Guess What Folks - Secession Wasn't Treason

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Copperhead Chronicle Al Benson, Jr. Articles

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." ___________________

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

For someone who lives in a commercial republic, you have a great disdain for money. I've known quite a few people who have such a disdain but generally they are socialists who want money but have no idea how to earn it. I’ve never claimed to be a great student of history, but I am of human nature. Frequently, I detect in black people, buried behind jocularity, an animosity and resentment that erupts from time to time, generally under stress. I suspect this animosity comes from a grievance against the world, the country, society, history, whatever, although I have no proof of my suspicion. Occasionally, I detect that same animosity among white Southerners. Such feelings were particularly prevalent among Southerners of my Mother’s generation; after all, her grandfather lived through Reconstruction and she learned of it from him. What is surprising is that this animosity still exists. One emotion that is common among some blacks and some white Southerners is a puerile belief in the purity of their motives and a desire to justify themselves to everyone with whom they converse.

I have no idea how long slavery would have lasted, if the American War of Secession had been averted. From time to time, I amuse myself by imagining scenarios that might lead individual Southern states to decide on emancipation. Generally, each scenario leads to a different conclusion. When I realize the futility of my actions, I comfort myself with the realization that no one knows how slavery would have lasted. This I do know: never was any group of people more badly served than were my ancestors (and all Southerners) by their elected representatives during the decade before 1860.

The defense argued that the Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction because Texas had seceded.

Irrevelant. Chase wrote:

If, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not at the time of filing this bill, or is not now, one of the United States, we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it.

The secession of the state was not before the court.

Gotta love the keywords some freepers thought up for this thread:

aracistscreed; bobbykkkbyrd; confedcrud; confederatecrap; crap; cruddy; dixiecrats; dixiepropaganda; dixierinos; dixietrash; dumbbunny; frkkklanrally; goodolddays; hillbillyparty; jeffdavisisstilldead; kkk; kkklosers; neoconfederates; northisgreat; noteeth; ohjeeze; racism; racists; rebelrash; rednecks; segregationfanclub; slaveowners; slaveryapologists; sorelosers; southernbabies; southernbigots; southernfleas; stupidthread; traitors; warsoveryoulost; weloveyankess; wewonhaha; yankeeswon; yankswon; youlost

“btw, Dr DiLorenzo is anything BUT a “revisionist historian”.
REVISIONIST historiography is a LEFTIST/Marxist/FASCIST HERESY of traditional scholarship.

whatever else we southerners are it is neither LEFTIST nor REVISIONIST.

Tom Di Lorenzo, whom i KNOW personally, is a TRADITIONAL historian.

free dixie,sw”

Di Lorenzo is the perfect example of a revisionist historian. He is trying to REVISE the mainstream historical view of Abraham Lincoln as some sort of an American political God.
Revisionism has nothing to do with leftist or rightist, it has to do with a different point of view.

Why not present the quote in context? Or is that asking too much?

"The first inquiries to which our attention was directed by counsel, arose upon the allegations of the answer of Chiles (1) that no sufficient authority is shown for the prosecution of the suit in the name and on the behalf of the State of Texas, and (2) that the State, having severed her relations with a majority of the States of the Union, and having by her ordinance of secession attempted to throw off her allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, has so far changed her status as to be disabled from prosecuting suits in the National courts.

The first of these allegations is disproved by the evidence...The other allegation presents a question of jurisdiction. It is not to be questioned that this court has original jurisdiction of suits by States against citizens of other States, or that the States entitled to invoke this jurisdiction must be States of the Union. But it is equally clear that no such jurisdiction has been conferred upon this court of suits by any other political communities than such States."

The question of secession was most certainly a question before the court, as you would have known had you read the decision. Had Texas seceded, the court would not have had jurisdiction. Had the acts of secession be illegal then the court would because Texas would still be a state.

BTW, who had seceded in the Penhallow decision?

But if the acts of secession were illegal then Texas had never ceased being a state and no readmission was needed,

Both the issues noted by Chase [1) at the time of filing this bill, or 2) is not now one of the United States] were addressed. The state of Texas having been conquered by military force rendered any anterior legal status to be a moot point. The court correctly notes that Texas was not represented in Congress, and that she must be readmitted to representation.

But if the acts of secession were illegal then Texas had never ceased being a state and no readmission was needed.

Try again, Even Chase admits 'The next [duty] was that of re-establishing the broken relations of the State with the Union ... There being then no government in Texas in constitutional relations with the Union.'

The question of secession was ratio decidendi and not obiter dicta.

Bwahahahahaha! Don't give up your IT job! The state of Texas sued to prevent payment, since the contracted items (cotton cards and medicines) had not been delivered by White & Chiles. The ratio decidedendi is this, provided by Chase,

Without entering, at this time, upon the inquiry whether any contract made by such a board can be sustained, we are obliged to say that the enlarged powers of the board appear to us to have been conferred in furtherance of its main purpose, of war against the United States, and that the contract, under consideration, even if made in the execution of these enlarged powers, was still a contract in aid of the rebellion, and, therefore, void

.The court held that any contract that aided the rebellion was void.

...There being then no government in Texas in constitutional relations with the Union.'

In context.

"There being then no government in Texas in constitutional relations with the Union, it became the duty of the United States to provide for the restoration of such a government. But the restoration of the government which existed before the rebellion, without a new election of officers, was obviously impossible, and before any such election could be properly held, it was necessary that the old constitution should receive such amendments as would conform its provisions to the new conditions created by emancipation, and afford adequate security to the people of the State."

The people of the state. Not territory. Not former state. And they were, and had been people of the state because, as the Chief Justice wrote a few paragraphs before, "Our conclusion therefore is that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion." Ergo, the acts of secession which might have changed that status were illegal. And the Court did have jurisdiction. Which was a matter for the court's consideration and the ruling was entirely proper.

The ratio decidedendi is this, provided by Chase...

And this, also provided by Chief Justice Chase: "Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

Had Texas seceded, the court would not have had jurisdiction.

Texas seceded. She was conquered by military force and readmitted to the union. Try reading Justice Chase's words a little slower:

If, therefore, it is true that the State of Texas was not at the time of filing this bill [-----> when was this <-----], or is not now, one of the United States [-----> when was this <-----], we have no jurisdiction of this suit, and it is our duty to dismiss it.

For the first, Texas filed in Supreme Court 15 Feb 1867. For the second, the case was argued 5, 8-9 Feb 1869, the opinion issued 12 Apr 1869.

And Texas was conquered when?

But not legally.

"Legal" is often blatantly political as you know. Consider the manipulation of the number of justices on the court first by Lincoln and then by the Radicals.

There were 9 members of the court before Lincoln, but Lincoln increased the court to 10 members in 1863-1865. In 1864, for example, members were Chase, Wayne, Catron, Nelson, Grier, Clifford, Swayne, Miller, Davis, and Field. Lincoln was more successful in packing the Court than FDR, who was greatly criticized for trying it.

The number of justices then dropped to 8 while Johnson was president and while Texas v. White (1869) was under consideration. The Radicals didn't want Johnson appointing Supreme Court justices. In 1870 the number of justices went back to 9.

The numbers in my tabulation came from: Manipulating the Court.

By the way, three of the 5 Lincoln appointees to the court voted for the 5 to 3 decision in Texas v. White including Lincoln's tenth justice and Chase, a former member of Lincoln's cabinet.

“And Texas was conquered when”? You’re right!
Texas was not “conquered”. Every one else had surrendered so Texas was left alone. In fact, the last battle of the war was at Palmitos Ranch where a column of Yankees out of Brownsville marched north along the Rio Grande. They were met by a force of Texas Rangers under the Command of Col. RIP (Rest in Peace) Ford. Ford and his Rangers tore them a new one and sent them scurrying back to Brownsville.
General Magruder, Commander of the Trans-Mississippi decided his position was untenable and surrendered his forces to the Union Army.
The Union troops landed on Galveston 6-19-1865 where their Commanding General issued a proclamation declaring Emancipation for the Slaves in Texas. (That is how “Juneteenth” came about).

"Legal" is often blatantly political as you know. Consider the manipulation of the number of justices on the court first by Lincoln and then by the Radicals.

Yes, nothing more political as a tomato, is there?

Lincoln was more successful in packing the Court than FDR, who was greatly criticized for trying it.

But not as successful as Van Buren, who increased the court from 7 to 9, and only as successful as Jefferson who took it from 6 to 7.

Texas seceded. She was conquered by military force and readmitted to the union. Try reading Justice Chase's words a little slower...

I did read it, did you? Or were there too many big words in this part?

"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."

More boring non-sequiturs from you sir.

All the officers and men on the Harriet Lane knew the Nashville. She was seen weekly on the New York to Charleston run.

The federal ship was interfering with civilian commerce by the use of firepower.

After Buchanan’s illegal use of clandestine military chicanery on the Star of the West, Charleston authorities did not know what to expect of the federal people. Any unknown shipping would be challenged.

The Nashville was no threat to anyone. The Harriet Lane wanted to force a show of colors loyal to the Union, a gigantic metaphor for the reason the Union navy was there in the first place.

Charleston had defended herself in 1776 and would do again in 1861.

In checking my records, I find that nolu chan had pointed out the court packing scheme of Lincoln and the Radicals back in 2003. Tip of the hat to him.

Court packing, while legal under the Constitution, strikes at the necessary independence of the court. As Alexander Hamilton said, "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution."

By this point in time, Lincoln had already usurped powers of the legislature by doing things that the Constitution assigned to Congress. He had already ignored a court ruling against him and had imprisoned a judge. He had already trampled on parts of the Constitution (e.g., freedom of the press) that Congress did not have the power to authorize after the fact. He overthrew elected governments of Maryland and Missouri and imprisoned members of the Maryland legislature. His troops interfered with elections in 1862-64.

So, I'm not surprised that Lincoln went after the independence of the judiciary too.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.

Chase's problem is that there is NO prohibition against secession. Texas had a republican government. That government (and others) called for elections to conventions. Those conventions met and resumed the powers they had delegated. The 1845 Texas Constitution, recognized as republican stated:

We, the people of the republic of Texas, acknowledging with gratitude the grace and beneficence of God, in permitting us to make a choice of our form of government, do, in accordance with the provisions of the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March first, one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, ordain and establish this constitution.
That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognised and established, we declare that
SEC. 1. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think expedient.

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.