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
Ping
Dixie Ping!
Because only the South actually did it. And their acts of secession, while illegal, weren't necessarily treasonous as the Constitution defines it.
Just curious here. For an act to be illegal it has to violate a law. Which law was violated by the Southern States' secession?
Don’t you need an Act of Congress to secede?
The Constitution. You know that Chief Justice Chase who Benson quoted? Look up what he had to say on the matter. Texas v White, 1869.
Uh-oh - time to crank up the popcorn machine.
Secession is unconstitutional. There is no enacted law prohibiting, but there is little doubt that Congress could enact such a law (though why it would who knows).
There is no provision for leaving the Union. Once the states agreed to join they were stuck for better or worse.
Any discussion of secession which analogizes the Confederacy leaving the Union to the US leaving the British Empire is prima facie worthless.
That's the real issue. The Black leadership is not serious about fixing the many problems faced in the Black community but enriching themselves and making themselves power brokers with the liberal establishment. Every problem in the Black community is excused with it's the man's fault and that more money should be poured into their special causes to sooth white guilt and make reparations for slavery. When Blacks like Bill Cosby suggest that many of the problems in the Black community are self caused and should be addressed from within they are vilified. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are prime examples of what is wrong and why nothing is getting fixed.
I disagree. Since approval of Congress is needed for a state to be admitted or for any change in their status or borders after admission, then by implication there is no reason why a state can't leave with the approval of Congress as well. In his Texas v. White decision, Chief Justice Chase seemed to hold out that possibility.
“Once the states agreed to join they were stuck for better or worse”.
In other words, the U.S. is like the Mafia or MS-13, once you’ve joined you can never leave.
The United States of Hotel California.
“There is no provision for leaving the Union. Once the states agreed to join they were stuck for better or worse.”
The second statement does not follow from the first.
One simplistic but fair reading would be that since there is no provision for leaving the Union, and since all authority not specifically granted to the federal government is retained by the various States, then the States retain the right to leave the Union.
I hadn't really thought out the mechanics of it, but now that you mention it a single piece of legislation authorizing all 7 state to leave would have had the best chance for success.
I propose that Mass. and Vermont be “encouraged” to secede immediatly! Also Oregon, Wshington and Califonia.
States did not have the right to unilaterally join the Union, how could the retain a right to unilaterally leave?
Thanks for the ping y’all!
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.