Skip to comments.Guess What Folks - Secession Wasn't Treason
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
I would agree that the Southern leaders knew the fleet was coming and that they knew the intent was to maintain the status quo. And that they weren't prepared to allow that to happen.
I'm asking for suppor for the claim that the South provided 83% of all tariff income. Either you can provide that or you can't.
And as far as imports go, any definition of the term would tell you that goods obtained from the North were not imports. So only European goods please. The amount that the Soutehrn states imported compared with national imports as a whole.
I don't know anyone who has ever taken you seriously.
#####Secession discussions aren’t as much academic discussions regarding 1860-1861, as they are about whether it is a viable option today.#####
Well, you’re probably right that we’re heading for another secession crisis, if not multiple ones. The culture wars and the 1965 Immigration Act have assured it. I think it was Sam Francis who coined the term “anarcho-fascism” to describe the type of society Western nations are becoming. Government gets bigger and bigger, more and more controlling over the productive elements in society even as it “liberates” the destructive impulses. So Christianity is increasingly marginalized, speech codes are enacted, things like having a Civil War coffee mug on your desk become a thought offense. Meanwhile, efforts to curtail homosexual acts from being committed in public restrooms are considered to be oppressive.
In such an atmosphere, Political Correctness becomes all-consuming as multi-culturalism balkanizes the nation. At some point, someone will want to get out. Either conservatives, who find themselves outvoted, overtaxed, and culturally marginalized will try to leave, or leftists who think we aren’t “progressing” fast enough toward “utopia” will pull out, or a racial enclave will form in some place like California and they’ll want to leave.
“Do you really, really believe that we’d have equal Civil Rights regardless of skin color to the degree that we do.......”?
You’ve got to be kidding. Minorities, especially Blacks, have more legal protection than Whites. Ever heard of a few little things called “Affirmative Action”? What about “Protected Classes”? And then there are “Hate Crime” Laws aimed at Whites (Although a few Blacks are now being charged with these). Sadly, the so-called “Voting Rights” Act (Targets the South) has set up a class of “Protected” political Subdivisions which guarantees Minority electoral success and the basic disinfranchisement of the Whites in those Districts. (See the news of what’s happening in Neshoba County, Miss. right now)
Hell, even the Illegals are dropping “Anchor Babies” that will enjoy the benefits (for them) of all of the above.
So no, we do not all have equal “Civil Rights”.
Now you want an unconstitutional act try this one on for size; At the outset of the Civil War, Kentucky’s sympathies were with the South, but when Lincoln guaranteed the continuation of slavery in the Union the state decided to remain neutral.
Lincoln aloud the border states Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky and later West Virginia to continue to own slaves as an enticement to stay in the Union. The consequence of this reality was that in virtually every major battle of the Civil War, Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves were fighting against a proportion of Union Army soldiers who had not been asked to give theirs up.
So what did this say to the individual soldier in Gray about the importance of slavery to President Lincoln?
And every one of the 37 admitted since came in with the permission of the existing states.
And as for the other states, once they are a state they are equal to and without reservation to any and all of the other states, they would then have the same rights as the originals.
If that were true then why couldn't every state be admitted merely by ratifying the Constitution? But they can't. So it isn't a question of the last 37 having the same rights as the original 13. That's true. But it's more that the original 13 have the same restrictions and the other 37.
When did he guarantee that?
the state decided to remain neutral.
Neutrality that the south broke when Polk invaded the state and drove them into the United States camp.
I need to make a correction. The term Sam Francis coined to describe the situation Political Correctness has created in Western nations is “anarcho-tyranny”, not “anarcho-fascism”. Not a big difference, but I want to be accurate!
Dixie? If you had paid attention I said I HAD lived in the south. Once in Columbia SC and the second time in Vidalia, GA.
I live in the DC suburbs darlin. Not too hot and not too cold.
BTW do you neighbors know that you think they’re bigots and idiots?
Sorry, but your post is absolute nonsense. If you join something, and to join it you must be "admitted" to it, you can unjoin it. The states DID join the Union. Simply because a cheif Justice says that they couldn't secede doesn't mean they really didn't have that right. Supremes have been wrong before and he was wrong about the secession.
The states have always had the right, nay, the duty, to secede if the Union wasn't working out. As for the north being the cause of the war, one only has to read the history(real history not revisionist)and you will see I am correct.
Had the north left the south alone slavery would have failed of it's own weight, the states would have still been in charge of their governments, without the feds interference. The war wasn't about slavery per se, but about states rights, anyone can tell that with just a quick glance at history.
The feds wanted to push the south into a war so they could bring them back into the Union, what else would you call that but an act of treason by the feds? They took away the rights of free men to determine the type of government they wanted to live under. Slavery was wrong, but a much bigger wrong(because it has turned out to be a constant condition)was done to the citizens of the south(and to US citizens as a whole)by negating states rights. Believe what you want,but the facts are the Civil War ushered in the power of the big federal government and we haven't shaken it off yet, probably never will. Once the hand of opression has gripped a people it is hard to get rid of.
So? Is that reason to attack one's brethren?
Ah, so preemptive strike. I get it.
Funny how the Brits don’t seem to have nearly as much animosity toward us, nor us of them.
He's wrong simply because you say he is? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
I think you're referring to another motion. Madison's motion was defeated 8-3 (actually 9-2 as Georgia's vote was noted incorrectly). It was on Thursday 23 Aug 1787:
Mr. Madison. As the greatest danger is that of disunion of the States, it is necessary to guard agst. it by sufficient powers to the Common Govt. and as the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good Militia--
On the Question to agree to Mr. Madison's motion
N--H--ay -- Mas-- no-- Ct no-- N-- J-- no-- Pa no-Del-- no-- Md no-- Va no-- N-- C-- no-- S-- C-- ay-- Geo--*ay. [Ayes -- 3; noes -- 8.]The Records of The Federal Convention of 1787, ed. Max Farrand, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911, Vol II, p. 388.
[Note *: * <In the printed Journal-Geo: no>]
Who died and made you god? The framers discussed it, and rejected the motion by Madison to use the militia to prevent secession.
The man mentioned in that article I linked Col Thomas? I haven't been able to pin it all down as far as genealogy goes but I'm pretty well sure his earlier uncles and cousins helped first establish Sevier county in the 1700's.
There were pockets of secessionist sentiment like Sullivan County, but even in the second rubber stamp election, the margin was 69-31 against secession. After years of Confederate misrule I suspect the pro-Unionist margin was even larger by the time the liberators in blue evicted reb rule.
That whole Tennessee secession site you linked is slanted to only the reb point of view and ignores the legitimate complaints that a significant segment of the whole state had against rebel practices of the time. It is as if the reb manipulator Isham Harris himself, the subverter of the expressed will of the people, was in charge of the site.
And that view is borne out by the farce of the immediate postwar Black Codes produced by the ex-slaveowning drones of the plantaion class who were largely responsible for the secession madness in the first place.
You said it all, man.
The Union stronghold of the state was mainly East Tennessee. But I know beyond any doubt quite a few Confederate fighters including a Sevier County General came out of Sevier County. The people who settled the area Will Thomas was operating in had a significant amount of Confederate support. Some were likely his family lineage. I know it because I know the genealogy of one of the first families in that area. There were stronger sympathies to the north on the other side of the valley toward the Cumberland's but pockets of support that varied county to county in East Tennessee.
But as for the web site? It only makes sense it would have Confederate history as Tennessee was CSA. There were Tennessee hero's on both sides however some can not stand for Confederate ones to be looked upon in a positive light no matter how brilliant their actions were.
The main Union strong hold that was in East Tennessee was primarily Knoxville and north. The areas in East Tennessee south of Knoxville including Sevier County had plantations and others near the mountains. Out of those mountains came the Mountain Rebels. Some were from among the oldest families to settle in east Tennessee.
If I go to a web site on say Illinois history I would expect to read in it's history how heroic the Union Armies were. I would expect no less going to a website on a southern former CSA state to see the heroics of the armies of the CSA. BTW The article I linked in question was the only Confederate unit to negotiate their surrender at the end of the war that got to keep their weapons and go home with them in hand. That speaks volumes for their abilities as fighters. One Confederate General as well from middle Tennessee was so brilliant his skills on the Battlefield are still studied.
I didn't appreciate the skills until I began reading about such units. They earned the respect of both their own CSA commanders and fear and respect of the northern armies.
East Tennessee Confederates oppressed Unionist sympathizers, and East Tennessee Unionists, in turn, oppressed Confederates when they were in power. Oppression was not quite so one-sided as your posts might suggest.
Bad Unionist behavior against former East Tennessee Confederates continued after the war was over when peace should have reigned. For example, [Source: Richmond (Va) Dispatch, December 9, 1865]:
Returned Confederates and negroes Butchered.
Philadelphia, December 8.
--The New York Tribune this morning says that East Tennessee Unionists have been permitted by a weak and worthless Union General Commanding, and a reverend blackguard styled Governor, to butcher not less than one hundred rebels and negroes in and around Knoxville since June last. Greeley says Tennessee has many staunch Unionists, but, nevertheless, is a pandemonium of passion and crime, and no more fit to self-government than Dahomey.
The December 11 issue of the Dispatch gave more details of the Tribune article:
Tennessee Loyalty.--The telegraph has informed us that the bill allowing blacks to testify in the courts of Tennessee, which passed the Senate by ten to nine, has been defeated in the House by thirty to twenty-seven--the East Tennessee Unionists generally opposing, while many of the ex-rebels supported it. This is what we had been led to expect. Those East Tennessee Unionists have been permitted, by a weak and worthless Union general commanding, and a reverend blackguard, who is styled Governor, to murder two or three negroes to balance each of the paroled and returned rebel soldiers whom they have seen fit likewise to dispatch, until they have good reason to deprecate the admission of negro testimony; for it would hang hundreds of them if there was any semblance of law or justice in that region. According to our information, not less than a hundred rebels and negroes have thus been butchered since June last in and around Knoxville alone; and there will, of course, be more if the strong hand of authority be not stretched over them.
cva66snipe mentioned the term, Mountain Rebels. There is an excellent book of that title, Mountain Rebels, East Tennessee Confederates and the Civil War, 1860-1870. This book says [pages 145-147, paperback version]:
Now that they had the upper hand, the Radical-Unionist-Whigs were just as determined to solidify their political domination of the region by completely suppressing their old political opponents as had been the Confederate-Secessionist-Democrats when they were in control.
That book is how I learned about the term. I was doing some genealogy look ups for my wife. One of her uncles four or five generations back was one of them. Likely one of the more controversial ones too LOL. My family was from the other side of the valley toward the Clinch and Powell rivers. They were Union.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
It is clearly intended to keep the individual States from conducting their own foreign policy.
I did mistype, I meant CURSE.
Bless your heart- it took courage to admit that publicly ;o)
Bwahahahahahahaha - Tennessee Unionists were not the saints that some portray them to be. Sounds like they were members of a klan.
There were pro-reb pockets to the south of Knoxville like Monroe County. (Polk voted for secession also, but there's a strong opinion that the vote in Polk was rigged) But you also had counties like Bradley which were generally relative hotbeds for Unionism and violence between the two sides.
I noticed a mention of Sevier County. Sevier was as Unionist of an area as any. The vote against secession in the second election was 1528 to 60.
I appreciate the mention of the books. If y'all are interested in a view from the other side, I recommend Hurlburt's 1866 history of the Civil War in Bradley County. The author was an Indiana man who was located in Bradley in the last months of the war. The guy was obviously a Radical Republican by the way he praises the policies of people like Fremont. His view from the other side as to the legitimacy of the Tennessee secession process is also interesting. And if you had relatives in Bradley back then, he has an extensive division of the sheep and goats, a listing of the Union and Confederate citizens of Bradley County.
No, that would be the west central Tennessee confederate strongholds. Pulaski is south and west of Nashville.
I don't know about that. Majority white areas like Knoxville and Maryville were electing black aldermen at the same time the ex-Confederates saw fit to build up their KKK for "self-protection".
otoh, as the "members" of the "DAMNyankee coven" are mostly DUMB-bunnies & HATERS, perhaps they don't qualify as PEOPLE.
otoh, sadly i must tell you that we have PLENTY of idiots, who are homegrown in dixie.
we need no outside idiots/bigots/leftists/REVISIONISTS/fools.
fwiw, "the DC metro area" (with which i am intimately familiar) is NOT dixie. we southrons call northern VA, "yankee-occupied Virginia". once you cross the Prince William County line, you are IN dixie.
perhaps you think we should do NOTHING (or as the northeastern LEFTISTS say, RETREAT & SURRENDER to our enemies!!!) when our enemies NOW "go back on" their promises???
while i would NOT have done so (had i been in charge that day), firing on the fort was "appropriate" as "a response to AGGRESSION", though "ILL-advised", strategically.
btw, speaking of the LEFTIST/SOCIALIST northeast, IF the southland seceded NOW, we wouldn't have to fight, as the northeast is NOW "sissified" to the point that a "dear friend" in CT is planning to come SOUTH to look for a MANLY husband!!! (A___________ says all the single men she meets in her profession are "gay" or "metrosexuals", who are about as feminine as she is!!!)
btw, bubba's "current story" is that he was "Heyworth, the BIGOT", who was PERMANENTLY BANNED for being a "general all-around creep".
i, otoh, believe that he is more likely "modernman", who was BANNED for "cyberstalking" other FReepers & posting their REAL NAMES, addresses & phone numbers on LEFTIST websites. (whoever he REALLY was/IS, your "bubby" is a CREEP , a SERIAL LIAR & a FOOL.)
lincoln the TYRANT was a STONE RACIST, who hated/feared ALL "persons of colour", Jews, Quakers & anyone else who was NOT white.
i also KNOW that you will NEVER admit that your "clay-footed, secular saint lincoln of DAMNyankeeland" was anything like the HATE-filled, CHEAP, scheming, shyster, lawyer/politician that he REALLY was. (lincoln & wee willie klintoon were TWO of the SAME kind.)
"whisky papa", "heyworth" & "modernman" are easy to remember the names of, but therte have been MANY others, who USED to be FReepers. (fwiw, we "good old rebs" have "lost" one member (nolo chan), who was BANNED for QUOTING lincoln in his own words!!!
you & i have "known each other", on this site, for a long while;thus i believe that you are EMBARRASSED at the "garbage, lunatics & haters" that "your side" includes, as whatever else you are, you're neither stupid nor a bigot.
LOL It's nothing to be ashamed of. One of her ancestors also fought beside Old Hickory and served under him very high rank. There were a couple of Generals in her family one a Westpoint grad who's classmates were ones such as Longstreet, Grant, Bragg, etc. Her family was among the first to settle what is now Sevier County and friends of John Sevier himself.
I wonder what the first one was? Seriously there were plantations in Sevier County.
Most likely went into Knox, Blount, and Hamilton County. Other counties there were few including in the more northern counties. Although formed before the Civil War not many if any went to Union County, Campbell, Claiborne counties. Cocke County on the mountain maybe had a small community as well but nothing like the more populated areas. Some went into Anderson County but most went into the more developed cities like Knoxville of nearby like the current Alcoa.
There was a community near where I live I'm fairly certain blacks moved into likely immediate Post Civil War but by the early 1960's had moved on. Not due to any harassment but the fact the area was too far to drive for employment and the land was too difficult to work. They had existed there living off the land.
Another indication is in the Knoxville National Cemetery itself the old one not the new one. I worked there at one time and there were quite a few USCT markers.
James Ford Rhodes gave this in his book, History of the Civil War, 1917:
The steamer Nashville from New York [merchant steamer] and a number of merchant vessels reached the bar and awaited the result of the bombardment, giving indications to those inside of a large naval fleet off the harbor. G. V. Fox, O. R. N., IV, 249;
Very good choice of words.
The facts are that Lincoln sent a secret naval group with armed forces, tasked to fight their way into Charleston Harbor, with last minute notice to the Governor of SC.
That information was passed on to Confederate military headquarters.
They decided to make their stand there. The same thing had happened to their ancestors in June of 1776.
The fact is that Lincoln notified Governor Pickens of his intent. The message was delivered by a personal emissary on April 8 making clear the purpose of the fleet was to land food and supplies only, and arms and munitions would be landed only if the effort was opposed. The confederate government was aware of what was in the offing long before Chew delivered the message to Pickens, and Davis ordered that any resupply of any kind be opposed. The entire question of war or peace was left in the hands of Jefferson Davis and as we know, he chose war. And got more than he bargained for.
And they would and did do it again.
The Confederate government knew that they would have to face the coming aggression somewhere.....Savannah, Florida, New Orleans?
Lincoln had demanded the continuance of the tariff revenue in his inaugural speech, and it was clear that he would have to retain the money flow. Besides, the US Treasury would default within two months of any interruption of the tariffs.
So the Treasury defaulted by June 1861? I must have missed that somehow? Can you provide the date of default?
You are in error. Read the post again.
You are in error. Read the post again.
Then President-elect Lincoln said this just a few days later:
The words coercion’ and invasion are in great use about these days. Suppose we were simply to try if we can, and ascertain what, is the meaning of these words. Let us get, if we can, the exact definitions of these words-—not from dictionaries, but from the men who constantly repeat them-—what things they mean to express by the words.
What, then, is `coercion? What is `invasion? Would the marching of an army into South California, for instance, without the consent of her people, and in hostility against them, be coercion or invasion? I very frankly say, I think it would be invasion, and it would be coercion too, if the people of that country were forced to submit.”
Then just a mere eight weeks later, he instructed the Commandant of the Navy Yard in Brooklyn to outfit ships and under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that the ships are fitting out."
He also instructed his cabinet to maintain secrecy.
On the evening of April 8, 1861, Union Lieutenant Talbot, a frequent messenger to Ft. Sumter, accompanied a State Department clerk, Robert Chew who read a note that announced that the fort would be supplied with provisions at every hazard. This dispatch read,
"I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of attack."
Lincolns note was not signed, nor did the courier carry any orders for receiving a reply from the Governor. Talbot was denied access to Major Anderson.
Lincoln did not say he would land men if opposed. Nor did he say that he would fight his way in if opposed, though those are the exact orders he gave to his fleet.
He said only that he was coming with food and that he would not land men if his ships were received. His memo to Pickens was a carefully phrased message designed to deceive and provoke.
Even if Lincoln said he was not going to land men both his manner of delivery and past experience gave Pickens more than ample reason to oppose it. The same northerners who had tried to sneak arms into Sumter three months earlier, were now sending a naval fleet to accomplish their goal of requiring the obedience of the people of South Carolina to the laws of the Union instead of the Confederacy.