Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?
The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: dixielist; zzzzzzz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 2,101-2,114 next last
To: Aurelius
Force was used to reverse secession; no law was being enforced.

The Supreme Court said otherwise.

"By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare was against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, [this is the Militia Act] and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."

-- from the Prize Cases ruling in the December 1862 term.

Walt

181 posted on 06/13/2003 8:15:00 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
This is pointless. You keep harping on the Militia Act and the Prize Cases decision although you have been shown again and again why they do not apply in the case of secession. The matter has been settled.
182 posted on 06/13/2003 8:18:59 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Or are we not supposed to compare Southerners to the all but out in the open northern secessionist states of 1814?

And how did the Southron states answer the calls for secession? Calhoun and company made it quite clear that any attempt at secession would be put down by force.

Oops. Looks like I let the cat out of the bag.

183 posted on 06/13/2003 8:42:39 AM PDT by Poohbah (I must be all here, because I'm not all there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
And did I say I agreed with them? The north should have been allowed to leave in 1814.
184 posted on 06/13/2003 8:47:48 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
As early as before the first Continental Congress the enlightened colonists considered themselves Americans, a distinct people.

Washington's horror of disUnion caused him to write the Farewell Address. Typically it is presented (falsely) as a plea for isolationism. It is nothing of the sort and the main reason it calls for standing aside from Europe's quarrels is the fear that becoming involved on France's side would bring about the destruction of the Union through Civil War.

This is also a big factor in his turning away from Jefferson who forfeited the Great Man's friendship through duplicity, malice and lies about him and his administration.
185 posted on 06/13/2003 9:21:50 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
You are spreading falsehoods. None of the founders supported disUnion. Not one and you can't show one comment which means that they did. Jefferson started to flirt with the idea of secession in the 1820s and after a pack of brainless baying yahoos who supported him started howling about actually leaving the Union, Madison wrote him and warned him about the use of such language. Jefferson then backtracked and re-affirmed his opposition to such an idea.

Washington's Farewell address is primarily directed against the idea of disunion. Hamilton abhorred the idea with every fiber of his being and was one of the reasons he was opposed to Burr becoming governor of NY in 1804. His fear of disunion was a factor in his death at the hands of Burr a few months later.

The Declaration of Independence was a rhetorical device to justify what had ALREADY happened and had no application to a Free and Independent government. It was addressed to ENGLAND and has no relevence to 1860 or the constitution. There was NO Union until 1788 just a Confederation and prior to that colonies controlled by the King.

You have to make proper distinctions. Painting everything with the same brush merely obscures and does not illuminate.
It leads to great confusion.
186 posted on 06/13/2003 9:35:38 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
So that slice of crap was worth posting twice?

No matter how many times you post it the ridiculous article which started this thread will not be less ridiculous. Nor will it automatically become worth reading or attain any greater accuracy.

It is drivel filled with error and contradiction. Truly a post not worthy of any school of thought. I have seen better written and more sensible articles in Lyndon LaRouche's paper. However, junk like this is the best that the D.S.s can come up with to support their intellectually, morally and factually bankrupt contentions. That, at least, is a pleasant thought.

Lies about the meaning of the constitution, lies about the founding fathers beliefs, lies about the start of the War, lies about the intentions of Lincolns, lies about the intentions of the Slavers makes for tiresome reading. Lies about me in comparision are inconsequential. Weak attempts to insult me merely shows the other readers the lack of ability you have. Keep it up.
187 posted on 06/13/2003 9:48:49 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan
By the time the constitution was written the government of the Articles was moribund and without power. There was no secession from a dead body. Any more than there is a secession when a butterfly emerges from the chrysalis. America emerged from its dead cocoon of the Articles and flew away on its unparalleled flight into the light of Freedom.

In point of fact, the TRUE Union prior to the Constitution was the the Army of George Washington. Its survival allowed the Union to survive. Its destruction would have meant the end of the Union. Those who served in that Army understood that the Confederation was weak to the point of contempt and utterly incapable of doing anything effectual.

No changes were made in the Articles and for good reason. Hamilton and Madison understood that the veto power of each state made any changes impossible. Therefore, it was necessary for the survival of the nation that the ARticles be scrapped entirely and a fresh start begun. Their wisdom blessed the world with this great nation.

There was no violation of the Articles and the Union was made more perfect. All was done legally and consistent with the concept of republicanism.

Needs of the nation had outgrown the Articles and to keep them would have meant national suicide just as a butterfly which cannot get out of the chrysalis dies. Washington, Hamilton and Madison would have none of that. All the great patriots would have none of that.

Who dares oppose himself to such men and expects to be taken seriously?
188 posted on 06/13/2003 10:07:43 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Bump
189 posted on 06/13/2003 10:13:20 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (~~~ http://www.ourgangnet.net ~~~~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Thank you for your opinion. Everyone has a right to his opinion, even an ignorant jackass like you.
190 posted on 06/13/2003 10:22:53 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"No state has ever been out of the Union for single second."

Are you sure about that? Each of the former Confederate states had to be readmitted into the Union during the 1866 - 1870 timeframe...well after the war had ended.
How and why would you readmit someone who hasn't left?
191 posted on 06/13/2003 10:32:27 AM PDT by RenegadeNC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Since the Union had already been declared to be perpetual and the Constitution explicitly stated that it was adopted to make the Union MORE PERFECT it does not take a lot of brain power to understand that it could not be less than perpetual and be more perfect.

Jackson certainly doesn't agree with your belief. Nor does ANY other founder. Not one. Hmmmm....

Secession could have been perfectly legal had the Constitution been amended to allow it.

Our Union is not the political equivalent of an Islamic divorce. Saying "I secede" three times or a hundred times doesn't do it.
192 posted on 06/13/2003 10:36:00 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"...it could not be less than perpetual and be more perfect."

An obvious non sequitur.

193 posted on 06/13/2003 10:40:23 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Being called an ignorant jackass by a pompous fool is high praise. Seeing the evidence of brain-rot instituted through slavish devotion to the lying tyrants of the Slaverocracy is a sobering thing.

Posting your comments is a great service to the medical community and a clear warning of the biological degradation caused by historical error. Hopefully your tragedy will turn future generations away from the Dark side and back to the light of Patriotism.
194 posted on 06/13/2003 10:40:59 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Don't understand the phrase? Others can help.
195 posted on 06/13/2003 10:41:52 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Capriole
I never said YOU were a liar. Just that the mythology/propaganda you inherited was most likely a lie. The probability of that story of the gang-rape being true is as close to zero as anything can be.

People who knowingly spread untruths are liars. People who spread lies not knowing they are lies are not liars. Since there is no way you can verify that this tall tale is true I don't call you a liar.

I am specific in the use of words and don't confuse the definitions of lie and liar.
196 posted on 06/13/2003 10:47:01 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Keep it up, jackass, the more you post your lame insults and totally unsubstantiated allegations, the more of a fool you look.
197 posted on 06/13/2003 10:47:18 AM PDT by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Since the Union had already been declared to be perpetual and the Constitution explicitly stated that it was adopted to make the Union MORE PERFECT it does not take a lot of brain power to understand that it could not be less than perpetual and be more perfect.

Sorry not going to fly. The Constitution replaced the Articles, it didn't amend the Articles. If this all blasted perpetual union was doing so well under the old document, why didn't the Founders just amend what they had instead of tossing it out?

Jackson certainly doesn't agree with your belief. Nor does ANY other founder. Not one. Hmmmm

Well that's a lie and you know it. Jefferson's Inaugural Address comes to mind just in itself. And surely you're not suggesting that none of the Founders or their peers were in Hartford in 1814? They got the idea of secession from someone. Hmmmm.....

Secession could have been perfectly legal had the Constitution been amended to allow it.

It was amended.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

Do you see secession explicitly covered in the Constitution, either through outlawing or condoning? No? Then it is a right reserved to the states

198 posted on 06/13/2003 10:50:26 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Sorry doofuss but you are the one who started with the insults. As you always do when unable to dispute civilly or rationally.

Clean up your own act before blatthering on about others.
199 posted on 06/13/2003 10:56:40 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (RATS will use any means to denigrate George Bush's Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: RenegadeNC
"No state has ever been out of the Union for single second."

Are you sure about that? Each of the former Confederate states had to be readmitted into the Union during the 1866 - 1870 timeframe...well after the war had ended. How and why would you readmit someone who hasn't left?

What was involved was allowing congressmen and senators to take their seats, not readmitting the states themselves.

Walt

200 posted on 06/13/2003 11:01:23 AM PDT by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 2,101-2,114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson