Restricted Largest Confederate Monument In The South Is Coming Down

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Assuming this is on-topic: Regarding Davis' treason trial: On Christmas 1868, President Andrew Johnson made the Davis case moot by issuing a general pardon for all participants in the rebellion, which included Davis. Basically, Davis got off because Johnson gave him (and others) amnesty for their acts of treason.

Johnson proclaimed:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.​
Did Davis apply for pardon under that proclamation?

I know that Lee applied for amnesty under Johnson's proclamation of May 29, 1865, which does not mention 'treason'-
https://millercenter.org/the-presid...oclamation-pardoning-persons-who-participated
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
"Implies" is not evidence of a crime. Evidence is presented in court and pardons are not evidence. Some pardons have the language "crimes he/she may have committed."

Johnson proclaimed:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.​
There's no "maybe" about it.

Did Davis apply for pardon under that proclamation?

I know that Lee applied for amnesty under Johnson's proclamation of May 29, 1865, which does not mention 'treason'-
https://millercenter.org/the-presid...oclamation-pardoning-persons-who-participated

The material that I see online commonly states that the Johnson proclamation made the treason case moot. I don't think Davis ever did apply for a pardon, but he only had to do so if he wanted to run for office.

Note that, under other proclamations and laws (14th Amendment?) ~ some which specifically targeted Davis and other Confederate officials ~ he could not run for office unless he applied for pardon. As noted here,

(The 1868 amnesty proclamation) was actually Johnson's fourth amnesty provision for Confederates, and it restored civil and property rights and provided immunity from treason charges. But it didn't allow former Confederate officials to vote or hold office. In 1872, the Amnesty Act was amended to allow almost all former Confederates, except for several hundred former high-ranking officials (such as Davis), to hold public office and vote. So while Davis became eligible for a general pardon, he didn't have full citizenship rights if he wanted to hold elected federal office.​
In 1876, Davis was specifically excluded from a universal amnesty bill that restored the full citizenship rights of the remaining former Confederates. The amendment to the bill was proposed by James G. Blaine, a candidate in that year's presidential election.​

Davis said he wouldn't apply because he had not "repented" for his actions.

- Alan
 

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
Do you think people will just forget about the desecration of graves, cemeteries, memorials to the dead?
Ahh, I see. In a word, yes.

In the case of statues I’m sure a small minority might not forget but that’s inevitable for just about any political/historical issue. We have people in the UK who would like to see Saxon kings returned to the throne. 🤷‍♂️

Anyhow, (1) most people realise it’s the right thing to do, and (2) those who do not are generally found in a generation and world that won’t be around too much longer so it will all die down to nothing. In 50 years time I’d wager that no one will care.

As for graves and cemeteries I must have missed that news.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
"Implies" is not evidence of a crime. Evidence is presented in court and pardons are not evidence. Some pardons have the language "crimes he/she may have committed."
Yes. Hopefully you and /or I are never in need of or even considered for a pardon.
 
Last edited:

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
For one, I think the removal is just another step forward for the United States. The Confederacy lost, they were rebels against the constitution and the founders. Thank God the United States endures.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
"A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court. To do that, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject" Burdick vrs US


Until someone is actually charged with a crime, and the pardon introduced into court to avoid trial, there is no acceptance of the pardon and no implication of guilt. Someone pardoned can still choose to stand trial to prove their innocence.....its odd how often the most important part of Burdick vrs US is ignored. So Johnson proclamations carry no implication of guilt, as the pardons were never invoked to indicate acceptance, nor any need of anyone to even accept a pardon to avoid guilt.

Burdick does say acceptance of a pardon imply's guilt, but the actual focus and point of the ruling is there is no such acceptance of the pardon or guilt, until actually introduced in court against an actual charge\conviction...........

Find it odd that anyone would subscribe to 1 man could make the 6th amendment pointless.
 
Last edited:

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
As for graves and cemeteries I must have missed that news.

"Confederate graves vandalized"

graves4.jpg

graves1.jpg


graves2.jpg

graves3.jpg

graves5.jpg
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Johnson proclaimed:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.​
There's no "maybe" about it.



The material that I see online commonly states that the Johnson proclamation made the treason case moot. I don't think Davis ever did apply for a pardon, but he only had to do so if he wanted to run for office.

Note that, under other proclamations and laws (14th Amendment?) ~ some which specifically targeted Davis and other Confederate officials ~ he could not run for office unless he applied for pardon. As noted here,

(The 1868 amnesty proclamation) was actually Johnson's fourth amnesty provision for Confederates, and it restored civil and property rights and provided immunity from treason charges. But it didn't allow former Confederate officials to vote or hold office. In 1872, the Amnesty Act was amended to allow almost all former Confederates, except for several hundred former high-ranking officials (such as Davis), to hold public office and vote. So while Davis became eligible for a general pardon, he didn't have full citizenship rights if he wanted to hold elected federal office.​
In 1876, Davis was specifically excluded from a universal amnesty bill that restored the full citizenship rights of the remaining former Confederates. The amendment to the bill was proposed by James G. Blaine, a candidate in that year's presidential election.​

Davis said he wouldn't apply because he had not "repented" for his actions.

- Alan
If one felt they had committed no crime......why would they repent? No they would welcome a day in court to prove they had committed no crime.
 

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
‘Chickens coming home to roost.’

Or

‘Your reap what you sow.’

Take your pick.

Either way I’m reminded of your comment about a reckoning. Well, here it is.
 
Top