Jeff Davis a Traitor? BUNK!

[oldreb]

A month ago, Frank wrote in response to a comment I had made about Jeff Davis committing treasonous acts:

"You also asked if Jefferson Davis commit treasonous acts... Obviously he did- whether you agree with the southern cause or not- seceding from the Union, Firing on Fort Sumpter, siezing forts, armouries and most other government property before the Firing on Fort Sumpter are treasonous acts... They , Of course, had to be dealt with... I sure you would have been very suprised if Lincoln said, "let them have it" without a fight... "

Frank, Jeff Davis never authorized the secession of southern states. As a matter of fact, Davis actually opposed secession as a choice to resolve the differences between north and south. Nor did he authorize the seizure of any federal properties because this was accomplished before most of the states even seceded, meaning Davis had not been selected as President of the CSA yet.

As for Sumter, Lincoln assured the CSA government a number of times that he would not attempt to reinforce the garrison, that he intended to resupply only using unarmed supply ships, etc. and then Mr. Lincoln sent WAR SHIPS (the Pocahontas, the Pawnee, the Hariett Lane) to attempt to enter Charleston Harbor. For two long hard weeks, the CSA government, the governor of South Carolina and the commander of the garrison at Charleston had done everything they could to get Major Anderson to leave the fort. He refused as Lincoln was assuring him (Anderson) daily by telegraph that he would be resupplied AND REINFORCED (telegram of April 4, urging Anderson to "hold out").

By the end of March, 1861, Lincoln had already decided to reinforce Sumter and Pickens. Seward urged Lincoln to quit preaching abolition and preach unification. Both Lincoln and Seward knew any action taken must be taken by the South or the dissatisfied north would not support the war. As early as April 8, Lincoln had informed the governor of PA what he intended at Fort Sumter and what he anticipated the garrison at Charleston would do. He knew his actions would lead to the firing on Fort Sumter or the warships. Either way, Lincoln would get the action he needed to unify the North, which was fractioned over secession, with a majority not giving a tinker's **** about the Southern States leaving.

No sir, Jeff Davis did order Beauregard not to allow the reinforcing of Sumter, and after learning that Lincoln refused to recognize the Confederacy, he did order the reduction of Sumter, but sir, he was no longer a citizen of the United States as he had thrown his hat in with the Confederacy.

He was no more treasonous to the US than any other officer or common soldier in the military who chose to forsake their soldierly oaths and take up the butternut and gray. And with the exception of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, these men (the survivors) were all gladly and happily taken BACK into the Army following the war. Many would go on to recieve recognition and fame in the Spanish American War. Mssrs Davis and Lee would not regain their citizen ship in the United States for over 100 years.

Of course, when you are the victor, you can not only write the history, you can make the rules. Mississippi discovered that small fact when the elected Governor of the State was turned out of office at Bayonet point by the Federal government following the war.

My best, sir
and have a wonderful weekend.

BTW - The US Soccer team lost to Germany this a.m. while I was writing this 1 - 0. I am distraught.

Oldreb

[tamaroa]

Just a point about oaths if I may. I may be wrong but then again maybe I'm not. If anyone wants to jump in here and correct or side with me please feel free to do so.

Lets start with this. Until the summer of 1861, when a West Point cadet was sworn in he swore fealty to his STATE not the FEDERAL government.Secondly, if you resigned your commission and it was accepted, I do not believe you are bound by that oath.

I base this supposition on two things: one being the fact that no other citizen is BOUND to take an oath to preserve the Union, etc. Only the military or FEDERAL Officers of a certain grade are required to take an oath. The other being this. I took the oath when I enlisted in the Coast Guard about a trillion years ago. When I was in (can't speak about now, but then) after your initial term of enlistment was up, if you either reenlisted or extended your original enlistment, you had to take the oath again to cover that time period past your initial enlistment.

That happened at one of my duty stations to a fellow who extended his enlistment for a year. After a couple of months somebody realized that he did not take the oath again and it was duly administered by the C.O. of the station. Therefore it follows that once you leave Federal service, you are not bound by a previous oath.

You might be prone to consider that a man is a traitor MORALLY. But from what I have seen and heard and read. As long as a resignation was tendered, received and approved, there was nothing illegal or traitorous about the act of resigning and fighting for the Confederacy. Anybody care to comment?

Regards,

Bill



(Message edited by tamaroa on June 21, 2002)

[aggie80]

The Officer's Oath is re-administered at every promotion. When it is re-administered, every officer present is expected to stand and join in the re-affirmation.

Once one has resigned, you are no longer bound by the oath. HOWEVER, knowledge of classified information and the obligation not to reveal it continues to be binding regardless of how long a time you have been out or how long you have been out from under the oath.

Note that most government officials, civil servant positions and veterans' organizations continue to require an oath that includes protecting the United States and the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

(Message edited by aggie80 on June 21, 2002)

[blackirish]

This part of the Constitution was debated in some detail on August 20, 1787 in the Constitutional Convention. The first draft defined treason as follows:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against the United States, or any of them; and in adhering to the enemies of the United States, or any of them. The Legislature of the United States shall power to declare the punishment of treason. No person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses. No attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, nor forfeiture, except during the life of the persons attainted.

This was discussed in the Convention at large in some detail. It was considered somewhat ambigous in several ways. In the first place it did not define a distinction clearly between Treason against a particular state and Treason against the United States. Was this one crime or two? If two, which Legislature would have primary control of punishing such an act?
The point was also made by several members that it would be possible and even probable that Treason might be committed against the United States by members of a particular State in a contest between the two; and in such cases people MUST neccessarily be traitors to one or the other. As the Convention was entrusted with adopting a document for the United States government it was thought that this provision should be aimed at cases of treason against the United States government and not the respective State governments.
For these reasons, the clause was modified to the form in which we find it today:

Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Obviously, since Jefferson Davis was neither convicted or tried for treason under this clause of the Constitution, it would in error to claim that he was in fact guilty of treason for his acts committed during the war. However, bearing in mind the discussions in the Constitutional Convention concerning how to define treason it seems highly likely that he would have been had the US Government been so inclined.
Why was this never attempted? It seems by this definition of treason " levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" there were a considerable number of southerners who would have had to have been tried as well in order to be equitable and even the most Radical of the Republicans realized this was both impossible and detrimental to the country.

blackirish

[tamaroa]

"Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Rick I find section 3 quite interesting, don't you? To me it signifies that state's rights was still paramount because of the use of the personal pronoun "Them" or "their". "Them implies that the states are still separate, does it not?

Thus the door is left ajar as to the status of the states within this constitution. If "Them" had been changed to "it", what would the results have been? It goes back to an earlier post I made demonstrating that the West Point Cadets swore fealty to the State from which they came, NOT the United States.

[blackirish]

Bill,
I don't think that it implies the states to be sovereign at all. As in many cases in the Constitution "them" or "they" refers to "the people of the United States" as this is who was required to ratify the document. There is considerable discussion over this in the Convention as well. The reason for the Constitutional Convention in the first place was that the Articles of Confederation did not give the Federal Government the power to enforce its rulings over the states. The states would simply ignore any such action that they didn't care for and as a result, the country was on the verge of political and economic collapse. The whole convention was in agreement on this point. Note the following three resolutions that were adopted at the very start of the Convention:
RESOLVED,
1) that a Union of the States merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the Articles of Confederation, namely common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare
2) that no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient
3) that a national government ought to be established consisting of a SUPREME Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary

The idea that the states were to be sovereign to the Federal government had died with the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

blackirish

[tamaroa]

Rick, the people did not ratify the constitution, their representatives did.Is that correct or not. "Them" refers to the state, I believe. And I am sorry, but I cannot get away from the fact that the oaths were sworn to the STATE and not the the USA. Was that an oversight or was it intentional?

If you swore fealty to the state over the country how could "the idea that the states were to be sovereign to the Federal government had died with the failure of the Articles of Confederation." be an accurate statement? When you swore to that pre-1861 oath, what were you protecting? Were you protecting the STATE, the USA, the Constitution or a combination of all three? Why did they wait til the summer of 1861 to change the oath to swear fealty to the US?

[blackirish]

Bill,
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Notice the wording of the requirement. "Conventions of nine states." It does not say "nine state legislatures" or simply "nine states" because the source of the authority is the "people of the states". From the Federalist #39 by Madison:

On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose, but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State,--the authority of the people themselves.

As for the oaths you refer to, the plain and simple fact is that I don't know. I am not familiar enough with them to make any kind of qualified answer to your question.
The basic reason for the calling of the Constitutional Convention was that the Articles of Confederation were a failure at providing the security that they were intended to provide. The delegates to the convention were convinced by experience that a central government strong enough to require the States common cooperation was a neccessity. Obviously, the line between powers of the federal government and powers of the state government was in contention before during and after this convention. However, it is obvious from the notes on the convention itself, that the delegates understood and approved of the notion that the states must give up the idea of total sovereignty. I have a copy of the letter sent out with the Constitution somewhere that I will attempt to relocate and post.

blackirish

[blackirish]

Bill,
Ok, I found it. Below is an excerpt from the letter that explains the feelings of the delegates much better than I can:

It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these States to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all- Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on the situation and circumstances, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as the their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

In all our deliberations in this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the Convention to be less rigid on the points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.

That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not perhaps to be expected; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.

I have a book entitled "Notes of the Debate in the Federal Convention of 1787" written by James Madison that is most enlightening. It follows the debates on the Constitution from start to finish and is a model for compromise of individual interests for the betterment of the whole. I would highly recommend this book for anyone interested in how the Constitution came to be written.

blackirish

[tamaroa]

Rick,

I was a history major when I graduated from Roanoke College in 1974. Much of what you just quoted is climbing out of the deep recesses in my mind. I do concur with the statements you made about the Constitution and its adoption over the Articles of Confederation with strong federal government over states rights.

One only has to look at Davis' difficulties with Georgia which nearly seceded from the Confederacy. And, also North Carolina which had an over-abundant supply of uniforms, yet refused to distribute them to the needier states. The support of States Rights, definitely contributed to the loss of the war.

I am going to try to do some research on it though my time is limited. If anyone out there can explain the origin of the oath of allegiance, who authored it and why fealty was sworn to the state, I would really appreciate it. For the life of me I cannot understand why such an oath would be administered when it is the Union, the Officer corps served and not the state. That is unless it was some sort of twisted way to either please the south or recognize the fact that the cadets were appointed by people from the state in which they resided, except in Pickett's case when Lincoln actually sponsored him.

Bill

[oldreb]

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?

[blackirish]

"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.

blackirish

[blackirish]

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.

blackirish

[oldreb]

Rick, a most excellent posting. Thank you for this bit of history.
best regards
Oldreb

[terchris]

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>!!!!

(Message edited by terchris on June 24, 2002)

[tamaroa]

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.

TTFN

Bill


(Message edited by tamaroa on June 24, 2002)

[oldreb]

Bill, Bill, Bill...

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?]

OK - that's enough for now.

My best to you all, and Bill, no offense, ok?

[tamaroa]

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

[oldreb]

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&amp;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?

See ya'll up the road,
best regards
oldreb

[unionblue]

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.

[oldreb]

Neil, I disagree for this reason. Lincoln was dead 5 days after the surrender of Lee. He could not "let em up easy" as 6 of his peers was letting him down easy and then throwing dirt in his face.

Reconstruction took 11 years. During that time, for seven years every Confederate was disenfranchised, while the newly freed, mostly illiterate black male was given the vote, given lands that had belonged to their former masters, and the only reason that the Confederates were not tried is Seward, Stanton, and the other evil cronies of HARD RECONSTRUCTION did not want the issue of the legality of secession tried in the courts (e.g., by trying the Confederates as traitors, the issue of secession would have arisen, therefore the trial would have turned to the rights of the states to secede, which the Republican party could not tolerate.)

Therefore, this argument is like a sieve, it don't hold water.

my best, my dear old friend,
Old Reb

[unionblue]

Ron, just can't give "that man" a break can you?

So, when President Lincoln talked to General Grant right after the fall of Richmond about how to handle upcoming possible surrenders of Rebel forces, that phrase, "let 'em up easy" had no impact on how Grant granted or made up surrender terms. That Sherman gave Lincoln no mind when he too negotiated with a defeated and helpless enemy and gave them terms so generous that the War Department tried to reverse them until Sherman told them to go to hell. That Lincoln's second inaugural address where he says, "let us bind up the nation's wounds" were not directed also to his now reunited countrymen of the south.

It's just too **** bad the man was 'let down easy' as perhaps reconstruction under Lincoln might have let the South up a bit more 'easy'.

Guess we'll both just have to be satisfied with the result of his death and the fact of a brutal reconstruction period for the South.

[oldreb]

Not denying that Lincoln's plan of reconstruction was better and his concept of letting "us" up easier was infinitely better. What I am saying is, plan and up front, the Federal government decided that just defeating us on the battle field was not punishment enough. The South had to feel true retribution. And 11 years of having martial law declared on your state was a good start.

As a factoid, did any one reading these posts know that in the State of Mississippi, in the year 2002, that any law that affects voting in the state, passed by the Congress of that state, and signed by the governor of that state automatically goes directly to the US Supreme Court for a hearing before it can become a law?

truth...

best regards
old reb

[jgallagher109]

Ok, you know old reb that I normally just watch from behind the rocks, but you've got to elaborate on that voting law factoid! How did this become so? Do you mean even, say, a redistricting bill would automatically go to the USSC? That seems absurd!

Jim

[oldreb]

Jim,
Following the passage of the Jim Crow laws in Mississippi (Alabama, Georgia and Lousiana) in the late 1800's, laws which basically placed such restrictions as requiring voters to be able to read and write, understand the ballots (remember Florida, 2000?), etc., the Federal government determined that Mississippi was still failing at Reconstruction. With that in mind, a law was passed, I wish I knew which of the US codes it is, which requires that in Mississippi, when a law passes its elected representatives, that affects voting, including redistricting, it must undergo US Supreme Court review, because it would end up there anyway, based on today's liberal interpretation of minority rule.

That law is still in effect.

oldreb