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 UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON! THE UNION WON!
LOL
*No response*
LOL
People who are still fighting the Civil War on the internet are capable of generating more drama than a legion of 15 year old emo kids on MySpace. XD
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." (1848)
Then he did the old political Flip-Flop and decided that he wasn't going to preside over the break up of the Union even if his actions violated that "most sacred right".
No region is perfect, but the U.S. would be very far to the left without the South. There are liberal pockets in the South (Atlanta, New Orleans, etc.) but they generally get outvoted by the more conservative regions. The opposite usually occurs in the North and on the West Coast, where the conservative pockets get outvoted by the leftist areas.
Since the far left took over the Democrat Party in the late sixties, the Dems have only carried the South one time in a presidential election. That was Jimmy Carter in 1976, who ran as a conservative and I’ll concede that he fooled us. Clinton lost the South in both 1992 & 1996.
Not only does the South elect mostly conservatives, but its very presence as an important region keeps lefties in other regions from going even further. As nutty as Schumer, Obama, Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, Leahy, and others are, they’d be even kookier if the South was a seperate country. In such a scenario, the Heartland & Rocky Mountain states would be electorally crushed, and would live under the constant and permanent hegemony of the Northeast & West Coast.
Goodbye second amendment!
Yep. Most of the contracts would not stand up in court today.
Here's another take on the Texas v. White ruling in 1868.
In "the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution" (2007) author Kevin Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D. wrote:
"In Texas v. White the Supreme Court declared that the Constitution "looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states," and ruled that in fact Texas had never seceded, and that Texans had been wrong to think otherwise. The ruling was five to three, with the majority decision issued by Chief Justice Salmon P Chase, a former Lincoln cabinet member (who arguably should have recused himself) whose logic was less than convincing. Its constitutional basis was in Article IV's statement that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Allegedly this proved that the Constitution supposed "an indestructible Union." The Latin phrase for such decisions is ipse dixit: asserted but not proved."
It's an interesting subject once you get beyond the PC drummed into peoples heads over what it was actually about. There's a lot of history as well. Even the battles. Some of the best thought out battle plans for example came from the most unconventional sources. Some of the best units were ones you'll never read about in the main stream history pages like this one.
No region is perfect, but the U.S. would be very far to the left without the South.
The only reason the south seems to be more conservative is because it is more rural. There are few places more conservative than Indiana or Northern CA.
Anyway my point is that playing “what if” is foolish. The war is long over and neither of us nor anyone else alive today participated in it. It just strikes me funny as to why the civil war is still treated as a current event in the south. I really don’t get it.
BTW most of it took place within a hundred miles of where I live.
Here are some other quotes from influential leaders
It's an interesting subject once you get beyond the PC drummed into peoples heads over what it was actually about. There's a lot of history as well. Even the battles.
I cannot recall a single Free Republic Civil War thread that has ever gotten beyond endless arguments about the political justifications of the war and charges and counter-charges of "treason", "slavery", "Lincoln was a tyrant", "Davis should have been hung", etc., etc. ......
It seems as if FR Civil War threads are always firmly stuck in either March 1861 or May 1865.
It would be nice to be able to have a Civil War thread that dispassionately discussed generalship, campaigns, tactics, individual exploits, individual failings, camp life , camp followers, the home fronts, etc. without rehashing the political fire-breathing on either side of the Potomac for the 947th time.
Article and section please.
And that makes no sense at all. If they have LEFT, then they can do as they please.
You of course meant: racist propaganda from Spike Lee.
No. Why not explain how it works in the case of the Supreme Court?
Check the quote in my message 28 and tell me where Chief Justice Marshall is wrong.
Thanks for the post!
ROTFLMAO.
The state of New Jersey originally voted to ratify the 14th, but when its representatives observed the methods that its proponents were using to coerce the Southern states into ratification, NJ rescinded its ratification (to no avail).
Of course to no avail. Once a state votes to ratify an amendment then that's it, the Constitution does not contain any provisions for revoking ratification. The reasoning should be obvious - what if a state legislature voted years later to revoke ratification?
Hence, the U.S. Congress considered the southern states as having never left the Union only until such time as it became politically expedient to declare that that they had.
I was not aware that the New Jersey legislature had the power to declare a state out of the Union.
“Guess What Folks—Secesson Wasn’t Treason”
And it wont be the next time either.
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.