Posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:39 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Copperhead Chronicle Al Benson, Jr. Articles
Guess What Folks--Secesson Wasn't Treason by Al Benson Jr.
More and more of late I have been reading articles dealing with certain black racist groups that claim to have the best interests of average black folks at heart (they really don't). It seems these organizations can't take time to address the problems of black crime in the black community or of single-parent families in the black community in any meaningful way. It's much more lucrative for them (and it gets more press coverage) if they spend their time and resources attacking Confederate symbols. Ive come to the conclusion that they really don't give a rip for the welfare of black families. They only use that as a facade to mask their real agenda--the destruction of Southern, Christian culture.
Whenever they deal with questions pertaining to history they inevitably come down on that same old lame horse that the South was evil because they seceded from the Union--and hey--everybody knows that secession was treason anyway. Sorry folks, but that old line is nothing more than a gigantic pile of cow chips that smells real ripe in the hot August sun! And I suspect that many of them know that--they just don't want you to know it--all the better to manipulate you my dear!
It is interesting that those people never mention the fact that the New England states threatened secession three times--that's right three times--before 1860. In 1814 delegates from those New England states actually met in Hartford, Connecticut to consider seceding from the Union. Look up the Hartford Convention of 1814 on the Internet if you want a little background. Hardly anyone ever mentions the threatened secession of the New England states. Most "history" books I've seen never mention it. Secession is never discussed until 1860 when it suddenly became "treasonous" for the Southern states to do it. What about the treasonous intent of the New England states earlier? Well, you see, it's only treasonous if the South does it.
Columnist Joe Sobran, whom I enjoy, once wrote an article in which he stated that "...Jefferson was an explicit secessionist. For openers he wrote a famous secessionist document known to posterity as the Declaration of Independence." If these black racist groups are right, that must mean that Jefferson was guilty of treason, as were Washington and all these others that aided them in our secession from Great Britain. Maybe the black racists all wish they were still citizens of Great Britain. If that's the case, then as far as I know, the airlines are still booking trips to London, so nothing is stopping them.
After the War of Northern Aggression against the South was over (at least the shooting part) the abolitionist radicals in Washington decided they would try Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States as a co-conspirator in the Lincoln assassination (which would have been just great for Edwin M. Stanton) and as a traitor for leading the secessionist government in Richmond, though secession had hardly been original with Mr. Davis. However, trying Davis for treason as a secessionist was one trick the abolitionist radicals couldn't quite pull off.
Burke Davis, (no relation to Jeff Davis that I know of) in his book The Long Surrender on page 204, noted a quote by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, telling Edwin Stanton that "If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason." Burke Davis then continued on page 214, noting that a congressiona committee proposed a special court for Davis' trial, headed by Judge Franz Lieber. Davis wrote: "After studying more than 270,000 Confederate documents, seeking evidence against Davis, the court discouraged the War Department: 'Davis will be found not guilty,' Lieber reported 'and we shall stand there completely beaten'." What the radical Yankees and their lawyers were admitting among themselves (but quite obviously not for the historical record) was that they and Lincoln had just fought a war of aggression agains the Southern states and their people, a war that had taken or maimed the lives of over 600,000 Americans, both North and South, and they had not one shread of constitutional justification for having done so, nor had they any constitutional right to have impeded the Southern states when they chose to withdraw from a Union for which they were paying 83% of all the expenses, while getting precious little back for it, save insults from the North.
Most of us detest big government or collectivism. Yet, since the advent of the Lincoln administration we have been getting ever increasing doses of it. Lincoln was, in one sense, the "great emancipator" in that he freed the federal government from any chains the constitution had previously bound it with, so it could now roam about unfettered "seeking to devous whoseover it could." And where the Founders sought to give us "free and independent states" is anyone naive enough anymore as to think the states are still free and independent? Those who honestly still think that are prime candidates for belief in the Easter Bunny, for he is every bit as real as is the "freedom" our states experience at this point in history. Our federal government today is even worse than what our forefathers went to war against Britain to prevent. And because we have been mostly educated in their government brain laundries (public schools) most still harbor the illusion that they are "free." Well, as they say, "the brainwashed never wonder." ___________________
About the Author
Al Benson Jr.'s, [send him email] columns are to found on many online journals such as Fireeater.Org, The Sierra Times, and The Patriotist. Additionally, Mr. Benson is editor of the Copperhead Chronicle [more information] and author of the Homeschool History Series, [more information] a study of the War of Southern Independence. The Copperhead Chronicle is a quarterly newsletter written with a Christian, pro-Southern perspective.
When A New Article Is Released You Will Know It First! Sign-Up For Al Benson's FREE e-Newsletter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Copperhead Chronicle | Homeschool History Series | Al Benson, Jr. Articles
The reason the Civil War is such an important issue to many southerners is this: Most southerners don’t care much for centralized government power. As the federal government gets bigger and bigger, southerners cherish the memories of their ancestors who fought to secede and were stopped by the federal government, which then used the opportunity of their victory to increase federal power. And the subsequently ratified 14th Amendment has been used by the federal government repeatedly to justify federal power grabs to this very day.
And we’ve only narrowly dodged the bullet on even more federal power grabs under the 14th. For instance, the Boy Scouts won their case a few years ago by a narrow 5-4 vote. The courts may yet use the 14th to force same sex “marriage” on the entire country.
Add in the fact that we’re increasingly browbeaten for honoring our ancestors, whom we’re expected to denounce as evil, depraved monsters in order to receive our Political Correctness certification, and maybe you can understand us a little better. To steal a phrase from The Twilight Zone, there’s a desire on the part of the multi-cultural left to wish the Confederacy into the cornfield, to eradicate it and its symbols from any public display or recognition.
I don’t ever bother with the debates over whether secession was legal or illegal, because they’re endless. But I see no harm over southerners engaging in a little regional pride rebel flag waving, or in honoring Confederate heroes such as General Lee. I understand why the left is so hostile to the South. It stands in the way of their agenda. I don’t understand why some supposed conservatives get so bent out of shape over it. It simply shows the power of Political Correctness and the strength of the race card as a tool for shutting down debate.
More importantly how they took issue with any from the “North” about how awful you...
Seems as if the point you made agrees with you behavior.
The Isolationist movement in the years prior to Pearl Harbor was centered in the Midwest. The South was the least resistant region toward going to war in WWII. FDR encountered a lot of resistance from Southern Democrats over the New Deal, but his wartime preparations (such as Lend-Lease) got near unanimous Dixie backing.
“1. I could NOT possible care any less.”
And yet, here you are still talking about it.
“2. Just rember this (as jerked my thumb to my chest) WINNERS.”
Yes, quite an achievement, taking four years to win a war where you outnumbered the enemy 4 to 1 with a never ending supply of immigrants to conscript “for the cause.”
And of course, YOU’RE the winner because you were a union soldier back in 1861.
Yes, my point exactly. Thanks.
Add to the credit of the North's "winning", the unintended consequence of the establishment of an almost unchecked, almost unstoppable federal expansion paving the way for the infant US government's transformation into largest government body upon the face of the planet.
The greater credit, I believe, was that this nation came from "these United States of America" to "the United States of America", with her people assuming a common goal of unity, far unlike the Baltic states.
Of course, the irony is that the United States may indeed balkanize along racial lines in the future, due to open borders immigration policies and pandering to groups such as La Raza. And it’s largely the same people who hate the Confederacy and accuse them of treason who are bringing this about.
secession remains an OPTION when (you will note i said when, NOT if.) the government becomes dictatorial.
free dixie,sw
Yes, quite an achievement, taking four years to win a war where you outnumbered the enemy 4 to 1 with a never ending supply of immigrants to conscript “for the cause.”
LOL. Why are you making excuses? I still don’t care, it’s over, done, finished and you can’t change it.
“Why are you making excuses?”
Well, that’s just stupid. I did not make an excuse about anything — I stated the facts.
“I still don’t care, it’s over, done, finished and you can’t change it.”
If you didn’t care you wouldn’t be posting here. Apparently you can’t even be honest to yourself.
We have real and pressing issues that demand are attention not the least of which is finding and electing Real Conservatives who are willing to lead as opposed to just gaining employment.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
That is the opposite of how the judiciary works. No court, especially the Supreme Court, can rule on something that hasn't happened. And it goes further than that, no court can rule on a matter that has not been brought before it. Since secession had not been attempted before the court had not had a chance to rule on its legality.
However, we know that, when an issue is really important, a "test case" is found, somewhere, somehow, to force a ruling on it.
Prior to the Civil War and its devastating carnage, secession had been threatened many times, mostly by Northern politicians. We all know several examples and stainlessbanner has listed a several on Post 132.
If it was antebellum common knowledge that secession was illegal and treasonous, any one of those politicians could have been formally charged with treason as soon as you could say "Aaron Burr".
At that point, the legal case would have centered around the point of whether secession was treason or not and a legal precedent would have been set ..... prior to a bloodbath.
If either side was uncomfortable with the legal outcome, the "battle" could have been waged in the legal arena with maybe some sort of compromise or understanding being reached.
The reasoning of Texas v. White went like this... "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States........
And the reasoning of Roe v. Wade went like that, and Polybius' reasoning in Post 120 went like this and the "perpetual" Articles of Confederartion lasted a shorter time than the bloom of youth in a pretty girl's face.
How long did those "perpetual" Articles of Confederation actually last?
Nine years.
And where, exactly, in the new contract, the Constitution, does it spell out in plain English, that, while this, that and the other thing in the Articles of Confederation are being thrown in the ash heap of History, that and this and the other thing are being kept and engraved in granite?
The phrase "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States" could easily be interpreted to mean:
"This Constitution has an expiration date nine years in the future like the Articles did."
In my view, if the Constitution is supposed to "say" something, I want to see it in plain English ...
A constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind.
Very true. A Constitution that addresses every picky little detail from war powers to the price of Wisconsin cheese would be have the basic principles lost in a forest of trees.
However, when some particular point has the potential cause a national disaster of Biblical proportions ( the Civil War cost 600,000 lives out of a population of 31.4 million) that particular point deserves to be spelled out.
As I said before, I see it tragic oversight by the Founding Fathers.
Nobody is perfect.
It was a tragic oversight.
The Founding Fathers wrote a "short and sweet" Constitution and then threw in the Tenth Amendment to leave what powers were not prohibited to the Federal Government in the hands of the States. When the Tenth Amendment is ignored, you end up with things like Roe v. Wade.
Some men of the mid-nineteenth century, both North and South as seen by the many secession threats by Northern politicians over the years prior to 1861, took the Tenth Amendment at face value.
The legality of secession was left unclear to the point that honorable men could interpret it two different ways and that was a tragic oversight in the wording of the Constitution.
Lessons were learned from that oversight by future generations.
The European Union Constitution specifically addresses the issue of the legality of secession in Article 72.
How can the men living in 1861 be blamed for not following the reasoning of a Supreme Court ruling made in 1869?
I don't think anyone is blaming them,...
I saved this point, out of order, for last because it goes to the heart of of my participation in Civil War threads which is to try to get into dogfights and separate fighting dogs both of which I am fond of.
Look at my Post 133.
Free Republic Civil War threads are ALWAY about blame.
ALWAYS. :-)
These threads never seems to get beyond the "treason", "tyrant" , "slavery", "rights", "should have been hung" dog fights.
Look at your own tag line.
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
When do we ever leave 1860 politics behind and discuss Civil War topics where we agree to disagree on the politics and focus our attention on the brave men on both sides that did their duty for their country as they honorably saw their duty?
A Free Republic thread of your tag line would go like this:
Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.
** CVBT helped purchase Willis Hill in the center of Marye's Heights.
** Why are your supporting an organization that purchases the areas of a battlefield that were manned by traitors instead of purchasing areas of a battlefield in the town of Fredericksburg that were manned by loyal patriots.
** The men that manned Marye's Heights were not traitors.
** Yes they were.
** No they weren't.
** Yes they were.
** No they weren't.
** Yes they were.
** No they weren't.
We have the arguments after that memorized by now don't we? :-)
Why can' we ever leave the 1860's politics behind and just discuss:
Wow. Can you imagine the bravery of those Union lines going up, again and again, against Marye's Heights?
Yeah, that was amazing. And what about that John Pelham?
Do you think that Burnside could have mounted a flanking movement towards Chancellorsville by keeping up a token attack against Marye's Heights? Do you think it may have worked or would it have been impossible to carry out undetected?
Why can't we ever have threads like that?
That's my point.
At that point, both sides fired a volley at that strange Cuban man in the middle of no man's land and went on with the war. ;-)
Certainly. Your best and primary source is the data listed in the ‘Statistical History of the United States’. I can give that to you if you need it.
Next, a respected economist of the time, Thomas Kettell, used the data from the Treasury department in his book in 1859. He was often quoted by newspapers and orators of the time.
More up to date authors quote the same government data. Examples are Charles Beard and Charles Adams, in both his books.
The volume and value of southern grown products as a percentage of exports was widely known by the members of the legislature of the time, and frequently quoted in the congressional records.
“Well, that’s just stupid. I did not make an excuse about anything — I stated the facts”
OK then, if the north had only the same number of men they still would have won, correct?
Hoenstly, I only post because it is fun teasing you guys. I’m such a bad person.
You guys are so easy.
“OK then, if the north had only the same number of men they still would have won, correct?”
Not based on the kill ratios. The north lost more men per round fired.
“Hoenstly, I only post because it is fun teasing you guys. I’m such a bad person.”
Sorry it didn’t work.
Carolyn
Let me quote Chief Justice Chase on that question: "The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
But that is neither here nor there, because I'm not arguing that the Union is perpetual or that states cannot leave the Union and neither was Chief Justice Chase. The question is the method which states leave. Can they just walk out, without discussion, regardless of how much harm their actions cause the remaining states? Or should withdrawl be negotiated by both sides to ensure that the interests of all are protected? I cannot believe that given the other restrictions the Constitution places on the states and the powers granted to Congress to literally create states in the first place that the Founders meant for secession to be unilateral.
That is what Tommy DiLorenzo would lead you to believe. It flat out ain't so.
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.