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:
Ha! Well, I don't know how many of these to take seriously.
Some sound like our Southern FRiends are just pulling st*ff out of their... posteriors to throw at us.
;-)
How’d it work out for you? Enjoying King Obama the First?
Not at all. But what does he have to do with anything?
Since the Southern Slave Power in Congress and the Presidency set tariff rates however they wanted them, tariffs were not the reason for secession.
Protecting slavery was the reason.
I thought you were going to go out and find that wondrous law which amazingly says that just because you and your buddies get together and declare your "secession", suddenly, magically, by the power invested in WHO, all Federal property suddenly becomes yours.
That's such an amazing law, I can't understand why nobody's ever found it. LOL ;-)
Ouch! That’s gonna leave a mark ;-)
It’s called the constitution. :)
JCBreckenridge: "It’s called the constitution. :)"
Well then, FRiend, don't hold back!
Tell us the Article and Section where all that is spelled out.
I've never seen it, but maybe I missed something?
;-)
I know, cv hates when I do that, but I only do it when he starts getting nasty with me.
;-)
JCBreckenridge post #597: "Then why is the Union permitted to steal property from teh confederates?"
The only stealing that went on before May 6, 1861 was secessionist forces stealing dozens of Federal properties (forts, armories, arsenals, ships, mints, etc.) and threatening Union officials, all over the Confederacy.
But once the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States (May 6, 1861), then US forces began (May 23) to liberate Confederate human "contraband property" -- which (who) escaped into Union protection in ever increasing numbers.
You're right, I don't understand it.
In all those years I lived in Germany, only once met a German with a nostalgia for the old reich, and even he didn't seem to hold a grudge against Americans.
But I do know how Southern Appalachian mountain people feel about their low-lander and flat-lander cousins -- they don't like the (cv's term) "haughty bastards".
I doubt if many hillbillies want to shoot at flat-landers, but they sure don't want to be bullied by the Southern equivalent of (another poster's term) "Yankee self-righteousness."
So, while cv and others here get all riled up about some supposed New England cultural pretentiousness, they don't themselves do so much to "win friends and influence people" in their own back yards, it seems.
;-)
Nuff said. You hate the United States. I'm sure there are better places on the net where you could hang out with like minded prople. But FreeRepublic is not that place.
The same clauses that permitted the 13 colonies themselves to rebel from Britain. If the British treated the colonies like Lincoln treated the south, we’d all be British today.
The forts of the north were not their exclusive property to dispose of as they saw fit.
So you admit that the Southern actions were a rebellion?
If the British treated the colonies like Lincoln treated the south, we’d all be British today.
By that do you mean that in 1776 the Colonists fell strongly enough about their cause to win their rebellion and in 1861 the Southerners didn't feel strongly enough about their cause to do the same?
They weren't going to follow a constitutional or congressional procedure that might eventually result in a dissolution of the union by common consent. In their own minds they had to perform the act themselves. As one of the few women posters here commented, it was a manhood or courage or testosterone thing.
Dissolution of the union by a breakaway state without federal consent was something no president could consent to, all the more so since the rebel leaders were trying to break off as many (slave-owning) states as they could, which would result in the capital itself being surrounded or annexed by a hostile power.
Lincoln (or any other president) could have presided over a dissolution of the union if it were achieved at the federal level through common consent, but couldn't accept a breakdown of the union by subversive or seditious forces acting in the states without federal input and consent. It would look like cowardice or appeasement in the face of anarchy or aggression, and there were important matters to be decided before any parting.
For one thing, there was the question of whether the procedures in the seceding states actually were valid and representative of the popular will. And there was the question of what to do with Southern unionists and areas that wished to remain inside the union.
It was also not out of place that the US might want to retain for national security purposes some military installations it had been given. You could think of that as part of the price of independence, a minor concession to achieve a larger goal. But if you still think it was just to seize all federal property in your territories as a cockeyed compensation for the common federal property you "lost" when you ran away, you probably won't.
One could make a comparison to the Irish Civil War. With 90 years hindsight we know that Ireland was all but independent when the war broke out. All they needed to do was consent to the King's portrait on money and stamps and a do-nothing Governor General (and of course, the partition) and wait until they could eventually make independence a formality.
Michael Collins accepted this. De Valera didn't. So there was war. Collins was killed. His side won. De Valera was eventually elected and, in time, declared independence. My parallel with our own civil war is that pride and emotionality may have gotten the better of wisdom and restraint (though plenty of Irish people would disagree).
Contrast both civil wars with civil disobedience movements like Gandhi's in South Africa and India, or Martin Luther King's in the US and similar movements in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc. They accepted the authorities de facto. That is, whether or not they thought the government was legally legitimate or justly entitled to hold power over them, they accepted that it was in fact in power. Then they tried to make such a nuisance of themselves that the government would eventually throw up its hands and give them what they desired -- equality, desegregation, or independence.
We also have the developing law of enclaves and exclaves: Hong Kong, Macao, West Berlin, Guantanamo. A change in status in the surrounding territory didn't affect their status. This was largely because the countries occupying the enclaves had great military might, but still we do have the example now. And the example of Canada, which set conditions for a possible exit of Quebec.
Clearly the secessionist leaders didn't have these examples before them, and they were influenced by the American Revolution (wrong-headedly but influenced none the less), but I'd have to call them a very poor example of how to achieve political ends. They were more impatient, wrathful, domineering than they should have been.
Some people say that as slave owners the leaders of the movement couldn't whole-heartedly appeal to liberty. I don't know if that's true, but certainly there was too much of the master in their approach. Sometimes you have to give a little -- to make largely formal concessions, to bend the knee a bit -- in order to achieve large goals, and this they were not able to do. Their loss, I guess. But at least we shouldn't act like there wasn't a lesson to be learned in that.
“They weren’t going to follow a constitutional or congressional procedure that might eventually result in a dissolution of the union by common consent”
Sez who? Lincoln? Not so. The confederacy was perfectly happy (and would vastly prefer peaceful secession). Lincoln said that wasn’t an option so war it was.
“So you admit that the Southern actions were a rebellion?”
The declaration permits the dissolution of common authority to preserve individual liberty in the face of tyranny.
You can argue that the South was misguided, but you cannot argue they did not have the authority, as free men and free people, to do what they did attempt.
Too much tit for tat makes you a twit and a tw*t. Turning sensible points around to make nonsensical arguments makes you look foolish.
You can't claim to be in and out. You can't claim that you aren't part of the union and claim that forts and courthouses in other states are your "property" in the way that they would be if you were in the union.
In the unionists' view, though, those forts and courthouses were still your "property" and ours, because you were in fact still a part of the union. So even if guns were pointed at you, they were still your guns.
Your representatives in Congress have a say in what's done with them, so long as they get their *sses back to Washington, and your soldiers can use the guns so long as they serve in the national ranks. Happy now?
Is that a yes or a no?
You can argue that the South was misguided, but you cannot argue they did not have the authority, as free men and free people, to do what they did attempt.
It is a God given right to rebel for any reason, or no reason at all as the case may be. But having taken that path don't blame anyone but yourself if you lose.
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.