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
it's been YEARS since you posted anything BUT propaganda, deceptions, 1/2-truths & nonsense to FOOL the naive & unwary.
otoh, at least ONE FReeper has "caught you in" several DECEPTIONS on THIS thread alone.
free dixie,sw
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
the FIRST time that the supremes decided to do that, they should have been "slapped down" & "slapped down HARD", by the POTUS/Congress. had the Founders done that, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in NOW, with abominations like Roe v. Wade.
the decisions of the courts were NEVER intended to be Holy Writ & did NOT "come down from the mount, graven in stone".(this will be a 'shock to your system", as you are KNOWN to be a WORSHIPER of the courts.)
imVho, we should do at least the following things to END the dictatorship of the courts"
1. change the Constitution to ELECT all judges for ONE 6-year term,
2. ASSURE that never again will any court MAKE laws, rather than interpret those laws &
3. REQUIRE that all judges be subject to RECALL "for cause" at ANY time in their term.
free dixie,sw
Article III, Section 2, Clauses 1 and 2.
more deception on YOUR part.
free dixie,sw
What I can do is recognize a faulty decision by the Court.
Shall we rehash our earlier discussion about the Supreme Court decision that said a tomato was a vegetable and not a fruit?
No. Article II, Section 2 gives the Supreme Court all the authority it needed.
so you've been caught yet AGAIN posting a LIE, haven't you????
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
What you can do is say that you disagree with the decision of the court. The fact that you and Gutzman disagree with it doesn't make it faulty.
Shall we rehash our earlier discussion about the Supreme Court decision that said a tomato was a vegetable and not a fruit?
No, because if I recall you're logic was faulty there as well. The Supreme Court ruled that the tomato was a vegetable for tariff purposes, and there is nothing flawed or illogical in that. "Vegetable" is a culinary term and not a botanical term. Tomatoes are botanically a berry, but are considered a vegetable in the culinary world because they are not sweet and are not served as a fruit but are instead served as part of the main course or in salads. Cucumbers, pumpkins, squash, and peppers are all botanically fruit, though are commonly classified as vegetables. Likewise mushrooms are considered vegetables even though they are a fungus, broccoli is considered a vegetable even though they are a flower, carrots are considered a vegetable even though they are a root, and so forth and so on. The Supreme Court decision in Nix v. Heddon was entirely proper.
have you been "taking lessons" from "bubba, the LIAR"??? (laughing AT you.)
free dixie,sw
Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
No state had the authority under the constitution to pass any law or make any amendments to their own constitutions which would trump the ultimate authority of the US constitution.
There was no leaving the union under our constitution without the US government passing legislation, or possibly even an amendment, to that effect because the sovereignty of the federal government could not be abrogated without the federal government's permission.
The Supremacy clause also gives the Supreme Court the power to determine constitutionality of acts of the states and federal government because it can determine which federal laws and acts are proper under the authority granted to them by the constitution and which state laws are made contrary to the constitution. It's really not that complicated.
There were two choices for the South if they wished to leave the Union:
(1) they could negotiate their way out or
(2) they could fight their way out
They chose to fight, and they lost.
Are you saying that the Constitution does not contain an Article III, Section 2? Or that section does not contain a clause 1 or clause 2? Are you admitting that you haven't the faintest idea of what 'jurisdiction' means? Or are you just demonstrating your general ignorance?
furthermore, FEW people (except the AUTHORS) read the 'declarations' and/or CARED what the slave-owners thought was important. as i've said numerous times, the 5-6% of northerners/southerners, who owned slaves/were IN "the flesh trade" were a LOUD but tiny minority.
frankly, the "declarations" tell students of the WBTS period NOTHING important to an understanding of the WBTS, except what a FEW rich individuals thought was important.
it is posting SILLY, inconsequential, bilge like "the declarations" which tells me that you know LITTLE about the 19th century, the causes of war or almost anything else.
that's why i think you are a "knows nothing" & a joke.
free dixie,sw
sorry, "nice try, but no cigar".
go read the 10th Amendement to the BOR & then tell everyone WHERE any state/group of states ceded the POWER/RIGHT of secession to the federal government.(NONE did.)
free dixie,sw
thus, we must assume that you:
1. have a "reading comprehension problem",
2. are incapable of understanding the question i asked you,
3. are DESPERATELY trying to "change the subject" (because you're smart enough to KNOW that you've "caught your tail in the gate"),
4. that you LIED or
5. all of the above..
which is it??? (could it be that the TRUTHFUL answer is #5????)
free dixie,sw
Number 2. I don't think anyone is warped enough to understand the slop you post.
By this logic I guess that a persimmon is a vegetable. No wonder I didn't like the Northern cooking I was subjected to in college.
... and [tomatoes] are not served as a fruit
You've never eaten a tomato as a fruit? (And, no, I'm not insinuating that you are a fruit. I leave such observations about you to other posters.) I guess I'll have to give up eating cherry tomatoes by themselves.
It is the scientist in me that is objecting to calling a tomato a vegetable, which it is not. It has seeds and develop from the reproductive part of the plant, therefore botanically it is a fruit regardless of what the Supreme Court says. (Did Chase make the tomato ruling too?)
Cucumbers, pumpkins, squash, and peppers are all botanically fruit
Correct. "... botanists will call them fruits because they develop from the reproductive structures of plants. From the Cornell Department of Horticulture." Source and Definitions.
IMO, if Congress or the regulatory agency wanted to tax tomato imports, they should have listed tomatoes as taxable rather than say "tax vegetables." The Supreme Court simply compounded the error.
I can't wait for our seedless grape argument.
Do you really think that even if you packed SCOTUS with the most strict constructionist jurists that they would not unanimously rule it unconstitutional if a state tried to secede?
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.