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
In the same year he was also put on the $5 bill. In 1909 he was put on the penny, and I believe he was the first real person to appear on US coinage.
Grant???
From the Wikipedia entry on "historical revisionism":
It is sometimes hard for a non-historian to distinguish between a book published by a historian doing peer-reviewed academic work, and a bestselling "amateur writer of history". For example, until David Irving lost his British libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and was found to be a "falsifier of history", the general public did not realize that his books were outside the canon of acceptable academic histories[3].
The distinction rests on the techniques used to write such histories. Accuracy and revision are central to historical scholarship. As in any scientific discipline, historians' papers are submitted to peer review. Instead of submitting their work to the challenges of peer review, revisionists rewrite history to support an agenda, often political, using any number of techniques and logical fallacies to obtain their results. Because of this, they are considered by the historian community to be writing flawed History. Some of their most common rhetorical and other techniques include the following[citation needed]:
Conspiracy theories
The selective use of facts
The denial or derision of known facts
Argument from ignorance (hence the historian community's emphasis on the importance of historical memory and historical studies)
The assumption of unproven facts
The fabrication of facts
The obfuscation of facts
Claims of "counter-genocide", leading to a confusion between victims and executioners (for example, the Bombing of Dresden in World War II has been said by Holocaust deniers to be a "counter-genocide", thus transforming the German people into victims and henceforth exempting them from any kind of moral responsibility; the term has also been used concerning the Rwandan genocide and the Armenian Genocide)
Fallacy of equivocation
Appeal to consequences
Irrelevant conclusions
Burden of proof (due to the complex nature of what can be considered a historical "proof" - which differs from a logical proof - revisionists sometime ask historians to further prove an event which has been reasonably proved by historic standards, hence accepted as a fact by the historian community)
Appeal to fear
Appeal to spite
Association fallacy
Hasty generalization
The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions
The use of unpleasant euphemisms to describe opposing facts
The two wrongs make a right fallacy
Wishful thinking
Constant attack against those disputing their views (Ad hominem) (close to slander and libel)
Meaningless statements
Reversal of blame (example: accusing Jews of provoking the Holocaust, or Armenians the genocide of 1915)
Nice bit of legalese in that circular logic which made Marshall famous.
The 10th Amendment didn’t need the word “expressly” to retain meaning and force anymore than it needed the phrase, “this means you”.
It declares that the powers ‘not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people’, without equivocation, or condition.
Marshall was a traitor for imagining that one was needed.
No, we can’t leave 1860’s politics behind.
The wrong side won the war and the issues that were the primary cause of the war have never been addressed. These causes have been swept under the black cloak of slavery and dismissed.
Thus, 1860’s politics will continue to cut away at the unity of this nation.
Judging just by how you use the term 'traitor' I'd have to say that Chief Justice Marshall's understanding of the Constitution beats the hell out of your understanding of it.
Not “implied”, the word that describes it is “imagined”.
It wasn’t mentioned because it didn’t exist. There was no implication, only imagination by greedy collectivists following a philosophy which continues to be a problem today.
So, I take it you can't refute the changing of the numbers of Supreme Court members by Lincoln and the Republicans. From the Congressional Globe:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the supreme court of the United States shall hereafter consist of a chief justice and nine associate justices ...
Some dredge. Are you having fun yet?
OK.
Around you guys? Always. Nobody disputes the increase in the size of the court. But as I pointed out, Lincoln's "court packing" is no worse than Jefferson's "court packing" and not as bad as Van Buren's "court packing". You need to keep these things in perspective.
Since they didn’t have representation as a state, they were not, in fact, a state.
Chief Justice Chase’s whining actually means Texas was never a state.
Their joining the Union was predicated upon the right to secede.
Actually, they were. Since their acts of unilateral secession were illegal then they never were out of the Union to begin with. And the fact that Congress refused to seat their delegations after their rebellion had been put down doesn't change that.
Still, feel free to post from any clause in the Constitution that you feel supports your claim.
The firing on Ft. Sumter was a response to a bad thing.
Nonsense.
Actually...we can easily go deeper than that.
The North very well could have liberalized itself bankrupt as the former USSR and most liberal-sytled nations, and begged to join the South.
At which point both nations would have been much better off.
Every liberal vs. conservative battle in this nation is because the war of Northern Aggression didn’t settle any questions except one:
The South could be beaten, militarily, by the corrupt in the North.
This nation would have surrendered to the muslims but for those of us still willing to rhetorically re-fight the War Between the States today.
Who cares what they believe?
Economic realities tend to drive these things and they are best determined in retrospect.
And that was the act of war that began the War of Northern Aggression.
Firing on Ft. Sumter was prompted by that act, and was, in this light, defensive.
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.