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:
Did you know that blockading of ports is and has been recognized as an act of war?
"The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. GERRY) asks if the sovereignty is not with the people at large; does he infer that the people can in detached bodies contravene an act established by the whole people? My idea of the sovereignty of the people is, that the people can change the Constitution if they please, but while the Constitution exists, they must conform themselves to its dictates. But I do not believe that the inhabitants of any district can speak the voice of the people: so far from it, their ideas may contradict the sense of the whole people."
Where in this timeline was the Maryland legislature jailed on Lincoln’s orders, to prevent them from voting on secession?
You seem to have left out some significant milestones. Accidental?
“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.” BJ
Obviously not.
No. With so much revisionism and political correctness ytossed around, facts are subjective, anymore. Somed years back I might have agreed with John Adams, but after everything we have been through and digital applications ;ike Photoshop, facts are no longer absolutes.
Calhoun started his political career as a supporter of high tariffs, sympathetic to the goals of Federalism and the Union. He later became an advocate of state's rights and free trade, siding with the agrarian south against the industrial north.
As I expected, this is less a discussion than a sermon.
My guess is that this whole post was generated to accumulate hits, at which vain purpose it has succeeded. However, no new information was made known and no minds were changed so this has been little more than an ego trip on FR’s dime.
I don’t feel the need to be preached at so I’ll decline any further involvement.
Reenactors, of course, they come every year, and we treat them great, especially the Confederates -- how can you reenact a battle without Confederates?
And everybody wants to be a Confederate.
It's not as much fun being a Union guy in a blue suit.
And, they're coming again this year, really big event, 150th Anniversary!
Anyone who comes, believe me, will be warmly welcomed!
;-)
Sure, but seizing dozens of United States forts, armories, arsenals, ships, mints, customs houses, etc., are also acts of rebellion and insurrection, if not outright war.
And the Confederate military operation against Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 was an absolute act of war, to which Lincoln's response of April 15 was mildest possible.
Also remember that Lincoln ordered that blockade on April 19 in response to Davis' April 17 moves to issue letters of marque and reprisal, setting up a privateer naval force.
So my key point in all of this is that, on every step of the way from peace in 1860 to war in 1861, the Confederacy was always as step ahead, the Union simply followed, slowly, less effectively.
“Right, all posts are just objective discussion.
Gotcha. No demonizing of the south going on, no sir.”
For once you and I agree on something, humblegunner. All the comments on these threads calling Southerners trailer trash, etc. must be our imaginations!
It's a myth we've covered in detail on other threads.
The summary of it is that on April 29, before the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, the Maryland legislature freely voted 53 to 13 against secession.
Nobody was then in jail or intimidated.
After the Confederacy's declaration of war on May 6, 1861, by Constitutional definition it became an act of treason for citizens of the United States to provide aid and comfort to their enemies.
So in September some Maryland officials were arrested, and there was never a vote to secede.
But before you jump to conclusions, remember that Maryland had only half the percentage of slave-holding families as, for example, Virginia.
Maryland's ratio was about eight non-slave holders to one slave holder, and that is reflected in the April 29 vote of 53 to 13 against secession.
So it's never been shown that enough Maryland legislators were arrested in September to have made Maryland change from Union to Confederacy.
Where did someone call Southerners 'trailer trash?'
Your post #285 seems to want to discuss not the last Civil War, but the next, about which at this point I have no interest.
IronJack: "My guess is that this whole post was generated to accumulate hits, at which vain purpose it has succeeded."
Wrong on both counts.
First, my purpose here is to provide data on commonly seen Neo-Confederate myths, so people who see them will be fore-warned and fore-armed.
Second, I've seen several Civil War threads run over 1,000 posts, and this one isn't even close.
So if that were my standard, I'd be a "failure".
But it's not, and in fact I will soon have to abandon this thread and get on with my life... ;-)
IronJack: "However, no new information was made known and no minds were changed so this has been little more than an ego trip on FR’s dime."
New to whom? New to you, or new to other FReepers?
I'm actually delighted with the responses, and consider all the posts from our Pro-Confederate FRiends to be more-or-less par for the course.
As for minds changed and ego trips, well, we never really know, do we?
IronJack: "I don’t feel the need to be preached at so I’ll decline any further involvement."
So, you already know everything there is to know about the Civil War?
Have a great day!
The Chinese engineers were aware of their problems communicating. The management was aware of their problems. The Chinese engineers were eventually fired, and the Chinese manager transferred. Management didn’t replace them. So there we were, with no FEA capability. The computers were needed, so we hired FEA capability from job shoppers. That indicated to me that management eventually knew they needed finite element analysis (FEA) but wanted to do without the Chinese engineers that ran it.
As for the idea that I was a northern corporate savior, I wasn’t. I came from California. It just worked out that I was able to (1) Identify the problem correctly,
(2) develop a solution,
(3) convince the government customer
(4) convince management
(5) write and get approved over 3000 late reports that the company had not bothered to submit
(6) Lay out a corrective action plan that put us back in business
I was hired, not as a manager, but as an engineer. After accomplishing the above, management decided that I could be a manager. Only after management decided that I had saved their company was I promoted, and the explanation for the promotion stated that I had saved the company.
When I showed up, it was a small company with family members in management positions, bleeding money, run with segregated groups, communicating imperfectly. When I left it highly profitable. Shortly after I left it was purchased by a large corporation, with the stock holders getting a good gain.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2995385/posts?page=216#216
And there was worse, and you know it. There always is on these ‘civil’ war threads. People don’t care about history, they just want to piss and moan.
DONE.
The news today is that the former mayor of Detroit got convicted.
No arguments here that corruption doesn’t occur elsewhere.
Except the Civil War wasn’t about states charting their own economic course. It was about southern states raising armies and declaring war on the US.
Treason in support (as they stated) of slavery.
Come on - that was part of a tit~for~tat with CatherineofAragon, and there isn’t “worse” on this thread.
Or lawful efforts at succession would recognize that sudden attempts would generate controveries, which would need to be resolved, per Article 3 of the Constitution, by the Supreme Court.
That’s not the way the rules work on CW threads. Anything a pro-Confederacy (for lack of a better term) person states is holy. Give them the same treatment, and they start crying in their grits.
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.