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:
Except that the controversy over whether the terms of ratification can not be settled by Virginia alone. Rather, per Article 3 of the constitution to which Virginia agreed, controversies between the state and the federal government are to be settled at law, with the Supreme Court as original jurisdiction.
YOu are proof. You want argument and nothing else. Get it somewhere else.
Now we need your permission to post on a CW thread?
That’s not true - and you know it. There have been several points that you have made on this very thread that I agree with. Do I really have to give you the thumbs-up every time we agree?
My black wife was a key element in my success.
We went togther to the company Christmas party. We danced together, and stopped around to chat with people at various tables, to include the tables where Spanish was spoken.
After that, when I walked the assembly line, I was able to get people to talk to me. Because of that, we were able to identify and correct many flaws before they went out the door.
Everything I did had already been done by Toyota in the 1970s, as taught to them by Deming. My best friend in these efforts was a Chief Mechanic (from Vermont) who worked with me at opening lines of communication. Although a Chief Mechanic, he didn’t wear the specified company uniform for his position, but rather the one for two ranks below his. Again, the problem was poor communication.
There was no stealth in resupply of Ft. Sumter. Rather, Lincoln had corresponded with the governor of SC, to notify him, and Lincoln had out of good will, limited supplies to non-lethal items.
Based on that, SC fired on the ship and the fort.
There are quite a few conservatives that live in cities, just not enough to win elections.
Kevin James just lost a primary election for Mayor of LA with 15% of the vote. If the voters were representative of the population at large, then of some 2 million LA citizens, some 300,000 conservatives would be estimated. That is more than quite a few counties elsewhere.
Given that Lincoln claimed South Carolina was part of the union - you can’t exclude them from the total. Lincoln won no votes south of the Mason Dixon. When you do that, Lincoln’s share drops to 36 percent of the entire US.
Indeed, that may have been the case. It remains though, that the nation was very divided and the election of Lincoln simply established to the South, that they could be shut out 100 percent of the governance of the nation. That, as much as anything, would have provoked their response to leave.
No, draw the conclusion that some southerners use racism, or sectionalism as a way to motivate the locals.
And that use has a price.
Great. What does her color have to do with anything?
Not true. Lincoln leased a merchant cargo ship, NOT a US Navy ship to attenpt to bring supplies to Ft. Sumter. If this was an open attempt to resupply the fort, why would he use a merchant ship? The use of the merchant cargo ship was a stealth attempt to resupply the fort.
The South Carolinans suspected the ruse, fired on the ship and forced it back to sea. The tactic is the same one employed by the British in WW1 with the Lusitania sinking. The Lusitania was a passenger that was carrying munitions in violation of existing treaties at the time and the Germans sank her.
What Linclon tried to do was use an average looking commercial merchant ship to carry supplies to the Union soldiers at Ft. Sumter.
Since SC had already joined the Confederacy, they were trying to get the soldiers to leave the fort and previously requested them to do so; orderly and peacefully. And, since they refused the request they were surrounded and prevented from being re-supplied by Lincoln.
And that use has a price." You keep proving my point.
It's crystal clear that you operate under the arrogant assumption that Southerners are bigots---which no doubt was apparent to the workers at that Texas business. You can chalk up your cool reception to your attitude.
Meanwhile, you're the one who can't get off the subject of race.
"My black wife"
The leased ship was thought to be less aggressive than a navy ship.
Again, the letter to the governor explained the resupply would be limited.
On the other subject, the Lusitania did have munitions, but not the kind that would have made it a legitimate target. It cargo was limited to munitions that would not have made it a legitimate target.
The Munitions argument is a German propaganda lie.
Some southerners are. Others are not. Some were happy to have us. Others felt it their duty to protest.
“Slow to warm up” would describe most pretty well.
Some would do one or the other based on who was watching.
Since you asked about her.
So you are saying that since insufficient numbers of legislators were arrested and prevented from voting on secession, and succession probably would not have passed anyway - no harm no foul?
Really?
So then how would an exploited minority gain the consent of oppressive majority to secede?
I'm not claiming the South was oppressed or exploited, I'm just raising a hypothetical situation.
One other thing, what's to stop any group from declaring themselves "the people." Again, this is hypothetical.
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.