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:
That point is moot in relation to this argument.
Virginia had the right to secede, and exercised that right.
It was a lawful action on the part of Virginia.
This statement is objectively false. Not only do Lee's critics hold Marse Roberts responsible for the depredations of his forces in Maryland and Southern Pennsylvania, but Lee himself admitted to them and tried to justify them on the basis of similar tactics in use by Union forces in Virginia (which did not, in fact, occur.) Lee's rationalization that the gratuitous destruction in South Central Pennsylvania was what "is happening in Virginia every day," has been thoroughly demolished by objective historians. Furthermore, the diaries of many in Lee's army regarding the Sack of Chambersburg make it clear that even enlisted men objected to what was done, and many wanted no part of it.
Confederate Armies avoided contact with Union forces? Seriously? You must think the war was fought entirely in Northern Virginia. Here's a news flash for you: It wasn't. Southern historians have focused on the War in Northern Virginia because in many other theaters after 1861 the Confederates were beaten, often badly. Furthermore, as Mosby, Quantrill and Forrest amply demonstrated, the Confederates had no qualms about attacking Union targets -- especially if they were defenseless civilians.
What kept Lee from attacking Union forces was simply this: while brilliant in situations in which he could make use of defensive fortifications, defensive tactics, and interior lines, Lee was largely incompetent on the attack.
He got his ass thoroughly kicked at Malvern Hill, and after that slaughter learned nothing from it, choosing to repeat the same mistake under even more unfavorable circumstances at Gettysburg, with even more disastrous results.
"Lee's Perfect Battle" at Chancellorsville was entirely Stonewall's perfect battle; it would never have happened had not an overconfident Lee blundered into Hooker's trap, leaving him no choice but the suicidal decision to divide his forces in the face of a numerically superior enemy.
Lee's army preferred defense because their commander lacked the skill for large scale offensive operations, had no ability to supply his army over long distances, and because after Chancellorsville he had only one decent Corps Commander [James Longstreet.]
The claim that Lee's army never caused unnecessary damage or harm is laughable Southern revisionism. When Lee failed to do so, it was only because he lacked the means. He made two desperate attempts to project the War into Northern territory in force, at Antietam and Gettysburg. In both attempts, he failed. After that, he came to understand his limitations, even if Southern revisionists have not.
And, therein lies the problem of why the Civil War will always be a controversial topic. What you and others call "mis-information" is, in the south, fact.
And, what those of us in the south believe is misinformation, you believe is fact. And you think your facts trump mine and I think that my facts trump yours.
Which leaves us right back where we started.
Except of course, for the single greatest atrocity of the war, the Lawrence Massacre, when Confederate irregulars murdered up to 200 men and boys, most of them unarmed civilians, and a good many of them by throwing them alive into burning buildings.
At the time of the pretended secession, tariffs were low, at the request of the south. The tariff collection was in part low because false values could be assigned to imports, so that lower than real tariffs could be paid.
That was the real advantage of the new tariffs: Tax was assigned to amounts of goods by type of good. Much harder cheat.
Of course when cheating it was common to buy off the customs official. No wonder they were unhappy. Under straightforward smuggling they didn’t get a cut.
Rather the gallant hood of Texas found Hell in Tennessee.
The even more gallant Schofield and Thomas slowed him, stopped him, and pursued Hood to destruction.
Rather there were no immigration barriers before the 20th century. The oldest continuously operating store in Los Angeles is a Japanese candy store, showing some degree of continuity of our immigrant community here.
The irony is that the Democrat model for the American Future is the southern slave plantation.
At Arlington, most of the slaves were white. When RE Lee took over management, the first thing he did was to set up whipping posts.
The Democrats still intend to rule, despite local traditions, and despite law, morals, or good manners.
I spend 4 years in a small Texas town that used to be famous for matresses, saving the largest local company from itself. When I got there they had over 3000 trucks on their front yard that they couldn’t get the Army to accept. Their ‘solution’ to the engineering problem was wrong as it wasn’t a strength, but rather a stiffness issue. The in house engineers who knew the problem were ignored because they were Chinese ethnics (who used computer aided modeling, which management didn’t find persuasive as they didn’t understand resonance). Every manufacturing station was racially segregated.
And for saving the company in 6 months, I was called by management, in front of the assembled company, a ‘carpet bagger’ and I and my black wife were routinely refused service in local restaurants. Local judges were corrupt.
On the other hand, gun stores were well stocked, and I rally enjoyed my range time.
After 9/11 I returned to California and went back to work on better ways to kill people. Its a living.
Except that secession was started before the tax was passed.
Cause and effect. The one that occurs first may, or may not be the cause.
The one that occurs last can never be the cause.
Secession, or the pretense at it, was the cause of the tariff increase being passed.
Very true. The new info i referenced will come out in a book in June this year— an incredible find of private personal letters. Written by a parallel line of relations to Hood, a Sam Hood. Should be very interesting.
The whole TN campaign should never have been carried out. US was seriously in control of the area just for starters. So much wasted lives— Franklin a debacle.
Per Article 3 of the constitution, controversies between the states, or between the states and the federal government are to be resolved with the supreme court acting as original jurisdiction.
That is who decides. That the insurrectionists didn’t even attempt peaceful resolution in that way tells us everything about their expectation that the law was on their side.
Trade on the Mississippi was so important that the state legislature of Mississippi failed to mention it.
Darned good food.
Why did Lincoln invade Virginia?
I don't agree, nor did many Virginians at the time, especially those in Western Virginia.
But regardless, it's your point which is moot in relation to this discussion, FRiend.
That's because, Constitutionally, you have a right to say any d*mn fool thing you want to say: go ahead, take your soap box to a street corner somewhere, and declare your secession from whatever it is that you want to secede from -- from the United States, from the world, from mankind, h*ll you can declare secession from the whole Universe, if you want to, and the Constitution will not touch you.
Provided, provided, provided FRiend, that you don't break any laws.
Now, once you begin breaking laws, then the government has some authority it will exert over you, unpleasant authority, which you will not like.
And if you go so far as to start and declare war on your government, then it might well end in your death, which, of course, will accomplish your total secession from everything.
I'd call that suicide by secession. Don't do it.
But that is precisely what Virginia (and Tennessee) did.
In one "brilliant" stroke, they voted to both secede and declare war on the United States.
And the results are that Virginia and Tennessee arguably suffered more from the Civil War than any other states.
But, at least you can't say: they didn't get what they wanted.
Would like to see references for each of these assertions.
Sorry, but a famous American, a hero of mine, once said (and is often quoted):
That was John Adams, in 1770, defending British soldiers for the Boston massacre.
So facts are facts, and myths are, well, not necessarily.
That's the purpose of this thread.
Here is a summary of that sequence of events:
So, the short answer to why did Lincoln "invade" Virginia, is: because Virginia and its Confederacy declared war on the United States.
FWIW see it for the outstanding acting. From a purely historical standpoint it takes a lot of liberties.
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.