Were Confederate Generals Traitors?

[CMWinkler]

Were Confederate Generals Traitors?

By Walter E. Williams | June 27, 2017 | 8:37 AM EDT



Expired Image Removed
At the 150th anniversary of the Civil War's Battle of Chancellorsville, a Confederate re-enactor issues orders to troops to get them into position during the re-enactment of Maj. Gen. Stonewall Jackson's flank attack against the Union XI Corps. (DOD Photo/Sgt. 1st Class Raymond J. Piper, Soldiers Live)
My "Rewriting American History" column of a fortnight ago, about the dismantling of Confederate monuments, generated considerable mail.

Some argued there should not be statues honoring traitors such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, who fought against the Union. Victors of wars get to write the history, and the history they write often does not reflect the facts. Let's look at some of the facts and ask: Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can't label Confederate generals as traitors.

More: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/were-confederate-generals-traitors#disqus_thread

 

[wausaubob]

Reading this debate in 2017 makes me wonder how many people died violently, or from siege induced malnutrition, so that Confederate President Jefferson Davis never had to admit that the Confederacy had lost, with the possibility retained that he could make his constitutional argument that any state could succeed at any time for any subjectively sufficient reason?
It would have been good if he had those arguments in a Court as the sublime ridiculous nature of the farce would have been wonderful.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

You may be in violation of some other statute.

I would imagine. What I can't imagine is that federal authorities would have allowed such kind of aid if they could have stopped it in process. After the fact, they would have to have convicted nearly the entire population of the South of treason, if merely "aiding and abetting" met the standard. So whatever its legal merits, Field's interpretation of Article III may have been a practical necessity.

 

[jgoodguy]

I did notice, but surely you do not think the Confederate generals are mere widder woman.
Who are the "enemies" these people are "adhering to" if not the army? And are you suggesting the generals only "indirectly" "participated in the late insurrection or rebellion"?

And I did include the supreme court case that talked at length on this pardon and can help clarify

"The pardon produced by the petitioner is a full pardon 'for all offences by him committed, arising from participation, direct or implied, in the Rebellion,' and is subject to certain conditions which have been complied with. The effect of this pardon is to relieve the petitioner from all penalties and disabilities attached to the offence of treason, committed by his participation in the Rebellion."

plus any thing else regarding the late unpleasantness.

 

[jgoodguy]

What if you buy a thousand muskets and hand them to a thousand sons on their way to war with the US? Are you actually "in the clear," or just not guilty of treason?

If you are not a US citizen and not in the sovereignty of the US you are in the clear.
If you are not in the soverign territory of the US you are in the clear.
If there is no state of war, you may be in the clear regardless.
A foreigner is likely not guilty unless caught and then up to the prosecutor.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

If you are not a US citizen and not in the sovereignty of the US you are in the clear.
If you are not in the sovereign territory of the US you are in the clear.
If there is no state of war, you may be in the clear regardless.
A foreigner is likely not guilty unless caught and then up to the prosecutor.

Interesting. I guess that's why the Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage, but not treason.

 

[jgoodguy]

Interesting. I guess that's why the Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage, but not treason.

Agree. Espionage and related offenses are easier to prove and carry as heavy penalty. A sidestepping of Constitutional prohibitions IMHO.

 

[suzenatale]

The only person executed for treason during the Civil War was a civilian William Bruce Mumford whose offense was tearing down a US flag and getting caught. Pretty much a rather strange legal proceeding more of the drumhead variety than normal legal.

Arnold was a spy and military officer, so the legal proceedings were minimal, but according to wiki

The Richmond Campaign

Not so much treason but humiliation.

Like most unindicted co-conspirator traitors, Arnold died well off and in bed.

Thats quite a charge agaist Washington there. That he would have a captured enemy officer hung merely because he felt humiliated by a loss.

 

[jgoodguy]

Thats quite a charge agaist Washington there. That he would have a captured enemy officer hung merely because he felt humiliated by a loss.

Shows up in several places, but not sure if each is copying the other.

 

[cash]

I would imagine. What I can't imagine is that federal authorities would have allowed such kind of aid if they could have stopped it in process. After the fact, they would have to have convicted nearly the entire population of the South of treason, if merely "aiding and abetting" met the standard. So whatever its legal merits, Field's interpretation of Article III may have been a practical necessity.

By the way, I found the answer to this. You would be convicted under Section 2 of the Congressional Act of July 17 1862. The link goes to the correct page.

 

[wausaubob]

The traditional Civil War history attributes secession to broad differences between the sections, based largely on slavery, which led to divisions in the population. This is probably misleading. Individual people, from 1852-1860, deliberately planned secession. They made the War Department an enclave of southern sympathizers. Those people, and Jefferson Davis was one of them, had secession in their minds for a long time. Those people were traitors.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

By the way, I found the answer to this. You would be convicted under Section 2 of the Congressional Act of July 17 1862. The link goes to the correct page.

So it may have taken over a year from the start of the rebellion to plug that legal hole. Surprising.

 

[cash]

So it may have taken over a year from the start of the rebellion to plug that legal hole. Surprising.

There may be another statute applicable as well.

 

[Stuey]

I find this discussion interesting for current times. Right now, many in the state of California are calling for secession from the USA and there is even a petition going to do so. Are the people who sign this petition committing treason? If CA actually secedes is everyone in that state then considered a traitor, or it is just the politicians who voted to secede? If secession isn't lawful, as some in this thread have stated, then why is CA even discussing the matter?

 

[cash]

I find this discussion interesting for current times. Right now, many in the state of California are calling for secession from the USA and there is even a petition going to do so. Are the people who sign this petition committing treason? If CA actually secedes is everyone in that state then considered a traitor, or it is just the politicians who voted to secede? If secession isn't lawful, as some in this thread have stated, then why is CA even discussing the matter?

Unilateral secession is not lawful, but the act itself is not treason. Levying war against the United States is treason. If California wishes to secede and petitions the US Congress for permission, and if that permission is granted, then the secession would be legal.

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

Yep

 

[Stuey]

Unilateral secession is not lawful, but the act itself is not treason. Levying war against the United States is treason. If California wishes to secede and petitions the US Congress for permission, and if that permission is granted, then the secession would be legal.

Thanks for the response.
The distinction between being unlawful and treason makes sense.
I never considered that a state could petition the US Congress for permission to secede. So it is of your belief that secession is legal if permission is given by Congress. Too bad that didn't occur in 1861, could have saved a lot of lives and destruction.

Personally, I think if any states wants to secede and citizens of that state vote to secede, they should be allowed to.

Just for the fun of thought, if CA did secede, I wonder if they would have a military alliance with the USA? If not, I wonder how they would defend themselves from an invasion by Mexico or China or maybe even Russia.

 

[cash]

Thanks for the response.
The distinction between being unlawful and treason makes sense.
I never considered that a state could petition the US Congress for permission to secede. So it is of your belief that secession is legal if permission is given by Congress. Too bad that didn't occur in 1861, could have saved a lot of lives and destruction.

Personally, I think if any states wants to secede and citizens of that state vote to secede, they should be allowed to.

Just for the fun of thought, if CA did secede, I wonder if they would have a military alliance with the USA? If not, I wonder how they would defend themselves from an invasion by Mexico or China or maybe even Russia.

It won't happen, so not really worth spending too many brain cells thinking about it.

 

[Schwallanscher]

Thanks for the response.
The distinction between being unlawful and treason makes sense.
I never considered that a state could petition the US Congress for permission to secede. So it is of your belief that secession is legal if permission is given by Congress. Too bad that didn't occur in 1861, could have saved a lot of lives and destruction.

Personally, I think if any states wants to secede and citizens of that state vote to secede, they should be allowed to.

Just for the fun of thought, if CA did secede, I wonder if they would have a military alliance with the USA? If not, I wonder how they would defend themselves from an invasion by Mexico or China or maybe even Russia.

china? russia? how about arizona, nevada or oregon?

 

[atlantis]

Confederate generals could only be considered traitors if they had a active US commission in the military and did not resign before entering Confederate service.

 

[cash]

Confederate generals could only be considered traitors if they had a active US commission in the military and did not resign before entering Confederate service.

Not true.

Because unilateral secession was not a legal action, they all remained citizens of the United States and owed allegiance to the United States. Any person who owes allegiance to the United States and levies war against the United States commits treason against the United States.