Discussion Death of Elmer Ellsworth

James N.

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
11,158
Location
East Texas
#61
… So he was a common murderer whose victim just happened to be a uniformed soldier?
I think this unexplored aspect of the incident deserves a little attention - Ellsworth and all of his men in the 11th New York were New Yorkers, or were at least enrolled in and belonged to a New York militia regiment and had no connection whatsoever with the Regular Army of the United States. At this point in the "war" it could be argued that by invading another sovereign State, even at the behest of the disavowed Federal Government, this was an illegal or at the very lest an extralegal act since nothing like that had ever happened before.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Joshism

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
2,079
Location
Jupiter, FL
#62
I think this unexplored aspect of the incident deserves a little attention - Ellsworth and all of his men in the 11th New York were New Yorkers, or were at least enrolled in and belonged to a New York militia regiment and had no connection whatsoever with the Regular Army of the United States. At this point in the "war" it could be argued that by invading another sovereign State, even at the behest of the disavowed Federal Government, this was an illegal or at the very lest an extralegal act since nothing like that had ever happened before.
Would this legal logic apply to all 90-day regiments?
 

James N.

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
11,158
Location
East Texas
#63
Would this legal logic apply to all 90-day regiments?
I don't know, and that's one reason I mentioned it - this was a unique situation and although we think we have a definite answer in hindsight, AT THE TIME it was probably controversial to say the least.
 

E_just_E

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
6,135
Location
Center Valley, PA
#64
I think this unexplored aspect of the incident deserves a little attention - Ellsworth and all of his men in the 11th New York were New Yorkers, or were at least enrolled in and belonged to a New York militia regiment and had no connection whatsoever with the Regular Army of the United States. At this point in the "war" it could be argued that by invading another sovereign State, even at the behest of the disavowed Federal Government, this was an illegal or at the very lest an extralegal act since nothing like that had ever happened before.
Pretty fair to interpret that since there was not a regular Army of the US and that the NY Militia did not have jurisdiction in VA, this event was among civilians (even a couple were in a militia uniform of another state.) In other words, Ellsworth & Co were off duty.

Which, interestingly, if this logic holds, Ellsworth cannot be treated as the first fallen in the ACW, since he was off duty.

Just a thought.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,550
Location
Midwest
#65
Pretty fair to interpret that since there was not a regular Army of the US and that the NY Militia did not have jurisdiction in VA, this event was among civilians (even a couple were in a militia uniform of another state.) In other words, Ellsworth & Co were off duty...Which, interestingly, if this logic holds, Ellsworth cannot be treated as the first fallen in the ACW, since he was off duty...Just a thought.
Neither was Jim Jackson an on-duty authorized agent of the Confederate government, so it might seem this event was among civilians, but let's be realistic -- in effect NY militia stole a flag in service of the Union and Jim Jackson murdered in service of the Confederacy. Does a technicality change anything?
 



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top