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:
Or perhaps the definition of 'unilateral' in the English-Confederate/Confederate-English dictionary is different?
“Similarly, since the purpose of secession was not to expand the rights of men, but rather to prevent any such possible expansion, secession cannot be morally justified by the principles of the Declaration of Independence.”
Which of course, begs the question as to, “what was the purpose of secession?”
As we see today, the concept of an overarching federal government and history has shown a mostly untrammelled expansion of federal power.
Is this really the basis by which the Republic was founded? Or was there another principle? Governments are governed by the consent of the governed - if the people themselves vote not to be ruled by the state - then the state has lost the confidence of the people and must be released.
This happened in South Carolina and throughout the South. Peaceable votes held by the legislature to leave the United States are sufficient cause in and of itself to show that the present governmnet had lost the consent of the governed.
“Unilateral secession doesn’t work. It doesn’t provide an authoritative and accepted structure to settle things.”
And war does?
Good point. So why did the south start one?
I would argue that the right to rebel (i.e. take up arms and shed blood) is only justified by God (or under 'Natural Law) if you are rebelling from abuse, and as Madison put it 'Intolerable Abuse.'
I have yet to hear any of the Confederacy's 'Lost Cause' school defenders define what abuses they were suffering in 1860 that morally justified their rebellion and resort to arms and bloodshed at that point in time. Not a thing had been done to them at that point.
It is a question I have asked here for years and have never once got an answer that justified the Confederate States rebellion against the United States.
It always comes back to the point I try to make. It was the expansion of slavery which was an economic imperative to the Southern states, while the majority of the population of the North with the election of Lincoln on a platform that finally promised to stop the expansion of slavery. That is entirely what drove events.
Of course, for a decade or more before the events in 1860, many in the South knew that day would eventually come when the nation rejected slavery and had campaigned for disunion long before anyone had ever heard of Lincoln and there was no such thing as a Republican party.
It was no harm or abuse done to any state or citizen by the Federal government or any other state that caused the Civil War.
It was simply this. With the ascendancy of Republicans in congress and Lincoln to the presidency, they correctly saw the threat to their social and economic institutions, if slavery had been confined forever to the 15 states that then had slavery.
If expansion of slavery was blocked, both the economic and social order of those slave states, especially those in the deep south was in dire jeopardy.
If in the north some combination of powers at the time said, 'You can keep all of your railroads and iron forges and textile mills and other factories where you have them now. But you will never be able to build another in any other state, the situation could likely have been reversed... who knows.
But in the end, it all gets back to slavery.
The south offered to negotiate.
Reading your posts, I'm just not seeing any love for anything American since 1860!
You sound more like one of those Euro-jerks that hate anything American just because it's American or should I suggest one of those equally idiotic Skin Head jerks who hate this country just as much as you do and couldn't give one reason why other than the fact that they are total losers.
Yes, we have problems with our governments -- local, state and Federal. But hate such as you project?
No rational justification for that crap.
I think you are way too tied up in myths about your ancestors to be of any value in these debates.
There were 11 states in the Confederacy, therefore it was not unilateral.
So yes, South Carolina's secession was unilateral, after which it became a plurality of states.
Definition of PLURALITY 1 : the state of being plural : the state of being numerous : a large number or quantity 2: pluralism 1; also : a benefice held by pluralism 3 : a number greater than another : an excess of votes over those cast for an opposing candidate
Forget the 19th century, if you don’t have white hot disgust and/or hate for FedGov™ at this point then you are stupid, in denial or are not really a conservative.
Fine, then don't respond to my posts and I will not respond to yours.
In bad faith. You don’t start aggressive acts against the state and then say, “Hey, we can be friends (as long as you do things my way)”.
Wow, even with the dictionary you get it wrong. Having a bad decade cva?
Sure, and you have an inherent "right" to declare war on the United States.
And after you've been defeated and surrender unconditionally, you still have an inherent "right" to lie about the whole thing, claiming you were the innocent "victim" of some oppressive government.
And everyone else has the inherent right to laugh at your nonsense.
This happened in South Carolina and throughout the South. Peaceable votes held by the legislature to leave the United States are sufficient cause in and of itself to show that the present governmnet had lost the consent of the governed.
Not exactly. In South Carolina 60% of the governed were not allowed to vote, indeed were enslaved (almost all of them) to the 40% who could vote.
So you can't say "the people" or "the governed" voted to secede, only that the minority enslaving the majority voted to secede. Such a vote is inherently illegitimate.
Look at it this way. Suppose blond Americans launched a revolt and enslaved the rest of us, then announced that their revolt and enslavement was legitimate according to the principle of the Declaration of Independence because a majority of blonds voted for it. Would you buy that?
While just an intellectual game, it is my supposition if you could bring back the founders and after studying history that they missed for 200 years, they would be, to a man, appalled and would especially have hatred of Lincoln.
Lincoln didn’t “kill states rights”.
Sounds like a deal to me.
You and I are in agreement, oddly enough, that the death blow dealt to states’ rights by the WBTS and the legacy of Jim Crow is a great tragedy. These two things have to my mind irreparably tainted a concept that could have done a great deal to prevent the expansion of the federal government.
Where I am sure we differ is who bears the responsibility for the disrepute the concept is in with most Americans.
You, and the rest of the Lincoln Coven, spreading the myths about the Civil War, myths started in the progressive era, here on Free Republic do not forward the cause of states rights.
All those things are true. I don’t defend the Confederacy. But it’s colossally hypocritical for the United States to forcibly deny secession to its constituent entities when the U.S. was itself formed by secession from the British empire.
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.