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

I never claimed the confederacy didn't have a circuit court. I have pointed out, correctly, that they did not have a supreme court. And I have also pointed out, also correctly, that a supreme court was required by their constitution. A circuit court was not.

Here is what I was referring to:

To: rustbucket

Were the Confederate district courts different?

There were no confederate district federal courts, at least no records exist of any decision being handed down by one. There was no confederate supreme court, no confederate judiciary at all other than individual state courts.. I'm not aware of any confederate version of the U.S. Marshal. Absent a federal court system what purpose would they have served?

257 posted on 07/31/2003 8:32 PM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Your post occurred shortly after I had posted a long list of appointments to the Confederate District Courts I found on the web. Then I posted the following and thatdewd followed with a list of Confederate District Court records he found on the web.

To: Non-Sequitur

There were no confederate district federal courts, at least no records exist of any decision being handed down by one. There was no confederate supreme court, no confederate judiciary at all other than individual state courts.

Then how do you explain the following from the November 24, 1864, Daily Picayune?

Our readers have seen the announcement of the sentence of A. W. McKee by a court-marshal in Louisiana, to be shot, and of the decision by Judge Moise, of the Confederate States District Court in Louisiana, that the court marshal had no jurisdiction over McKee [a civilian], and releasing him from their bonds, to answer any civil offense for which he might be prosecuted.

You seem fond of making claims that others would have a hard time disproving. In this case, however, Gotcha!

This supposedly nonexistent 1864 Confederate States District Court seems to have anticipated the 1866 US Supreme Court ruling in ex parte Milligan. Pity the Yankees didn't have courts willing to stand up in wartime for their citizens' rights (Taney's ex parte Merryman ruling excepted).
261 posted on 07/31/2003 9:34 PM CDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

You graciously acknowledged your error.

To: rustbucket

You seem fond of making claims that others would have a hard time disproving. In this case, however, Gotcha!

That's because in most cases my information is well supported. But in this case I made a quick post based on a single website and I got nailed for my carelessness. You certainly did 'gotchme'.

294 posted on 08/01/2003 5:28 AM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I'll continue this series of posts again tomorrow. Good night.

But I still don't see where I claimed the river was closed for months prior to the rebellion. Just because Petus removed the militia above Vicksburg doesn't mean commerce flowed to or from the Northern states. You mention traffic passing without knowing where it originated or where it was destined.

From one of your quotes I posted above:

After being closed for almost two months was there any traffic left to open it up to?

As far as the origin and destination of traffic on the river goes, I had the same question that you did. I remember looking up some of those boats on the web at the time of those posts. Two or three of them were Northern owned as I remember, or at least their home port was in the North yet they were down in Vicksburg. One of them later became a river boat in the Union navy during the war.

At least, that is what I remember about the boats. I was once accused of having a photographic memory by my MIT classmates, and I used to get hissed when I'd enter the classroom on test days. I've never had a photographic memory, but it used to be much better than it is now. Old age is getting to me.

I save the posts that I make, the posts that I responded to, and any replies to my posts. If I see a noteworthy post containing useful information by someone else, I sometimes will save those too.

I'm glad you are still around because I learn history by responding to your posts. Thank you. I'll respond to the other points in your 722 as time permits today. I have some business to attend to.

Here's the next.

I have said that [Claims of damage by Sherman's troops are overblown]. And considering some of the claims made around here - every structure burned, every farm field salted, womes stolen, horses raped - it isn't hard to do.

I guess whether damage on civilian items was excessive or overblown depends on your point of view. Every building wasn't burned, everything was not stolen or broken, etc., but the damage was quite extensive. You should have tried your statement out on my now deceased Georgia in-laws, whose parents and grandparents had seen Sherman's troops come through their farms.

Your statement in the following post started a long chain of posts about damage by Northern soldiers. [Link]

To: Wampus SC

There sure were a lot of pictures of the damage alleged to have been done by Sherman's troops. Who faked those pictures? And how? And when?

No, Sherman's army did a great deal of damage to industrial targets like factories, storehouses, railroad facilities, cotton gins, and the like. Items that supported the confederate war effort. What seems to have been badly overblown over the years are claims of damage to purely civilian properties.

387 posted on 01/20/2005 5:12:45 PM CST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

There followed a long series of posts describing documented damage by Federal troops in various places. Here's one focusing mainly on damage by Sherman's troops using the words of Federal commanders in the Official Records. I'll leave the bold red font off in the following two posts since much of the screen would be red.

To: Non-Sequitur

I'll expand on my quote from Jacob Hoke of Chambersburg, PA:

The three gentlemen from whom I have quoted - Early, Imboden, and Slingluff, - refer to the humane manner in which General Lee conducted his campaign in Pennsylvania in 1863, and claim that no wanton destruction of private property was made. This is freely admitted. With the exception of the railroad buildings in Chambersburg, and one or two buildings on the field of Gettysburg, no houses or barns were destroyed. Private property was taken for the use of the army, but, except in a few cases by stragglers, the regulations of seizure laid down by General Lee in general orders No. 72, and issued specially for the Pennsylvania campaign, were strictly observed.

With respect to your post of Sherman's orders, let's look at the actions of some of his soldiers in Georgia and the Carolinas. Union commanders weren't very effective at curbing looting, burning, etc.

Col. Acker, 9th Michigan Cavalry, Dec 19, 1864: "During that day we marched thirty-nine miles and took six prisoners. 20th, Companies B, C, and D, being detached for a scout to Griswold Station in charge of Captain Ladd, meeting the enemy, but keeping them at bay, burned the town, destroying the railroad, cutting the telegraph wire, burned a train of cars."

General Howard (Union) to General Sherman, Dec. 28, 1864: "I regret to say that quite a number of private dwellings which the inhabitants have left, have been destroyed by fire, but without official sanction; also, many instances of the most inexcusable and wanton acts, such as the breaking open of trunks, taking of silver plate, &c."

Brevet Major General Williams (Union) to the Twentieth Corps, Robertsville, SC, Jan. 31, 1865: "The indiscriminate pillage of houses is disgraceful and demoralizing to this Army. The houses in this vicinity, of free negroes even, have been stripped of the necessary bedclothes and of family apparel. Brigade commanders will at once take measures to put a stop to these infamous practices. ... The brevet Major-general commanding the corps expects the hearty co-operation of all officers to put a stop to practices disgraceful to our arms and shocking to humanity."

General Sherman, Feb 1865: "Vacant houses being of no use to anybody, I care little about, as the owners have thought them of no use to themselves. I don't want them destroyed, but do not take much care to preserve them."

Gen. Howard (Union), Feb. 9, 1865, General Field Orders No. 9, issued near Binnaker's Bridge, SC: "The attention of the general commanding has been called by officers of our own army to the wanton and indiscriminate destruction of private property, burning of dwelling houses, plundering and pillaging the houses of the few poor people who have remained at home ..."

453 posted on 01/21/2005 2:16:13 PM CST by rustbucket [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

To: Non-Sequitur

Thaddeus Stevens' iron mill was a legitimate military target as were any supplies in it. As far as the looting of mill worker homes, if it occurred as you say it did, it shouldn't have happened. I gather such looting was not widespread, unlike the looting and burning by Northern troops in the South that I've been documenting in these posts to you.

Here are some more instances of the behavior of Northern soldiers:

Major General Gillmore (Union) to General Hatch (Union), South Carolina, Mar. 1, 1865: "I hear from all sides very discouraging accounts of the state of affairs in Charleston; that no restraint is put upon the soldiers; that they pilfer and rob houses at pleasure; that large quantities of valuable furniture, pictures, statuary, mirrors, &c., have mysteriously disappeared ..."

General Howard (Union), Brightsville, SC, to General Logan (Union), Mar. 7, 1865: "General Blair reports that every house in his line of march to-day was pillaged, trunks broken open, jewelry, silver, &c., taken."

General Logan (Union) to General Howard (Union), January 7 - March 31, 1865 report: "In accordance with your Field Order, Numbers 29, I moved the corps from McPhersonville to Hickory Hill, breaking camp at 7 a.m. Before the rear of my column passed through McPhersonville I regret to inform you that the village was in flames. This was doubtlessly induced by the desertion of their houses by the entire population, for on our entrance into the village not a human being was to be found."

General Howard (Union), Field Orders No. 175, November 22, 1864: "The crime of robbery and arson have become frequent throughout this army."

Your turn.

468 posted on 01/21/2005 4:32:44 PM CST by rustbucket [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

You correctly pointed out to me once that the Charleston looting wasn't done by Sherman's troops. You were right. They were General Gilmore's troops (Union).

I recently made a copy from the old newspapers of an extensive report by Louisiana officials after the war documenting pillage, robbery, etc, by Federal troops there. It took many issues of the paper to cover it. Each issue usually had two to three 30-inch long columns of small print about this barbarity, some of it by officers. Even I was amazed. Much of it probably came about from the opportunity for mischief afforded army troops who were staying in enemy territory, but unfortunately it really appeared to be a systemic problem with the Union army.

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.