Skip to comments.Ten Neo-Confederate Myths
Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
click here to read article
The situation for the South was a lot like that gunowners face today. Gun-grabbers claim they only want reasonable controls added now, but make no real attempt to hide their ultimate goal of grabbing all guns.
So do us gun nuts fight them now, or slide a little farther down the slippery slope first?
A Republican Congress and President could have quite easily and constitutionally put a major crimp into slavery simply by banning interstate commerce in slaves, even between slave states. Breaking up the market that way would have pretty much destroyed the value of the slaves, especially in the Upper South, where there were more than needed.
They, I think, did that without fully understanding the economics of slavery and why continual expansion was a necessity to keep the slave society going.
I think FDR did much the same with the Japanese before Pearl Harbor. The sanctions he imposed would eventually cripple the Japanese military and economy. Yet to meet the conditions required to lift the sanctions would also mean their (even quicker) crippling.
So he basically gave the Japanese leaders a choice between returning to 3rd-class power status, more or less abandoning their empire, and making a desperate attempt to preserve their empire by war.
I don't think FDR was fully aware of the choice he was forcing on them. America has never faced such a stark choice.
Except that I think the South faced a similar decision point in 1860. They had a choice between long, slow decline and eventual destruction of their way of life, and a chance for its survival by means of war.
I think both the South in 1860 and the Japs in 1941 made the wrong decision. But I believe they saw themselves as having no real choice.
This would not hold true for Sherman's torches. The only people the knew were the GA militia.
“I don’t agree, I think a united Democrat candidate in 1860 had a fighting chance.”
That’s not what the electoral numbers say. Go, look up the birth state of presidents from Grant onwards and you’ll see the point.
That would be the current crop of the completely “flipped” politics from lincoln’s time, and appealing to the “white guilt” repubs— but it does not wash with Southern conservatives. Democrats, N and South were always on the federal money bandwagon to milk the money-even as they contained it. A continuous Progressive line from the “anti-slavery” post-Lincoln (after Stanton et al murdered him-an opinion) right through to FDR then to LBJ and Great Society. DC elites always invoke lincoln when the SHTF. But recall they also tried to paint this useful idiot obamaumao as 1.)Reagan, and 2.) FDR and even a little Teddy R! before they made him lincoln to punch all the right racialist buttons, with Spielberg/Hollywood help. Commies everyone of them. LOL!
You see, the issue was always labor capital (and who would provide it) and it was a change in plantation owners which was envisioned and intended by the Union— the growing industrial oligarchs (railroads, carpetbaggers, thieves, scalawags, liars) who were to shape the West and beyond AND they wanted to control the agricultural South. And they did- and what did the South get for their ruination? The logical conclusion to all this as these powers moved to a “globalist” frontier, would be to put everyone who remains on the gubmint plantation, in lieu of actually keeping our production in the US, and make EVERYONE dependent for a vote, and anything to maintain power in the one enslaving party— a ruling class.
For example: The entire intent of amnesty for illegals is to continue to fund the ponzi social security apparatus for a “non-working” lazy elite, by bringing in yet another labor class to milk (assumedly Mexican, but back in the 1870s it was chinese coolies and Irish). Oh, and also provide money to the bankrupted (by the same elite) social security trust fund and its IOUS— which w/out the illegals fake SS contributions would have already busted.
The mackdaddy obamaumao is the monkey to the globalist/Progressive organ grinders (and, you may recall the monkey had the tin cup for “donations”).
We must ALL resist and not rise to this sophistic “MEME” you have posted— it’s purpose is diversionary, and part of an oft-used tactic of the Comintern (the black-white schism MUST be maintained to continue the chaos of Cloward-Piven, and not keep our eye on the real events)especially through the elite ivy league “history” departments, with tenured indoctrinated useful idiots.
Want to fight this new “slavery”? Then resist— find common ground with black and white, and all who love Freedom, true conservatives (cultural, financial, social). People who refuse dependency over FREEDOM. That coalition is one the socialists fear the most. Refuse the Statists, and de-fund them.
As i say- will be interesting to read the new information in June, documented— for balance to Hood. Included is his detailed medication records from the CSA surgeon (said to show he was NOT a laudanum addict). These were desperate times, and communications were abysmal. The written communications will shed some light on this hopefully.
Hood was being told what to do by Davis, who also had serious altercations with Johnston (and one cannot discount the politics of Johnston’s replacement with R.E. Lee who had Hood as Division commander under Longstreet in Army of NVA, Hood having prior served as a brigadier under Johnston in the Peninsula campaign, and Johnston severely wounded at Seven Pines). Lot of interwoven parts and politics.
One of the most interesting things to realize is that the largest city in the South was New Orleans— and yet Montgomery, AL was removed as Capitol of the South. The true money power was New Orleans. But the Virginians, who were late to secede— had the proximity to Washington, as a pressure point for military strategy. And poor Hood and his wife and one child died of yellow fever in New Orleans and left 10 other orphaned children. Truly a tragic ending.
Cleburne was a native Irishman who wanted to be a doctor in Ireland, emigrated to Arkansas and became a lawyer—and a brave man whose blood was up. If he had not
stormed the abatis and survived— imagine his impact post war. His is also, quite a story and sad.
I think it's likely that the fire-eaters did recognize that the party split would doom the Democrats chances and the resulting Republican victory would spark secession. Another thing to take into account, though, was the possibility that no candidate would win a majority of electoral votes. In that case, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives. Each state would have only one vote.
Since there were almost as many slave states as free states and the Breckenridge faction was strong in states like Oregon and California, the Southern Democrats might have seen some hope in this. If the election did go to the House and Breckenridge prevailed with a minority of the popular vote we would likely have seen a very different commotion and uproar in 1860 from what happened in our own timeline.
I'm pretty sure, that the House of Representatives scenario occurred to some of the Constitutional Unionists (the John Bell supporters). Their party was positioned where the cooler heads in Congress (if any remained) could be expected to converge. I always considered Bell's bunch a no-hope fourth party, but if you think of them as the remnant of the conservative and Southern Whigs or as the successors to the American Party (the Know-Nothings) then they were actually the third party. Fillmore had won over 20% of the vote in 1856 and Bell's prospects might have looked even brighter if things came together for him.
Faced with a situation where no candidate would get a majority of the popular vote (or even perhaps of the electoral vote, leaving the election would be decided in the Senate) the Democrats splitting their own party doesn't look quite so crazy as it otherwise might. I mean, it was crazy for them to do so, but not quite as crazy as it would appear at first. And those were crazy times, and crazy people were in politics then.
Lincoln's nomination did a lot to prevent this possibility. It was a brilliant gamble. Brilliant, because nominating a candidate from Douglas's own state meant that the Republicans would have a fighting chance in the West. They could beat Douglas in his own region and possibly lock him out of the electoral college. If Seward or another Easterner had been nominated it would have been possible for Republicans to carry the Northeast and lose the Old Northwest to Douglas, and that would have made a congressional resolution much more likely. But it was a gamble because there was no guarantee that the unknown Lincoln would win either region.
Also, regional politics played an important role. Lincoln checked Douglas in his own region and handily carried the Northeast.
If Seward had been nominated, a Democrat could have picked up votes in the Old Northwest. With Southern votes such a Democrat could have won. Conversely, a New Yorker like Seymour just possibly could have beaten Lincoln.
I guess my point is here.
Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Harrison, Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft.
9 presidents, from 1868 to 1912, everyone of them were from NY or Ohio.
Parker (New York), Seymour (Ohio), Greeley (New York), Tilden (New York),
Bryan (Illinois), Hancock (Pennsylvania), Blaine (Pennsylvania),
Life was truly tougher back then which we must consider when making judgments on those ancestors. Even though this all happened a century and a half ago, they were just people just was we are.
But what a fascinating time for us history buffs to explore. And I'm sure (at least I hope) that there will never be an end to our arguments since that would mean that no one even gives a **** anymore. :~))
Would have been a great time to buy real estate in Washington DC. All the government (and the number of government employees) has done since then is to grow biger and bigger.
The Free Market.
Before the end of the Civil War, the Confederate dollar was worth less than wallpaper --- basically worthless as a medium of exchange. Kind of like the Zimbabwe dollar today. People in the South didn't want to accept it either because they knew it was worthless.
That is why so little of it remains today. People used it as kindling by that point in time just as we would use a day old newspaper.
If you have some Confederate Currency today however, you could get some serious US Greenbacks for it from collectors just because it is so rare. And it's only rare because it was so worthless.
There was a time when we were kids that we would go to a little army surplus store just off the square in Huntsville and buy small packs of confederate bills for pennies. We used them as play-money.
I wonder how much they would be worth today (if we hadn’t worn them out)?
We can say Lincoln broke no laws because: Congress eventually approved everything he did.
But more to my point: unlike Jefferson Davis, Lincoln broke no laws for the purpose of destroying the US Constitution.
Instead, all of Lincoln's efforts were to save the Union and its Constitution.
BJK: Union never formally declared war.
JCBreckenridge: "What do we call invasions conducted without a formal declaration of war?"
In all of history, formal declarations of war have only been used between nation-states, never to defeat rebellions.
That's why the Confederacy declared war on the United States -- because it wanted to show that it too was a nation-state.
The Union did not declare war because it considered the Confederacy a rebellion.
Well said, great post!
But Confederate forces were only in the area of Harrisburg for a matter of days, if not hours, so there was little opportunity to "get to know" the locals.
If you're familiar with that terrain, there's a long mountain called "Blue Mountain" which comes up from Maryland, north of Chambersburg, Shippensburg, Carlisle and all the way to the Susquehanna river.
Well, I live a few miles on the north side of that mountain.
Local history here says that during Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, scouts from Camp Hill, Carlisle and Chambersburg rode over that mountain and up the valleys to use the telegraph on the Pennsylvania railroad, to report military intelligence.
Needless to say, everyone around here was very excited, panic struck would be a better word for it.
That's why I can't see those poor shop-keepers near Harrisburg as anything other than quaking in their boots on the arrival of Lee's forces.
Please consider this:
In 1856, "Dough-Faced" Northern Democrat James Buchanan was elected president by winning Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and California, plus every Southern state.
He immediately went to work to support the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.
Just one more election like 1856, and one more Dred Scott type Supreme Court decision would have effectively made slavery legal in all states.
That's how close the slave-power came to victory.
But in 1860, many people who had voted for Democrats all their lives switched to other parties, because the majority Democrats had committed political suicide.
I'm saying a united, enthusiastic Democrat party in 1860 had a fighting chance to keep those "swing voters" in the Democrat fold, and win the election by carrying those same states it won in 1856.
And that was within the Confederacy itself. Outside of the South I doubt that the Confederate dollar had any value at all, much less one quarter of a U.S. dollar.
Not comparable whatsoever. 1856 - you had the Whig and Republican parties divided.
“Congress eventually approved everything he did”
That’s a bullshit definition. Doesn’t matter what congress approves or not - he suspended Habeaus Corpus - he declared war on a loyal state of the union. If Obama were to do what Lincoln did, you’d be crying tyranny. Which is what it was.
“The Union did not declare war because it considered the Confederacy a rebellion.”
Doesn’t matter what the Union ‘believes’. Lincoln invaded. Virginia defended their own sovereignty.
On April 17, the Virginia convention voted to secede, pending ratification of the decision by the voters. With the entry of Virginia into the Confederacy, a decision was made in May to move the Confederate capital from Montgomery, Alabama, to Richmond, in part because the defense of Virginia's capital was deemed strategically vital to the Confederacy's survival regardless of its political status. Virginians ratified the articles of secession on May 23. The following day, the Union army moved into northern Virginia and captured Alexandria without a fight.
Virginia's ordinance of secession was ratified in a referendum held on May 23, 1861, by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451. The referendum was a perfunctory endorsement of the state government's decision to join the Confederacy and was not a free and fair election. The Confederate Congress proclaimed Richmond to be new capital of the Confederacy and Confederate troops moved in to northern Virginia before the referendum was held.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_WarLooks to me like Virginia declared war on the United States before and Union troops set foot on Virginia soil.
Agree... to forget the history is to never learn from it when the same issues are “resold” by the same kinds of people, and politics.
After the war Hood was in insurance, and a broken man, in New Orleans and died there w/wife and one child, of yellow fever (mosquitoes in the vast swamps of the Miss. Delta).
In re: the history-— a Mr. Sam Hood of WV (paralell descent of Genl Hood) has a new book coming out in June- which i referred to prior in this big thread. Direct descendants (who want to remain anonymous) had boxes of original letters from Hood ( a treasure trove) including to/from Davis as regards Johnston, his CSA commission, his West Point commission— unbelievable find. Search Hood on diff history pages and you’ll find the story. Publisher has a page as well.
Quite the contrary. The Virginia delegation insisted that the Federal government withdraw from Ft. Sumpter. Lincoln did not. Lincoln then insisted that Virginia take up arms against South Carolina, and Virginia refused.
Virginia rejected the request as unconstitutional - that troops be levied in Virginia for attacks on another state.
Lincoln had already mobilized and with the attack on Ft. Sumpter, declared that he intended to attack South Carolina.
Bro, I think I thought of one you mythed.
11. Slavery was dying in the South anyway. Therefore the Union invasion and conquest of the Confederacy had nothing to do with slavery, as the institution would have faded away in just a couple of years anyway.
I’m sure you’re aware that slavery was more profitable and entrenched than ever in 1860, and that southerners had since about 1820 gradually shifted from a consensus that slavery was a necessary evil to an equal and opposite consensus that it was a positive good.
But this one has been brought up to me numerous times, and thought you might want to add it to your list.
Sorry FRiend, but now it's you throwing around some pretty heavy-duty BS.
In fact, Congress is totally authorized to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of rebellion or invasion, and in due time, after appropriate debate, authorized President Lincoln's use of it.
Lincoln's suspensions of Habeas Corpus all happened while Congress was not in session, and after the fact, no serious efforts were made in Congress to censure Lincoln, or revoke his actions.
In the Confederacy, Davis was also authorized to suspend Habeas Corpus, and did so on occasion.
So I can't see how our Pro-Confederates seem to think they've got an open-and-shut "gotcha" case against Lincoln.
JCBreckenridge, referring presumably to Lincoln and Virginia: "...he declared war on a loyal state of the union.
If Obama were to do what Lincoln did, youd be crying tyranny.
Which is what it was."
First of all: in fact, Lincoln never "declared war" on anyone, as explained in previous posts.
Countries don't "declare war" on rebellions.
Second, during the period when Virginia was in fact a "loyal state of the union" Lincoln made no military moves -- zero, zip, nada, none -- to defeat rebellion there.
All of Lincoln's military operations in Virginia happened after the following:
The first Union troops crossed into Virginia on May 24, 1861.
The first Confederate soldier killed in battle at Big Bethel, Virginia, was on June 10, 1861.
JCBreckenridge: "Doesnt matter what the Union believes.
Virginia defended their own sovereignty."
You can call it "war" and "sovereignty" if you wish, or call it "rebellion" and "insurrection" as I contend, but neither changes the fact that:
Now we're up to at least a dozen, maybe 13 with your previous suggestion...
I especially like the one I "mythed". ;-)
“Lincoln’s suspensions of Habeas Corpus all happened while Congress was not in session, and after the fact, no serious efforts were made in Congress to censure Lincoln, or revoke his actions.”
Read that back to me again and ask if you’d accept Lincoln unilaterally suspending civil rights of those whom he himself claimed were American citizens.
“First of all: in fact, Lincoln never “declared war” on anyone, as explained in previous posts.”
Which makes it even worse. What gave Lincoln the authority to fire on Fort Sumpter? What gave Lincoln the authority to mobilize troops to fire on American citizens? What gave him the authority to cross the Virginia border and invade?
Or Lincolm himself?
You’re telling me that in one day - congress approved of the invasion of Virginia and authorized the use of Force against the commonwealth of Virginia?
Or did Lincoln simply mobilize prior and send the troops across the border without approval of congress?
OK, let's do this "by the numbers":
In 1856, a united Democrat party won the presidency with 1,835,000 popular and 174 electoral votes, 22 more than needed.
In 1860, a divided Democrat party lost the presidency -- even with 2,228,000 vs. Republicans' 1,866,000 popular votes -- but Dems got only 84 electoral votes, or 68 less than needed.
In other words, even though Democrats got more votes than Republicans, they still lost in 1860, because they were split in half.
But those 68 electoral votes were easily available in seven states (California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee and Virginia) with a combined switch of just 11,000 popular votes!
That's because: California (4), Kentucky (12), Oregon (3), Tennessee (12) and Virginia (15) needed zero extra votes for Democrats to win, only a united ticket.
Right there is 46 of the 68 needed to win, leaving just 22 to pick up.
And 24 electoral votes were available in Indiana (13) and Illinois (11) with a switch of only 11,000 votes combined, or 3.5% of the 311,000 cast for Republicans.
Surely a united and enthusiastic Democrat party could persuade 3.5% of "low information" Republicans to switch to the "party of national unity and peace."
But additionally: in Ohio with 23 electoral votes, only 11,000 voters (5%) switching would give Democrats the win.
And in Pennsylvania with 27 electoral votes, only 36,000 voters switching would give Democrats the win.
Yes, that's 13% of all Republicans, but remember in 1856 the now defunct Whigs got 82,000 votes, and at least half of those should have gone to Democrats in 1860.
But instead, the divided Democrats lost 35,000 votes compared to 1856.
That's why I say: victory was not only possible for united Democrats in 1860, they had the potential for a landslide.
But Southern Fire Eaters did not want victory or landslide, rather they wanted secession, and so they engineered it by splitting the majority Democrat party in half.
The Constitution defines "treason against the United States" as "...levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies..."
It does not say: those who commit treason are thereby no longer citizens.
So all presidents since George Washington enforced laws against treason, with or without prior Congressional approval.
We might also note that Confederate President Davis did not wait for Confederate Congress to formally declare war before starting war against United States Army troops in Fort Sumter.
JCBreckenridge: "What gave Lincoln the authority to fire on Fort Sumter?"
What are you talking about?
Lincoln didn't "fire on Fort Sumter".
That was Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
JCBreckenridge: "What gave Lincoln the authority to mobilize troops to fire on American citizens?
What gave him the authority to cross the Virginia border and invade?"
Might I suggest you study the Militia Act 1792 for starters?
Then please remember that Lincoln did not "cross the Virginia border" until after the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States, and Virginia formally joined the Confederacy's war.
Again, I'll refer you to the Militia Act of 1792 for starters.
“levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies”
Which South Carolina and the Confederacy did not do. Did the Confederacy invade the North? No.
Again, redo the math. There is simply no way for the democrats to win (or for that matter, any of them), without PA, OH, and NYC. 85 EC votes right there, and don’t forget, that SC was excluded at -8, etc.
The South understood the repercussions of this split and understood that there simply were not enough southern votes to carry the presidency post 1860.
That is one of the reasons they split. To govern themselves, which would not happen in the US after 1860 had they remained.
He didn't. Hood didn't marry until 1868. His wife and child died in a yellow fever epidemic in 1879, a few days before Hood died of the same disease.
That's like saying "Roosevelt invaded. Germany defended their own sovereignty." That may be factually true but it ignores the fact that if Germany hadn't been the aggressor then nobody would have had a reason to invade.
The day after the Virginia legislature voted for secession, but before the popular referendum, the governor called up the militia and sent them to take the U.S. arsenal at Harpers Ferry. The U.S. forces there tried to destroy the equipment but most of it was saved, seized, and sent down to Richmond for use by the Confederacy. That was a month or more before Lincoln sent troops into Alexandria.
Which loyal state was that?
I guess I misenturperted J.S. Mosbys comment. My mistake. I thought J.s. meant during the war. I do recall that Hood had been injured badly at Gettysburg and like most injuries in those days dogded him for the rest of his life.
Sometimes when we 'debate' these issues here, we can tend to forget what the general state of life was in those times. It was not as 'easy' as today.
Fort Sumter was firmly in Confederate hands well before they made their secession vote and over a month before the "popular" referendum was taken.
Be honest about it if you are really a student of history. Jefferson Davis had this self declared 'Confederacy' of seven small states from February until April. None of the upper south slaves states where the real power and population existed had jumped to his side, especially the most powerful slave state of Virginia.
Davis needed a 'shooting war' to get those states to join him or his Southern Confederacy would have collapsed under it's own ideology and inability to even deliver the mail, yet alone manage a nation.
That is why he ordered to firing on Sumter. He needed the upper south badly and without them, the entire secession gamble would have collapsed.
If he had allowed the resupply ships in, and the stand off at Charleston harbor had dragged on for more months he would have shown that his Confederacy was a toothless power and the Upper South would have never joined with him. Even rabid secessionists in the deep south would have questioned why they were doing what they did.
The Confederacy needed the war to get the upper south, especially Virginia to join the Confederacy to have any chance of surviving.
Unfortunately, his plan worked.
Excellent point and one of the most outlandish myths from the Lost Cause side.
I agree with adding it to the list.
“Lucky Thirteen” LOL
What the hell history books are you reading????
Dang good points.
Too few seem to realize that the whole issue from the establishment of the CSA to Sumter was about who would gain control of the remaining 8 slave states.
If the USA retained them all, the CSA was doomed to a short life. If the CSA gained them all, the USA would be unable to reestablish the Union. Lincoln himself recognized this publicly.
In actual fact, what happened was that the Upper South states split down the middle, resulting in a long and bloody war.
In the early months of 1861, those 7 deep south states did not invade the "North" however you care to define the "North". But they did declare war on the United States (Northern States????) but even that was not what what started the shooting.
Those seven small states with the full support of their elected leaders did attack the United States in numerous instances at forts, arsenals, mints, post offices, custom offices and and any Federal institutions in their states... you name it as far as Federal installations go. They took up arms and took those facilities by force of arms.
It was not an attack of one or several states upon another. It was an attack by individual states on all the other states in the Union who had equal rights to those same facilities that had been taken by force of arms.
That is Insurrection and Rebellion. I can't begin to think of any other name for it.
We can argue about justifications for there actions for the rest of our lives, but please don't somehow pretend it was a lawful act and a president, any president, was unjustified or not authorized and even mandated under his oath of office to resist it. That idea is simply beyond ridiculous.
I never understood why so many Lost Causers like to call themselves 'Rebels' but refuse to acknowledge what happened then was a Rebellion.
"Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?"I think Lincoln answered that question as best he could 150 years ago.
--- A. Lincoln, 1861
But that is a question we need to be asking more and more today.
Absolutely true, and the lunch pin of it all was Kentucky just as a matter of geography because of it's command along the Ohio river.
Lincoln said something once along the lines that he hoped God was on his side, but he absolutely needed Kentucky on his side. ;~))
If Kentucky had gone over to the Confederate side, I don't think the Union would have survived and only God knows what the last 150 years here on this Continent and the rest of the world would have become.
I can't imagine it would have been pleasant.
Nonsense. The States freely entered the Union, they could freely leave if they wish. South Carolina voted to leave peacefully, as did the rest of the 7, but Lincoln and the North would not accept peaceful secession - which was constitutional. Then, when Lincoln attempted to conscript Virgianians to fight against the rest of the south - only then did Virginia say no. Virginia also voted to leave the Union - well within their rights to do so. Lincoln, again refused to accept this, and invaded Virginia.
The result what we have now - a massive federal government that constantly infringes on the constutitional rights of American citizens. Well played, Lincoln, well played.
“Looks to me like Virginia declared war on the United States before and Union troops set foot on Virginia soil.”
Then why didn’t the Confederacy march on Washinton?
“But they did declare war on the United States”
Which is why they invaded the North? Oh wait, no, they didn’t they defended themselves and the sovereignty of their state.
Again - the union was a voluntary compact of 13 colonies, freely entered, and freely they could leave. Lincoln opposed this which is why he invaded the south - arguing that the states did not have this right. He won - but lets not leave this out - through force of arms.
Harper’s Ferry is in Virginia.