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
that which is NOT prohibited remains LAWFUL.
also, how do you "explain away" the TENTH AMENDMENT to the BOR, which states that those powers NOT CEDED to the federal government REMAIN the powers/RIGHTS of the STATES/PEOPLE???
i will assume, in the absence of PROOF to the contrary, that you agree that secession remains a viable/lawful OPTION in the face of federal TYRANNY.
free dixie,sw
Clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
Article I: The Legislative Branch
Section 10
Clause 1:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
Clause 3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ....., keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded,
Now, these are the only references I have found in the Constitution for any reaction from the Federal government in reaction to a secession. The first is possibly the cause for using force to 'restore' the Union. Basically saying, 'you signed on, you cannot sign out'.
There is nothing to prohibit seccesion, but there some flaky causes to use force to 'restore' the 'several' states.
face it, "pistolshot", NONE of the STATES (particularly the SMALL states who FEARED, not without just cause/reason, that PA, NY & VA would forever DOMINATE the new union!) would have FREELY joined a union from which they could NOT, just as FREELY leave "at their own motion". that too is FACT.
free dixie,sw
I love how Watie's always saying, "ask me sometime about the sacrifice of at least 92 civilian members (mostly women & small children) of MY family, who were assaulted/raped/robbed & MURDERED for just being "other than white persons," but when you ask him, he says he's not interesting it telling it again.
Most likely he's just worried that he can't remember what he said last time about the dates, the location, the names of some of the victims, what the graves say, the units involved, and so on. He's already admitted that he placed the story in Mississippi for years before changing it to North Carolina. He gave two different names for the Mississippi cemetery they're supposedly buried in, but in more recent years he's said they're actually all buried on his aunt's farm, a fact that you'd think he'd have been aware of sooner. Apparently he was telling the story in all its details for some time without ever having visited the cemetery himself.
And then there's the whole issue of who wrote the letter about the incident, who reported it to the authorities, and so on. So many details to keep straight.
Originally the sovereigns, the people of the several states were included:
...all Treaties made under the Authority of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the several States, and of their Citizens and Inhabitants; and the Judges in the several States shall be bound thereby ...This was rejected, the sovereigns are not bound.
Applies to a state that is a member of the union. The seceded states, no longer members of the union, are free to compact with whomever they wish.
Yeah, what gives, swattie?
All this tooing and froing is a little hard to understand: Mississippi to Carolina, Carolina to Mississippi. Your ancestors got around as much as Prof. Tyrone Brown.
swattie, if you were fleeing Mississippi why would you got to the Carolina highlands, where there was guerrilla warfare going on? Wouldn't you have been more likely to head for Alabama?
But swattie, you're on record as having said this:
REF: the massmurders, rapes, pillaging and arson committed against MY family:the dates were April 16-18, 1864, Lake Corinth, Mississippi-the culprits were UNIFORMED "bummers" of the US Army
What gives?
BTW, post 887 is also for you (and Bubba Ho-Tep).
the MAIN difference between the two of you is "bubba, the LIAR" seems somewhat more intelligent than "x" & "x" seems a little less DISHONEST than "bubba". (are you sure that you aren't ONE person masquerading as 2 FReepers???)
why not head over to "daily kos" and/or DU & "sup with" your buddies, who USED to be FReepers???? (btw, i'm told that your old buddy, "Whiskey Papa", is NOW also on the A.N.S.W.E.R. website.)
general applause will follow your departure.
free dixie,sw
Like I said, you seem far more apprised of who’s over on the uber-liberal boards and what they’re talking about than I am.
FOX NEWS ALERT:
The United States won the Civil War.
THIS HAS BEEN A FOX NEWS ALERT!
XD
Or the Indian Territory, which would have been much closer. Another interesting question is why there are no Bankheads listed in the 1851 Siler or Chapman censuses (censi?) of Cherokees east of the Mississippi. In fact, there's not a single Cherokee to be found in Mississippi, although that's not particularly surprising, since Mississippi was never Cherokee country. It was Choctaw and Natchez country.
Of course, then we come up on the Watie's apparent claim that he's a Bankhead on both his mother's side and his father's side, and that they're all from the same neighborhood in Mississippi. Pretty cozy.
YOU are the one who ADMITTED that you were ON "DU". (so you've been caught in ANOTHER,in a LONG series of, LIES.)
WHEN are you going to tell everyone WHO your were before you were PERMANENTLY BANNED from FR & WHAT specifically you DID to be BANNED forever???
have you forgotten that you ADMITTED to being the BANNED FOREVER, "heyworth, the HATER" on another thread??? (of course, you've told so many LIES, on so many subjects, that you aren't believed about that admission, either.)
oh, i forgot. be sure and tell everyone about the CRIMINAL FRAUD that you ADMITTED to committing, while trying to win an argument with me on FR. (that should really "fix" you, once & for all, with anyone who is HONEST!)
laughing AT you, SERIAL LIAR/fool/BIGOT.
free dixie,sw
I’ve admitted that I go over and check it out once in a while, and that I’ve posted maybe twice, telling them that they’re wrong about this or that fact. I’m not the only freeper to do so, from what I’ve read on these boards. Honestly, I’ve forgotten my password over there. However, if you want to find my alleged posts over there and link to them, have at it. You’re the one with sources telling you every detail about who is over there and what they’re talking about. Some of your friends must be spending a whole lot of time over there to tell you so much about what the long-departed Walt is up to.
and YES, "the GOE folks" always "keep an eye on" the A.N.S.W.E.R. website as it is a NEST of LEFTISTS/TRAITORS/BIGOTS/ANTI-Semites/FOOLS.
free dixie,sw
Really? So you admit that a bunch of Freepers spend a lot of time on DU, and yet you slam me for occassionally peeking over their to see what they’ve got their feathers ruffled about this time? Hypocritical much?
If you had read my post #869 the writer I sited covers this. Indeed your mentioning of “the people” supports the unconstitutionality of secession. The 10th amendment in limiting the power of the federal government gives sovereignty to TWO entities. One is the states, and the other is THE PEOPLE. Thats all the people of the whole nation as a single unit. It mentions the people as separate from the states. If you read my post you will see the framers felt that the federal government was answerable to THE PEOPLE and not to the states. The people as a whole(through the federal process), the whole nation, can only constitutionally allow states, groups of states, heck even parts of states from leaving the union. The writer goes on to explain how the civil war might have been classified a revolution but then does goes on to explain how it wasn’t.
“The United States won the Civil War”.
Are you a Native Tennessean Scalawag or a Yankee Carpetbagger masquerading as a Tennessean?
So what you are saying is your “fathers” weren’t man enough to protect your women.
My ancestors shot at people on both sides who thought it would be a great idea to pillage their livestock, lol.
I’m from Knoxville, which has a long and distinguished history of supporting Republicans since before the Civil War. We didn’t wait till it was the hip thing to do.
The Civil War ended 142 years ago. It should have about as much relevance to inhabitants of the South today as the War of 1812 did to inhabitants of Washington DC did back in the 1950’s. It ought to be remembered and learned about, sure, but it isn’t anything to base one’s life around unless they’re some sort of nerd, like a historian or a Live Action Roll Player. (troll troll troll XD )
That’s one of the differences between us and the rest of the world, and part of why this country (the United States, rofl) is so great. We’ve learned to let the past go and not hold grudges over s*** that happened centuries before we were born.
That’s why I find these threads where we internet-fight the Civil War over again hilarious!
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.