Gov. Letcher's response that I quoted was from April 16, 1861 which was three months after the address that you referred to. Letcher's comments were a response to Lincoln's call for troops and they reflected Virginia's attitude against the power of the federal government to conduct war against the states.Yes, and in context, this followed his address to the Virginia Assembly in Jan 7th, 1861, where he explicitly stated that the Southern states seceded due to slavery, and gave a 6 point plan for the resolution of their greivences, all of which concerned slavery.
"What, then, is necessary to be done? The northern states must strike from their statute books their personal liberty bills, and fulfill their constitutional obligations in regard to fugitive slaves and fugitives from justice. If our slaves escape into non-slaveholding states, they must be delivered up; if abandoned, depraved and desperately wicked men come into slave states to excite insurrections, or to commit other crimes against our laws, and escape into free states, they must be given up for trial and punishment, when lawfully demanded by the constituted authorities of those states whose laws have been violated.
Second--We must have proper and effective guarantees for the protection of slavery in the district of Columbia. We can never consent to the abolition of slavery in the district, until Maryland shall emancipate her slaves; and not then, unless it shall be demanded by the citizens of the district.
Third--Our equality in the states and territories must be fully recognized, and our rights of person and property adequately protected and secured. We must have guarantees that slavery shall not be interdicted in any territory now belonging to, or which may hereafter be acquired by the general government; either by the congress of the United States or a territorial legislature: that we shall be permitted to pass through the free states and territories without molestation; and if a slave shall be abducted, that the state in which he or she shall be lost, shall pay the full value of such slave to the owner.
Fourth--Like guarantees must be given, that the transmission of slaves between the slaveholding states, either by land or water, shall not be interfered with.
Fifth--The passage and enforcement of rigid laws for the punishment of such persons in the free states as shall organize, or aid and abet in organizing, either by the contribution of money, arms, munitions of war, or in any other mode whatsoever, companies of men, with a view to assail the slaveholding states, and to excite slaves to insurrection.
Sixth--That the general government shall be deprived of the power of appointing to local offices in the slaveholding states, persons who are hostile to their institutions, or inimical to their rights--the object being to prevent the appointing power from using patronage to sow the seeds of strife and dissension between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding classes in the southern states.
These guarantees can be given without prejudice to the honor or rights, and without a sacrifice of the interests, of either of the non-slaveholding states. We ask nothing, therefore, which is not clearly right, and necessary to our protection: And surely, when so much is at stake, it will be freely, cheerfully and promptly assented to. It is the interest of the north and the south to preserve the government from destruction; and they should omit the use of no proper or honorable means to avert so great a calamity. The public safety and welfare demand instant action."
If you wanna claim someone was treasonous, or committed treason, you need to convict them in a court of law.if they did not violate their parole terms, would there be a need too?
Was Lee a prisoner of Grant's at Appox.? Was not Lee and the other rebels paroled at Appox.?Does it say Treason? Dont think so, the confederates still had forces in the field, a parole during the CW simply meant one wouldn't take up arms until exchanged. No different then confederates who were paroled at Vicksburg, they had to wait to be exchanged before taking up arms again
Suppose you think Pemberton was a god or all of the CSA forces at Vicksburg who Grant likewise paroled?
Since the title of this thread is incorrect, a moderator can change it if you would like to do so.Here is a good article explaining the reality of treason trails of the Rebel Lee after the civil war.
Grant stated Lee could not be tried for treason as long as he obeyed his parole that was given to the rebels at the time of surrender at Appox.
Not sure what your not understanding, its pretty simple.....Was Lee a prisoner of Grant's at Appox.? Was not Lee and the other rebels paroled at Appox.?
After reading Lee’s letter, Grant forwarded his own views to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton on June 16, 1865:
In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox Court-House, and since, upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole. This is my understanding. Good faith, as well as true policy, dictates that we should observe the conditions of that convention. Bad faith on the part of the Government, or a construction of that convention subjecting the officers to trial for treason, would produce a feeling of insecurity in the minds of all the paroled officers and men. If so disposed they might even regard such an infraction of terms by the Government as an entire release from all obligations on their part. I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the President at the time, and of the country generally. The action of Judge Underwood, in Norfolk, has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them.
Or you know, Alexander Stephens gave what was basically a 2nd cornerstone speech at Virginia's secession convention.You have a single data point. There are 1432 other data points that mention slavery.
So, has there ever been a person that committed a crime and never charged? does that make them innocent if they don't go to trail?If you wanna claim someone was treasonous, or committed treason, you need to convict them in a court of law.
As Archie has pointed out, our country operates it's judicial system on, the presumption of innocence. Quite simply defined as, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It is slanderous to claim someone is guilty of a crime, they've never been convicted of, unless of course, they admit guilt.
All seceded States especially those before the VA secession were slave States as were all who seceded at all. Seems to be a relationship.Coercion was also dependent on the unwillingness of the Union to let the southern states peacefully secede. The southern states believed the Union was formed voluntarily and the states retained their sovereignty. Therefore, any attempt to maintain the Union by force was a violation of the sovereignty of the states.
So, they could rebel again as soon as they were released? then when could they rebel again if not then? until exchanged with whom?Not sure what your not understanding, its pretty simple.....
from Grants exchange with pemberton on terms "As soon as the rolls can be made out, and paroles be signed by officers and men, you will be allowed to march out of our lines, the officers taking with them their side-arms and clothing. The rank and file will be allowed their clothing but no other property.”
In wartime a parole simply means a surrendering army instead of being taken and held as POW's will be released on their honor to not participate further until exchanged. Both sides routinely did it, has nothing to do with treason at all...…...
I have bookmarked this for future use.Or you know, Alexander Stephens gave what was basically a 2nd cornerstone speech at Virginia's secession convention.
"One good and wise feature in our new or revised Constitution is, that we have put to rest the vexed question of slavery forever, so far as the Confederate legislative halls are concerned. On this subject, from which sprung the immediate cause of our late troubles and threatened dangers, you will indulge me in a few remarks as not irrelevant to the occasion. The condition of the negro race amongst us presents a peculiar phase of republican civilization and constitutional liberty. To some, the problem seems hard to understand. The difficulty is in theory, not in practical demonstration; that works well enough—theories in government, as in all things else, must yield to facts. No truth is clearer than that the best form or system of government for any people or society is that which secures the greatest amount of happiness, not to the greatest number, but to all the constituent elements of that society, community or State. If our system does not accomplish this; if it is not the best for the negro as well as for the white man; for the inferior as well as the superior race, it is wrong in principle. But if it does, or is capable of doing this, then it is right, and can never be successfully assailed by reason or logic. That the negroes with us, under masters who care for, provide for and protect them, are better off, and enjoy more of the blessings of good government than their race does in any other part of the world, statistics abundantly prove. As a race, the African is inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his normal condition. He is not his equal by nature, and cannot be made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system, therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both. Why one race was made inferior to another, is not for us to inquire. The statesman and the Christian, as well as the philosopher, must take things as they find them, and do the best he can with them as he finds them.
The great truth, I repeat, upon which our system rests, is the inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions ignore this truth. They set out with the assumption that the races are equal; that the negro is equal to the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be legitimate. But their premises being false, their conclusions are false also. Most of that fanatical spirit at the North on this subject, which in its zeal without knowledge, would upturn our society and lay waste our fair country, springs from this false reasoning. Hence so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation of nature’s laws. We have heard much of the higher law. I believe myself in the higher law. We stand upon that higher law. I would defend and support no Constitution that is against the higher law. I mean by that the law of nature and of God. Human Constitutions and human laws that are made against the law of nature or of God, ought to be overturned; and if Seward was right the Constitution which he was sworn to support, and is now requiring others to swear to support, ought to have been overthrown long ago. It ought never to have been made. But in point of fact it is he and his associates in this crusade against us, who are warring against the higher law—we stand upon the laws of the Creator, upon the highest of all laws. It is the fanatics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made unequal. My assurance of ultimate success in this controversy is strong from the conviction, that we stand upon the right. Some years ago in the Hall of the House of Representatives, a very prominent gentleman from Ohio, announced with a great deal of effect, that we at the South would be obliged to yield upon this question of slavery, because we warred against a principle; and that it was as impossible to war successfully against principle in politics as it was in mechanics. The principle, said he, would ultimately prevail. He announced this with imposing effect, and endeavored to maintain that we were contending against the great principle of equality in holding our fellow men. in the unnatural condition of bondage. In reply, I stated to him, that I admitted his proposition as he announced it, that it was impossible to war successfully against a principle in mechanics and the same was true in politics—the principle would certainly prevail—and from that stand point I had come to the conclusion that we of the South would ultimately succeed, and the North would be compelled to yield their ideas upon this subject. For it was they who were contending against a principle and not we. It was they who were trying to make the black man a white man, or his equal, which was nearly the same thing. The controlling laws of nature regulate the difference between them as absolutely as the laws of gravitation control whatever comes within their action—and until he could change the laws of gravitation, or any other law of nature, he could never make the negro a white man or his equal. No human efforts or human laws can change the leopard’s spots or the Ethiopian’s skin. These are the works of Providence—in whose hands are the fortunes of men as well as the destiny of nations and the distinctions of races.
On this subject a change is evidently going on in the intellectual world—in the republic of thinkers. The British West India experiment has done much to produce this change. All theories on the problem of human society must in the end yield to facts—just as all theories and speculations in other departments of science must yield to the same sure and unerring test. The changes of sentiment upon the subject of negro subordination have been great already, for this is the proper term to designate his condition with us. That they will continue as truth progresses, there can be no doubt. All new truths progress slowly. With us this change of view and sentiment has been wonderful. There has been almost a complete revolution within the last half century. It was a question little understood by the eminent statesmen of the South seventy years ago. This is no disparagement to their wisdom or ability. They were occupied in the solution of other great new truths upon which rested the first great principles of self-government by the governing race. These principles they solved and established. They met and proved themselves equal to the exigencies of their day and generation that was enough to fill the measure of their fame. Each generation in the eternal progress of all things connected with existence, must meet new questions, new problems, new phases of even old subjects, and it will be enough for the men of each generation, if they prove themselves equal to the requirement of the times in which they live. As our fathers were equal to all the questions of their day, so may their sons be at this and all succeeding times. This is the point to which our attention should be chiefly directed.
In our Constitution, provision is made for the admission of other States into the confederacy; but none can be admitted without first adopting our Constitution, and, consequently, none can be admitted who does not first adopt the fundamental principles on which our social and domestic institutions rest—thereby removing forever from our public or confederate councils that question which gave rise to so much disturbance in the old government."
We could say it existed wherever its army occupied, it literally disappeared with its army.I share a similar view, that the CSA did exist as a political entity. That is, it built a funcitoning government, a political system, an army, a navy, etc. So, in my view, it existed as a country, albeit for a relatively short period of time.
I agree that the CSA was not formally recognised by international powers (particularly the ones that really mattered at the time) but for me I'm not sure how relevant this is to the topic at hand. What I mean by this is that if the CSA had won the war and gained its independence, international recognition would, very likely, have followed. I believe that formal recognition and support were not going to come unless the CSA won the war first.
If you wanted to be very technical about what the CSA was, it might be called a "region in revolt". But, I don't think this is immensely accurate as the political/national system the CSA built was quite sophisticated.
So in my opinion, for as long as it lasted, it was a nation.
Again a CW parole meant one doesn't participate further until exchanged........However once exchanged both sides in many cases would take up arms again.So, they could rebel again as soon as they were released?
I think by the end (1864-1865) that is certainly true, but I would have thought that in the earlier years (particularly 1861-1862) the CSA effectively controlled much of its claimed territory, including places where they didn't have substantial numbers of troops on the ground.We could say it existed wherever its army occupied, it literally disappeared with its army.
"Placing the documents under the eyes of the King" is not anything close to diplomatic recognition. If the Kingdom of Sweden and Norway extended formal diplomatic that's one thing but acknowledgement if a document is another.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|What's In a Name? A story found in a US Colored Troops pension file||Researching Your Civil War Ancestry||2|
|B||Question about a regulation trumpet for mounted troops||Uniforms & Relics||14|
|Lincoln Led Troops to Battle...||Abraham Lincoln||8|
|Discussion ECW: Singing Inside Andersonville and Scaring the local troops||General History Discussion||12|