Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

Northern Light

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
10,696
Lee was never pardoned in his lifetime. Likewise, he was never convicted of treason. Therefore, he is not guilty of treason, & to say so, is blasphemous in my opinion :cool:
Just because you have not been convicted of a crime does not mean that you did not commit it. It only means that you have never been prosecuted and/or never convicted of the crime.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,691
Location
los angeles ca
But that’s how sovereign nations are formed, in more recent times we have 9 new sovereign states, many established after a long and bloody civil war.
Yes but they gave diplomatic support from other nations. The Confederacy certainly tried mightily to do so but at the end of the day major nations concluded the Confederacy was simply not going to win it's Independence and said nations could not justify military intervention on behalf of the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter
 

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,535
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.
Well, no. You need to convict a person in a court of law if you want to impose and apply the penalties of law to that person.

The Federal government decided for practical reasons to not pursue charges against Lee, or Davis, or Joe Johnston, or Beauregard, or Hood, or any of the hundreds of thousands of others who had clearly committed acts of Treason as defined in the US Constitution in 1860-65. William B. Mumford was convicted of Treason by a military tribunal in New Orleans for different practical reasons and hanged as a result in 1862.

There is no reasonable doubt that anyone who willingly served the Confederacy (in the military or civilian government service) or willingly provided support to it in any way committed an act of Treason against the United States. Most states could probably make the same claim under their own state laws (similar to how Virginia convicted John Brown and Aaron Stevens of Treason against Virginia in 1859).

Also, although I have often seen it claimed Lee would have to be tried in Virginia, I suspect that is not accurate. Robert E. Lee and tens of thousands of members of the Army of Northern Virginia rather publicly committed acts of War and therefore Treason against the United States in Maryland and Pennsylvania during the Antietam and Gettysburg Campaigns. Certainly witnesses to the acts of the more prominent men could have been found; for that matter, a man like Lee might very well have admitted to his own acts in open court. I would think they could have been charged North of the Potomac as well as in Virginia.

Many people have been guilty of crimes without being convicted of them throughout human history. People can certainly respect and honor their ancestors, but you cannot honor them while declaring they never did what they did.
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,691
Location
los angeles ca
Because the English word for nation and even country is very broad, I hold the CSA was nation or country. The only thing it was not was an international person with recognition.

Look forward to a discussion on this.
I can give a modern example of a political entity that some nations have formal diplomatic relations with but it doesn't do said entity a whole lot of good. A good PM subject for discussion.
Unless the Confederacy is recognized by a major world military power then said recognition does little good for the Confederacy.
For example if Luxembourg recognized the Confederacy now what? Luxembourg does not have a navy that can break through the blockade. Luxembourg can certainly purchase or produce weapons for the Confederacy but now it risks retaliation from the United States plus loss of trade.
Really only the UK and France as the then two leading world military powers mattered to the Confederacy and neither countries leaders were eager to enter the fray of the ACW on behalf of the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
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.

Someone who continually advocates lynch mob mentality of treating people as guilty who have been convicted of nothing, might advocate rebelling again as soon as released...…….

I would suggest researching prisoner exchanges and paroles during the CW if you really have no clue
so they could rebel again as soon as everyone is exchanged?
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
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.

I agree though that once the war started, the political existence of the CSA was absolutely tied to the fortunes of the army. If they didn't win their independence on the battlefield, no foreign power was going to come and do it for them.
FWIW the shrinking CSA.


1861.jpg
1862.jpg
1863.jpg
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,075
Location
mo
Grant after the fact can elect to play post war politics and push for his personal ideals for post war america if he wanted.

However if at the time of Appomattox you have evidence Grant and Lee discussed postwar treason at the courthouse or in letters, I'd like to see it. It is clear Lee is just surrendering the Army of Northern Virginia and not the CSA. the CSA government was still at large and the confederacy still had multiple forces in the field. As worded and circumstances warranted at the time, the parole was no different then other wartime paroles.

And again research paroles and exchanges if you don't know, I'm not here to wiki for you if you aren't up to speed

However I'll give you a teaser, as long as the CSA was recognized as a belligerent, they were free to "rebel" again once exchanged it that's what you wish to call it........although we know the U.S. Chief Justice didn't consider it treason to the US, taking that into consideration with the fact no one was convicted would seem it wasn't an established fact if it was or wasnt........not to mention our system presumes innocence as well.
 
Last edited:

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
3,029
I can give a modern example of a political entity that some nations have formal diplomatic relations with but it doesn't do said entity a whole lot of good. A good PM subject for discussion.
Unless the Confederacy is recognized by a major world military power then said recognition does little good for the Confederacy.
For example if Luxembourg recognized the Confederacy now what? Luxembourg does not have a navy that can break through the blockade. Luxembourg can certainly purchase or produce weapons for the Confederacy but now it risks retaliation from the United States plus loss of trade.
Really only the UK and France as the then two leading world military powers mattered to the Confederacy and neither countries leaders were eager to enter the fray of the ACW on behalf of the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter
Was there a universal doctrine stating a world superpower had to recognize the nation? The UK nor France were eager to enter the fray on behalf of either side. Did that illigitimize the Confederacy?
 
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,691
Location
los angeles ca
One if our posters years ago pointed out that once New Orleans fell to the Union the Confederacy was essentially doomed to non recognition. If the Confederacy can't defend it's most important port then how is the Confederacy viable?
In an earlier thread either Mason or Slidell was grilled by the British on weather or not the border states with emphasis on Kentucky and Missouri would join the Confederacy. Once it became apparent that they would not British enthusiasm for diplomatic recognition waned.
Leftyhunter
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,548
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I can give a modern example of a political entity that some nations have formal diplomatic relations with but it doesn't do said entity a whole lot of good. A good PM subject for discussion.
Unless the Confederacy is recognized by a major world military power then said recognition does little good for the Confederacy.
For example if Luxembourg recognized the Confederacy now what? Luxembourg does not have a navy that can break through the blockade. Luxembourg can certainly purchase or produce weapons for the Confederacy but now it risks retaliation from the United States plus loss of trade.
Really only the UK and France as the then two leading world military powers mattered to the Confederacy and neither countries leaders were eager to enter the fray of the ACW on behalf of the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter
Luxembourg was around in the 1860s with the same limitations. If recognization makes the CSA a nation/country, then Luxembourg is important. Once we move the goalposts then where do we stop? You have a good point for practical considerations, but we end up with unless Britain and/or France recognizes the CSA, it is not a nation.
 

Kelly

Corporal
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
490
From the constitutional convention of 1787, right up until Lincoln’s lawless political-military junta of 1861 amended the constitution at the point of a bayonet, suspending the writ of habeas corpus was, irrefutably and emphatically, the unique and exclusive responsibility of the legislature. In fact, not so much as a single convention delegate, not one, not ever, advocated giving the right of suspension to the president. To the contrary, when suspension was discussed, it was discussed as the qualified, restricted, limited, and exclusive prerogative of the legislature. Here, for example, is how the right of suspension appeared as of Monday, August 20, 1787, in draft form:

“…and shall not be suspended by the Legislature except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions…”

Nor is that all. One can scrutinize the entirety of The Federalist, including the series of papers specifically examining the presidency, and one will find not even the slightest or most remote reference to giving the power of suspension to the president. The power is not mentioned in Federalist 67, and it is not mentioned in Federalist 68. Nor is it mentioned in Federalist 69, nor in 70, nor in 71. Nor in 72, nor in 73, nor in 74, nor in 75, nor in 76 nor in 77. Nowhere, nowhere, do the framers even hint at the idea of giving the power to suspend habeas corpus to the president. Absolutely nowhere.

Conversely however, one will most certainly find that Hamilton did indeed discuss habeas corpus in Federalist 84, where he directly quotes, favorably references, and effusively praises William Blackstone’s interpretation of the right to suspend habeas. The great and learned Blackstone, of course, flatly rejected the idea that the executive, even the British King in all his vast power, could lawfully exercise the crucial right of suspension:

“. But the happiness of our constitution is, that it is not left to the executive power to determine when the danger of the state is so great as to render this measure expedient; for it is the parliament only, or legislative power, that, whenever it sees proper, can authorize the crown, by suspending the habeas corpus act for a short and limited time”

Thus far in the early history of habeas corpus and the country, it is clear and undeniable that the president is not empowered to suspend the right of habeas corpus. In fact, at this stage the very idea is complete anathema. And this makes perfect sense, because when we look to the enumerated powers of the president in Article II, section 2, we find not so much as a single sentence, nay, not so much as a single word, which gives the power to suspend Habeas Corpus to the president. Accordingly, Chief Justice Roger Taney, acting in his capacity as a Circuit Court Judge for Maryland, wrote in Ex Parte Merryman:

“…It is the second article of the constitution that provides for the organization of the executive department, enumerates the powers conferred on it, and prescribes its duties. And if the high power over the liberty of the citizen now claimed, was intended to be conferred on the president, it would undoubtedly be found in plain words in this article; but there is not a word in it that can furnish the slightest ground to justify the exercise of the power.

So what, exactly, did the early constitutional scholars have to say on the subject? Here is the renowned constitutional scholar and Virginia Supreme Court Judge St. George Tucker:

In England the benefit of this important writ can only be suspended by authority of ParliamentIn the United States, it can only be suspended, only, by the authority of Congress

And he is far from alone in this opinion. William Rawle, a constitutional scholar of such prestige and impeccable credentials that his textbook on constitutional law was required reading at Harvard Law School, said this:

“ It is at any rate certain, that congress, which has authorized the courts and judges of the United States to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases within their jurisdiction, can alone suspend their power,”

Nor is that all. The esteemed and celebrated constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Judge Joseph Story also contemplated the power to suspend habeas corpus in his magisterial treatise on the Constitution. Story, a strong, dedicated, firm, and unapologetic nationalist, said this:

as the power is given to congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge whether the exigency had arisen must exclusively belong to that body."

Nor is that all. In 1807, writing for the Supreme Court in the case of Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:

"If at any time, the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so."

Thus far in our historical survey we have seen how all the Founding Fathers, and erudite, brilliant, and learned constitutional scholars, as well as highly esteemed and accomplished jurists all, all contemptuously reject the fatuous and dangerous idea the president, under the United States Constitution, is empowered to suspend habeas corpus. This, undoubtedly, is what prompted constitutional scholar Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, in a 2103 edition of the Virginia Law Review, to write:

“A number of other commentators agreed that only Congress could suspend, including Professor Francis Lieber, author of the “Lieber Code”. Writing in 1859, he declared, matter-of-factly, it “need hardly be mentioned” that the President could not suspend.”

So as of 1859, a mere two years before Lincoln’s military junta amended the constitution at the end of a barrel of a gun, there was no doubt, none whatsoever, that the authority to suspend habeas corpus rested uniquely and exclusively with the Congress. Said Chief Justice Roger Taney:

And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of congress”

The Chief Justice was, and is, correct. Before Lincoln’s gunmen took over and amended Article I, section 9, clause 2 through violence and intimidation, there is absolutely no credible source, none whatsoever, who argued that the president had the power to suspend habeas corpus. The very idea is repugnant to individual liberty under a democratic republic.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,691
Location
los angeles ca
Was there a universal doctrine stating a world superpower has to recognize the nation? The UK nor France were eager to enter the fray on behalf of either side. Did that illigitimize the Confederacy?
Yes in the sense that new nations historically are very eager to seek diplomatic relations with major powers. Diplomatic Recognition is not a slam dunk for military intervention in behalf of a Nation but it is certainly a precursor.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
3,029
Yes in the sense that new nations historically are very eager ti seek diplomatic relations with major powers. Diplomatic Recognition is not a slam dunk for military intervention in behalf of a Nation but it is certainly a precursor.
Leftyhunter
There is also international trading, lending, etc., but could also occur after the nation has been formalized.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
Grant after the fact can elect to play post war politics and push for his personal ideals for post war america if he wanted.

However if at the time of Appomattox you have evidence Grant and Lee discussed postwar treason at the courthouse or in letters, I'd like to see it. It is clear Lee is just surrendering the Army of Northern Virginia and not the CSA. the CSA government was still at large and the confederacy still had multiple forces in the field. As worded and circumstances warranted at the time, the parole was no different then other wartime paroles.

And again research paroles and exchanges if you don't know, I'm not here to wiki for you if you aren't up to speed

However I'll give you a teaser, as long as the CSA was recognized as a belligerent, they were free to "rebel" again once exchanged
So when the CSA government is dissolved after the civil war, why Lee could not be charged with treason, if the Appox. surrender terms
of parole did not protect Lee from a charge of treason? Was Grant wrong in that legal matter if the parole terms only applied to surrender of arms?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top