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, the government did not default. Do you know why, and what caused the difference?
I do. And if that makes me intelligent and educated then what does the fact that you cannot recognize the truth say about you?
I can hardly wait for you to tell us.
free dixie,sw
Why don’t you include the complete story:
You said of Lincoln’s intent:
“He said no attempt would be made to land men or munitions unless the resupply was opposed. The exact words were, ‘...an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of attack.” It’s right there.
Well, here is Lincoln’s order. The difference between his carefully worded message to Pickens, and the direct orders to the Naval command was that there was no question they were on the way to land in force.
April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp
This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.
To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott
My pleasure. As a side note, I’d like to say how much good stuff is turning up via Google book search. In a few years that’s going to be an amazing resource.
SIR: It having been determined to succor Fort Sumter, you have been selected for this important duty. Accordingly, you will take charge of the transports provided in New York, having the troops and supplies on board, to the entrance of Charleston Harbor, and endeavor, in the first instance, to deliver the subsistence. If you are opposed in this you are directed to report the fact to the senior naval officer off the harbor, who will be instructed by the Secretary of the Navy to use his entire force to open a passage, when you will, if possible, effect an entrance and place both the troops and supplies in Fort Sumter.I am, sir, very respectfull, your obedient servant,
Simon Cameron, Secretary of War
OR-Navies, Vol. 4, pg. 232
Nobody much got along with anyone else up here.
But I was talking about basic civil rights -- the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, protection from mob violence, non-descrimination in public facilities and employment.
It's a hypothetical question, but do you really think we'd have come as far as we have if the Confederates had won?
But I remember the north had it's riots also. BTW that was before the ones in the 1960's began. Like the turn of the century perhaps or a decade or two afterward?
There were race riots during and after the first World War in Northern cities. What's curious is that people generally are aware of riots that happened in Chicago, Detroit or New York. For a long time, earlier race riots in Wilmington NC and Atlanta were forgotten.
But my point was that it's a mistake to pretend that it was only Lincoln or the Civil War or Reconstruction that complicated and embittered relations between Blacks and Whites. Even if Whites had fond feelings for specific African-Americans they knew, they resisted mixing and sharing power.
I suppose that was true in both North and South, but the ugly side was more pronounced in the South. Maybe that's because Blacks were more numerous in the South. Anyway, you have to take the good with the bad: close personal relationships, together with a good deal of oppression.
Mr. MADISON moved to amend the next part of the clause so as to read "reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, under the rank of General officers"
Mr. SHERMAN considered this as absolutely inadmissible. He said that if the people should be so far asleep as to allow the most influential officers of the militia to be appointed by the Genl. Government, every man of discernment would rouse them by sounding the alarm to them.
Mr. GERRY. Let us at once destroy the State Govts. have an Executive for life or hereditary, and a proper Senate, and then there would be some consistency in giving full powers to the Genl. Govt. but as the States are not to be abolished, he wondered at the attempts that were made to give powers inconsistent with their existence. He warned the Convention agst. pushing the experiment too far. Some people will support a plan of vigorous Government at every risk. Others of a more democratic cast will oppose it with equal determination, and a Civil war may be produced by the conflict.
Mr. MADISON. As the greatest danger is that of disunion of the States, it is necessary to guard agat. it by sufficient powers to the Common Govt. and as the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them, by an effectual provision for a good Militia.
What they were voting on wasn't secession, but the means of choosing military officers. It looks like they were talking about officers in the militia, but they weren't voting on secession. Madison's comments were a response to Gerry's bringing up the possibility of civil war. It's not what the convention was voting on.
There was a lot of talk at the convention about "coercion" of "delinquent states." The Founders were in a difficult position. They needed a federal government that was strong enough to enforce the laws. But they didn't want to the federal government to be too powerful or to explicitly endorse federal coercion of state governments that refused to obey the laws.
So they punted, and simply ignored the question. Some thought that they could get around the problem by direct taxation: the federal government wouldn't have to ask the states for the funds it needed. Clearly, that didn't do away with the problem. At some point the federal government and a state would come into serious conflict. In my understanding the supremacy clause would prevail in such a case.
Notice I said "to the degree to which we do."
So the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unbearable oppression. And slavery, segregation, and lynching were what? Trivial abuses? Temporary inconveniences?
Uh, Lincoln believed that that his grandfather was of Quaker descent, and for all I know he was.
Go here for more on Lincoln, the Friends, and the Confederacy.
btw, speaking of the LEFTIST/SOCIALIST northeast, IF the southland seceded NOW, we wouldn't have to fight, as the northeast is NOW "sissified" to the point that a "dear friend" in CT is planning to come SOUTH to look for a MANLY husband!!! (A___________ says all the single men she meets in her profession are "gay" or "metrosexuals", who are about as feminine as she is!!!)
Couldn't you just invent an imaginary boyfriend for your imaginary friend?
No, except to point out that your posts don't pass any kind of test at all. They just smell.
A tough one but quite possibly yes. Some of the more radical groups formed after the war may have never taken hold. There were some owners pre war who were tyrants but that wasn't as much a black white issue more than it was a slave owner issue. The owner could have been black, white, or whatever. A lot of the slaves were considered family to the owners. When the war ended many returned to where they had lived. Many of the owners were destitute themselves at that point.
I live in a county that was a Union strong hold myself. Yet in the 1950's the high school was bombed because of a hand full of persons who did not speak for the majority. It was over forced integration. I have never though segregation was right and I'm old enough that as a kid I remember it. My wife who moved from this area in her childhood to within an hours drive of Greeneville, MS remembers it but she got along with black kids. Actually a black family lived on their property. That was in the 1950's BTW.
2. I don’t think any place needs any “we need no outside idiots/bigots/leftists/REVISIONISTS/fools..” . However the greatest “outside diots/bigots/leftists/REVISIONISTS/fools” are in fact the muslims who intend to make any discussion of the US Civil a completely moot point as they intend for us not to have any history other than Allah’s.
Armed and Vigilant Regards,
Boiler Plate
it's GREAT to see that you're still posting your USUAL ignorant NONSENSE & SILLINESS, so that you make "the DAMNyankee coven" look DUMBER than they usually do.
laughing AT you, FOOL.
free dixie,sw
sorry, but doing that just makes you look clueLESS.
perhaps you should apply for membership in "the DAMNyankee coven of REVISIONISTS,lunatics, NITWITS, "useful idiots", south-HATERS, fools & BIGOTS". (N-S is "the maximum leader".)
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
as the saying is:
in the south they don't care how CLOSE you are, as long as you aren't "too big". in the north they don't care how BIG you are as you aren't "too close".
btw, "x" when are you DYs going to get around to DESEGREGATING your "one-race schools"??? (should we send you some southern "freedom riders" to show you how to desegregate???)
laughing AT you, FOOL.
free dixie,sw
Never argue with an idiot unless of course you are one.
Best Wishes,
Boiler Plate
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.