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
And the point was?
...but there is a clause that forbids them from forming a confederacy.
Please refresh my memory.
Chase said the same. But you obviously do not share Chases' view that perpetual = permanent. According to Chase a more 'perfect union' made something [non-]permanent more permanent, yet that previous perpetual union only lasted 9 years. Maybe if the framers had changed "more perfect" to "new and improved" Chase would have understood it.
Which they didn't try a second time till years later but the CSA did. But the fact the south could produce a more modern version speaks for how far it was developed. As I said the north didn't mind a single bit building it's factories on the backs of slaves. When it saw an economical advantage it used it including pushing for abolition.
The north was not by any means the saints history would have them be either. Go look in a National Cemetery established in the Civil War era. Look at the stones. Look at the sections of the cemetery. Look for USCT on the markers. Look around for others in the area there won't be any except USCT. Why the designation of USCT? Hum. The war was over two things States Rights and economical domination.
Then that would mean I was using non-sequiturs.
That is your realm of argumentation, not mine.
I call BS. The federal convention recognized that a secession could occur, and Madison offered a motion that the militia could be used to prevent secession. That motion was defeated 8-3.
That must be a reference to Article I, Section 10, Clause 1. I’m not sure if that is a reference to secession or simply a prohibition of a group a States forming a sub-country within this country as a layer of government higher than those individual States, but lower than the federal government.
It would have been a more orderly and likely bloodless transition yes. Likely occuring sooner. The nation as a whole would have prospered as the southern industries would have made the nations trade more secure. The south was seen by the nothern industrialist as competition. Abe was sympathetic to their cause. And Smedley Butler a man to come later was indeed right LOL.
Chase said that was permanent and there was no reconsideration or revocation once admitted, except through revolution or through consent of the States. So even he recognized that secession could be allowed under the right circumstances.
So now it's 40 years and not 20? Shall we try for 60 or 80?
There are a lot of other terms that I could think of as well.
Do you really, really believe that we'd have equal civil rights regardless of skin color to the degree that we do today in an independent Confederacy?
The nation as a whole would have prospered as the southern industries would have made the nations trade more secure. The south was seen by the nothern industrialist as competition.
A nice fantasy, but most of the secessionist leaders didn't want to develop industries. They say their new country as a vast agrarian Confederacy. Remember Wigfall?
We are a peculiar people, sir! We are an agriculture people; we are a primitive but a civilised people. We have no cities—we don't want them. We have no literature—we don't need any yet. We have no press—we are glad of it. We have no commercial marine—no navy—we don't want them. We are better without them. Your ships carry our produce and you can protect your own vessels. We want no manufactures; we desire no trading, no mechanical or manufacturing classes. As long as we have our cotton, our rice, our sugar, our tobacco, we can command wealth to purchase all we want from those nations with which we are in amity.
A clever bet to make in an industrial era!
How much of what you know today was known by the Charleston authorities on the evening of the 11th?
Can you provide a single pre-rebellion quote from a single Southern leader, military or civilian, who believed slavery was destined for an early end?
IF slavery was abolished because of the Civil War then pray tell why did it still bloody well exist in this nation afterward? It existed in many forms until economical conditions made it a liability that's way. That war did not end it but rather only destroyed a regional economy which was the purpose of it to start with.
to let it die it's death would have ended it much quicker as technology and development would not have been delayed for decades post war south. That was the most humane way to end it and it worked in the north BEFORE the Civil War now did it or did it very well not?
The northern industrialist wanted it ended then and there for their economical reasons and not because of a soft spot in their hearts either or a matter of conscience either. That came later in the history books when Marxist re-wrote American History in our schools to be more politically correct. Abe was the man to do it for them.
Almost as good as X, you are.
No. The Nashville was not flying any flag. The Harriet Lane fired a shot across her bow and she raised the US flag in response. She was never stopped.
Bicentennial Edition: Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970
Also useful:DeBow's Review: Dept. Of Commerce
Two separate issues - the permanence of the union upon ratification and the methodology of disunion.
Chase wrote, 'What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? ... The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. ... When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation.
Via amendment the entire union could be dissolved. That crushes Chases' "indissoluble" and "indestructible" characteristics. We have already proven that "perpetual" simply means without a stated end, not "permanent". Regarding an "indestructible union" composed of indestructible States, Article IV§3 destroys that absurd holding. Lastly, nothing in the Constitution prevents a state from leaving, it actually guarantees them that right. The states were sovereign under the Articles, and to paraphrase Chase, 'What can be more sovereign, than a state made more perfect?'
No, you are indulging in your own non-sequitur.
What the South imported was both European as well as American products.
The 83% referred to Southern grown exports as a portion of total US exports to Europe.
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.