln called for troops to invade the South."

You are correct, and I should have made that clear.
The four Upper South states would not secede just because of slavery, but when forced by war to chose sides, they chose the Confederacy.

[Sherman Logan]

The fact that electors are supposed to vote for the person who won the most votes in their state? Douglas won the state, he should have received all 7.

You care to point out the clause of the Constitution with this requirement?

In actual fact, as opposed to revisionist history, the Constitution leaves it entirely up to each individual state how its electors are chosen. There are still several states that are not "winner take all." Maine is one, but I believe there are several.

[JCBreckenridge]

“You care to point out the clause of the Constitution with this requirement?

In actual fact, as opposed to revisionist history, the Constitution leaves it entirely up to each individual state how its electors are chosen. There are still several states that are not “winner take all.” Maine is one, but I believe there are several.”

Which is why in 1864 when Lincoln again lost in New Jersey, all 7 votes went to McClellan? And in 1856, when Buchanan beat Fremont and Fillmore, all 7 went to Buchanan?

New Jersey law was explicit in 1860 - which is why the 4 who voted for Lincoln in opposition to the statewide vote are considered “faithless electors”. Just one irregularity on top of a large number of irregularities.

[JCBreckenridge]

Which raises the question - we just had a filibuster arguing that the current president cannot do drone strikes on American citizens.

How is Lincoln’s response vs Virginia any different? The state did not take up arms against the federal government, and Lincoln went to war against them anyways.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "I have seen letters from men in Ewell's Corp that complained about the harsh treatment from shop owners as they were buying supplies.
One of them called a reb a tory and that irritated him.
If a Reb in Harrisburg PA went into a shop and grabbed a jar of honey all that shop owner had to do was wave down Confederate officer and that soldier would have been arrested."

First of all, as FredZarguna pointed out, there's no confirming record of any Confederate forces crossing the Susquehanna River into Harrisburg itself.

"By June 29, Lee's army was strung out in an arc from Chambersburg (28 miles (45 km) northwest of Gettysburg) to Carlisle (30 miles (48 km) north of Gettysburg) to near Harrisburg and Wrightsville on the Susquehanna River.[16]"

Of course there are any number of little towns on the west bank of the Susquehanna, across from Harrisburg, where they could well have gone "shopping" -- Maryville, Lemoyne, Camp Hill, Wrightsville, etc.

But the second and maybe larger point here is: what do you mean "buying supplies"??
"Buying" suggests you have money to shop for stuff freely offered for sale.

But Confederates had no real money, not even a credit card. ;-)
All they had was Monopoly money, worthless in the Union.
Plus no Pennsylvania store owner wanted to be charged with "aiding and abbetting" the enemy, so that might explain why normally very friendly Pennsylvanians were just a little cranky that day, when Confederate troops came "shopping" in their stores.

Today, of course, it's much different.
You can shop all you want here, and I promise, we'll treat you right.

;-)

[BroJoeK]

DustyMoment: "Are you kidding me? You have refuted pretty much every one of my facts and I doubt most of yours."

I'm asking you to pick out just a couple of examples of each, and cite them.

Of course, the reason I'm asking for examples is: I suspect that what you call "fact" I'd call "opinion" or maybe visa versa.

[BroJoeK]

JCBreckenridge: "How is Lincoln’s response vs Virginia any different?
The state did not take up arms against the federal government, and Lincoln went to war against them anyways."

And that is related to the point Triple made up-thread (see i.e., my response at #297).

The Virginia ratification statement to the US Constitution says, in effect, Virginia reserves the right to secede in cases of "oppression" or "injury".
Virginia's Secession Declaration issued after Fort Sumter, and Lincoln's response, claims there has now been "oppression" justifying secession.

As I responded to Triple, I don't agree that was legitimate, and neither did many Virginians at the time -- especially non-slave-owning Western Virginians.
However, unlike Deep South secessions, Virginia's case can at least be argued.

What can't be argued is this: unlike every citizen of the Deep South, who could legitimately hope for a peaceful secession, and whose leaders told them they wanted at peaceful secession, citizens of Upper South states -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas -- knew when they voted that secession meant going to war against the United States of America.

Those states all voted to secede after the Confederacy started war at Fort Sumter, and formally declared war, on May 6, 1861.

[BroJoeK]

ohioman from post #104: "Posts likes this only serve to divide otherwise conservatively similar people on FR.
Of course I do not mean this as a slight on FR's founder, who hails from California. "

DustyMoment from post #386: "Neither of us changed the other’s mind and all we have done is waste JimRob’s bandwisth."

To Jim Robinson: sorry, your name has come up twice on this thread, neither time adding you to their address list.
So this is to correct that.

For everyone's information, Free Republic hosts dozens of Civil War related threads every year, and some of them go to thousands of posts.
It's a matter of huge interest to many Conservatives who wonder, "how in the h*ck did our country get so scr*w*d up," and one obvious place to begin looking is the Civil War.

I think it's a wonderful service Free Republic offers, can't think of another site like it.
It's one reason I'm an automatic monthly contributor, and if you're not, now would be a great time to start. ;-)

[Jim Robinson]

Thank you very much, Bro. I’m an amateur Civil War buff m’self.

[1010RD]

Spot on. You named the big 3 and they all happened in the “progressive 20th century”, but their ideas were born in 19th century ideas out of Europe.

Had we avoided the 17th Amendment we’d not have the size and scope of government we have today. You also, might have a sales tax on the Internet.

Had we dodged the 16th, we’d not have the size and scope of government we have today.

If the SCOTUS had stood up to FDR (the frustrated fascist whose regime was brimming in commies) on the Commerce Clause we’d not have the size and scope of government we have today.

[JCBreckenridge]

And after Lincoln and the Federal Government declared war on them. If you believe the Federal Government can unilaterally declare war against a state that it doesn’t like then we are going to see the same from Obama.

[Jacquerie]

It’s incredible how much those evil, white, slaveholders in 1787 got right.

[BroJoeK]

JCBrenkenridge: "And after Lincoln and the Federal Government declared war on them."

The only formal declaration of war came from the Confederacy, on May 6, 1861.
The Union never formally declared war because, like the Brits in 1775, they considered it a "rebellion" or "insurrection", etc., which do not get formal declarations of war.

But Congress was always careful to eventually approve and authorize everything Lincoln did as Commander in Chief -- raising forces, directing strategy, etc.

So, if you go back to post #279, you'll find my time-line of significant events leading to war, and the first Confederate battle death on June 10, 1861.
The key point it makes is: every step of the way, from peace in 1860 to war in 1861, Secessionists / Confederacy led while the Union slowly, ineffectively followed.
The Confederacy wanted, provoked, started and declared war.
The Union simply responded as it Constitutionally should have.

JCBreckenridge: "If you believe the Federal Government can unilaterally declare war against a state that it doesn’t like then we are going to see the same from Obama."

There, you see, that's precisely why I say our O-man is the political love-child of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, not Abraham Lincoln.
In 1861 Lincoln never:

• Broke laws in order to defeat the Constitution, but Davis did.
  
• Threatened and assaulted Federal officers, but Davis did.
  
• Seized dozens of major Federal properties, but Davis did.
  
• Launched a military assault on a Federal fort housing US Army troops, but Davis did.
  
• Formally declared war on the United States, but Davis did.
  
• Launched a naval campaign against the United States shipping, but Davis did.
• Sent military forces to invade and pillage non-Confederate states and territories, but Davis did.

So you guys have all backwards: Obama is not the new Lincoln, he's the new Davis.

;-)

[AmericanExceptionalist]

In 1861 Unionists did not support "an overweening federal government", they simply opposed the Slave-holders unilateral, unjustified declarations of secession, and their declaration of war on the United States.

All our current "overweening federal government" began about 100 years ago, with the Progressive era passage of 16th and 17th Amendments.

I agree, in part, with what you stated, above: The "progressive" era really began--well, if not 100 years ago, then about 80 years ago, with the Depressian-era reforms instituted by FDR. (True, Teddy Roosevelt--about 100 years ago--did style himself a "progressive"; but it was his fifth cousin, Franklin, who really set us on a path toward Big Government.)

[central_va]

Shop keepers took Confederate money. The exchange rate in 1863 was 4:1.

[x]

I don't think that it was a "faithless elector" situation. It looks more like the party organization and the Douglas campaign messed up by not providing a single slate of electors. That sort of thing happens when party disunity or third party efforts gum up the workings of the system.

It's interesting that even though Lincoln didn't win a majority of votes in the country, he did win a majority in the states he carried, except for California, Oregon, and that messy situation in New Jersey. If the Democrats and other anti-Republican forces had gotten behind a single candidate and Lincoln had lost those three states but carried the rest, he would still have won the election, and there could have been a situation where a candidate with under 40% of the popular vote won the electoral college and the election.

That would really have been an explosive situation, and you might well have seen fighting in the major cities of the North as well as in the South. A candidate who gets less than 40% in a two-way election is a lot less viable or acceptable than one who wins about 40% in a four-way race.

Somehow, though, I don't see that happening. The results were what they were because people sensed that the divided Democrats (and the old Whigs of the John Bell faction) weren't going to win. A united Democrat or anti-Republican ticket would have looked better and could have carried some of the Lincoln states where the margin was narrow.

I'd suppose that secessionist forces pushed for the party split precisely because it was more likely to bring about a Republican's election and the secession of the Deep South states. Even if we assume they were acting wholly in good faith, it's hard to see which Democrat could have satisfied both the Deep South and the Northern swing states.

The cotton states hated Douglas. An actual Southerner wouldn't have played well in the North, and an Easterner might still have lost to Lincoln in the West (today's Middle West). A win in New York and New Jersey, though, would have thrown the election to the Democrats. But as we've seen in recent elections, the candidates who can win elections don't always exist when parties want them.

Can you imagine that 1860 election today?

There's have to be an issue as divisive as slavery was 150 years ago. A lively three-party race is just barely possible. A four-way race much less so. This may be an upside of our ideological politics. One side or the other is going to win. A third party just might arise, but there's not room for more than that (unless it's something like a regional candidate who senses that the country is already breaking up and wants the most for his own section).