What do you call Kansas and Nebraska? Look at a map!
Missouri Compromise Line... (Green)
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:
What do you call Kansas and Nebraska? Look at a map!
Missouri Compromise Line... (Green)
So, what if you are not a “neo-Confederate”...but just an average person who believes these or similar points? Are they still “myths”?
Or do you have to start off such discussions by moronically making up categories of people?
If so, what do neo-Federalist/communists believe?
Thanks.
It’s called abortion. You may have heard of it.
Your argument was that Confederates were not interested in negotiating. I proved that Virginia was willing to negotiate, but Lincoln refused.
What I meant is the part where he talks about no negotiations with the South.
“They were there to deliver an ultimatum; recognition of Confederate independence or nothing.”
Yes, and? They were willing to do so peaceably.
Yes, and? What about Kansas/Nebraska?
Was not California admitted as a Free State in contravention to the Missouri Compromise?
Did either Kansas or Nebraska become slave states?
It's what experience has taught us to expect. And yes, wars do settle things. Though it would have been better to do so peacefully and avoid violence.
Henry Clay knew that. Daniel Webster knew that. Most thinking people in the 1850s and 1850s had an inkling.
Even the moron who said he would drink every drop of blood shed because of secession (or wipe it up with his handkerchief) knew about the possibility before rejecting it.
What's the use of not learning from history? Why pretend to be (or be) ignorant?
The point is that there were options - constitutional ones. That there were votes, constitutional ones at the time, that were held in the South, showing they no longer wished to be governed. It is not fair to gage the South by the rules of today - when black people could not vote in the north either. The same exact process that elected Lincoln, was the same process by which the south said they wished not to be governed by him.
The difference is that in the south - support was overwhelming to leave - whereas Lincoln had just 38 percent support of America. Less, if you count South Carolina.
The Missouri Compromise did not require new states to be slave states below the Compromise line. It simply permitted it if the state wanted it. The people of California decided they did not want slavery and The Compromise of 1850, among other things, admitted California as a free state.
“It simply permitted it if the state wanted it.”
Which is what applied to Nebraska and Kansas too, didn’t it. Popular Sovereignty.
Except that wasn’t the agreement reached in the Missouri Compromise. It specifically said that slavery was prohibited north of the line. No “popular sovereignty,” just banned in the same way the Northwest Ordinance had banned slavery in the Northwest Territories in 1787. The problem came when the south realized that there were going to be more states joining the union north of the line than south of the line and wanted to renege. Stephen Douglas pushed the “popular sovereignty” idea in Kansas as a way to finesse a slave state into the union, preserving the south’s eroding power.
As was already posted - popular sovereignty applied to California, south of the line, and would apply to Kansas and Nebraska after the Kansas-Nebraska act.
Not for lack of trying. You may have heard of Bleeding Kansas, Osawatomie Brown, the Lecompton Constitution and the Sack of Lawrence.
Proslavery Missouri senator David Atchison declared that “there are 1,100 men coming over from Platte County to vote, and if that ain’t enough we can send 5,000—enough to kill every Goddamned abolitionist in the Territory.”
Constitutional? No. There was nothing in the Constitution about secession.
And those were very irregular elections. Look up the history. Some states held conventions. In others the state legislature made the decision. The way delegates were chosen to the conventions may also have varied.
Some conventions voted down secession before voting it up. Any number of rejections apparently didn't count, but one acceptance changed everything.
One state announced it would hold a convention and didn't, the state legislature doing the seceding. Some states held referendums to ratify the secession. Others didn't.
Georgia historians concluded that there were so many irregularities in the election of delegates that they couldn't conclude who had won.
There were enough charges of fraud and intimidation that unionists were within their rights to criticize the results. And the questions at stake were important enough that they had to do so.
The difference is that in the south - support was overwhelming to leave - whereas Lincoln had just 38 percent support of America. Less, if you count South Carolina.
South Carolina? Do you understand that it wasn't just the African-American majority of the state that wasn't allowed to vote in that election? Even free white property owners didn't vote. The state legislature made the choice.
If you don't show your citizens the courtesy of actually asking what they think about the political choices you make for them, you can't claim that they somehow, without being allowed to vote, implicitly "voted" for the choices you made. We've discussed all that, and any sane, thoughtful person would at least acknowledge and consider the point.
38% of the vote for Lincoln? According to the figures I've seen it was closer to 40%. But the Republicans won a majority in the electoral college fair and square. You are willing to split up the country because of some questionable actions in various states, but you reject the results of a national election?
Also, you only count the elections which go your own way. In a two candidate run-off, Lincoln might very well have won a majority. All he needed to get to 50% was a little over a third of Douglas voters (some Bell voters might also have gone his way).
Or say Lincoln didn't. Say you had 60% of the country on your side, implacably opposed to the Republicans. Was a 40% minority president really that threatening? If the country really backed you with well over a majority what was the problem and why was secession necessary?
Negotiate with who? Nobody from the Confederacy showed up.
We're going around and around with your compatriot central_va on the definition of 'unilateral'. Do we have to do the same with you on 'negotiation'? Delivering an ultimatum is not negotiation.
With Lincoln perchance?
My question was who was there for Lincoln to negotiate with? Nobody from the Confederacy showed up. And remember, the Virginia Peace Conference was in February. Before Lincoln was inaugurated.
“Constitutional? No. There was nothing in the Constitution about secession.”
Government exists by the consent of the governed.
“And those were very irregular elections.”
And that is the basis *for* Lincoln’s authority. Secession on the other had broad and substantive support across the south.
“Any number of rejections apparently didn’t count, but one acceptance changed everything.”
Virginia originally rejected things - but when Lincoln levied Virginian troops to fight against their brothers, Virginia changed their mind. Had Lincoln chose not to levy troops - Virginia would have stayed in the Union, and the Confederacy would not have lasted long. Had Lincoln levied non-Virginian troops - they would have also stayed in the Union, and the war would not have lasted long.
“Georgia historians concluded that there were so many irregularities in the election of delegates that they couldn’t conclude who had won.”
Except for the fact that it wasn’t Lincoln.
“South Carolina? Do you understand that it wasn’t just the African-American majority of the state that wasn’t allowed to vote in that election? Even free white property owners didn’t vote. The state legislature made the choice.”
And that was constitutional at the time. Same with the North.
“If you don’t show your citizens the courtesy of actually asking what they think about the political choices you make for them, you can’t claim that they somehow, without being allowed to vote, implicitly “voted” for the choices you made. We’ve discussed all that, and any sane, thoughtful person would at least acknowledge and consider the point.”
Is 38 percent support for Lincoln a ‘broad and deep mandate from the United States? No.
“You are willing to split up the country because of some questionable actions in various states, but you reject the results of a national election?”
I don’t see how Lincoln was representative of the United States as a whole - when he did not have the support of the majority or a near-majority of the people. Nearly two thirds did not support him.
“In a two candidate run-off, Lincoln might very well have won a majority.”
Well, then Lincoln should have insisted on one. This is pure speculation. .
“Was a 40% minority president really that threatening?”
Was Lincoln inclined to work with the majority or was he inclined to go to war?
“why was secession necessary?”
For the people of the South to govern themselves according to the principles of Liberty.
Presumably Lincoln would negotiate with the Virginia delegation sent to negotiate with him?
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.