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
Congressional approval is required for a state to be admitted in the first place. Once admitted, congressional approval is required to combine two states or split a state into parts. Congressional approval is required to change the border of a state by a fraction of an inch. Implied in this is the need for congressional approval to leave since approval is needed for every other change in status.
States cannot, without consent of Congress, lay duties on imports from states. They cannot cut off water from states, form agreements or compacts against states, refuse to recognize a state's acts or proceedings, refuse to turn over criminals wanted in other states, form alliances, raise armies, all actions which, if done unilaterally, can have a negative impact on the interests of other states. If they cannot do them unilaterally while a part of the U.S. then implied in that is that they lack the power to do so merely by leaving as well.
Rejoin? The Southern states were never out of the Union to begin with.
You just quoted Congress's approval!
A blanket pre-approval is unconstitutional.
According to what? You just quoted Congress giving its approval to Texas splitting up into smaller states. What other part of the Constitution is this a violation of? Certainly not Article IV, Section III: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
There was a Statesman from North Carolina whom I don’t recall his name, who summarized that lopsidedness before Congress.
I wish I’d access to his oration because it spelled out many a point of disparity between the industrialized North and the agrarian South.
An act returning the Texas delegation to Congress following Reconstruction. Didn't you read it? Nowhere does it say that Texas was being admitted as a state. That would have been redundant.
Firstly before you blow your top (if you haven’t already): I specifically stated I was PARAphrasing..meaing quoting it from what I remeber, but not completely accurate..
Second, the Tenth Amendment, which you clearly posted (Thank You!), clearly states the ‘powers not delegated to the United States, ARE reserved to the States, or to the people”. How do you NOT see that the States reserved the power to leave (included in the powers ‘reserved to the states’). There is NO Congressional aproval necessary for leaving the United States or dissolving their bonds, not implied, and not explicitly states: if otherwise; PRove it!
The did have the power to seceed legally, wheather you want to acknowledge that or not is your responsibility!
And if you want to get technical (the ‘Contental Congress’) DID NOT have the legal authority to amend (rather scrap) the Articles (our first Constitution..). Try rationalizing that!..
Their acts of secession were NOT illegal. If you can join a Union you can unjoin it. The constitution gives us the freedom to determine our own government and if that means leaving the Union then that is allowed also. The North violated the constitution, they were the treasoneous ones because they badgered the South until war was inevitable.
Problem is the Federal Government stole much of that land from the citizens of your state through land grabs for ‘protection’ and national parks, ect..much could be given back and most states (most people) wouldnt really care..
You paraphrased in such a way to completely change the meaning. I believe the correction was justified.
How do you NOT see that the States reserved the power to leave (included in the powers ‘reserved to the states’). There is NO Congressional aproval necessary for leaving the United States or dissolving their bonds, not implied, and not explicitly states: if otherwise; PRove it!
See reply 81.
The did have the power to seceed legally, wheather you want to acknowledge that or not is your responsibility!
The did not have such a power merely because you say that they did. The Supreme Court ruled that they did not. I believe their opinion on the matter trumps your's and mine.
And if you want to get technical (the ‘Contental Congress’) DID NOT have the legal authority to amend (rather scrap) the Articles (our first Constitution..). Try rationalizing that!..
Calling the convention was an act of Congress and was afterwards ratified by every state. That seems to meet the requirements laid out in Article XIII.
Actually they were. To quote Chief Justice Chase:
"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."
If you can join a Union you can unjoin it.
Without trying to put too fine a line on things, stated did not 'join a Union'. They were admitted, and only with the permission of a majority of the existing states as expressed through a vote in both houses of Congress. I see no problem with leaving through the same manner.
The North violated the constitution, they were the treasoneous ones because they badgered the South until war was inevitable.
Absolute nonsense.
"Secession is unconstitutional. There is no enacted law prohibiting..."
Secession is not mentioned in the constitution, it is not prohibited by the constitution, those things not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states...
Where does unconstitutional come into this?
It does not even appear to be illegal, as another has stated - based on your 'no enacted laws prohibiting'.
Except, of course, when declaring that the Southern states were out of the Union suited the needs of the Northern Congress in order to pass the 14th amendment.
What had declared the Southern states out of the Union? It wasn't the Reconstruction acts. I'm not aware of a single piece of legislation that ever referred to the Southern states as former states or territories.
Anyone whose economy is based on slave labor doesn't have much right to complain about "economic exploitation."
The colonists broke with the UK because, although they were citizens and taxpayers they were not allowed any representation in their nation's councils.
The Confederates had full representation in their nation's counsels - overrepresentation in point of fact - and they broke with the Union because not everything went their way all the time.
The colonists were asserting the rights of men, the Confederates were being babies.
What??
George Washington phoned up the thirteen original states and told them they'd been brought into a union and to hurry up and send representatives?
The original states unilaterally voted to join, the delegates to convention acted to establish a format for union. There was no congress as such to vote each state up or down. Once established, rules were put in place for future new states but none that I know of regarding any state walking out.
Union was voluntary and only those territories obtained by war/purchase might possibly fit your assertion because they were products of federal government and not (necessarily) an established community. (However, note the oft repeated votes for / against statehood in Puerto Rico, and Hawaii's vote to join the union.
However, since it was not illegal or treasonous, since there are two parties involved in the secession of any one state - the federal government was free to choose its course of action, and it chose war.
That some Northerners supported secession in 1814 does not make it right. Quite the opposite. It proves that the issues is not one of section, but of spiteful special interests who preffer to destroy the nation, rather than risk their positions. In 1814, a subset of Federalists supported secession. They were traitors who should have been hanged, just like Aaron Burr. The Federalist Party suffered for this in the north and all but ceased to exist after 1816 because it was associated with treason.
And what did Hamilton say during the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions?
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.