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).

[donmeaker]

Sadly, a bad rap on the southern insurrection is deserved.

[donmeaker]

Oddly, fascism is at its essence “Let us hang together or we shall assuredly hand separately.” which sounds a bit like Ben Franklin to me.

Mussolini used the symbol because it harked back to the Romans. He wanted to ignore the intervening conquest of Italy by Goths, Byzantine Greeks, Crusaders, French, Austro-Hungarians and Arabs (in no particular order).

[donmeaker]

One might want to check the date of birth of Lincoln’s eldest son and compare that to the date of Lincoln’s marriage....

[donmeaker]

As I recollect, Lee maneuvered on Washington DC at Gettysburg and Sharpsburg. First Bull Run Beauregard tried to maneuver on Washington DC, by going around the right of Union forces.

Only because of loyal militia companies, and the disarming of disloyal militia companies was Lincoln ever inaugurated.

So yes, the southern pretended government did attempt to take over Washington, several times.

[Mr. Lucky]

OK. Lincoln was wed on November 4, 1842, and Robert was born on August 1, 1943.

[central_va]

If the Army of Northern Va were to have captured DC, it would have been considered a tactical victory, not a strategic victory. The South wasn’t interested in taking and holding Northern territory. The whole point of secession was the opposite of that. I feel like I am talking to someone with less than a full deck when I post to you. Kind of a creepy feeling I get.

[BroJoeK]

donmeaker in reference to my post #807: "Oddly, fascism is at its essence “Let us hang together or we shall assuredly hand separately.” which sounds a bit like Ben Franklin to me.
"Mussolini used the symbol because it harked back to the Romans..."

Ancient republican Romans used the fasces symbol of strength through numbers.
So did our Founders, for example, note the fasces in this statue of George Washington in New York City:

And here we see the symbol in Congress:

\

These symbols express the original ideals of the American Republic, and have nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to do with Mussolini's 20th century political fascism, or National Socialism -- a term which better expresses Mussolini's ideals.

So I'll repeat my response to central_va in post #807:

"Calling Lincoln 'fascist' is just as ludicrous as calling, say, George Washington a 'fascist'.
Both loved their country, neither was a 'fascist'."

[BroJoeK]

donmeaker: "One might want to check the date of birth of Lincoln’s eldest son and compare that to the date of Lincoln’s marriage...."

Mr. Lucky: "Lincoln was wed on November 4, 1842, and Robert was born on August 1, 1943."

In post #808 to central_va, Jay Redhawk labeled Lincoln a "bi-polar closet queer".

Your data suggests he was anything but.

[donmeaker]

Exactly right.

The idea of people doing good things together is as old as humanity.

The coopting of good symbols to encourage bad goals is as old as bad goals.

[donmeaker]

Except Lincoln didn’t intend to end slavery in the southern states. He thought it was evil, but beyond his powers, at least until the war started. The president is mostly uninvolved in the admendment process.

War powers of the president are greater.

[donmeaker]

Sorry, southern armies invaded several states and territories. Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Vermont(!) Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

That indicates that they didn’t want to be let alone. In like manner, their attacks on US forts indicates that they wanted a war. South Carolina, too small to be a country and too large to be an asylum, needed a war to bring in Virginia.

They wanted a war. They got it. They lost it. The problem was the US didn’t hang enough traitors.

[donmeaker]

Of course there is an extra-legal right to revolt, but that is balanced by the duty of the government to put down insurrection.

Which happened.

To successfully exercise the right to revolt you have to win.

Which didn’t happen.

[donmeaker]

There is a standard.

Controversies between states and the federal government are, per article 3 of the Constitution to be submitted for resolution to the Supreme Court.

Which the rebels didn’t do, as they knew they had no case. They didn’t want resolution, they wanted war.

And they got a war. And they lost it.

[donmeaker]

We do know that Washington called on R.E. Lee’s father to put down insurrection.

Too bad R.E. Lee didn’t follow his father’s example. R.E. Lee was just too attached to getting mulatto girls pregnant.

[donmeaker]

I submit that you reveal yourself immune from brain washing with every post.

Gots to have one to be subject to getting it washed.

[Lee'sGhost]

Nonsense. The South did not see the situation as a “controversy” that needed to be resolved by court. They just wanted to exercise their God-given right to self rule. And they only “wanted war” in the context of, if you do allow us our right to self-rule then, bring it on.

It wasn’t that the rebels “knew they had no case”, having a “case” wasn’t and never will be germane to having the freedom to self-rule.

[donmeaker]

Except they didn’t.

Their concept of self rule was to deny self rule to US states which did not permit slavery, to the US government which was a union of the people which preceded the US constitution, and to steal US property and imprison US citizens who did not support slavery.

[Jay Redhawk]

Lincoln was referred to by Carl Sandburg as being a bit “lavender” which in those days was a way of saying “homosexual.” It also seems that Lincoln and Joshua Speed often slept together in what could be described today as a twin bed. While it was not unusual for people of the same sex to share a bed in those days, the beds shared were much larger than a small twin sized bed.

Regardless, Lincoln had a choice to invade the South or not, and he did so starting the war. When the war was over the relationship between the Federal government and the states was forever changed. The original federation was thereby dead, defunct, and forever perverted. What we have had since is a mutated version of what our Founding Fathers created.

[Jay Redhawk]

Without DNA evidence I will continue to assume that someone may have had it “in” for Lincoln. Those dates prove nothing.

[BroJoeK]

Jay Redhawk: "Lincoln was referred to by Carl Sandburg as being a bit 'lavender' which in those days was a way of saying 'homosexual.' "

The poet Sandburg was born 13 years after Lincoln's assasination, and did not know Lincoln.
So his comment may be justly taken as, well, poetic license.

Before marrying Mary Todd, Lincoln fell in love and courted at least two other women: Ann Rutledge and Mary Owen.
Lincoln and Mary Todd had four sons: Robert (1843), Edward (1846), William (1850) and Thomas (1853).

Lincoln is not know to have chased other women after marriage, so he sounds to me like a good family man.

Joshua Speed was Lincoln's best friend, but no evidence of a homosexual relationship has ever been verified.
Speed married Fanny Hemming in February 1842, nine months before Lincoln married Mary Todd.

Of course, modern notions of what it means, exactly, to be "gay" involve "sexual orientation", meaning just about anyone who's ever had a "gay" thought.
More traditional ideas assumed that while many people have such thoughts, just as with heterosexual fantasies, what matters is behavior, not "orientation".

The verified record of Lincoln's behavior includes no evidence of "gay" sexual orientation.

Jay Redhawk: "Regardless, Lincoln had a choice to invade the South or not, and he did so starting the war."

From the beginning, Lincoln was committed to enforcing Federal laws and maintaining possession of Federal properties like Forts Sumter and Pickens.
But, Lincoln made no moves to "invade" the South, or start war, until after the Confederacy had not only started war at Fort Sumter, but formally declared war, on May 6, 1861.

Jay Redhawk: "The original federation was thereby dead, defunct, and forever perverted.
What we have had since is a mutated version of what our Founding Fathers created."

Changed, yes, completed, yes, but "perverted", no -- with slavery Constitutionally abolished, beginning with Lincoln's 13th Ammendment in 1865.

However, nothing you see today in our bloated Federal monstrosity began until the "Progressive Era" 100 years ago, with the 16th and 17th Ammendments, and Federal Reserve.

The only thing Lincoln did was defeat the militarized Slave Power, which started and declared war on the United States, then invaded every Union state and territory they could reach.
In the process, he also abolished slavery.
But the basic US Constitution remained unchanged for another 50 years, at which time the South helped lead the charge towards "Progressivism" -- electing Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, along with 60+ years of Democrat controlled congresses (1930 to 1994).

"Progressives" are your "mutations" and "perversions", not Lincoln's military victory over the Slave Power.