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.
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.