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
See: Texas v. White, an ipse dixit decision (asserted but not proved)
The 1788 New York Ratification Convention had this to say about what the Constitution meant to them (Source):
Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788.
(1) WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. ...
That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...
... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution ... We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
With respect, I trust the opinion of those guys as to what the Constitution means concerning states resuming their own governance over that of Chief Justice Chase, a member of Lincoln's cabinet who had been committed during the war to blocking states from resuming their own governance.
put your trust in God & the TRUTH & put away your blindness, so that you don't seem SILLY & clueLESS.
free dixie,sw
MANY of the same folks here, who LOUDLY decry Roe v. Wade/Dredd Scott/Plessy v. Ferguson/etc, support the TX v. White decision because they AGREE with it.
they have "situational ethics" (which is a oxymoron.) it's really no more complicated than that.
free dixie,sw
As I said before, the North made a fortune off slavery, but was quite content to live with it as long as it was confined to the South. This may be hypocrisy, but people are content to be hypocrites when money is involved.
If the institution was dying, why did the South cling to it so obstinately?
You have ceased even to make sense.
Not so. The Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary document, not a secessionist one. There is a vast difference between revolution and secession: one is an act of the people, the other of the government. By revolution the people dissolve the government and replace it with one that they judge to be better. By secession the government of a state, far from being dissolved, usurps the authority of the central government. Jefferson and his colleagues knew this; they did not doubt that what they were doing was indeed treason according to the legal order they wanted to overthrow.
I don't see that the reference to the Hartford Convention advances the case. If the New England states had seceded (which of course they did not) can we doubt that this would have been denounced as treason by those opposed to it, including the leaders of the Southern states?
The claim that the Southern states were "paying 83% of all the expenses" of the Union is fantastic, and I find nothing in the Historical Statistics to support it.
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[devour?] whoseover[whosoever?] 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?
If by "us" the author means the American people, then the first sentence can't be true; otherwise we wouldn't have big government or collectivism. But the real point is that it's unfair to blame Lincoln for all of this. Although some unfortunate precedents were set in Lincoln's administration, the process by which federal power was extended without limits really began in the late 1880s and the 1890s. Important steps were the Interstate Commerce Act (1887), the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890), the (abortive) revival of the income tax (1894), and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Northern Securities Company v. United States (1904). By what I believe is no coincidence, it was also in this period that "Jim Crow" laws were revived and stiffened and southern African-Americans disenfranchised.
Secession was not thought to be unconstitutional until the concept was challenged by the Lincoln administration.
Ergo, if the concept was thought to not be illegal under the then current constitution it would follow that it couldn't be treasonous and would not be referred to as such by those in authority.
“btw, i’d bet that you were a “huge fan” of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny & the Tooth Fairy, too.
it’s never easy to put away “childish things”, but that is a part of “growing up” chronologically & intellectually.
seeing the UNcomfortable truth about the “lincoln myth” is part of that intellectual “growing up” process.
free dixie,sw
The Emancipation Proclamation was no myth, it was brilliant war strategy to disrupt normal life in the confederacy by offering liberation to hundreds of thousands of slaves who left the farms, villages and plantations and headed for Union lines.
And 180,000 new recruits comprising 163 new units in the Union Army was no myth either. Those are simply historical facts for children and for grown-ups!
Here's an exciting sneak preview of StandWaite's upcoming posts:
YOU sir, like most DAMNYANKEES (my daddy always told me DAMNYANKEE was just ONE word) are an IGNORANT, HATE-FILLED, DAMNYANKEE, SCALAWAG, SOUTH-HATING old FOOL!!!
anyone with HALF a brain that didn't get their education at DAMNYANKEE public schools know old "honest abe" was the biggest MARXIST TYRANT this nation has ever known, second only to that SCALAWAG Washington who DESTROYED states rights when he abolished the BRILLANT artciles of CONFEDERATion to impose his MARXIST "constitution" on the people of the south and DESTROY the bill of rights.
it's a well known fact that the TYRANT old abe owned about 55,000,000 slaves HIMSELF, but those DAMNYANKEE history REVISIONISTS took care to remove that fact from your YANKEE history books, didn't they??? The north wanted to send those ol darkies out to the pasture. The TRUE friend of the negras back then was a fine SOUTHERN GENTLEMAN named Nathan Bedford Forest, who made sure to keep the negras employed and productive.
BTW, i noticed YOU think I'm WHITE. Well FOOL I'm NOT white, so how can I be racist against negras????
also if you DAMNYANKEES would read a REAL history book, like the FINE piece of historical research done by Kil D. Nigars, PH.D., you'd know that many of the YANKEE folk owed plenty of SLAVES too. And if the south was "wrong" to seceed, you might want to tell that to the YANKEES who SUPPORTED the confederate clause??? (BTW, it's just a concidence that the same people who supported slavery in the north were also sympathic to the confederacy and secession, so STOP mentioning that)
You FOOLS are blind to the truth that the war was fought entirely over TARIFFS imposed by "old" Abe for his YANKEE capitalist friends!!
everyone KNOWS the south always supported STATES RIGHTS!! The only reason the SOUTH would EVER give a DAMNYANKEE like Woodrow Wilson 90% of the vote is the DAMNYANKEES made them DO it!! Besides, Wilson didn't pass that income tax, it was LINCOLN but you damn SOUTH-HATING history books credit Wilson, why???
you SOUTH-HATING, IGNORANT FOOL, DAMYANKEES remind me of that SCALAWAG tyrant Sonny Perdue. The damn FOOL and LIAR said he "honors" southern hertiage by using the an actual 1860s era confederate logo for his "new" flag. Any damn educated person on the PLANET knows you can't honor confederate HERTIAGE unless you use the TRUE confederate flags of the 1950s that were there to protest DAMNYANKEE interference with the south (mind you, it had noting to do with racism, because that old SOB Einsenhower was the biggest damn RACIST I've ever seen and did not have OUNCE of class like the great George Wallace!!)
you sir, are a damn FOOL and JOKE here on ConfederateRepublic.com. People are LAUGHING at your DANMYANKEE ignorance!!! You still believe the DAMNYAKEE myth of southern "slavery", maybe you still believe that Washington was a GOOD president.
i have to go for my rabies shot NOW. still laughing AT those DAMNYANKEES!!!!
free dixie, sw
How about the economic conditions of the federal government in 1865? If the U.S. was totally dependent on Southern exports to finance imports, as you say, and if the Southern consumers bought 83% of all imports, as Benson said, then the amount of imports should have dried up to nothing following the outbreak of the rebellion and the tariff revenue should have plumeted to less than $10 million. Care to present the next 5 year's worth of figures?
In 1795 the court held that secession was legal. In Penhallow, et al. v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54 (1795), 3 of the 4 justices held opinions similar to Patterson, who stated,
'If she [the state of New Hampshire] would not submit to the exercise of the act of sovereignty contended for by Congress, and the other states, she should have withdrawn herself from the confederacy.' [Ibid, 3 Dall. 54, 82].Justices Blair and Patterson were both framers, cognizant of what was debated and agreed to in convention. So I can just as easily argue that the doctrine of unilateral secession had been upheld by the Supreme Court in 1795.
the answer as i said earlier was ONE thing = PROFIT.
PROFIT is the reason that the "oh, so wunnnerful, wunnerful" arrogant, sanctimonious, SELF-righteous, ELITIST DAMNyankees (who were "up to their eyes" IN the slave trade) SOLD their slaves, when slavery became UNPROFITABLE, rather than freeing them.)
btw, many of the so-called "abolitionists" were IN "the flesh trade" at the SAME time as they were decrying the trade as DIShonorable.(this is called, in case you didn't know, being a HYPOCRYTE!)
face it, quadrant, you have NO case & evidently little understanding of the actual sitiation.
btw, do you have a "reading comprehension problem"??? in #559 (the post you responded to in your post #564) i said that slavery would have died out within a generation at WORST & probably within 5-10 years.
free dixie,sw
instead, you have "blessed everyone" here on the forum with IGNORANT, SELF-righteous, but unsupported OPINIONS, "dressed up as" facts.
nobody (with the possible exception of "x", who will believe anything as long as it is anti-southern) is deceived by your failure to document your (mostly silly) opinions.
face it, r9etb,you are in danger of joining the "knows nothing, clueless group" on FR.
free dixie,sw
what the EP actually did, in retrospect, was to PROVE that lincoln was a HYPOCRYTE & a "cheap, scheming politician" & NOTHING more than that.
had lincoln been HONORABLE, he would have freed the slaves that he COULD free, i.e., those in union occupied territory AND those in held in bondage in the NORTH!
free dixie,sw
don't you get tired of being RIDICULED as a clueless FOOL, who has nothing of importance to post & instead bores everyone with silly,arrogantly ignorant, bilge which would fool a child of kindergarten age???
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Complete nonsense. The defense claimed that Texas had seceded and had not completed reconstruction, hence they were not a state and could not sue in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the question of the legality of their acts of secession was most certainly a matter before the court at the time and the court's ruling was most certainly binding.
In 1795 the court held that secession was legal.
You really do not understand the concept of obiter dictum, do you? Who had seceded in Penhallow?
Ceased? Please point out where he ever started making sense to begin with.
Can you point out where the Constitution says that what Gutzman says overrules what the Supreme Court says on what is Constitutional and what is not? Disagree with the decision all you want to, that doesn't make unilateral secession legal when the court said it was not.
sadly, we are NOW anything BUT free.
free dixie,sw
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.