Skip to comments.Ten Neo-Confederate Myths
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:
Oh goodie... we haven’t had a good ole’ North vs South fight.. uh, discussion for a while now. Making a fresh pot of coffee!
I think the bigger hit came in the progressive era of the 1910’s when senator selection was modified (yes by amendment but it lessened state power) and the tax amendment which reached into the states to the individual as well (I think prior the feds had to rely on the states largesse more). The final straw came with the interstate commerce case in the 1930s when the supremes overstepped in order to placate FDR.
It is silly to refight a bloody war when we are facing the biggest threat to the survival of the nation. Obozo and his band of Marxists are that threat.
One of my ancestors was born in TX during the Republic. Others came to Texas because they were burned out of AL during Reconstruction for resisting abuse of Federal occupation. They voted with their feet and went GTT (Gone to Texas).
Sam Houston refused to take Texas out of the Union during the Civil War and was reidiculed for doing so.
But if you think that blink obediance to the current Rogue Federal Government is the solution, YOU ARE WRONG.
Do you own guns? We do. And they have a purpose higher than for hunting.
Instead of being obsessed with their past, those of African roots should be pouring their time and money into spreading the Gospel in Africa.
That is the ironic truth. Many African-Americans are shunning Northern urban areas and there has been a well documented “reverse migration” return to the South. Also wasn’t too long ago that Northern blacks referred to the South as “back home.” Politically correct tales serve agendas, but rarely correlate with reality.
Yes, that would be excellent.
Placement and cost of the national capitol. The national debt and its ‘fair share’. Among other things. Politics didn’t just start today.
Yankee defenders here used to be so much smarter. I’ve tangled with the best ones and this post is amateur.
I’ve long heard from people who have lived around the U.S. that blacks are treated much better in the South than in the North and other “non-South” states. Hmmmmm...
In this “list”, I don’t see where the UNFAIR TARIFFS or the opening of the flood gates to immigrants in the 1830’s were mentioned.
Oh, they were DISCONNECTED from the issue, right?
I think not. Northern industries found out that immigrants were cheaper than slaves, so they opened up the flood gates and let bunches in. You could pay them pennies a day and let THEM feed themselves, cloth themselves, house themselves, etc.etc.
But only after they loaded your “16 Tons.”
Moronic on its face. How does the Union "do nothing to stop independence" and yet still lay claim to military forts in South Carolina, and defend them with soldiers, months after South Carolina declared independence? This alone shows the list to be farcical at best.
That is funny as hell. Well Played!
I guess for the sake of discussion, maybe it would be better to point out precisely where the OP is wrong. What did he say that is a blatant falsehood?
We are all slaves of the federal apparatus now
Honest Apes legacy is all around us
Cant wait to see it come crashing down
The 2nd American Republic will not allow universal suffrage and exclude territories occupied by marxists and large cities comprised of parasites
Well, let’s not get wrapped up in a blanket of Yankee self-righteousness. We should remember that slavery existed in the North as well as in the South, and that there was still a small number of slaves in New Jersey as late as 1860.
You have to wonder why Yankees hold the South in such comtempt, yet continue to flood down here like locusts, bringing their destructive liberal ways with them and stripping the stores and delis of pastrami.
Oh, well. Southerners will do what we always do when confronted with Yankees who think they know it all. We’ll laugh at you and make fun of you behind your backs.
when the civil war(war between the states, war of northern aggression,etc) was going on, my forebears were either bending spaghetti or boiling potatoes...so I had no horse in that race.
suffice it to say(very simply) ....Slavery Bad....States Rights Good.
I vacillate between whether or not the 1861-1865 debacle was necessary or not. But I know one thing. the current regime is a threat to the Constitution and America.... and it most be blocked or stopped or overcome in whatever way necessary. those who can not see that at this time are either blind, stupid, or brainwashed.
hopefully we can do this by blocking the POS in the whitehouse at every turn, and not resort to a less peaceful method.
Indeed. A good CW debate is a delightful way to start any lazy Sunday.
Yours is the simplest and best reply of all.
I don’t agree with the conclusions of the author in 5,6 or 7. I believe the others are correct for the most part.
Written by a yankee liberal. Full of more poop than a christmas goose.
Since yankee liberals HATE the South so much, then why not just go ahead a not oppose secession?
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.