The Wrong Conclusions

This article addresses the actions of eleven Southern States in the middle of the 19^th Century vis a vis the actions presently taking place in and by a number of States and urban areas including the motives and legality of such actions by both groups involved. This small study is being done in order to address what has become a comparison between these two very distinct sets of circumstances and is intended to identify and then address said circumstances in order to examine the comparisons presently being made.

The correct utilization of language requires in these days of relative illiteracy, the reader being made aware of just what the term “comparison” means. According to the dictionary, a comparison is “a consideration or estimate of the similarities or dissimilarities between two (or more) bodies, actions, structures or concepts. All that is required is that the matters being compared are sufficiently homogenous to maintain the credibility of that effort. The need for true homogeneity in this function is manifested in the old saying, “it’s like comparing apples and oranges” in that while both are fruit, they are not the same fruit! However, for any comparison to be valid, one must identify whether one is speaking of similarities or differences; that is whether the first set of circumstances is similar to or differs in any real way from the second set however equivalent they may appear superficially. Obviously, though one may wind up with similar consequences attending both actions, the causations thereof clearly affect the validity of the comparison itself.

The present matter under examination is the result of the nation’s current moral and political state; that is, the (apparently) insoluble divide between what are termed America’s “red” and “blue” states and areas, divides that are of both ideology and geography. In order to make such comparisons, Americans must first understand the differences between these two categories; that is, red states are ideologically conservative while blue states are (far) more ideologically liberal. Of course, this definition is not absolute; there are blue areas in red states and vice versa, a matter that only complicates the political divisiveness to an extent seldom encountered in our nation’s history. Yet though these circumstances have happened before, today’s Americans have reached an historic point of ideological and political conflict fueled by psychological mindsets that are, in fact, unique to the present era. For by the beginning of the 21^st century, the hitherto normal understanding of what was required to maintain a “democratic republic” — that is, that divisions arising in the electorate between even deeply held beliefs must remain “civilized and controlled” — have pretty much ceased to exist and, as a result, conflicts throughout the society are rapidly growing in both threat and action. Indeed, we have presently reached the point at which one of the nation’s two political parties has apparently determined that it no longer intends to limit its efforts to obtain (and retain) power through the normal electoral processes but, rather, that it will now utilize strategies that involve trickery, corruption and, yes, violence towards that end! Neither is this a matter limited to the actions of such “fringe elements” that occur in any society, but rather, now involve a large percentage of both the leadership and “ordinary” members of that party supported by those who willingly stand by and allow their more “active” associates to pursue power through these nefarious means.

Some nineteen states have been identified as “blue” though, of course, some are more “blue” than others. And making the matter more confusing — and dangerous — as noted, there are blue areas in red states — usually urban — and red areas in blue states these being primarily suburban and rural. The problems that have now arisen in these blue states and areas directly involve the enforcement of federal law —and especially immigration law — within those areas. The present demand to enforce immigration laws that have been on the books for a very long time, is the direct result of the lack of the enforcement of those same laws under the last Democratic administration, four years during which there were no practical borders at all! As a result, tens of millions of illegals flooded into the nation while, at the same time, the federal government actually moved many of these people to areas well inside our borders, areas that they could not otherwise have attained without this openly illegal “assistance.” The “immigrants” involved were not “vetted” as demanded under the law, and thus included members of drug cartels, military age men from hostile nations, helpless women and children being “trafficked” for sex along with other dangerous criminal elements. Obviously, this government sanctioned “invasion” seriously affected the well-being of America and its citizens. Yet it is interesting to note that while the Democrat Biden Administration claimed to be sanctioning this mass “immigration” for humane purposes, the Obama Administration, also Democrat, had deported millions of such “illegals” during its time in office without any reaction from that Party and its members! And while this endless illegal invasion continued, blue States and cities, many of the latter, as noted, being located in red States, declared themselves “sanctuaries” for these criminal illegals, claiming that they would prevent the federal government from forcibly deporting them! Obviously, this placed those making such a claim in open defiance of federal law!

The consequences of the effort by the present Republican (Trump) Administration to remove these millions of illegals is that the so-called “sanctuary” States and cities have virtually declared open warfare against the law enforcement agency whose job it is to carry out those laws: the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency – ICE. As a result, we have the situation in which American citizens are being induced, seduced, provoked and even paid often by legally elected and/or employed members of blue State and city governments to make war upon federal law enforcement agents in order to prevent the execution of existing federal law! To put it more plainly, legally existing State and local authorities are engaged in illegal efforts to prevent the execution of federal law by virtue of their disagreement with the law itself! They do not claim that it is not the law, they merely claim their right to disobey because (at present at least) they disagree with it! It is in this context that the comparison between what is happening today and what happened in the mid-1800s is being made.

In order for any of this to make sense, the matter must be addressed in three parts:

• First, we must examine the motives for what is taking place. This is of primary importance for, if these are valid, while one may disagree with the actions they provoke, there is, at least, some legitimacy in what led to those actions. If this is the case, the matter ceases to be one of simply “legal” vs. “illegal” but, rather, opens a Pandora’s box of options. After all, not every “legal” option is the best option in solving any existing problem especially when that problem is serious indeed!!
• Second is the question of the constitutional right of those involved to pursue their stated objectives including such methods as were/are being used to do so. That means a (very limited) examination of the actions of the eleven Southern states hereinafter identified as “the Confederacy,” and those of the “blue” cities and states hereinafter identified as “Sanctuary areas.” For it is in this area that the comparisons are being made at least with regard to what these actions are intended to provoke and produce.
• Third is the intention of the behavior itself including the response by the federal government to that behavior; that is, what did the Confederacy intend to do and actually did and what do the Sanctuary areas intend to achieve from their actions.

Of course, this is where the present comparisons that are being made run into difficulties at least with regard to the claim of any similarities as we shall see.

Perhaps the most important and intricate examination involves the first matter above; that is, the situations and circumstances that brought about the actions of both parties. Obviously, examination of the actions of the States of the South during the early and middle 1800s are far too extensive to be studied in detail so this will be a simple statement of the most relevant cause of those acts. But first, one must understand that the area of the federal union identified as “the South” at that time relied mainly upon chattel slavery to fuel that section’s economy. The South was an agricultural rather than an industrial and manufacturing region and for agriculture at the time, slave labor was essential. On the other hand, in the North, ongoing immigration provided the manufacturing base that supported that area’s economy with sufficient cheap labor for that purpose.

However, the biggest problem with slavery was that, by law, it limited the growth of the South as both a geographic and political region. In 1787, the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territory, which included areas that would later become states like Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Even where some new states like Kentucky were permitted to practice slavery, eventually the “Missouri compromise” of 1820 found the need to counter the entrance into the federal union of any slave state such as Missouri, with a “free” state such as Maine, ostensibly “balancing” those states with different views on slavery. However, this strategy “balanced” nothing! Rather it simply maintained the ongoing geographic and political isolation of the South from the rest of the Union. Furthermore, the law declared a policy of prohibiting slavery in the lands remaining from the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36°30′ parallel. All of these strictures effectively cut the South off from the rest of the union, limiting its political and cultural influence in the nation as a whole and eventually making it an eternal minority. Meanwhile, northern slave holding states such as New Jersey were in no way affected by strictures on the expansion of that system as they remained politically and culturally tied to Northern and Western states and territories.

The result of this geographic and thus political isolation of the South was that by the middle of the 18^th Century, despite those Southern heroes who had been such a force in the founding and growth of the nation — men such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and, later, Jackson — the South had been reduced to virtual political and cultural impotence. Whatever that section wanted, if it was not in the interest of the other sections, the matter was dead on arrival in Congress. This would have been bad enough on its face, but it was made worse because by that time the only section of the nation that was financially profitable was, in fact, the South! Crops such as cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar, turpentine and resin, by virtue of the high tariffs imposed by the federal government, meant that the South provided well over half (and some say almost three quarters) of that government’s income! Throughout the beginning of the century, some successful efforts had been made to limit such tariffs as afflicted the region — one of which earned the appellation “the Tariff of Abomination!”— but when the newly created northern-based Republican Party under Abraham Lincoln came into power in 1860, the promise of more of the same type of economic thievery proved the rock upon which the federal union finally foundered. Meanwhile, the nation’s manufacturing base, protected by such tariffs, did not do nearly as well economically, often by virtue of poor management and corruption. For instance, one man built a railroad without federal money and did it better and cheaper than did many who used such monies but either never completed their efforts or spent huge amounts of the government’s money to do so! This was seen by the people of the South as the use of their money to profit corrupt Northern commercial interests at their expense!

Worse, as time went on, the South began to suffer from the outright contempt of the rest of the nation, contempt mainly based upon the large number of black slaves in that section. It is not that those in the North sympathized with enslaved blacks despite often violent anti-slavery rhetoric, but rather that they feared that blacks would eventually move from the South into the rest of the union as the nation expanded while the South could not. Many states had so called “black codes” that forbade blacks from moving into those states and territories. However, far more important than the racial division was the understanding by the States of the South that they lacked the necessary strength in the Congress to prevent the rest of the nation from using their wealth to pay for what the other States desired no matter how that matter affected them! For the South had become a virtual economic colony of the rest of the federal union. This matter was presented to the Congress by Missouri Senator Thomas H. Benton in 1828. Speaking on the floor of the Senate, Benton stated:

“Before the (American) revolution (the South) was the seat of wealth . . .Wealth has fled from the South and settled in regions north of the Potomac; and this is in the face of the fact that that the South . . . has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? . . . Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue . . .Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows . . . northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises in the North. Federal legislation does all this.”

This indeed, was the reason that the States of the South determined that remaining under the Federal Government within the Union created by that Government was no longer to the benefit of their people and that it had become necessary — before they lost all hopes of having any political power whatsoever — to remove themselves from that government as a simple matter of economic and cultural survival. It was at this point, that the States of the South came together into what they called “The Confederacy” and sought to secede from the Constitutional union and establish a nation of their own.

With regards the Sanctuary areas: these have rejected at least some federal laws as did the Confederacy when it rejected those very large and damaging tariffs. However, tariffs are not laws; they are taxes – a very different matter. On the other hand, Sanctuary areas are claiming that they have the right to reject actual laws, a decision that they claim gives them the right to prevent federal agencies from attempting to enforce those same laws. In doing so, State officials have instructed employees including law enforcement not to assist federal agents in the performance of their duties and even to openly resist those efforts. Meanwhile, ordinary citizens have been gathered into groups that actively demonstrate and even assault federal agents in order to protect what in many instances are violent criminals from being arrested and removed from the streets.

And here, we must look at the motives that have led Sanctuary areas to indulge in these actions. Of course, there is an ongoing attempt to gain the sympathy of Americans by suggesting that those involved are merely “protecting innocent immigrants” from being seized and deported without “due process.” Furthermore, they imply or outright state that the federal government is being “inhumane” in removing these “asylum seekers” from the safety of the United States and returning them to dangerous circumstances that could well result in their ill treatment and even death. Of course, this is demonstrable nonsense. To begin with, the nature of these so-called “immigrants” is well known as noted earlier. Second, these people have no right to “due process,” as this guarantee is limited to American citizens, something that they clearly are not or the matter would not even arise. Third, no such outcry arose when the same actions were carried out under earlier Democrat administrations.

The motive for the retention of literally millions of illegal aliens by the present Democratic Party is made clear through efforts by that Party to open American elections to non-citizens whether they are illegal or simply other persons who have lost their legal right to vote, sometimes by virtue of dying! Studies of voting roles have clearly indicated that huge numbers of people vote who have no business doing so and that voting roles show people who are either deceased, moved away, duplicated or for whatever reason are not legally registered. Mail-in ballots have only made the matter worse along with digital voting machines that have been shown capable of allowing third parties to change the information entered into them. As the efforts to at least remove the dead and the duplicated begin to lower the voting totals of Democrats, the illegal immigrant population becomes a whole new (and very large) voting block that promises to return that Party to power in the future if it is not deported in the present. Thus, the need to prevent wholesale deportation of illegals becomes a matter of immense concern to the political party in charge of these Sanctuary areas.

Having seen the “why” of what was and is being done, let us look at whether or not the States (and areas) involved had and have the constitutional right to proceed. First, the Confederacy: the aim of the eleven Southern States was to remove themselves from the Union formed by the Constitution and set up their own government. It was not to take control of any other part of that Union or to influence the government of that Union. That is why Lincoln’s identification of Southern secession as a “civil war” in his first inaugural address is incorrect. The definition of a civil war is a war between factions in a nation seeking to govern that nation. Hence, the war between Octavious and Marc Antony was a civil war as both wanted to rule Rome. The war between King Charles I and Oliver Cromwell was also a civil war as both wanted to rule Britain! The war between the Confederacy and the Federal Union was not a civil war! The South wished only to escape what had become economic bondage (see Senator Benton’s testimony); it had no desire to govern the rest of that Union. But that does answer the question, did the States of the Confederacy have the constitutional right to secede! And the answer to that is “yes,” they did. They obtained that right when three States ratified the federal Constitution. Those three States were New York, Vermont and Virginia. All three contained in their ratification documents the right to secede:

New York’s Ratification: We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787 — Do declare and make known, —

That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said Constitution, which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common interest, protection, and security.

Rhode Island’s Ratification:

III. That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness. That the rights of the states respectively to nominate and appoint all state officers, and every other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the Constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said Constitution; but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Virginia’s Ratification: WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

When the other States accepted these three States’ ratification documents as legitimate, they accepted these clauses as well and as the Constitution is a compact or a contract, unless that document provides special rights to special groups within it, all rights accepted by the signatories apply to all those signatories without exception even if the other signatories did not claim such rights. Therefore, from its beginnings, the United States Constitution permitted any of its signatory States to secede from the Union formed by that Constitution providing that State did so according to accepted lawful practices (that is, through that State’s legislature by vote). This is sufficient to prove that no laws were violated when the States of the Confederacy left the Federal Union; they broke no laws and the claim that treason was committed in their doing so is demonstrably false. That is why after the “Civil War,” no Southerner was charged with treason. Indeed, the federal government was warned that attempts to charge men such as Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee with treason would prove in court that the Confederacy was in the right and not the Federal Union!

But what about the constitutionality of the actions of the Sanctuary areas? Do they have a right to ignore or reject federal laws adopted through the Constitution because they disagree with those laws? In fact, no, they do not. One may challenge a law in court, but until that law is struck down (if it is!), the law stands and obedience is essential especially when those involved are in positions of political and legal power – governors, judges, law enforcement agents etc. Actually, no one on either side of this issue is ignorant of the fact that the leaders in Sanctuary areas are breaking the law and making themselves open to federal prosecution! This is not a matter that can be decided by popular vote! It cannot be legally debated. It is reality though, of course these days, reality itself seems open to contention!

Also, people speak today as if the actions of Sanctuary areas will lead to civil war but, of course, that’s nonsense. This charge is made also as a comparison with the results of the acts of the Confederacy at the time of its secession. Actually, the South had no desire for war but was forced to defend itself when attacked by the federal government supposedly in response to the attack on Fort Sumter! However, a close examination of that incident proves that it was, in fact, a “false flag” designed to provide the government with an excuse for war! But as noted, these Sanctuary areas don’t want “separation.” Rather they want the right to “rule themselves” without federal interference while retaining all the support expected from existing within that same government! They don’t seek political independence, they wish only to function without answering for their own illegal activities and this includes the retention of such federal benefits as federal funding bestowed upon the cities and states involved. Furthermore, they are acting as they do in hopes of eventually being able to recapture power in that same government! This is something that the Confederacy had absolutely no desire to do! It wanted the old Union to go its own way, leaving the South to create its own nation, a matter that is the direct opposite of the intentions of the Sanctuary areas!

Thus, it becomes clear that when commentators and others “compare” what is going on today in our nation’s Sanctuary areas with the actions and intentions of the Confederacy in the 1800s, this is altogether wrong. Whether one agrees with the States of the South, they had the constitutional right to leave the old Union and create a nation of their own. In the end, while the Confederacy did not have the might to do so, its right to do so cannot be questioned! On the other hand, these Sanctuary areas have a very different aim to their actions and as motive is essential to determine the legitimacy of said actions, this matter greatly affects the present comparison. Sanctuary areas do not reject the federal government as did the Confederacy. Rather, they wish to force their viewpoint on that government in order to do what is perceived necessary to return to power within it – power that they lost in the last presidential election for lack of a sufficiently large voting base. Furthermore, in their actions they have made it very clear that they are not circumscribed by existing federal and even state laws when they so willingly break such laws in their efforts to achieve their ends.

So, when one hears a local news program compare the actions of today’s Sanctuary areas in their “resistance” to the federal government with the actions of the States of the South in 1860, know that nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, it is 100% wrong because in 1860, the States of the South followed the Constitution while the Federal Government at the head of the rest of the States and Territories of the Federal Union ignored that same Constitution in making war upon what were claimed by that government as American States. Indeed, it is interesting to read just how treason is defined in the Constitution:

Article 3 – The Judicial Branch ~ Section 3 – Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The so-called “civil war” was no such thing! It was an attack by agents of the federal government against what that government still identified at the time as “States within the federal union.” And as the federal government is not a State but a creation of the Constitution, that body and those who acted through it can be said to be guilty of treason under that same Constitution (see above). Parenthetically, it is also interesting to note that war may only be declared, again according to the Constitution, by Congress. But Congress was not in session when the Executive Branch under President Lincoln declared war on the States of the South and thus committed a further violation of that same Constitution.

When the current behavior of the Sanctuary areas is compared to that of the Confederacy in 1860, it becomes obvious that what is happening is a direct rejection of constitutional federal authority for purposes of political power and its attendant economic corruption as has become obvious in States like Minnesota. Therefore, to compare the actions of Sanctuary areas with the Confederacy vis a vis an attempt at secession and/or civil war, it is obvious that said comparison is both invalid and an insult to the Southern patriots of 1860.

The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily those of the Abbeville Institute.

Valerie Protopapas

Valerie Protopapas is an independent historian and the former editor of The Southern Cavalry Review, the journal of The Stuart-Mosby Historical Society.

View all posts