Maritime commissions issued by the CSA valid?

[georgew]

An interesting question arising from the CW relates to commissions issued by the CSA to individuals commanding or serving in non-naval vessels. In particular the legal status of crewmen (600+) serving in the River Defense Service or the Texas Marine Department. The crews of these vessels were not in regular Army units nor did they wear Confederate uniforms. RDS officers wore traditional blue uniforms, much to the disgust (and envy) of their CSN counterparts. There were instances in Texas where Gen. Magruder issued "commissions" as Master's Mates to officers of blockade runners or essentially privateers not covered under Letters of Marque. Quite a number of the RDS crewmen were captured at the forts (New Orleans) or at Memphis. There is documentation that they were eligible for prisoner exchanges, but you wonder about the legal basis. Apparently in the West the Union Army was prepared to be pragmatic about these situations early in the war.

 

[archieclement]

Once the United States recognized the Confederacy as a belligerent in April in 1861 with blockade proclamation, why would the commissions not be valid? As far as giving protection as a belligerent, would think they would be valid.

 

[trice]

Once the United States recognized the Confederacy as a belligerent in April in 1861 with blockade proclamation, why would the commissions not be valid? As far as giving protection as a belligerent, would think they would be valid.

Declaring a blockade implies a de facto recognition that there is a conflict in progress -- one that cannot be resolved by normal police action. This makes the conflict a military one, a war/armed rebellion, hence the belligerent status. The belligerent status is not any form of recognition by the United States of the Confederate States as an independent country -- it is more like saying "there is a group of people over there who are fighting us, and that's why we are setting up this blockade".

The "belligerent status" is actually granted by other countries, not by the United States. Britain or France says "Oh, look -- there is a blockade! Those folks over there are the ones fighting the US, so they must be belligerents!" It does not recognize the existence of the Confederate States as a nation and does not validate/legitimate anything they do. It is merely a set of rules set up to keep things peaceful in British or French territory, to keep the belligerents apart and allow for certain transactions. In some cases, being a belligerent actually limits what you can do.

 

[archieclement]

They internally recognised them as belligerents by international law with the blockade.....then also started treating prisoners as belligerents with paroles and exchanges instead of as civil criminals......again based on the precidents set early in 1861, why would the commissions not be honored? It certainly seems as they were, as it seems RDF and TMD were treated as other CSA prisoners as belligerents.

 

[trice]

They internally recognised them as belligerents by international law with the blockade.....then also started treating prisoners as belligerents with paroles and exchanges instead of as civil criminals......again based on the precidents set early in 1861, why would the commissions not be honored? It certainly seems as they were, as it seems RDF and TMD were treated as other CSA prisoners as belligerents.

The US dealings with the Confederates is done under US law. International Law does not apply between the two of them, since the Confederate States are not a recognized country (and International Law in 1860 was a very vague area, not at all codified by agreements and common definitions).

 

[archieclement]

And the US recognized them and treated them as belligerents and not civil criminals........and prisoners of war not civil criminals of US law...... It isn't that hard to follow. How many of over 4 million were charged and convicted of treason or US law?

The pointless word games don't distract from the reality they were not treating them as US criminals but legitimate belligerents.

Again as the US was recognizing Confederate commissions as prisoners of war and not civil criminals, why would these commissions be treated any different? They weren't as pointed out in the OP the RDF were treated as POW's.

Though I certainly subscribe to the principles of US law, such as barring a conviction by a jury of ones peers, one is presumed innocent. Why the question of how many were tried and convicted under US law is rather relevant.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Many in the North would have preferred to avoid all actions that could be seen as conferring some measure of legitimacy on the Confederacy; but unfortunately for the purists, the Confederate forces were too big to ignore. While carefully avoiding any semblance of recognizing the government in Richmond, the U.S. nevertheless was often forced to act as if it did. Lincoln was forced to steer a middle course between no-official-recognition and the de facto realities of the situation... sometimes not always with perfect consistency.

 

[archieclement]

Many in the North would have preferred to avoid all actions that could be seen as conferring some measure of legitimacy on the Confederacy; but unfortunately for the purists, the Confederate forces were too big to ignore. While carefully avoiding any semblance of recognizing the government in Richmond, the U.S. nevertheless was often forced to act as if it did. Lincoln was forced to steer a middle course between no-official-recognition and the de facto realities of the situation... sometimes not always with perfect consistency.

The purists were a minority as the realists could see their boys would be treated as they treated theirs.......

And as even many realized postwar with the threat of same treatment of theirs removed, it could be seen barring making a mockery of our justice system, convictions would be far from slam dunks.