Grant Grant's Power

[wausaubob]

At the end of the war General Grant was determined to treat the surrender of the Confederate armies as a purely military army. The political fiction that the war was between two national belligerents, which had prevented the war from turning into a hanging contest, was going to be continued. The natural fear of Robert E. Lee and other officers that had once held commissions in the US army that they would be treated as traitors, was abated. That put Grant and his prestige as the winning general in the gruesome Civil War between any threats of prosecution and of officers and soldiers who had fought in uniform and under the discipline of officers.
My memory is that Grant did not think that protection extended to the civilians who formed and ran the Confederate government. The issue of how they should be treated was beyond his control. But the formula adopted by Grant, with a subtle understanding of what President Lincoln wanted, worked. Once the armies surrendered, the Confederacy ceased to exist.

 

[Saint Jude]

The natural fear of Robert E. Lee and other officers that had once held commissions in the US army that they would be treated as traitors, was abated.

Why was their fear "natural"? Did any of them believe that they fit the definition of a "traitor"? That would be an interesting study.

 

[thomas aagaard]

The natural fear of Robert E. Lee and other officers that had once held commissions in the US army that they would be treated as traitors, was abated.

Why was their fear "natural"? Did any of them believe that they fit the definition of a "traitor"? That would be an interesting study.

It is pretty obviously that if you consider the war a rebellion, and the federal government did.
Then everyone involved fits within the "levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." definition.

So every csa soldier should have a fear about legal consequences at the end of the war.

The fact that many of them considered session legal and such the war a war between to sovereign states really is irrelevant since the csa lost.

 

[JerryD]

The natural fear of Robert E. Lee and other officers that had once held commissions in the US army that they would be treated as traitors, was abated.

Why was their fear "natural"? Did any of them believe that they fit the definition of a "traitor"? That would be an interesting study.

Given that many fled the country to avoid prosecution, I would say the answer is yes.

Definition of traitor is a citizen who either wages war on the US or aids and abets an enemy of the US. Hard to argue they did not do that. Only real defense was that they were no longer citizens since they were citizens of the CSA. Since the CSA was never recognized as a valid state by anyone, that defense is not, IMO, plausible. It would be different, of course, if the CSA had actually won.

Bottom line, though, is that the policy of reconciliation was eminently wise and in the best interests of all.

 

[uaskme]

OP titled Grants Power. Context recognizes that Grant was following Lincoln's wishes. So, whose power was it anyway?

Claiming the War as a Rebellion is relenting to the Federals perspective. Issue still debated whether secession was legal or not. Lincoln clearly had a different perspective in 1848 than he did latter in the 50s. Also definition of the Declaration of Independence comes into play. If this is still argued today. Perspective in 1860 had to of been different than perceived today. One thing for certain. Politics hasn't changed.

 

[JerryD]

OP titled Grants Power. Context recognizes that Grant was following Lincoln's wishes. So, whose power was it anyway?

Claiming the War as a Rebellion is relenting to the Federals perspective. Issue still debated whether secession was legal or not. Lincoln clearly had a different perspective in 1848 than he did latter in the 50s. Also definition of the Declaration of Independence comes into play. If this is still argued today. Perspective in 1860 had to of been different than perceived today. One thing for certain. Politics hasn't changed.

View attachment 555421

You do realize, I assume, that our Founding Fathers knew when they issued the Declaration of Independence that they were committing treason. And if they had lost, they likely would have been hanged. Franklin's famous quote is applicable, when he said "We had better all hang together, or we will surely hang separately". The Declaration of Independence does NOT stand for the concept that any people anywhere can legally throw off their government, and if they fail, all is forgiven. LOL.... It expresses the right of revolution, and if your revolution fails, then you must face the consequences and pray for mercy. Which thankfully, was granted in the ACW.

 

[wausaubob]

It is pretty obviously that if you consider the war a rebellion, and the federal government did.
Then everyone involved fits within the "levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." definition.

So every csa soldier should have a fear about legal consequences at the end of the war.

The fact that many of them considered session legal and such the war a war between to sovereign states really is irrelevant since the csa lost.tnhe

The Confederate officers probably knew some English history. English commentators might write about how civil wars in England had ended for the losing side.

 

[uaskme]

You do realize, I assume, that our Founding Fathers knew when they issued the Declaration of Independence that they were committing treason. And if they had lost, they likely would have been hanged. Franklin's famous quote is applicable, when he said "We had better all hang together, or we will surely hang separately". The Declaration of Independence does NOT stand for the concept that any people anywhere can legally throw off their government, and if they fail, all is forgiven. LOL.... It expresses the right of revolution, and if your revolution fails, then you must face the consequences and pray for mercy. Which thankfully, was granted in the ACW.

DOI recognized the right of revolution. And yes it was the apparatus the Founders used against England. Founders believed in it. No evidence they excluded it from the Constitution. Still being argued. Certainly argued in 1860. Also evidence the North flirted with it numerous times when they were in the Minority. Lincoln also recognized the Right of Revolution January 1858 in his speech about Mexico. Here is the full context. He also seceded West VA from VA. He quoted that this was an unusual 1 off. And it should not be viewed as setting a legal standard. Guess he had SPECIAL powers? He certainly wasn't going to hang anybody. Think he was going to leave that up to Grant? So, Confederates being legally charged with Secession wasn't clear. Good reason they weren't charged. Maybe England would have hung the Patriots. Don't mean the Patriots would hang each outher. Sorry, this is probably over you head.


Various reasons Confederates weren't charged with Treason. Had little to do with Grant. Again trying to Elevate Grant over Lincoln.

 

[JerryD]

DOI recognized the right of revolution. And yes it was the apparatus the Founders used against England. Founders believed in it. No evidence they excluded it from the Constitution. Still being argued. Certainly argued in 1860. Also evidence the North flirted with it numerous times when they were in the Minority. Lincoln also recognized the Right of Revolution January 1858 in his speech about Mexico. Here is the full context. He also seceded West VA from VA. He quoted that this was an unusual 1 off. And it should not be viewed as setting a legal standard. Guess he had SPECIAL powers? He certainly wasn't going to hang anybody. Think he was going to leave that up to Grant? So, Confederates being legally charged with Secession wasn't clear. Good reason they weren't charged. Maybe England would have hung the Patriots. Don't mean the Patriots would hang each outher. Sorry, this is probably over you head.


Various reasons Confederates weren't charged with Treason. Had little to do with Grant. Again trying to Elevate Grant over Lincoln.

View attachment 555517

As a lawyer, let me assure you that the Declaration of Independence is NOT in the Constitution. Its laughable to even imply it is. They are two totally different documents, and the Declaration does NOT carry the force of law. It reflect natural law sentiments, whereas the Constitution is man made statutory law. Two completely different things. So yes, the southern states had the right to revolt if the felt they were being abused, but that is not a right under the Constitution, and it does not mean what they did was legal. It was treason, just like the Founding Fathers were committing treason. But at least our Founding Fathers admitted it.

 

[Belfoured]

As a lawyer, let me assure you that the Declaration of Independence is NOT in the Constitution. Its laughable to even imply it is. They are two totally different documents, and the Declaration does NOT carry the force of law. It reflect natural law sentiments, whereas the Constitution is man made statutory law. Two completely different things. So yes, the southern states had the right to revolt if the felt they were being abused, but that is not a right under the Constitution, and it does not mean what they did was legal. It was treason, just like the Founding Fathers were committing treason. But at least our Founding Fathers admitted it.

The colonists were British subjects and citizens. Anybody can do a fan dance round that but the actions they took were treason against Britain and the Crown. As you point out, they knew it and to their credit admitted it. And, as you also point out, the DOI had nothing to do with the Constitution.

 

[huskerblitz]

As a lawyer, let me assure you that the Declaration of Independence is NOT in the Constitution.

As a teacher, let me assure you you don't have to be a lawyer to know this. Pretty standard stuff.

 

[Belfoured]

As a teacher, let me assure you you don't have to be a lawyer to know this. Pretty standard stuff.

And if it were basic to the Constitution I'll wager that we can think of a few clauses in the latter that would have been "problematical" ...

 

[huskerblitz]

And if it were basic to the Constitution I'll wager that we can think of a few clauses in the latter that would have been "problematical" ...

Sure. One thing that annoys me is the repurposing of historical documents to extend their meaning. From the Bible, to the Declaration, the Emancipation, the Gettysburg Address, etc. All were written for the time, and audience, of its time. Period.

 

[Louisiana Jayhawker]

Kirby Smith and others immediately fled the United States, for maybe Mexico. They certainly knew and fully expected to be arrest/prosecuted/and likely hung on the gallows for treason. It is most correct assumption on their part, but the Yankee government fell into the hands of conservatives and arch conservatives, and they allowed the traitorous reactionary successionists to escape punishment, but also to be promoted back into mainstream America, causing much mischief and harm for decades to democracy.

 

[archieclement]

You do realize, I assume, that our Founding Fathers knew when they issued the Declaration of Independence that they were committing treason. And if they had lost, they likely would have been hanged. Franklin's famous quote is applicable, when he said "We had better all hang together, or we will surely hang separately". The Declaration of Independence does NOT stand for the concept that any people anywhere can legally throw off their government, and if they fail, all is forgiven. LOL.... It expresses the right of revolution, and if your revolution fails, then you must face the consequences and pray for mercy. Which thankfully, was granted in the ACW.

Indeed the point then is treason isn't inheritly bad.

Certainly it always struck me not all that surprising that a country founded on revolution and treason just a generation before, might be a little forgiving on the concept of revolution and treason.

 

[huskerblitz]

Kirby Smith and others immediately fled the United States, for maybe Mexico. They certainly knew and fully expected to be arrest/prosecuted/and likely hung on the gallows for treason. It is most correct assumption on their part, but the Yankee government fell into the hands of conservatives and arch conservatives, and they allowed the traitorous reactionary successionists to escape punishment, but also to be promoted back into mainstream America, causing much mischief and harm for decades to democracy.

That would be an oxymoron. Yes, the moderate Republicans did allow the Southerners to come back into the mainstream. But that's not injurious to democracy, it's practicing it. If those Southerners are once again citizens and members then their voice HAD to be heard in government. Rule of the people is how democracy works.

Now, if the argument is WHAT they did while having power back was good or bad for the country, that certainly can be argued, and should be scrutinized. But that is democracy in action.

 

[Belfoured]

Indeed the point then is treason isn't inheritly bad.

Certainly it always struck me not all that surprising that a country founded on revolution and treason just a generation before, might be a little forgiving on the concept of revolution and treason.

Treason against the United States is inherently bad. In my opinion, of course. Presumably, that's why the Constitution has Article III, Section 3. It doesn't contain a 'little forgiving" clause.

 

[archieclement]

Treason against the United States is inherently bad. In my opinion, of course. Presumably, that's why the Constitution has Article III, Section 3. It doesn't contain a 'little forgiving" clause.

Well obviously majority of 11 states disagreed as to inheritly bad, as well two US president's pursued forgiveness, and the rather relevant ones.

Treason against US wouldn't be any different then treason to UK. Unless simply suggesting might somehow always equal right.

I'd agree victors write history, why we celebrate treason as we were founded on it..as well traditionally have certainly somewhat embraced rebels, even today some rather embrace defying Federal law and authority.

 

[damYankee]

Did the leaders of the rebellion ever make this level of commitment to their cause?

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Or did they just pledge other peoples lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the cause?

As to the OP, I think there is enough evidence through the letters and communications between Lincoln and his cabinet members and Grant that Lincoln desired and Grant agreed, that the priority was putting the nation back together. To that end, allowing former Confederate soldiers to return home without the fear of legal prosecution hanging over their heads was crucial.
If prosecution was on the table the incentive would have been to continue the fight.
The nation both North and South was weary and broken.

 

[Belfoured]

Well obviously majority of 11 states disagreed as to inheritly bad, as well two US president's pursued forgiveness, and the rather relevant ones.

Treason against US wouldn't be any different then treason to UK. Unless simply suggesting might somehow always equal right.

I'd agree victors write history, why we celebrate treason as we were founded on it..as well traditionally have certainly somewhat embraced rebels, even today some rather embrace defying Federal law and authority.

"Treason against US wouldn't be any different then treason to UK."

Except for this minor difference: as a citizen of the United States I care about treason against the United States. I couldn't care less about treason against the UK, France, Brazil, etc etc etc. But I certainly respect your right to hold the opinion that it is no different.