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
as i;'ve said numerous times, lincoln as POTUS was "just as well-meaning a fellow" as wee willie klintoon.
EITHER would DO/SAY ANYTHING to get ahead. NEITHER was HONEST/DECENT.
free dixie,sw
O! the 30th of July 1864 was a sad day to the people of Chambersburg. In most of cases where the buildings were left money was paid. They were here too but we talked them out of it. We told them we were widdows & that saved us here.
Or was this the reason? Also from the link: "A few widows were able to save their homes and possessions by paying soldiers $25 for protection."
Thank you, always like hearing about ol’ cousin Horace.
You seem to be unaware that there were war crimes committed by the Union forces.
I think you need to READ more.
As opposed to burning them all down and not giving them the chance?
Without saying that either side was right to do such a thing, there really isn’t a moral equivalence.
When you say 'crime' that implies a law was broken. Now on the one hand you can say war itself is a crime, but if you're going to say the Union side alone committed war crimes then what law did they break?
Thank you for your roundabout confirmation of the fact that you refuse to recognize any war crimes by Union Forces.
I posted my reference for the federalist papers quote.
Please do not bother telling me how “wrong” I am unless you can offer any facts of your own that make my comments “fatally flawed”. I am sceptical of your “known facts” since you did not present them.
Any comments based on what I may think are not presented as facts- unlike your own.
Well had those widows and everyone else ponied up the cash to cover the confederate extortion demands then nobody's house would have been burned. I suppose you want to blame them for that.
War is hell. But it isn't necessarily criminal.
The union wasn’t interested in extortion though were they? For them...it was simple pleasures of rape, plunder, and arson.
And if they had added extortion and kidnapping to the mix then that would make them...confederates?
may i gently suggest that ANY reading of most any college-level, "survey of European history", textbook will point out that European powers had no designs on ANY portion of the USA after the War of 1812. (France did briefly place Maximilian on the "throne of Mexico". had ANY of "the powers" WISHED to invade the USA, they would have done so DURING the WBTS.)
free dixie,sw
You say so many things that aren't true, that if by chance you say something that is, people won't believe you.
Were you mentally unhinged when the Confederates killed all your ancestors, or what?
By the way, just when and where did that happen?
The Federalist Papers have plenty to do with the subject of union and keeping it strong- I used it to make a point and I’m sorry you missed it. Truly.
I will “gently” suggest that you make no assumptions about people you don’t know. I AM a historian and can assure you, my personal library- well kept and fully read- of American and European history is one I am proud of. I “gently suggest” you re-read your OWN history books, should you have any. Prior to the end of the Civil War, France and GB (in particular) played both sides, waiting to see who would win. IF the South had won, they were more than prepared to take advantage of the damage left behind in pursuit of their own interests. It is only when the North won, maintaining the Union, that they backed off. Great Britain was most especially currying favor with the South, even as they declared their “neutrality”. There were great resources in this country and they were not disposed to give up completely. Remember that GB had reason to feel continuing animus, and that didn’t change any time soon, even AFTER the war. The working people may have sided with the North and the anti-slavery issue, but the upper classes and the media in GB were definately in the South’s pocket and would remain there until the south won. I wonder if the south would have lasted a year by itself...?
France couldn’t wait to supply the south with weapons. This was out of the goodness of it’s heart?
May I suggest “A History of the American People” by Paul Johnson and “American Foreign Relations- A History To 1920” by Thomas G Paterson, et al.
You have still not provided any facts of your own or references, rather, simple barbs based, I am sure, on emotion.
In the meantime, I find your smarmy tone to be offensive and consider this exchange at an end. You seem to be unable or unwilling to provide any information to support your points.
fwiw, you are considered a FOOL (as well as a BIGOT) by most FReepers who have been "blessed with" reading your BILGE.
imVho (and in the opinion of several others here), you aren't thought to be "bright enough" to BE a FReeper, much less worth reading/answering your arrogant, STUPID questions.
perhaps you only POST like "the village idiot", but you are certainly persuasive in that "role".
free dixie,sw
sorry, but as to your thesis on European Intervention or INTENT to intervene, the TRUTH is that you have provided NOTHING that is persuasive. as for the Federalist Papers (YES, i've read several in school days/daze.) they are IRRELEVANT to a study of "union" in the mid-19th century, despite your protestations to the contrary.
the FACT that BOTH GB & France desired a FREE "dixie trading partner" has NOTHING whatever to do with desiring a reestablishment of an "American empire", (after a WIN by the south in the WBTS). frankly, that idea is simply, BUNK & HOKEM.
imVho, your decision to declare "this exchange at an end" is, at least in part, based on your understanding that you have convinced NOBODY of the truth of your (rather odd) thesis.
free dixie,sw
Johnson's book is an interesting read, but I was struck by some errors. On page 458 of the paperback version Johnson states that no Confederate state held a referendum. There were referendums on secession in a number of states, of course. In that sense he is wrong, but if he is talking about referendums specifically held to join the Confederacy, he is correct. However, he then immediately states that the secession convention members were all selected by the legislatures, not by the voters. That was not true in Texas, which held an election, however imperfect as it might have been, to determine members of the convention.
Johnson then says that the reasons for secession put into the declarations of each state made no sense. At this point, I fell out of my chair.
Slavery was key to the South's economy. Since a sectional party whose presidential candidate had declared that the country could not endure half slave and half free had won the election, the South was right to be seriously concerned about staying in the Union. The declarations were full of references to slavery and in some cases to the North not obeying the Constitution with respect to the return of fugitive slaves. The latter was a particularly serious charge, IMO. If the Constitution was not being obeyed in a matter key to the economic interests of the South, what was the point of staying in the Union?
Nicolay and Hay in Volume 3 of their book Abraham Lincoln, A History noted that a careful 1860 study of the personal liberty laws by the National Intelligencer found that the personal liberty laws of Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan and Wisconsin were clearly unconstitutional.
About the same time, three distinguished jurists in Massachusetts led a host of other lawyers in declaring that the Massachusetts laws were unconstitutional and saying that these laws could lead to secession. The three were the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, a former member of the US Supreme Court who had resigned in protest of the Dred Scott decision, and a Harvard constitutional law professor who had been Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Appeals to change these laws came too late.
despite investigating every known accusation/allegation of prisoner abuse, the investigators (even under tremendous political pressure from the DIMocRATS out of the northeast to find SOMETHING/ANYTHING to blame the south for)found NO intentional war crimes committed in CSA POW camps. NOT EVEN ONE accusation of " rebel maltreatment" was validated as an intentional war crime at ANY southern POW camp/jail/cage!!!
the conclusion that lincoln's war was frequently waged against the poor ,against "persons of colour" (both slave & free), against Jews/Quakers/Roman Catholics (& members of other "religious minorities") and in general against the civilian population & against the unfortunate POWs in "the especial care of" his MAL-administration, is INESCAPABLE.
fwiw, therefore, it must be said that the CSA was "on the side of the angels";the unionists were, therefore,on "the other team".
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.