Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ten Neo-Confederate Myths
March 9, 2013 | vanity

Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by 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:

    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.

  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:

    James Madison explained it this way:

  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:


    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:

    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:



TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 1quarterlyfr; 2civilwardebate; abrahamlincoln; bunk; cherrypicking; civilwar; confederacy; decorationday; dixie; godsgravesglyphs; kkk; klan; memorialday; myths; thecivilwar; top10
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 901-903 next last
To: CatherineofAragon
CatherineofAragon: "Well, let’s not get wrapped up in a blanket of Yankee self-righteousness.
We should remember that slavery existed in the North as well as in the South, and that there was still a small number of slaves in New Jersey as late as 1860."

I'd suspect it's your fear of "Yankee self-righteousness" which drives a lot of responses here, as opposed to some more etherial love of factually correct history... ;-)

If we are interested in real history, then it might help to remember that slavery was abolished very slowly in the north and west (i.e., Illinois), and had it continued that course, might eventually have been abolished in some border states, such as Delaware and Maryland.

But (and it's a huge "but"), in the Deep South, slavery was a way of life so deeply built into the prosperous economy and Southern culture that abolition could not even be discussed with those people.
That's why the mere election of a "Black Republican" such as Abraham Lincoln, was cause enough to not only declare their secession, but also to start and formally declare war on the United States.

So, these facts have nothing to do with "Yankee self-righteousness", they are simply the truth of the matter.

81 posted on 03/10/2013 10:05:17 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Former Fetus

Not this ex-Northerner. I’ll be very blessed if I can stay here and never leave.


82 posted on 03/10/2013 10:05:49 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Take a look at that 1860 election and ask yourself if you believe a man who obtained 30 percent of the electorate was fit to become president.


83 posted on 03/10/2013 10:06:59 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: John S Mosby

If it was all about slavery and keeping the black man in chains, why did blacks fight for the south? The Civil War was a very complex issue with many sides—slavery was only one.


84 posted on 03/10/2013 10:09:01 AM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dinoparty
dinoparty: "I don’t agree with the conclusions of the author in 5,6 or 7."

Items 5, 6 & 7 focus on the sequence of events leading up to the Confederate declaration of war on the United States, May 6, 1861.
If you are not conversant in those events, then I can recommend books on the subject.

Of, if you wish to cite facts which prove those points wrong, I'll be happy to respond.

85 posted on 03/10/2013 10:10:57 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

The Constitution did not say if 5 people decided to run, that the guy that got the most votes from that lot is “unfit” because the majority % needed to win would be less than 50%.

He won fair and square.


86 posted on 03/10/2013 10:14:28 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
We’ll laugh at you and make fun of you behind your backs.

Want to know a secret? Those of us who live in states which didn't vote for Obama do the same thing towards all y'all who live in states that did.

87 posted on 03/10/2013 10:18:50 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Take a look at that 1860 election and ask yourself if you believe a man who obtained 30 percent of the electorate was fit to become president.

Lincoln got 40% of the electorate, and almost 60% of the electoral vote. So yes, he was fit to be president. Certainly more fit than any of the other candidates were if all you're going on if vote totals.

88 posted on 03/10/2013 10:18:50 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Cain-tucky is heard from! And with good reason for observing the 30%, as well as being VP, Sec. of War, Brigadier General and genuine gentleman, leader and scholar.


89 posted on 03/10/2013 10:20:27 AM PDT by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
"I'd suspect it's your fear of "Yankee self-righteousness" which drives a lot of responses here,"

LOL

Oh, yes, Joe. You've hit on it. We're scared to death of Yankees. In fact, we're trembling like chihuahuas crapping tacks. /s

The arrogance is amazing....and funny!

At least you recognize your self-righteousness and are able to admit to it. That's a step in the right direction. You can heal now.

90 posted on 03/10/2013 10:20:49 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Lonesome in Massachusetts: "I generally agree with the thrust and tone of this post, but as far as pillaging goes, even Lee’s worst critics admit his army never caused any unnecessary harm or damage and never took more than they could use."

Lee's armies invading Union states of Maryland (1862) and Pennsylvania (1863) took what they needed, because that's what Lee ordered them to do.

Other Confederate forces under different leaders took a different approach, including those invading Union states of Pennsylvania (1864), Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and Kansas, to mention some.

Lonesome in Massachusetts: "The Confederate armies avoided contact with the Union forces as much as possible after Gettysburg, they were trying to wear down resolve in the North."

Here is my most comprehensive listing, so far, of Confederate invasions of Union states and territories.
Please note that not all came before Lee's Battle of Gettysburg.

All left trails of pillaging, some of burnings and a few even of kidnapping and murder.

91 posted on 03/10/2013 10:30:17 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: John S Mosby
"The gallant Hood of Texas played Hell in Tennessee"

Especially at the battle of Franklin.

92 posted on 03/10/2013 10:30:40 AM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

That sure doesn’t look like the flag flying over the smoking hulks along Battleship Row on Dec.7 1941 and it sure doesn’t look like the flag being raised on Mt. Surabachi. Or the one flying from the rubble of the World Trade Center. And it sure as Hell isn’t the one our men and women are serving under today.


93 posted on 03/10/2013 10:34:57 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: allendale

Bravo! I agree.


94 posted on 03/10/2013 10:36:14 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

How’s that reconstruction thing workin’ out for ya?


95 posted on 03/10/2013 10:36:49 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

And how exactly were the slaves freed y’all?


96 posted on 03/10/2013 10:38:05 AM PDT by jmacusa (Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I grew up in the North being told that the Confederacy was evil and they wanted to ruin the nation, and enslave blacks forever blah blah blah...
The more I studied the civil war and compared it to modern day politics the more I see parallels happening.
I’ve grown to question my belief of Lincoln, and who was really “right” regarding the war.
As I see states rights continue to erode to this day, I believe we are doomed to repeat history.


97 posted on 03/10/2013 10:39:02 AM PDT by miliantnutcase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Details regarding #6:
The Battle At Big Bethel Church, Virginia - June 10, 1861

Pierce’s command, 7 regiments in all, were in nearly complete disorganization when they hit Magruder’s entrenched line.

During the confusion of the attack the 7th New York began firing in the Union rear and the Yankees withdrew to reorganize but never attacked again.

The Union lost 76 men.
The Confederates lost 8.


98 posted on 03/10/2013 10:39:48 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 0.E.O

“Want to know a secret? Those of us who live in states which didn’t vote for Obama do the same thing towards all y’all who live in states that did.”

If you are so proud to be from a state that didn’t support Obama, why don’t you fly your state flag on your about page?


99 posted on 03/10/2013 10:39:50 AM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
rockrr: "No one, including the author from what I can tell, is asserting that the Union 'do nothing to stop independence' "

Teacher317: "Do you not read? I copied the quote from the article above.
I'll post it again, just to help you out..."

I'm not certain if rockrr wrote exactly what he intended to mean...

My point is that neither President Buchanan nor Lincoln did anything to stop Deep-South secessionists from calling their conventions, declaring their independence and forming their new Confederate government -- zero, zip, nada, nothing.

Even when secessionists began unlawfully seizing Federal properties, threatening, imprisoning and shooting at federal officials, Buchanan and Lincoln still did nothing, until after the Confederacy started war at Fort Sumter and formally declared war on May 6, 1861.

Then Lincoln responded as he constitutionally should have.

100 posted on 03/10/2013 10:40:00 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 901-903 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson