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:
No such thing.
Lincoln did not put the USA on the socialist plantation, he just opened up the gates and removed all pretext of limited Fedral power.
“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... then it’s a... what”?
Just what I thought...a neo-Federalist/communist.
Not worth the time. See ya, comrade.
Since the SCOTUS is a part of the federal government, this leads to the absurdity of asking an oppressive government to explicitly find itself at fault in order to be free to leave it.
But what none agree to is unilateral declarations of secession, in Madison's term, "at pleasure" -- meaning without any constitutionally justifying reasons.
I read it. Madison was simply wrong.
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.
The thing about contracts is that you can't use one to somehow involuntarily bind a person or entity that was not a party/signatory to the contract. My next door neighbor and I can't sign a contract requiring *you* to give us both something, or obey our instructions, or whatever. Citizens born today into a country founded two hundred years ago have never had an opportunity to ratify such a contract. Saying that I am bound to a contract that I never had an option to decline is essentially 'might makes right' wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudo-legality.
“But what none agree to is unilateral declarations of secession, in Madison’s term, “at pleasure” — meaning without any constitutionally justifying reasons.”
That really is a bizarre statement. I mean, we know with absolute certainty that at least 11 states believe exactly that.
So you are saying the only people bound by law are those alive when the law was enacted, and everyone born after that date is free to violate those laws?
Saying that I am bound to a contract that I never had an option to decline is essentially 'might makes right' wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudo-legality.
You are only bound by those laws as long as you reside in this country. But there is no law forcing you to stay here.
I'm saying that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The governed (whether they were around at ratification or not) can withdraw their consent at which time the government no longer has any just powers over those people.
You are only bound by those laws as long as you reside in this country. But there is no law forcing you to stay here.
Obstructing secession absolutely constitutes a law forcing me to stay here.
No, it obstructs you from claiming that the place where you are is now someplace else.
That's a moot point. First, because the electoral college chooses the president and Lincoln had a clear majority there. Second, because South Carolina recognized the validity of the electoral college but not that of the popular vote. If you don't even bother to ask people what they think, you can't then claim that they really support you, that is to say, you can't add the votes you didn't let them cast to some grand total of supporters. At least not if you're honest and endeavor to be fair.
Third, if we took the entire free, white, adult, male population of South Carolina and awarded it to your namesake, would it really have made much difference? Lincoln still would have won the electoral college, still would have won the popular vote and come closest to 50%, still would have crushed you by about 2-1.
And fourth, we could remember that a majority of South Carolinians then were Black, enslaved, and disenfranchised. We don't like to bring that up. It sounds leftist or PC. It looks too much like calling racism. And it's too easy to win an argument that way. But at this point I don't think we can ignore that any longer.
And no. It wasn't the same in the North (or even in most of the rest of the South). If you're talking about numbers, rather than some idea of moral superiority or inferiority. If you're talking about numbers no Northern state had a majority population of slaves without freedom or the vote. And you started us talking about numbers.
He invaded the South within a month of taking the white house. He really waited a long time to engage.
The stand-off had been going on for about four months. And Lincoln didn't "go in guns blazing" or "smuggle troops" in. He sent a ship to resupply the fort. That is something any US president who didn't want to be thought feckless or cowardly would have done. Think of all the crises we've been involved in: Berlin, Cuba, Iran. US presidents don't back down before threats if they want the country and history to have any respect for them. And when they shoot at us, most presidents worth their salt have responded in kind. That is what any power going up against us can expect.
And no, you don't get to shoot at us and then hide behind the claim to be Americans too. You don't get to threaten the country and then say, "Hey in 50 years we'll be going to reunion picnics on the old battlegrounds together, and in 100 years our great-grandchildren will play together, and make all this blue and grey stuff look like a child's game, and in 150 years some of us will blame you for everything that went wrong with the country and say that we were right all along." No. If you start shooting, it means war.
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.
Right, because our navy had all those landing craft and LST and helicopters. Because it worked for Napoleon against Britain? You could land a force to take out a fort, but you couldn't do much more than that with the resources and technology available at the time.
And, as has been pointed out by another poster, powerful individuals and groups in the Upper South and the Border States were already decided on secession and were only waiting for a pretext. An the rumor of some massive armada or seaborne invasion (as ridiculous as that would have been in 1860) would have been such a pretext.
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.
1) No. 2) Unlikely but hard to say. 3) Sure, he needed war like a hole in the head.
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.
When you started posting I assumed you were in high school. If I was wrong, I was wrong. Now it looks to me like you're one of those trolls or jokers who tries to hook people into arguments by playing dumb to start with. If I'm wrong about that, then I'm wrong.
It's vain for people to say, "I refuted your argument," but it does look to me like you aren't really responding to my arguments but are just repeating the same things over and over again.
How likely would that scenario be?
What experience did we have in the 1860s of mass seabourne invasions of that sort?
What were the capabilities of the existing technology?
The seven deep south states had no industry or infrastructure to speak of. They only had slaves and cotton, and the slaves in most of those states either did or nearly outnumbered them. They needed to upper south to join with them if they had had any hope of survival.
If the US Garrison of less than 100 men could have held out for a few months longer sitting there in the middle of Charleston Harbor, the Confederacy would have become a joke, even among their own people. At the same time, if that garrison had stayed for more months, Lincoln and the Union would have been viewed as reasoned and measured and looking for solutions, not war, even among the people of the south.
The Confederacy of early 1861 needed a shooting war to move the upper south off the spot. Without them, they had no chance.
By firing on Sumter they forced Lincoln to respond with a call for troops, or he would have been viewed as a joke. As a result they managed to get four of eight of the upper south states, and especially Virginia to go on their side.
What doomed them however, was not getting Kentucky on their side and with it control of the Ohio river. I't really didn't matter how well Lee fought in Virginia, control of the Ohio and Mississippi was the ultimate key to the war, and the Confederates did nothing for four years but lose there.
central_va: "No such thing."
In short, neither our Founders nor the two presidents of that time would agree that 1860-61 secessionists unilateral actions were constitutional or lawful.
Lincoln never opened up anything.
All he did was fulfill his constitutional duty to defeat the military power which first started, then declared war on the United States.
All that other stuff you're so concerned about started 50+ years later, during the "Progressive Era", and was all solidly supported by the Solid Democrat South.
So, you take offense at accurate terms like "Neo-Confederate" or "Pro-Confederate", and you feel they justify your use of spurious insults like "neo-Federalist/communist" and "comrade"?
If you don't like "Neo-Confederate", then what terms to you prefer?
You forget that in 1860, the Supreme Court was under firm control from the Southern Slave Power.
We see that most clearly in the 1857 7-2 Dred Scott decision, all but making slavery legal in every state.
One or two more decisions like that would have made abolitionism illegal everywhere.
So the Supreme Court was Slave-Power friendly, and would have produced whatever results wanted, so long as they were even remotely Constitutional.
Sloth: "I read it. Madison was simply wrong."
Not nearly as wrong as you are, FRiend. ;-)
The US Constitution is a contract, or "compact" in their words, the foundation for Union, and all our laws.
What it says, and what they meant by it are the basis for our entire political system.
Without it, we are nothing, literally.
And Madison, more than any single individual defined what the Founders intended at that time, including on the subject of "disunion", later called "secession".
Here's the point to remember: there is no record of any Founder disagreeing with Madison that unilateral secession (meaning not by mutual consent) "at pleasure" (meaning without some material breech of compact) was unconstitutional.
Sloth: "The thing about contracts is that you can't use one to somehow involuntarily bind a person or entity that was not a party/signatory to the contract."
Founders used the word "compact" instead of "contract", possibly to separate it from such issues as you raise here.
Sloth: "Saying that I am bound to a contract that I never had an option to decline is essentially 'might makes right' wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudo-legality."
I seriously doubt if you've thought through what you posted here, since it implies the US Constitution is not legally binding on anyone who did not vote for the original document, which means all laws based on the Constitution are illegal and there are no laws, etc., etc.
That is not a logically sustainable position.
But if it's any consolation to you, you might remember that all officials of the Federal government (and probably states, but I don't know that for certain), including the military, take a solemn oath to:
This oath is also taken by every new naturalized citizen.
In addition, school children plus many others routinely
There is also the matter of usage, meaning, if you and I agree to something, even if not fully spelled out, and then act as if the agreement is binding, then legally, we have acknowledged that agreement is legally binding on us.
This is, for example, how much business can be done based on "a handshake" of trust that each understands the rules and agrees to follow them.
Nothing spelled out, nothing signed, but still that agreement is legally binding.
So the Constitution's powers to define the United States does not necessarily fade away just because its Founding Generation has long since left the scene.
_____________
The question of treason is distinct from that of slavery; and is the same that it would have been, if free States, instead of slave States, had seceded.
On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.
The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.
No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.
Previous to the war, there were some grounds for saying that --- in theory, at least, if not in practice --- our government was a free one; that it rested on consent. But nothing of that kind can be said now, if the principle on which the war was carried on by the North, is irrevocably established.
If that principle be not the principle of the Constitution, the fact should be known. If it be the principle of the Constitution, the Constitution itself should be at once overthrown.
The above commentary was written by a devout radical ABOLITIONIST Lysander Spooner.
Oh yeah, George Washington would have sided with Lincoln. BWAHAAAAAAAAA!
Lee's Ghost responding: "That really is a bizarre statement.
I mean, we know with absolute certainty that at least 11 states believe exactly that."
Not nearly as "bizarre" as your response, Lee. ;-)
That word "none" above refers to our Founders -- those who wrote and ratified the new US Constitution in 1787 to 1788.
Whenever we talk about Founders' Original Intent, that's who we mean.
Yes, of course, later (some much later) many novel theories got introduced concerning what this or that might have meant, including on the subject of secession.
But the Founders themselves were consistent in saying, or implying, that lawful secession should be by mutual consent or, in effect, some material breech of contract justifying dissolving the Union.
Neither condition existed in 1860, when South Carolina secessionists first began organizing to declare their disunion.
But Sloth, the question here is: what constitutes lawful secession?
I'm pretty sure that even you agree: a bunch of buddies sitting around a camp-fire somewhere drinking, singing songs and loudly declaring their "secession" does not constitute anything legally determinative, right?
Well, our Founders spelled out what they thought constitutes lawful secession: mutual consent and/or a serious breech of contract.
Neither condition existed in November 1860, when South Carolina's secessionists began organizing to declare their disunion.
Sloth: "Obstructing secession absolutely constitutes a law forcing me to stay here."
But there was no "obstructing secession" in 1860 or 1861 -- zero, zip, nada, none.
No Federal force prevented secessionists from holding their conventions and making their declarations -- none, zero.
No Federal actions stopped secessionists from forming their own Confederate government, or raising their own army -- zip, nada.
No Federal responses impeded the Confederate Congress from passing whatsoever laws it wished -- none.
But the Confederacy was just not content to form their own government.
No, what they wanted was to provoke, start and formally declare war on the United States, then send Confederate forces to invade every Union state and territory they could reach.
So, it wasn't secession which caused Civil War, rather it was the Confederacy's starting and declaring war which did.
Yep.
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.