Ten Neo-Confederate Myths

March 9, 2013 | vanity

[BroJoeK]

Ten Neo-Confederate Myths (+one)

1. "Secession was not all about slavery."

   In fact, a study of the earliest secessionists documents shows, when they bother to give reasons at all, their only major concern was to protect the institution of slavery.
   For example, four seceding states issued "Declarations of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify Secession from the Federal Union".
   These documents use words like "slavery" and "institution" over 100 times, words like "tax" and "tariff" only once (re: a tax on slaves), "usurpation" once (re: slavery in territories), "oppression" once (re: potential future restrictions on slavery).

   So secession wasn't just all about slavery, it was only about slavery.

2. "Secession had something to do with 'Big Government' in Washington exceeding its Constitutional limits."

   In fact, secessionists biggest real complaint was that Washington was not doing enough to enforce fugitive slave laws in Northern states.
   Mississippi's Declaration is instructive since it begins by explaining why slavery is so important:

   "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world.
   Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
   These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
   These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

   It goes on to complain that the Federal Government is not enforcing its own Fugitive Slave laws, saying that anti-slavery feeling:

   "has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union..."

   In fact, the Compromise of 1850 shifted responsibility for enforcing Fugitive Slave laws from northern states to the Federal Government, so this complaint amounts to a declaration that Washington is not powerful enough.

3. "A 'right of secession' is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution."

   In fact, no where in the Founders' literature is the 10th Amendment referenced as justifying unilateral, unapproved secession "at pleasure".
   Instead, secession (or "disunion") is always seen as a last resort, requiring mutual consent or material usurpations and oppression.
   For example, the Virginia Ratification Statement says:

   "...the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."

   James Madison explained it this way:

   "It has been too much the case in expounding the Constitution of the U. S. that its meaning has been sought not in its peculiar and unprecedented modifications of Power; but by viewing it, some through the medium of a simple Govt. others thro' that of a mere League of Govts.
   It is neither the one nor the other; but essentially different from both....

   "It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact.
   Applying this view of the subject to a single community, it results, that the compact being between the individuals composing it, no individual or set of individuals can at pleasure, break off and set up for themselves, without such a violation of the compact as absolves them from its obligations."

4. "In 1860, Abraham Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery in the South."

   In fact, the 1860 Republican platform only called for restricting slavery from territories where it did not already exist.
   And Lincoln repeatedly said he would not threaten slavery in states where it was already legal.

5. "Abraham Lincoln refused to allow slave-states to leave the Union in peace."

   In fact, neither out-going President Buchanan nor incoming President Lincoln did anything to stop secessionists from declaring independence and forming a new Confederacy.
   And Buchanan did nothing to stop secessionists from unlawfully seizing Federal properties or threatening and shooting at Federal officials.
   Nor did Lincoln, until after the Confederacy started war at Fort Sumter (April 12, 1861) and then formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

6. "Lincoln started war by invading the South."

   In fact, no Confederate soldier was killed by any Union force, and no Confederate state was "invaded" by any Union army until after secessionists started war at Fort Sumter and formally declared war on May 6, 1861.
   The first Confederate soldier was not killed directly in battle until June 10, 1861.

7. "The Confederacy did not threaten or attack the Union --
   the South just wanted to be left alone."

   In fact, from Day One, Confederacy was an assault on the United States, and did many things to provoke and start, then formally declared war on the United States.

   From Day One secessionists began to unlawfully seize dozens of Federal properties (i.e., forts, armories, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.), often even before they formally declared secession.
   At the same time, they illegally threatened, imprisoned and fired on Federal officials -- for example, the ship Star of the West attempting to resupply Fort Sumter in January 1861 -- then launched a major assault to force Sumter's surrender, while offering military support for secessionist forces in a Union state (Missouri) .
   And all of that was before formally declaring war on the United States.

   After declaring war, the Confederacy sent forces into every Union state near the Confederacy, and some well beyond.
   Invaded Union states & territories included:
   

   • Maryland
   • Pennsylvania
   • Ohio
   • Indiana
   • Kentucky
   • Missouri
   • Kansas
   • Oklahoma
   • New Mexico
   • Arizona
   
   In addition, small Confederate forces operated in California, Colorado and even briefly invaded Vermont from Canada.
   You could also add an invasion of Illinois planned by Confederate President Davis in January 1862, but made impossible by US Grant's victories at Forts Henry and Donaldson.

   In every state or territory outside the Confederacy proper, Confederate forces both "lived off the land" and attempted to "requisition" supplies to support Confederate forces at home.

   Secessionists also assaulted the United states by claiming possession of several Union states and territories which had never, or could never, in any form vote to seceed.
   So bottom line: the Confederacy threatened every Union state and territory it could reach.

8. "The Union murdered, raped and pillaged civilians throughout the South."

   In fact, there are remarkably few records of civilians murdered or raped by either side, certainly as compared to other wars in history.
   But "pillaging" is a different subject, and both sides did it -- at least to some degree.
   The Union army was generally self-sufficient, well supplied from its own rail-heads, and seldom in need to "live off the land."
   In four years of war, the best known exceptions are Grant at Vicksburg and Sherman's "march to the sea".
   In both cases, their actions were crucial to victory.

   By contrast, Confederate armies were forced to "live off the land" both at home and abroad.
   Yes, inside the Confederacy itself, armies "paid" for their "requisitions" with nearly worthless money, but once they marched into Union states and territories, their money was absolutely worthless, and so regardless of what they called it, their "requisitions" were no better than pillaging.
   Perhaps the most famous example of Confederate pillaging, it's often said, cost RE Lee victory at the Battle of Gettysburg: while Lee's "eyes and ears" -- J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry -- was out pillaging desperately needed supplies in Maryland and Pennsylvania, Lee was partially blind to Union movements and strengths.

9. "There was no treason in anything the south did."

   In fact, only one crime is defined in the US Constitution, and that is "treason".
   The Constitution's definition of "treason" could not be simpler and clearer:

   "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort...
   The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason..."

   The Constitution also provides for Federal actions against "rebellion", "insurrection", "domestic violence", "invasion" declared war and treason.
   So Pro-Confederate arguments that "there was no treason" depend first of all on the legality of secession.
   If their secession was lawful, then there was no "treason", except of course among those citizens of Union states (i.e., Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri) which "adhered to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".
   But the bottom line is this: in previous cases -- i.e., the Whiskey Rebellion -- once rebellion was defeated, rebels were all released or pardoned by the President of the United States.
   And that pattern, first established by President Washington, was followed under Presidents Lincoln and Johnson.

10. "If you oppose slave-holders' secession declarations in 1860, then you're just another statist liberal."

    In fact, lawful secession by mutual consent could be 100% constitutional, if representatives submitted and passed such a bill in Congress, signed by the President.
    Alternatively, states could bring suit in the United States Supreme Court for a material breach of contract and have the Federal government declared an "oppressive" or "usurping" power justifying secession.

    But Deep-South slave-holders' unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession, without any material breach of contract issues, followed by insurrection and a declaration of war on the United States -- these our Founders clearly understood were acts of rebellion and treason -- which the Constitution was designed to defeat.

    That leads to the larger question of whether our Pro-Confederates actually respect the Constitution as it was intended or, do they really wish for a return to those far looser, less binding -- you might even say, 1960s style "free love" marriage contract -- for which their union was named: the Articles of Confederation?

    But consider: the Confederacy's constitution was basically a carbon copy of the US Constitution, emphasizing rights of holders of human "property".
    So there's no evidence that Confederate leaders were in any way more tolerant -- or "free love" advocates -- regarding secession from the Confederacy than any Union loyalist.

    Then what, precisely, does the allegation of "statism" mean?
    The truth is, in this context, it's simply one more spurious insult, and means nothing more than, "I don't like you because you won't agree with me."
    Poor baby... ;-)

Plus, one "bonus" myth:

• "Since Franklin Roosevelt is President Obama's political daddy, then Lincoln is Obama's political grandpa."

  No, no, no way...

  Yes, FDR could be the O-man's political daddy, and his political mother those 1960s radicals like, well, his mother.

  And one of his grandparents is well known: his intellectual maternal grandpa is Karl Marx.
  But the other grandpa is certainly not Lincoln.
  Rather, it is Lincoln's evil doppelganger, the other tall thin President born in Kentucky: Jefferson Davis.

  How can that be?
  Well, here's my list -- both Obama and Davis are/were:

  • Democrats
    
  • Like all Democrats, committed to using government power to benefit selected classes of voters, by laws requiring others to provide uncompensated services (Obama's taxes & regulations, Davis' slavery).
    
  • Pitted different groups of Americans against each other for their own political gain (whites vs blacks, rich vs poor & on & on, it never ends).
    
  • Cared nothing for the US Constitution, indeed wanted to rewrite it to insert "positive rights" (Obama's right to government provided free stuff, Davis' right to own human "property").
    
  • Yes, it's a stretch, but ominous: willing to wage war on American citizens (Obama's drones).

[WXRGina]

JMac, I would bet most of us had ancestors who fought or died in that miserable war. What matters is that it was fought, and right won. No man can rightly claim “ownership” of another human being, and I’m sure most people have always known that in their hearts. Slavery has always been an evil part of this sick world and still is to this day.

[BroJoeK]

ohioman: "Why stir the pot?"

Actually, I was hoping to put "the pot" to rest regarding some very frequently heard claims by Pro-Confederates on many FR Civil War threads.

ohioman: "Posts likes this only serve to divide otherwise conservatively similar people on FR."

"Posts like this" are just my response to many other Civil War related threads where our Pro-Confederates like to spread their propaganda regarding their glorious Lost Cause.

Of course, nothing "offends" me about the "glory" part of it, I'm just trying to keep their facts straight.

ohioman: "Of course I do not mean this as a slight on FR's founder, who hails from California."

I suspect you share a fundamental conceptual problem with our Lost Causers, which has to do with looking at the US map as just "north" vs "south" vs "east" vs "west".
That is so wrong I can't even tell you how wrong.

Liberal and Conservative have nothing to do with which state you come from.
They have everything to do with which part of your state you call home.
If your home is a city, chances are very good you're a Liberal, but as you become more rural, your politics become more Conservative.

Here again is that map of red and blue counties, as of the 2004 Bush vs Kerry election:

[x]

People in the South cared for and worked with the blacks as individuals, but not as a group. People in the North loved them as a group (especially in the intellectual leftwing halls of Haaaahvaahd et al), but would have no part of them as individuals in real life and hate them actually. You might imagine that blacks in the South feel the same way, likely at one point fearing whites as a group while caring about and working with them as individuals.

That's painting with a very broad brush. The North (painting with my own broad brush) is at once more impersonal and (in the cities) more tribal. People can have distant yet respectful relations with those from different groups without actually "hating" them. Or they can simply ignore people who aren't part of their own tribe. Doubtless there are White Northerners who actually do hate Blacks, but you have those in the South as well. The differences may be more of style and manner than anything else.

White Southerners may have had cordial relationships with Blacks they grew up with, as you say, without much caring for African-Americans as a group. I'm not sure that's all so very different -- political attitudes aside -- from those "Haaaahvaahd" people you put down. The phenomenon of liking or getting along with a few people while shunning or disliking the group they belong to isn't exclusive to either region. While Northerners may be colder we're not all automatons. It's worth a thought anyway.

Black attitudes towards Whites -- Northern or Southern -- are also pretty complicated. The stereotype may be that African-Americans get on better with Southerners. I'm not so sure that's really the case. Some Northern Blacks and Whites appear to get along quite well from what I can see.

and if you want to see palpable daily bigotry and racism, go to Philly, or Southie Boston

I hear that a lot. But it's a little strange that the 1970s or 1980s in Northern cities are supposed to be still going on and the 1950s or 1960s in the South are ancient history lost in the recesses of time.

For some people, Southie is the Selma or Montgomery they love to look down on and attribute their own faults to. What you're doing isn't so different from what you protest about when others do it to you.

Of course, things have changed in those cities over the last thirty years, even in neighborhoods that got a bad name. For better or worse, kids who are crazy about rap and have Latin girlfriends and black friends and relatives nowadays aren't who their grandparents were.

[wfu_deacons]

This is what I wrote:

“I think your view that the war was only about slavery is as incorrect as the war had nothing to do with slavery.”

Please read it carefully.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Thank you so much for these thoughts. As the descendant of Southern Unionists and Civil War Republicans, I am so sick and tired of having my ancestors trashed with labels from a political situation that did not exist at that time and having to hear Abraham Lincoln ex post facto declared an Obama Democrat. The same goes for our current regime being compared to Republican state governments during Reconstruction.

The Slave Power was statist and centralizing. No free state was going to be allowed to ban slavery. Eventually it would have been practiced in every state and territory of the Union.

[momtothree]

“Make it decafe...”

Yep... these threads always seem to go on a while, don’t they? I’ve switched to seltzer water.. I’ll need some sleep tonight. LOL!

[jmacusa]

Preaching to the choir FRiend. Thanks.

[jmacusa]

“And the lion shall lie down with the lamb’’. Well you know the lambs aren’t getting any sleep tonight! :-)

[miliantnutcase]

You’re trolling attempt is getting you butt kicked in this discussion.
I think you owe Rush 20 bucks for his catch phrase.

[x]

He remains the only president elected with only 30 percent of the total vote, since South carolina was excluded from the election.

According to the accepted totals, Lincoln got almost 40% of the vote.

From what I can see "South Carolina" the state did "vote" in the election. Their electors cast ballots.

It was just that the state decided up to the Civil War, not to hold popular elections. Since the state chose not to play the popular vote game, you can't hold it against the victors in those elections.

[CatherineofAragon]

"Funny, but I'm pretty sure that delis and pastrami aren't native Southern flora or fauna."

"If they were flocking for grits and hamhocks you might have just grounds for complaint, but it looks to me like they're just reclaiming and enjoying their own contribution."

Like my sister-in-law once said, "Have you ever noticed that you have to wait in line at the deli for half an hour if you're behind a Yankee? They buy up every kind of meat in the case."

I don't think the origin of the food has anything to do with it.

"And they laugh at you behind your backs, so I guess everybody's even."

And why would they do that? They come down here, criticize the South, try to tell us how to run things, and they laugh at us? Maybe we should just shut up and smile?

No.

"I do have to wonder if the Yankees aren't a scapegoat. Maybe upcountry and downcountry would get on each other's nerves a lot more if there weren't convenient newcomers to blame."

Not in my experience.

If you think Yankees are a scapegoat, you're not a Southerner who's had to put up with one.

[0.E.O]

I read it very carefully and I’ll ask again - are you saying that slavery had nothing to do with the war? Was in no way a motivation for the Southern actions?

[1rudeboy]

If you think Yankees are a scapegoat, you're not a Southerner who's had to put up with one.

I sense a high level of internet butthurt.

[0.E.O]

If you think Yankees are a scapegoat, you're not a Southerner who's had to put up with one.

Why honey, bless your heart. I'm sure you're just the soul of patience.

[ek_hornbeck]

There is much truth to the article you posted, however, I think its author is being disingenuous in stating that the conflict between Union and Confederacy was solely over slavery.

The political and intellectual father (or at least grandfather, as he died before secession) of the Confederacy was not Jefferson Davis, but John C. Calhoun. His principal objection to unionism was his belief that states have the right to negotiate their own trade agreements with one another and with foreign governments. Since the south was predominantly agrarian, planters resented the tariff that effectively forced them to purchase goods manufactured in the north instead of cheaper British or European goods.

While this was not the flashpoint that caused shots to be exchanged at Fort Sumter, disagreement over trade and taxes tilled the soil for secession over other issues, including slavery.

[John S Mosby]

Not a broad brush at all— this reflects the cultural attitudinal behaviours of Yankees vs Southerners, and further, running this past my black friends, they concur- there is a distinct variance in how they are treated socially and in business.

The PC crowd of neo-liberals and social justice pontificators originated in the NE snoot schools with their largely white cliques of preppy aholes. Way long ago, Southerners got past all this— to survive Reconstruction. Southerners get along fine with Southern blacks— so put that into the formula.

Can tell you that among my black friends it is universal that they hate going to Boston, or Chi-town or New Yawwk and especially not LA or SF-— because of the bigotry (as distinguished from the ubiquitously misapplied “racism”). They love the South and their good old boy business and personal friends.

In that sense, your comment as it relates to bigotry may be more refined if you take into account urban vs. rural. Fact is that living like sardines breeds insanity and people’s focus is their own little habitat.

Listen to “National Brotherhood Week” by Tom Lehrer (a jewish yankee liberal counterculture harvard mathemetician who worked at the NSA and taught political science at MIT and math at UC Santa Cruz before embarking on musical theater career). He gets it just about right—the concept of focused bigotry painted with a broad brush, and all too true. Deo Vindice.

[Triple]

So is it your position that under *some* circumstances Virginia *has* the right to unilaterally secede?

(Has not had)

TIA

[BroJoeK]

wfu_deacons: "I think your view that the war was only about slavery is as incorrect as the war had nothing to do with slavery."

First of all, go back and read my item #1 again, it says the myth is:

"Secession was not all about slavery."

In fact secession was not just all about slavery, it was virtually only about slavery -- no other reason can even be measured.

But secession by itself did not cause war.
Indeed, there was virtually no Union response to secession, except in attempting to hold two, out of many dozens, of Federal facilities illegally seized by secessionists.

So, what started war was not secession, but rather the Confederacy's military assault on Federal Fort Sumter in April 1861, and then its formal declaration of war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

On May 23, 1861, Virginia voters elected to join the Confederacy and it's already declared war.

The first Confederate battle death did not happen until June 10, 1861.

wfu_deacons: "My great-grandfather (4 of my great-grandfathers served in the Confederate army) served as a private in the 10th Virginia and was not a slave-owner, 95% of the population of Virginia were not slave-owners."

Actual numbers for what percentages of white families from each state owned slaves can be found at this link.
They range from around 50% owning slaves in the Deep South states like Mississippi and South Carolina, to around 10% in Border states like Missouri and Maryland.

Numbers for Upper-South Virginia, North Carolina & Tennessee, as you might expect, are about half way: 25% of white families owned slaves.

Of course, in Western Virginia, your figure of 95% not owning slaves may well be correct.
And that is why they seceded from Virginia rather than go to war to defend slavery.
Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina tried to do the same.

wfu_deacons: "Union troops invoked total war against the citizens of Virginia— they burned farms, killed livestock, and destroyed mills."

And Confederate troops invading Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas, to name some, did much the same.
The truth of the matter is that there was a lot of pillage and destruction of property, on both sides.
But there were very few murders or other atrocities against civilians, on either side.

[ek_hornbeck]

"The Union murdered, raped and pillaged civilians throughout the South."

As I said above, I appreciate most of what you say, but some of it is misleading. You are correct to note that murder and rape of civilians was rare in the civil war, but generally, the "pillaging" refers more the Sherman's scorched earth policy during his "March to the Sea" rather than uncoordinated criminal looting by individual soldiers.

There certainly is no denying the massive destruction of civilian property in Sherman's wake.

[rockrr]

BroJoeK’s #114 was a bit wordy but the essence is correct - everyone has the natural right to rebellion but there is no “right of secession” enumerated in the United States Constitution, especially not unilaterally.