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).

[BroJoeK]

Servant of the Cross: "Everybody knows what the Civil War was fought over. "Johnny Reb" said it very plainly in the movie Gettysburg .... I'm fighting for my RATS!"

DemocRATS!

;-)

[BroJoeK]

miliantnutcase: "I think you owe Rush 20 bucks for his catch phrase."

I love Rush's catch phrases, use them here all the time.
And never fear, I would be happy to pay Rush 50% of all the profits I make doing it...

Oh, wait... I don't make...

;-)

[BroJoeK]

eyedigress: "I have read your posts and you are quite unfamiliar with the monetary aspect of the Civil War.
The trade on the Mississippi was issue #1."

I'm not as unfamiliar as you might suppose, but the purpose of this thread is to review and refute some of the most commonly seen Neo-Confederate myths.

So I'd say that "trade on the Mississippi was issue #1" was a great Neo-Confederate myth, and I might consider it for my list except for two things:

1. I've never seen that myth before today, and

2. Since there's no evidence of any kind to support it, why spend time refuting it?

Of course, if you can produce some evidence, then we might have something to work with, but your idea seems so far fetched, I'd wonder why you even bother?

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Arkansas, Tennessee, North Caolina and Virginia did not leave the union until Lincoln called up troops to quell the 'rebellion."

You are correct. I should have made that clear.
Secession happened in two phases:

1. Phase I: Seven Deep South states seceded to protect slavery against "Black Republican" Lincoln.

2. Phase II: Four Upper South states refused to secede just to protect slavery, but felt forced once war began at Fort Sumter, and was declared on May 6, 1861.

[BroJoeK]

wfu_deacons: "ON April 4, 1861 the Virginia secession convention voted not to secede.
The convention did not vote to secede until April 17, 1861 after Lincoln called for troops to invade the South."

You are correct, and I should have made that clear.
The four Upper South states would not secede just because of slavery, but when forced by war to chose sides, they chose the Confederacy.

[Sherman Logan]

The fact that electors are supposed to vote for the person who won the most votes in their state? Douglas won the state, he should have received all 7.

You care to point out the clause of the Constitution with this requirement?

In actual fact, as opposed to revisionist history, the Constitution leaves it entirely up to each individual state how its electors are chosen. There are still several states that are not "winner take all." Maine is one, but I believe there are several.

[JCBreckenridge]

“You care to point out the clause of the Constitution with this requirement?

In actual fact, as opposed to revisionist history, the Constitution leaves it entirely up to each individual state how its electors are chosen. There are still several states that are not “winner take all.” Maine is one, but I believe there are several.”

Which is why in 1864 when Lincoln again lost in New Jersey, all 7 votes went to McClellan? And in 1856, when Buchanan beat Fremont and Fillmore, all 7 went to Buchanan?

New Jersey law was explicit in 1860 - which is why the 4 who voted for Lincoln in opposition to the statewide vote are considered “faithless electors”. Just one irregularity on top of a large number of irregularities.

[JCBreckenridge]

Which raises the question - we just had a filibuster arguing that the current president cannot do drone strikes on American citizens.

How is Lincoln’s response vs Virginia any different? The state did not take up arms against the federal government, and Lincoln went to war against them anyways.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "I have seen letters from men in Ewell's Corp that complained about the harsh treatment from shop owners as they were buying supplies.
One of them called a reb a tory and that irritated him.
If a Reb in Harrisburg PA went into a shop and grabbed a jar of honey all that shop owner had to do was wave down Confederate officer and that soldier would have been arrested."

First of all, as FredZarguna pointed out, there's no confirming record of any Confederate forces crossing the Susquehanna River into Harrisburg itself.

"By June 29, Lee's army was strung out in an arc from Chambersburg (28 miles (45 km) northwest of Gettysburg) to Carlisle (30 miles (48 km) north of Gettysburg) to near Harrisburg and Wrightsville on the Susquehanna River.[16]"

Of course there are any number of little towns on the west bank of the Susquehanna, across from Harrisburg, where they could well have gone "shopping" -- Maryville, Lemoyne, Camp Hill, Wrightsville, etc.

But the second and maybe larger point here is: what do you mean "buying supplies"??
"Buying" suggests you have money to shop for stuff freely offered for sale.

But Confederates had no real money, not even a credit card. ;-)
All they had was Monopoly money, worthless in the Union.
Plus no Pennsylvania store owner wanted to be charged with "aiding and abbetting" the enemy, so that might explain why normally very friendly Pennsylvanians were just a little cranky that day, when Confederate troops came "shopping" in their stores.

Today, of course, it's much different.
You can shop all you want here, and I promise, we'll treat you right.

;-)

[BroJoeK]

DustyMoment: "Are you kidding me? You have refuted pretty much every one of my facts and I doubt most of yours."

I'm asking you to pick out just a couple of examples of each, and cite them.

Of course, the reason I'm asking for examples is: I suspect that what you call "fact" I'd call "opinion" or maybe visa versa.

[BroJoeK]

JCBreckenridge: "How is Lincoln’s response vs Virginia any different?
The state did not take up arms against the federal government, and Lincoln went to war against them anyways."

And that is related to the point Triple made up-thread (see i.e., my response at #297).

The Virginia ratification statement to the US Constitution says, in effect, Virginia reserves the right to secede in cases of "oppression" or "injury".
Virginia's Secession Declaration issued after Fort Sumter, and Lincoln's response, claims there has now been "oppression" justifying secession.

As I responded to Triple, I don't agree that was legitimate, and neither did many Virginians at the time -- especially non-slave-owning Western Virginians.
However, unlike Deep South secessions, Virginia's case can at least be argued.

What can't be argued is this: unlike every citizen of the Deep South, who could legitimately hope for a peaceful secession, and whose leaders told them they wanted at peaceful secession, citizens of Upper South states -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas -- knew when they voted that secession meant going to war against the United States of America.

Those states all voted to secede after the Confederacy started war at Fort Sumter, and formally declared war, on May 6, 1861.

[BroJoeK]

ohioman from post #104: "Posts likes this only serve to divide otherwise conservatively similar people on FR.
Of course I do not mean this as a slight on FR's founder, who hails from California. "

DustyMoment from post #386: "Neither of us changed the other’s mind and all we have done is waste JimRob’s bandwisth."

To Jim Robinson: sorry, your name has come up twice on this thread, neither time adding you to their address list.
So this is to correct that.

For everyone's information, Free Republic hosts dozens of Civil War related threads every year, and some of them go to thousands of posts.
It's a matter of huge interest to many Conservatives who wonder, "how in the h*ck did our country get so scr*w*d up," and one obvious place to begin looking is the Civil War.

I think it's a wonderful service Free Republic offers, can't think of another site like it.
It's one reason I'm an automatic monthly contributor, and if you're not, now would be a great time to start. ;-)

[Jim Robinson]

Thank you very much, Bro. I’m an amateur Civil War buff m’self.

[1010RD]

Spot on. You named the big 3 and they all happened in the “progressive 20th century”, but their ideas were born in 19th century ideas out of Europe.

Had we avoided the 17th Amendment we’d not have the size and scope of government we have today. You also, might have a sales tax on the Internet.

Had we dodged the 16th, we’d not have the size and scope of government we have today.

If the SCOTUS had stood up to FDR (the frustrated fascist whose regime was brimming in commies) on the Commerce Clause we’d not have the size and scope of government we have today.

[JCBreckenridge]

And after Lincoln and the Federal Government declared war on them. If you believe the Federal Government can unilaterally declare war against a state that it doesn’t like then we are going to see the same from Obama.

[Jacquerie]

It’s incredible how much those evil, white, slaveholders in 1787 got right.

[BroJoeK]

JCBrenkenridge: "And after Lincoln and the Federal Government declared war on them."

The only formal declaration of war came from the Confederacy, on May 6, 1861.
The Union never formally declared war because, like the Brits in 1775, they considered it a "rebellion" or "insurrection", etc., which do not get formal declarations of war.

But Congress was always careful to eventually approve and authorize everything Lincoln did as Commander in Chief -- raising forces, directing strategy, etc.

So, if you go back to post #279, you'll find my time-line of significant events leading to war, and the first Confederate battle death on June 10, 1861.
The key point it makes is: every step of the way, from peace in 1860 to war in 1861, Secessionists / Confederacy led while the Union slowly, ineffectively followed.
The Confederacy wanted, provoked, started and declared war.
The Union simply responded as it Constitutionally should have.

JCBreckenridge: "If you believe the Federal Government can unilaterally declare war against a state that it doesn’t like then we are going to see the same from Obama."

There, you see, that's precisely why I say our O-man is the political love-child of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, not Abraham Lincoln.
In 1861 Lincoln never:

• Broke laws in order to defeat the Constitution, but Davis did.
  
• Threatened and assaulted Federal officers, but Davis did.
  
• Seized dozens of major Federal properties, but Davis did.
  
• Launched a military assault on a Federal fort housing US Army troops, but Davis did.
  
• Formally declared war on the United States, but Davis did.
  
• Launched a naval campaign against the United States shipping, but Davis did.
• Sent military forces to invade and pillage non-Confederate states and territories, but Davis did.

So you guys have all backwards: Obama is not the new Lincoln, he's the new Davis.

;-)

[AmericanExceptionalist]

In 1861 Unionists did not support "an overweening federal government", they simply opposed the Slave-holders unilateral, unjustified declarations of secession, and their declaration of war on the United States.

All our current "overweening federal government" began about 100 years ago, with the Progressive era passage of 16th and 17th Amendments.

I agree, in part, with what you stated, above: The "progressive" era really began--well, if not 100 years ago, then about 80 years ago, with the Depressian-era reforms instituted by FDR. (True, Teddy Roosevelt--about 100 years ago--did style himself a "progressive"; but it was his fifth cousin, Franklin, who really set us on a path toward Big Government.)

[central_va]

Shop keepers took Confederate money. The exchange rate in 1863 was 4:1.

[x]

I don't think that it was a "faithless elector" situation. It looks more like the party organization and the Douglas campaign messed up by not providing a single slate of electors. That sort of thing happens when party disunity or third party efforts gum up the workings of the system.

It's interesting that even though Lincoln didn't win a majority of votes in the country, he did win a majority in the states he carried, except for California, Oregon, and that messy situation in New Jersey. If the Democrats and other anti-Republican forces had gotten behind a single candidate and Lincoln had lost those three states but carried the rest, he would still have won the election, and there could have been a situation where a candidate with under 40% of the popular vote won the electoral college and the election.

That would really have been an explosive situation, and you might well have seen fighting in the major cities of the North as well as in the South. A candidate who gets less than 40% in a two-way election is a lot less viable or acceptable than one who wins about 40% in a four-way race.

Somehow, though, I don't see that happening. The results were what they were because people sensed that the divided Democrats (and the old Whigs of the John Bell faction) weren't going to win. A united Democrat or anti-Republican ticket would have looked better and could have carried some of the Lincoln states where the margin was narrow.

I'd suppose that secessionist forces pushed for the party split precisely because it was more likely to bring about a Republican's election and the secession of the Deep South states. Even if we assume they were acting wholly in good faith, it's hard to see which Democrat could have satisfied both the Deep South and the Northern swing states.

The cotton states hated Douglas. An actual Southerner wouldn't have played well in the North, and an Easterner might still have lost to Lincoln in the West (today's Middle West). A win in New York and New Jersey, though, would have thrown the election to the Democrats. But as we've seen in recent elections, the candidates who can win elections don't always exist when parties want them.

Can you imagine that 1860 election today?

There's have to be an issue as divisive as slavery was 150 years ago. A lively three-party race is just barely possible. A four-way race much less so. This may be an upside of our ideological politics. One side or the other is going to win. A third party just might arise, but there's not room for more than that (unless it's something like a regional candidate who senses that the country is already breaking up and wants the most for his own section).