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
Ping
Dixie Ping!
Because only the South actually did it. And their acts of secession, while illegal, weren't necessarily treasonous as the Constitution defines it.
Just curious here. For an act to be illegal it has to violate a law. Which law was violated by the Southern States' secession?
Don’t you need an Act of Congress to secede?
The Constitution. You know that Chief Justice Chase who Benson quoted? Look up what he had to say on the matter. Texas v White, 1869.
Uh-oh - time to crank up the popcorn machine.
Secession is unconstitutional. There is no enacted law prohibiting, but there is little doubt that Congress could enact such a law (though why it would who knows).
There is no provision for leaving the Union. Once the states agreed to join they were stuck for better or worse.
Any discussion of secession which analogizes the Confederacy leaving the Union to the US leaving the British Empire is prima facie worthless.
That's the real issue. The Black leadership is not serious about fixing the many problems faced in the Black community but enriching themselves and making themselves power brokers with the liberal establishment. Every problem in the Black community is excused with it's the man's fault and that more money should be poured into their special causes to sooth white guilt and make reparations for slavery. When Blacks like Bill Cosby suggest that many of the problems in the Black community are self caused and should be addressed from within they are vilified. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are prime examples of what is wrong and why nothing is getting fixed.
I disagree. Since approval of Congress is needed for a state to be admitted or for any change in their status or borders after admission, then by implication there is no reason why a state can't leave with the approval of Congress as well. In his Texas v. White decision, Chief Justice Chase seemed to hold out that possibility.
“Once the states agreed to join they were stuck for better or worse”.
In other words, the U.S. is like the Mafia or MS-13, once you’ve joined you can never leave.
The United States of Hotel California.
“There is no provision for leaving the Union. Once the states agreed to join they were stuck for better or worse.”
The second statement does not follow from the first.
One simplistic but fair reading would be that since there is no provision for leaving the Union, and since all authority not specifically granted to the federal government is retained by the various States, then the States retain the right to leave the Union.
I hadn't really thought out the mechanics of it, but now that you mention it a single piece of legislation authorizing all 7 state to leave would have had the best chance for success.
I propose that Mass. and Vermont be “encouraged” to secede immediatly! Also Oregon, Wshington and Califonia.
States did not have the right to unilaterally join the Union, how could the retain a right to unilaterally leave?
Thanks for the ping y’all!
Because it’s not mentioned in the Constitution. And the disposition of things not mentioned, is mentioned. Very specifically and very clearly.
The Constitution was silent on secession, yet our secession from Britain was based on that right. Some will opine that secession is limited to when events create an oppressive or intolerable situation. The South was fighting for states rights, however, if you read the ordinances of secession, they cite the primary and proximate cause of the dispute that was going on in the USA. That dispute was over slavery. Many Southern leaders wanted to phase out slavery, and Virginia has almost voted to do so, but there were too many Southerners in denial about the pernicious nature of the institution.
Legally, I agree with this article. Furthermore, I agree that after the Civil War, with the passage of the 14th Amendment and rise in the power of the Federal Government, that States Rights and the 10th Amendment became almost null. However, Southerners have a huge share of responsibility for this loss of States Rights by failing to do away with Slavery. Had the War not taken place, God knows when Slavery would have ended, perhaps into the 20th Century.
Constitutionally a president plays no role in the admission of a state so I see no role for him in allowing states to leave. A presidential veto wouldn't be an issue.
Please, chapter and verse that proves that secession is illegal. In the US Constitution.
That was after-the fact.
How about before hand?
Hardly. Chief Justice Marshall pointed out in McCulloch v. Maryland that implied powers existed: "Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word 'expressly,' and declares only, that the powers 'not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people;' thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument."
Show me WHERE the Constitution forbids secession.
(You can’t!)
Yes because we know Congress will willingly vote to lose part of their tax source...hmmm, what was it the 16th President said was one of the most important issues to him in his First Inaugural Address?
In his Texas v. White decision, Chief Justice Chase seemed to hold out that possibility
The man who gave us fiat money to finance internal improvements and was chosen by a worthless man to sit on SCOTUS. Yes let's listen to his opinion...
All judicial decisions are made after-the-fact. Courts cannot rule on something that hadn't happened yet.
Delivering the mail?
Yes let's listen to his opinion...
Why not? Benson did. Or didn't you bother reading the article that started this thread?
That's not what the south said at the time:
"No man, no association of men, no state or set of states has a right to withdraw itself from this Union, of its own accord. The same power which knit us together, can only unknit. The same formality, which forged the links of the Union, is necessary to dissolve it. The majority of States which form the Union must consent to the withdrawal of any one branch of it. Until that consent has been obtained, any attempt to dissolve the Union, or obstruct the efficacy of its constitutional laws, is Treason--Treason to all intents and purposes. . . . This illustrious Union, which has been cemented by the blood of our forefathers, the pride of America and the wonder of the world must not be tamely sacrificed to the heated brains or the aspiring hearts of a few malcontents. The Union must be saved, when any one shall dare to assail it." [Richmond Enquirer, 1 November 1814]
The fact is that the Hartford Convention grumbled about secession among themselves, but the final report of the convention says nothing about it. Despite that, though, the Democratic party used it to bludgeon the Federalists, driving them out of existence within a few years. ""Democratic politicians, seeking a foil to their own mismanagement of the war and to discredit the still formidable Federalist party, caressed and fed this infant myth until it became so tough and lusty as to defy both solemn denials and documentary proof."--Samuel Eliot Morison
Wow! While I realize that most of the government revenue came from tariffs in those day, I had no idea it was so lopsided and would love to see documentation of the same.
I'm also told by relatives (Texans) that Texas specifically retained their right to leave and/or break themselves up in up to five smaller states in the deal which admitted them to the union? Does anyone else have more details to confirm or quell this?
I would think the rest of you would have seceded from us a long time ago...
The break-up thing is true, the right to leave is false.
You would look in vain because no such documentation exists. The overwhelming majority of tariff revenue was collected in Northern ports. Prior to the rebellion, the man who would become the confederate vice-president was putting the amount of tariff revenued generated in the North at over 75%. And I think he was being conservative.
I'm also told by relatives (Texans) that Texas specifically retained their right to leave and/or break themselves up in up to five smaller states in the deal which admitted them to the union? Does anyone else have more details to confirm or quell this?
The article incorporating Texas as a territory did contain that clause, but once Texas was a state they didn't have any rights that any other state didn't have. And that included walking out of the Union or splitting without congressional approval.
>>War of Northern Aggression<<
I once made the error of using that phrase at a party at the Dean of Student’s house at a Boston University.
For the next two hours he brought various visitors over to ask me to repeat the4 phrase so they could discuss it.
That was already weird enough that I didn’t tell them the story of how our Baptist family was limited one swear word by Grand Daddy. He said “damnyankee” was alright to say because it wasn’t really two different words.
secession REMAINS an OPTION to deal with the loss of FREEDOM.
free dixie,sw
That's not exactly true...each state decided for itself whether to join the Union...Article VII of the Constitution provided that once a sufficient number of states ratified...the government was formed under Constitution with respect to those states that ratified it
No state was forced to join the Union without its express consent
Moreover, it was a basic Lockean concept of politics that any power granted by a sovereign can be reclaimed...those in the state legislatures that ratified the Constitution would certainly have perceived that they were representatives of a sovereign and were voluntarily delegating some of the state's sovereign powers to a new federal government...had any of teh Federalists come out and declared during the ratification process that ratification would forever bind the states to the Union until such time as the other states permitted it to leave...there is not a chance the Constitution would have been ratified
Even an ardent Federalist like Hamilton saw the irony of a Constitutional Republic existing only through the threat of force against unwilling member states...in discussing why the federal government needed a direct power of taxation during the ratification debate in NY, Hamilton mentioned the "aburdity" of a civil war against recalcitrant states
It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?
Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head.
Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible.
not in 1861, 1961 or 2061.
THE STATES created the federal government. the several states remain FREE to :
modify
replace
withdraw from and/or
DESTROY that union "at their OWN motion".
the 10th Amendment to the Constitution makes those GOD-given rights perfectly clear to anyone except the most radical of unionists.
free dixie,sw
This especially makes sense when you consider that a state is bound to the Union by its ratification of the Consitution by its state legislature. Nothing anywhere says that ratification can't be revoked by that same legislature.
Which brings up my viewpoint. I agree that the U.S. Constitution's non-mention of secession was by design - that each state has the right to remove themselves from the Union. However, at least as far as Louisiana is concerned, there is nothing in their State Constitution that allows their legislature to bring up a vote for secession.
I don't know about the other 49 states, but it is currently unconstitutional for Louisiana to secede again. The only thing that comes close is Article I, Sec. 26, which reads:
The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free and sovereign state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.
Now, IMHO, this gives the State of Louisiana the right to govern itself in matters not covered by the laws of the Union. However, removal from the Union is not covered.
Anyway, I'm getting the popcorn and enjoying the discussion... :-)
Conclusion: The South would be missed.
would you care for a "do over", as your post is (to put it as non-controversially as possible) FALSE???
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Goose and gander thing?
There is no provision that individual states can’t leave, but there is a clause that forbids them from forming a confederacy.
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.