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 would give a clue as to why they would launch a rebellion to protect an institution you claim was doomed. But you're right, what did they know anyway?
Economic realities tend to drive these things and they are best determined in retrospect.
I'm sure that in retrospect the Japanese and Germans concluded that World War II was a bad idea. But they still went to war and they had reasons for doing so.
It’s the set-up of the US as having a communist nation’s joining habits that tends to set us off.
Sure, with the members permission, you can join the Communist Club.
Try to leave, and they shoot you in the back of the head.
This is what you’re describing as the US Constitution. It isn’t freedom you defend. It is, instead, dictatorial controls you support.
stand-watie has more credibility.
His poor grasp of logic proves my case all by itself.
That’s why when I say you’re a numbskull. You really can be offended because I didn’t right that you are EXPRESSLY, a numbskull.
I wonder if it's possible to make a Confederate hat out of tinfoil.
That does depend.
Did the court-packing alter the balance of power?
Did it alter that balance of power in favor of the President?
If so, then that court-packing is proof of tyrannical corruption.
Now we look at Lincoln and the rulings...and we have that same proof.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
OK, I'll let the rest of the congregation decide if you're right on that.
Review the ratification process and the powers it grants to those states.
I’m right.
No lack of ego at all in you, is there?
That’s why when I say you’re a numbskull. You really can be offended because I didn’t right that you are EXPRESSLY, a numbskull.
Not at all. You can explicitly call me a numbskull or imply that I'm a numbskull and neither one could possibly offend me because all I have to do is consider the source.
They didn’t launch a rebellion.
Nice straw man argument though.
After all, if it were a rebellion, we wouldn’t be arguing about secession.
Here’s a quick primer for you:
secession: “Leave us the hell alone.”
rebellion: “We’re taking over, and putting the boss down is just the first step.”
Read the Constitution instead. You're wrong.
Logic does not require ego.
Most rational people understand that if I call you a numbskull, I’ve called you a numbskull with, or without the word “explicit”.
Now let’s review one idiot’s review of the 10th Amendment.
I will EXPRESSLY state that the argument made that the 10th Amendment lacked that word and that paucity allowed the Chief Justice to justify violating is without merit or logic.
Logic does not require ego.
Justifying the violation of logic on such a flimsy basis requires a vast ego.
A rebellion is defined as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government." That's an accurate description of what the South did. Especially the unsuccessful part.
rebellion: “We’re taking over, and putting the boss down is just the first step.”
That's revolution.
Poor analogy. Very inaccurate as well.
In 1776, every man who signed the Declaration knew they were committing an act of treason against the Crown. They, in fact, called themselves Revolutionaries, (not secessionists) and knew full well they would be hung if captured by the British.
They spelled out very clearly their justification for doing what they did. They made no pretense that their actions were legal under British law. They instead appealed to Natural Law and the Right to Revolution when faced with intolerable oppression.
The secession movement of 1860-61 had none of the characteristics of the American Revolution. The Federal Government had imposed no oppression upon the seceding states nor did those states claim they were being oppressed. All they could muster as justification were partisan political differences. The Constitution and The Republic deserve better.
Under the very narrow definition of treason enshrined in the Articles of the Constitution, they were not committing "treason" as such. But they were most defiantly guilty of insurrection and even more significantly, in the words of James Madison, "a violation of a faith solemnly pledged."
The actions of those men who drove secession are not something to be admired.
It does, however, require logic. You seem to be failing in that area as well.
Do you work at HP?
HP uses the tired ‘but they did it too’ defense
Companies in trouble often fall back on claiming what they did was common ...
They all seem to miss the point: Even if everyone else is doing it, that doesn't necessarily make it right.
Source: The 'They did it too' Defense
I have. All of it. Honest. Now point out the part where it says the ratification documents supercede the Constituiton itself.
Well, logically...using the logic you’ve used and supported in yon chief justice...you haven’t claimed that I seem to be failing in the area of logic.
You’re missing both the words “expressly” and “explicitly”, so clearly, unless you’re wrong, you’ve failed to chastize my logic.
((BTW: This is a catch-22, you should have quit while you were ahead, rather than provided the material that generated this obvious tautology...based of course on your chief justice’s words and as defended by you.))
Show me the powers of the states in the Constitution again.
Now, show me the powers of the states the Confederacy wielded.
Where are those?
Clearly, if the Confederacy was made of states which no longer belonged to that Constitution, they had none of powers reserved to states in the Constitution.
However, ratification grants states those powers.
Yet they had none until they were re-ratified as states some time after the War Between the States.
There is no misunderstanding here for the need of that new action by the post-war Congress.
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.