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:
Again, that doesn't make any sense.
For someone like George Thomas, Winfield Scott, Andrew Johnson, Montgomery Meigs, or your own uncle Robert J. Breckenridge, the union was the union, not "the North" and they were very much a part of it.
You don't get to declare yourself not a part of the country and seize federal property or take umbrage at the fact that federal property in other parts of the country hasn't yet been stolen by you.
Yes, I said "umbrage"! So there!
Fellow-Countrymen:
AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 3 With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. 4 CONTENTS BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD PREVIOUS NEXT Click here to shop the Bartleby Bookstore. Shakespeare · Bible · Saints · Anatomy · Harvard Classics · Lit. History · Quotations · Poetry © 1993–2013 Bartleby.com · [Top 150]
If you set up a rebel alliance opposed to the rest of the country, you can scarcely claim a share of federal property.
The US government was within its rights to hold federal installations until a resolution could be achieved.
The fact that federal property in other parts of the union wasn't seized by the rebels doesn't change that or legitimize the seizure of those properties in any part of the country.
Nope. Federal installations in the North belonged to the federal government. Federal installations in the South belonged to the federal government.
Neither.
I would have said, "by subversion" or "by sedition" or "by incitement".
Lincoln was just trying to be nice.
And where did that get him?
Well, Bro, here's another myth for you.
Mr. Breckenridge, AFAIK the USA has never in its history charged a duty on any export, much less massive duties on only Southern exports in the 1850s.
What you are confused about is the not entirely unjustified claim by southerners that the South paid a disproportionate amount (indirectly) of the tariffs paid when goods were imported.
This was because the South, by its own choice, had little industry and more agriculture. But the IA farmer paid exactly the same duty when he bought English goods as the AL plantation owner. There was no discriminatory taxation.
Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."
Let's see, there's Germany, there's Japan, and who else?
Oh, yeh, that's right, Jefferson Davis.
Isn't it amazing?
Let's see, number three would be Japan in WWII.
Number two would be Germany in World Wars One and Two.
And the number one top killer of Americans would be?
Oh, yeh, that's right, Jefferson Davis.
Isn't it amazing?
central_va: "You've got to be kidding me.
Read the Stupid Goon's second inaugural.
He so much admits he turned down peace delegations.
The audacious buffoon. Sic Semper Tyrannis."
But the Confederacy made no approaches to Congress to approve secession or resolve its issues.
It was true the first time I posted it. Still true.
You may remember the names of Senator John C. Calhoun, from South Carolina, and President Andrew Jackson, born in the Carolinas, lived in Tennessee?
Both were slave owners.
Well, as it happens, Jackson was president, Calhoun was Vice President, and the Southern Slave Power ruled Congress in 1830 when tariffs hit the highest level they had ever been, or ever would be: 35%.
After 1830, South Carolina's Calhoun decided high tariffs weren't such a good idea after-all, and so tariffs were slowly reduced.
By 1840, they were all the way down to 13%, then bumped up and down depending on politics of the day -- 23% in 1850, back to 15% in 1860.
That figure of 15% in 1860 is the same level of tariffs under President George Washington, in 1792.
So tariffs were always a political issue, but with the Southern Slave Power controlling Congress and the Presidency, tariffs only really got high (i.e., 35% in 1830), when the Slave Power wanted them to.
So everything you've heard about tariffs being this great problem forcing the South to secede is just bogus, FRiend.
JCBreckenridge: "They made plenty of approaches and Lincoln ignored them all."
But the Confederacy made no approaches to Congress to approve secession or resolve its issues.
It was true the first time I posted it. Still true.
The tariff thing as a reason for the war comes about from people conflating 1830 with 1860.
As you point out very well, these issues changed over time and in 1860 just weren’t a factor.
It is also relevant that the great promoter of protective tariffs was Henry Clay, a southerner and major slaveowner.
What matters is what the tariffs were high on - and what the tariffs were not.
Hence war.
“hold federal installations until a resolution could be achieved.”
Then why didn’t Lincoln negotiate?
Then why is the Union permitted to steal property from teh confederates?
Neither outgoing Democrat President Buchanan nor incoming Republican President Lincoln ever met directly with Confederate emissaries.
Neither formally recognized the Confederacy or agreed to negotiate with it.
At the same time, neither used military force to stop secessionists from forming their Confederacy.
Lincoln clearly gave his view of the subject in his FIRST Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
"The people" = Congress.
How'd that work out for y'all?
What was the tariff on Southern exports that you spoke of?
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.