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
True enough. As well as the VW Indian cavalry raiders, the notorious *Roaches of Nacogdoches* have got 'em beat for pure spite.
But are you familiar with the exploits of *Lawrence of Albania?*? If not, you may begin *here,* then click on each picture to continue. It's free, and it does explain a few seeming glitches in Texas and Southwest history. Start the ride, and hang on!
A case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one. So what would it take to prove the point?
OK, so the states had the right to seceed. No one is disputing that and , yes, it remains arguable whether or not Lincoln did the right thing. From a historical viewpoint, Yes, he did. America was a smaller and weaker nation then and had the states remained disunited, there would have been far more danger from France and Great Britain. Danger that the Southern states, especially, could not have fought off.
When Texas won its freedom from Mexico, it decided in a very short amount of time to throw in with the US. Houston was a visionary, but he was also pragmatic. He KNEW Mexico would be back at them with troubles from France and Spain, as well.
In Federalist #5, Publius quotes a 1706 letter from Queen Anne to the Scot Parliament: “An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace: It will secure your religion, liberty and property; remove the animosities amongst yourselves, and the jealousies and differences betwixt our two kingdoms. It must increase your strength, riches and trade; and by this union the whole island, being joined in affection and free from all apprehensions of different interest, will be enabled to resist all its enemies...”.
He goes on to write: “Nothing will more secure us from (dangers from abroad) than union, strength, and good government.” (The Federalist Papers in Modern Language, ed. Mary E. Webster, Merril Press, 1999)
My guess is that Lincoln was familiar with these writings and knew the dangers of two weaker confederacies as opposed to one that was stronger and has only gotten more so, since. It is academic fun to debate this issue, but at some point, we HAVE to realize that the dangers we face now and have faced in the recent past have been far graver than the 18th century European countries. At least with THEM, our cultures were pretty much the same.
We are ALL Americans, and as one unit, we ARE the best, the brightest and the strongest. Had Lincoln allowed secession, The North would probably be part of Canada, the South to France, and Florida and the Southwest a part of Spain.
How about some book titles or articles that form the basis of your opinion.
“Reading” is the basis of my opinion.
Reading the historical economic issues above and beyond, but not excluding slaver in the words of those affected.
Reading the letters and communicaes between Lincoln and various officials.
Reading the histories of Sherman, Charleston, Fort Sumter, and the tariff collection point that was shifted to a choke point in the harbor.
Reading the intentions of the South and the intentions of the North in the newspapers of the times, in the letters of their generals and in the actions against dissent within their own civilian populations.
Reading the causes of prisoner abuses.
Reading about the passions that drove the soldiers.
Reading about the immediate aftermath of the war, both in the North and in the South.
These are the basis for the conclusions I’ve drawn...and they mark a parallel between conservative and liberal political policies today, very notably excepting the policy of slavery.
The differences between liberals and conservatives today are far more marked than the differences between the North and South of yesteryear.
Are they still Americans when they demand a right to follow the path to tyranny in government??
That's because it clearly wasn't unconstitutional and was a right reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment within the Bill of Rights!
Buchanan did think secession was unconstitutional. Look at his December 1860 message to Congress. He also believed that the federal government couldn't constrain or compel a seceded state.
Today we might call Buchanan a post-modernist who focused on the omissions and blank spaces and contradictions of the Constitution to "deconstruct" it. However clever that might have been, it wasn't very useful. At the time many used words like "coward" or "traitor" to refer to Buck Buchanan.
But Buchanan did know that dissolution of the bond of union couldn't be regarded as a "reserved right" under the 10th Amendment. If the country had truly become a tyranny or anarchy, he wouldn't have been opposed to a state "reassuming" its "sovereignty," but it couldn't unilaterally abrogate the Constitutional compact. Otherwise the Constitution would be a meaningless scrap of paper.
"Davis and other secessionists were acting outside and against the law more than Lincoln was."
What did this have to do with our debate? Why should I care what Davis was up to?
My point was that some people think that the secessionists were peacefully going about their business when Lincoln clobbered them -- like they were humbly presenting a petition in front of the White House and he cut them down with rifle fire.
In fact, 1860-1 was considered a revolutionary situation by many, and the atmosphere was impassioned, lawless, tumultuous, and violent. The South Carolina "fire-eaters" who started the whole thing definitely saw themselves as revolutionaries, taking back their "rights" by force.
Davis wanted to get as much as he could for himself and his government before the passions of the moment subsided. The Confederate government was doing all it could to take states out of the union by fair means or foul.
And Lincoln likewise saw the country confronted by what looked very much like a violent revolution. If you don't take into account the passions and violence of the moment, you won't understand the history.
The controversy over secession could have been a courtroom or classroom debate, but it wasn't. The events had more in common with a street fight than an academic debate.
I don't think you can simply single out Lincoln and put all the blame for what happened on him. He was reacting more to what the secessionists were doing, than following a plan of his own.
I get the feeling Waldrop showed his manuscript and said "Give me money or I'll publish this!" and was misunderstood.
Originality of political alignment is, however, a distinguishing feature of the absurd The Texas-Israeli War: 1999 (1973) by Jake Saunders and Howard Waldrop. The Irish attack Britain with LSD, which leads a crazed prime minister and parliament to launch a nuclear attack. The unlikely coalition of Ireland, China, and South Africa is formed, fighting against a British-American-Russian coalition. The bizarre politics of these alliances are not explored, their main function being to leave the Israelis the sole relatively untouched nuclear power so that the authors can send Jewish mercenary soldiers in tanks across the southwestern deserts to rescue the president of the United States, kidnapped by rebellious Texans.
Waldrop also wrote a novel about Marx, Engles, and Richard Wagner leading a revolution in 19th century Germany, and a story about George Armstrong Custer as a paratrooper taking on the Sioux, allies of the Confederacy.
Your fingerprints are indeed among those of the perpetrators of the foul deed to my pore hurt arm.
In October the General had lost his command, and not for the first time. Allied Forces Supreme Commander "Ike" Eisenhower removed him as the commanding General of his beloved Third Army, which position had carried with it also made him Military Governor of Bavaria. The General had belittled the differences between Nazis and anti-Nazis, likening them to those between Republicans and Democrats. He was transferred to the Fifteenth, a paper outfit with no troops, no equipment and no mission beyond compiling a history of European campaigns. The intention was clear: he could continue in the Army commanding historians and clerks instead of the Third Army warriors with whom he had rolled and crushed his way across everything the Germans could put in front of them. Or he could resign his commission and retire to write the memoirs of his sixty-one years as a soldier and officer.But on the morning of December 9, 1945 the General had other plans: a noontime luncheon and afternoon pheasant hunt near Mannheim with his Chief of Staff, Lt. General Hobart Gay. Nearly ready to leave and curious as to where his driver was, the general's question was answered as 20-year-old private first class Horace L. Woodring, General Gay, and the General's bull terrier Willie excitedly entered the open doorway together. It was Gay who spoke first:
"General, the news just came over the radio from England; they're saying General Eisenhower's airplane has crashed flying back to SHAFE Headquarters, with no survivors."Looking into the troubled faces of the two messengers, officer and enlisted, who had carried the news to him, General George Smith Patton returned their stares, smiled and spoke.
This changes everything, Patton said, Everything!
Horace Woodring ping, FYI
NOTHING was so low that they wouldn't try it as a "method of waging war". as i said: so much for federal guarantees.
free dixie,sw
how very LIBERAL of you.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
fwiw, unless you have a REALLY good crystal ball, i cannot imagine where you got these strange notions.
free dixie,sw
Is there where you trot out the old "south paid 99.9 percent of the tariff" nonsense?
Reading the histories of Sherman, Charleston, Fort Sumter, and the tariff collection point that was shifted to a choke point in the harbor.
See, now there you lost me because you showed your true colors by shifting into full-blown southron myth mode. Sumter was a tariff collection point? Sumter was a fort. Not one dime was collected their either before or during Anderson's occupancy. The 'tariff collection point' as you put it was officially called the U.S. Customs House and as I recall it was located on East Bay Street. Convenient to the docks where the tariff would be collected in the first place.
And I'd be glad to recommend some books on Sherman and Sumter, as well as Lincoln's writings if you're interested.
Reading the intentions of the South and the intentions of the North in the newspapers of the times, in the letters of their generals and in the actions against dissent within their own civilian populations.
How about the intentions in the words of the leaders of the time? Ever try that?
Reading the causes of prisoner abuses.
That's an easy one. The leading cause of prisoner abuse was an almost criminal neglect on the part of both the North and the South. Both sides ran what amounted to death camps. Both sides could have housed their prisoners better, but they didn't. Both sides could have fed their prisoners better, but they didn't. Both sides could have put competent men in charge of their POW systems, but they didn't. Neither side has any moral high ground for the mistreatment of the prisoners in their care, and neither side has any valid excuses either. In a perfect world men on both sides would have been tried and punished for their actions.
This takes me back to some of the very the first posts we exchanged. Here was one of mine to you. Real reason shown in blue:
To: Non-Sequitur
Let's see what the 1863 US Army instructions issued by Lincoln say about retribution:
Art. 27. The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage.
Art. 28. Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.Now let's see whether General Early's actions satisfy the US Army guidelines. Here are some words from Early reported in the Philadelphia Age at the time:
I was very reluctant, and it was a most disagreeable duty, to inflict such damage on these citizens; but I deemed it an imperative necessity to show the people of the Federal States that war has two sides. I hope and believe it has had, and will have a good effect. I saw with much pleasure, since then, an able article in the National Intelligencer, which called upon the north to consider gravely whether such a mode of warfare as they had inaugurated is likely to yield a success commensurate to its cost.As regards your claim of bad actions by Lee's troops in Pennsylvania, I imagine there might have been a few instances of pillage. There was certainly normal foraging to support the army, a standard feature of warfare from both sides. However, I take the word of the Chambersburg resident whose report I cited earlier that Lee's troops were not generally known to have committed many outrages. If there had been wanton destruction by Lee's forces, as there was by Hunter's, the Union propagandists of the time would have never stopped talking about it:
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. But while the comparative good conduct of the Confederates in Pennsylvania is admitted, it must also be remembered that there was no bushwhacking of them, nor depredations committed upon their trains.671 posted on 9/4/02 11:12 AM Central by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Since posting that, I've learned from the Official Records that in fact there was bushwacking against the Confederates on this expedition. And, more importantly, as a result of Chambersburg, Lincoln almost banned house and town burning by the Union army. At the very least, Chambersburg made the latter day vandals and visigoths from the North think twice. So, Early almost met his objective of stopping the burning of Southern houses and towns.
Burning Chambersburg caused roughly the same economic damage (2 million dollars) in Chambersburg that Union General Hunter had earlier caused to civilian property in the Shenandoah Valley. Hunter damaged a thousand homes and left a 60-mile path of destruction in the Valley that I documented on that thread.
Your 'couple of houses and VMI' comment followed my post above.
And the ransom demand? When all is said and done could VMI and the valley not be the real reasons after all? It was simply a failed extortion?
Some people paid, and their houses were spared. At least the Confederates offered home owners a chance to save their homes. Not so with Union General Hunter. His troops destroyed houses while the women and children watched and pleaded.
Here is Hunter's order issued a month or so before Chambersburg (from the Official Records, my emphasis):
HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF WEST VIRGINIA,
In the Field, at Rude's Hill, Va., May 30, 1864.
Major T. QUINN,
Commanding First New York Cavalry:
MAJOR: You will detail from your command 200 men, with the proper complement of commissioned officers, to proceed to Newtown to-morrow morning at 3 o'clock, for the purpose of burning every house, store, and out-building in that place, except the churches and the houses and out-buildings of those who are known to be loyal citizens of the United States. You will also burn the houses, &c., of all rebels between Newtown and Middletown. You will spare the house and premises of Dr. Owens, at Newtown, he having been very kind to our wounded soldiers; and where the burning of the house or out-buildings of the rebel shall not be burned. You will report back to these headquarters, making a written report of the expedition.
This by command of the major-general commanding [Hunter]:
I am, major, very obediently, yours, [P. G. BIER,]
Assistant Adjutant-General.
I post a bunch of Union correspondence concerning the burning and looting of Southern homes. You call it spin, basically ignore the Union correspondence, and then start talking about military targets. I have no doubt that there were many military targets. That doesn't excuse the documented behavior of Sherman's troops toward civilians.
Adios, non. You go on twit filter for a while. You've earned it. Spin that.
No silly, they moved out of the collection point to Fort Sumter.
That in and of itself is an act of war.
Precisely because the fortification in town was not as defensible a fort and would not act as a choke point. Fort Sumter accomplished both.
Similarly you seem to have a problem with the simple understanding of everything else written.
I am deeply saddened by your lack of literacy and shall leave you to argue with stand_watie, as you share a level of literacy I’m unable to pierce.
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.
