Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Time to jump in...
IF Jeff Davis was a traitor based on the references given above, then every man who fought for the Confederacy was a traitor, every woman who supported those men were traitors, and yet, each and every one of them were accepted back into the Union following the war without prison time.
Are you saying there are various levels and grades of treason? That the elected President (and not the Vice-President, the Cabinet, the congress, the judicial of that Country) is the only traitor? And this President did not even run for office. He was elected by his peers and when he was notified he tried to refuse.
Rick, your arguments are just. This also means that every colonist, EVERY colonist was a traitor (excepting the Tories of course) to the crown, and every Texan was a traitor to the Emperor of Mexico.
Sorry, don't fly.
The states by vote ratify the Constitution and any consitutional amendments. That means, if the majority says yes, then it is assumed that the people have spoken.
As for the Constitution, it begins, "We the People of the United States..." the key word being <u>states</u>. It does not begin, "we the people of the Federated Government."
Bill, the Consitutional Convention was formed to modify the Articles of Confederation. The agenda was changed by the formers, not by the states. No State Government asked for a strong, central Federal government. This came later with Jeffersonian and Jacksonian government.
BAck to Old JEff.
Why was he treated differently than the 500,000+ men who followed a flag other than the Stars and Stripes?
"This also means that every colonist, EVERY colonist was a traitor (excepting the Tories of course) to the crown, and every Texan was a traitor to the Emperor of Mexico."
I am not completely sure how the government of Mexico defined treason so this may or may not be correct. However, in the case of the Confederacy; according to the Definition of treason given in the Constitution this would definitely be a true statement. Also, according to the way treason was defined by the English Government the first part of the statement is true as well.
Are you saying there are various levels and grades of treason? That the elected President (and not the Vice-President, the Cabinet, the congress, the judicial of that Country) is the only traitor?
No. I am saying no such thing. The definition of treason given in the Constitution makes no such distinctions so all were equally guilty.
As to why Davis was treated differently, I think there are several reasons; none of which are completely right or reasonable. In the first place, the armies that surrendered were paroled according to the agreements reached at Appomattox and elsewhere, so the legal reasoning was that unless they violated their parole agreements it would be double jeopardy to attempt to try them for a crime they had already been paroled for. There were those in the North who were quite incensed at the agreements that Grant and Sherman made and wanted to at least hold the officers in charge for legal action but Grant refused to allow it and his own personal popularity was such that the attempt was scrapped.
Second, cabinet officials convinced Johnson that Davis had somehow been involved in Lincoln's assassination. Stanton himself intimated that he had proof which he would produce in due time. This "proof" turned out to be complete fabrications by witnesses who professed to have heard Davis giving his approval to the plan, but many believed it at first.
Third, there was considerable pressure from the Republican party in Congress to hold someone responsible to "set an example" and Davis seemed a likely target. However, as we have discussed they could not very well try Davis for treason as defined in the Constitution without trying everyone else as well.
From something I posted in another community along the same lines; I apologize for the length but I found it interesting.
On May 10, 1865 in the drizzly pre-dawn light of morning near Irwinsville, Georgia two federal cavalry regiments from the First Wisconsin and the Fourth Michigan approached a camp containing a party containing Jefferson Davis from opposite directions. In the ensuing confusion the regiments fired upon each other until recognition that they were on the same side sank in. Davis made one final unsuccessful attempt at walking away undetected wearing a water-repellent cloak with wide, loose sleeves and a black shawl that Varina Davis had thrown around his shoulders. She then directed her maid to grab a bucket and walk with her husband to make it appear that they were going to the creek for water. A cavalryman saw them walking and ordered them to halt. In response they changed direction, yet kept heading toward the woods. Another horseman rode toward them, shouting that he would shoot. Davis turned, flung off the shawl and advanced toward the trooper. Later he claimed he intended to use a trick he had learned from the Indians…..walk up, grab the rider’s heel, upend him out of the saddle, mount the horse, and attempt to escape. He believed his chances good, he said, because it was difficult for a man on horseback to fire down on a target so close. But he never made the attempt, for at that instant, thinking he was about to be shot, Varina rushed to him, threw her arms around his neck, and begged the soldier not to fire. Davis surrendered and was taken to General Wilson’s headquarters at Macon. So ended the confederacy and Davis’s presidency of it. So began one of the most disgraceful shams of selfish maneuvering and partisan politics the United States has ever seen.
Davis was surprised and shocked to learn early in his incarceration that he was suspected of complicity in the assassination of President Lincoln. On May 11, 1867 Davis walked out of Fortress Monroe, where he had been held prisoner for the last 2 years. He was accompanied by and in the custody of General Burton who took him to Richmond on a steamer where he appeared in a federal civil court in the Customs House before Judge John Underwood. General Burton remanded him over to Judge Underwood who accepted the prisoner and relieved General Burton of any further responsibility. A U.S. Marshall handed Charles O’Conor, Davis’s chief counsel, an indictment for treason. William H. Evarts, the head of the prosecution team immediately asked for a continuance and intimated that the government intended no prosecution in the current term of the court. O’Conor requested bail for Davis and the court settled on a $100,000 bail for the prisoner’s release. Horace Greeley, Gerrit Smith, and Cornelius Vanderbilt each posted $25,000 and ten others posted $2,500 each. So ended two years of confinement for Jefferson Davis.
For two years the federal government struggled with the problem of what to do with Davis. The belief was widespread amongst radical Republicans that Davis, as head of the insurrection deserved to hang for treason. The proving of such in a courtroom turned into a task of monumental proportions. President Andrew Johnson was one of the earliest and most strident voices demanding punishment for Davis. The actual logistics of accomplishing this goal became almost impossible very quickly. Attorney General James Speed gave the opinion that the trial would have to take place in the state where the alleged offence occurred, Virginia. This placed a major hurdle in the path of the proceedings that the government was never able to successfully overcome The federal district court judge, John Underwood, would be joined on the bench by Salmon P. Chase who was chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Chase consistently refused to convene court in Virginia before a declaration of formal peace and the removal of all military authority in Virginia. He wrote President Johnson in October, 1865 “a civil Court in a district under martial law can only act by sanction and supervision of the military power; and I cannot think that it becomes Justices of the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction under such conditions”.
Plainly, this position put Johnson and the federal government in a spot that they could not get out of. Johnson tried to set conditions to speedily readmit the southern states and their representatives back into Congress but he would fail miserably. He soon found the Republican party, who held overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress, to be extremely adverse to readmitting the southern representatives in any form. They correctly assumed that they would lose their overwhelming power base and were determined this was not going to happen. They blocked his efforts at reconstruction in every quarter by refusing to seat the newly elected senators and representatives in congress and passed laws over his vetoes to divide the south into five military districts, the heads of which ruled completely and autocratically. This plainly made it impossible to have a trial in Virginia anytime in the near future under the conditions demanded by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase.
Andrew Johnson soon had other problems on his hands that made the case against Davis take a back seat. After several more postponements and disagreements amongst the judges and prosecutors involved, Attorney General Everts finally informed Jefferson Davis’s counsel that the charges against him had been nol-prossed and that there were no longer any pending charges against Davis on February 26, 1869.
Interlaced in these political maneuvering was the assertion put forward and widely believed at the time of Jefferson Davis’ capture that he had been an accomplice in the plot by John Wilkes Booth and others to assassinate President Lincoln. This belief and the struggle to include it in the charges against Davis solidified the determination to hold and try Davis. Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, informed President Johnson that he had incontrovertible proof of Davis’ involvement in the conspiracy. Joseph Holt, the Judge-Advocate-General of the army, furnished the judiciary committee in the House of Representatives headed by George S. Boutwell of Massachusetts with depositions of seven persons brought by one Sanford Conover to Holt’s office in the fall of 1865 and sworn to statements involving the complicity of Davis and others in the assassination. Two of these men, calling themselves Campbell and Snevel, testified that they were present with John H. Surrat at an interview with Davis in the early spring of 1865 at Richmond when the plot to assassinate Lincoln was discussed and approved. The committee dispatched an officer to New York to find Conover, Campbell, and Snevel. The officer succeeded in finding Campbell and bringing him back. The story started to unravel when Campbell confessed to the officer that Conover fabricated his deposition. The committee telegraphed an unsuspecting Conover who on May 8, 1866 was sworn and testified before the committee. Unbeknownst to Conover, Campbell had already sworn under oath that his deposition submitted by Conover to Holt was false in every particular. Campbell’s real name was Joseph A. Hoare and he also sworn that all six other depositions were written out by Conover and committed to memory by the participants who had also all used false names.
When Conover’s turn to testify came he swore that Campbell’s current testimony was false and he had no reason to doubt the truth of the other sworn depositions he had turned in. He was allowed to return to New York with the sergeant-at-arms to locate and return with the other witnesses against Davis. Upon reaching New York he escaped from the custody of the officer and disappeared.
Snevel was found however, and returned to testify before the committee on May 24. He testified that his real name was Roberts and that, like Campbell’s, Conover had also fabricated his deposition. Campbell aka Hoare and Snevel aka Roberts were both paid by the Bureau of Military Justice. They received $625 and $475 respectively.
Judge-Advocate-General Holt was recalled before the committee and expressed great astonishment at the breakdown of his witnesses. He gave a full account of his dealings with Conover and expressed his implicit trust in Conover’s statements. He did say the retractions of both witnesses “left on my mind a strong impression that Conover had been guilty of a most atrocious crime, committed under what promptings I am wholly unable to determine.”
Congressman Boutwell wrote of the witnesses, “They failed, however, to state to the committee any inducement or consideration which seemed a reasonable explanation for the course they had pursued. And the committee are not at this time able to say…whether the original statements of these witnesses are true or false.” Even though Conover was missing and he had sworn statements from two witnesses that he had led them to write false depositions, Boutwell was determined not to let the matter drop.
A warrant was issued for the missing Conover and in November he was arrested and brought back to Washington. He confessed on the way back that he had suborned the witnesses before the bureau and the committee in “ a desire to vindicate himself on Jefferson Davis by whose order he had been confined in Castle Thunder” and who had “also insulted his wife.” In February of 1867 he was tried for perjury committed in his testimony and sentenced to ten years in the Albany Penitentiary. So much for the incontrovertible evidence against Davis.
During and after his trial for perjury Conover managed to spread a rumor that he could furnish ****ing evidence against President Andrew Johnson in the same conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln. In exchange for a pardon, he would produce evidence to the effect that Johnson, before and after becoming Vice President, had conspired with Jefferson Davis to assassinate Lincoln. James M. Ashley, representative from Ohio, who was on the judiciary committee gathering evidence to impeach Johnson for high crimes and misdemeanors thought this too good a chance to pass up. Conover, who was going by the name of Charles A. Dunham by this time, agreed to furnish Ashley with letters written by Andrew Johnson to Jefferson Davis and to J. Wilkes Booth implicating Johnson as well as Davis in the conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln. One can only wonder at the wisdom of a congressman visiting a convicted perjurer, for much the same type of scam, who would agree to try obtain a pardon for this offence in exchange for further testimony.
Nonetheless, James M. Ashley and Judge-Advocate-General Holt did indeed try to induce President Johnson to pardon Conover aka Dunham (Holt held in his letter to Johnson asking for the pardon that Conover aka Dunham’s testimony had been instrumental in procuring a conviction against Surrat who was one of the conspirators with Booth against Lincoln).
When their recommendations for pardon fell on deaf ears at the white house and Conover aka Dunham was taken at last to the Albany Penitentiary to begin serving his sentence. Before leaving however, he sent a long letter to President Johnson. In this letter he detailed requests by James M. Ashley and “other traitors and conspirators” who asked him to produce plausible witnesses to explicitly prove four circumstances:
1) That Booth paid Johnson several visits at the Kirkwood House
2) That Johnson corresponded with Booth
3) That the placing of Atzerodt with weapons at the Kirkwood was a sham to make it appear that the Vice President was intended as a victim and thus divert suspicion of Johnson’s involvement in the conspiracy
4) That Booth stated to friends just after the fourth of March to intimate friends in New York that he was acting with the knowledge of the Vice President and that he was supposed to kill Lincoln on the day of the inauguration.
Conover aka Dunham included in this letter some written instructions from Ashley and also stated that two witnesses had already been picked and had procured to memory instructions directly from Ashley. Also included in this correspondence were a specimen of the memoranda that was used to coach the false witnesses and a letter in Ashley’s own hand stating, “If you can put the originals (i.e., letters of A.J. to Davis and Booth) in my hands, I will say that no one shall take them or destroy them without your express order in writing except that you are released.”
All of which goes to prove that the Witch-hunts of Salem were by no means the last in American History.
Good discussions going on here,reading them with a keen interest and absorbing them.
Just to put in a pennies worth,I don't think Davis was a traitor no more than anyone else in the Confederacy.As far as I know he wasn't involved in any war crimes(against humanity) either,so I certainly do not think he should have been hung!oldreb made a good point at the start, all the other Confederate soldiers,officers were accepted back in the army,why was Lee and Davis singled out?Longstreet was certainly a good example of that.It doesn't seem right that Lee was not even a citizen after the war and wouldn't be until 100 years after his death.
I will now step out as this discussion has gotten pretty deep and I'm still fairly new.Enjoy reading those posts though <font color="ff0000">Ronald</font>,<font color="0000ff">Rick</font>,and <font color="119911">Bill</font>!!!!
If you stop and think about it, the US was in a very iffy situation regarding Davis and the other "High" Confederates. Just suppose that they did go to trial for treason? Then what do you do if they put up a great defense and were acquitted? Does that mean that secession was then legal and 620K men died for nothing?
What if they were tried and convicted? Also not a smart move. How are you going to reunite the country if you imprison or hang the men that the South looked up to for those 4 years? They were the leaders of 11 states whose favors needed to be curried. Even if the Federal authorities tried to keep the men themselves from holding office again - which did happen, they still could and did sway opinion.
The fact is that no one was really sure what would happen in the courts so they did not venture near them. The two year prison term of Davis with no trial was merely a stab to get back at him and to set an example as was earlier suggested.
Grant and Sherman were right with the terms that were meted out. There may have been public outcry, but the public by-in-large is ignorant of the military sense of honor and duty that a place like West Point instills in one. Like it or not, all these guys who were West Pointers had a common background that in the end I feel healed the country. They understood each other and the sacrifices each army made. With some exceptions such as the irascible Henry Wise. "We hate you with a rancor..., sir" was his reply to Chamberlayne who was trying to be polite to him at the Surrender. Though if memory serves I don't think he was a West Pointer.
What happened in my opinion was a natural result to quote Chamberlayne of "Honor answering honor".
The issue of Lee not receiving his pardon was a pure accident. He applied for it and should have been pardoned in the Christmas pardon of 1868. In the early 1970's when I lived in Virginia, a worker in the archives actually stumbled across Lee's request to be reinstated. It had been misfiled and thus never acted upon. But even at that, the perceived slight must have bothered him. However he never let the oversight hinder his desire to see the country healed. In many ways, I think those 5 years after the war were the finest of his life.
About Davis, I'm not sure what his pardon status was. Frankly, had I been in the position to render a judgement on Davis's citizenship, I probably would have denied it. He went to his grave thinking that the Confederacy was right and that his position on slavery was correct. Hardly the thing to endear you to a nation that just went through four years of hell.
Let's start with one simple fact. In the summer of 1865, the United States District Court in Norfolk Virginia indicted General Lee, President Davis and Brigadier General Henry Wise for Treason. OK? There were charges pressed against these three men, but apparently NO OTHERS....
Wonder why? I do.
Lee's paperwork misfiled by Virginia? THE STATE he left the union for? Lee did not give a flying fa%^ in a fast-moving whirlwind for the Confederacy and would never have left had Virginia not voted to secede.
Lee's request was lost, intentionally, just like Davis was imprisoned for two years with no trial or conviction.
In his several letters to James Longstreet following the war, he remarked a few times about the cavalier attitude it seemed the Union officials had on accepting some former Confederates back into the Union while not accepting others. In a letter to Henry Wise, Lee stated that he applied to take the Oath of Allegiance on June 13th. He was NEVER responded to by the Federal Government. Stanton had a grudge, Seward had a grudge. Lee and Davis never had a chance for citizenship.
AS to Davis, he moved to the Mississippi Gulf Coast, accepting the "loan" of a home (Beauvoir, a lovely place to visit) in Biloxi, Ms. where he sat and wrote his memoirs.
Davis never supported the concept of secession. He did own slaves, but that was not too uncommon in the south to a plantation owner in the 1850's. And of course the thought the Confederacy was right. Hell, he was the President for the same four years of hell you state the Union went through. Only thing, when he was forcibly retired, he went home to find his plantation burned, his slaves freed, his wife in ill-health, he was in ill-health, and he had nothing left as the Federal government
CONFISCATED all his lands and properties.
Henry Wise was governor of Virginia when John Brown made his famous raid. He became a brigadier general in the Confederacy. After the war, he was certainly hesitant about taking the Oath of Allegiance, but made his son, John Sergeant Wise take the Oath and told him to follow and uphold it wisely. As he was a pending Traitor, he would not take the oath.
Wise became a leader in Virginia following the war and urged passage of the 13th and 15th Amendments. However, he would remain a non-citizen until his death. It took three years to regain possession of his plantation. The Federal goverment was loathe to return his property to him and it was not until an outbreak of smallpox occurred on the plantation that the Federal government released it. [you would think the IRS had a hand in this, wouldn't you?]
No offense? For what? The fact remains that nobody was tried. An indictment doesn't mean squat. I'll say it again. Regardless of how you look at it, the North was in a no win situation.
Answer this question. You can even use hindsight.What would have happened if anyone brought up for treason was acquitted?
The whole reason for the war would have been negated. After all if there was no treason then states were just exercising their constitutional rights to exercise powers where the Federal government had none.
Bill
You are absolutely right. With a charge (an indictment however is a formal charge. Usually followed by a Court hearing --
Main Entry: in·dict·ment
Pronunciation: in-'dIt-m&nt
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : the action or the legal process of indicting b : the state of being indicted
2 : a formal written statement framed by a prosecuting authority and found by a jury (as a grand jury) charging a person with an offense
3 : an expression of strong disapproval <an>)
Had Lee, Davis, or any Confederate ranking person gone to court, and been acquited, then the right of secession would have been an tacit fact. This is also the reason the Supreme Court of the United States has never sat for discussion on this topic. To rule, they would have to say yeah or nay on the legality, the constitutionality of secession.
No hindsight required. This is just common sense. Your kid breaks a lamp in the house after being warned that he will be punished. You don't punish him. He then considers that breaking a lamp is not a big thing. Next time he breaks one, he will show very little remorse. On the other hand, however, my friend, had you pounded his little butt while reminding him that what he did was a very very bad thing, he would know that breaking lamps is a thing that is not good, ever.
I do not believe that prosecution of the Confederates would have ever happened however. The Bill of Indictment brought against Davis, Lee and Wise was brought in the State of Virginia, by a government that Lincoln had placed in effect following the secession of that state. The Confederate government of Virginia dissolved following the surrender at Appomattox and the psuedo-government of the Union, the same government that had voted to allow Western Virginia to secede from Virginia and form their own state, in violation of the Constitution, voted to indict.
Salmon P. Chase, US Supreme Court, basically refused to hear the case against Davis. And I did make a mistake in an earlier post. There were Bills of Indictment brought up against a total of 37 other Confederate officers. I can present a list if any are interested.
Sorry, I do go on, don't I?
that's it for now. Bill, did I answer your question?
Ron, Bill, has anyone considered that the reason that none of the members of the Confederacy, from Davis, Lee, right on down to the lowest private, were not charged with treason is because of the compassion of Lincoln? "Let 'em up easy." I think the phrase was.
Yes, there were political considerations. I seem to recall that Lincoln stated that if the leaders of the rebellion were trying to sneak out of the country, that the military shouldn't stop or look for them very hard. Your idea of the trouble the hanging of the leaders of the rebellion would cause considerable problems from those loyal soldiers who followed them for 4 years might be considerable.
I guess it isn't fashionable to promote the idea that maybe Lincoln was just trying to heal his country and hold off the hounds of hell in his government who wanted to treat the South as a conquered country so that the healing could commence as soon as possible.
But I'll take the hit on this one and say it just might have been the reason no one was brought up on charges.
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
