Grant Grant's Power

[Belfoured]

The colonies provided provincial troops and militias such as the Pennsylvania Home Guard, which were required to provided their own food, uniforms and arms, this was the norm going back to the King Phillips War, Queen Anne's War etc. etc,
So it wasn't like a free ride for the colonist.

Agreed. Massachusetts, for example, supplied several thousand provincial troops for campaigning under British command. While they were armed and supplied at some point by the Crown IIRC, they were paid and clothed by the colony. In addition to garrison duties, they served in multiple expeditions under Abercrombie in upstate New York and in Quebec under Wolfe. As for local protection of the Colony that was left to the militia. They were a "freebie" for the Crown.

 

[Saint Jude]

Speaking of treason, I found this letter to O.O. Howard from a former member of his West Point Bible study class very interesting, if very sad.

Nashville, Tenn
May 16, 1861

My Beloved friend,
I almost fear, in these times of espionage & scrutiny, to even write you a sad, sad, parting good-bye, for in severing my connection with the Federal Army, I feel that I am separating from many true & devoted friends. I fear to write, as stated, lest I should compromise you, one whom I so much love & revere, as holding communication with a traitor, as will no doubt be my title at the North, but the Lord only, can decide that.

In taking the course I have, I have one consolation which affords me great comfort —viz: of having been sincere in my action, & performed what I believed to be my conscientious duty— & having reduced it that, I feel that it is alone between my God & me, as stated in my letter, forwarding my resignation.

Dear Howard, to what are we coming? Are we all to be butchered? Have the people North & South forgotten God, in their madness, & has He made them mad that they might destroy themselves? God forbid, but surely it looks very much that way.
As for the administration, I am convinced that it intends war against the South, & for what? To gratify the ambition of Lincoln's advisers, not for love of the Union, because he could have said that long since. So long as I could hope that Lincoln only intended to sustain the Capital off on all invasion of Federal Rights, I remained in the Army, but when I became convinced that he intended invading the South, I left. I cannot help sustain that Government which in cold blood murders my Brothers, Sisters & Mothers, that it may be sustained. Such a Government is not worthy of preservation; i.e., such leaders are not worthy to be sustained. It is no love for the Union that actuates such a course; tis only for gain of name & power & wealth. This reason is the strong bond. But you must understand me. I do not include the entire North, nor all of L's supporters, in the number which I blame for all our troubles.
You know my views. I am strictly conservative in my views—do not sustain the hasty action of some of the Southern states—but have determined to die if need be, in the defense of the soil of Tennessee, & her sister states. We can muster 150,000 fighting men in Tennessee, & volunteers are pouring in daily.

My dear, dear friend, be the end what it may, let us pray for each other, for our people— our country—& ask God to stay the hand of blood. Should we never meet again on Earth, may we be united in Heaven. My best love to Mrs. H & the children.

Sincerely yr Friend.
M. H. Wright

Please write to me, if you can. But if you feel that it is not right I will feel that you are actuated by pure motives.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

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.

I concur with you, @wausaubob.

 

[archieclement]

I agree that it's tied to loyalty towards a nation. But it can also be justifiable in a moral sense. A citizen of an enemy country might provide us intel because he genuinely believes his country is in the wrong. That would be a moral justification. Or, on the other hand, the person might be providing us intel only for money. In that case the person has no loyalty or moral justification. We'd still take the intel either way, but my point is that sometimes treason can be motivated for moral reasons. A person who thinks treason is no big deal, and all treason is the same, for whatever reason or committed towards any country, is a person who shouldn't be trusted by any nation.

Or simply a person who realizes any country is and should be accountable to its citizens.

Certainly it's folly to suggest under some circumstances revolution/treason is warranted.....but then exempt your own.

Would think if it should apply anywhere, it certainly would to be your own in regards to governments actually need to maintain the consent of the governed.

 

[nc native]

Speaking of treason, I found this letter to O.O. Howard from a former member of his West Point Bible study class very interesting, if very sad.

Nashville, Tenn
May 16, 1861

My Beloved friend,
I almost fear, in these times of espionage & scrutiny, to even write you a sad, sad, parting good-bye, for in severing my connection with the Federal Army, I feel that I am separating from many true & devoted friends. I fear to write, as stated, lest I should compromise you, one whom I so much love & revere, as holding communication with a traitor, as will no doubt be my title at the North, but the Lord only, can decide that.

In taking the course I have, I have one consolation which affords me great comfort —viz: of having been sincere in my action, & performed what I believed to be my conscientious duty— & having reduced it that, I feel that it is alone between my God & me, as stated in my letter, forwarding my resignation.

Dear Howard, to what are we coming? Are we all to be butchered? Have the people North & South forgotten God, in their madness, & has He made them mad that they might destroy themselves? God forbid, but surely it looks very much that way.
As for the administration, I am convinced that it intends war against the South, & for what? To gratify the ambition of Lincoln's advisers, not for love of the Union, because he could have said that long since. So long as I could hope that Lincoln only intended to sustain the Capital off on all invasion of Federal Rights, I remained in the Army, but when I became convinced that he intended invading the South, I left. I cannot help sustain that Government which in cold blood murders my Brothers, Sisters & Mothers, that it may be sustained. Such a Government is not worthy of preservation; i.e., such leaders are not worthy to be sustained. It is no love for the Union that actuates such a course; tis only for gain of name & power & wealth. This reason is the strong bond. But you must understand me. I do not include the entire North, nor all of L's supporters, in the number which I blame for all our troubles.
You know my views. I am strictly conservative in my views—do not sustain the hasty action of some of the Southern states—but have determined to die if need be, in the defense of the soil of Tennessee, & her sister states. We can muster 150,000 fighting men in Tennessee, & volunteers are pouring in daily.

My dear, dear friend, be the end what it may, let us pray for each other, for our people— our country—& ask God to stay the hand of blood. Should we never meet again on Earth, may we be united in Heaven. My best love to Mrs. H & the children.

Sincerely yr Friend.
M. H. Wright

Please write to me, if you can. But if you feel that it is not right I will feel that you are actuated by pure motives.

That was an very interesting letter! Being from Tennessee, M. H. Wright's letter shows a primary reason that caused many in the states that seceded after Fort Sumter to leave the Union - fear of Northern invasion. It is a sad letter and has me wondering if M. H. Wright and O. O. Howard were able to resume their friendship after the war. J.E.B. Stuart was also a member of the Bible class that O. O. Howard and M. H. Wright belonged to. Stuart and Howard were good friends at West Point and hung around with each other quite often.

 

[Belfoured]

Or simply a person who realizes any country is and should be accountable to its citizens.

Certainly it's folly to suggest under some circumstances revolution/treason is warranted.....but then exempt your own.

Would think if it should apply anywhere, it certainly would to be your own in regards to governments actually need to maintain the consent of the governed.

It's not "folly". "Folly" would be some sort of absurd recognition that some group of a nation's citizens have the right to engage in insurrection and rebellion. The Founders were smart enough to insert bars on treason and on insurrection in the Constitution. As the SCOTUS stated in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 US 144, 159-160 (1963): "[t]he powers of Congress to require military service for the common defense are broad and far-reaching, for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact."

While not necessary to this basic, common sense analysis, there is the additional fact that the AWI was undertaken by colonies/colonists who, as we know, by law did not have direct representation in Parliament.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Your equation of loyalty to the US and loyalty to other nations, including our opponents, is noted.

We can keep this silly "last post wins" contest going but it serves no purpose other than distraction.

All that I will say is that, regardless of views of treason, the Confederates were treated extremely well and favorably by the Union government.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Certainly it's folly to suggest under some circumstances revolution/treason is warranted.....but then exempt your own.

Actually, it's folly to suggest that if revolution is justified in one case, it must be justified in all cases.

 

[Belfoured]

Actually, it's folly to suggest that if revolution is justified in one case, it must be justified in all cases.

Apparently the Founders were supposed to enshrine the right of rebellion/revolution/insurrection in the Constitution. That would have been simply brilliant on their part ...

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Apparently the Founders were supposed to enshrine the right of rebellion/revolution/insurrection in the Constitution. That would have been simply brilliant on their part ...

Excellent sarcasm, @Belfoured.

 

[archieclement]

Actually, it's folly to suggest that if revolution is justified in one case, it must be justified in all cases.

Actually never said that all. Your tilting windmills apparently for no reason.

If it is justified in some cases, then it's indeed not inheritly bad which is what i said. If one actually thought it was inheritly bad it would then never be justified.

But certainly if it's justified, is decided by those who choose to revolt. If they didn't think so, then they wouldn't.

And certainly do i think if the US every became tolitatarian and the majority of people felt it no longer represented them or ideals, I don't hold they should just go along with it because of some US exemption in some people's minds. The right to revolution certainly still applies to us as much as other people of the world.

 

[JerryD]

Actually, it's folly to suggest that if revolution is justified in one case, it must be justified in all cases.

Agree. Just like its folly to suggest that its never justified. Can me crazy, but I dont think revolution is one size fits all proposition.

 

[archieclement]

Agree. Just like its folly to suggest that its never justified. Can me crazy, but I dont think revolution is one size fits all proposition.

Indeed which is what treason isn't inheritly bad, nor are certain countries somehow exempt actually means.

Why we celebrate our founding, as well likely contributed to leniency at end of ACW.

 

[Belfoured]

Actually never said that all.

If it is justified in some cases, then it's indeed not inheritly bad which is what i said. If one actually thought it was inheritly bad it would then never be justified.

But certainly if it's justified, is decided by those who choose to revolt. If they didn't think so, then they wouldnt.

Treason/insurrection against the United States is inherently bad. In a traitor's/insurrectionist's mind, treason/insurrection is always "justified" for some reason. That's why they commit treason/insurrection. Fortunately, the Founders didn't leave it up to traitors/insurrectionists to "decide" whether it's "justified".

 

[JerryD]

But certainly if it's justified, is decided by those who choose to revolt. If they didn't think so, then they wouldnt.

Gonna disagree with you on this one. Rebellion in case of the CSA was clearly not justified. They seceded, or at least the first wave did, because they lost an election and seceded before the new administration was even inaugurated, much less before it did anything objectionable. This is the argument that Stephens made in Georgia. He defended southern rights as much as any man, but said lets wait and see if the administration even attempts to step on southern rights before taking the unprecedented step of secession. But sadly, as often happens in rebellions, the loud mouths were in control and men of judgment were shouted down. So secession was not the reasoned step by reasonable men but the hysterical reaction to fears of what MIGHT happen. So no, I'd say the judgement of history is that secession was not justified in the least.

 

[archieclement]

Gonna disagree with you on this one. Rebellion in case of the CSA was clearly not justified. They seceded, or at least the first wave did, because they lost an election and seceded before the new administration was even inaugurated, much less before it did anything objectionable. This is the argument that Stephens made in Georgia. He defended southern rights as much as any man, but said lets wait and see if the administration even attempts to step on southern rights before taking the unprecedented step of secession. But sadly, as often happens in rebellions, the loud mouths were in control and men of judgment were shouted down. So secession was not the reasoned step by reasonable men but the hysterical reaction to fears of what MIGHT happen. So no, I'd say the judgement of history is that secession was not justified in the least.

Not sure your point as I personally don't think they should have seceded.

However if secession was justified was certainly decided by majority of 11 states doing so. Why they did. Just as was decided by majority of colonists.

Its always amusing to think what you or I think somehow changes history, it doesn't. They seceded because they felt justified to do so, wasn't some minor splinter group but 11 states.

 

[Belfoured]

Indeed which is what treason isn't inheritly bad, nor are certain countries somehow exempt actually means.

Why we celebrate our founding, as well likely contributed to leniency at end of ACW.

The "founding" a lot of us celebrate includes the establishment of a permanent republic under the Constitution, which among many other things embeds the prohibition of treason and insurrection - as a matter of basic common sense.

 

[archieclement]

The "founding" a lot of us celebrate includes the establishment of a permanent republic under the Constitution, which among many other things embeds the prohibition of treason and insurrection - as a matter of basic common sense.

I disagree. But if you think somehow the US government is immune to right of revolution and doesn't have to maintain the consent of the governed its noted.

If enough people disagree it can happen here and would think its impossible to say shouldn't happen here.

 

[Belfoured]

I disagree. But if you think somehow the US government is immune to right of revolution and doesn't have to maintain the consent of the governed its noted.

If enough people disagree it can happen here and would think its impossible to say shouldn't happen here.

If you somehow think that any group of citizens - including a minority of citizens in a state or a few states - has the "right of revolution"/the right to unilaterally decide that it's "justified"and that the Constitution is hypocritical for barring treason and insurrection, that is duly noted. But only a collection of extremely deluded folks would put so much thought and effort into establishing a republic by fashioning a core document that recognized the inherent right to blow it up the very next day if some group decided that it's "justified".

 

[Jantzen64]

Gonna disagree with you on this one. Rebellion in case of the CSA was clearly not justified. They seceded, or at least the first wave did, because they lost an election and seceded before the new administration was even inaugurated, much less before it did anything objectionable. This is the argument that Stephens made in Georgia. He defended southern rights as much as any man, but said lets wait and see if the administration even attempts to step on southern rights before taking the unprecedented step of secession. But sadly, as often happens in rebellions, the loud mouths were in control and men of judgment were shouted down. So secession was not the reasoned step by reasonable men but the hysterical reaction to fears of what MIGHT happen. So no, I'd say the judgement of history is that secession was not justified in the least.

I suspect that that is why the Confederate states went to such lengths to characterize their actions as ones of secession - which (in theory) could be exercised for any cause. In contrast, the inalienable right of revolution was generally viewed as requiring much more than "light and transient" causes. Before Lincoln was inaugurated, and for some time after that, it was unclear whether Lincoln would be able to advance much of his platform - even less unclear, had Southern representatives and senators remained in Washington. So the timing to me has always been a puzzle.