Ten Neo-Confederate Myths

March 9, 2013 | vanity

[BroJoeK]

Ten Neo-Confederate Myths (+one)

1. "Secession was not all about slavery."

   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.

2. "Secession had something to do with 'Big Government' in Washington exceeding its Constitutional limits."

   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:

   "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world.
   Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
   These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
   These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

   It goes on to complain that the Federal Government is not enforcing its own Fugitive Slave laws, saying that anti-slavery feeling:

   "has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union..."

   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.

3. "A 'right of secession' is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution."

   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:

   "...the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."

   James Madison explained it this way:

   "It has been too much the case in expounding the Constitution of the U. S. that its meaning has been sought not in its peculiar and unprecedented modifications of Power; but by viewing it, some through the medium of a simple Govt. others thro' that of a mere League of Govts.
   It is neither the one nor the other; but essentially different from both....

   "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."

4. "In 1860, Abraham Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery in the South."

   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.

5. "Abraham Lincoln refused to allow slave-states to leave the Union in peace."

   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.

6. "Lincoln started war by invading the South."

   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.

7. "The Confederacy did not threaten or attack the Union --
   the South just wanted to be left alone."

   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:
   

   • Maryland
   • Pennsylvania
   • Ohio
   • Indiana
   • Kentucky
   • Missouri
   • Kansas
   • Oklahoma
   • New Mexico
   • Arizona
   
   In addition, small Confederate forces operated in California, Colorado and even briefly invaded Vermont from Canada.
   You could also add an invasion of Illinois planned by Confederate President Davis in January 1862, but made impossible by US Grant's victories at Forts Henry and Donaldson.

   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.

8. "The Union murdered, raped and pillaged civilians throughout the South."

   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.

9. "There was no treason in anything the south did."

   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:

   "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort...
   The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason..."

   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.

10. "If you oppose slave-holders' secession declarations in 1860, then you're just another statist liberal."

    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:

• "Since Franklin Roosevelt is President Obama's political daddy, then Lincoln is Obama's political grandpa."

  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:

  • Democrats
    
  • Like all Democrats, committed to using government power to benefit selected classes of voters, by laws requiring others to provide uncompensated services (Obama's taxes & regulations, Davis' slavery).
    
  • Pitted different groups of Americans against each other for their own political gain (whites vs blacks, rich vs poor & on & on, it never ends).
    
  • Cared nothing for the US Constitution, indeed wanted to rewrite it to insert "positive rights" (Obama's right to government provided free stuff, Davis' right to own human "property").
    
  • Yes, it's a stretch, but ominous: willing to wage war on American citizens (Obama's drones).

[central_va]

But secession itself is the coward's way out.

The only cowards are the Free Republic neo blue bellies that make Nazi's look like open minded liberals.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Like I said, you just don't have the stomach for the hard work of convincing enough of the American people to amend the Constitution to your satisfaction. It was true in 1861 and it's true today.

Tell you what, why don't you run for office on a platform of secession and see how far you get.

[Lee'sGhost]

Nope.

[Lee'sGhost]

No oversight. I refuse to debate neo-comms.

Glad to introduce you to Madison and glad I can help. His comment and position are true. Whether or not the oppression that led to the WBTS met his standard is just matter of opinion.

[rockrr]

If I performed as badly in debates as you do I would “refuse” too LOL.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Whether or not the oppression that led to the WBTS met his standard is just matter of opinion.

Which is the same as saying there's no standard at all.

[x]

Thinking it over, I remembered that there were amphibious operations in the Civil War and that the Union forces were able to move and supply armies by sea. Early on in the war, though, before forces had been built up and trained and ships built or repaired, an attempt could well have been disastrous.

Also, any plan to mount an armada would have been interpreted by many in the Upper South as an invasion and a reason to secede and join the Confederacy. There would have been plenty of incidents and provocations and opportunities for secessionists in those states to swing the conventions or legislatures in their direction.

If somebody today really believes in spite of everything that the Confederacy was right and secession was justified, it's strange that they'd also think that Virginia and the other Upper South states would have resisted the arguments that they find so compelling 150 years later if only those states had been exempted from the call for volunteer regiments. Feelings of regional unity that some feel so intensely today would have been all the stronger in 1861.

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Ditto. You've summed up the situation very well.

[0.E.O]

Washington would have DONE exactly as Lee did in the same circumstance. I know it, I know you know it to be true although to admit that truth deflates every reconstructed myth you have been taught about US history.

You're nuts if you really believe that.

But since you like Washington then I do have a quote for you. Whenever I see you claim you love this country but hate the government I'm reminded of what Washington said about people like you: "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

[x]

Political passions ran high in Charleston at the time. There was talk of a "Revolution of 1860." It's likely that Davis was afraid that if he didn't act, the South Carolinians would do so on their own and he wouldn't look like much of president and his Confederacy wouldn't look like much of a country.

Of course, if nobody did anything, if a stand-off or "phony war" persisted, the fervor of the moment would wear off and the Confederacy might start to wither away. If Davis made use of the moment with a show of force it would unite his population behind his government and eventually the spreading enthusiasm could sway other states onto his side.

So war -- or action that would likely lead to war -- was very much in Davis's interest at the time. Separating out how much he was the slave of events and larger forces and how much he strove to master or manipulate them isn't easy

________________

Kentuckians had wanted to remain neutral. I don't know how that would have worked or worked out for the two sides. It was Confederate General Leonidas Polk who brought the war into Kentucky. Polk struck without orders and refused to leave in spite of orders to do so. That was a mistake for his side.

If the North had made the first move, it might have strengthened the Confederate supporters in the state. Polk's invasion had the effect of weakening support for his own side in the state. There were a lot of high stakes gambles at the time -- a lot of weighing military against political concerns and choosing to put military thinking first -- but Polk was particularly bad at it.

[0.E.O]

EVERYONE knows the South is the most conservative region in the country.

Says the man from the state that went for Obama. Twice.

[rockrr]

Yea but that was the fault of those other Virginians LOL

[0.E.O]

Yea but that was the fault of those other Virginians LOL

So what's he going to do if the South secedes again but Virginia doesn't go?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

About what he does now: rage impotently on the internet to a dwindling audience that mostly considers him a joke.

[central_va]

Says the man from the state that went for Obama. Twice.

Really? So which region of the USA is more conservative than the South? Idiot.

[central_va]

You're nuts if you really believe that.

You are no student of history if you don't.

[central_va]

Repeal the 17th and Virginia would have two republican senators. The Senate is close but I think we will gain next election.

The Republican Party currently holds the majority in the House of Delegates, and exactly 50% of the Senate (with the ability to break tie votes falling to the Republican Lieutenant Governor).

Ref: wiki

[central_va]

About what he does now: rage impotently on the internet to a dwindling audience that mostly considers him a joke.

Didn't realize I had an audience.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Outside these forums, you don’t.

[rockrr]

Are you kidding?! People come from miles around to point and snicker ;-)

[central_va]

People come from miles around to point and snicker ;-)

That is a non sequitur.