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
free dixie,sw
And I believe that no army [that of the CSA] was ever composed of men more thoroughly imbued with moral principle. As a rule, they were men who recognized the obligation to be just and honest and merciful, and to respect the rights of others, even in time of war. Never flinching from conflict with armed foemen, their moral training and disposition forbade them to make war upon the weak and defenceless. To their everlasting honor stands the fact that in their march through the enemy's country they left behind them no fields wantonly laid waste, no families cruelly robbed of subsistence, no homes ruthlessly violated. "In no case," says an English writer, "had the Pennsylvanians to complain of personal injury, or even discourtesy, at the hands of those whose homes they had burned, whose families they had insulted, robbed and tormented. Even the tardy destruction of Chambersburg was an act of regular, limited and righteous reprisal." The Pennsylvania farmer, whose words were reported by a Northern correspondent, paid to the Southern troops no more than a merited tribute when he said of them: "I must say they acted like gentlemen, and, their cause aside, I would rather have 40,000 rebels quartered on my premises than 1,000 Union troops."
Southern Historical Society Papers, R. A Brock, ed., Richmond, VA: Southern Historical Society, Vol XXII, 1894, pp. 368-9
From the journal of Colonel Freemantle, an English officer accompanying the Southern army, we take these sentences:
"In passing through Greencastle we found all the houses and windows shut up, the natives in their Sunday clothes, standing at their doors regarding the troops in a very unfriendly manner. I saw no straggling into the houses, nor were any of the inhabitants disturbed or annoyed by the soldiers. Sentries were placed at the doors of many of the best houses, to prevent any officer or soldier from getting in on any pretence.... I entered Chambersburg at 6 P.M.... Sentries were placed at the doors of all the principal houses, and the town was cleared of all but the military passing through or on duty.... No officer or soldier under the rank of a general is allowed in Chambersburg without a special order from General Lee, which he is very chary of giving, and I hear of officers of rank being refused this pass.... I went into Chambersburg again, and witnessed the singularly good behavior of the troops toward the citizens. I heard soldiers saying to one another that they did not like being in a town in which they were very naturally detested. To any one who has seen, as I have, the ravages of the Northern troops in Southern towns, this forbearance seems most commendable and surprising."A Northern correspondent said of the course pursued by General Jenkins, in command of Ewell's cavalry: "By way of giving the devil his due, it must be said that, although there were over sixty acres of wheat and eighty acres of corn and oats in the same field, he protected it most carefully, and picketed his horses so that it could not be injured. No fences were wantonly destroyed, poultry was not disturbed, nor did he compliment our blooded cattle so much as to test the quality of their steak and roast."
Of the feeling of the troops these few words from the letter of an officer written to one of his family will convey an idea: "I felt when I first came here that I would like to revenge myself upon these people for the devastation they have brought upon our own beautiful home--that home where we could have lived so happily, and that we loved so much, from which their vandalism has driven you and my helpless little ones. But, though I had such severe wrongs and grievances to redress, and such great cause for revenge, yet, when I got among these people, I could not find it in my heart to molest them."
Such was the treatment of the people of Pennsylvania by the Southern troops in obedience to the order of the commander-in-chief. Lee in person set the example. A Southern journal made the sarcastic statement that he became irate at the robbing of cherry-trees; and, if he saw the top rail of a fence lying upon the ground as he rode by, would dismount and replace it with his own hands.
Ibid., pp. 292-294
The old Valley suffered much and long during the war. She was the battle ground for the contending armies. Her rich lands helped to feed the Confederates and her splendid barns were warehouses to supply forage.At least the Confederates kept their word, unlike the degenerate yankee scum from the North.Sheridan, acting under Grant's order, determined to desolate this fair section, so that in the language of the instructions, "a crow could not fly from one end to the other without carrying his rations." And right well did he carry out Grant's order. Several hundred of those new barns were burned with all they contained. On three roads the barnburners went, and, by day, the smoke, like a funeral pall, hung overhead, and by night the lurid flames lit up the whole country. And these fiends were mercenary in their hellish work. Dividing into two parties, one would go before and ask the owner what he would give them not to burn his barn. Grasping at a straw, and not thinking of treachery, he would bring forth hidden treasure of gold and silver, and sometimes as high as $300 to save his property. This party, having bled the owner, galloped on and then came party number two. They applied the match, and rode on to share the ill-gotten gains.
When the fires of Chambersburg painted the sky red, then were the barns of the Shenandoah avenged.
Alex S. Patton, "Sheridan's Bummers", Southern Historical Society Papers, R. A Brock, ed., Richmond, VA: Southern Historical Society, Vol XXXII, 1904, p. 93
NOTE. This article, published in the Baltimore American, March 28, 1909, and written by Lieut. Fielder C. Slingluff, who was a member of the First Maryland Cavalry, C. S. A., and is now a prominent lawyer, citizen, clubman and churchman of Baltimore, Md., was sent for publication by Captain Frederick M. Colston, of the same place. The letter, beside the following: "As an act of simple justice and for historical accuracy, I ask you to publish this, as an addenda to the Rev. Dr. Seibert's account of the burning of Chambersburg," contained a clipping from the Baltimore Sun of April 26, 1909, as follows: "Sheridan, like Sherman, indulged his proclivities for pillage and destruction only after the last vestige of Confederate military organization had vanished from his front, and it was on a people incapable of armed resistance that vengeance was wreaked. Some idea of the pitiless and wanton devastation wrought in the valley may be gathered from the report of a committee appointed just after the close of the hostilities by the county court of Rockingfham to estimate the havoc inflicted on the property of noncombatants under Sheridan's orders in that county alone:"Dwellings burned, 36; barns burned, 450; mills burned, 31; fences destroyed (miles), 100; bushels of wheat destroyed, 100,000; bushels of corn destroyed, 50,000; tons of hay destroyed, 6,233; cattle carried off, 1,750 head; horses and hogs carried off, 3,350 head; factories burned, 3; furnace burned, 1. In addition, there was an immense amount of farming utensils of every description destroyed, many of them of great value, such as reapers and threshing machines, also household and kitchen furniture, and money, bonds, plate, etc., pillaged.
About the same time, three distinguished jurists in Massachusetts led a host of other lawyers in declaring that the Massachusetts laws were unconstitutional and saying that these laws could lead to secession. The three were the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, a former member of the US Supreme Court who had resigned in protest of the Dred Scott decision, and a Harvard constitutional law professor who had been Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Appeals to change these laws came too late.
Only because the fire-eaters were so intent on secession. Actually, it looks like the system was more or less working. Southern states complained about the personal liberty laws, and Northern states made efforts to change them. Whether doing so was morally right or not, it did make practical sense as a compromise measure.
The National Intelligencer, a proslavery paper known for its advertisements of slave auctions and announcements about runaways, made the point that not all personal liberty laws were unconstitutional -- "only" those of Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Efforts were made to change those laws to conform to the Constitution, as well as other laws in other states, but by this point proslavery forces were already set on secession.
You're half-right.
But I guess posting here makes all of us "policy wonks" whether we were wonks to begin with or not.
PITY that you don't head over to "daily kos", "clown posse" & DU to be with the other "useful idiots", bigots, nitwits & fools, who used to be "members of the DAMNyankee coven".
you'll feel right at home, as they TOO hate Indians & make hate-FILLED, ignorant,"smart remarks" about us & our culture.
laughing AT you, BIGOT!
free dixie,sw
smart farmer.
free dixie,sw
Is there anybody on FR who plays the “poor oppressed me” race card as often as you do?
you are an inside JOKE among most denizens of the WBTS threads, as your lies are so OBVIOUS & filled with HATE for dixie & her wonderful people.
why not head back over to DU (where you admitted you used to "hang out") & be with the other BANNED losers of the "DAMNyankee coven of lunatics, BIGOTS,"useful idiots", LEFTISTS & nitwits", who used to be FReepers???
you'll be warmly welcomed back.
btw, when are you going to admit to everyone here WHO you used to be before you were permanently BANNED FOR CAUSE from FR & returned in another guise??? also be sure to tell everyone specifically WHAT you did to get yourself banned, FOREVER.
laughing AT you, CREEP.
free dixie,sw
You seem awfully familiar with the people over on DU and what they’re talking about. Far more than I am, certainly
You term the National Intelligencer "a proslavery paper known for its advertisements of slave auctions and announcements about runaways." Nicolay and Hay say the following about it [Link]. (This was where I got the list of states whose laws they considered unconstitutional.)
The editors of the "National Intelligencer," who certainly could not be accused of a desire to misrepresent either the North or the South, printed in their issue of December 11, 1860, a careful review of all Northern personal liberty laws.
Were Nicolay and Hay being tongue-in-check in their characterization of the paper? Certainly the Massachusetts lawyers weren't tongue-in-check in their concern about their local law.
The old newspaper article that alerted me to the statement of the three distinguished jurists and other lawyers in Massachusetts was published in the Philadelphia Public Ledger on December 20, 1860. What a date! It was too late.
One of your links mentions the effort of Massachusetts to change their law. Massachusetts hadn't returned a fugitive slave since 1854. Indeed, there were a large number of escaped slaves living openly in Massachusetts. My impression from one of my hundreds of old newspaper copies was that the Massachusetts legislature only did window dressing on their personal liberty law in 1861 and did not fix the problem. I'd have to track that statement down -- I don't have my papers indexed yet. I do not know what changes they made as they were not reported in my old newspaper.
- Mrs Wiley Harris, burned and whipped severely
- Mrs. Major Thompson, burned head, arms, and hands
- Mrs. O. Wallace, knocked down and whipped severely
- Mrs. Susan Wallace, feet burned severely
- Mrs. S. J. Howell, burned from knees down; but little hopes of recovery
- Mrs. Emma May (mother-in-law), feet burned severely
- Mrs. L. N. C. Swagerty, feet burned severely
I was curious how this came about and looked in the Official Records. I found the following in Series I, Volume 48, Part II, page 79. My blood runs cold on reading it.
OFFICE CHIEF PROVOST-MARSHALL, FIRST DISTRICT,
Center Point, Ark., March 8, 1865.
Major-General FAGAN:
GENERAL: Having just returned from Johnson County I write you in order to give you some knowledge of the ill treatment of some of your old friends, outrages committed by the Federal soldiery. After being robbed of all their household, wearing apparel, and subsistence, they are then a subject of search for money. Not being satisfied on searching their persons, they are taken from their beds and placed upon beds of fire and tortured for the purpose of getting money. Aunt Tish (Mrs. Howel) was taken from her bed and burned so severely that there is but little hope of her recovery. All the flesh from below the knee of one leg has dropped off. Mrs. Susan Willis at the same time burned severely on the feet. Mrs. Wiley Harris burned by placing her head in the fire, and then whipped almost lifeless. Mrs. Major-Thompson burned on head, arms, and hands. I must yet tell you that Isbell, my wife, was taken from her bed and placed upon coals of fire, and after being burned severely was made to go in the damp of night some 400 yards to get money, and made to walk a part of the way with her feet all in a crisp, Isbell's mother remaining at the house suffering with like punishment. Notwithstanding these outrages, that of still deeper infamy is now the suffering pangs at heart of some of the helpless ladies of Johnson.
Oh, general, the story is true, sad, and sickening. May god avenge their wrongs. These outrages cannot be placed upon any other than the U. S. soldiery. The deserters from the Federal army occupied the county some time previous to the Federals holding post, and did not commit these outrages.
Shall we suffer all this? Have we no spirit to avenge their wrong? I hope the soldiery of Johnson County will not forget the Federal Second Arkansas Regiment, Second Kansas, Fourteenth Kansas, Colonel G. M. Waugh, and Colonel Stephenson, that they may, if ever chance offers, mete out to them like reward.
Hoping that some measures may be adopted that will avert any further outrages, I am, general, as ever, your friend and obedient servant,
L. N. C. SWAGERTY.
I went through Fry and Neely to see if I could find another reference to this, and the hunt was largely unsuccessful. To tell the truth, this isn’t an issue I have heard in discussion before. Are you sure Johnson is wrong? He seems pretty adamant. Can you point me towards your source? Johnson seems pretty definate when he claims that the decision to seceed and then to go to war was made by those most likely to gain from it, and not those who did not own slaves (the poor and working poor).
When he says that the reasons for secession “made no sense” he finishes the statement with: :...and merely reflected the region’s paranoia.” and then goes on to quote some of them. I must agree with him here, but I also must admit, I have not read these documents for myself (my area of concentration is the Cold, and not the Civil War). I think most of those who have a knowledge of history from this time understand the hatreds and passions that were ruling the day. The declarations were probably more a reflection of that then any attempt to be “statesman-like”. “Hatred” in politics...who would’a thunk it?
You are absolutely right that the South’s economy rested on the backs of slaves and that the South was worried that it would end. In retrospect, we can see that there were other ways and means, but it is hard to see the big picture from the ground. Here I must disagree with ANY court, anywhere that would equate human beings with personal property. Here, one can only think that the offending courts, in their never-ending adherence to “precedent”, CHOSE to rule for slaves as property. The debate over whether the courts can make “people” chattel rather than respecting them as people was, to my mind, as wrong then as it would be now. I canNOT ever agree that this justified the South’s OR the courts’ actions. Arguments have been made in ANY number of books and journal articles, that the Founders intended, knew, or hoped that slavery would be a temporary condition and were embarrassed by it. Certainly the Northeastern states raised a howl...The Constitution is very clear about private property- it just isn’t very clear regarding people as property. I will always believe they (the Founders) did that for a reason.
I must tell you, in the interest of full disclosure ;), that Paul Johnson is one of my all-time favorites. I love his American history because he just likes Americans SO much. “Intellectuals” is wonderful and his “History of Art” weighs a ton! I love it, the pics are beautiful and it makes a great booster seat for my granddaughter!
HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, Lewisville, Ark., March 6, 1865.
Respectfully referred to Brig. Gen. M. Jeff. Thompson, commanding Northern Sub-District of Arkansas, who will take such measures as he may deem necessary to have the perpetrators of these outrages brought to justice. He will communicate with the Federal commander at Clarksville and demand the men who are guilty of such inhuman outrages.
By command of Major-General Magruder,
M. M. KIMMEL,
Major and Assistant Adjutant-General.
---------------------------------
HEADQUARTERS, NORTHERN SUB-DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS,
Harrisburg, April 12, 1865.
Respectfully forwarded to the commanding officer of the Federal forces in Arkansas at Little Rock, with a request that he either punish these fiends or turn them over to the C.S. military authorities for punishment. M. JEFF. THOMPSON, Brigadier-General, Commanding.
It was never the policy of the Union Army to commit such senseless crimes.
That's probably because of the Confederate system that tended to divert the Dixie trash into abusing Southern people in the name of the Slave Empire. There was too much plunder and mayhem available on the home front to worry about the small chance of plundering Yankees. The good rebs were in the CSA and the bad ones stayed at home whipping and trading slaves and murdering and extorting money from the "Lincolnites".
As far your remark about "degenerate Yankee scum", I think we should condemn all vile behavior during that period, whether it was perpetrated by degenerate Yankee scum or degenerate Confederate scum.
I never said they didn't.
The newspaper story that alerted me to this atrocity said that one of the women recognized one of the perpetrators. He was arrested and then turned state's evidence. Thirteen men were sent to Fort Smith in irons.
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.