If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

[Aurelius]

Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'

Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."

Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?

At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."

Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.

Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???

Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.

[nolu chan]

[GOP] Anyone who criticizes the preservation of the United States of American hates the United States of America.

Anyone who supports the rape of the Constitution hates freedom and democracy.

[nolu chan]

[GOP] Exactly! The neo-Confederates kooks are consumed by their hatred for the United States of America, and lacking the guts to act on their political convictions, they re-fight battles waged by 19th century insurgents.

As opposed to your addressee, I presume. He had the guts and political convictions to vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Praise and follow his example, and show your political guts and convictions.

[Non-Sequitur]

Now is or is not the suspension power granted in that same article?

Yeah, but the Supreme Court has never ruled that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus.

[Non-Sequitur]

Civil war has been favored over all the others in recent times if for no other reason than that it is the easiest to say and shortest to write.

Or maybe because in 1902 Congress voted to adopt that name on all official documentation, replacing 'War of Southern Rebellion' and in place of the preferred southern 'War Between the States.'

[Non-Sequitur]

es, my opinion has less validity than yours, which you spout freely and then deny others the privelege.

Touchy, touchy, touchy. I've never denied you the right to spout your opinions, I have simply pointed out that in terms of what is Constitutional and what is not then your opinion is meaningless. As meaningless as my own. The only opinions that count are those of the members of the Supreme Court itself.

The constitution didn't say that Sherman's troops couldn't rape southerners on their way through, either, so that must've been okey-dokey as well.

The Constitution is silent on the subject of murder, too, but that doesn't mean I think that it is legal. That's because I don't confuse Constitutional law with criminial law or civil law.

Never has their been collusion by all branches of government against the people as there was during post-war "reconstruction." Dare someone question that validity of their acts? Not so, because Non-Sequitur will remind them that men with guns stand ready to protect their political power at all costs - well, actually only the cost of your life, but losers who think they're "free enough for now" are a dime a dozen.

Now you're getting just plain silly. But that's OK. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

[nolu chan]

[GOP] The deliniation between the supreme law of the land and state law is decided by the U. S. Congress and the U. S. President, subject to the review, ultimately, of the U. S. Supreme Court.

Good attempt to obfuscate. Try again.

Article 3, Sect 1, "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

And Section 2, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Las of the United States, and Treaties made , or which shall be made, under their Authority..."

That includes the Circuit Courts. It includes Merryman.

[nolu chan]

[Spok] Political power comes from the barrels of guns.
Chairman Mao

Lincoln quotes are big with the Maoists.

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/violence.html
MIM = Maoist International Movement

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.
Abraham Lincoln, Speech in the United States House of Representatives, Jan. 12, 1848

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln, "First Inaugural Address"

[nolu chan]

[Gianni] In short, he's a lynch-mob partisan who'll scream a battle cry for any cause, so long as those who surround him call themselves 'republican.'

In my experience, those who cry the loudest are the least likely to wind up in a uniform doing the fighting. They are most brave when others do the actual fighting.

Name a single abolitionist who was elected to any major office? Did they overrun the recruiting offices? Look at our current crop of politicians.

They scream long and hard for battle, then they exempt themselves from said battle.

The military fights to preserve the Nation and the Constitution.

nolu chan, usn, ret

[nolu chan]

I'm sorry I forgot to add [/sarcasm]. I thought it was obvious.

[n-s] "But no, moving troops around Boston was not an act of war on the part of the British. Hostilities were initiated by the colonists themselves."

The British moved around more than Boston. They encountered some trouble in New Jersey.

Please. If your army shoots at mine and mine shoots back at yours, we are both engaged in acts of war.

You sound like Clinton. We commited and act of war but they did not.

Maybe we can just go Irish and call it "The Troubles."

[The_Media_never_lie]

Are we fighting the Civil War again?

All we really need right now to help us lose the war on terrorism is for us to fight each other. I'll read my history books and pass on this fight.

[nolu chan]

It is unfair to say State of Texas v. White had "no" meaning. The case was brought by the Federal Military Government of Texas and resulted in the Federal Government not paying millions of dollars worth of bonds. Hey, a million here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money. On the merits, the issue before the court was whether the bonds would be paid. The decision had meaning to the actual case before the court. (The Government kept the money - what else?)

State of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) was a case about millions of dollars of U.S. Government bonds which had been acquired by Texas in 1851. At issue was "Texas, entitling herself 'the State of Texas, one of the United States of America,' filed, on the 15th of February, 1867, an original bill against different persons; White and Chiles, one Hardenberg, a certain firm, Birch, Murray & Co., and some others, citizens of New York and other States; praying an injunction against their asking or receiving payment from the United States of certain bonds of the Federal government, known as Texan indemnity bonds; and that the bonds might be delivered up to the complainant, and for other and further relief.

Concerning the merits of the case, the majority ruling states: "The question of jurisdiction being thus disposed of, we proceed to the consideration of the merits as presented by the pleadings and the evidence.

And the first question to be answered is, whether or not the title of the State to the bonds in controversy was divested by the contract of the military board with White and Chiles?

* * *

"It is impossible, upon this evidence, to hold the defendants protected by absence of notice of the want of title in White and Chiles. As these persons acquired no right to payment of these bonds as against the State, purchasers could acquire none through them.

"On the whole case, therefore, our conclusion is that the State of Texas is entitled to the relief sought by her bill, and a decree must be made accordingly."

[Non-Sequitur]

Please. If your army shoots at mine and mine shoots back at yours, we are both engaged in acts of war.

Since you want to put it that way then can we agree that it was the southern army that fired at the U.S. Army and the U.S. Army fired back? If so then how can you condemn President Lincoln for not declaring war when war was, in fact, forced on him?

You sound like Clinton. We commited and act of war but they did not. <p. Or Bush?

[Non-Sequitur]

The case was brought by the Federal Military Government of Texas and resulted in the Federal Government not paying millions of dollars worth of bonds.

The case questioned the legality of the rebel government of Texas selling the bonds to the defendants. Since they obtained the bonds through illegal means then the bonds should not be paid.

"On the whole case, therefore, our conclusion is that the State of Texas is entitled to the relief sought by her bill, and a decree must be made accordingly."

Minority opinion. The majority held, "Considered, therefore, as transactions under the Constitution, the Ordinance of Secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the Acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

[4CJ]

The United States Government can indeed confiscate assets used to support any rebellion, whether of Confederates then or some Islamic militants now.

See the 5th Amendment. It was decided well before the WONA by SCOTUS that seized property must be renumerated.

[4CJ]

I have dozens of quotes by Lincoln proving his views towards blacks were no different than 97% of the country. Some of those "evil Democrats" (the ones that write all the history books o;) glorify St. Lincoln by covering his white supremacy/separatist views.

[WhiskeyPapa]

He said it everywhere.

"Whereas, while heretofore, States, and Nations, have tolerated slavery, recently, for the first time in the world, an attempt has been made to construct a new nation, upon the basis of, and with the primary, and fundamental object to maintain, enlarge, and perpetuate human slavery, therefore,

Resolved, that no such embryo State should ever be recognized by, or admitted into, the family of christian and civilized nations; and that all Christian and civilized men everywhere should, by all lawful means, resist to the utmost, such recognition or admission."

4/15/63

Lincoln's ideas on race changed over time. It is indisputable that after black troops were enlisted to fight under Old Glory that he began to prepare the way for full rights for them.

Private

Executive Mansion

Washington D.C. April 1, 1863

General Hunter

My dear Sir:

I am glad to see the accounts of your colored force at Jacksonville, Florida. I see the enemy are driving at them fiercely, as is to be expected. It is mportant to the enemy that such a force shall not take shape, and grow, and thrive, in the south; and in precisely the same proportion, it is important to us that it shall. Hence the utmost caution and viglilance is necessary on our part. The enemy will make extra efforts to destroy them; and we should do the same to perserve and increase them.

Yours truly

A. Lincoln

_________________________________________________________

Hon. Andrew Johnson

Executive Mansion,

My dear Sir:

Washington, March 26. 1863.

I am told you have at least thought of raising a negro military force. In my opinion the country now needs no specific thing so much as some man of your ability, and position, to go to this work. When I speak of your position, I mean that of an eminent citizen of a slave-state, and himself a slave- holder. The colored population is the great available and yet unavailed of, force for restoring the Union. The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers on the banks of the Mississippi, would end the rebellion at once. And who doubts that we can present that sight, if we but take hold in earnest? If you have been thinking of it please do not dismiss the thought.

Yours truly

--------------------------------------------------------

Private

March 13, 1864

Executive Mansion

Washington

Hon. Michael Hahn

My dear sir,

I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first free-state Governor of Louisiana. Now you are about to have a convention which among other things, will probably define the elective franchise. I barely suggest for your private consideration, whther some of the colored people may not be let in -- as for instance the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in oyr ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of liberty within the family of freedom. But this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone.

Yours truly

----------------------------------------------

David Herbert Donald in Lincoln describes the scene on April 4, 1865, when President Lincoln went to visit the former Confederate capital, Richmond. Landing without fanfare from a barge on the James River, he was first noticed by some black workmen, undoubtedly freed slaves. Donald notes that:

Their leader, a man about sixty, dropped his spade and rushed forward, exclaiming, "Bless the Lord, there is the great Messiah! . . .

Glory, Hallelujah!" He and others fell on their knees, trying to kiss the President’s feet. "Don’t kneel to me," Lincoln told them, embarrassed. "That is not right. You must kneel to God only, and thank him for the liberty you will hereafter enjoy." Quickly word of the President’s arrival spread, and he was soon surrounded by throngs of blacks, who shouted, "Bless the Lord, Father Abraham come."

http://www.whitehousehistory.org/02_learning/subs_9/activities_9/frame_act_903e.html

[Grand Old Partisan]

You are setting yourself up as a constitutional authority superior to the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court, all of whom authorized the seizure of assets used in support of a rebellion against the United States Government. The key word in the 5th Amendment is "unreasonable". The Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862, which authorized the seizure of rebel assets, were eminently reasonable.

[WhiskeyPapa]

the sovereign of a nation may lawfully confiscate the debts of his enemy, during war...

Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money? That has no application in this case. The people of the whole United States are the sovereigns of the United States.

It should embarrass you to say some thing so ridiculous.

Walt

[Grand Old Partisan]

Those Lincoln quotes ignore the political context, in which he was trying to win elections in a very racist, predominately Democrat Illinois. Lincoln was always more progressive on racial issues than most of his electorate, but not so much so to preclude any chance of winning. My favorite Lincoln quote on the subject is "If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong."

[Grand Old Partisan]

Lots of cut-and-paste, but the Missouri order refers to blacks entered into service, not conscripted. As for the Department of the South, it was a very marginal area of offshore islands and such in the Carolinas. You must also take into account the contect. The bulf of the black men there within Union lines were there because they had gone there, so that the general must have felt that since the able-bodied men who had come to him, wanting to be feed, etc., they should be in the Army. Whatever the situation, it was very marginal to the overall Union effort.