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:
The Free Market.
Before the end of the Civil War, the Confederate dollar was worth less than wallpaper --- basically worthless as a medium of exchange. Kind of like the Zimbabwe dollar today. People in the South didn't want to accept it either because they knew it was worthless.
That is why so little of it remains today. People used it as kindling by that point in time just as we would use a day old newspaper.
If you have some Confederate Currency today however, you could get some serious US Greenbacks for it from collectors just because it is so rare. And it's only rare because it was so worthless.
There was a time when we were kids that we would go to a little army surplus store just off the square in Huntsville and buy small packs of confederate bills for pennies. We used them as play-money.
I wonder how much they would be worth today (if we hadn’t worn them out)?
We can say Lincoln broke no laws because: Congress eventually approved everything he did.
But more to my point: unlike Jefferson Davis, Lincoln broke no laws for the purpose of destroying the US Constitution.
Instead, all of Lincoln's efforts were to save the Union and its Constitution.
BJK: “Union never formally declared war.”
JCBreckenridge: "What do we call invasions conducted without a formal declaration of war?"
In all of history, formal declarations of war have only been used between nation-states, never to defeat rebellions.
That's why the Confederacy declared war on the United States -- because it wanted to show that it too was a nation-state.
The Union did not declare war because it considered the Confederacy a rebellion.
Well said, great post!
But Confederate forces were only in the area of Harrisburg for a matter of days, if not hours, so there was little opportunity to "get to know" the locals.
If you're familiar with that terrain, there's a long mountain called "Blue Mountain" which comes up from Maryland, north of Chambersburg, Shippensburg, Carlisle and all the way to the Susquehanna river.
Well, I live a few miles on the north side of that mountain.
Local history here says that during Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, scouts from Camp Hill, Carlisle and Chambersburg rode over that mountain and up the valleys to use the telegraph on the Pennsylvania railroad, to report military intelligence.
Needless to say, everyone around here was very excited, panic struck would be a better word for it.
That's why I can't see those poor shop-keepers near Harrisburg as anything other than quaking in their boots on the arrival of Lee's forces.
Please consider this:
In 1856, "Dough-Faced" Northern Democrat James Buchanan was elected president by winning Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and California, plus every Southern state.
He immediately went to work to support the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.
Just one more election like 1856, and one more Dred Scott type Supreme Court decision would have effectively made slavery legal in all states.
That's how close the slave-power came to victory.
But in 1860, many people who had voted for Democrats all their lives switched to other parties, because the majority Democrats had committed political suicide.
I'm saying a united, enthusiastic Democrat party in 1860 had a fighting chance to keep those "swing voters" in the Democrat fold, and win the election by carrying those same states it won in 1856.
And that was within the Confederacy itself. Outside of the South I doubt that the Confederate dollar had any value at all, much less one quarter of a U.S. dollar.
Not comparable whatsoever. 1856 - you had the Whig and Republican parties divided.
“Congress eventually approved everything he did”
That’s a bullshit definition. Doesn’t matter what congress approves or not - he suspended Habeaus Corpus - he declared war on a loyal state of the union. If Obama were to do what Lincoln did, you’d be crying tyranny. Which is what it was.
“The Union did not declare war because it considered the Confederacy a rebellion.”
Doesn’t matter what the Union ‘believes’. Lincoln invaded. Virginia defended their own sovereignty.
On April 17, the Virginia convention voted to secede, pending ratification of the decision by the voters. With the entry of Virginia into the Confederacy, a decision was made in May to move the Confederate capital from Montgomery, Alabama, to Richmond, in part because the defense of Virginia's capital was deemed strategically vital to the Confederacy's survival regardless of its political status. Virginians ratified the articles of secession on May 23. The following day, the Union army moved into northern Virginia and captured Alexandria without a fight.
Virginia's ordinance of secession was ratified in a referendum held on May 23, 1861, by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451.[32] The referendum was a perfunctory endorsement of the state government's decision to join the Confederacy and was not a free and fair election. The Confederate Congress proclaimed Richmond to be new capital of the Confederacy and Confederate troops moved in to northern Virginia before the referendum was held.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War
Looks to me like Virginia declared war on the United States before and Union troops set foot on Virginia soil.
Agree... to forget the history is to never learn from it when the same issues are “resold” by the same kinds of people, and politics.
After the war Hood was in insurance, and a broken man, in New Orleans and died there w/wife and one child, of yellow fever (mosquitoes in the vast swamps of the Miss. Delta).
In re: the history-— a Mr. Sam Hood of WV (paralell descent of Genl Hood) has a new book coming out in June- which i referred to prior in this big thread. Direct descendants (who want to remain anonymous) had boxes of original letters from Hood ( a treasure trove) including to/from Davis as regards Johnston, his CSA commission, his West Point commission— unbelievable find. Search Hood on diff history pages and you’ll find the story. Publisher has a page as well.
Quite the contrary. The Virginia delegation insisted that the Federal government withdraw from Ft. Sumpter. Lincoln did not. Lincoln then insisted that Virginia take up arms against South Carolina, and Virginia refused.
Virginia rejected the request as unconstitutional - that troops be levied in Virginia for attacks on another state.
Lincoln had already mobilized and with the attack on Ft. Sumpter, declared that he intended to attack South Carolina.
Bro, I think I thought of one you mythed.
11. Slavery was dying in the South anyway. Therefore the Union invasion and conquest of the Confederacy had nothing to do with slavery, as the institution would have faded away in just a couple of years anyway.
I’m sure you’re aware that slavery was more profitable and entrenched than ever in 1860, and that southerners had since about 1820 gradually shifted from a consensus that slavery was a necessary evil to an equal and opposite consensus that it was a positive good.
But this one has been brought up to me numerous times, and thought you might want to add it to your list.
Sorry FRiend, but now it's you throwing around some pretty heavy-duty BS.
In fact, Congress is totally authorized to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of rebellion or invasion, and in due time, after appropriate debate, authorized President Lincoln's use of it.
Lincoln's suspensions of Habeas Corpus all happened while Congress was not in session, and after the fact, no serious efforts were made in Congress to censure Lincoln, or revoke his actions.
In the Confederacy, Davis was also authorized to suspend Habeas Corpus, and did so on occasion.
So I can't see how our Pro-Confederates seem to think they've got an open-and-shut "gotcha" case against Lincoln.
JCBreckenridge, referring presumably to Lincoln and Virginia: "...he declared war on a loyal state of the union.
If Obama were to do what Lincoln did, you’d be crying tyranny.
Which is what it was."
First of all: in fact, Lincoln never "declared war" on anyone, as explained in previous posts.
Countries don't "declare war" on rebellions.
Second, during the period when Virginia was in fact a "loyal state of the union" Lincoln made no military moves -- zero, zip, nada, none -- to defeat rebellion there.
All of Lincoln's military operations in Virginia happened after the following:
The first Union troops crossed into Virginia on May 24, 1861.
The first Confederate soldier killed in battle at Big Bethel, Virginia, was on June 10, 1861.
JCBreckenridge: "Doesn’t matter what the Union ‘believes’.
Lincoln invaded.
Virginia defended their own sovereignty."
You can call it "war" and "sovereignty" if you wish, or call it "rebellion" and "insurrection" as I contend, but neither changes the fact that:
Excellent!
Now we're up to at least a dozen, maybe 13 with your previous suggestion...
I especially like the one I "mythed". ;-)
“Lincoln’s suspensions of Habeas Corpus all happened while Congress was not in session, and after the fact, no serious efforts were made in Congress to censure Lincoln, or revoke his actions.”
Read that back to me again and ask if you’d accept Lincoln unilaterally suspending civil rights of those whom he himself claimed were American citizens.
“First of all: in fact, Lincoln never “declared war” on anyone, as explained in previous posts.”
Which makes it even worse. What gave Lincoln the authority to fire on Fort Sumpter? What gave Lincoln the authority to mobilize troops to fire on American citizens? What gave him the authority to cross the Virginia border and invade?
Congress?
Or Lincolm himself?
You’re telling me that in one day - congress approved of the invasion of Virginia and authorized the use of Force against the commonwealth of Virginia?
Or did Lincoln simply mobilize prior and send the troops across the border without approval of congress?
OK, let's do this "by the numbers":
In 1856, a united Democrat party won the presidency with 1,835,000 popular and 174 electoral votes, 22 more than needed.
In 1860, a divided Democrat party lost the presidency -- even with 2,228,000 vs. Republicans' 1,866,000 popular votes -- but Dems got only 84 electoral votes, or 68 less than needed.
In other words, even though Democrats got more votes than Republicans, they still lost in 1860, because they were split in half.
But those 68 electoral votes were easily available in seven states (California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee and Virginia) with a combined switch of just 11,000 popular votes!
That's because: California (4), Kentucky (12), Oregon (3), Tennessee (12) and Virginia (15) needed zero extra votes for Democrats to win, only a united ticket.
Right there is 46 of the 68 needed to win, leaving just 22 to pick up.
And 24 electoral votes were available in Indiana (13) and Illinois (11) with a switch of only 11,000 votes combined, or 3.5% of the 311,000 cast for Republicans.
Surely a united and enthusiastic Democrat party could persuade 3.5% of "low information" Republicans to switch to the "party of national unity and peace."
But additionally: in Ohio with 23 electoral votes, only 11,000 voters (5%) switching would give Democrats the win.
And in Pennsylvania with 27 electoral votes, only 36,000 voters switching would give Democrats the win.
Yes, that's 13% of all Republicans, but remember in 1856 the now defunct Whigs got 82,000 votes, and at least half of those should have gone to Democrats in 1860.
But instead, the divided Democrats lost 35,000 votes compared to 1856.
That's why I say: victory was not only possible for united Democrats in 1860, they had the potential for a landslide.
But Southern Fire Eaters did not want victory or landslide, rather they wanted secession, and so they engineered it by splitting the majority Democrat party in half.
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.