Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Guess What Folks - Secession Wasn't Treason
The Copperhead Chronicles ^ | August 2007 | Al Benson

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: albenson; aracistscreed; billyyankdiedforzip; bobbykkkbyrd; civilwar; confedcrud; confederacy; confederate; confederatecrap; constitutionalgovt; crap; cruddy; damnyankees; despotlincoln; dishonestabe; dixie; dixiecrats; dixieforever; dixieisthebest; dixieland; dixiepropaganda; dixierinos; dixietrash; dumbbunny; dumbyankees; frkkklanrally; goodolddays; hillbillyparty; intolerantyanks; jeffdavisisstilldead; kkk; kkklosers; lincolnregime; lincolnwarcriminal; mightmakesright; moneygrubbingyankee; mossbacks; murdererlincoln; neoconfederates; northernagression; northernbigots; northernfleas; northernterrorist; northisgreat; noteeth; obnoxiousyankees; ohjeeze; racism; racists; rebelrash; rednecks; secession; segregationfanclub; slaveowners; slaveryapologists; sorelosers; southernbabies; southernbigots; southernfleas; southernheritage; southwillriseagain; stupidthread; traitors; tyrantlincoln; warforwhat; warsoveryoulost; wehateyankees; wehateyanks; welovedixie; weloveyankess; wewonhaha; yalljustthinkyouwon; yankeecrap; yankeedespots; yankeedogs; yankeeelete; yankeehippocrites; yankeeleftist; yankeeliberals; yankeemoneygrubber; yankeescum; yankeestupidity; yankeeswine; yankeeswon; yankeeterrorists; yanksarebigots; yankslosttoodummies; yankswon; youlost
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,051-1,084 next last
An excellent commentary on the issue of secession.
1 posted on 08/27/2007 1:37:46 PM PDT by BnBlFlag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Ping


2 posted on 08/27/2007 1:39:58 PM PDT by EdReform (The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed *NRA*JPFO*SAF*GOA*SAS*RWVA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Dixie Ping!


3 posted on 08/27/2007 1:40:08 PM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
Well, you see, it's only treasonous if the South does it.

Because only the South actually did it. And their acts of secession, while illegal, weren't necessarily treasonous as the Constitution defines it.

4 posted on 08/27/2007 1:40:21 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericks-burg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And their acts of secession, while illegal ...

Just curious here. For an act to be illegal it has to violate a law. Which law was violated by the Southern States' secession?

5 posted on 08/27/2007 1:44:15 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Don’t you need an Act of Congress to secede?


6 posted on 08/27/2007 1:44:51 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
Just curious here. For an act to be illegal it has to violate a law. Which law was violated by the Southern States' secession?

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.

7 posted on 08/27/2007 1:46:04 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericks-burg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag

Uh-oh - time to crank up the popcorn machine.


8 posted on 08/27/2007 1:47:27 PM PDT by ladtx ( "I don't know how I got over the hill without getting to the top." - - Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

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.


9 posted on 08/27/2007 1:48:38 PM PDT by tdewey10 (Can we please take out iran's nuclear capability before they start using it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
Stupid commentary.

Any discussion of secession which analogizes the Confederacy leaving the Union to the US leaving the British Empire is prima facie worthless.

10 posted on 08/27/2007 1:49:20 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
"....It's much more lucrative for them (and it gets more press coverage) if they spend their time and resources attacking Confederate symbols."

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.

11 posted on 08/27/2007 1:51:36 PM PDT by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdewey10
There is no provision for leaving the Union. Once the states agreed to join they were stuck for better or worse.

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.

12 posted on 08/27/2007 1:53:47 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericks-burg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Could they pass one Omnibus Secession Bill? Even if they had a legislative majority and no fear of a Presidential veto, it would be a game of diminishing returns if the states allowed to secede couldn’t vote on the secession of subsequent southern states.
13 posted on 08/27/2007 1:59:05 PM PDT by allmendream (A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal. (Hunter08))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tdewey10

“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.


14 posted on 08/27/2007 2:00:23 PM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tdewey10

“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.


15 posted on 08/27/2007 2:02:07 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Could they pass one Omnibus Secession Bill? Even if they had a legislative majority and no fear of a Presidential veto, it would be a game of diminishing returns if the states allowed to secede couldn’t vote on the secession of subsequent southern states.

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.

16 posted on 08/27/2007 2:02:27 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericks-burg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I propose that Mass. and Vermont be “encouraged” to secede immediatly! Also Oregon, Wshington and Califonia.


17 posted on 08/27/2007 2:03:36 PM PDT by BnBlFlag (Deo Vindice/Semper Fidelis "Ya gotta saddle up your boys; Ya gotta draw a hard line")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
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.

States did not have the right to unilaterally join the Union, how could the retain a right to unilaterally leave?

18 posted on 08/27/2007 2:03:55 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericks-burg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: snuffy smiff; slow5poh; EdReform; TheZMan; Texas Mulerider; Oorang; freedomfiter2; ...

Thanks for the ping y’all!


19 posted on 08/27/2007 2:04:25 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And at the time it would have to be veto proof because Lincoln was President; and I don't think he would have signed it.
20 posted on 08/27/2007 2:06:34 PM PDT by allmendream (A Lyger is pretty much my favorite animal. (Hunter08))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Because it’s not mentioned in the Constitution. And the disposition of things not mentioned, is mentioned. Very specifically and very clearly.


21 posted on 08/27/2007 2:07:05 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
“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.”

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.

22 posted on 08/27/2007 2:08:15 PM PDT by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
And at the time it would have to be veto proof because Lincoln was President; and I don't think he would have signed it.

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.

23 posted on 08/27/2007 2:08:45 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericks-burg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
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.

Technically, they did commit treason against Britain, for which I am can only be profoundly grateful to them.
24 posted on 08/27/2007 2:09:20 PM PDT by JamesP81 (Keep your friends close; keep your enemies at optimal engagement range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdewey10
There is no provision for leaving the Union. Once the states agreed to join they were stuck for better or worse.

If this is true, then the Federal government, in fact, does not derive its just powers from consent of the governed. Consent implies something that is given, but can also be revoked.
25 posted on 08/27/2007 2:11:27 PM PDT by JamesP81 (Keep your friends close; keep your enemies at optimal engagement range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tdewey10

Please, chapter and verse that proves that secession is illegal. In the US Constitution.


26 posted on 08/27/2007 2:11:31 PM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

That was after-the fact.
How about before hand?


27 posted on 08/27/2007 2:12:18 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861 (The Orthodox Church....preserving the Truth since 1054 AD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
Because it’s not mentioned in the Constitution. And the disposition of things not mentioned, is mentioned. Very specifically and very clearly.

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."

28 posted on 08/27/2007 2:13:41 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericks-burg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tdewey10

Show me WHERE the Constitution forbids secession.
(You can’t!)


29 posted on 08/27/2007 2:13:55 PM PDT by TexConfederate1861
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
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.

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.
30 posted on 08/27/2007 2:14:45 PM PDT by JamesP81 (Keep your friends close; keep your enemies at optimal engagement range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
then by implication there is no reason why a state can't leave with the approval of Congress as well

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...

31 posted on 08/27/2007 2:14:54 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
That was after-the fact.

All judicial decisions are made after-the-fact. Courts cannot rule on something that hadn't happened yet.

32 posted on 08/27/2007 2:15:46 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericks-burg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ladtx; Lijahsbubbe; aculeus; dighton

33 posted on 08/27/2007 2:15:59 PM PDT by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: billbears
`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?

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?

34 posted on 08/27/2007 2:17:43 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericks-burg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
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.

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

35 posted on 08/27/2007 2:17:46 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
. . . 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.

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?

36 posted on 08/27/2007 2:18:08 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
I propose that Mass. and Vermont be “encouraged” to secede immediatly! Also Oregon, Wshington and Califonia.

I would think the rest of you would have seceded from us a long time ago...

37 posted on 08/27/2007 2:20:03 PM PDT by liege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

The break-up thing is true, the right to leave is false.


38 posted on 08/27/2007 2:22:43 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
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.

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.

39 posted on 08/27/2007 2:24:56 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericks-burg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag

>>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.


40 posted on 08/27/2007 2:27:09 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
YEP!

secession REMAINS an OPTION to deal with the loss of FREEDOM.

free dixie,sw

41 posted on 08/27/2007 2:28:18 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
States did not have the right to unilaterally join the Union, how could the retain a right to unilaterally leave?

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.

42 posted on 08/27/2007 2:30:23 PM PDT by uxbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Borges
NOPE.

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

43 posted on 08/27/2007 2:32:38 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81; swain_forkbeard
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.

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... :-)

44 posted on 08/27/2007 2:34:03 PM PDT by rock_lobsta (Doing my part to warm up the planet... Because Bikinis Beat Burkas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
Vermont threatens to secede and nobody blinks. The South threatens to secede and we have the Civil War.

Conclusion: The South would be missed.

45 posted on 08/27/2007 2:35:14 PM PDT by sportutegrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tdewey10
your post # 9 is a CLASSIC case of "knows NOT & knows NOT that he knows NOT".

would you care for a "do over", as your post is (to put it as non-controversially as possible) FALSE???

free dixie,sw

46 posted on 08/27/2007 2:36:47 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
EXACTLY!

free dixie,sw

47 posted on 08/27/2007 2:38:31 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
NOPE but in the TYRANT's case, he would have "called out troops" to use the "law of the bayonet" to enforce HIS will.

free dixie,sw

48 posted on 08/27/2007 2:40:34 PM PDT by stand watie ("Resistance to tyrants is OBEDIENCE to God." - T. Jefferson, 1804)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BnBlFlag
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Goose and gander thing?

49 posted on 08/27/2007 2:43:09 PM PDT by ThomasThomas ( verbalizes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861

There is no provision that individual states can’t leave, but there is a clause that forbids them from forming a confederacy.


50 posted on 08/27/2007 2:44:20 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,051-1,084 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson