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:
The Constitution defines "treason against the United States" as "...levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies..."
It does not say: those who commit treason are thereby no longer citizens.
So all presidents since George Washington enforced laws against treason, with or without prior Congressional approval.
We might also note that Confederate President Davis did not wait for Confederate Congress to formally declare war before starting war against United States Army troops in Fort Sumter.
JCBreckenridge: "What gave Lincoln the authority to fire on Fort Sumter?"
What are you talking about?
Lincoln didn't "fire on Fort Sumter".
That was Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
JCBreckenridge: "What gave Lincoln the authority to mobilize troops to fire on American citizens?
What gave him the authority to cross the Virginia border and invade?"
Might I suggest you study the Militia Act 1792 for starters?
Then please remember that Lincoln did not "cross the Virginia border" until after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, and Virginia formally joined the Confederacy's war.
Again, I'll refer you to the Militia Act of 1792 for starters.
“levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies”
Which South Carolina and the Confederacy did not do. Did the Confederacy invade the North? No.
Again, redo the math. There is simply no way for the democrats to win (or for that matter, any of them), without PA, OH, and NYC. 85 EC votes right there, and don’t forget, that SC was excluded at -8, etc.
The South understood the repercussions of this split and understood that there simply were not enough southern votes to carry the presidency post 1860.
That is one of the reasons they split. To govern themselves, which would not happen in the US after 1860 had they remained.
He didn't. Hood didn't marry until 1868. His wife and child died in a yellow fever epidemic in 1879, a few days before Hood died of the same disease.
That's like saying "Roosevelt invaded. Germany defended their own sovereignty." That may be factually true but it ignores the fact that if Germany hadn't been the aggressor then nobody would have had a reason to invade.
The day after the Virginia legislature voted for secession, but before the popular referendum, the governor called up the militia and sent them to take the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry. The U.S. forces there tried to destroy the equipment but most of it was saved, seized, and sent down to Richmond for use by the Confederacy. That was a month or more before Lincoln sent troops into Alexandria.
Which loyal state was that?
I guess I misenturperted J.S. Mosbys comment. My mistake. I thought J.s. meant during the war. I do recall that Hood had been injured badly at Gettysburg and like most injuries in those days dogded him for the rest of his life.
Sometimes when we 'debate' these issues here, we can tend to forget what the general state of life was in those times. It was not as 'easy' as today.
Fort Sumter was firmly in Confederate hands well before they made their secession vote and over a month before the "popular" referendum was taken.
Be honest about it if you are really a student of history. Jefferson Davis had this self declared 'Confederacy' of seven small states from February until April. None of the upper south slaves states where the real power and population existed had jumped to his side, especially the most powerful slave state of Virginia.
Davis needed a 'shooting war' to get those states to join him or his Southern Confederacy would have collapsed under it's own ideology and inability to even deliver the mail, yet alone manage a nation.
That is why he ordered to firing on Sumter. He needed the upper south badly and without them, the entire secession gamble would have collapsed.
If he had allowed the resupply ships in, and the stand off at Charleston harbor had dragged on for more months he would have shown that his Confederacy was a toothless power and the Upper South would have never joined with him. Even rabid secessionists in the deep south would have questioned why they were doing what they did.
The Confederacy needed the war to get the upper south, especially Virginia to join the Confederacy to have any chance of surviving.
Unfortunately, his plan worked.
Excellent point and one of the most outlandish myths from the Lost Cause side.
I agree with adding it to the list.
“Lucky Thirteen” LOL
What the hell history books are you reading????
Dang good points.
Too few seem to realize that the whole issue from the establishment of the CSA to Sumter was about who would gain control of the remaining 8 slave states.
If the USA retained them all, the CSA was doomed to a short life. If the CSA gained them all, the USA would be unable to reestablish the Union. Lincoln himself recognized this publicly.
In actual fact, what happened was that the Upper South states split down the middle, resulting in a long and bloody war.
In the early months of 1861, those 7 deep south states did not invade the "North" however you care to define the "North". But they did declare war on the United States (Northern States????) but even that was not what what started the shooting.
Those seven small states with the full support of their elected leaders did attack the United States in numerous instances at forts, arsenals, mints, post offices, custom offices and and any Federal institutions in their states... you name it as far as Federal installations go. They took up arms and took those facilities by force of arms.
It was not an attack of one or several states upon another. It was an attack by individual states on all the other states in the Union who had equal rights to those same facilities that had been taken by force of arms.
That is Insurrection and Rebellion. I can't begin to think of any other name for it.
We can argue about justifications for there actions for the rest of our lives, but please don't somehow pretend it was a lawful act and a president, any president, was unjustified or not authorized and even mandated under his oath of office to resist it. That idea is simply beyond ridiculous.
I never understood why so many Lost Causers like to call themselves 'Rebels' but refuse to acknowledge what happened then was a Rebellion.
"Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?"I think Lincoln answered that question as best he could 150 years ago.
--- A. Lincoln, 1861
But that is a question we need to be asking more and more today.
Absolutely true, and the lunch pin of it all was Kentucky just as a matter of geography because of it's command along the Ohio river.
Lincoln said something once along the lines that he hoped God was on his side, but he absolutely needed Kentucky on his side. ;~))
If Kentucky had gone over to the Confederate side, I don't think the Union would have survived and only God knows what the last 150 years here on this Continent and the rest of the world would have become.
I can't imagine it would have been pleasant.
Nonsense. The States freely entered the Union, they could freely leave if they wish. South Carolina voted to leave peacefully, as did the rest of the 7, but Lincoln and the North would not accept peaceful secession - which was constitutional. Then, when Lincoln attempted to conscript Virgianians to fight against the rest of the south - only then did Virginia say no. Virginia also voted to leave the Union - well within their rights to do so. Lincoln, again refused to accept this, and invaded Virginia.
The result what we have now - a massive federal government that constantly infringes on the constutitional rights of American citizens. Well played, Lincoln, well played.
Virginia?
“Looks to me like Virginia declared war on the United States before and Union troops set foot on Virginia soil.”
Then why didn’t the Confederacy march on Washinton?
“But they did declare war on the United States”
Which is why they invaded the North? Oh wait, no, they didn’t they defended themselves and the sovereignty of their state.
Again - the union was a voluntary compact of 13 colonies, freely entered, and freely they could leave. Lincoln opposed this which is why he invaded the south - arguing that the states did not have this right. He won - but lets not leave this out - through force of arms.
Harper’s Ferry is in Virginia.
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.