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
Botts book can also be found here in one of those Google books. http://books.google.com/books?id=Vy4OAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%22jb+baldwin%22+confederate+virginia&source=web&ots=SBKu2wFkJz&sig=LWhQD237kMp2suHRRmMlBp6orH8
Botts is a somewhat questionable source. He was a minor league politician with thoughts of grandeur. But apparently on this matter he had some corroborating letters and testimony.
“STFU”
No, you STFU! The more I hear from you offensive Yankees, the more I’m ready to refight the War of Northern Aggression. When I was in the “Crotch” (That’s Corps for you youngsters), there were several times I had to straighten out some Smartass Yankee. You sound just like ‘em.
Semper Fi!
If memory serves, Baldwin was one of those that Lincoln made his 'what about my revenues' statements - separate from the Rev. Fuller's delegation.
Finally, Botts concludes, presciently,
"...if any Copperhead in the North or Traitor in the South shall hereafter charge that Abraham Lincoln made unnecessary war upon the South, or that he came into office under a pledge to war upon Southern institutions, his friends may exultingly point to this record for a refutation of the slander, and to show what great personal sacrifices that generous-hearted man was prepared to make to avert the heavy calamities of a civil war, and to throw the responsibility where it properly belongs.
Botts was about thoroughly pro-Union as you could get. It is no surprise he would be pro-Union in his comments.
He dined on one occasion with Union Generals in Virginia during the war and was arrested shortly thereafter by Confederate forces for carrying a gun on an active battlefield. IIRC, Botts claimed he was carrying the gun for someone else and was released later the same day.
if my admittedly "odd typing" style bothers you, feel free to just "scroll on by".
in my experience, people, who make those sort of comments, have a head as empty of thought as their posts are empty of consequence.
free dixie,sw
I've seen posters attack Baldwin's testimony, but it's always interesting to see who supports his position (and when). Fearful of reprisal (prison or worse):
Colonel Baldwin's Interview with Mr. Lincoln-Letter from Colonel J. H. Keatley, of Iowa.According to Botts, it was Lincoln himself (p. 195) that gave him [Botts] the information.We publish the following letter as confirming the accuracy of Dr. Dabney's interesting report of Colonel John B. Baldwin's account of his interview with Mr. Lincoln.
COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA, December 18, 1880.
Rev. J. William Jones, D. D., Secretary Southern Historical Society, Richmond, Va.:
Dear Sir,--I have just read, in the first volume of the Transactions of your society, Dr. Dabney's paper concerning an interview between Mr. Lincoln and Colonel John Baldwin, of Virginia, in April, 1861. In May, 1865, I was on duty, as a Federal military officer, in Norfolk, and while the United States District Court for the eastern district of Virginia was in session there. I was introduced to Colonel Baldwin at that time, in the clerk's office, by Honorable L. H. Chandler, United States District Attorney, Colonel Baldwin being then in attendance on some business connected with that court, and having also for the first time, after the war, visited Norfolk. I met him again, during the afternoon, at the Atlantic hotel, and he was kind enough to refer to some of the incidents of the contest, and to the causes which occasioned it. In that interview he made substantially the same statement that Dr. Dabney has given in his valuable and interesting paper, but, for reasons that will occur to almost any one, I did not repeat what he said, and did not feel at liberty then to make any publication of his statement, and would not do so now had not others already done so.
Yours respectfully,
JNO. H. KEATLEY.
free dixie,sw
The truth about your posts is that they're so ridiculously over the top that one almost gets the idea that they're the project of some troll who's trying to create a stereotype.
You might want to try discussing things like a sane man, rather than a rabid loon. It'll do your cause a lot of good.
Going to the page you cited I came across some very uncomplimentary comments about Judah Benjamin—”a sneaking thief and perjurer, and an unconscionable traitor...”. I’ll have to spend some more time with the book. It looks entertaining, at the very least.
fyi, i won't be at all offended if you should choose not to further share your opinions with me, inasmuch as you seem to know zilch of importance about any WBTS subject.
free dixie,sw
As for the Civil War, I long ago learned that you're not worth the effort. Rather than actually debate, you yell, shout, scream, insult, and generally ignore all facts presented to you.
We see it on full display on this very thread, as we have in oh, so many others.
It's not an effective way to get your point across.
Not being too clear about some things about the Civil War that occurred a couple of centuries ago, I didn't know what WBTS stood for, so did a search
Found these two:
WBTS War Between the States
WBTS World Best Toilet Seat
And also a radio station.
what little you actually post about the war is a simplistic regurgitation of the DY/REVISIONIST "party line".
since you chose to continue to post to me, may i say that i find your posts singularly UNimportant to a study of the war & mostly nonsense.
as to shout/scream/insult/etc = IF the LIARS, bigots & revisionists didn't post FICTION & DY propaganda, i would be happy to return to quietly discussing the war in the TM west. however, the DYs of "the coven" insist on posting foolishness/propaganda/bigotry & knowing, outright LIES about the south/the war/the lincoln MISadministration/slavery/AIs/my family/etc. that is also, sadly, FACT. pity that you seem not to be able to understand that simple concept/truth.
as i previously said, i won't be offended if you choose not to read or respond to my posts, as you seem to know/say little of import.
free dixie,sw
the conflict will end when the elitists decide that:
1. they cannot force their "way of life" & LEFTIST/SOCIALIST beliefs upon us in dixie &
2. they decide to "go away" & leave us ALONE.
free dixie,sw
LOL!!! I vote for the toilet seat.
LOL! Thanks for making my point.
Oh and BTW, there are plenty of academic/social/financial/business elitists south of the MD line.
Out of respect for the south, I capitalized Dixie.
I think your fight is with the liberals and democrats, not Americans that happen to live in the north.
What, not the rap music station?
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.