A cartoon from the time of the Virginia Secession vote.
Keep in mind, there were no secret ballots in those days. Everyone knew how you voted.
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:
Some of your answers are downright bizarre. Lincoln wasn't a candidate in the elections to the Georgia secession convention. Free White propertied citizens clearly did vote in the other states. It was only South Carolina that decided not to count any popular votes or hold real popular elections in the 1860 presidential contest. Constitutional or not, you can't claim that popular votes that weren't even cast went against Lincoln and the GOP.
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.
It's a matter of conjecture how long the Confederacy would have lasted, but Davis and the secession commissioners were doing all they could to draw Virginia and the Upper South into the Confederacy. Understand that it was they who fired the first shot and hoped to gain the benefits from it -- not Lincoln or the United States.
Moreover, who's to say that the Virginia convention would not have voted for secession if an army drawn from other states had crossed its state lines on the way South? It's pretty clear to me that they would have. Even if a blockade had been imposed or the seceding states attacked in another way, it's likely that secession would have been a result.
This is pure speculation.
Geez, Louise, it's all speculation. How do you go from speculating about whether Virginia would have seceded to all of a sudden condemning "speculation"?
“It was only South Carolina that decided not to count any popular votes or hold real popular elections in the 1860 presidential contest. Constitutional or not, you can’t claim that popular votes that weren’t even cast went against Lincoln and the GOP.”
Show me some evidence that Lincoln would have attracted a significant portion of the votes in South Carolina.
“Understand that it was they who fired the first shot and hoped to gain the benefits from it.”
Oh, nonsense. So you’re suggesting that Lincoln’s goal wasn’t to crush the South at the first opportunity? He said as such.
“Geez, Louise, it’s all speculation. How do you go from speculating about whether Virginia would have seceded to all of a sudden condemning “speculation”?”
It’s not speculation that Virginia changed their mind after Lincoln tried to levy troops from Virginia. It’s fact.
Negotiate what?
It doesn’t matter that the Kansas Nebraska act offered “popular sovereignty” on the matter. What matters is that it represented a reneging of the Missouri Compromise.
Another thing that your Constitution says that I can't find in mine. Which article and clause is it where this is outlined?
That's not the point. The point is, if you reject popular voting and majority rule, you can't add the the people who didn't vote to your side of the ledger, because you didn't let them vote. If you don't actually count their votes on election day, you can't claim their non-existent votes in your vote total. Is that really so hard?
So you’re suggesting that Lincoln’s goal wasn’t to crush the South at the first opportunity? He said as such.
Where? When? If that were his actual goal wouldn't he have behaved differently? Gone in with guns blazing maybe? And what do we say about people who might think that of their opponents and yet start shooting anyway? That they weren't very smart?
It’s not speculation that Virginia changed their mind after Lincoln tried to levy troops from Virginia. It’s fact.
You're speculating that if Lincoln hadn't called for an army, the convention wouldn't have voted for secession. You're speculating that if Lincoln had behaved differently the convention wouldn't have changed their minds anyway.
You went on to muse that if Lincoln hadn't called for troops and Virginia hadn't seceded, "the Confederacy would not have lasted long." Is that also a fact, or just speculation?
I'd say that in that case the Confederacy would have been secure enough beyond the buffer or cordon of border states to plot it's next move, which probably would have involved territorial expansion. If that's speculation it's no more than what you've said.
Also, you're saying that when Lincoln does something that brings negative consequences to him it's only expected, but when the secessionists do something that brings negative consequences for them, it's wrong, unjust, unfair.
We all have our prejudices and favorites, but if we're talking about cause and effect it works both ways. When the people you agree with decide what to do they have to take into account how other people think and behave and will react.
If Lincoln "acted stupidly" when he called for troops, one has to at least consider the possibility that the other side acted stupidly when they attacked the fort, or decided to secede unilaterally.
I like this bit, though:
For the people of the South to govern themselves according to the principles of Liberty.
I thought that way too when I was in high school. When you get older and learn more and it's not so important to say things that you think will shock your teachers, you may look at things differently.
“That’s not the point.”
Then you concede the point that the folks in South Carolina were overwhelmingly against Lincoln.
“Where? When? If that were his actual goal wouldn’t he have behaved differently?”
He invaded the South within a month of taking the white house. He really waited a long time to engage.
“Gone in with guns blazing maybe?”
Which is what he did.
“That they weren’t very smart?”
Lincoln had been warned that smuggling troops into South Carolina was an act of war. He went ahead and did it anyways.
“You’re speculating that if Lincoln hadn’t called for an army, the convention wouldn’t have voted for secession.”
Virginia explicitly said - that they only went for secession after Lincoln attempted to levy them to fight the South. Until then, Virginia had actually supported the Union. Lincoln blew it here. He could have saved many American lives had he simply left Virginia alone.
“You’re speculating that if Lincoln had behaved differently the convention wouldn’t have changed their minds anyway.”
They had stayed away from the Confederacy until then.
As for the Confederacy lasting long without Virginia? I really can’t see it. The union drops a 30k man army on Charleston in May instead of at Bull Run.
“I’d say that in that case the Confederacy would have been secure enough beyond the buffer or cordon of border states to plot it’s next move, which probably would have involved territorial expansion. If that’s speculation it’s no more than what you’ve said.”
What, and the Union didn’t have command of the sea? Land on Charleston, defeat the garrison and that would be it for the Confederacy.
“Also, you’re saying that when Lincoln does something that brings negative consequences to him it’s only expected, but when the secessionists do something that brings negative consequences for them, it’s wrong, unjust, unfair.”
I’m saying that the war was started by Lincoln, that Lincoln wanted war, and that Lincoln benefitted from the war. All three are true.
“I thought that way too when I was in high school.”
Does your argument get stronger the more condescending you get? If you can’t rebut the argument, concede the point and we’ll move on.
Then you can show me where universal male suffrage was guaranteed by the constitution in 1860. It’s not there.
15th Amendment only dates to 1870.
Yes, it does matter. :)
Secession? Pretty sure that’s the topic here.
Article II, Section 1.
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors”
There is presently no constitutional requirement to hold a popular election at all. The state legislature can just designate the electors, if it so chooses.
Of course, every legislator who voted for such a bill would be swept out of office at the next election, but it’s perfectly constitutional.
At the time of the Virginia Peace Convention Virginia wasn't planning on seceding. After Sumter, Virginia had no intention of staying. So what was there to negotiate?
A cartoon from the time of the Virginia Secession vote.
Keep in mind, there were no secret ballots in those days. Everyone knew how you voted.
I'd have to disagree. The political powers in Virginia were fully intent on secession but they did not have an excuse or nearly enough support from the population to do so.
The Virginia power structure was firmly committed to disunion long before Lincoln ever took office. And at the same time, Davis and the Confederates of the deep south understood that they could not survive long without Virginia and the upper south, but especially Virginia.
While also preserving the power of the Democrat party.
No, but you know very well that Lincoln did nothing more than defeat the military power which started and declared war on the United States.
Everything else that we find so, well, "statist", began 100 years ago, in the "Progressive Era" under Southern Democrat President Woodrow Wilson -- beginning with the 16th & 17th Amendments, plus Federal Reserve.
From President Washington through the beginning of Wilson's administration, the Federal Government consumed roughly 2.5% of GDP, plus whatever it cost to pay for wars.
Since the "Progressive Era" Federal Government has grown steadily to now circa 24% of GDP, and that is before "Obama-care" fully kicks in.
And the Solid Democrat South fully supported "Progressives" -- like Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, all the way through Adlai Stevenson in 1956.
Then slowly, the South began to realize that all the Federal "redistribution of wealth" was not necessarily intended to benefit them, at which point they first discovered the beauty of Conservative philosophy.
So, if you want to know who is to blame for everything wrong today, don't be pointing at Lincoln.
Look at yourselves in the mirror, FRiend.
Our Founders and everyone here defending Lincoln and Union acknowledge a "right to secede", lawfully and peacefully.
This could be by "mutual consent", meaning Congress approves, or through some "oppression" and "injury", suggesting a Supreme Court ruling.
But what none agree to is unilateral declarations of secession, in Madison's term, "at pleasure" -- meaning without any constitutionally justifying reasons.
The Founders' logic is simple: they considered their Constitution a legally binding contract, or "compact", similar to, let's say, a marriage which is only to be broken for the most serious of reasons, and even then preferably by mutual consent.
But in 1860 and 1861 secessionists did none of that.
Instead they unilaterally declared secession "at pleasure", and immediately began committing many acts of violent rebellion, insurrection and war against the United States, before formally declaring war on May 6, 1861.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.RICHMOND, Va., April 16, 1861.
HON. SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War:
SIR: I received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time (have received your communication, mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia “the quota designated in a table,” which you append, “to serve as infantry or riflemen for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged.”
In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object — an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 — will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Administration has exhibited towards the South.
Respectfully,
JOHN LETCHER.
How does that old saying go? "If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... then it's a... what"?
Lee's Ghost: "Or do you have to start off such discussions by moronically making up categories of people?"
I didn't make up the term "Neo-Confederate", and I also use the term "Pro-Confederate" which strictly speaking is not quite the same.
I would give a "Pro-Confederate" some credit for honesty if they know their history and are willing to confess it truthfully.
But a "Neo-Confederate" is a political category which begins with the idea of distorting actual history to project today's debates back in time to the Civil War.
Neo-Confederates hope to make Black Republican "Ape" Lincoln the original Obama, imposing socialism and putting Americans on "big gubmint's plantation."
In the Neo-Conf version, Jeff Davis fought back for Freedom, Liberty and the Constitution against Lincoln's unwarranted invasions of the peaceful South.
So Lincoln is Obama and Davis, oh, I don't know, maybe Barry Goldwater, or Ronald Reagan?
Lee's Ghost: "If so, what do neo-Federalist/communists believe?"
You'll have to ask your Democrat friends about that, FRiend.
;-)
Neither outgoing "Dough-Faced" Democrat President Buchanan nor incoming Republican President Lincoln ever met directly with Confederate emissaries.
Neither recognized secession as lawful or the Confederacy as legitimate.
Both believed, and Lincoln said as much in his First Inaugural, that lawful secession required the approval of Congress, and so that is where any "negotiations" had to take place.
But secessionists made no efforts to negotiate or secure approval from Congress, or for that matter to address their legal issues to the United States Supreme Court.
Instead, after rejecting constitutional methods for seceding, secessionists demanded recognition by Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln, which both refused.
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.