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.
[three_wheeled_yugo 1953]
[lg] Isn't Lerone Bennett a notorious black separatist and revisionist?
[three_wheeled_yugo] The short answer, yes he is.
Dear little three_wheeled_yugo,
That curious little curly punctuation mark at the end of LG's sentence is called a question mark. LG asked a question.
Then a three-wheeled-yugo rolled up, took another of his mindless mental dumps, and made an emphatic claim. Indeed, he made a baseless claim which he most emphatically cannot back up.
<ducks>
I don't doubt the substance of the story, but I have a problem with the author cited. Isn't Lerone Bennett a notorious black separatist and revisionist?
Now it seems to me that an assertion is being made about the author you cited. While phrased as a question, it is an assertion nonetheless.
Furthermore, the assertion has two parts. Part A is the assertion that Lerone Bennett Jr. is a notorious black seperatist, part B is that author Lerone Bennett Jr. is a revisionist.
My response to this assertion was affirmative [short answer, yes], and I go on to cite an earlier work where Lerone Bennett credits the founding fathers as having invented racism.
There can be no disagreement about whether Lerone Bennett Jr. is a black liberation theorist. Even you aren't stupid enough to attempt to disclaim that assertion. Whats left then is to determine whether Bennett is a black liberation theorist of one stripe [integration] or another [separation].
Whether Lerone Bennett Jr. is or isn't a separationist could be a subject for lengthy discussion since virtually all Black Liberation theorists pay homage to Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam.
What isn't debatable, and what you have gone to great lengths NOT to discuss is part B of LG's orginal assertion.
The simple fact that Lerone Bennett Jr. IS a revisionist historian.
This is the relavant portion because it was a historical citation of Bennett's that you quoted in 1823 and a historical quotation from an earlier revisionist work of his that I referenced in 1958 .
Now, either you are the dumbest stump in the neo-confederate woodpile, or a carefully camoflauged black liberation theorist. Which is it?
Let me clarify what I was posting. I remembered Bennett vaguely as the black-magazine editor who wrote a book that appeared, from what I remembered of its reviews, to attack Lincoln as a way, it seemed to me at the time, of attacking all whites as hopeless racist/beastpeople/whatever, and that therefore Bennett must have been retailing a POV that could be described as Marcus Garvey with diablo rojo sauce on it: let's be separate, because white people at their best are the Unspeakable Beast Man. Sort of like Lionel Jeffries and his "ice people" rap.
And since Bennett had expressed a different view of Lincoln from the marble portraits we usually have received from everyone since William Herndon, I assumed that he was engaging in historical revisionism from a Left POV.
All clear now? And I basically wanted confirmation that my estimate of Lerone Bennett and why he was writing was correct.
The American Book Awards / Before Columbus Foundation
The American Book Awards, established in 1978 by the Before Columbus Foundation, recognize outstanding literary achievement by contemporary American authors, without restriction to race, sex, ethnic background, or genre. The purpose of the awards is to acknowledge the excellence and multicultural diversity of American writing.
2002 Lifetime Achievement: Lerone Bennett, Jr.
Salute to Greatness Award of the Martin Luther King Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change
Lerone Bennett, Jr.
Lerone Bennett, Jr. is a highly acclaimed journalist, author and executive editor of Ebony. He graduated from Morehouse College in 1949 and began his career as a reporter for the Atlanta Daily World and later served as city editor. Bennett moved to Chicago in 1953 where he worked as associate editor at Jet magazine. The following year he became associate editor for Ebony and is now executive editor of the publication. He has authored many articles and books including, Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America, 1619-1962 (1962), What Manner of Man: A Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1964), and Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream (2000).
CAN YOU DIG IT, BROTHER? I hope you didn't miss it.
Abraham Lincoln Symposium
and Annual Abraham Lincoln Association Banquet
Sponsored by:
With support from:
Abraham Lincoln Symposium
February 12, 2002, at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois,
The Symposium is free to the public.
Address: Lerone Bennett Jr.,
Ebony Magazine, Forced Into Glory
[LG] I don't doubt the substance of the story, but I have a problem with the author cited. Isn't Lerone Bennett a notorious black separatist and revisionist?
[Yugo] Now it seems to me that an assertion is being made about the author you cited. While phrased as a question, it is an assertion nonetheless.
[nc] Whatever you say, dear. I promise to add this to my Wlatian translation table. A question is an assertion. Thanks for sharing.
[Wlatian translation table: Conservatives are really Socialists. Republicans are really Progressives. Republicans are not really Conservatives. Liberals are really Conservatives. Conservatives are Classical Liberals. A monarch isn't always a monarch. Protectionism isn't protectionism ... sometimes. Capitalism is government economic intervention. A question is an assertion.]
[LINK-1] [LINK-2]
[Yugo] Furthermore, the assertion has two parts. Part A is the assertion that Lerone Bennett Jr. is a notorious black seperatist, part B is that author Lerone Bennett Jr. is a revisionist.
[nc] If you say so, dear.
[Yugo] My response to this assertion was affirmative [short answer, yes], and I go on to cite an earlier work where Lerone Bennett credits the founding fathers as having invented racism.
[nc] Your false assertion was answered, slam-dunked, cut up into 4-inch squares, and deposited in the little reading room dear. Your 1958 was stuffed by my 1960. Your pathetic attempt to debate with your intellectual superior continued through [1963] [1969]
You remember my 1969, I'm sure:
What you said was, that Bennett is a notorious black separatist.
Show me where Bennett has ever used the term "Black Separatist."
Show me where Bennett has ever said he was a "Black Separatist."
Provide a quote or link for any reputable source which alleges Bennett is, or ever has been, a "notorious Black separatist."
YOU are the one who said that the short answer is that Bennett is a "notorious black separatist." If he is not just a black separatist, but a notorious black separatist, a source should be easy to find.
[Yugo] There can be no disagreement about whether Lerone Bennett Jr. is a black liberation theorist.
[nc] If you say there can be no disagreement, I will take your word for it dear, and not try to disagree.
[Yugo] Even you aren't stupid enough to attempt to disclaim that assertion.
[nc] Whatever you say, dear.
[Yugo] Whats left then is to determine whether Bennett is a black liberation theorist of one stripe [integration] or another [separation].
[nc] He may have tiger stripes and move into the house next to yours and then he will boil you in a large pot and eat you and your babies.
[Yugo] Whether Lerone Bennett Jr. is or isn't a separationist could be a subject for lengthy discussion since virtually all Black Liberation theorists pay homage to Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam.
[nc] You logic is second to none.
[Yugo] What isn't debatable, and what you have gone to great lengths NOT to discuss is part B of LG's orginal assertion.
[nc] If you say it is not debatable, I will take your word for it dear, and not try to debate it.
[Yugo] The simple fact that Lerone Bennett Jr. IS a revisionist historian.
[nc] Whatever you say, dear. [Dear... that was only a fragment and not a whole sentence.]
[Yugo] This is the relavant [SIC] portion because it was a historical citation of Bennett's that you quoted in 1823 and a historical quotation from an earlier revisionist work of his that I referenced in 1958.
[nc] Your logic remains second to none.
[Yugo] Now, either you are the dumbest stump
[nc] That would leave you being outwitted by a tree stump.
[Yugo] in the neo-confederate woodpile,
[nc] I dunno, I'm a Yankee.
[Yugo] or a carefully camoflauged [SIC] black liberation theorist.
[nc] I guess you haven't found that pic of me camouflaged on a corner freeping the hitlery book tour. Hey, you should see the thread Entering the belly of The BEAST. My day with Hillary. Really, it's fun. Freeper Hillary's Lovely Legs gets up to Hillary for the book signing and...
I was in orange and fuschia in the sea of white T shirts and Hillary buttons. Hillary was signing away and I said " Who's on the cover of your book?"
IF LOOKS COULD KILL.
Hillary and I did lazer beam eyeballs of hate to each other.
If only she knew that the one questioning her was actually her nemesis...Hillary's Lovely Legs.
Suddenly a vice-like grip was on my left arm, and I was pulled away from Hillary. They handed me my book, and I was on my way.
My cameraman friend said he got it on tape and hopes he can use it, but he wanted to know what in the world I said to her to make her use her " GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE face".
I told him that I said " I have Vince Foster's murder on tape".
My silly friend, he thought I was serious. I told him what I really said and he laughed. I hope to get a copy of the tape. It will be priceless.
[nc] Are you still mad at me for freeping your liberal heroine Hillary? Is that what this is all about?
[Yugo] Which is it?
[nc] What exactly is a Black liberation theorist? Is that about a woman who burns her black bra?
[nc] What is a Black separatist? Bennett has been an editor at Ebony for about a half-century. Just where to you think he is going? Maybe he's going to the Abraham Lincoln Association to give ***another*** address.
Halle Berry in a Wonder Bra?
[nolu] I dunno, I'm a Yankee...
ROTFL!
Idiot #1: “Okay, presume the South had a Constitutional right to secede. The minute they do so, they are a foreign country with a foreign government (who fires the first shot, even!), and then the US Congress can legally declare war on them - occupy the land - and bring those states back in once the war is won.”
Idiot #2: :Yeah, these southern slave holding yahoos want to seceed and then continue to claim Constitutional protection. But by seceeding they become a foreign power no longer covered by the US Constitution, and by attacking US fortifications, they become a hostile foreign power. Because their slavery system was immoral, they are an immoral hostile foreign power.
Then they get their butts whipped, the immoral institution of slavery is immediately overthrown — and they have been calling the “whaaaambulance” ever since.”
Amazing, absolutely amazing. An insane dictator claims he owns other nations, and invades them ILLEGALLY; and then when those nations (GASP!) have the GALL to actually DEFEND themselves against the almighty Great Dictator— the IDIOTS applaud like trained seals, defending the dictator for mass-murdering everyone until the nations surrender!
This defines Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussen... but it all started with Lincoln. Now we know how they got so far... TRAINED IDIOTS LIKE THESE SUPPORTING THEM!
HELLO? What’s wrong with this picture? IT’S YOUR BRAIN-SCAN, THAT’S WHAT!
Since WHEN can the fed conquer any nation it pleases— and through false pretenses of trumped-up law, no less (i.e. by claiming that secession is illegal, when it ISN’T)?
Since NEVER!
“We has met the enemy, and you is them.”
Pathetic... absolutely pathetic.
Oh well, fools and their freedom are never to meet.
Wow! You've taken us back to 2003! A simpler and a better time!
Just do that 29 more times and we'll be back in the 1850s!
You'll have undone the Civil War War of Northern Whatever-it-is and everything will be wonderful!
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.