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:
Actually, the Progressive Era more or less coincided in time with the Great Reconciliation between South and North, by which the War became sort of a Great Misunderstanding, not a world-historical conflict between two definitions of what America meant.
Progressivism of the time was entirely compatible with racism, as can be seen by Wilson, the great Progressive who was probably the most racist post-War President of them all. His racial attitudes lined up with the Confederacy, but he explicitly and openly rejected the limitations on federal power built into the Constitution.
Most people project modern political groupings and categories back into the past, and unthinkingly line modern groups up as being “the same.”
I used to do the same myself, till I was cured by a research paper on the English Civil War. You just cannot line the sides in that war up with anything resembling modern political groups. The basic concepts and alliances are just too different.
The concept of states rights has been tainted, but you and I disagree on why. Mores’ the pity because states rights are the answer to an out of control Fedzilla.
As opposed to the "untrammeled expansion of slavery which is what the South demanded and the North rejected?
No one in the Federal government or in Northern states demanded a damn thing from the South. But the South continued to demand the 'untrammeled' expansion of slavery to wherever the hell they pleased, including Northern states where it had long ago been eliminated. They did not care about the rights of the other states. They did not care about long established Federal prerogatives. Expansion was their priority.
Push met shove.
But please stop pretending that secession was not about slavery. It was --- 100% about slavery.
The South had their justifications which I acknowledge on both economic and social grounds, but both of those were entirely due to their total reliance on slavery. It was entirely rational to them at that time.
The United States wasn’t formed by secession from the British empire - It was formed after rebelling against the crown.
Absolutely correct Sherman.
The 'Progressives' -- in fact where pretty deep racists until they were co-opted by the hard left during the 1920s and especially during the Depression.
In the 1940s and early 50s the hard left infiltrated the Civil Rights movement hoping that the 11% or so of black Americans would become the foot soldiers of their hoped for the socialist revolution. (Yes, they really believed they could start a revolution)
They didn't give a rat's ass about civil rights for blacks, or anyone else. It was just an issue they could use to their advantage.
Read David Horiwitzes book "Radical Son" to understand what was going on in those days.
“untrammeled expansion of slavery which is what the South demanded and the North rejected?”
I’d love to see evidence that the South wanted to expand slavery north of the Missouri Compromise line. This is false.
“But please stop pretending that secession was not about slavery. It was -— 100% about slavery.”
Which is why the emancipation proclamation freed the slaves in the north? No. It was about secession.
“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?”
I live in a nation that just finished executing a third of my peers. That same nation is telling me that I have to fund it.
Lincoln issued in his inaugural address that there would be no negotiations. Bad faith, yes, but not on the part of the Confederacy.
The ONLY reason why the Northern racists wanted to stop the expansion of slavery in the western territories was “to keep it lily white for all time”.
No they didn't.
What dictionary is that from? Or did you make it up for the occasion?
Do you honestly believe all the stuff you post?
The only reason why Southern racists wanted expand slavery in the western territories was to ensure the institution for all time.
He also said that the only way there would be a war was if the South started it. Would you agree he was right there as well?
Bad faith, yes, but not on the part of the Confederacy.
Not really. There was no interest in negotiations on the part of the Southerners either.
According to whom? You.
Lincoln wasn’t willing to negotiate. The Confederates were.
Yes, they did. I already cited where Virginia opted to meet with Lincoln prior to signing the articles of secession. Lincoln refused. Then Lincoln doubled down, and Virginia joined the rest of the Confederacy.
Well which paragraph are you referring to? If you mean that Lincoln said there would be a war only if the South started it then it's right there in his first inaugural, which you claim to have read. If you're referring to my statement that there was no interest in negotiations on the part of the South then that is right there in plain words as well, in Davis's letter to Lincoln introducing his minions. They were there to deliver an ultimatum; recognition of Confederate independence or nothing. And had Lincoln surrendered to their demands then they might be willing to talk, but only if it was a subject of interest to them. I doubt paying for anything would have fallen under that, because an admission that they were willing to pay would also be an admission that they were wrong to take property and repudiate debt in the first place. Wouldn't it?
What you're neglecting to mention is that Davis refused to participate in Virginia's peace convention as well, while Salmon Chase did attend. So stop hanging it all on Lincoln; by your own definition Davis wasn't interested either.
When did it do that? You must have us confused with Kampuchea.
The South offered to negotiate the terms under which they would leave the Union, the division of property if you will, with the implicit understanding that if the terms weren’t acceptable they would “appeal to arms,” as they frequently put it. IOW, it was a negotiation at gunpoint.
The South did NOT offer to negotiate WHETHER they would leave the Union. The Deep South considered the mere election of Lincoln to be so offensive they could not remain in the Union no matter what he said or did or agreed to. They were very clear on this point.
One of the issues that never seems to be discussed is that of division of the territories. The South had very specifically and intentionally fractured the Democratic Party over the issue of access to the territories, and now we are supposed to believe they would just accept the confining of slavery to the existing southern states, the whole issue over which they had fought for the last decade?
It seems much more likely to me that had the northern states agreed to allow the erring sisters to depart in peace, they would have started demanding a division of the territories, and quite possibly access to the Pacific via California.
IOW, I think a powerful group in the CSA had demands in mind that would have made war unavoidable short of utter and abject surrender by the Union. Of course, the same group had delusions (and that is exactly what they were) of the South conquering a slave empire at least to Panama and possibly Tierra del Fuego.
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.