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
You’re absolutely right. The “publik skools” are to blame, along with MTV and the rest of the dumbed down pop culture. The left has declared war on Western Civilization in general and America in particular, and they won’t rest until our history is trashed.
Most of what I’ve learned I learned despite of, or in irrelevance to, the public screwls. Public screwls are simply Liberal Indoctrination Centers. Education is irrelevant to them. If there is another Civil War, it must be to eliminate the cancer that is Liberalism from this country. Otherwise it will be a waste of time.
Wrong
There’s not a word in any of that that you quoted that says a word about secession or even hints at it.
The challenge remains.
BTW the 10th amendment specifically grants this power to the states.
And yet you're still completely wrong when you SAID that Linconln didn't care about slavery or slaves ... which, btw, I found after about 1 minute of searching.
Thirty years of research ... and yet something so simple eludes you. Sad, really.
furthermore, the memoirs of many NORTHERNERS (penned AFTER the WBTS!) said that they cared NOTHING about slavery or abolishing slavery & that their ONLY concern was "preserving the union".
if is a carefully HIDDEN fact that the US Army (and many HIGH-ranking union officers made their fortunes off "write overs" from slave auctions. MG benjamin, "THE BEAST" butler, was one officer, who had made a GREAT deal of $$$$ off selling slaves DURING the war. butler was NOT alone!) was "up to their collective eyeballs" IN the "slave trading business" as long as it was LAWFUL!
the FACTS are NOT on the side of the unionists, when it comes to having "clean hands" on the slavery issue.
fwiw, GEN us grant was BOTH a slave-owner and a slave overseer for others. (he was said "by his fellows" in the business to be a GOOD HAND with "the whip".)
i KNOW it must be a hard thing to learn that you;'ve benn LIED TO, but that is the TRUTH.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
as i've said before on this thread, lincoln & wee willie klintoon were "two of a kind" as men & as POTUS. FACT!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Yeah. But LIBERTY to do what? We both know the answer to that, son. You're just too cowardly to admit it.
Sure there were plenty of small issues between North and South. And one Big Issue, which was slavery. The big sectional crises that had plagued the Union for decades, and which raised the spectre of war as early as 1850, were about the South wanting to expand slavery into new territories, and the North wanting otherwise. There's no denying that.
And the secessions themselves ... were about slavery. It's no accident that the Southern states began seceding when Lincoln -- perceived as a harbinger if abolition -- was elected. And furthermore, several states said explicitly, in their Declarations of Secession, that it was about slavery. As Mississippi put it:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. [Emphasis mine.]
Pretty stark stuff. Your argument there, IIRC, is that those declarations are meaningless. A convenient but silly claim on your part.
And, in fact, a lot of the minor causes to which you refer, ultimately had their roots slavery as well ... including the increasingly large gap between the economy of the North (driven by expanding industry, railroads, and the banking system required to finance it); and the economy of the South (driven by slave-produced agricultural goods, primarily cotton).
You can dodge and squeal and use ALL CAPITOL LETTERS all you want, but the real facts are that the war was ultimately caused by the existence of slavery in the South.
LOL! You are so full of used food.
I've got the direct quote, and you say he's lying when he said it. The South didn't believe he was lying though, did they? They saw Lincoln's election as being an actual threat to slavery. They obviously thought he really meant what he said about slavery -- they went so far as to secede over it.
So ... do I believe your sainted Southern forebears, or do I believe you?
The last PEACEFUL option before hitting the Second Amendment reset button on FedGov.
i DO believe that "one day" (i won't be here to see it) that dixie will be FREE. it is my belief that my 16YO niece will live to see dixie LIBERTY.
when that happens, absent the "moderating influence" of the south, the remaining part of the USA will become a socialist/fascist "nanny-state", where EVERY decision is made for the citizens by 'their betters". (i'm glad that i will not live to see that "sad state of affairs" come to pass.)
"The Peoples Socialist States of Amerika" (or whatever name "our betters" choose to call the new country- the people will NOT make that or any other decision. everything will be "taken care of" by the ELITES!) will NOT (i believe) be a place for FREEDOM-loving Americans! (it is my sad belief that IF "the hilleryBEAST" is elected in '08, that will be the START of the "ever-increasing downhill slide" to socialism/fascism.)
free dixie,sw
absent the WBTS, slavery WOULD have REMAINED legal. your "clay-footed, secular saint, lincoln, the UNjust" said that he would ASSURE permanent protection for the "peculiar institution", by Constitutional amendment. (and of course, you believe every word out of lincoln's mouth, don't you???)
PITY that you fail to see the obvious TRUTH.
nonetheless, you are WELCOME to hold ANY opinion. it's called LIBERTY, if you can keep it.
free dixie,sw
you can't have it BOTH ways. he was either an HONEST man or a LIAR. which do you pick???
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
you can't have it BOTH ways. he was either an HONEST man or a LIAR. which do you pick???
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
the TRUTH is that slave-OWNERS, north & south, were "garbage", imVho. they ultimately got what they deserved =RUIN!
nonetheless, the TRUTH is that neither region CARED enough to do anything to end the slave trade, as too many powerful people/institutions, NORTH & SOUTH, we heavily invested IN the slave trade. essentially ALL of the "financial end" of 'the flesh trade" was IN the north, including shipping/leasing/transportation/purchasing/etc. MANY northern banks/financial institutions/trading companies/insurance companies/railroads/shipping companies were involved. it was ABOUT $$$$$ & nothing more than that.period. end of story.
thankfully however, slavery was DYING by 1860. the SMART people knew it;only the "willfully blind" did not know that.
the Industrial Revolution was coming to agriculture & slavery was on the threshold of being UNPROFITABLE! (slavers cared about NOTHING but profit. steam-powered engines & teams of mules/oxen/horses are CHEAPER to feed/clothe/house than slaves.) absent profit, slavery would (absent the war) have ended & soon.
my GUESS is that slavery would have died out within a generation & more likely within 5-10 years, based on my reading.
given that a LARGE portion of the MILLION dead of the WBTS were Blacks (both slave & free), ending slavery a few years earlier than it would have naturally ended,seems a REALLY high price for a few years of "status quo".
free dixie,sw
it's never easy to put away "childish things", but that is a part of "growing up" chronologically & intellectually.
seeing the UNcomfortable truth about the "lincoln myth" is part of that intellectual "growing up" process.
free dixie,sw
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.