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:
“Their concept of self rule was to deny self rule to US states which did not permit slavery,”
Nonsense.
“to the US government which was a union of the people which preceded the US constitution,”
Utter nonsense.
“and to steal US property and imprison US citizens who did not support slavery.”
Time for meds.
Instead of blabbing, try factual discourse.
Not only beyond the President's power but also beyond the power of Congress to legislate slavery.
All legislative powers are enumerated in the Constitution and the power to legislate slavery is not among them. Powers not granted Congress are left to the states or the people.
The Constitution did not grant Congress legislative powers regarding slavery, voting, abortion, marriage, flag burning, or to prohibit the citizens from any endeavor in their pursuit of happiness.
The Constitution did provide an amendment process to add, or subtract, powers of legislation. The 13th amendment took the power to determine if a state would be free or slave away from the state and added it to congress’s legislative powers. The amendment itself is not legislation but it provides Congress with the power to enact legislation regarding the amendment. Section 2 of the 13th amendment adds the legislative power … Section. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Mussolini was shrewd enough to recognize the value in “pomp & circumstance”. He appropriated or subverted many things to serve as jingoistic symbols - including flags, banners, bunting, and the fasces to instill a sense of national unity.
The unfortunate thing is that he set a precedent that (inappropriately in most cases) gets applied as a stereotype against anyone’s opponents.
Scurrilous, slanderous, and asinine. You’re batting 1000 ;-)
Southern states didn’t want US states which did not permit slavery to be able to ban slavery. Personal liberty laws, which delineated the procedures that slave catchers had to use in northern states were held unconstitutional, denying self rule to US states which banned slavery.
Slave catchers would, given their inability to get cooperation by state officials, support in the north, to kidnap poor whites, get false papers, and sell the kidnapped whites as slaves to cooperative slave owners such as R.E. Lee. That was one reason why slaves at Arlington over time became more and more white. The other was of course the raping of slaves by their putative masters.
Of course territories were controlled by congress. In territories Congress has plenary power, just as the state governments have plenary power over their territory. The Northwest Ordinance banned slavery, and was passed by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, with many of the members of the constitutional convention voting for it.
Yes, Mussolini did pervert good symbols for the benefit of his corrupt state.
Just as Tolkien complained that Hitler perverted proper heroic northern myths to support the corrupt Nazi state.
And as our southern partisans corrupt the US revolutionary history in an attempt to justify the corrupt confederate pseudo state.
And with DNA evidence you would invent Lincoln’s identical twin brother to continue your falsehood.
The first is selective misapplication of a two-sided condition. Like smoking bans...the ban limits freedom of the smoker while giving freedom to non-smokers. My point remains the same and remains valid. Southernphobes today try to portray themselves as having some sort of moral high ground by saying or by pretending that the WBTS was fought to free slaves, which is not only wrong it would be hypocritical if true...given that the same war prevented Southerners from being free to decide their political fate.
The second comment would be hysterical if it wasn’t so revealing. I defy you to show any evidence R.E. Lee took whites as slaves. Seriously, take your meds.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2007/06/24/the-private-thoughts-of-robert-e-lee
I particularly recommend the comments.
The civil war prevented some southerners from having the authority to torture and rape other southerners.
By contrast, it gave some southerners freedom from being raped and tortured under color of authority by other southerners.
So really your opposition is either on the side of rape and torture, or against it. By your choice, your soul is judged.
“By contrast, it gave some southerners freedom from being raped and tortured under color of authority by other southerners.”
Northern States also had slavery so did they rape and torture too, or was it just your hatred of the south that makes you say such stupid things?
You’re more full of poop than a Christmas goose.
Since you hate the South so much why are you so invested in the war that kept those States in the union? You’re just a typical liberal Yankee, a bigot.
As Michele Malkin would say, “gigglesnort”.
Seriously, you can’t be that stupid. There was nothing there that Lee said. Only stuff some dipwad said he said. That’s your proof? LMAOROTHF!
I especially liked this part:
“In another departure from the conventional portrait of Lee, you show him agonizing over joining the Confederacy.”
What?! She “discovered” one of the most commonly known things about Lee?! It was so well known Ang Lee used it in one of his movies.
Sorry, son. You’re way over your head. Come back when you drop your tail.
LOL!
Geez... You are an idiot. Or should I just call you Saul Alinski? Your “reasoning” is similar to saying, if you don’t agree with Obama’s policies you must be racist. You need to go back to DU, troll boy.
There is a reason why the Lee family doesn’t release the ledgers to anyone other than a Lee sycophant.
Lee was known for being a cruel master, even before the War of Treason to preserve Slavery.
No, I don’t hate the south. Yes, slave owners in the north were also cruel. Virginia, at the time that Lee was raping his slaves and selling their mostly white daughters to brothels was part of the US.
Lincoln was elected to limit that bad practice to where it already existed, that is, to ban the expansion of slavery to the western territories. That small half step toward righteousness was so offensive to the slave power that they resorted to treason in support of continuing and expanding slavery. Treason in support of the expansion of slavery is a bad thing. Is that really so hard for you to admit?
Glad you agree that Lee agonized over his violation of his oaths to support treason in support of slavery.
Pity he ultimately tood the wrong side. His father, not known for virtue, took the right side, helping to suppress insurrection. R.E. Lee was not the man his father was.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Per Article 4 of the US Constitution. Of course this means that congress has authority to forbid slavery in any new territories.
If you seriously believe that’s what I agreed to you should take your head out of your ass.
What else would you call it. Certainly Lee had taken oaths. Certainly he made war against the US. Certainly his war against the US supported slavery.
What else would you call it?
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.