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
So you keep telling us. But I keep looking and I can't find the part of the Constitution that reads something is Constitutional merely because you say it is.
And if you would actually break down and read the decision some time you would find that Chase agreed with you. There is no prohibition against secession, so long as it is done with the consent of the states.
Certainly not as big a threat as a lost schooner full of ice cubes.</sarcasm>
that which is NOT PROHIBITED is PERMITTED!!!
PLEASE, go read the TENTH Amendment to the BOR & consider what it REALLY means.
free dixie,sw
you might want to check out what the ETERNAL CHRIST said about "rich men", camels & needles.
what i probably DESPISE more than anything is HYPOCRYTES!
MANY of the DAMNyankee ELITISTS wanted to condemn EVERY southerner for "the institution of slavery" (even though the VAST majority of southerners owned NO slaves), while at the SAME time those same arrogant,SELF-righteous, sanctimonious,DYs were IN "the flesh trade".
free dixie,sw
you might want to check out what the ETERNAL CHRIST said about "rich men", camels & needles.
what i probably DESPISE more than anything is HYPOCRYTES!
MANY of the DAMNyankee ELITISTS wanted to condemn EVERY southerner for "the institution of slavery" (even though the VAST majority of southerners owned NO slaves), while at the SAME time those same arrogant,SELF-righteous, sanctimonious,DYs were IN "the flesh trade".
free dixie,sw
REVISIONIST/REVISIONISM is one of those "terms of art", which are "shorthand" for identifying a "school of thought" to which a particular scholar belongs.
REVISIONIST in the current academic context means LEFTIST/radical/socialist/statist (some academics would say: COMMUNIST!), as the REVISIONIST heresy of scholarship arose out of the MOST extreme, LEFTIST, "idiot fringe" of northeastern & "left coast" academia.
once more, Tom is considered by his peers to be a TRADITIONAL historian.
free dixie,sw
It must be wonderful to be free of all hypocrisy. Purity of motives is always refreshing, especially to a man my age. However, since you introduced the name of Jesus, please remember that He cautioned people to remove the logs in their own eyes before attempting to remove the specks in the eyes of others.
Another trait I’ve noticed in some black people is the habit of damning white people while secretly admiring them. Unfortunately, this tendency had crept into the personalities of far too many white Southerners when the talk or think about their fellow Americans who live north of the Mason-Dixon Line.
The war fought between 1860-1865 is over. Get used to it.
“actually WORDS have WELL-KNOWN/generally ACCEPTED meanings in political science/philosophy/history/academia in general.
REVISIONIST/REVISIONISM is one of those “terms of art”, which are “shorthand” for identifying a “school of thought” to which a particular scholar belongs.
REVISIONIST in the current academic context means LEFTIST/radical/socialist/statist (some academics would say: COMMUNIST!), as the REVISIONIST heresy of scholarship arose out of the MOST extreme, LEFTIST, “idiot fringe” of northeastern & “left coast” academia.
once more, Tom is considered by his peers to be a TRADITIONAL historian.
free dixie,sw
Better tell this conservative blogger that DiLorenzo is not a conservative historical revisionist in the noble tradition of all who challenge the mainstream way of thinking.
http://eidelblog.blogspot.com/2005/05/historical-revisionism.html
If DiLorenzo is “traditional”, then he agrees with all those historians who continually vote Lincoln the greatest President in American history. That’s what’s traditional.
http://www.americanpresidents.org/survey/historians/16.asp
I invite you to check the data yourself (see my link in post 633).
I didn't see in the survey where it was limited to "Historians". And if so, what is the criteria for a "historian" to vote in this so called survey?
Oops -- My bad -- I see c-span selected some 90 historians for the survey -- I suppose we'll have to rely on c-span's historian selection process !!
“Oops — My bad — I see c-span selected some 90 historians for the survey — I suppose we’ll have to rely on c-span’s historian selection process !!”
No problem. CSPAN did two surveys: historians and CSPAN watchers. Lincoln finished first in both surveys.
You mean your Southron Top 10 Gripes about Lincoln? I've already looked into those. But it's still fun to watch y'all dredge them up.
free dixie,sw
lincoln is admired by the same sort of modern scholar, who believes wee willie klintoon to be a GREAT president.
face it, "jamese777", you've been "sold a bill of goods". purveyors of the "lincoln myth" are NOT called members of the "lincoln worshiping cult" for nothing.
free dixie,sw
lincoln is admired by the same sort of modern scholar, who believes wee willie klintoon to be a GREAT president.
face it, "jamese777", you've been "sold a bill of goods". purveyors of the "lincoln myth" are NOT called members of the "lincoln worshiping cult" for nothing.
free dixie,sw
fwiw, "getting murdered" does NOT make you a saint; nor does "being promoted to secular sainthood" wash the BLOOD of a MILLION Americans from lincoln, the TYRANT's hands.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
“ref: your blogger: opinions are like bellybuttons. everyone has one & they frequently stink.
lincoln is admired by the same sort of modern scholar, who believes wee willie klintoon to be a GREAT president.
face it, “jamese777”, you’ve been “sold a bill of goods”. purveyors of the “lincoln myth” are NOT called members of the “lincoln worshiping cult” for nothing.
free dixie,sw”
As for only contemporary historians having favorable opinions of Lincoln, construction began on the Lincoln Memorial in 1914.
I try my best to go on facts and I try to base my personal opinions on facts. Every President that the United States has had, had his strengths and his weaknesses. The great Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens and sold missiles to Iran for heavens sake!
You may hate Lincoln but he is the highest rated President of 90 historians and scholars of the Presidency assembled by CSPAN. That’s a fact.
Presidents honored with monuments or memorials in our nation’s capital: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, and FDR.
Presidents honored on Mount Rushmore (begun in 1927): Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.
I commend you to David Herbert Donald’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Lincoln.
http://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-David-Herbert-Donald/dp/068482535X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3627220-1217261?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188922680&sr=8-1
Its been great fun debating these issues with you, take good care. By the way, I was an undergraduate history major in the “Capital of the Confederacy” many years ago!
this is NOT opinion. it is FACT.
if you don't like "the common usage" of that "term of art" among scholars, i'm sorry but i don't see everyone changing their recognized usage of the "term of art" to suit you.
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.