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:
Why not start by working to end slavery in African countries where it's still practiced, as opposed to complaining about its practice a century and a half ago in the US?
All true, but the issue is not moral righteousness, the issue is over who is to blame for the civil war. It is a myth that Lincoln wanted to end slavery in existing slave states. The worst that his government did was limit the spread of slavery via the Missouri compromise and his government's failure to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act (why do state's rights suddenly go out the window there)?
The proximate (though not necessarily ultimate or historical cause) for secession was not Lincoln imposing his will on slave states, but the slave state's desire to impose their will and laws on the rest of the nation, including free states.
I've seen no confirmed records of "THOUSANDS" of civilians killed anywhere, and only one report of hundreds of civilians killed: in Confederate Captain William Quantrill's raid into Lawrence, Kansas in August, 1863.
I've seen no reports of any similar Civil War Union army massacre of civilians.
I'd say: Paid in Full by Appomatox, in April 1865,
Paid with Interest in the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments,
Paid with penalties in LB Johnson's "Great Society"
Paid with usurious interest on the penalties in today's run-amuck, out-of-control, spend-like-no-tomorrow, Federal Government.
;-)
Very interesting post, thanks.
I have read your posts and you are quite unfamiliar with the monetary aspect of the Civil War.
The trade on the Mississippi was issue #1.
That's a little confusing. I'm pretty sure Southerners (or any Americans) back a century ago didn't "get past" anything racial.
Southerners get along fine with Southern blacks— so put that into the formula.
I guess "Southerners" means "Southern Whites." And that is the "formula." The other side of the coin is that young White and Black Northerners may get along with each other better than Southerners are willing to admit and they just might feel as out of place in a Southern city (or rural community) as Southerners, Black or White, would feel in a Northern city. At least many of the younger African-Americans that I've met didn't feel like Dixie was "home." A few did. Others didn't.
What gets left out, though, is that Harvard and Southie dislike each other more than most Northerners and Southerners do. That conflict has been going on even longer than the piddling Civil War has (unless the Civil War was simply the same conflict in another guise). Complaining that Harvard and Yale look down on you while looking down yourself on Southie, or Phillie, or Cleveland, or Brooklyn, or Bridgeport -- is playing a double game. Maybe it's better to admit that the old days of rich, arrogant Northerners and poor, victimized Southerners are gone for good.
Sense? You?
I want his take, but my impression of his position is that Virginia *does* have the unilateral right to secede, *IF* the rights of its citizens are being oppressed by the federal government. (He also says that the Fedgov was *not* oppressing citizens rights when Virginia Seceded.)
Waiting...
I don't know where you got that idea.
We gave up on fighting each other years ago. Maybe you should consider it today..."
First, thanks so much for you kind words, which I will take more sincerely than you intended. ;-)
Second, over the years there have been many, many Civil War related threads, where our Pro-Confederates have had plenty to say about it.
This thread merely attempts to summarize what I've seen as their most common myths.
Maybe we can put those to bed right here, FRiend?
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
You could have fooled me!
Nobody was tried for treason after the war, not even Jeff Davis who was being incarcerated and was asking for a trial.
The actual rifts started at the confluence of the Ohio and Tennessee. Tolls were being exacted on industry from the Great Lakes.
These tolls were mostly to stop Lincoln from exercising a “National” tax on products where the southern states felt no qualification for it.
ON April 4, 1861 the Virginia secession convention voted not to secede. The convention did not vote to secede until April 17, 1861 after Lincoln called for troops to invade the South. Virginia attempted to resolve the conflict by sending several delegations to Washington but in the end could not participate in the Unconstitutional invasion of the South.
Virginia’s population in 1860 was 1,596,318 and the number of slaveholders was 52,128, that works out to about 3.2%. The free population was 1,105,453 (not just white), so that works out to 4.7%-— my previous post was correct. Note, Virginia had more slaves that any other Southern state and more free blacks than any state with the exception of Maryland.
http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/php/state.php
You comments about the South’s invasion of Union territory is like comparing a camp fire to Dresden.
I wrote:
“I think your view that the war was only about slavery is as incorrect as the war had nothing to do with slavery.”
I did not write:
“I think your view that the war was only about slavery is incorrect, as the war had nothing to do with slavery.”
The money guys from both sides cost us 650,000 folks and severe destruction. It was a tax that started it. Make no mistake that slavery became an issue but it wasn’t the kindling that started the fire.
Who decides whether they are being oppressed?
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.