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
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.
in 2004, a number of "celebrities" & some of the main-SLIME media types said they favored secession.
at that time, i said i would make a "special trip" to the new international border to wish them WELL, "good riddence" & ADIOS!!!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Article IV says that new states may be admitted only by Congress. It doesn't say that a state may join the Union merely by ratifying the Constitution.
No state was forced to join the Union without its express consent
Constitutionally such a condition could occur, though Congress would be foolish to do so. But I will point out that no state was admitted merely because it asked to be, either. Look at Colorado or Kansas, it took a number of years between the time the territory asked to be admitted and the time Congress admitted it.
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.
That would depend on one's view of exactly how sovereign the states were in relation to the central government.
In 2003 this was explored in a mockumentary called The Confederate States of America. It's very thought provoking in addition to being hilarious.
lol...you’re good :)
In the 1970s my Algebra II teacher would only refer to it as “The War Between the States” and when questioned would declare “There was nothing civil about it!”
Rather than have the treasonous states of NewEngland/WestCoast/MidAtlantic leave the Union, it would be more useful to turn at least the 9 eastern liberal states into 3.
Maine+NewHampshire+Vermount= 1 state/2Reps & 2Sens
Massachusetts+RhodeIsland+Connetecut= 1 state/2Reps & 2Sens
NewJersey+Maryland+Deleware=1 state/2Reps & 2 Sens.
Then we honorable Americans might be in a better position to deal with the 3 leftCoast traitor states.
“Any discussion of secession which analogizes the Confederacy leaving the Union to the US leaving the British Empire is prima facie worthless.”
You don’t see any parallels? Both were being unfairly exploited economically.
Outstanding reference. Talk about having your sources lined up!
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.