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:
Look up New Jersey’s Electoral college votes.
Post of the day!
No. His main complaints were #1... Agitation against slavery, and #2, the fact that the growing population of the North vs the South and the addition of free states threatened the institution of slavery because slave states were outnumber by free states, even though in 1850, members of Congress did not necessarily vote upon those lines.
Here's the first paragraph to get you started.
I have, senators, believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both the two great parties which divided the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a point when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and gravest question that can ever come under your consideration: How can the Union be preserved?
Calhoun was right. Just the simple existence of opposition to the institution of slavery was enough to break the Union. That is how tied the power structure in many southern states were to preserving slavery at any cost. They saw any opposition as a mortal threat.
Who would have served the papers on the Governors of those States? Would you liked to have been the US Marshal trying to serve papers on those Fire-eaters?
The US Courts in the South had no control when secession happened. That is the very definition of insurrection... when the existing rule of law can not be applied because the forces against it are too powerful.
Read the Militia Act to understand.
I have been to Chicago many times... great food and entertainment, nice shopping areas, a fun place to be for a while. I know some very good conservatives who live there. They just happen to be outnumbered, just like good conservative people who live in Atlanta or Birmingham or Austin are outnumbered.
Since Cythina McKinney is from Houston does that make every Texan a ignorant, lunitic, racist, Marxist BITCH... like she is?
Hood was too influenced by his desire to punish the Unionist sections of Tennessee. Just as Lee’s first campaign was an attempt to coerce Unionist sections of Virgina, Hoods last campaign was an attempt to coerce Unionist sections of Tennessee.
Sorry, I am an American, and can go to any state I wish. That helps make the country more productive, freer, and happier.
As for California, everyone makes us happy, some when they come, others when they leave. Sometimes both.
yes, Calhoun was opposed to states rights, when those states rights were expressed against the institutions of kidnapping, rape, and torture that was slavery
After the declaration of war, court action was moot.
You want war, win it, or shut up.
Ditto: "Where did someone call Southerners 'trailer trash?'"
I did a word search on "trash", and nobody on this thread has called anybody here "trash".
But I am certainly guilty of posting the word, along with several others, as names commonly used against some of my southern relatives, and you might even say, by extension, against me, since I do live in a rural area, near mountains.
And the mountains I live in extend all the way from Maine to Georgia.
So I'd guess, whatever sticks to them, must stick to me too, right?
I'm thinking maybe AuntB got a little excited and confused by my "trash" talk, and now would be a great time to just drop it...
;-)
Out of curiousity, is that higher or lower than you were expecting to see?
FRiend, I'm familiar with that argument, and I know where it comes from.
It doesn't come from the Conservative side of our political house.
It's the argument Liberals use, and we often bow to, that "perception is reality", if everyone believes it, then it is.
But it's not, and our job is to break through the myths into the reality underlying them, and make certain that what we say about the past accurately reflects what really happened, and why.
Anything else dishonors, disrespects and demeans our ancestors just for the sake of some temporary political advantage today.
Right, and as Calhoun changed from pro-tariff in, say 1830 to anti-tariff later in life, tariffs went down.
By 1860, tariffs were lower than they had been for 20 years, and the same rates as 1792, when George Washington was president.
Point is: there's no way to pretend that tariffs had something to do with South Carolina's slave-holders calling for a secession-convention in the same week that Lincoln was elected President.
Secession had nothing to do with tariffs.
It had everything to do with protecting slavery.
Thanks, I did.
Lincoln got four of seven EC votes despite behind slightly behind in the total popular vote. The reason was an internal Democratic Party dispute.
Why this should be considered scandalous or a consequence of cheating by Lincoln or the Republicans is a mystery.
southernsunshine: "According to Lincoln’s own words it was about money.
Again, this was on March 4, 1861.
Money. Keep the taxes flowing...or else."
Believe me, I understand how difficult it must have been for you to dig down into Lincoln's speech to extract just those few words, while ignoring everything else he said.
I'm trying to think of an appropriate analogy, strictly from the perspective of a Neo-Confederate.
Let's see... hmmmm.... suppose those few words were your valuable, sparkling diamond ring?
It is somehow lost in a septic tank, so you must get down in the tank, to pull out those words, so you can somehow justify every insane Confederate decision made after that...
My, you'd need a thorough scrubbing then, wouldn't you?
So I fully understand and appreciate your work here, and I'm sorry it was all in vain.
That's because Lincoln's complete words are actually quite clear, simple and inspiring.
He promises to do what he has to, to fulfill his oath to defend and protect the US Constitution, and he will not disturb Southerners any more than they want to be disturbed.
Yes, of course, the Confederacy saw Lincoln's words as a "declaration of war", because that's exactly what they wanted to see.
War was their objective, and if Lincoln would do nothing to provoke it, then they were happy to provoke him.
southernsunshine: "Also, the USSC court set the April 19 date in your timeline as the beginning date of hostilities."
I'd call that Neo-Confederate self-delusion.
The truth is that rebellion (illegal seizures of Federal properties, threats against Federal officials) started in most Confederate states even before they declared secession.
So what is the precise dividing line between rebellion and outright war?
I'd say the first act of outright war was the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter, beginning April 12, along with Jefferson Davis' moves to issue letters of marque and reprisal on April 17.
Lincoln's responses to those Confederate acts of war were the least he could have done, still hoping to avoid a major conflict.
southernsunshine: "The May 6 document declares a state of war exists and the USSC decision to use April 19 verifies this."
The Confederacy's declaration of war on the United States, May 6, 1861, was just that: a declaration of war.
It's formal language corresponds exactly to that of President Franklin Roosevelt's December 12, 1941 "Day of Infamy" speech:
Odd, then, that he completely avoided the Unionist section of East Tennessee.
Hood's campaign into TN was an attempt to get Sherman to turn around and chase him instead of pushing farther into the vitals of the Confederacy. He also wanted to recruit in the confederate sections of TN and KY.
Neither worked. Sherman assigned Thomas and Schofeld to deal with Hood and headed across GA himself. And Hood picked up few men in TN and KY.
southernsunshine: "You aren’t supposed to know any of that.
Keep repeating: It wuz all ‘bout slavery. Toe the line, Comrade. LOL!"
Of course there was a "state's rights issue", indeed several of them:
Slavery was the reason for secession, and the Confederacy's new slavery-protecting constitution, but slavery itself did not start the Civil War.
The Confederacy started the Civil War, ultimately to protect it's "peculiar institution" of slavery.
southernsunshine: "No accident. BroJo has been schooled on all of this many times."
I left nothing out that I consider significant.
If you disagree, then feel free to highlight events which matter to you, and I'll be happy to review them with you.
One basic thesis here is this: in every step of the way, from peace in 1860 to war in 1861, it was secessionists and their Confederacy who lead the way, while the Union slowly and ineffectively followed.
Let me try an analogy... let's see...
You are an important person in your family, right?
Nothing big happens without your input, and at least acquiescence, right?
So that makes you somewhat similar to the Southern Slave-Power in the Federal government before 1860.
Now, let's suppose that, for whatever reason, you walk out on your family and they, to your shock, figure out how to get alone just fine without you.
So whose fault is that?
Is that their fault, or is it yours?
It's yours of course.
And so it was in 1860, when Southern Democrat "Fire Eaters" walked out of their ruling majority Democrat party, splitting it in half and thus engineering the election of minority Republican Abraham Lincoln.
JCBreckenridge: "even if the Democrats were all one party, they could not win.
It simply was not possible due to the 85 electoral votes for New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania, combined."
Of course, I understand that argument, I've studied the numbers myself, and I know they show: "you can't get there from here".
What I'm saying is that if Democrats had been as united and enthusiastic in 1860 as they were in 1856, they could easily have attracted enough, in today's term, "low information" Northern voters to elect their candidates.
Pennsylvania is a good example.
Then as now it was a "blue" Democrat state in 1856, but the 1860 party split cost Democrats 35,000 "low information" voters, who switched to Republicans, giving them the margin of victory.
The same is true in other traditionally Democrat states, like Indiana, Illinois, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and California -- those would give a united Democrat ticket more than enough electoral votes to win the Presidency.
So, what I'm saying is that Democrat defeat in 1860 was not inevitable, far from it, it had to be engineered, and those engineers were Southern "Fire Eaters", who had been campaigning for secession for many years.
The 1860 election was Fire Eaters' opportunity for success, and they took it.
I'd call that suggestion a seriously ridiculous argument from desperation.
Secessionists complaint against the Union was that not enough had been done to protect their "peculiar institution" of slavery.
Constitutional solutions included bringing suits in the Supreme Court, or bills in Congress to redress their grievances.
They did none of that.
Instead, they first unilaterally declared secession, then started and formally declared war on the United States.
So your suggestion here amounts to nothing more than saying President Roosevelt should have responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by filing complaints in the League of Nations.
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.