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:
John S. Mosby post #454: "That would be the current crop of the completely “flipped” politics from lincoln’s time, and appealing to the “white guilt” repubs— but it does not wash with Southern conservatives...
"You see, the issue was always labor capital (and who would provide it) and it was a change in plantation owners which was envisioned and intended by the Union— the growing industrial oligarchs (railroads, carpetbaggers, thieves, scalawags, liars)... "
"The logical conclusion to all this as these powers moved to a “globalist” frontier, would be to put everyone who remains on the gubmint plantation..."
"We must ALL resist and not rise to this sophistic “MEME” you have posted— it’s purpose is diversionary, and part of an oft-used tactic of the Comintern..."
"Want to fight this new “slavery”? Then resist..."
You say, "it does not wash with Southern conservatives", and I'm telling you, you folks have it all backwards.
You say Lincoln wanted "a change in plantation owners", but Lincoln never owned a plantation -- Marse Jefferson Davis did.
You say Lincoln wanted to "put everyone who remains on the gubmint plantation" but Lincoln never owned a slave -- Marse Jeff did.
You say we should "not rise to this sophistic “MEME” you have posted" but this, your word, "MEME" is exactly correct!
The person who wanted to expand plantations was Jefferson Davis, not Abe Lincoln.
The person who destroyed the Constitution to protect slavery was Jefferson Davis, not Abe Lincoln.
The person who started and declared war on the United States to defend his "peculiar institution" was Jefferson Davis, not Abe Lincoln.
So, FRiend, if you want to talk about the new "gubmint plantation", and fighting against "slavery", then you're talking about Davis, not Lincoln.
All Lincoln did was respond and win the war Davis started.
And I'm saying, you folks need to straighten your heads out about that, before we'll have a serious effort to defeat the new Marse Jeff.
;-)
JCBreckenridge: "Which South Carolina and the Confederacy did not do."
The Confederacy's military assault on the US Army in Fort Sumter was its first major act of war against the United States.
JCBreckenridge: "Did the Confederacy invade the North? No."
Yes, the Confederacy invaded Union states and territories many times, and the first of those came before any Union troops "invaded" Confederate states.
Here again is my list of the more important Confederate invasions of the United States:
Not at all true.
First of all, Democrats won in 1856 without winning Ohio or New York.
Instead, they won New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and California, along with the entire South, giving them 174 electoral votes, or 22 more than the 152 needed.
And a united Democrat ticket in 1860 could easily repeat that, even adding Ohio's 23 electors by switching only 11,000 votes.
So, I'll say it again: in 1860 North and South Democrats won 84 electoral votes in 12 states.
However, they won enough votes combined to carry five more states (California, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee and Virginia) with another 46 electors.
That brings them to 130 of the 152 needed.
And those remaining 22 votes were available in Indiana and Illinois, which Democrats won in 1856, and could win in 1860 with a switch of only 11,000 voters.
I'm saying, that's the "enthusiasm gap" caused by splitting the Democrats in half.
Further, another 10,000 voters switching in Ohio would bring the Democrat total to 177, and 36,000 switchers in Pennsylvania gets them to 204, and now we're talking "landslide" victory for united Democrats in 1860.
So, FRiend, those are the numbers.
Yes, deny them all you want, but the fact remains, a united Democrat victory was just as possible in 1860 as it had been in 1856.
It never happened because Southern Fire Eaters didn't want victory, they wanted secession, and engineered it.
And this bastard Union and socialist FedGov ™, that I hate (nay despise), that we were bequeathed in blood by the Illinois Butcher™ "Over 600,000 served" is any better? The founders would laugh in your face. Is it possible that the South would be free now, at least more in line with original republic? Oh the horror. /sarc You are an idiot.
Piss on you, piss on Lincoln. He sits in hell.
A free rifle and ammo and authority to shoot Yankees is a tempting proposition for any Southerner. IMO slavery was an issue drummed up as cause bellum out of convenience.
No amount of research is ever going to reveal that to you. As you are not one of us.
OK. Let’s leave aside the question of whether war was ever declared on any state, that’s a bit of a technicality.
Virginia waged war on the United States starting on April 16/17 (moving to attack before the final secession vote at the convention, BTW), attacking Union forces at Harper’s Ferry and Norfolk. All this was before the referendum on May 23 that “officially” took Virginia out of the Union. IOW, the State of Virginia attacked Union troops while it was (even by its own theory of secession) still legally a part of the Union.
With the “official” secession vote the State then joined the Confederacy, which had already legally (by its own lights) and officially declared war on the USA. By so doing VA of course was itself declaring war on the US.
The Union first moved troops into Virginia the on May 24, the day after VA officially joined the war against the USA.
So my question is on what basis do you claim Virginia was a “loyal state” on which the USA waged (we won’t quibble about “declared”) war? If waging war on the US and joining a confederacy that officially is at war with the US constitutes being a “loyal state,” what would a state have to do to be “disloyal” in your book?
The arsenal was federal property and Virginia had no legal rights to it. Sending troops to seize it was an act of aggression on the part of the commonwealth. The first act by either side, so I don't see why you complain about federal troops in Alexandria. Virginia had been actively participating in the rebellion for more than a month prior.
And while the referendum may have been on May 23rd, the Confederate Congress admitted Virginia as a state on May 7th. I guess that referendum really didn't mean anything at all, did it?
With the exception of the first 13, the states didn't 'freely enter' anything. They were admitted, only after they had gotten the approval of a majority of the other states through a vote in the House and the Senate. So if a state is allowed to enter only with permission then shouldn't leaving require the same?
The CSA’s greatest crime was its eternal tainting of the idea of states’ rights.
You cannot now even bring up the term, which is IMO a perfectly legitimate one, without aligning yourself in the eyes of most Americans with slavers and traitors.
That most Americans view it this way is just a fact. You are welcome to believe them wrong, but your opinion doesn’t change the numbers.
I wonder how King George III would have answered that question.
The Lincoln Coven is spreading lies and mis information on Free Republic is helping that situation? You are a tainted < expletive deleted >
I don’t entirely disagree with your math. A united Democratic Party could certainly have come a great deal closer and possibly won the election.
However, comparing the 1860 election to the 1856 election is an exercise in futility. 1856 wasn’t a “normal” election. The opposition to the Democrats was split several ways, so it was as big an advantage for the Democrats as the 1860 election was for the Republicans.
In the 1852 election the Whigs were in the process of falling apart, over the issue of slavery, oddly, despite slavery being only a minor issue at the time.
So the last really “normal” two-party election was that of 1848, which was won by the Whigs.
BTW, in 48, 52 and 56 the winner drew a minority of the popular vote, just like in 1860. In fact, as the nation became more polarized over the unimportant issue of slavery, the percentage of the popular vote taken by the winner went down with each of these election.
Well, AFAIK, nobody is claiming that Virginia was loyal to King George.
You are claiming that Virginia was still loyal to the Union when federal troops invaded on May 24, 1861. I’d like to see your explanation of why the State deserved to be described as “loyal” on that date.
What you Neo Yankee thugs fail to realize that the USA was actually a real republic at one point. You are looking at the 19th century thru a 21st century lens. You all seem so foolish....
Because, FRiend, most (not all) my Southern relatives' ancestors were Unionists, and to them you Southern flatlanders -- slave-owners or not -- were the "haughty bastards".
They didn't like you, and they didn't want any part of your stinking slavery, secession and war.
central_va: "A free rifle and ammo and authority to shoot Yankees is a tempting proposition for any Southerner.
IMO slavery was an issue drummed up as cause bellum out of convenience."
You forget that as late as 1856, Southern and Northern Democrats combined to win the election, which resulted in the Supreme Court's 7-2 Dred Scott decision, all but legalizing slavery in every state.
One or two more decisions like that would have made abolitionism unconstitutional.
And those were the stakes in 1860, but Southern Fire Eaters didn't want to play that political game, they wanted secession and they wanted war.
So they engineered it.
Now if you ask "why", the reason certainly had nothing to do with "haughty New England bastards", since they are not mentioned in any secessionist documents.
No, their reason was the obvious one, which they explained in great detail: to protect the future of their "peculiar institution", slavery.
May 7 was the day after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
So when Virginia joined the Confederacy, it joined a country already at declared war with the United States
So you’re saying that the Confederacy was their own country? Then Lincoln invaded another country without permission from congress.
Gosh, what was Virginia and South Carolina? And Texas was a part of that deal too, as was Georgia and North Carolina.
Again - the Union had no constitutional right to apply force to keep the South in.
I would say Virginia was showing loyalty to herself, not the Confederacy.
Fair enough.
But you really ought to stop saying Lincoln invaded a loyal state, because in doing so you are implying that the state was loyal to the Union. Which is just factually incorrect.
“The arsenal was federal property and Virginia had no legal rights to it”.
Oh. So what you’re saying is that the Confederacy had claims on every single piece of Union artillery and stores in the North - that their taxdollars had paid and contributed to?
Did they ever receive compensation from the North?
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.