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
the "spell-check" didn't catch the error & spelling is NOT my strong point.
PITY that HONESTY is NOT your "strong point".
laughing AT you, LIAR/fool/BIGOT!!!
free dixie,sw
And if you had read my post I did place the blame on both. Neither Davis nor the confederate congress implemented a supreme court. Regardless of the fact that their constitution required one.
You've never provided a shred of evidence that Davis worked against the formation of that court, yet you keep making the charge.
And I'm not aware of anything that indicated he worked for the formation of that court, either. He kept his cabinet fully stocked, but couldn't be troubled about a branch of government that was required by his own constitution.
1. Confederates locked up John Minor Botts for the duration of the war?
I said that Botts was locked up without charges and without trial, which he was. I don't recall ever saying it was for the duration of the war, and are you saying that Botts wasn't locked up without trial?
2. Confederates imprisoned Parson Brownlow for about a year and a half?
I pointed out that Brownlow's paper was shut down by the confederate government in October 1861. He was forced into hiding, arrested, abused, released, kept under virtual house arrest, and finally allowed North in March of 1862. That is about half a year. Had I said a year and a half then it wouldn't have made much sense since the Union forces had liberated Kentucky by March 1863. But are you claiming that Brownlow's paper wasn't shut down and he wasn't imprisoned?
3. The state of Mississippi blockaded the Mississippi River and prevented traffic on it for months before the war?
I pointed out, again correctly, that the Mississippi state forces did declare a blockade of the river for a short period, about a week if memory serves, and that they did fire on at least one steamer during that period. I never claimed it was months before the rebellion broke out. Are you saying that Mississippi didn't close down the river at all?
4. The Confederacy did not have a Circuit Court system?
I never claimed the confederacy didn't have a circuit court. I have pointed out, correctly, that they did not have a supreme court. And I have also pointed out, also correctly, that a supreme court was required by their constitution. A circuit court was not.
5. Claims of damage by Sherman's troops are overblown?
I have said that. And considering some of the claims made around here - every structure burned, every farm field salted, womes stolen, horses raped - it isn't hard to do.
6. Chambersburg was burned simply because Feds burned a couple of houses and VMI?
That had been given as a reason for the burning. The real reason seems to be that the rebel forced tried to extort a sum of money - $100,000 in gold or $500,000 in currency - and when the people weren't able to come up with the money then the town was burned. What reason do you have for the burning?
Always blaming someone else. Maybe Commodore Admiral LBN Gnaedinger made the spell checker.
spelling is NOT my strong point.
Amazing how you've collected all those graduate degrees you claim since you barely appear literate.
Like I said, I'll leave it to the forum to decide who has more credibility, you or me.
So when was that Thanksgiving outside El Paso again? Was it before Cortez landed in Mexico or was it while he was still fighting the Aztecs? You never got back with an answer to that one. Of course, your expert who was going to tell us all about the Alexandria synagogue burning never showed up either.
as FR's most notorious current SERIAL LIAR & "general all-around creep", you should tell us all about your "exploits", as "bubba" & your previous "FR alias".
by the way, consulting a dictionary will cure my "spelling problem". otoh, NO book has a magic cure for your LYING.
laughing AT you.free dixie,sw
as FR's most notorious current SERIAL LIAR & "general all-around creep", you should tell us all about your "exploits", as "bubba" & your previous "FR alias".
by the way, consulting a dictionary will cure my "spelling problem". otoh, NO book has a magic cure for your LYING.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
as FR's most notorious current SERIAL LIAR & "general all-around creep", you should tell us all about your "exploits", as "bubba" & your previous "FR alias".
by the way, consulting a dictionary will cure my "spelling problem". otoh, NO book has a magic cure for your LYING.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
This is going to be fun!!!
also, remind everyone on this thread about your boasting that you are an "expert" ( i would say: "know it all") on all WBTS subjects.
i just KNOW that the readers of this thread will be "impressed with" your modesty,unsurpassed knowledge & humility. = sarcasm.
free dixie,sw
"There are three vacancies on the bench of the Supreme Court ---two by the decease of Justices Daniel and McLean, and one by the resignation of Justice Campbell. I have so far forborne making nominations to fill these vacancies for reasons which I will now state. Two of the outgoing judges resided within the States now overrun by revolt; so that if successors were appointed in the same localities, they could not now serve upon their circuits; and many of the most competent men there, probably would not take the personal hazard of accepting to serve, even here, upon the supreme bench. I have been unwilling to throw all the appointments northward, thus disabling myself from doing justice to the south on the return of peace; although I may remark that to transfer to the north one which has heretofore been in the south, would not, with reference to territory and population, be unjust.
During the long and brilliant judicial career of Judge McLean his circuit grew into an empire---altogether too large for any one judge to give the courts therein more than a nominal attendance---rising in population from one million four hundred and seventy-thousand and eighteen, in 1830, to six million one hundred and fifty-one thousand four hundred and five, in 1860.
Besides this, the country generally has outgrown our present judicial system. If uniformity was at all intended, the system requires that all the States shall be accommodated with circuit courts, attended by supreme judges, while, in fact, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Florida, Texas, California, and Oregon, have never had any such courts. Nor can this well be remedied without a change of the system; because the adding of judges to the Supreme Court, enough for the accommodation of all parts of the country, with circuit courts, would create a court altogether too numerous for a judicial body of any sort. And the evil, if it be one, will increase as new States come into the Union. Circuit courts are useful, or they are not useful. If useful, no State should be denied them; if not useful, no State should have them. Let them be provided for all, or abolished as to all.
Three modifications occur to me, either of which, I think, would be an improvement upon our present system. Let the Supreme Court be of convenient number in every event. Then, first, let the whole country be divided into circuits of convenient size, the supreme judges to serve in a number of them corresponding to their own number, and independent circuit judges be provided for all the rest. Or, secondly, let the supreme judges be relieved from circuit duties, and circuit judges provided for all the circuits. Or, thirdly, dispense with circuit courts altogether, leaving the judicial functions wholly to the district courts and an independent Supreme Court"
That was from Lincoln's December 1861 message to Congress. In 1862, the judiciary was organized into 9 federal circuit courts plus the west coast states of California and Oregon. Those states were organized into a 10th Circuit and a 10th justice was added to oversee it.
But that explanation isn't as much fun for you as attributing evil intent to Lincoln, is it?
WHEN YOU ARE LEAVING FR forever, after admitting that you COMMITTED an intentional CRIMMINAL FRAUD, trying to win an argument with me,on FR.
laughing AT you, FOOL/bigot/LIAR.
free dixie,sw
Well, then, as you’re fond of saying, you can just pass my posts by.
Vindictive politics, actually. The radical Republicans actually reduced the size to 7 justices by passing the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 that said the next 3 justices to retire wouldn't be replaced. They didn't want Johnson naming anyone.
I take it you are refering to the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, a truly massive work of over sixty volumes.
Now is there anything in there guaranteeing that a slaveowner would be able to keep slaves forever? Do you have a page in mind, or are you just pulling my leg?
Who would have the authority to issue such a guarantee? Maybe what you're thinking is that because the Emancipation Proclamation declared that some slaves "shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free," that there are documents somewhere ordering that the others should remain forever enslaved, but, so far as I know, there aren't.
And if you had read my post I did place the blame on both. Neither Davis nor the confederate congress implemented a supreme court. Regardless of the fact that their constitution required one.
Why do you assume that Davis could form the court by himself? Davis was not Lincoln. The Confederate Constitution said it was the Congress' duty, not Davis.
I said that Botts was locked up without charges and without trial, which he was. I don't recall ever saying it was for the duration of the war, and are you saying that Botts wasn't locked up without trial?
With respect, your memory is not correct, not was mine perfect. Here is what you actually said. Remember this post? (bold red emphasis mine)
To: WhiskeyPapa
It's interesting how all the southron contingent can cite chapter and verse of what they see as the abuse of poor Clement Vallandigham and are totally silent on the subject of John Minor Bott. Who is he, they might ask? Why he is a former United States Congressman who dared to speak in opposition to Jefferson Davis and was held, without trial or charges, in a Richmond jail for the majority of the war. No criticism allowed concerning him, is there?
54 posted on 02/12/2003 12:58 PM CST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You forgot to put the "s" on his name, so I had trouble finding him at first. Now let's look at a couple of my replies to your Botts post.
To: Non-Sequitur
So you're saying that former Congressman Botts was a political prisoner on more than one occasion. Was he ever tried for any of his alleged 'crimes'?
Botts was arrested in March 1862 and released in April 1862. In your earlier notes you left out the fact that Botts was released in April 1862. This made it seem as though he was in prison for years.
Shortly after his arrest in March 1862, Botts requested and got an audience with Confederate General Winder. General Winder told Botts what he had been arrested for -- another who had been arrested named Botts as the head of an organization that was trying to destroy the Confederacy. Botts denied it, and a Court of Inquiry was convened. Botts handled his own defense at this court. The recommendation of the Court of Inquiry was that he be released on parole. He was released in April 1862 on that parole by order of General Winder.
Do you still claim he had no trial and didn't know the charge against him? He did know the charge against him on his first arrest, and he did have a trial resulting from this arrest, after which he was released.
I don't know all the details of the second arrest and subsequent release. Perhaps this is the occasion of which you speak.
197 posted on 02/13/2003 9:06 PM CST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Non-Sequitur; GOPcapitalist
Concerning the arrests of Congressman Botts by the Confederates. I now have tracked down the details of his second arrest. I relayed the particulars of his first arrest, trial, and release in post 197.
A warrant was issued for the arrest of Botts on Monday, October 12, 1863, by order of Major General Jeb Stuart. Botts was arrested about 10:30 AM that morning and discharged at 5 PM the same day. That is the extent of his second arrest and release. Officially he was released because there was no charge against him. Botts was not interred in prison for the duration of the war.
Botts made a loud squeak about this second arrest. Botts' letter that was published in the Richmond Examiner in December 1863 apparently had been written on October 18, 1863, some days after he had been released.
Although there was no charge contained in the warrant, Botts claimed that he had been told semi-officially that he was arrested because he had entertained General Meade and other Union generals. However, he also admitted to having been seen carrying a gun in the vicinity of the Union and Confederate lines. Botts said he was carrying the gun for someone else.
If this is the extent of the charge you have against Southern justice, non-seq, then it is back to the drawing boards for you. Your example was full of holes.
198 posted on 02/13/2003 10:39 PM CST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
These are posts that I archived in WORD. Occasionally I will correct a typo in my own posts that shows up in WORD in case I want to post my information again. As far as I know, my posts above are word for word what they were in 2003.
The information I posted about Botts came from a book Botts wrote. I made a link to that book in post 400 of this current thread.
I have to be gone for a few hours. When I get back, I'll respond to your other points.
I pointed out that Brownlow's paper was shut down by the confederate government in October 1861. He was forced into hiding, arrested, abused, released, kept under virtual house arrest, and finally allowed North in March of 1862. That is about half a year. Had I said a year and a half then it wouldn't have made much sense since the Union forces had liberated Kentucky by March 1863. But are you claiming that Brownlow's paper wasn't shut down and he wasn't imprisoned?
Here's a link to your post [Link 1]. Your post says, in part:
Well William Brownlow of the Nashville Whig had his paper shut down and he was jailed by the Davis regime in October 1861. In 1863 he has released from jail and deported to the U.S. Does that count?
Here is a link to my reply to your string of posts about Brownlow [Link 2]:
To: Non-Sequitur His [Brownlow's] confinement was shifted to house arrest; then, still in poor health, he was released and banished to the North on March 3, 1863."
From "Blue & Grey in Black and White: Newspapers in the Civil War" by Brayton Harris, pp 112-113.
Your source is in error.
HEADQUARTERS,
Knoxville, March 3, 1862.
Honorable J. P. BENJAMIN, Secretary of War.
SIR: Your telegraphic order [of 1st instant] to transmit Doctor Brownlow out of Tennessee by "Cumberland Mountains or any safe road" was received on Saturday. This morning I sent Doctor Brownlow in charge of Colonel [H. Casey] Young of General Carroll's staff with a guard of ten men to Nashville and thence to Kentucky. I did not deem it safe to send by any of the mountain passes.
With great respect, I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,
G. H. MONSARRAT,
Captain, Commanding Post312 posted on 02/07/2006 10:24:53 PM CST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
How do you propose to “free Dixie?”
They did not close the river. They stopped boats to inspect their cargo. See below. First though, here is one of your posts:
To: Gianni; rustbucket
Why send representatives to Washington to negotiate something that they 'walked away from' then?
Well, in the first place they had already walked away from it. In the second place, they were sent to negotiate recognition from the Lincoln administration, and only after that was there a vague offer to negotiate on 'questions of disagreement'. Unless the Lincoln adminiatration first gave into the demand for recognition there was nothing to talk about.
Rustbucket(?was it you?) posted refutation of this long ago - probably to you, but repeat it as you wish.
Rustbucket refuted nothing. Mississippi rebelled on January 9 and Governor John Jones Petus immediately closed the river to northern traffic. Two days later, Mississippi batteries fired on a steamer heading downstream, the O A Tyler. But wait, you say. Seven weeks later the confederate congress passed legislation that supposedly opened the river to Northern traffic. But did it? Pettus was a real fire-breather and I haven't seen anything that indicates that he pulled his batteries and allowed traffic to pass. After being closed for almost two months was there any traffic left to open it up to?67 posted on 05/09/2005 11:41:08 AM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Then here are a couple of my replies to you.
To: Non-Sequitur
Seven weeks later the confederate congress passed legislation that supposedly opened the river to Northern traffic. But did it? Pettus was a real fire-breather and I haven't seen anything that indicates that he pulled his batteries and allowed traffic to pass. After being closed for almost two months was there any traffic left to open it up to?
Show that the river was closed after that January 11th date. I found the following:
Steamboats Passed Vicksburg. Vicksburg, Feb 13 -- The Horizon and Roane passed down at noon, the Natchez at 3, the Rowena at 8, and the Yazoo and New Uncle Sam at 9 P.M. yesterday; the Lexington at 2, the B. J. Adams at 4, and the Magenta at 8 o'clock this morning. [Daily Picayune Feb 14, 1861]
Steamboats Passed Vicksburg. Vicksburg, Feb 15. -- The steamers Von Phul and Magnolia passed down at noon; the Fort Wayne at 1, and the Quarrier at 11 P.M. yesterday; the Skylark and Planet at 1 o'clock this morning. [Daily Picayune, Feb 16, 1861]69 posted on 05/09/2005 12:00:25 PM CDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Non-Sequitur
Glad to see that you survived.
I spent yesterday in a local library doing microfilm research of the old newspapers again. I searched in a Vicksburg paper for the January 1861 blockading of the Mississippi River by Mississippi Governor Pettus that you've posted about on occasion. I expected to see headlines and a big article since it would have been a big deal. Instead, I found only a couple of small articles from The Weekly Whig of Vicksburg on January 30, 1861:
Navigation of the Mississippi -- ... The navigation of the Mississippi is not and has never been obstructed by this State, and the State Convention has unanimously decided that it shall not be, except for purposes of absolute self defence.That is consistent with actions of the Confederate government with respect to free navigation of the river. I have posted their actions to you in the past. The second article from that Weekly Whig issue said the following:
The Northern journals are much incensed about the battery being placed by order of the Governor of this State. After branding us with all kinds of epithets, such as "traitors," "scoundrels," etc., they say that boats are required to pay the usual wharfage rates, although their business engagements did not require them to land at Vicksburg.
The officers of every boat stopped will attest to this as being false. It was at their own discretion to land or not land at the wharf-boat as they choose.A search on the web found the following: Governor Pettus. This web site explains that a day after Mississippi seceded Governor Pettus put a battery on a bluff overlooking the river to prevent a possible US fleet coming south. Perhaps he was worried about a fleet being sent south to stop Mississippi. After all, this was immediately after the Federal government sent the Star of the West with some 200 armed troops into Charleston Bay. Perhaps Pettus was simply being cautious in light of the Star of the West incident. The fleet didn't show, so after a few days Pettus sent the troops home.
According to the web site, the soldiers did fire on one boat because it didn't stop after a warning shot. I don’t know why the state stopped boats. Maybe they were inspecting what was being shipped south in light of their secession. Can you point out any boat that was not allowed to continue on its navigation of the Mississippi River after perhaps a brief stop at Vicksburg during this early period before the war?
241 posted on 09/09/2006 1:13:15 PM CDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
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.