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
NO action requires unanimity of the states, the powers are to the states severally and independently. The same applies to the people - the people of the several states, not the entire people. Their is no action that the people of any state can perform for another state. The motion to submit the ratification of the Constitution to the amalgamated people did not even receive a second. Historical fact refutes the absuridty of that position.
No, what he's saying is that your 'fathers' couldn't defeat Southerners honourably on the field of battle, so they chose to wage war on innocent women and children.
I didn't bother to see who was writing the tripe you cited, but their argument is full of holes. The 'people at large' did not ratify the Constitution. The convention laughed at submitting ratification to the people at large. They rejected submission to legislatures. They approved submission to STATE conventions. And what does the Constitution state? 'The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.'
To say the United States Soldiers waged war on innocent women and children is treason. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Why do you hate America?
I didn't bother to see who was writing the tripe you cited, but their argument is full of holes. The 'people at large' did not ratify the Constitution. The convention laughed at submitting ratification to the people at large. They rejected submission to legislatures. They approved submission to STATE conventions. And what does the Constitution state? 'The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.'
Well I don't know if many people would call Chief Justice Marshall's views on the issue tripe. From the article I posted:
Sobran’s response to this is that “‘We the people of the United States’ ratified the Constitution as members of distinct states, not en masse by national referendum.” But Chief Justice John Marshall (who had been a delegate to the Virginia Ratification Convention) answered that in McColloch v. Maryland: “[The Constitution] was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in Convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States—and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments.”22 This was not just the opinion of High Federalists. As Madison explained, the Constitution was formed by the people in each of the States, acting in their highest sovereign capacity.... Being thus derived from the same source as the Constitutions of the States, it...is as much a Constitution, in the strict sense of the term, within its prescribed sphere, as the Constitutions of the States are within their respective spheres; but with this obvious & essential difference, that being a compact among the States in their highest sovereign capacity, and constituting the people thereof one people for certain purposes, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of the States individually, as the Constitution of a State may be at its individual will.23
Bwahahahaha! I don't - I love this republic.
To say the United States Soldiers waged war on innocent women and children is treason.
Get a grip. Treason is defined as a citizen waging war on the US or giving aid and comfort to her enemies. No Confederate was ever found guilty of treason. And the US DID wage war on innocent women and children, the Official Records are replete with examples of yankee brutalities. Mumford was executed for simply taking down a US flag. A Confederate scout had his eyes gouged out; civilians were burned alive in their beds; the Chief Justice of Georgia was hung in an attempt to obtain his gold; thousands of Southern women - white and black - were raped by yankees; entire towns were destroyed; the women and children of Roswell and Manchester GA were enslaved and sent North; some 100 Million (billions today) in jewelry, silver and gold and other valuables was stolen from civilians and sent North; thousands of acres of land were burned, homes destroyed, crops burnt, livestock shot; numerous civilians, some of them old men, shot by the military for no reason. Lincoln's henchmen arrested priests that refused to pray for Lincoln, federal troops prevented fair elections.
The founders believed 'Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'
Yankees fought against that principle.
You are welcome. What I posted was just one reply by Mr. Sandefur in an ongoing blog battle between him and other libertarians but mostly Mr. Sobran over the rightness of secession. Both are credentialed libertarians. Being a libertarian, Mr. Sanderfur caught a lot of flack from other libertarians for taking what appeared to be an anti-libertarian point of view. Mr. Sanderfur started the ball rolling with this article. “Liberty and Union, Now and Forever”* http://www.geocities.com/sande106/LibertyandUnion.htm
Also google “Sanderfur” and “Sobran” and you will find lots of analysis of this dustup.
what you DO is PARTICIPATING with that bunch of LEFTISTS, lunatics & CREEPS.
what the GOE folks do is called : keeping watch on the ENEMY.
BIG DIFFERENCE. (in the event that you don't understand that rather simple concept, then you are NOT any smarter than "x" the "useful idiot".
free dixie,sw
i just believe that you have been propagandized by the unionist fanatics.
the union was created as a "creature of" the STATES. (it is NOT the creation of the people.)
thus the STATES are still FREE to modify, withdraw from or abolish that union, at any time of their CHOOSING.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Anyone who watched the Democrats’ panderfest on Univision can’t doubt that you are correct. Throw in the PC Cons and it’s a done deal. The southwest will secede.
In the Virginian convention Marshall stated that delegated powers could be resumed by the same hand that gave them. The convention refused to second Morris' motion to submit ratification to the people en masse. The Supreme Court cannot consolidate the people of the several independent states into 'one people'. In the Constitution every action is by states, and then as states separately, not a united, unanimous action. The people of Georgia cannot legislate or act for the people of any other state.
Chase also wrote, 'As preliminary to the very able discussions of the Constitution which we have heard from the bar, and as having some influence on its construction, reference has been made to the political situation of these States anterior to its formation. It has been said that they were sovereign, were completely independent, and were connected with each other only by a league. This is true.' [Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 US 1 (1824)].
'Even if we attend to the manner in which the Constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of America, I can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consolidated, nor is it entirely federal. Who are parties to it? The people — but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.'
James Madison, 6 June 1788, The Debates in the Several State Conventions of the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., Vol. III, p. 94.
'When the American people created a national legislature, with certain enumerated powers, it was neither necessary nor proper to define the powers retained by the States. These powers proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several States; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before, except so far as they may be abridged by that instrument.'
Chief Justice Marshall, Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, (1819).
Madison again, this time in Federalist 39, 'this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. ... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.'
The judicial powers extended to 'citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State', but never to 'citizens of the United States'.
And Justice Marshall opines again,holding that a 'judicial system was to be prepared, not for a consolidated people, but for distinct societies, already possessing distinct systems.' [Wayman v. Southard, 23 Wheat. 1, (1825)]
And from Justice Thomas, '[t]he Constitution simply does not recognize any mechanism for action by the undifferentiated people of the Nation.' [Justice Thomas (dissent), U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US 779, (1995)]
what happened to my family was NOT unique. instead such SLAUGHTERS were COMMONPLACE!!!
the DYs were MUCH better at slaughtering women, children,slaves & other helpLESS persons, than they ever were at facing southern shot & steel.
free dixie,sw
War is tough, both sides were guilty of crimes. I have a contemporary account of some reb criminals in the wake of Wheeler's cavalry gouging the eyes out of a live Unionist As an added touch the brave defender of Dixie is said to have presented the eyeballs to his bloodthirsty mother as a trophy.
the women and children of Roswell and Manchester GA were enslaved and sent North
And I bet they were very good slaves too. For there is one Bible verse that all true southerners knew and believed in, the one that said SERVANTS OBEY YOUR MASTERS. And we know slavery is not that bad at all so nobody should complain about the fate of these women. They should have been thankful to be transported to a more advanced and prosperous civilization. In fact, what Lee called "stern discipline" might serve, after a few hundred years of slavery for these women and their descendants, to make these southerners worthy of citizenship in the more advanced North.
If the enslaved women had escaped and made their way back to their old home, I hope Georgia would have been ready to deliver up these fugitive slaves back to Ohio under the Fugitive Slave Acts. As you know, fugitive slave return was part of the Constitution and one of the reasons the Confederates tried to leave the Union.
aren't you HUMILIATED to be seen as a IDIOT & a FOOL before ever reader????
i would expect such a DUMB-bunny, ignorant comment from an IDIOT off the A.N.S.W.E.R. site, but NEVER from a FReeper.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
may i suggest that you, TOO, have listened to & evidently BELIEVED the LIES propounded by the LEFTIST/unionist LIARS. thus you have been made a FOOL of.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
To make such a statement is ignorance. You should learn what treason is.
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.