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
An excellent legal read, the only thing I wish he had included was a solution; for it makes me saddened, and dispared!
Secession wasn’t even illigal: per the 10th paraphrased “whatever (powers) not explicitly granted to the Federal government, shall be reserved to the states, and to the people of those states”.. Secession was not forbad, nor supremecy of the “Federal Government” over the states established: The Confederacy had a legal right to form and exist..
That ruling was about the repatriation of monies taken from the treasury, not about the right of secession.
Regarding Secession and the WBTS, here is a very fine slideshow of paintings and photos of Stonewall Jackson set to the tune of “The Bonnie Flag”! And a fine version of the song it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc8MBIrqqzE&mode=related&search=
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
We can all agree that the right to secede is not expressly "prohibited" to the States in the constitution. If it were, the argument would be mute. Thus, under the plain meaning of the Tenth Amendment, the States retain or possess the right to secede, just as citizens possess the right to renounce ones citizenship. The Tenth Amendment also makes clear that a right or power need not be expressly granted to the States by the Constitution. Rather, the States are irrebuttably presumed to have such a power, unless that power is expressly taken from them by the Constitution.
This textual reading is buttressed by the historical fact that the States had the right to secede in 1776 and did not expressly give up that right in ratifying the Constitution. To the contrary, several states, including New York, in their acts of ratification, noted that "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
Where is that written?
Quote the part of it that forbids secession. I'm genuinely interested. It's not in any part of it that I can find.
Not in any part I can find, either. Nor can I find anything in the Constitution which allows secession without the consent of states. Perhaps you can point that part out?
What about the differences? Unlike the revolution, the Southern states not only had representation in government but a disproportionate level of representation in government. Unlike the Southern states, the Founding Father's knew that their actions were illegal and would have to fight for their independence. And, of course, the Founding Father's won their rebellion while the Southern states lost.
LOL! Exactly the way I feel about this.
Try quoting accurately. What the 10th Amendment says is: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The word 'explicitly' does not appear, and you completely forgot the part about powers prohibited to the states. Implied in the Constitution is the need for Congressional approval to leave.
The Confederacy had a legal right to form and exist..
Sorry, but it did not.
And you miss the point of that clause completely. A state can split up with two conditions: 1) the consent of the state legislature and 2) the consent of Congress. When Congress signed that article admitting Texas as a state which contained that clause then condition 2 was met. That leaves only condition 1 to needing to be met. Texas is equal to all other states and is treated the same as all other states in needing that approval if they want to split up. But Texas already has that approval -- the other 49 don't.
The legality of secession was a question before the court because the defense made it a cornerstone of their case. The defense claimed that since Texas had seceded and had not completed reconstruction, then it wasn't a state in the Union and had no right to take their case before the Supreme Court. The court, quite rightly, had to determine if Texas had ever been out of the Union. They ruled Texas had not.
Sure, no problem. It's right there in the Tenth Amendment:
Amendment 10Unless you can point out where the power of approving secession was delegated to the United States or prohibited to the states, then it is a power they retain individually.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Except for the ex-Confederate states after 1865 anyway, right? It was a "voluntary request" to rejoin only after the Union Army was unleashed on them and allowed to wreak havoc for four years. No coercion at all there. Nope, none.
Can we also agree that the word 'expressly' is nowhere to be found in the Amendment? And that implied powers, as outlined by Chief Justice Marshall, also exist? And that those implied powers could be delegated to the United States or denied to the states?
This textual reading is buttressed by the historical fact that the States had the right to secede in 1776 and did not expressly give up that right in ratifying the Constitution.
Actually, no. A textual reading of the Articles of Confederation make it clear that it was a perteptual union.
To the contrary, several states, including New York, in their acts of ratification, noted that "the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
In those ratification documents was also a statement saying that they ratified the Constitution as passed by the convention. The Constitution proclaims itself the supreme law of the land, and if anything, including ratification documents, conflict with it then the Constitution overrules them. According to the Supreme Court the right to secede unilaterally is not in the Constitution.
“If it were, the argument would be mute.”
No, it would be moot. Mute is what many of our so-called constitutional experts ought to be, since there seems to be a lot of misinformation being tossed around here.
As a resident of Washington State, something I’m not always proud to admit, I hope we never decide to secede. So much of this state is owned by the federal government that by the time we got done paying the rest of the states for their interest in it, we’d have to apply for foreign aid as we’d be broke. So we would be right back to surviving on federal money with strings attached to it. What improvement would that be?
Well, no, the treaty says that “New states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said state of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution.” Said states can be created only with consent of Congress when the split occurs. A blanket pre-approval is unconstitutional.
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.