Ten Neo-Confederate Myths

March 9, 2013 | vanity

[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:

   "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."

   It goes on to complain that the Federal Government is not enforcing its own Fugitive Slave laws, saying that anti-slavery feeling:

   "has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union..."

   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:

   "...the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression..."

   James Madison explained it this way:

   "It has been too much the case in expounding the Constitution of the U. S. that its meaning has been sought not in its peculiar and unprecedented modifications of Power; but by viewing it, some through the medium of a simple Govt. others thro' that of a mere League of Govts.
   It is neither the one nor the other; but essentially different from both....

   "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."

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:
   

   • Maryland
   • Pennsylvania
   • Ohio
   • Indiana
   • Kentucky
   • Missouri
   • Kansas
   • Oklahoma
   • New Mexico
   • Arizona
   
   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:

   "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort...
   The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason..."

   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:

• "Since Franklin Roosevelt is President Obama's political daddy, then Lincoln is Obama's political grandpa."

  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:

  • Democrats
    
  • Like all Democrats, committed to using government power to benefit selected classes of voters, by laws requiring others to provide uncompensated services (Obama's taxes & regulations, Davis' slavery).
    
  • Pitted different groups of Americans against each other for their own political gain (whites vs blacks, rich vs poor & on & on, it never ends).
    
  • Cared nothing for the US Constitution, indeed wanted to rewrite it to insert "positive rights" (Obama's right to government provided free stuff, Davis' right to own human "property").
    
  • Yes, it's a stretch, but ominous: willing to wage war on American citizens (Obama's drones).

[CodeToad]

When I was young I had the fortune of knowing my great grandparents who could recall stories of their parents and grandparents having lived through the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/The Stupid War. As southerners, they believed that slavery was a great evil that no good could come from and that no matter how it ended it would end with a large population displaced from their original lands and no place to really call home. They felt that the generations before them screwed them over by keeping slavery alive. They were never rich enough to own a slave and believed slavery should never have started. But as we constantly point out, white men didn’t start it, a black man did and against all laws of the time. No one wanted slavery in the 1600’s but they got it against their convictions against slavery and through a court order.

So, yes, we should have worked the fields ourselves as we both denied ourselves an income and we have this huge population that even 150 years after slavery still refuses to assimilate into this country.

[BroJoeK]

wfu_deacons: "Virginia’s population in 1860 was 1,596,318 and the number of slaveholders was 52,128, that works out to about 3.2%."

You forget that all Virginians, just like everyone else, live in families, of which in 1860 there were 201,523.
Of those, 52,128 owned slaves which is 25.9%.

This circa 25% was

• roughly the same as other Upper South states of North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas, was
• far more than circa 10% in Border States like Missouri and Maryland, but
• far fewer than 50% of families owning slaves in Deep South states like South Carolina and Mississippi.

wfu_deacons: "You comments about the South’s invasion of Union territory is like comparing a camp fire to Dresden."

No, I'd say it's like comparing Pearl Harbor to Hiroshima.
One started the war, the other ended it.

[miliantnutcase]

A bit off topic, have you seen the movie Lincoln yet? What are your thoughts? I don’t know if it’s worth seeing since the liberal love fest for it.

[wfu_deacons]

The statistics I presented were correct as stated. You can present your statistics anyway you like.

[DustyMoment]

The reason is simple: the dollar value of slaves had increased steadily all during the 1800s, and by 1860 represented nearly half of all Southern wealth, and about 20% of all wealth in the United States.

An asset that holds a value is not the same as liquid wealth. Assume that a wealthy plantation owner has 400 slaves at the outbreak of the Civil War. When the fighting was over, the dead were buried, the dust had settled and the carpetbaggers moved in, the presumed value of those 400 slaves had plummeted from their pre-war level and the plantation owner had nothing to show for all of the assessed value of his former slaves. Today, we all recognize that Donald Trump is wealthy. But the majority of his wealth is tied up in assets such as real estate. If Trump Tower (for example) goes up in flames or collapses due to natural causes, is his wealth the same, or is it diminshed as the result of the loss of the Trump Tower? One is only really wealthy when they can capitalize on an asset as opposed to having the asset but losing it due to any number of causes. A plantation owner may have been "wealthy" prior to the Civil War when his wealth was comprised of both liquid and non-liquid assets. However, afterward, when he was forced to release much of the non-liquid asets (the slaves), how much wealth did he really have? I think the estimated value of the slaves in general, particularly as it applies in the years prior to 1860, is a red herring.

At the time of the US Civil War, between 25% and 50% of all northerners (depending on which state) lived on small subsistence farms, with substantially lower standards of living than a typical Deep-South farmer. Northerners who lived in cities and worked in factories also endured living conditions certainly no better than average white Southerners.

Again, this is a misdirection. 25 - 50% is not the same as upwards of ~80% in the south. The reason that so many northern cities, today, are so large is because the factories attracted those people who couldn't or didn't want to farm. In addition, most major transportation routes were in the north. Trains were used to move both raw and manufactured goods across the northern tier of states whereas most agricultutal goods from the south were move by sailing ship, riverboat or river barge.

Whoever told you that was seriously pulling your leg, FRiend. There were no Federal price controls in the 1850s, and any state rules were certainly intended to benefit the ruling slave-holders.

My professor, a PHD in an Economic History class. In addition, the economies of both the north and the south were such that an increase in the cost of agricultural products would have been both inflationary and ill-advised. Given the economics of the period, agricultural products were priced at a level the market would bear. Northern cities always had the option of purchasing agricultural produce from Canada or Europe, an option that was less available to the south due to the costs involved.

All Founders' documents, without exception, treat their new Union as a "compact" like a good marriage, to be "perpetual", "more perfect" and dissolved only under conditions of mutual consent, or from "oppression" and "usurpations" amounting to the same thing. None wrote that secession "at pleasure" (meaning for no material reason) was acceptable.

Again, not true. Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation under which the newly formed U.S. of A. operated for ~the first 10 years after the Revolutionary War, the Founders were particularly sensitive to the issue of a functional government that would work FOR the people without becoming either a slave of the people or a tyrant over the people. The Founders knew too well the ills of a monarchy such as that found in western Europe of the day. As they began to create the Constitution, the assembled group knew only too well of the need to establish and maintain a careful balance, not only between the branches of government, but between the government and those who consented to be governed. Thus, the balance of power was woven throughout the articles of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights. When the question of secession was initially broached, several of the Founders acknowledged that secession by the states was always implied as part of the balance of power and they mentioned it in the Federalist Papers.

But only as a result of mutual consent or some material breach of contract like "oppression" and "usurpation", neither of which happened in 1860.

From the southern perspective, that breach of contract and usurpation was exactly what Lincoln was doing when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation. The grounds were met to justify the south's secession.

The Union slowly geared up for war in 1861 because the Confederacy provoked, then started and formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861.

At the time the Confederates fired on Ft. Sumter, South Carolina had seceeded and joined the Confederacy. They asked the fort's commander to abandon ALL federal facilities in Charleston Harbor, which he refused to do. Given that SC no longer had any ties to the Union of the United States, the request was proper and appropriate. When the Union army refused to abandon its facilities, the Confederate army fired on them, particularly after a stealth effort by Lincoln to re-supply the fort using a merchant cargo ship.

While I am enjoying this discussion, we are clearly not going to change each other's opinions. I believe that there are two sides to the story and both sides believed that they had justification for the actions they took. The result is a chapter in American history that will always be embroiled in controversy because the very nature of the conflict pitted us against each other, just as it continues to do today.

[wardaddy]

Fostered by the same weak idiots who’ve. Made the Israelites. Negroid in this new series The Bible

The politically correct ruin all they touch

[BroJoeK]

Triple: "Virginia alone must and retained the right to determine if the conditions of its ratification are broken."

Sure, I understand your argument, and it might carry some weight, except...

• In 1860, secession by itself did not cause war, and
• The Confederacy had already formally declared war on the United States when Virginia's voters ratified secession.

So, of all eleven Confederate states, only Virginia and Tennessee voters finally approved secession after the Confederacy's declaration of war.

Therefore, Virginia and Tennessee voters exercised both their "right to secede" and their "right to declare war on the United States" with the same amazing votes!

Well, at least they knew what they were getting, right?

[BroJoeK]

miliantnutcase: "A bit off topic, have you seen the movie Lincoln yet?
What are your thoughts?
I don’t know if it’s worth seeing since the liberal love fest for it."

You know, whatever liberals touch, they turn into yet another liberal mish-mash, with lots of projections of today's ideas back to Lincoln's time.

But the movie was good, I liked it -- about two thirds of it felt real, the rest, the liberal mish-mash you'd just have to grin and bear it.

[CatherineofAragon]

Great....I’ve DVRd the series, and I haven’t seen that. It figures.

[BroJoeK]

wfu_deacons: "The statistics I presented were correct as stated.
You can present your statistics anyway you like."

No they're not!
Your numbers are false and misleading because they assume that wives, children and other household members of slave-owners are not part of the same family, or somehow don't enjoy the benefits of slave-owning wealth.

It's utterly misleading to say, as you do, that only 3.2% of Virginians owned slaves, when fully 25% of Virginians lived in slave-owning homes.

[Ditto]

In this “list”, I don’t see where the UNFAIR TARIFFS... were mentioned.

The Tariff rate in 1860 was at 15%... among the lowest ever in US history to that point. And the Southern Democrats had controlled both houses of congress for the previous 20 years plus the White house. They all voted for that tariffe rate.

Are you claiming that the Southerners enacted tariffs on themselves that they thought were UNFAIR?

Hummm?

[Have Ruck - Will Travel]

Hmm, the trash they git taught in them Yankee “schools”. Oh well, bless their hearts, I guess revisionist history is the only kind they know.

[AuntB]

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience”
The one and only....Mark Twin

;<)

[AuntB]

“Should’ve picked your own damned cotton, now look at what we have to deal with because of their greed.”

The North DEMANDED that cheap cotton! Maybe the North should have grown THEIR own! Just like today...the East coast imposes their will on the West, takes our land, makes our laws and then calls us names. Some crap never changes.

[Ditto]

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.

As a 4th generation descendant of a couple of those 'pennys a day' immigrants I just have to wonder why the Slave Owners weren't as intelligent as those nasty bloodthirsty Northern industrialists...

I also wonder why those first in my relationship who came here sent back to the old country to bring their families here with them to work in those damn sweatshops for pennies, and how the hell my G-G grandfather who came here from Europe managed to build a brand new house that stayed in our family for 4 generations. It's amazing they could do all that on 'pennies a day.'

All the slaveholders had to do was free their slaves and pay them 'pennies.' Seems to be a 'no-brainer' to me. Ya... you give up a few things like you can't sell their kids or spouses off for a nice profit if you need some ready cash. And your workers can just pickup and leave you for a better deal if they want, but hell, if you are only paying them pennies a day... what's the big deal?

We could have avoided the Civil War and not be faced with the permanent black entitlement underclass we have today.

Must be some reason why those wonderful Southern gentlemen didn't do that. Let me guess... it was Lincoln's fault? Or maybe Bush's' fault.

< /s (major league) >

[AuntB]

“It’s utterly misleading to say, as you do, that only 3.2% of Virginians owned slaves, when fully 25% of Virginians lived in slave-owning homes. “

And there is the rub. ‘fully 25% of Virginians lived in slave owing homes’

25%....and yet the left and some here who call themselves conservatives want to hang the entire South and all their descendants, when only 25% had ANYTHING to do with slavery. I have several ‘Southern’ relatives who volunteered and died fighting for the Union, who never owned a slave. I was pretty smug about my ancestors being ‘slave free’ for 50 years, then I found out my Cherokee relatives did indeed own slaves and fought for the Confederacy.

Some of you ‘Northerners’ are wearing out your broad brush. If your family has been in this country for more than a few generations, I could find a ‘Trailer trash Southerner in YOUR backgrounds, too! Maybe that’s the problem, are you proud Eastern/Northerners new comers with NO sweat equity in this game? Just askin’....

[CodeToad]

“when fully 25% of Virginians lived in slave-owning homes. “

What’s the source of that 25% figure? That is 1 in 4 lived in a home and since a home had at least 4 people in a home that would suggest more than 25% of homes had slaves. Slaves were not cheap nor were they for simple house chores. I’d love to see the census on slaves in homes for 1865.

[BroJoeK]

DustyMoment: "I think the estimated value of the slaves in general, particularly as it applies in the years prior to 1860, is a red herring."

Then you're not seeing the point.
I used the term "ante-bellum", would you rather I say "before 1860" instead?
The point is: before 1860, your average Southern farmer, particularly in the Deep South, was better off than his northern cousins, because of the benefits of slave-owning.

Slaves produced wealth in at least two ways: first by growing cash crops (i.e., cotton) more effectively than any other farming method, and second by being marketable as assets themselves.
And just as you might take out a home-equity loan on your house today, expecting it to increase in value, so slave-owners could borrow money on the increasing values of their slaves.

That's what made the South prosperous, and it's why they could not tolerate any discussion of subjects like abolition.

DustyMoment: "Again, this is a misdirection. 25 - 50% is not the same as upwards of ~80% in the south."

Yes, your figure of 80% applies in 1860, but only to Mississippi, while in Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri the number was closer to 50%, same as, say, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnisota.
The number of farmers in Border States like Maryland and Delaware (25%) compare to those in Northern states like Illinois, Indiana and Ohio.

DustyMoment: "In addition, most major transportation routes were in the north.
Trains were used to move both raw and manufactured goods across the northern tier of states whereas most agricultutal goods from the south were move by sailing ship, riverboat or river barge."

It's wrong to think of the South as technologically backward in 1860.
Yes, there were fewer miles to train track than northern states, but a larger percentage of southerners living within reasonable commute to to them, according to some studies.
There was also serious manufacturing going on in Upper South and Border States -- Maryland and Tennessee most notably.

Of course, I'm not trying to exaggerate things, just provide perspective.
For example, Pennsylvania alone had more manufacturing than all Confederate states combined.
But the average Mississippi white family lived more comfortably than their relations in Pennsylvania.

So Southerners in 1860 knew they were well off, and knew the source of their wealth.
What they did not realize was how weak they would be in time of war.
And that lead them to make very foolish mis-judgments.

DustyMoment: "Given the economics of the period, agricultural products were priced at a level the market would bear."

And that is the point to remember, the rest of it is irrelevant or nonsense.

DustyMoment: "When the question of secession was initially broached, several of the Founders acknowledged that secession by the states was always implied as part of the balance of power and they mentioned it in the Federalist Papers."

In fact, the Founders never condoned secession "at pleasure", meaning without mutual consent or some serious material breach of contract like "oppression", "injury" or "usurpations."
But that is exactly what secessionists did do, beginning in 1860 they declared secession "at pleasure", with no efforts to achieve mutual consent or prove some constitutional breach of contract.

DustyMoment: "From the southern perspective, that breach of contract and usurpation was exactly what Lincoln was doing when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
The grounds were met to justify the south's secession."

Surely you've just temporarily "forgotten" that Lincoln was elected in November 1860 on a Republican platform which said nothing about emancipating slaves.
Within days Deep South slave-holders began the process to declare secession, and first did so on December 20, 1860.
That was 10 weeks before Lincoln's inauguration, must less his even thinking about emancipating anyone.

The Confederacy declared war on the United States on May 6, 1861, and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation first issued 16 months later, on September 22, 1862.

So, I'm certain you remember now, that emancipating slaves in 1862 had nothing to do with declarations of secession in 1860, right?

DustyMoment: "When the Union army refused to abandon its facilities, the Confederate army fired on them, particularly after a stealth effort by Lincoln to re-supply the fort using a merchant cargo ship."

First of all, remember that Brits occupied forts in the US northwest territory for 30 years between the end of the Revolution and the War of 1812.
These British forts in US territory were never considered a cassus belli, US presidents never made demands or threats against them, never assaulted them.

What they did do was add those forts into negotiations for the 1812 War, 30 years later.

Second, any seizures of Federal property were acts of rebellion, insurrection and war against the United States.

Third, there was no "stealth effort by Lincoln" to resupply Fort Sumter because Lincoln officially notified South Carolina Governor Pickens it was coming.
But Pickens urged Jefferson Davis not to wait, and Davis started the Civil War before Lincoln's resupply arrived.

DustyMoment: "While I am enjoying this discussion, we are clearly not going to change each other's opinions."

But it's not your opinions which worry me nearly so much as the mis-information on which they are based.
That's what I'm hoping to help with... ;-)

[BroJoeK]

CodeToad: "What’s the source of that 25% figure?"

The source is the 1860 census, as summarized here.

In the case of Virginia, it says the state's white population lived in 201,523 families, of whom 52,128 or 26% owned slaves.

The chart shows numbers for other slave-holding states, which range from 3% of white families owning slaves in Delaware to 49% in Mississippi.

[CodeToad]

24% is an amazing figure. It is just hard to believe. Not that you didn;t provide a source, just that, wow, 1 in 4.