Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Just to note, a grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia did indict Jefferson Davis for treason.

Many prominent confederates did believe they committed treason. John Baldwin of Virginia, for one.

According to Mosby, who we have a plethora of knowledge from because of the 400 pages of memoirs he published before his death, which included this letter to artillerist and fellow officer Sam Chapman, a life long friend:

John Baldwin was Examined before the Reconstruction Committee - He was asked if Jeff Davis could be tried before a Jury in the South & convicted of Treason. He replied - Yes - that Mr. Davis (& himself) had been guilty of treason & if they were tried for it he saw no reason why they shouldn’t be convicted. Tell Hugh (for me) that the difference between me & him is that I committed Treason & am proud of it - he committed Treason & is ashamed of it. Baldwin’s testimony was in 1867. Dick Smith in an Editorial was very severe: Baldwin replied in a letter. If Sam Yost has files of his paper no doubt you can find it.
 
Last edited:

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
The resolutions

The proposed resolutions essentially went out the window upon the commencement of the war and the Ordinance of Secession was ratified.

....yes. Indeed. LOL.

We were talking about the cause of secession, not what happened once they seceded.

Virginia had already stated to POTUS that they were aligned with the slave states, and demanded not only slavery be enshrined forever but that Lincoln accept the secession as a fait accomplis.

Some of the saner heads were attempting to avert a war, but their demands were accept the disbandment of the Union because of the threat posed by Lincoln's electoral victory to slavery.

Lincoln could not accept unilateral secession and still uphold his oath of office.
 

BarryR

Corporal
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Location
Tampa Bay

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Jefferson Davis was not a President of a sovereign nation because the CSA did not exist.
Robert E. Lee was not a commissioned officer in a sovereign nation's army because the CSA did not exist.
Why would those European nations make declarations of neutrality about something that did not exist?
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Im sure you have heard the term that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich...or was it egg-salad ? Not to nit-pik but I believe he was indicted in the District of Columbia for acts of treason within the State of Virginia...

https://www.nytimes.com/1865/05/27/...-the-archtraitor-to-be-tried-for-treason.html

Hmmm, interesting.

Here's one that says Norfolk, from the New York Herald. :D

http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/645135

And here's the indictment itself, which is indicated to have been conducted in Norfolk.

https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.MS979JDAVIS

https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/ead/pdf/MS979JDavis-0001-001.pdf

As the indictment says Norfolk, I'd go with that myself. Looks like the guy at the times made a mistake.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Edited. Why all the concern then?
...and why would the United States object to those declarations about something that did not exist?

Sec. Seward to Mr. Dayton, minister to France, May 30, 1861: "The United States can not for a moment allow the French Government to rest under the delusive belief that they will be content to have the Confederate States recognized as a belligerent power by states with which this nation is in amity."

The French declaration of neutrality was issued June 10, 1861.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Apparently not, since there is, as Chief Justice Taney explicitly pronounced, absolutely zero authority under the Constitution for the president to suspend habeas corpus. Zero authority.
Are you aware in an unpublished opinion by Taney that Taney was against Secession? Are you also aware that Taney never rendered a judicial decision stating that President Lincoln did not have the right to use force to suppress the rebellion? Also are you aware that other Supreme Court judges that are cited in the Wikipedia article with sources acting as Circuit Court judges affirmed the right of President Lincoln to suspend habeus corpus?
Leftyhunter
 

Waterloo50

Major
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Location
England
The Southern people were in rebellion in the United States between 1861 to 1865.
The Southern States were never sovereign from the Union.
Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were United States Citizens in defiance to United States Law.
Jefferson Davis was not a President of a sovereign nation because the CSA did not exist.
Robert E. Lee was not a commissioned officer in a sovereign nation's army because the CSA did not exist.
Treason trials of both Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee was not in the best interest of the United States after the civil war.
Not my strong point but doesn’t Belligerent status mean that the confederacy was diplomatically recognised and as such elevates the cause of the confederacy to more than just a rebellion. The confederacy may not have been recognised as a sovereign nation but I think I’m correct in saying that the confederate government was internationally recognised as being a separate entity from the USA.
I’m quite happy to be corrected on that.
 

S.Isaacson

Cadet
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Location
Illinois
french revolutionary view ?

Many Americans North and South were divided in their opinions of the French Revolution.

Biggest problem I see running through many of these responses is the use of the words "all." We can generalize about the majority, but the country was far from one mass of homogenized people. There were ethnic, national, religious, racial, class, economic, moral, and other differences throughout the states and within different parts of the various states north and south.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
...and why would the United States object to those declarations about something that did not exist?

Sec. Seward to Mr. Dayton, minister to France, May 30, 1861: "The United States can not for a moment allow the French Government to rest under the delusive belief that they will be content to have the Confederate States recognized as a belligerent power by states with which this nation is in amity."

The French declaration of neutrality was issued June 10, 1861.
His Majesty the Emperor of the French, taking into consideration the state of peace which exists between France and the United States of America, has resolved to maintain a strict neutrality in the struggle between the Government of the Union and the States which propose to form a separate Confederation.

In consequence, His Majesty, considering Article 14 of the naval law of August, 1681, the 3d Article of the law of the 10th of April, 1825. Articles 84 and 85 of the Penal Code, 65 and following of the Decree of the 24th of March, 1852, 313, and following of the Code Penal Marisime, and Article 21 of the Code Napoleon,

Declares:

1. No vessel of war or privateer of either of the belligerent parties will be allowed to enter or stay with prizes in our ports or roadsteads longer than 24 hours, excepting in case of compulsory delay (retache forcee.)

2. No sale of goods belonging to prizes is allowed in our ports and roadsteads.

3. Every Frenchman is prohibited from taking a commission under either of the two parties to arm vessels of war, or to accept letters of marque for privateering purposes or to assist in any mannerwhatsoever the equipment or armament of a vessel of war or privateer of either party.

4. Every Frenchman, whether residing in France or abroad, is likewise prohibited from enlisting or taking service either in the land army or on board vessels of war or privateers of either of the two belligerent parties.

5. Frenchmen residing in France or abroad must likewise abstein from any act which, committed in violation of the laws of the empire, or of international law, might be considered as an act hostile to one of the two parties, and contrary to the neutrality which we have resolved to observe. All persons acting contrary to the prohibitions and recommendations contained in the present declaration will be prosecuted, if required, conformably to the enactments of the law of the 10th of April, 1825, and of Articles 84 and 85 of the Penal Code, without prejudice to the application that might be made against such offenders of the enactments of the 21st Article of the Code Napoleon, and of Articles 65 and following of the Decree of the 24th of March, 1852, on the merchant service, 313 and following of the Penal Code for the Navy.
His Majesty declares, moreover, that every frenchman contravouing the present enactments will have no claim to any protection from his Government against any acts or measures, whatever they may be, which the belligerents might exercise or decree.


NAPOLEON THOUVENEL, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Whereas we are happily at peace with all soverign powers and States:

And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the government of the United States of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America:

And whereas we, being at peace with the Government of the Unites States have declared our royal determination to maintain a strict and partial neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties:

We therefore have thought fit, by [and with] the advice of our privy council; to issue this our royal proclamation:

And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril.
...

Victoria R
13 May, 1861

Seems some pretty important world players thought the CSA existed....:whistling:
 

BarryR

Corporal
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Location
Tampa Bay
Hmmm, interesting.

Here's one that says Norfolk, from the New York Herald. :D

http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/645135

And here's the indictment itself, which is indicated to have been conducted in Norfolk.

https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.MS979JDAVIS

https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/ead/pdf/MS979JDavis-0001-001.pdf

As the indictment says Norfolk, I'd go with that myself. Looks like the guy at the times made a mistake.

I attached the actual indictment as well...But it wouldn't be the first time Fake News came from the N.Y. Times...
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Whereas we are happily at peace with all soverign powers and States:

And whereas hostilities have unhappily commenced between the government of the United States of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America:

And whereas we, being at peace with the Government of the Unites States have declared our royal determination to maintain a strict and partial neutrality in the contest between the said contending parties:

We therefore have thought fit, by [and with] the advice of our privy council; to issue this our royal proclamation:

And we do hereby strictly charge and command all our loving subjects to observe a strict neutrality in and during the aforesaid hostilities, and to abstain from violating or contravening either the laws and statutes of the realm in this behalf or the law of nations in relation thereto, as they will answer to the contrary at their peril.
...

Victoria R
13 May, 1861

Seems some pretty important world players thought the CSA existed....:whistling:
Not as a nation. No nation had an embassy in the Confederacy or signed treaties with the Confederacy. It is not uncommon for nations to sell arms to Rebels engaged in a Civil War.
Leftyhunter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top