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

[Non-Sequitur]

No, if I were to use the ‘they did it too’ defense then I’d be pointing out that Jefferson Davis ignored his constitution at will, and that he and his congress guaranteed a supreme court to their liking by refusing to establish one in the first place. But I’m not trying to do that. I’m just saying that if merely increasing the size of the Supreme Court is ‘court packing’ then there have been worse cases of it in our history. Van Buren added two, count ‘em two, seats to the court. Shameless.

[Non-Sequitur]

You’re missing both the words “expressly” and “explicitly”, so clearly, unless you’re wrong, you’ve failed to chastize my logic.

Since you haven't offered any logic then I can't say that I've seen it. You said that Chief Justice Marshall was a traitor and wrong and a numbskull and all the rest, apparently because you say so. Yet you haven't pointed out were his logic is flawed. Take his statement and point out exactly where his logic falls apart.

[r9etb]

Aside from the claims made here, why does adding a Justice or two necessarily equate to "packing" the court?

Isn't it possible that more mundane issues such a large increase in caseloads might also justify an increase in the number of justices?

What was the actual (as opposed to neo-confed-supplied) reason for Lincoln's alleged desire to increase the number of justices?

[Maelstrom]

Yeah, I did, actually.

You expressly failed to understand it *ROFLMAO*

[x]

Secession was not thought to be unconstitutional until the concept was challenged by the Lincoln administration.

It simply isn't true that nobody thought that secession was unconstitutional before Lincoln. James Buchanan said as much in his December 1860 State of the Union message.

According to Buchanan, unilateral secession was only justified as a revolutionary act of resistance to tyranny, and not under any other circumstances. That was a widespread understanding at the time.

Since the US wasn't a tyranny in 1860 unilateral state secession was unconstitutional. Buchanan, though, didn't think the federal government could do anything about this unconstitutional act.

There was a widespread understanding in 1861 that the country was faced with a revolutionary situation. This affected Lincoln's thinking and actions, and Davis's as well. Davis and other secessionists were acting outside and against the law more than Lincoln was.

[rustbucket]

Jefferson Davis ignored his constitution at will, and that he and his congress guaranteed a supreme court to their liking by refusing to establish one in the first place. But I’m not trying to do that.

What? When did you ever stop trying to do that? It was the Confederate Congress' duty to organize the Confederate Supreme Court, not Davis'. As you know [Link], Davis reminded the Confederate Congress of their duty to form the Confederate Supreme Court in his February 26, 1862, speech to them:

I invite the attention of Congress to the duty of organizing a supreme court of the Confederate States, in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution.

You've never provided a shred of evidence that Davis worked against the formation of that court, yet you keep making the charge.

Which of your discredited claims below would you like to discuss now?

1. Confederates locked up John Minor Botts for the duration of the war?

2. Confederates imprisoned Parson Brownlow for about a year and a half?

3. The state of Mississippi blockaded the Mississippi River and prevented traffic on it for months before the war?

4. The Confederacy did not have a Circuit Court system?

5. Claims of damage by Sherman's troops are overblown?

6. Chambersburg was burned simply because Feds burned a couple of houses and VMI?

[x]

To the extent that the Founders sought "a more perfect union" it's not clear that the Confederacy was closer to their intent.

And we still don't know if a majority of Georgians or Arkansans really wanted secession. The plan of the secessionists was to drive people into panic to the point where earlier pro-Union sentiment was stifled. Corruption and coercion weren't absent from secession proceedings.

There's a kind of nuttiness to some of the pro-secessionist arguments. Obviously if you kick Washington DC out, you won't have to worry about the power of the US federal government.

But change things that much and you'd have other things to worry about: local oligarchies and strongmen, power-hungry state and Confederate governments, a bitterly divided continent, poverty and dependence, vicious class and racial divisions. I'm not sure that we live in the worst of all possible Americas.

[x]

pardon me, "x", but your IGNORANCE is showing.

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!!!)

Okay, swattie, I'll bite.

Find me one of those guarantees -- online or elsewhere.

In the meantime, I'll be watching your movie for National Fake Indian Heritage Month:

My votes for stand watie, "a liar of insane proportions."

[jamese777]

“Grant???”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_Memorial

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Secession was not thought to be unconstitutional until the concept was challenged by the Lincoln administration.

It was thought to be treasonous.

"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 Enquirer, by the way, was Thomas Jefferson's favorite newspaper).

You might also look into what happened to the Federalist party and the accusations that drove them to extinction.

[stand watie]

THANKS!

N-S is the DAMNyankee Minster of PROPAGANDA.

otoh, he is NOT either STUPID, ignorant or UNeducated as the majority of "his team" demonstrably IS.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

and you can PROVE that he is wrong??? (i think NOT!)

face it, N-S, everyone on these threads has figured out that the sum total of your posts can be summed up into one word: BILGE!

free dixie,sw

[r9etb]

Interesting snippet ... what was the context that spurred such a discussion back in 1814?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The Hartford Convention had muttered about secession amongst themselves, although they never issued any public threat of it. Still it was enough to drive them out of existence.

[stand watie]

you are a JOKE to everyone who reads your DUMB-bunny, ignorant BILGE, nonsense & willful IGNORANCE.

may i suggest that you go take a look at the OR??? do you KNOW what the term, "the OR" refers to???

meanwhile, stick to being the "class clown" and/or the FR "village idiot".

be sure and remind everyone that you believe that ANYTHING posted on the "worldwidewierd" is factual. (everyone needs a good chuckle, every day.) laughing AT you, DUNCE!

free dixie,sw

[rustbucket]

What was the actual (as opposed to neo-confed-supplied) reason for Lincoln's alleged desire to increase the number of justices?

I presume you are aware of the importance of a single justice in 5-4 decisions such as the Prize Cases (1863) (the 5 in that case included 3 justices named by Lincoln) in 1862. The tenth justice was authorized shortly before the Prize Case decision. The court had dropped to 6 members in April 1861 before Lincoln named 3 new members in 1862.

Here is one take on the reason for adding the tenth justice [Link]:

By 1863 the Supreme Court confronted a number of important war-related cases, and the Republicans were naturally anxious for the Court to affirm the legality of the Lincoln administration's actions. Addition of a tenth justice, who would be vetted for sympathy to the Union cause, would solidify a precarious pro-administration majority.[8] The man who assumed this post, Stephen J. Field, had turned down the California circuit judgeship made vacant by McAllister's resignation, with the reply that he "preferred to remain Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State than to be a judge of an inferior federal court." He had generously hinted, however, that "if a new justice were added to the Supreme Court of the United States, I would accept the office if tendered to me." The administration evidently took no umbrage at this audacity: when in 1863 Congress authorized the tenth justiceship and abolished the circuit judgeship, Lincoln offered the Supreme Court position to Field. Even though Field was a Democrat, he appointed him on the assurance that Field was a fervent Unionist.

Have you been able to find the reasons why the Republican Congress did not increase the number of justices above 8 when Johnson was president, but increased them to 9 after Texas v. White (1869) when Grant was president? Did these changes in the number of justices have to do with a decrease in caseload followed by an increase in caseload or simply with practical politics?

[stand watie]

and you're going to tell everyone WHO you "used to be" before you got PERMANENTLY BANNED from FR "for cause", WHEN???

also, be sure & tell everyone about WHAT exactly you got BANNED for doing???

not that anyone (with the possible of "x", "the DUNCE") will believe you, given that you are KNOWN, by all & sundry, here as a SERIAL LIAR.

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

I’ll be darned.

[stand watie]

btw, “bubba”, tell everyone about the intentional/knowing CRIMINAL FRAUD that you ADMITTED TO perpetrating to try (UNSUCESSFULLY, i might add)to win an argument with me on an FR thread.

to quote a line from LA CONFIDENTIONAL (one of my favorite "cop movies"): "Time to hit the road."

free dixie,sw

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

To quote a line from LA CONFIDENTIONAL (one of my favorite "cop movies")

I love the fact that you can't even manage to spell the name of one of your favorite movies. Must be that "Bankhead on both sides" thing again.