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:
“Never argue with a woman.”
—unknown
Wow.
Nice reversal. What happened to you mentor, Madison?
Dropped him like a hot potato, you did.
First of all, I don't know where this kind of talk comes from, since nobody on Free Republic posts anything remotely resembling what you're saying, i.e., "hang the entire South"!
I've posted here before: half my extended family are southerners, the other half eastern, northern and westerners, and I certainly don't want to see any of the "hanged".
Second, it's important to remember that the number of slave-holding families declined as you traveled north from Deep South (circa 50%) to Border States (i.e., Delaware at 3%).
Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee fell roughly in the middle, at about 25%.
Indeed, that's what made them so reluctant to declare secession, since they had more families not invested in slaves than slave-holders.
Third, in all three Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee, families which did not own slaves were concentrated in the Appalachian Mountain regions, and that explains their efforts to secede from the Confederacy.
Therefore, in other areas of those same states, slave-holding families might be just as numerous as the Deep South.
AuntB: "If your family has been in this country for more than a few generations, I could find a ‘Trailer trash Southerner in YOUR backgrounds, too!"
I don't even know what that means.
Some poor people live in trailers, right?
So do retired people on vacation, right?
Am I supposed to know and care about which is which?
What if I don't, is that a crime?
And why would you call anyone "trash" -- is there "black trash", or "yellow trash", "brown trash" what about "Catholic trash" or I don't know, "Mormon trash" or "Presbyterian trash"??
So what exactly is your problem, lady, that you want to be calling some people "trash"?
Did you ever think, if you'd just quit calling them "trash" they might be less reluctant to vote with Conservatives?
I'm just saying, not everybody has that problem.
;-)
LOL, what are you talking about?
I'm sitting right here, channeling Madison.
Madison tells me he thinks your argument stinks! ;-)
So what's your problem with that?
ROFLOL
There is at least as much evidence to support the thesis that the Civil War was a states’ rights issue as there is to prop up this PC notion that it was all about slavery. Will the coming war be about guns? Abortion? Homosexuality? No, it will be about an out-of-control federal government ignoring the will of the people and the rights of states to make their own decisions on those matters. Just like Civil War I was about the rights of states to chart their own economic courses and to leave a Union they no longer found beneficial.
You now claim that Virginia could claim to secede, but it would have no effect on the actual contract with the USA.
Your original point was that Virginia had the right to actually secede, under certain conditions.
Just silliness on your part now, from what was an originally thoughtful, albeit heavily slanted, position.
Your “rotflol” usage is a clear signal of your de-evolution. (You did not have any of that in your original post.)
Fine, you don’t like the south.
You’ve now written thousands of words to that effect.
We’d be much obliged, then, if you would keep your ate-up yankee ass the hell out of it.
In other words, you agree 100% that it was all about slavery, and nothing else of any importance.
Thanks for your support, FRiend. ;-)
You’re channeling Madison while Triple is channeling Yoda LOL.
You’re missing the point - no one here is saying that they don’t like the south. A few are discussing American history, and a few are interjecting noise. Which are you?
Right, all posts are just objective discussion.
Gotcha. No demonizing of the south going on, no sir.
Thank God
Your original point was that Virginia had the right to actually secede, under certain conditions.
The difference being that the first case involved secession by mutual consent with the remaining states and the second case involves a unilateral declaration of secession, which has no bearing as long as existing laws aren't broken.
You must not have been following - According to Madison, Virginia has the right to secede, when the rights of its citizens are denied/infringed.
- Virginia does not have the right to petition the FedGov to secede, but the right to secede.
BJ has backed away from Madison’s doctrine.
I am not doing any silly channeling.
(Is BJ serious about channeling? I thought he was joking.)
I’m sorry, what conclusion am I supposed to draw from your post? That Texans are nothing but a bunch of backward, racist rednecks, so stupid that they can’t even run a business and need the help of an enlightened, intelligent Yankee to show them the way?
Pretty much proves the contempt some Northerners have for the South.
Anyone would expect that lawful efforts at secession would be preceded and accompanied by many months or years of negotiations to establish dispositions of property, laws and financial obligations.
But Virginia's declaration of secession included none of that.
On the one hand Virginia refused Lincoln's offer to hand over Fort Sumter in exchange for Virginia's promise not to secede.
On the other hand, they used the occasion of the Confederacy's assault on Fort Sumter as their excuse to claim, somehow, "oppression" had occurred, enough to constitutionally justify their secession.
That's why I say it wasn't really lawful, and no serious court would buy it.
Triple: "Your original point was that Virginia had the right to actually secede, under certain conditions."
My original point follows Madison, whose language on "rights" is as follows:
Madison said lawful secession required conditions of mutual consent or, in effect, a material breach of contract.
And, for sake of argument, I can grant that Virginia at least made a pretense of constitutional legality, which is more than the original seceding states did.
So I'm pointing out that: whatever alleged legality Virginia claimed in declaring unilateral secession, it utterly lost, in effect, by simultaneously declaring war on the United States!
So Virginia's secession (legal or not) was doomed from the moment they declared it.
Therefore the legalities of Virginia's secession, in your word, are "moot".
Triple: "Just silliness on your part now..."
More serious than any defense of Confederate declarations of secession I've seen.
I think only South Carolina lacked a strong Unionist population. Every other Confederate state was represented in the Union army. And while the Southern Unionists were primarily located in the hill country, this isn't 100% the case. I believe Sullivan County, Tennessee (in the Unionist stronghold of East Tennessee) was solidly pro-Confederate while Jones County Mississippi (in the Deep South) was solidly pro-Union. My own Unionist ancestors were not from the hill country.
Again, thanks for your wonderful, timely, and much needed post.
"And for saving the company in 6 months"
Also, if you weren't exactly embraced by that Texas town, it might help for you to look inward a bit and ask yourself why. From what you write, it seems you're somewhat into self-congratulation; could it be that you presented yourself as the sophisticated Northern corporate savior to those people, even unconsciously? Because that does seem to be your attitude. It's entirely possible that they picked up on it and didn't like it one bit.
Do you know for a fact that the Chinese engineers were ignored because of their ethnicity? You say that, but in the next breath you say it was because they used computers. Which was it?
Did you have proof that the workstations were racially segregated as a result of company policy? If so, that's illegal, so why didn't you report it to the authorities? Or is it possible that the workers were self-segregating, as people tend to do?
Finally, I find it interesting that you find it necessary to mention your black wife, as if you think her skin color had something to do with your treatment. It sounds to me as though you went down there presupposing Southerners to be racist. It's my opinion that your attitude had more to do with your reception than your wife's race.
As for corruption, according to a 2011 report from nakedlaw.com, four of the six most corrupt cities in the country are northern cities---Detroit, Newark, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
I love the South and its people (especially since I'm related to a lot of them), can't say much good about slave-holders though.
Do you know any of those folks?
humblegunner: "We’d be much obliged, then, if you would keep your ate-up yankee ass the hell out of it."
But don't you worry, if you ever come here, you'll be warmly welcomed!
Just as warm as the last time we had a bunch of you folks up this way, back when Massa Lee was in charge.
You remember, right? Little town with a big shoe store, a seminary, a cemetery, Pickett's boys put on a big show there...
;-)
LOL
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.