Is Secession Treason?

by Albert Taylor Bledsoe, Paul Dennis Sporer (Editor)

General Robert E. Lee uttered to Albert Bledsoe these important "You have a great work to do; we all look to you for our vindication". The "work" Lee was referring to was in essence a Confederate political bible, that would clarify and explain the principles of self-determination upon which the Secession from the United States of America was based. Bledsoe was truly inspired to write a most deftly argued book defending the South's "unthinkable" action. This treatise, originally called Is Davis a Traitor?, is finally returned to print in a new edition, with a new preface and index. Albert Taylor Bledsoe (1809-1877) could be characterized as a traditionalist, an "unreconstructed Southerner", a fighter for various causes and a firm believer in the dangers of modernism and foreign influence. Yet he was no stooge working for the Southern "Brahmins"- he was an intelligent man of letters, soldier and educator, clergyman and lawyer, friend of wealthy men, social investigator, and seasoned traveler. Because of his intellectual perspicacity, and his connections to important leaders in the South, he became an apologist for the Southern Confederacy, and the pre-war Southern "mentality". Is Secession Treason? represents the pinnacle of Bledsoe's work. The centerpiece of his position is the critical distinction between the words "constitution" and "compact". Drawing from the texts of numerous political and philosophical documents, he presents ample justification for the assertion that the union of former colonies in the 1780s was voluntary and not perpetual, and their inherent independence was not taken away by their acceding to the "compact" that joined them. Limitation on the power of the central authority over the states was actually a key factor in the minds of the participants attending the Constitutional Convention, as the author so ably proves. In the pursuit of honesty and openness, Bledsoe strives to present both sides of the debate, and states with great clarity and force the positions of Webster, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, Calhoun and many others. After careful reflection and analysis, he arrives at two powerful Secession was allowed under the Constitution, and the military attack by the Federal government on the Confederacy was illegal. So well-reasoned were his arguments, that his book proved to be a source of material for the defense of Jefferson Davis, President of the Southern Confederacy, from charges of treason. Despite Albert Bledsoe's unwavering devotion to his beloved homeland, one could say that his treatise is more of a fair and balanced treatment of Secession, than many recently published works covering the same subject.

Genres: American History

240 pages, Hardcover

Published December 8, 2005

About the author

Albert Taylor Bledsoe (1809–1877) was an American Episcopal priest, attorney, professor of mathematics, and officer in the Confederate army and was best known as a staunch defender of slavery.

Reviews

[Bernard English · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't need all his learned arguments to be convinced that secession ought to be perfectly legal. A compact between states need not be everlasting. Although some dispute that several states ratified the constitution on condition that they may secede, I think it is irrelevant. Writers argue whether the powers resumed in the ratification document of a particular state implies powers will be "resumed" by the people of the state or of the whole United States in the event of an irreconcilable difference between people and the federal government. (If that statement is not clear its because some of the language of the ratification documents is also unclear. The author suggests people and the state were used interchangeably at that time.) Again, I believe the correct interpretation is the state as a political unit, but what of it. Even if you don't agree with Bledsoe's interpretation, I don't see why descendants of the founding fathers need to be bound by them for eternity. Bledsoe spends a a lot of time making the case that the constitution is a compact between states and they can therefore secede if one side (the federal government) does not keep its end of the bargain. He's got other arguments but I find this one the most important. The problem with his book is that its pretty rich complaining of the political oppression of the south by the north but never mentioning the oppression of blacks by the south. In fact the entire book is surreal in the author's ability to marshal powerful arguments to make his case yet ignore the elephant in the room--the background of the whole legalistic and political struggle was a supremely unjust southern economic system.