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 previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 901-903 next last
To: 0.E.O
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.

Concurring bump.

The South's embrace of big government dates back to FDR and the New Deal.

801 posted on 03/21/2013 5:36:03 AM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 783 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

Not only do neo blue bellies rewrite 19th century history, they deny current facts. Wow you guys are sick.


802 posted on 03/21/2013 5:40:08 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Your inbred regional bigotry is noted.


803 posted on 03/21/2013 5:44:44 AM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck
Ok, if the following question were submitted randomly to 1000 people how many, as a percent, would answer 'B' IYO?

Which region of the USA is the most conservative?

I dare say 90% would answer 'B'.

804 posted on 03/21/2013 5:50:02 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 803 | View Replies]

To: central_va; rockrr
central_va: "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."

Wrong on all counts, FRiend.

The objective fact is that rural counties, or rural congressional districts, in the South are no more or less conservative than rural areas anywhere else, including such Peoples' Republics as New York and California.

Indeed, as other posters have pointed out here: many conservatives live in big cities, simply too few to control their governments.

More to the point: if you study rankings in Congress from most Conservative to most Liberal, you'll see that as many conservative leaders come from outside the South as not.
For example, in it's most recent rankings the National Journal (strange, but I can't find ACU's rankings) lists the six most conservative Congressmen as two from Arizona, one from Colorado and three from Texas.
The Senate's most conservative member comes from Oklahoma.

So the truth of the matter is, while Southerners can today legitimately claim to be as conservative as anyone else, they cannot seriously pretend to be more conservative than every other region.

Perhaps I can summarize it this way: while the South is welcomed as valuable members of our Conservative team, the South is not automatically the coach, or even, necessarily the quarterback.

;-)

805 posted on 03/21/2013 6:21:18 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost

Ouch! I’m crushed! Lately even cva has been turning in a better effort than you. So sad to see it when someone has lost their edge.

We’re all pulling for ya ;-)


806 posted on 03/21/2013 6:48:15 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 797 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: "Lincoln was a fascist in my opinion. Maybe the first fascist. Union uber alles"

Calling Lincoln "fascist" is just as ludicrous as calling, say, George Washington a "fascist".
Both loved their country, neither was a "fascist".

First of all, the political word "fascism" wasn't even invented until the First World War and Mussolini's party in Italy, so nobody before that could necessarily match Mussolini's definition.

Second, fascists all claimed to be socialists -- i.e., National Socialists -- which in no way describes George Washington or Lincoln.

Third, like Washington's, Lincoln's actions merely defeated a military power that not only provoked and started war against the United States, but in the Confederacy's case, formally declared war on the United States.

So there's nothing "fascist" about defeating a declared enemy of the United States.

807 posted on 03/21/2013 7:22:58 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: central_va

“Lincoln was a fascist in my opinion. Maybe the first fascist.”

I don’t disagree with you on that, but I think modern research is starting to reflect that Lincoln was likely a bi-polar closet queer.


808 posted on 03/21/2013 7:38:40 AM PDT by Jay Redhawk (Zombies are just intelligent, good looking democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: "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."

There is your third time posting "that word", which by common understanding means you have now three-times admitted to losing the argument, and so resort to nothing but name-calling.

But more to your point: in the immortal words of John Adams and Ronald Reagan:

So whatever facts we learned in school, they are still facts, no matter how much we might wish otherwise.
Yes, of course, there may well be more facts, which would change the picture considerably, but those have to be carefully establish.

And your repeated use of "that word" does not change any facts, FRiend. ;-)

central_va: "Some as adults, study original sources and rise above it, some don't."

Sorry, but "original sources" don't support Neo-Confederate revisionists' "history", since it is only a collection of myths intended to salve "wounded pride" in descendants of the losing side.

809 posted on 03/21/2013 7:38:51 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 796 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost; Sloth; rockrr; Bubba Ho-Tep
Lee'sGhost: "Comrade Brojoe couldn’t be more wrong."

Sorry, I let you get away with a ludicrous post trying to equate your views to Madison's.
You couldn't be more wrong.

Lee'sGhost: "Even Federalist Madison opined that there was/is an 'extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of ‘intolerable oppression’; but if the case cannot be made (that such conditions exist), then he rejected secession—as a violation of the Constitution."

Madison's view is exactly my own, and yours exactly the opposite.

Lee'sGhost: "The only way Comrade Brojoe can square with his beliefs is to have us believe that the oppression being brought upon the south was of the tolerable type."

When South Carolina first declared secession, in December 1860, there was not only no "tolerable type" oppression, there was no oppression -- none, zero, zip, nada.
So South Carolina and every other Deep South state declared secession, in Madison's term: "at pleasure", meaning not for some constitutionally justifiable reason.

Then those states immediately committed many acts of rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence" before starting outright war by assaulting Fort Sumter, in April 1861.
On May 6, 1861 the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.

But the first Confederate soldier killed directly in battle with a Union force came on June 10, 1861.

Bottom line: while the Confederacy declared secession "at pleasure" thus violating our Founders Original Intent, the Union delayed responding to the Confederacy's many acts of rebellion or war until all possibility of peace was gone.

810 posted on 03/21/2013 7:57:47 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Better put some ice on that lip, comrade.
LOL!


811 posted on 03/21/2013 8:00:04 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
Lee'sGhost: "Better put some ice on that lip, comrade. LOL!"

I'll take that to mean you have no serious response, and concede my points.

Thanks. ;-)

812 posted on 03/21/2013 8:09:37 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: Jay Redhawk
Jay Redhawk: "I don’t disagree with you on that, but I think modern research is starting to reflect that Lincoln was likely a bi-polar closet queer."

Modern research is a bit high-falutin' a term for it.
"Anti-Lincoln propaganda" might be more accurate.

The fact is that Lincoln was as much a loyal family-man as anyone of his time, or of ours for that matter.

As for allegations of "bi-polar", the evidence shows that when times were worst, Lincoln obviously felt bad.
When events improved, so did Lincoln's outlook.
So that's not "bi-polar", that's being a normal human being.

Finally, the smartest, most experienced man in Lincoln's cabinet was William Seward, Secretary of State.
After an initial rough go, where Seward's views clashed with Lincoln's, Seward reported to friends that Lincoln was "the best among us".

Seward was correct, the rest is nonsense.

813 posted on 03/21/2013 8:25:51 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: Jay Redhawk; Lee'sGhost

I see that the Lost Cause Losers’s 3rd string have arrived to the discussion ;-)


814 posted on 03/21/2013 8:32:30 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 808 | View Replies]

To: central_va; Lee'sGhost; rockrr; Sherman Logan; x
central_va: "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...."

Most posters here concede the point that Reconstruction was not as nice to the South as it should have been, and so there has been virtually no debate on it -- not that I've seen.

But we should note that after Lincoln's assassination, East Tennessean Democrat Andrew Johnson became president, and did his best to protect the South from Radical Republicans' hopes for vengeance.
That was behind their efforts to impeach Johnson and remove him from office.

The question is whether Lincoln woulda, coulda been "kinder and gentler" to the South than Johnson was?
Some historians think so, but maybe the point can be debated?

815 posted on 03/21/2013 8:46:42 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 800 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

LOL. There is not much of a discussion to be made here. It is the same old yanqui propaganda repeated over and over, and used to justify the wayward nature of the beast Lincoln helped create.


816 posted on 03/21/2013 8:59:35 AM PDT by Jay Redhawk (Zombies are just intelligent, good looking democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

The other question is whether, anywhere in world history, there’s ever been a rebellious region that waged war against the government that’s ever been treated as well in defeat as the south was.


817 posted on 03/21/2013 9:06:26 AM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 815 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Again, you are wrong. That is my very serious response and concede only that you are a neo-comm.

Thanks. ;-)


818 posted on 03/21/2013 10:37:17 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 812 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Guess that’s all takes to beat the neo-comm’s turd string.


819 posted on 03/21/2013 10:39:17 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 814 | View Replies]

To: central_va
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?

I don't think anyone in their right mind would include Virginia in that description.

All would say South or Central-West.

Based on the last 80 years or so, the most consistently conservative area of the country starts in Oklahoma, goes north through Kansas and Nebraska and the Dakotas, takes a left and continues through Montana and Idaho, then goes south to Utah and Wyoming. The south are recent converts by comparison.

820 posted on 03/21/2013 10:39:18 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 795 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840 ... 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