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
Indeed. From Daniel Webster of Massachusetts:
If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.
The only way states could legally leave the union is if another constitutional convention was called and some states chose not to attend.
Where does the Constitution lay out the procedure you propose? In fact, where in the Constitution is secession made illegal?
the FACTS are that NONE of the original states would have FREELY joined a union from which they could not just as FREELY withdraw, "at their own motion".
this is especially true of the smaller states, who NOT without cause, feared that NY,PA & VA would "run the country" permanently to the detriment of the small states (like RI & CT,for example.)
furthermore, you should take a serious look at the 10TH Amendment & tell us all where the STATES ceded the RIGHT of secession to the federal government.
free dixie,sw
you are 100% CORRECT.
the folks "up there" have been force- fed SELF-righteous,LEFTIST, knowing,SELF-serving, sanctimonious BILGE by the mainSLIME media, the REVISIONIST LEFT & by what passes for "pubic screwl edumakashun", that they think what they have swallowed is ambrosia.
to quote an old saying: "They know NOT & know NOT, that they know NOT!"
free dixie,sw
“Where does the Constitution lay out the procedure you propose? In fact, where in the Constitution is secession made illegal?”
Article 5 of the constitution lays out how the constitution can be changed. It has no provision for breaking this contract. Surely if the founders felt that states could simply walk away from the union they would have allowed for it in the constitution. Article 5 is the closest they come to anything like that. And it don’t come anywhere near to allowing states to abandon the union.
WRONG! Go back and study up on the Constitutional debates!
Article V deals with how the Constitution could be amended. It is interesting that once states started seceding there were several attempts by Republicans in Congress to propose amendments that would have made secession difficult. Why would they have done that if what you say were true and states already couldn't leave without an amendment.
Also, once states started seceding, more than one of the Northern states started changing their laws that had frustrated and blocked the return of fugitive slaves, something required by the Constitution.
Speaking of amendments, I commend the Tenth Amendment to your attention. The power to prevent secession was not given to the Federal Government, it was not prohibited to the States, therefore it must remain in the reserved powers of the states or the people.
secession was/IS a lawful means of a state/states departing the union, should it become necessary in their informed self-interest. furthermore,i don't believe you can show us ANYTHING in the Constitution, which indicates (much less proves) that secession was a POWER/RIGHT ceded to the central government.
remember, the individual STATES created the union. as such, the STATES remain free to MODIFY, withdraw from and/or ABOLISH the union at any time.
free dixie,sw
So what did this say to the individual soldier in Gray about the importance of slavery to President Lincoln?
Nonetheless, the rough correlation was pretty clear. Areas where there were more slaves and slaveowners tended to be for secession and the Confederacy. Those where slaveowners and slaves were fewer were more likely to be for the union.
I'd venture to say that it would have been a rare battle where the number of slaveowners in union ranks approached the number in rebel gray.
But by 1863, the handwriting was on the wall. If you were a slaveowner who cast his lot with the union, you probably had a good understanding that you weren't fighting to preserve slavery, and that your own actions would likely lead to slavery's end.
You may be making one of those "they weren't so pure" arguments. But "purity" isn't the point here. If we are supposed to respect those who fought for the Confederate cause because of their bravery or integrity, why demean other Southerners who may have owned slaves but fought, in the larger picture, against slave power?
Please help our good friend carton253. See post 470 for the opening line
lincoln, the TYRANT, hated & feared ALL "persons of colour", as well as Jews, Roman Catholics, Quakers, "muddy-coloured people" (mixed-bloods like ME!) & anyone else who was NOT a white A/S Protestant.
lincoln was a stone RACIST, by the standards of the 18th,19th,20th & every other century.
only DUMB-bunnies, REVISIONISTS & the "terminally ignorant" believe the NONSENSE that you post.
don't you get tired of FReepers laughing AT you???
free dixie,sw
It seems to me that most attacks on confederate symbols by african american groups really have nothing to do with the legality or illegality of secession.
MANY slave-owners in the NORTH & in the SOUTH received WRITTEN GUARANTEES from the DAMNyankee high command (issued in the name of the US government and/or the War Department)that IF they would support/collaborate with the union army that they could KEEP their slaves PERMANENTLY.
sadly for YOU, several people over the years have posted copies of such GUARANTEES! (note to all: so much for "irrevocable guarantees" from the federal government!!!)
further, lincoln, the shyster lawyer & cheap/scheming politician, offered to get a Constitutional Amendment passed which would make slavery PERMANENT, if the southern states would return to the union!
the TRUTH is that neither lincoln (nor hardly anyone else, for that matter in 1861) CARED about slavery or "the plight of the slaves". period. end of story.
free dixie,sw
the self-appointed "African-American leadership" simply wants MORE of it. they are NOT ignorant;they are GREEDY.
free dixie,sw
Yes, it did-- after the war. Perhaps the clearest statement is in
the case Texas v. White (74 U.S. 700). Chief Justice Chase, writing
for the court in its 1869 decision, said:
"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible
Union, composed of indestructible States. ... 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. ... Our
conclusion, therefore, is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State
of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred."
The entire decision is available on the Web at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/historic.htm
Not if your target audience is FR people or even reasonably educated adults.
On the other hand, if you want to reach the typical Democratic Underground user, you'll probably have to start out by explaining what a regiment is.
That was the first thing that crossed my mind but since you referred to a Northern unit I decided it must be something else.
Apparently, recognizing the TRUTH is not among your greatest talents. For example, in his first debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln had this to say about slavery. The context is a quoted a speech of his, made in 1854, concerning the Kansas-Nebraska act:
... I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.
Pretty stout words, well before 1861. There's your "TRUTH," brother.
Second paragraph of Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Third paragraph of Article VI: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; ...
First sentence of Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The point of this is that it shows that the individual owes allegiance to the United States directly, and not through the state; otherwise there could be no such crime.
These provisions interact. It is not a defense to a charge of treason that one acted in accordance with state law, because the supremacy clause defeats any such law. It is, or should be, no defense, but a greatly aggravating circumstance, that one is an officer of government, federal or state, acting as such, since that is a breach of the oath of office.
I might also mention that the Articles of Confederation twice declare that the Union shall be perpetual. Granted, that word is not used in the Constitution; perhaps it was thought unnecessary in view of the provisions already quoted.
More importantly, though: the Civil war didn't happen in a vacuum. There were as series of serious "sectional" controversies that had sprung up from the very beginning. And they were about ... you guessed it ... slavery.
Whether or not the Civil War was about slavery, I think it's beyond dispute that it occurred because of slavery. It's difficult to see how any other issue could have led to fighting.
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.