Ten Neo-Confederate Myths

March 9, 2013 | vanity

[BroJoeK]

ek_hornbeck: "states have the right to negotiate their own trade agreements with one another and with foreign governments.
Since the south was predominantly agrarian, planters resented the tariff that effectively forced them to purchase goods manufactured in the north instead of cheaper British or European goods."

Your argument has been posted on CW threads many times, and every time refuted based on:

• First of all, tariffs in 1860 (15%) were lower than any time since 1840, and were the same as in 1792, when George Washington was president.
  So they can no-way be considered "too high" in 1860.

• You mention John C. Calhoun, who served in Federal office from 1811 until his death at age 68 in 1850.
  During those 39 years, the peak tariff rates of 35% came in 1830, while South Carolinian Calhoun was Vice President under Southern Democrat President Andrew Jackson.
  So there's something about the claim that "Southerners all hated high tariffs" which doesn't quite ring true.

• Most important, words like "tariff" (never) and "tax" (only once re: slave-tax) don't appear in secessionist documents -- so they were not matters Southerners would secede over.
  Words which do appear, continuously, throughout all those documents are "slavery" and "institution", along with concerns to protect those against possible hostility from "Black Republicans."

[AuntB]

It’s arrogant, know it all useful idiots like you that the south wanted free of! Same ol’RUDEboy...some crap never changes.
You used to only dirty up free trade threads, now you’re on a mission to insult southerners. Wow.
And no, I still won’t read your replies, so spew on!

[1rudeboy]

Dear Auntie,

If you weren't such a damn hypocrite I wouldn't bother to respond. But I laugh. I'm not rude to anyone who isn't rude to me first. It works well on FR...because invariably, the person who started it (or one of their "friends") gets their panties all bunched up.

[Triple]

That is the point.

Virginia decides, otherwise it isn’t unilateral.

[CatherineofAragon]

"I'm not rude to anyone who isn't rude to me first."

The first inkling I had that your little ankle-biting self was around was you calling me "butthurt." I replied in kind. No need to lie, ankle-biter.

However, the last sentence of your post to AuntB is pretty accurate; your panties seem to be all UP in a big wad.

[1rudeboy]

Of course you are too stupid to realize that you just spent a large amount of time insulting Yankees, and AuntB has her panties up over me insulting “Southerners” in response.

[CatherineofAragon]

So what? There’s been a lot of insulting back and forth.
Man up.

Your behavior is typical of most ankle-biters. You like to sling the crap, but when it starts coming back in your direction, the whining starts.

[BroJoeK]

Triple: "So is it your position that under *some* circumstances Virginia *has* the right to unilaterally secede?"

There is a "right of revolution" when government becomes intolerable, when all lawful recourses have failed, and when serious issues of justice are involved.
But a "right of revolution" does not mean it is "right to revolt" if revolution is doomed to fail.
A failed revolt, as our Founders well knew meant:

"We must all hang together, gentlemen, or we will most assuredly hand separately" -- Ben Franklin, July 4, 1776

So I'll repeat: our Founders gave two acceptable conditions for disunion / secession:

1. Mutual consent.
   I think the simplest form of that would be a law passed by Congress, signed by the President.

2. A serious material breach of contract, such as "oppression", "usurpation" or "injury".
   I'd say the US Supreme Court would be a good body to rule on such claims.

Founders did not approve of unilateral secession "at pleasure", meaning for no serious constitutional reason.
But that was exactly what happened in 1860, and when people talk "secession" today, that's the pattern they refer to.

I say, secession as it happened in 1860 was not Constitutional then, and would not be so today.

Lawful, peaceful secession could be 100% constitutional.

[1rudeboy]

The only whining I noticed (as did others) was the comment that prompted my “internet butthurt” observation. You really are thick.

[Triple]

So you think Virginia must consult at least one branch of the federal government in order to exercise a right it retained in its conditional ratification of the constitution.

Nonsense!

Virginia alone must and retained the right to determine if the conditions of its ratification are broken.

[1rudeboy]

If you think Yankees are a scapegoat, you're not a Southerner who's had to put up with one.

[0.E.O]

His principal objection to unionism was his belief that states have the right to negotiate their own trade agreements with one another and with foreign governments.

Did Calhoun never read Article I Section 10 of the Constitution he swore to uphold?

[BroJoeK]

ek_hornbeck: "There certainly is no denying the massive destruction of civilian property in Sherman's wake."

No denying, but similar events happened on smaller scales when Confederate armies invaded Union states, for examples, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas.

My point is that Confederate armies always had to "live off the land" by pillaging surrounding countrysides, and when those were in Union states or territories, little effort was made to protect civilian properties.
Indeed, one reason Confederate forces invaded Union states in the first place was to pillage and return with supplies useful to Confederate armies at home.

So, yes, I agree that the scales of destruction were different, but the basic ideas the same.

[CodeToad]

“Ya’ guys want to own slaves again?”

The first black slave was owned by a black man in the North.

Do ya’ll want to start slavery again?

Seems you liberal yankees do since Communism is nothing short of slavery and it is primarily the northern States that has liberals demanding Communism.

[dfwgator]

Should’ve picked your own damned cotton, now look at what we have to deal with because of their greed.

[1rudeboy]

Maybe you should start a new thread, titled: “Yankees fought the Civil War to own slaves, then misplaced them.”

[CodeToad]

“Liberal and Conservative have nothing to do with which state you come from. They have everything to do with which part of your state you call home. If your home is a city, chances are very good you’re a Liberal, but as you become more rural, your politics become more Conservative.”

Exactly. This North vs South things is just plain stupid as it really is City versus Rural, Liberal versus Conservative, Taker versus Maker. The dividing line isn’t anywhere near a State boundary as your map and every election map clearly demonstrates.

[CodeToad]

Can’t help it if you don’t like all of history and want to cherry pick propagandist statements of your own. Must be that public school edumacation kicking in for ya. Nothing like racist thoughts, bigotry, and communist ideals to sway your critical thinking. You are no better than any other Democrat no matter how much you think yourself a conservative. When you bash an entire section of the country illogically and without notice to the facts of history you make yourself an emotionally crippled thinker just like the liberal Democrats; they hate the South, too. Nice company yer keepin’.

[CatherineofAragon]

“As did others”-—the only remark came from you.

You whine about being insulted while spewing insults; you have a problem telling the truth; and you mewl about someone being rude to you when it’s your method of choice.

You’re an immature, hypocritical,dishonest, bad-tempered little ankle-biter. You’re a waste of time, rudeboy.

[1rudeboy]

Have a tissue. When someone reads the thread back to you, you’ll learn that I wasn’t the only one laughing.