Guess What Folks - Secession Wasn't Treason

The Copperhead Chronicles ^ | August 2007 | Al Benson

[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

[swain_forkbeard]

Because it’s not mentioned in the Constitution. And the disposition of things not mentioned, is mentioned. Very specifically and very clearly.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

“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.”

The Constitution was silent on secession, yet our secession from Britain was based on that right. Some will opine that secession is limited to when events create an oppressive or intolerable situation. The South was fighting for states rights, however, if you read the ordinances of secession, they cite the primary and proximate cause of the dispute that was going on in the USA. That dispute was over slavery. Many Southern leaders wanted to phase out slavery, and Virginia has almost voted to do so, but there were too many Southerners in denial about the pernicious nature of the institution.

Legally, I agree with this article. Furthermore, I agree that after the Civil War, with the passage of the 14th Amendment and rise in the power of the Federal Government, that States Rights and the 10th Amendment became almost null. However, Southerners have a huge share of responsibility for this loss of States Rights by failing to do away with Slavery. Had the War not taken place, God knows when Slavery would have ended, perhaps into the 20th Century.

[Non-Sequitur]

And at the time it would have to be veto proof because Lincoln was President; and I don't think he would have signed it.

Constitutionally a president plays no role in the admission of a state so I see no role for him in allowing states to leave. A presidential veto wouldn't be an issue.

[JamesP81]

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.

Technically, they did commit treason against Britain, for which I am can only be profoundly grateful to them.

[JamesP81]

There is no provision for leaving the Union. Once the states agreed to join they were stuck for better or worse.

If this is true, then the Federal government, in fact, does not derive its just powers from consent of the governed. Consent implies something that is given, but can also be revoked.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Please, chapter and verse that proves that secession is illegal. In the US Constitution.

[TexConfederate1861]

That was after-the fact.
How about before hand?

[Non-Sequitur]

Because it’s not mentioned in the Constitution. And the disposition of things not mentioned, is mentioned. Very specifically and very clearly.

Hardly. Chief Justice Marshall pointed out in McCulloch v. Maryland that implied powers existed: "Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word 'expressly,' and declares only, that the powers 'not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people;' thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument."

[TexConfederate1861]

Show me WHERE the Constitution forbids secession.
(You can’t!)

[JamesP81]

One simplistic but fair reading would be that since there is no provision for leaving the Union, and since all authority not specifically granted to the federal government is retained by the various States, then the States retain the right to leave the Union.

This especially makes sense when you consider that a state is bound to the Union by its ratification of the Consitution by its state legislature. Nothing anywhere says that ratification can't be revoked by that same legislature.

[billbears]

then by implication there is no reason why a state can't leave with the approval of Congress as well

Yes because we know Congress will willingly vote to lose part of their tax source...hmmm, what was it the 16th President said was one of the most important issues to him in his First Inaugural Address?

In his Texas v. White decision, Chief Justice Chase seemed to hold out that possibility

The man who gave us fiat money to finance internal improvements and was chosen by a worthless man to sit on SCOTUS. Yes let's listen to his opinion...

[Non-Sequitur]

That was after-the fact.

All judicial decisions are made after-the-fact. Courts cannot rule on something that hadn't happened yet.

[Thinkin' Gal]

[Non-Sequitur]

`Yes because we know Congress will willingly vote to lose part of their tax source...hmmm, what was it the 16th President said was one of the most important issues to him in his First Inaugural Address?

Delivering the mail?

Yes let's listen to his opinion...

Why not? Benson did. Or didn't you bother reading the article that started this thread?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

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.

That's not what the south said at the time:

"No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together, can only unknit. The same formality, which forged the links of the Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason--Treason to all intents and purposes. . . . This illustrious Union, which has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the pride of America and the wonder of the world must not be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring hearts of a few malcontents. The Union must be saved, when any one shall dare to assail it." [Richmond Enquirer, 1 November 1814]

The fact is that the Hartford Convention grumbled about secession among themselves, but the final report of the convention says nothing about it. Despite that, though, the Democratic party used it to bludgeon the Federalists, driving them out of existence within a few years. ""Democratic politicians, seeking a foil to their own mismanagement of the war and to discredit the still formidable Federalist party, caressed and fed this infant myth until it became so tough and lusty as to defy both solemn denials and documentary proof."--Samuel Eliot Morison

[Vigilanteman]

. . . 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.

Wow! While I realize that most of the government revenue came from tariffs in those day, I had no idea it was so lopsided and would love to see documentation of the same.

I'm also told by relatives (Texans) that Texas specifically retained their right to leave and/or break themselves up in up to five smaller states in the deal which admitted them to the union? Does anyone else have more details to confirm or quell this?

[bubbacluck]

I propose that Mass. and Vermont be “encouraged” to secede immediatly! Also Oregon, Wshington and Califonia.

I would think the rest of you would have seceded from us a long time ago...

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The break-up thing is true, the right to leave is false.

[Non-Sequitur]

Wow! While I realize that most of the government revenue came from tariffs in those day, I had no idea it was so lopsided and would love to see documentation of the same.

You would look in vain because no such documentation exists. The overwhelming majority of tariff revenue was collected in Northern ports. Prior to the rebellion, the man who would become the confederate vice-president was putting the amount of tariff revenued generated in the North at over 75%. And I think he was being conservative.

I'm also told by relatives (Texans) that Texas specifically retained their right to leave and/or break themselves up in up to five smaller states in the deal which admitted them to the union? Does anyone else have more details to confirm or quell this?

The article incorporating Texas as a territory did contain that clause, but once Texas was a state they didn't have any rights that any other state didn't have. And that included walking out of the Union or splitting without congressional approval.

[gondramB]

>>War of Northern Aggression<<

I once made the error of using that phrase at a party at the Dean of Student’s house at a Boston University.

For the next two hours he brought various visitors over to ask me to repeat the4 phrase so they could discuss it.

That was already weird enough that I didn’t tell them the story of how our Baptist family was limited one swear word by Grand Daddy. He said “damnyankee” was alright to say because it wasn’t really two different words.