Oops, big lump of your posts....

Status
Not open for further replies.

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
I'm not familiar with Lees's letter to Grant. Did Lee ask Grant that the parole specifically exempted any future charges of treason? I'm pretty that if anything as serious as treason was mentioned Lee would have remembered and there would have been no need for a later letter. If you have information that such a clause was included in the parole agreement at Appomattox please divulge your source-- no personal opinion, please.
So your saying Lee was confused as to the terms of Parole of surrender if he wrote a letter to Grant asking for an explanation after he was charged with treason? follow the link in the first post of this thread.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
You may soon note a sudden change of topic. :wink:

And here it is. :smile:

Can anyone, anyone at all, please show me a pre-1861 source that shows an American president dealing with a civil war on the scale of the one facing Abraham Lincoln?

If not, the premise of the OP in this thread is completely bogus.

Again, I am always amazed that there seems to be a fixation on the idea that a Civil War, got up by an entire region of the country, must somehow be treated as a normal, everyday occurance by the government of the United States. If it as though those who support the Confederacy and it's acts or war and rebellion feel there should be no consequences, no bad surprises for it's actions.

Why would a sitting, newly elected president, simply act as if nothing was out of the ordinary during an armed rebellion?

I have seen where Jefferson Davis suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the Confederacy and arrested thousands of people during his tenure. Where's the outrage? Where is the inquiry into his actions?

There won't be, because somehow, that's different for the Confederacy and it's president.

"This government cannot much longer play a game at which it stakes all, and it's enemies stake nothing. Those enemies must understand that they cannot experiment for ten years trying to destroy the government, and if they fail still come back into the Union unhurt."

I gather that some folks are upset that Lincoln turned out to be tougher than any of his enemies expected.

Even pre 1861.

Unionblue
 
Last edited:

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
So your saying Lee was confused as to the terms of Parole of surrender if he wrote a letter to Grant asking for an explanation after he was charged with treason? follow the link in the first post of this thread.

No, I'm saying that if Grant included anything as serious as a charge of treason in the Appomattox parole Lee would have remembered it. I eagerly await any sourced information you may have that the parole agreement did.
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
No, I'm saying that if Grant included anything as serious as a charge of treason in the Appomattox parole Lee would have remembered it. I eagerly await any sourced information you may have that the parole agreement did.
Apparently Lee did remember the part about parole in the surrender terms because why would he write a letter to Grant asking about it after he was charged with treason?
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Perhaps a copy of the letter would be in order. Do you have information as to Grant's reply to Lee?
Did Grant need to reply to Lee Directly as to Lee's request, or could Grant reply to "those that are concerned" about Lee's request? You can start research at the link provided in the first post of this thread.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
General,

In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th instant, I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of N. Va. on the following terms; to wit:

Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate one copy to be given to an officer designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands.

The arms, artillery, and public property are to be parked and stacked and turned over to the officer appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage. This done officers and man will be allowed to return to their homes not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their parole and the laws in force where they may reside.

Very respectfully,

U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General.

Headquarters Army N. Va
April 9th, 1865
Lieut-Gen. U.S. Grant,
Commanding Armies of the U.S.


https://www.nps.gov/apco/learn/education/surrender-documents.htm
 

Gene Green

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 30, 2016
Location
Dixie
Ships and railroads needed capital investment. That wasn't coming if SC remained in the US. Ship building was a long term industry and railroads had become something like a board game in the US. SC felt it needed the security of its own independent self determination.
The capital was there and it did not require time. Shipbuilding was going on in SC but it was for rivers and coastal trading. They simply did not need to risk investment in shipping when someone else could be hired and their capital could be invested in agriculture and slaves.

Lowcountry South Carolina was not a complete maritime society like coastal Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Most South Carolinians looked inland, not to sea. “In the Northeast, if you lived near the coast, your livelihood was connected to the water,” says Charlie Sneed, executive director of the S.C. Maritime Heritage Foundation. “In our part of the country, people were more likely to make their living in farming and plantations.”
Charleston was blessed with an excellent harbor, yet South Carolinians built and invested in few seagoing vessels. Instead, they depended on ships owned by Londoners or Bostonians. New Englanders increasingly dominated American shipbuilding and maritime investing. Bostonians bought vessel shares in the way that modern investors buy corporate stock shares.
P.C. Coker, an independent scholar of local maritime history, has described the thinking of a typical colonial Carolina merchant who had 1,200 pounds to invest in the 1730s. With that sum, a merchant could build and outfit a 200-ton seagoing vessel, but he would risk his investment with storms, wars, fires, groundings, and pirates. Or he could pour his money into a dozen slaves and a 500-acre plantation, where he could grow rice and indigo, which fetched high prices. The choice was simple: purchase slaves and a plantation and charter someone else’s ship to send produce to Europe.

http://www.scseagrant.org/Content/?cid=189
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
General,

In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th instant, I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of N. Va. on the following terms; to wit:

Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate one copy to be given to an officer designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands.

The arms, artillery, and public property are to be parked and stacked and turned over to the officer appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage. This done officers and man will be allowed to return to their homes not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their parole and the laws in force where they may reside.

Very respectfully,

U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General.

Headquarters Army N. Va
April 9th, 1865
Lieut-Gen. U.S. Grant,
Commanding Armies of the U.S.


https://www.nps.gov/apco/learn/education/surrender-documents.htm
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
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.
. 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.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Banking on Slavery in the Antebellum South
Emphasis mine
PP8-9
Although other forms of collateral such as land might similarly be sold, slaves could also be physically removed from the claims of creditors. An example of this was the case of a slave named Milly, and the intricacies of her case were a preview of the famous Dred Scott a few decades later.10 In 1826, David Shipman of Kentucky conveyed Milly to the defendant Smith as security for a debt owed to the Commonwealth Bank of Kentucky and endorsed by Smith. As was often the case with mortgage collateral, Shipman retained possession of Milly and the other mortgaged property. Yet Shipman’s debts were well beyond what he could repay and “soon after the execution of said mortgage, said Shipman being greatly embarrassed, took the said Milly with several other of his slaves, and secretly ran away with them to Indiana...[and] executed a deed of emancipation to said slaves.” Shipman then set himself up on a farm in Illinois with Milly, until 1827 when Smith found them “and took said Milly secretly away against her consent, and the consent of said Shipman.” Milly, in these two court cases, was suing for her freedom, based both on the deed of emancipation and her extended residence in free states. But in order to ascertain Milly’s freedom, the courts first needed to determine who was her rightful owner: Smith, due to the mortgage, or Shipman who retained the “right of possession.” The mortgage law at the time was unclear on this point. When a property was offered as collateral, did the creditor take legal title to the property (if not possession) until the debt was paid, or did he merely retain a lien on this property – preventing it from being sold or otherwise altered in value without the consent of the creditor? In the first case, the Supreme Court of Missouri decided that “Smith had only a lien on her to secure the payment of debts; which lien Shipman might, at any time, have defeated, by paying those debts,” and thus Shipman retained ownership. Yet the court remained sufficiently uncertain as to send the case back to the circuit court for reconsideration. Even if Shipman still owned Milly, did Smith’s lien prevent him from emancipating her?​
When the case made its way back to the state Supreme Court, the justices were direct in their assessment that Shipman was “a man largely indebted, hiding his property, and in fact destroying it, to prevent his creditors from reaping any benefit therefrom, and in this case, Shipman has been base enough to emancipate the slave to injure and ruin his security. We feel disposed to view him in a light but little below that of a felon.” Yet the court could not find his fraudulent intentions to be illegal. Until Smith actually foreclosed on the mortgage, the slave was not legally his. In fact, they ruled that – until he foreclosed – the property was Shipman’s to do with as he wished, despite the lien. Ignoring Shipman’s deed of emancipation, the court instead ruled that “by the act of residence in Illinois,” Milly was now free, although her freedom was granted under the condition of being sub modo – that is, she was only free until Smith’s “lien is enforced by some mode known to the law.” He could not kidnap her, as he had done, but he could still foreclose on Shipman’s debt and claim her as property. Although the court did not leave this possibility open for perpetuity – at some unnamed future point Smith’s claim on Milly would no longer be reasonable – Milly’s grant of freedom in the short and even medium terms was extremely tenuous.​

 

wbull1

First Sergeant
Official Vendor
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
An interesting question. Did the (temporary) emperor of Mexico establish a new nation? He ruled by force while the elected President avoid capture. Like the CSA, the physical ground did not change while the government was in flux. Neither lasted. How about the "Free Nation of Jones" during the Civil War? Does pre-nation or proto-nation make sense?
 

67th Tigers

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
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:

More simply, he never committed treason. He acted completely legally with the laws as they stood at the time. Afterwards the US altered the law to make repetitions treasonous. However, he can only be judged with the laws that were in effect at the time.
 
More simply, he never committed treason. He acted completely legally with the laws as they stood at the time. Afterwards the US altered the law to make repetitions treasonous. However, he can only be judged with the laws that were in effect at the time.

I'm pretty sure that between 1861 and 1865 Federal law and the Constitution considered it an act of treason to lead rebel troops against the United States.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
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.
The first issue is the fact that you american use the word "state" for what is actually just administrative divisions of the state called USA.
And the words have historically been used in different ways compared to how it is used in an international legal undestnading.


In an international understanding Virginia or California are not states.
Main or even California can't send ambassadors to France or be a member of the UN.
Why we in danish call them "delstater" = partstates.

And the United Nations, despite the name, have member states. (UK, Russia, US, Denmark)

State = legal stuff like being recognized as such, being able to send ambassadors, being able to sign treaties, and today membership of the UN. (the UK is one state, so is Iraq and Belgium. But all 3 are made up of more than one nation.)


Nation = culture, language and similar.
(The Kurds is one nation., but they don't have their own state and live in more then one state.)

Look at the early 19th century Germany. Clearly a German nation existed, but there have always been more than one German state.
Before 1871 where a lot of Germans states. Then with the German empire you had one German state but a lot of Germans still lived outside that state. Many in Austria-Hungary.
For the 2nd half of the 20th century there where 3 Germans states.
(East and west Germany and Austria)


Country = poorly defined word that is pretty useless.

The USA is one (sovereign) state
The csa was never a de jury (sovereign) state
But did exist as some form of attempt at a de facto state for a limited period of time since it did a lot of the things that are normally limited to states
Like governing a territory, having an army and navy.

It can be debated if the US ever was one nation,(and not more) with very good reasons for a no,

But To me it make sense to say that there where a northern (white) nation, a southern white and a southern black nation.
(with the option of making even more divisions)
And the obvious (modern) political question is how many nations the US is made up of today...

Al in all it is a lot easier to talk about if the CSA existed as a (sovereign) state.. than if it was a nation, because culture is such a hard thing to count and measure.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
Top