Ten Neo-Confederate Myths

March 9, 2013 | vanity

[central_va]

You are delusional.

[0.E.O]

You are delusional.

Washington believed in country over locality and the rule of law. He didn't hesitate to send in troops during the Whiskey Rebellion, I don't see him supporting the Southern rebellion as well. Certainly not for the reasons they revolted.

[central_va]

Washington was a Virginian, just like Lee. The two men are interchangeable. Lee would have done what Washington did in the late 18th century and Washington would have done what Lee did in the mid 19th century.

[0.E.O]

Washington was a Virginian, just like Lee. The two men are interchangeable. Lee would have done what Washington did in the late 18th century and Washington would have done what Lee did in the mid 19th century.

Washington believed that our role as Americans trumped our role as Virginians or Nebraskans. While I agree that Lee would have acted as Washington did in 1776, it's because the reasons for the rebellion then were solid. The colonies were not represented. They did not have a say in the governments that the crown chose to impose on them. There was a situation of intolerable oppression. None of that was present in 1861. The South was represented, overrepresented, in Congress. They had literally run the government to their advantage for decades. They had their own governments. They were not overtaxed. They rebelled over petulance and slavery. Washington would not have signed on to that.

[BroJoeK]

central_va supporting Sloth's special theory of Constitution: "The above commentary was written by a devout radical ABOLITIONIST Lysander Spooner."

Quoting on Lysander Spooner:

"The Union government's actions during the war caused Spooner to radicalize his views to an anarchistic view.

In response, Spooner published a series of political tracts, No Treason.
The most famous of these is No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority.
In this lengthy essay, Spooner argued that the Constitution was a contract of government (see social contract theory) which could not logically apply to anyone other than the individuals who signed it, and was thus void.

Furthermore, since the government now existing under the Constitution pursued coercive policies that were contrary to the Natural Law and to the consent of the governed, it had been demonstrated that that document could not adequately stop many abuses against liberty or prevent tyranny from taking hold...

"Spooner became a member of the socialist First International."

Thanks, central_va, for telling us where Sloth got the "special" idea of an unlawful US Constitution -- Lysander Spooner!

So in post-war 1868, Spooner was an anti-war, anti-Constitution, anti-big-business, radical abolitionist socialist/communist anarchist!
That means he was far from Conservative nor even Libertarian as we understand those today.

It also means this: when you begin making arguments against the Constitution as it was intended, then you do not support the Free Republic, but some other vision that is neither historical, workable or even seriously definable.

"ANARCHIST" or "COMMUNIST" best describe such ideas.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Oh yeah, George Washington would have sided with Lincoln. BWAHAAAAAAAAA!"

Of course, or more to the point: Lincoln sided with George Washington's 1792 Militia Act, which Washington used to defeat the Whiskey Rebellion.

[central_va]

Washington would have DONE exactly as Lee did in the same circumstance. I know it, I know you know it to be true although to admit that truth deflates every reconstructed myth you have been taught about US history.

[central_va]

This is not a Spooner thread but he was no Communist:

Spooner believed that it is beneficial if people are self-employed so that they could enjoy the full fruits of their labor rather than having to share them with an employer. He argued that various forms of government intervention in the free market made it difficult for people to start their own businesses. For one, he believed that laws against high interest rates, or "usury" prevented those with capital from extending credit because they could not be compensated for high risks of not being repaid: "If a man have not capital of his own, upon which to bestow his labor, it is necessary that he be allowed to obtain it on credit. And in order that he may be able to obtain it on credit, it is necessary that he be allowed to contract for such a rate of interest as will induce a man, having surplus capital, to loan it to him; for the capitalist cannot, consistently with natural law, be compelled to loan his capital against his will. All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest, are, therefore, nothing less than arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man’s natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor....The effect of usury laws, then, is to give a monopoly of the right of borrowing money, to those few, who can offer the most approved security." [25]

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Washington was a Virginian, just like Lee.
The two men are interchangeable.
Lee would have done what Washington did in the late 18th century and Washington would have done what Lee did in the mid 19th century."

1. Neither Washington nor Lee would have unilaterally declared secession "at pleasure" in December 1860 to February 1861 -- but Fire Eating secessionists did that.

2. Neither Washington nor Lee would have incited rebellion by ordering secessionists to illegally seize dozens of major Federal properties (i.e., forts, armories, arsenals, ships, customs houses, mints, etc.) -- but secessionists / Confederates did that.

3. Neither Washington nor Lee would have started war with the United States by a military assault on US Army troops in Federal Fort Sumter -- but Confederates did that.

4. Neither Washington nor Lee would have formally declared war on the United States, on May 6, 1861 -- but the Confederacy did that.

5. But Washington, unlike Lee, when forced to chose between his country and a rebellion (i.e., the Whiskey Rebellion) chose his country over the rebellion.

So, yes, Washington and Lee were similar in some respects, but different in one critical matter.

[rockrr]

Lee obviously didn’t do what Washington did, which was to uphold his solemn oath to defend his country. Washington would have been outraged by the (mis)conduct of lee - or lost causers like you.

[central_va]

Lee obviously didn’t do what Washington did, which was to uphold his solemn oath to defend his country. Washington would have been outraged by the (mis)conduct of lee - or lost causers like you.

I know you really don't believe that, but you have to say it. Otherwise your whole little reconstructed world will come crashing down.

[rockrr]

Those of us who have been treated to cva's bizarre anti-American outbursts over the years have come to recognize him as a crypto-anarchist, but I never thought I'd see the day when he openly quotes and endorses the words of commie anarchists.

That makes this a red-letter day I suppose ;-)

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "This is not a Spooner thread but he was no Communist:"

Sure, not as we understand the word "Communist" today.
But there was a time -- lasting decades -- in which words like "anarchist" and "communist" were more-or-less synonymous.
We even find this in Marx himself talking (ironically to our ears) about the "withering away of the state".
So, for many years, "communist" did not mean "big government" but rather the absence of a government needed to enforce laws -- laws of property and contract, for examples.

But more to the point, specifically, Spooner joined the socialist First International, which is summarized here as:

"The International Workingmen's Association (IWA) or International Workers' Association (1864–1876), often called the First International, was an international organization which aimed at uniting a variety of different left-wing SOCIALIST, COMMUNIST[1] and ANARCHIST political groups and trade union organizations that were based on the working class and class struggle.

It was founded in 1864 in a workmen's meeting held in Saint Martin's Hall, London.
Its first congress was held in 1866 in Geneva."

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "That makes this a red-letter day I suppose ;-)"

By the way, for everyone who suggested additions to my list of only Ten Neo-Confederate Myths +1, I agree, and this thread has provided many new ones.

But it struck me yesterday that some of these additional myths should fall into categories of "theme and variations".
Some are not really so much different myths, as they are different ways of expressing the same myth.

Consider an example: Myth #1 says, "Secession was not all about slavery".
Well, you can think of that as a category of myths and then list out a whole group of "sub-myths" under it, such as:

1. High tariffs caused secession.
   
2. Mississippi river tolls caused secession.
   
3. New England "haughty bastards" or more generally "Yankee arrogance" caused secession.
   
4. Lincoln tried to put Americans on a "gubmint plantation" and Confederates had to resist being made "slaves" -- which does sort of sound like "slavery" was the reason, just different "slaves".

We could do the same with Myth #3: "A 'right of secession' is guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution"

The list of other "guarantees" might include:

1. "natural law"
   
2. "inherent right"
   
3. a quote from Patrick Henry
   
4. comparisons of 1861 secessionists to 1776 Founding Fathers.

So, if you ever see this list again, it will probably be in a more generalized form, showing variations of arguments under their respective categories.

Anyway, thanks again for all your input!

[Lee'sGhost]

Sorry. No time neo-coms.

Thanks for playing.

[Lee'sGhost]

“But the Founders themselves were consistent in saying, or implying, that lawful secession should be by mutual consent or, in effect, some material breech of contract justifying dissolving the Union.”

Comrade Brojoe couldn’t be more wrong. Let’s forget Jefferson and his passion for state rights for a minute and move on to James Madison, you know, “The Father of the Constitution”. Even Federalist Madison opined that there was/is an “extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of ‘intolerable oppression’; but if the case cannot be made (that such conditions exist), then he rejected secession—as a violation of the Constitution.”

The only way Comrade Brojoe can square with his beliefs is to have us believe that the oppression being brought upon the south was of the tolerable type. But remember, at the end of the day the north killed hundreds of thousands of Southerners in the successful attempt to deny them THEIR free will. Bottom line in Comrade’s book; slavery bad — denial of (Southern) free will and self governance good.

[rockrr]

I'm sure it was merely an oversight for you to forget to ping BroJoeK in your post, just as it was your typical carelessness that drove your misspelling of his name.

Thanks for the reference to Madison. It shows that he understood the difference between the natural right of rebellion and the contrived "right" of secession. Perhaps there's hope for you yet. Or perhaps not:

The only way Comrade Brojoe can square with his beliefs is to have us believe that the oppression being brought upon the south was of the tolerable type.

There was no oppression being brought upon the south - except at the hands of the southron slavers.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The only way Comrade Brojoe can square with his beliefs is to have us believe that the oppression being brought upon the south was of the tolerable type. But remember, at the end of the day the north killed hundreds of thousands of Southerners in the successful attempt to deny them THEIR free will.

Are you saying that the fact that the south suffered casualties in a war they started over what they claimed to be "intolerable oppression" is proof of that oppression?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

What I've come to realize over years of sparring with the Lost Causers here on FR is that they have a sort of magical thinking. "If only the south had been allowed to secede, everything would be right in my world. The slaves would have been freed immediately and there would be no problem with race relations. The government would not have gotten out of control. Children would listen to their parents better and it would rain gumdrops." Basically everything bad that they see they believe would be better "if only..."

But secession itself is the coward's way out. The genius of the Constitution is that it allows for it's own modification. Get two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a convention. Get three-fourths of the states to ratify what that convention proposes. You can got in and propose an amendment that the Constitution is now null and void and all the states are on their own if you want.

But the secessionist of 1861 or the Lost Causer of today realizes that's hard work, and they don't want to do the hard work of winning a supermajority to their side. They'd rather invoke some magical principle that they can simply blink their eyes three times and suddenly they're in a different country, exempt from all laws.

[central_va]

EVERYONE knows the South is the most conservative region in the country. Hell, the South is the only think keeping us(perhaps the world) from slipping into totalitarianism and communism. So as a separate nation, the South would be fine right now instead of being trapped in a dying union that is determined to bring the whole thing down. To deny that is to be totally brainwashed or just plain ignorant.