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
Let's talk about silly. Anderson and his men were in Fort Moultrie prior to their move to Sumter. Moultrie is on Sullivan's island, even further from the docks than Sumter is. Again, not a single dollar of tariff revenue was collected at Moultire. And not a single dollar of tariff revenue was collected by the Army at any point. Now, there were two other military establishments in Charleston in 1861. You want to try and claim one of those was the tariff collection point?
That in and of itself is an act of war.
Complete nonsense. Anderson commanded all the forts in the Charleston area. He could move his men to any of them.
Similarly you seem to have a problem with the simple understanding of everything else written.
Not at all, though I do have problems making sense of what you write.
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.
Don't slam stand. Your level of accuracy is almost as high as his.
Did they? According to this there was no warning and no exceptions.
Not so with Union General Hunter. His troops destroyed houses while the women and children watched and pleaded.
Maybe because Hunter was prosecuting the war and not out for cash?
You’re right.
Fort Moultrie wasn’t a collection point for tariffs.
There was no reason other than mobilization for warfare against South Carolina for Anderson to remove himself from Moultrie to Sumter.
We refer to such “prosecution of war” as WAR CRIMES.
We also refer to them as terrorism when their purpose is to inflict damage specifically to civilians for political purpose.
But only when the Yankees do it, right?
The president labeled “coercion” of any seceding states as “unconstitutional” in his speech, yet approved of the feverish work to strengthen the federal forts in Charleston Harbor prior to the secession of South Carolina, despite his assurance that there would be no change in the military status of federal installations during the remainder of his administration. By strengthening the forts and refusing to order Major Robert A. Anderson, the federal commander in Charleston, back in to Fort Moultrie, Buchanan broke his pledge. Anderson acted on his won in retiring from Moultrie to Fort Sumter, thereby concentrating his previously strung-out forces in a stronger, more strategic position in the middle of the ship channel. to the South Carolinians, any unauthorized change was an act of coercion. A closer look at Anderson’s movement, though having the appearance and effect of a defensive retreat, shows that it also prevented the Union commander with strong offensive possibilities. With the Union garrison concentrated in a directly unassailable position—for South Carolina had no navy with which to attack a well armed fort—it could train its guns on the city and interdict shipping to this important harbor.
Not only did Buchanan refuse to reoccupy Moultrie, but attempted to covertly reinforce Sumter in an operation disguised as a mercy mission to reprovision a “starving garrison.” when the federal steamship, Star of the West, was driven off by South Carolina shore batteries before it could reach Sumter, Buchanan acted surprised and injured. He tried to lessen the blow by saying that his cabinet had concurred on the decision to reinforce the fort. Jacob Thompson of Mississippi, then secretary of the interior, accused Buchanan of slander, called the movement underhanded, a breach not only of good faith toward South Carolina, but of personal confidence between the president and his advisors, and left the cabinet in disgust.
On December 20, 1860, the same day that Major Anderson evacuated Fort Moultrie, South Carolina acted without hesitation to exercise her rights as a sovereign states and separate herself form the Union. those in the North who had scoffed at South Carolina’s threats to secede were rudely surprised when, on the 9th of January 1861, Mississippi also seceded. Alabama and Florida followed by voting for secession on the 11th day of the same month, joined by Georgia on the 20th, Louisiana on the 26th, and Texas on the 1st of February. In the three months since the election of Lincoln, seven Cotton-Belt states had seceded and begun to seize federal military installations.
Actually there was. Anderson moved his forces in the face of threats from the South Carolina mob to storm and seize Moultrie. Moultrie was indefensible from the landward side and Anderson was, quite rightly, concerned with the safety of the men under his command.
There was no threat to the men under his command so long as he was not preparing for war against South Carolina.
There was no batter way to establish exactly his intentions than to remove himself to Fort Sumter creating a choke point in the harbor.
There wasn't. Anderson commanded all the forts in the Charleston area and was free to move his men to any of them.
By strengthening the forts and refusing to order Major Robert A. Anderson, the federal commander in Charleston, back in to Fort Moultrie, Buchanan broke his pledge.
No, he did not. The pledge, as recorded by the South Carolina delegation on December 9th, read as follows: "In compliance with our statement to you yesterday, we now express to you our strong convictions that neither the constituted authorities, nor any body of the people of the State of South Carolina, will either attack or molest the United States forts in the harbor of Charleston, previously to the action of the Convention, and we hope and believe not until an offer has been made through an accredited representative, to negotiate for an amicable arrangement of all matters between the State and the federal Government, provided that no reinforcements shall be sent into those forts, and their relative military status shall remain as at present."
Let's deal with the first restriction, no reinforcements. And none were sent to Charleston during the life of the agreement. Your claim is that the U.S. broke the second pledge about the relative military status. It could be argued that Sumter's status as a fort never changed, but that is unnecessary because South Carolina violated their part of the agreement. They promised that nobody would attack or molest any of the forts, yet Anderson's reason for moving to Sumter was due to the very real threat of an attack by the South Carolina mob. This threat was carried in the newspapers and conveyed to him by local leaders such as James Pettigru. Faced with the possibility of attack, Anderson moved. And the imminence of the attack was a violation of South Carolina's promise. So it was they who violated the agreement first, not Anderson.
Not only did Buchanan refuse to reoccupy Moultrie...
South Carolina's seizure of Moultrie after Anderson had left made his return there impossible.
Jacob Thompson of Mississippi, then secretary of the interior, accused Buchanan of slander, called the movement underhanded, a breach not only of good faith toward South Carolina, but of personal confidence between the president and his advisors...
By that time South Carolina had seized Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinkney, the Charleston armory, and were pointing cannon at Sumter. What good faith was due?
On December 20, 1860, the same day that Major Anderson evacuated Fort Moultrie, South Carolina acted without hesitation to exercise her rights as a sovereign states...
Without going into the illegality of that act of secession, I'll just point out that Anderson didn't make his move to Sumter for another 6 days.
According to his information there was.
It’s true that secession was not and is not a treasonous act. In fact, there are provisions for secession.
However, we have a task, we have a burden NOW, TODAY. We cannot live in the distant past. The enemy today, now, is the Radical Islamic Terrorist. It is not the NORTHERN or the SOUTHERM United States or SLAVERY. For better or worse, all those things are over, past history, that, hopefully, we have learned from.
Who knows? Perhaps a hundred years from now, tyrants will have solidified their grip on the seats of government in this country to such an extent that only secession and rebellion will suffice; but, God knows, I hope not. I hope the Clinton machine or some other machine doesn’t get another crack at total ruination.
As for now, for today, we must take up the task, take up the burden on our shoulders just as The Greatest Generation, a blending of Northern and Southern citizens of the United States, did during World War II.
I am already tired from shouldering a part of the burden left from the years of living with a father struggling with battle fatigue from that war. I am tired from the grinding years of the Vietnam War, another war politicized by the same people in government who were then only scruffy, hippie marchers in streeets. Some of my great great grandfathers fought on the Confederate side in the Civil War, considering themselves defending their homes as they didn’t have slaves. However, all that said, please excuse me if I have no more strength left to fight dead battles. I must steel myself for the real task and the real burden ahead of me.
fwiw, i'm a REALLY poor excuse for a Christian & i believe that IF we do NOT make judgments on this earth about IMORALITY/DISHONESTY, that there will be LOTS more of it.
free dixie,sw
[I said]: Some people paid, and their houses were spared. At least the Confederates offered home owners a chance to save their homes.
[You replied]: Did they? According to this there was no warning and no exceptions.
The Union correspondence you linked to is incorrect. For the benefit of lurkers, here is what really happened. [Source, a resident of the town]:
In a few cases houses isolated from others were spared and guards placed about them, because one or more of the inmates were too ill to be removed; and others still were spared by paying a ransom.
for example, the DAMNyankees intentionally tortured/raped/robbed/starved/denied medical care & shelter to/MURDERED THOUSANDS of helpless CSA POWs in their DEATH CAMPS, while the US Army POW Center at Andersonville, GA investigated every single allegation of CSA intentional mistreatment of POWs & found NONE. NOT EVEN ONE case of INTENTIONAL mistreatment!!!
the MAJOR difference in the north & south on war crimes was that we "good 'ole rebs" routinely HANGED our criminals for the same behavior against civilians that was ENCOURAGED & NOT punished by the union high command.
free dixie,sw
Only 90%? Are you sure it wasn't 768% of the war crimes?
i fear that many like you will find it necessary to defend FREEDOM or watch it be snatched from you/everyone, within the next decade.
imVho, the threats from the Islamofascists are NOT as big a threat as the "creeping FASCISM" of the DIMocRATS like the "hilleryBEAST" from NY.
keep your powder DRY!
free dixie,sw
furthermore, you KNOW that i'm CORRECT about the TENS of THOUSANDS of WAR CRIMES committed against civilians & helpLESS CSA prisoners of war by "the filth that flowed down from the NORTH".
face it N-S, you are NOT believed by anyone on FR any more. the TRUTH is that all the readers of these threads recognize PROPAGANDA when they see it. LIES are your "stock in trade".
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
Others saw it differently . Or didn't your research extend to that page?
you are well-known on FR for being:
a FOOL,
a BIGOT (for example your calling me a "fake Indian". IF i was HALF Black rather than HALF AmerIndian, i suspect that you, bigot that you evidently ARE, would call me a word beginning with the letter, "N"!),
a south-HATER &
frankly, not "loaded with brains".
the TRUTH is that lincoln, the TYRANT, CHOSE war that killed a MILLION Americans SOLELY for egomania, LUST for POWER & $$$$$$$ for his cohorts. the BLOOD of ALL the dead of the war is indelibly on HIS hands & upon the hands of his "merry band of thieves". FACT!
imVho, it's past time that you left FR & headed over to "DU" and/or "daily KOS" to be with the other former DAMNyankee FReepers on those sites.
laughing AT you, fool/bigot/dunce.
free dixie,sw
to ALL: it is the NATURE of a PROPAGANDIST (as N-S demonstrably IS for the "filth that flowed down from the north"!) to DECEIVE the naive & UNwary, just as it is the NATURE of a SERPENT to SLITHER.
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.