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:
You mean a history student like you?
Virginia went for Obama by over 6 points in 2008 and by about 4 points in 2012.
Ref: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections
Well not Virginia it seems. So I guess it's the South (except Virginia or Florida and sometimes North Carolina). But the real conservative area are the plains states: Oklahoma up through Kansas and Nebraska and Missouri, the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho. That's the most consistently conservative part of the country over the past 80 years or so.
I fully expect the next secession the south will be joined with the mid western mountain states to form one Confederated country(whatever you want to call it). I also expect Virgina will divide(again).
Excellent point. I agree that in 1861, there was no possibility of a seaborne invasion of South Carolina -- in later years, yes, but in 1861, it was not a possibility. The Army would have had to move over land in 1861.
If Virginia had decided they did not want to supply regiments in response to Lincoln's call, that would have been a separate issue which could have been argued in congress and the courts for years.
But somehow, the neo-confederates claim even allowing the US Army to simply march through Virginia, without any Virginia regiments, on their way to South Carolina was a good enough excuse for secession.
If there had been a slave uprising or foreign invasion in South Carolina, would they still feel so offended if the US Army, even without any Virginia regiments, marched through their state to put that rebellion or invasion down?
It is sophistry to pretend that Lincoln's call for troops caused Virginia's secession. It was simply an excuse used by the radical pro-secessionist side to inflame public opinion, not a justifiable cause in the least.
And again X, I always appreciate your thoughtful posts.
I expect to call it Non-Obamaland and I don't expect Virginia to be part of it.
I also expect Virgina will divide(again).
It must just tear you up that the part that split off the last time is conservative while the part you're living in is a blue state.
West Virginia is not a reliably conservative state in national elections and it's by and large a Democrat state as far as state government goes. For all the bureaucrats, takers and leeches in the DC bubble of NoVa dragging Virginia leftward, they manage to elect a Republican governor time and again. West Virginia does not.
So, I'd be interested in your take on just how West Virginia is more conservative than Virginia.
AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union now existing between the State of Arkansas and the other States united with her under the compact entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America.”
Whereas, in addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention, in resolutions adopted on the 11th of March, A.D. 1861, against the sectional party now in power in Washington City, headed by Abraham Lincoln, he has, in the face of resolutions passed by this convention pledging the State of Arkansas to resist to the last extremity any attempt on the part of such power to coerce any State that had seceded from the old Union, proclaimed to the world that war should be waged against such States until they should be compelled to submit to their rule, and large forces to accomplish this have by this same power been called out, and are now being marshaled to carry out this inhuman design; and to longer submit to such rule, or remain in the old Union of the United States, would be disgraceful and ruinous to the State of Arkansas:
Therefore we, the people of the State of Arkansas, in convention assembled, do hereby declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the “ordinance and acceptance of compact” passed and approved by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas on the 18th day of October, A.D. 1836, whereby it was by said General Assembly ordained that by virtue of the authority vested in said General Assembly by the provisions of the ordinance adopted by the convention of delegates assembled at Little Rock for the purpose of forming a constitution and system of government for said State, the propositions set forth in “An act supplementary to an act entitled `An act for the admission of the State of Arkansas into the Union, and to provide for the due execution of the laws of the United States within the same, and for other purposes,’” were freely accepted, ratified, and irrevocably confirmed, articles of compact and union between the State of Arkansas and the United States, and all other laws and every other law and ordinance, whereby the State of Arkansas became a member of the Federal Union, be, and the same are hereby, in all respects and for every purpose herewith consistent, repealed, abrogated, and fully set aside; and the union now subsisting between the State of Arkansas and the other States, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby forever dissolved.
And we do further hereby declare and ordain, That the State of Arkansas hereby resumes to herself all rights and powers heretofore delegated to the Government of the United States of America; that her citizens are absolved from all allegiance to said Government of the United States, and that she is in full possession and exercise of all the rights and sovereignty which appertain to a free and independent State.
We do further ordain and declare, That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States of America, or of any act or acts of Congress, or treaty, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect, in nowise altered or impaired, and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.
Wow, those folks truly lived the old axiom of “Having their cake and eating it too”. But then, as democrats they would, wouldn’t they?
For anyone curious: I did a word search, and on this thread, the word in bold-underline above has been posted twice, and once quoted from previous posting.
All appearances of "that word" originated from central_va.
Please note, my reluctance to repeat "that word" here is due to the commonly held belief that people who use it thereby acknowledge they've lost the argument.
Of course, possibly I "goaded" central_va by mentioning Germans in both World Wars, but am pretty sure that even central_va would admit: "Germans" no more equated to "that word" than, oh, say, "Southerners" equated to slave-holders, right?
Another way to look at the 2012 election is: results by Congressional District.
We might note that outside of "haughty" New England, there are red districts in almost every state.
And Southern states look no more "red" than many others.
Virginia went for Obama in the last two elections while West Virginia did not. I'd call that a pretty good indicator.
First, it's important to note that when the issue was only secession to protect slavery, the entire Upper South including Arkansas, voted "no".
At that point the Confederacy consisted of just seven Deep South states with a total white population of 2.5 million, and almost as many slaves -- out of 27 million total US whites.
But, second, once war started at Fort Sumter, then the Upper South felt compelled to chose the Confederacy.
Arkansas formally declared secession on May 6, 1861, the same day the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
Adding the Upper South more than doubled the Confederacy's white population.
Third, quoting the Arkansas declaration:
In fact Lincoln's April 15 proclamation said no such thing, even after the Confederate assault on Federal troops in Fort Sumter:
Finally, Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops on April 15 was still fewer than the 100,000 troops the Confederacy already called up on March 6, plus another 400,000 they called on May 9.
Sorry, my mistake, should have addressed you in post #791 above.
If you were to ask 10 random people in the usa which region is the most conservative region in the country, how many of them would say the north? NONE, that’s how many. All would say South or Central-West. You know it to be true because it is true. You are being purposely obdurate. Your credibility is shot.
Union uber alles
There is no argument to lose; you are regurgitating the same reconstructed bull$h1t history we were all ladled in public school. No original thought here on your part. You are showing yourself to be well indoctrinated, just like a good little Nazi.
How indoctrinated does someone get when they think the South is NOT the most conservative region in the USA? How f-ed up is your mind?
You can't even concede on well established current facts how could anyone convince you about 150 ago? You fit the classic definition of a brainwashed person, which is what the public school do to children. Perhaps you went to private school; I have no idea, I am a product of the public school inculcation and the reconstructed BS history they espouse myself. Some as adults, study original sources and rise above it, some don't.
You do. Worse, actually. If not for personal insults you’d have nothing. But that goes along with being nothing.
I was referring to Madison’s standards. Neo-comm standards are irrelevant.
Neo-comms have no credibility to shoot.
I used to think John Wilkes Booth was an idiot for making “Him” a martyr. Having participated in these WBTS threads for 5 years now, I am now questioning my conclusion in that regard....
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.