Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
Ten Neo-Confederate Myths (+one)
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.
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:
It goes on to complain that the Federal Government is not enforcing its own Fugitive Slave laws, saying that anti-slavery feeling:
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.
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:
James Madison explained it this way:
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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:
Why bless your heart, for putting up with those nasty Yankees! I swear, child, it sounds like pure misery to me.
Try again
We have a word for Southerners in Chicago. We call them “tourists.” We even give them directions when they’re lost, and don’t mind doing it one bit. Even if great-great-uncle Seamus took a bullet at Bull Run.
You do understand, don’t you, that Southern women by and large don’t use “bless your heart” the way you think we do? 95% of the time it’s meant as a genuine expression of affection. So thank you for your affection towards me.
But just a word of advice....don’t take that Butterfly McQueen routine on the road. Stick with the day job. (wink)
Chicago? Who in the world would want to visit THAT place?
If there ever were a Civil War II and it fell out approximately the same way as last time, I wonder what all these transplant Yankees would do? Would they answer the call or become partisan southern backstabbers?
To paraphrase a famous American: I'm having more fun than a man should allowed to have. ;-)
DustyMoment: "Something that people always ignore when they open up these discussions are the economies involved and the reasons events occur."
Ante-bellum economics have been much discussed on these Free Republic Civil War threads.
On this I follow the work of James Huston's book "Calculating the Value of the Union".
Huston presents data from the 1860 census and argues that the South in general, and the Deep South especially, was far more prosperous on average than were their Northern cousins, or than most histories portray.
The reason is simple: the dollar value of slaves had increased steadily all during the 1800s, and by 1860 represented nearly half of all Southern wealth, and about 20% of all wealth in the United States.
So, in minds of average ante-bellum Southerners slavery was not just a way of life, it was also the greatest economic wealth creator ever invented.
So, in especially the Deep-South, where half of all families owned slaves, they were not even going to allow discussion of topics like abolition.
DustyMoment: "The farmers in those days lived on the edge of poverty."
That is true of all farmers at all times in history.
Even today, with all sorts of government give-away programs, every year there are fewer and fewer farmers, with bigger and bigger farms operating on smaller and smaller margins.
That's life.
DustyMoment: "The same was not true for the north."
At the time of the US Civil War, between 25% and 50% of all northerners (depending on which state) lived on small subsistence farms, with substantially lower standards of living than a typical Deep-South farmer.
Northerners who lived in cities and worked in factories also endured living conditions certainly no better than average white Southerners.
Of course, if you wish to compare large Northern factory owners to large Southern plantation owners and ask which was better off... the answer is, there were far more plantation owners than large factory owners.
DustyMoment: "But, there is another piece that the anti-slavery crowd ignores and that is that farmers were largely prohibited from raising prices without government permision."
Whoever told you that was seriously pulling your leg, FRiend.
There were no Federal price controls in the 1850s, and any state rules were certainly intended to benefit the ruling slave-holders.
DustyMoment: "Before I go any further, allow me to explain that I am neither condoning nor justifying slavery."
Perish the thought!
DustyMoment: "While secession was not codified in the Constitution, it was acknowledged by several of the Founders in the Federalist Papers as another measure available to the states to maintain the balance of power against a strong central government."
All Founders' documents, without exception, treat their new Union as a "compact" like a good marriage, to be "perpetual", "more perfect" and dissolved only under conditions of mutual consent, or from "oppression" and "usurpations" amounting to the same thing.
None wrote that secession "at pleasure" (meaning for no material reason) was acceptable.
DustyMoment: "...secession was another part of that balance of power."
But only as a result of mutual consent or some material breach of contract like "oppression" and "usurpation", neither of which happened in 1860.
DustyMoment: "The north was fighting for a principle that history teaches us was, ultimately, the right one. However, they way they chose to go about it was the wrong approach."
The Union slowly geared up for war in 1861 because the Confederacy provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.
The Confederate President Jefferson Davis was a brilliant military leader (certainly in his own mind), who had graduated from West Point, served in the Mexican War and as US Secretary of War.
In 1861 the Confederacy could find nobody better trained to lead them to military victory.
By stark contrast President Lincoln had no serious military experience, and for years could not find Union generals up to the task of fighting and winning battles.
So Union armies often floundered under poor leadership, before Lincoln could slowly, slowly sort out real generals from the pretenders.
DustyMoment: "If you get to this point, you will undoubtedly blather on about how I am actually defending slavery and the south was just trying to maintain slavery because all southerners are inherently evil bastids."
Nobody here defending Abraham Lincoln and the United States Constitution understand where all such cr*ppola comes from.
We're not putting it out.
All we're hoping to do is keep the facts straight, and let the chips fall wherever they may, FRiend.
You might. We have paved roads, and horseless carriages that drive on them. Many tall buildings, too. Have you ever seen one?
Depends. Ya’ guys want to own slaves again?
Those words, "We the people" do appear prominently in the Constitution, and we might note that ratifications were not made by state legislatures with governors approving, but rather by specially elected conventions of, yes, "We the people".
But, as for secession (or "disunion"), it was contemplated at the Founding much like a young couple might consider divorce on their wedding day -- yes, a theoretical possibility way off in the future, God forbid, but surely only through "mutual consent" or some major "oppression" or "usurpation" serious enough to rank as a material breach of contract.
No Founder condoned secession "at pleasure", meaning without serious necessity.
But in 1860 there was no "mutual consent" even sought after, and no "oppression" or "usurpations" even pretended by secessionists in their secession documents.
So they seceded, in our Founders' words, "at pleasure" which was neither Constitutional nor lawful.
My answer was perfectly clear. What is your problem?
Like to believe they are gone for good— but they are not. We don’t take it personal- and certainly aren’t victims, cause we run circles around the so called intelligentsia, who has not got a clue. It’s not a double game to know a snob from anywhere, southie, atlanta, nyc , hahvahd whatever, and whatever the basis of their bigotry. It isn’t N vs. S— it is globalism vs. sovereignty, and States vs an overwhelmingly useless federal gov.
Intellectual bigotry— After all it was a hotshot math whiz who gave us the derivatives algorithm that produced the subprime bubble crash. The kind of thing that comes from the arrogance of intellect coupled with fraudulent intent. Revisionist history of every stripe, including the original posting here is one more example- half truths. As said— the New South went way past all this years ago. States Rights remain as the central issue in our freedom as a nation- and apparently the victors decided long ago they can tell us what to do, being so smart and Progressive and all. They can’t. They are going to be reminded of it.
Appreciate the dialogue. Southern by the Grace of God. Deo Vindice.
If there ever were a Civil War II then I assume Virginia would stay with the rest of the Obama backers.
Virgina would probably split in two, again.
Chicago tourists...(shaking head in mystification). Oh, well, I guess it takes all kinds, right?
All sorts of different things and people outside the trailer park! Take a look.
Being from southern Illinois, I'd have thought the word would have been LOST.
True Virginians, those of us that cherish our state’s contribution to this country, will be on the side of the Constitution and the principals of a federal government with limited defined powers. Those Virginians who are “True Virginians” have studied our state’s history and appreciate the contribution of the citizens of our state such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Henry, Pendleton, etc. Unfortunately, the “Johnny-Come-Latelies” in northern Virginia have come to suck on the teat of big government.
Thanks for your kind words.
We should remember that there were many Unionists in every Confederate state, and I think bringing them to heal was a major factor in Jefferson Davis' declaration of war on the United States.
After all, nothing unites and centralizes a population better than war -- so long as it's successful.
Southern mountain areas less suited for plantations had fewer slaves and correspondingly more Unionists.
I've long thought that may explain why we have so many pejorative names for those folks (to whom I am closely related): hill billy, ridge runner, back woods, red neck, yokel, hick, clodhopper, and (dare I say it?), white trash, etc., etc.
What other groups get so many colorful names?
So they were outcasts in their own states, but most not in the least unhappy about it.
Today I'm not certain how many descendants even remember which side their non-slave owning ancestors were on... ;-)
I'd call that a typical Pro-Confederate response to inconvenient facts. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.