Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ten Neo-Confederate Myths
March 9, 2013 | vanity

Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by 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:

    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.

  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:

    James Madison explained it this way:

  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:


    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:

    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:



TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 1quarterlyfr; 2civilwardebate; abrahamlincoln; bunk; cherrypicking; civilwar; confederacy; decorationday; dixie; godsgravesglyphs; kkk; klan; memorialday; myths; thecivilwar; top10
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 901-903 next last
This list is gleaned from many Civil War related threads. It's in no particular sequence. Tried hard to keep answers short, so sources, links and quotes are available as needed...
1 posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

2 posted on 03/10/2013 8:26:34 AM PDT by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

You’re a brave man. The replies should be interesting. I’ve always thought the Secession declarations were pretty damning.


3 posted on 03/10/2013 8:26:55 AM PDT by I Shall Endure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

4 posted on 03/10/2013 8:30:45 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
I am not interested in re-fighting the first American Civil War.
I am not interested in discussing the slavery of black Americans.

I will say this: States Rights are an important concept. Somewhere along the line, the federal government decided that it was everybody's boss, and that is a shame.

5 posted on 03/10/2013 8:32:21 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The ballot box is a sham. Nothing will change until after the war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

+1


6 posted on 03/10/2013 8:33:09 AM PDT by xkaydet65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I can’t see that this is the entire story. It doesn’t fit with all the things that were going on at the time and this is a bad rap on the South.


7 posted on 03/10/2013 8:33:35 AM PDT by MestaMachine (Sometimes the smartest man in the room is standing in the midst of imbeciles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

lol Did you get up this morning, and just feel like starting a fight?

This thread is gonna be a good one! lol


8 posted on 03/10/2013 8:37:55 AM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Whatever the reasons, there is no doubt that the formation of the Confederacy was once the greatest domestic threat to the well being of the United States. Today the greatest threat is the Democratic Party.


9 posted on 03/10/2013 8:41:28 AM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Talk about being PC, the South wouldn’t allow the presence of abolitionist literature, c.f. the trial of Reuben Crandall, M.D. in the District of Columbia.


10 posted on 03/10/2013 8:43:44 AM PDT by kenavi (Lost the country? Win your state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
It doesn’t fit with all the things that were going on at the time...

How so?

11 posted on 03/10/2013 8:44:33 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Thoughts of the time.


12 posted on 03/10/2013 8:44:34 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (CLICK my name. See the murals before they are painted over! POTEET THEATER in OKC!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Photobucket
13 posted on 03/10/2013 8:46:28 AM PDT by ConradofMontferrat (According to mudslymz, my handle is a HATE CRIME. And I HOPE they don't like it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

we will try to get it right this time....

....actually I look toward the Declaration of Independence(no, you are right, it is not a current legal document) to determine the best way to protect the most important aspects of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

no statement on secession is necessary in the constitution, if you have reached the point to reissue the Declaration of Independence.

MOLON LABE!!


14 posted on 03/10/2013 8:46:44 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Someone please show me the official documents or discussions concerning doing away with slavery that caused the south to succeed. The south did not just leave the union because of slavery.


15 posted on 03/10/2013 8:46:46 AM PDT by Ecliptic (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine
... and this is a bad rap on the South.

While we're used to getting a "bad rap" in the South, it really is quite old and tiresome.

You wouldn't know it by the "ignorant southerner" stereotypes hurled at us, but slavery was abolished close to 150 years ago, and--news flash to the slavery-obsessed!!--black people are actually free in the South, and they're treated quite well here.

16 posted on 03/10/2013 8:46:49 AM PDT by WXRGina (The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

More divide and conquer. People need to learn history. Seriously.


17 posted on 03/10/2013 8:49:05 AM PDT by MestaMachine (Sometimes the smartest man in the room is standing in the midst of imbeciles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: allendale
Whatever the reasons, there is no doubt that the formation of the Confederacy was once the greatest domestic threat to the well being of the United States. Today the greatest threat is the Democratic Party.

I like it...

18 posted on 03/10/2013 8:49:46 AM PDT by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dysart

LOL! Perfect first reply.


19 posted on 03/10/2013 8:51:32 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MestaMachine

Yep, and yep!


20 posted on 03/10/2013 8:52:04 AM PDT by WXRGina (The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 901-903 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson