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.
Tory's quest to know the difference Secession vs. Treason -
Dear Tory;
As not to continue the discussion on an inspiration thread; let us start here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by M E Wolf Dear FL_Below;
Clearly obvious, that no where in my response was there the 'politics' --
Treason is defined as:Sedition disloyalty treachery subversion betrayal duplicity. And, you can go further to define the afore listed words defining treachery if one wishes.
Treason does not require politics -- just actions/deeds.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Tory's response:
Dear ME Wolf:
So, you basically define Secession as Treason?
Why, then, was it impossible to get Davis convicted of
this Treason?
If you read the indictments against Davis, they are all pretty damaging...
And yet, he walked free.
I, and most of the country, STILL don't understand.
Thanks,
Tory
=======================================
In response, I believe you are twisting the meaning of secession in the same modus operandi as Beowulf aka FL_Below and or any other aliases he will use in the future--
Secession is defined as a voluntary withdrawl from fellowship, especially from political or religious bodies.
Treason is defined as:Sedition disloyalty treachery subversion betrayal duplicity. And, you can go further to define the afore listed words defining treachery if one wishes.
Now, that the definitions have been established sir, in regard to President Jefferson Davis' having the charges of Treason against him; had nothing to do with Secession. It had more to do with his actions and deeds as a leader of the rebellion against the United States of America.
Where I assume you are mislead, is the word: Sedition, which is defined as: Incitement to rebellion; Agitation; Subversion; Rabble-rousing and or Troublemaking --all which clearly fits the definition of treason.
As to why ex-President Davis was not put to trial for Treason, even though his behavior fit the criteria for it fully; as well as many others--will always remain a source of wonder. However, it was up to the Prosecutor's Office to bring charges up to the courts.
I do not think it was impossible for Davis to be brought up on the charges of Treason. As there were indictments. But, it was in the judicial tract so, the mystery is in that judicial tract as to why they did not put him to trial. It could be due to Davis' health and or mental health status. It could be any number of reasons. It is open to tons of assumptions. But, it is my feeling that the judicial issue was the responsibility for those who lived in that period of time. Not ours today.
What could be a danger, as I see it even now; is to have criminal behavior and consequences twisted into political and or class of people. Whatever the motive for those who attempt and or skew things to suit some need to justify behavior; do little to better the issue.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration, M. E. Wolf
Treason is defined as:Sedition disloyalty treachery subversion betrayal duplicity. And, you can go further to define the afore listed words defining treachery if one wishes.
Actually treason is properly defined for us not by the dictionary but by the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Per a strict interpretation of the Constitution every Confederate official and every man who shouldered a musket for the rebels and a large number of Confederate civilians were guilty of treason for they surely levied war against the United States and/or adhered to its enemies.
All sane men knew that such massive prosecutions would be moral and practical impossibilities. None moreso than Grant... note the wisdom and generousity of the terms he gave Lee at Appomattox.
When it was time to either try Davis or free him, much of the fervor for vengeance had cooled. A long, drawn-out trial could serve only to further divide the country. Although there were still those who wanted to see Davis hung, even they could see that there could be no beneficial outcome to a trial.
Some prefer to believe that the government was afraid it would lose -- that secession or support of same was not treason. (I believe Seward held this view. Or was it Chase?) In any event, no good purpose could be served by trying the man. It was dropped.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
All sane men knew that such massive prosecutions would be moral and practical impossibilities. None moreso than Grant... note the wisdom and generousity of the terms he gave Lee at Appomattox.
And his threat to resign if plans went forward to persecute Lee and other Confederates. He had given his word that, save breaking the law or parole, the U.S. Government would not prosecute Lee or his Command. No one in government at the time could risk taking a swat at General Grant.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
At the end of the war, you see Davis, Breckinridge and many others actually leave the country. They're obviously expecting some retaliation of some sort.
It would seem to me that many Southerners had an easier time getting over the war than many neo-Confederates posting here in 2008.
(Johnston is a pall bearer at Sherman's funeral; Wheeler commands US forces in Cuba)
As not to continue the discussion on an inspiration thread; let us start here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by M E Wolf Dear FL_Below;
Clearly obvious, that no where in my response was there the 'politics' --
Treason is defined as:Sedition disloyalty treachery subversion betrayal duplicity. And, you can go further to define the afore listed words defining treachery if one wishes.
Treason does not require politics -- just actions/deeds.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration, M. E. Wolf
Tory's response:
Dear ME Wolf:
So, you basically define Secession as Treason?
Why, then, was it impossible to get Davis convicted of
this Treason?
If you read the indictments against Davis, they are all pretty damaging...
And yet, he walked free.
I, and most of the country, STILL don't understand.
Thanks,
Tory
=======================================
In response, I believe you are twisting the meaning of secession in the same modus operandi as Beowulf aka FL_Below and or any other aliases he will use in the future--
Secession is defined as a voluntary withdrawl from fellowship, especially from political or religious bodies.
Treason is defined as:Sedition disloyalty treachery subversion betrayal duplicity. And, you can go further to define the afore listed words defining treachery if one wishes.
Now, that the definitions have been established sir, in regard to President Jefferson Davis' having the charges of Treason against him; had nothing to do with Secession. It had more to do with his actions and deeds as a leader of the rebellion against the United States of America.
Where I assume you are mislead, is the word: Sedition, which is defined as: Incitement to rebellion; Agitation; Subversion; Rabble-rousing and or Troublemaking --all which clearly fits the definition of treason.
As to why ex-President Davis was not put to trial for Treason, even though his behavior fit the criteria for it fully; as well as many others--will always remain a source of wonder. However, it was up to the Prosecutor's Office to bring charges up to the courts.
I do not think it was impossible for Davis to be brought up on the charges of Treason. As there were indictments. But, it was in the judicial tract so, the mystery is in that judicial tract as to why they did not put him to trial. It could be due to Davis' health and or mental health status. It could be any number of reasons. It is open to tons of assumptions. But, it is my feeling that the judicial issue was the responsibility for those who lived in that period of time. Not ours today.
What could be a danger, as I see it even now; is to have criminal behavior and consequences twisted into political and or class of people. Whatever the motive for those who attempt and or skew things to suit some need to justify behavior; do little to better the issue.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration, M. E. Wolf
ME Wolf;
Thank you for this new thread.
First off, I too read PURSUIT, the new book about Jefferson Davis' surpising release.
In it, Davis is exonerated from committing treason because the South did not try and
fight the North for land; they merely tried to peacefully leave.
Though they lost the war, they were not traitors, according to this thinking.
The US, however, in their Revolution, did commit Treason against Great Britain, because the land they tried to take did belong to Great Britain.
The grudging acceptance of the US as its own nation may have exonerated the US through combat, but it made Tory Loyalists such as myself the traitors, through association.
Contrast this with the North and South. Neither the North, nor the general (Federal) government owned the South At least, NOT YET. Sumner and Stevens saw them rightfully as captured provinces of a war of conquest.
British troops in the Revolution, however, were merely defending their own colonies against
real Rebels.
At Sumter, the North is at fault for trying to provoke an incident, rather than meeting with the Confederate ambassadors, telling them of the 'error of their ways', and then negotiating a return to the general government.
They not only refused to meet with, and acknowledge the state of South Carolina, (save to inform them of their intention to bring the US military to reinforce Sumter, and to do so one way or the other...) but they also were apparently in violation of an existing armistice not to do so...
So, the firing on Sumter is not Treason, when the US is at fault for not negotiating with a foreign power THAT THEY WILL IN FACT RECOGNIZE AS SUCH DURING prisoner exchanges....
It is a good book, and I recommend it be read...
The reason Davis was not tried for Treason, Murder of the Union POWS, nor the assassination of President Lincoln, was because if Davis was brought to trial for any reason,
the legitimacy of the Confederate government would have to be determined.
And if it would be shown to be legitimate, the North not only loses its case against Davis for Treason, but also is exonerated for Secession, whatever the outcome over the POWS
(Davis had tried in 1864 to have exchanges take place; both sides acknowledge this) or the assassination (The Fed's star wintnesses against Davis for conspiracy to commit assassination against Lincoln were found to be lying newspaper men from the North, who were themselves later arrested for these lies against Davis. Conover was apparently allowed to escape to avoid embarrassing the US government further.This seems a common practice in the Yankee version of the Union government, and was favored by Lincoln for Davis, originally....).
Apparently, the US government did not have the conviction of their charges against Davis, and refused to open that door into legitimizing the Civil War in a court of law.
From what I have read of their activities, I don't blame them, either..
Davis winning an acquittal in court also means the North ethically 'loses' the Civil War...
Tory
Last edited by tory_loyalist; 08-10-2008 at 05:22 PM.
At the end of the war, you see Davis, Breckinridge and many others actually leave the country. They're obviously expecting some retaliation of some sort.
It would seem to me that many Southerners had an easier time getting over the war than many neo-Confederates posting here in 2008.
(Johnston is a pall bearer at Sherman's funeral; Wheeler commands US forces in Cuba)
There is the sense that the WAR IS OVER.
Roger Pryor, Congressman from Virginia and leading Fire-Eater before the war, is a man who fits the US Constitution definition of Treason to a T. At the time of Ft. Sumter he is giving speeches in Charleston to secessionist crowds, urging them to "Strike a Blow!" so that Virginia will leave the Union and join them. Then he serves as a volunteer aide to Beauregard during the actual attack on the fort. While he was doing this, he was still a serving US Congressman and a citizen of the United States.
After the war, Pryor moved to New York and managed to rebuild a career as a lawyer. Eventually, he became chief justice of the highest court in New York state.
Another example: John A. Wyeth, young ex-cavalryman, goes to New York, becomes a famous doctor, and eventually President of the American Medical Association and the the New York Academy of Medicine. He is essentially the father of post-graduate medical education in America. He also becomes famous as a biographer of Nathan Bedford Forrest -- who he rode for while serving the Confederacy.
The country was very forgiving to ex-Confederates as individuals.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I will disagree with your statements as to the North being at fault in attempting to provoke an incident concerning Ft. Sumter. The swirl of issues happened long before Ft. Sumter happened, with the political tug of war in Congress during President Buchanan's term. Both sides met and couldn't find a solution. The "South" made a choice to use violence using stolen US Government property seized; e.g. cannon, ammunition, supplies, weapons, etc.
As I mentioned before; Virginia in secession from the Federal City aka District of Columbia; gave a blueprint to peacefully leave the Federal/Union; which was done in court and peacefully transferedback to Virginia. Not a drop of blood spilled or any invasions made by either side and, most of all--no threats of violence or people making trouble and talk of rebellion.
President Davis was indicted. That stood on its own merit of the courts of that time. It is then subjected to people trying to either vilify Davis or support Davis. As far as I know, far as what I've read--the indictment against Davis remained in place. If there was a desire to try Davis; it would have been done. The reasons why it wasn't carried through is up to assumptions and opinions.
Sir, I won't read Pursuit--I dislike reading anything modern and prefer to read works of an "official" nature where it doesn't read like a personal novel. Anything written by those after the American Civil War is not something I prefer to read, unless it is from veterans of that Civil War.
Everything else is opinion, assumption, manipulation and or wishful thinking.
I will add, if the "Southern" Government didn't have anything to hide--why did President Davis and 'government' order the destruction of their official records? Some survived but, more were destroyed. This was mentioned by General Robert E. Lee, Lee's assistant adjutant-general and ever present Col. Walter H. Taylor who Lee asked to gather documents as to write his memories and the truth of the Confederate side. Lee unable to find documents to support his side of things, did not write further as it was impossible to hold evidence in his hands to prove the Southern Cause.
So--why the Confederacy destroyed a lot of valued records can take their own turns. However; I bank on Lee--if it isn't available as uncontested evidence and or proof--it is hearsay and or subjected to memory, assumptions and or manipulation.
How you write, quoting this book Pursuit; sounds more like a novel of which attempts to justify the "Lost Cause." I rather read what Col. Walter H. Taylor wrote, General Early wrote, General M. Sorrel and General Lee's son - Captain Robert E. Lee and those of the Southern Military History papers which come from the Civil War veterans themselves.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
Roger Pryor, Congressman from Virginia and leading Fire-Eater before the war, is a man who fits the US Constitution definition of Treason to a T. At the time of Ft. Sumter he is giving speeches in Charleston to secessionist crowds, urging them to "Strike a Blow!" so that Virginia will leave the Union and join them. Then he serves as a volunteer aide to Beauregard during the actual attack on the fort. While he was doing this, he was still a serving US Congressman and a citizen of the United States.
After the war, Pryor moved to New York and managed to rebuild a career as a lawyer. Eventually, he became chief justice of the highest court in New York state.
Another example: John A. Wyeth, young ex-cavalryman, goes to New York, becomes a famous doctor, and eventually President of the American Medical Association and the the New York Academy of Medicine. He is essentially the father of post-graduate medical education in America. He also becomes famous as a biographer of Nathan Bedford Forrest -- who he rode for while serving the Confederacy.
The country was very forgiving to ex-Confederates as individuals.
Tim
Tim;
Yes! Pryor is a traitor, then, for having two allegiances... at the same time.
I can see that. By doing things simultaneously...
As to Benedict Arnold, I would have to judge what he actually did at what point, and to whom, before I could assign the term traitor to him. Spies and Scouts always get shot on sight, for TREASON. ESPIONAGE of any sort is exactly that... Pretended allegiance is a treason.
In my way of thinking, as far as states go... NULLIFICATION comes closer to Treason than does Secession!
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Tory's quest to know the difference Secession vs. Treason - 
Linear Mode
