Was anyone ever convicted for treason after the Civil War?

I believe a few did. I think that was one of the charges against the Lincoln conspirators. Also William Mumford for pulling down an American flag in New Orleans.
 
Correct on the assassination. The charges included the phrase "traitoriously" - the charge was treason.

upload_2015-5-27_13-20-25.png
 
Last edited:
My impression is that once the war was actually over, no one in the Johnson Administration wanted to bring the issue up because the obvious first choice for prosecution was Jefferson Davis, who was widely considered THE preeminent authority on the Constitution. To try him would be to allow him to present his case for secession before the Supreme Court, a case that was not at all certain given the somewhat ambiguous nature of the wording which is still argued about today! The best policy was therefore simply to let sleeping dogs lie and defer to the military outcome as final.
 
My impression is that once the war was actually over, no one in the Johnson Administration wanted to bring the issue up because the obvious first choice for prosecution was Jefferson Davis, who was widely considered THE preeminent authority on the Constitution. To try him would be to allow him to present his case for secession before the Supreme Court, a case that was not at all certain given the somewhat ambiguous nature of the wording which is still argued about today! The best policy was therefore simply to let sleeping dogs lie and defer to the military outcome as final.

So *that's* why they let Jeff Davis go on bail - didn't want hostilities to flare up again over any potential legal debates over secession!
 
Is it not true that the vast majority of former Confederates were given amnesty, thus were not charged with treason? From here: Amnesty Under Johnson:

Thus, on May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued his Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, which laid out provisions governing the restoration of citizenship and rights to former rebels. The majority of former Confederates could receive pardon for their participation in the rebellion by taking an oath swearing allegiance to the United States of America. However, within the Proclamation, Johnson excluded fourteen “classes” of former Confederates (eight more than Lincoln), who could not gain amnesty simply by taking the oath. Among these classes, three applied directly to members of the Confederate military. The third exception excluded “All who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy.” The fifth class excluded all those who had left the United States military to serve in the rebellion. And the eighth class of those exempt from amnesty excluded “All military and naval officers in the rebel service, who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point or in the United States Naval Academy.”

These provisions essentially excluded all high-ranking military officers from the benefit of gaining amnesty by simply taking an oath due to their elevated position within the Army or Navy. However, the Proclamation stated that “special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes; and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States.”(Item 13)

Two years later, on September 7, 1867, Johnson, desiring to hasten Reconstruction, narrowed the excepted classes to three, one of which being “all who held . . . a military rank or title above the grade of brigadier general, or the naval rank or title above that of captain.”

Johnson extended another proclamation less than a year later on July 4, 1868, granting amnesty to all former Confederates, excluding approximately three hundred, who were “under presentment or indictment in any court of the United States upon a charge of treason or other felony.” (Koontz 1996, vii)

He later granted a final pardon to all former Confederates on December 25, 1868, hoping that his actions would “secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people and their respect and attachment to the National Government.”(Dorris 1960, 28)​

-- Alan
 
Yep, the last thing anyone wanted was for a court to find out after the war had been won, hey, whoops, they really did have the right to secede after all. Much better not to risk it.

Henry Wirz was executed for Andersonville, and Champ Ferguson was executed for being a guerrilla, but the charges had to do with war crimes and murder, not treason.
 
What about Henry Wirz, commander of Andersonville? I know he was charged with killing prisoners of war, but what about treason?
 
What about Henry Wirz, commander of Andersonville? I know he was charged with killing prisoners of war, but what about treason?
Wikipedia has this on the specific charges against Wirz:
The charges against him were for 'combining, confederating, and conspiring, together withJohn H. Winder, Richard B. Winder, Joseph [Isaiah H.] White, W. S. Winder, R. R. Stevenson, and others unknown, to injure the health and destroy the lives of soldiers in the military service of the United States', and for 'Murder, in violation of the laws and customs of war'. The 13 murders committed by Wirz personally were by revolver (specifications 1, 3, 4), by physically stamping and kicking the victim (specification 2), and by confining prisoners in stocks (specifications 5, 6), by beating a prisoner with a revolver (specification 13) and by chaining prisoners together (specification 7)[citation needed]. All murders occurred in 1864.

Wirz was also charged with ordering guards to fire on prisoners with muskets (specification 8, 9, 10, 12), and to have dogs attack escaped prisoners (specification 11).[11] Wirz was found guilty of all charges except the murder in specification 4.[12]
 
My impression is that once the war was actually over, no one in the Johnson Administration wanted to bring the issue up because the obvious first choice for prosecution was Jefferson Davis, who was widely considered THE preeminent authority on the Constitution. To try him would be to allow him to present his case for secession before the Supreme Court, a case that was not at all certain given the somewhat ambiguous nature of the wording which is still argued about today! The best policy was therefore simply to let sleeping dogs lie and defer to the military outcome as final.

Doesnt sound right to me.
First, Davis was not considered an authority on the Constitution.
Second, I think his case for secession could be easily refuted.
 
So *that's* why they let Jeff Davis go on bail - didn't want hostilities to flare up again over any potential legal debates over secession!
During the years right after the war, the Supreme Court of the US and courts of some of the States declared secession to be illegal and treasonous. So I dont see this being a reason.
 
Is it not true that the vast majority of former Confederates were given amnesty, thus were not charged with treason? From here: Amnesty Under Johnson:

Thus, on May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued his Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, which laid out provisions governing the restoration of citizenship and rights to former rebels. The majority of former Confederates could receive pardon for their participation in the rebellion by taking an oath swearing allegiance to the United States of America. However, within the Proclamation, Johnson excluded fourteen “classes” of former Confederates (eight more than Lincoln), who could not gain amnesty simply by taking the oath. Among these classes, three applied directly to members of the Confederate military. The third exception excluded “All who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy.” The fifth class excluded all those who had left the United States military to serve in the rebellion. And the eighth class of those exempt from amnesty excluded “All military and naval officers in the rebel service, who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point or in the United States Naval Academy.”

These provisions essentially excluded all high-ranking military officers from the benefit of gaining amnesty by simply taking an oath due to their elevated position within the Army or Navy. However, the Proclamation stated that “special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes; and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States.”(Item 13)

Two years later, on September 7, 1867, Johnson, desiring to hasten Reconstruction, narrowed the excepted classes to three, one of which being “all who held . . . a military rank or title above the grade of brigadier general, or the naval rank or title above that of captain.”

Johnson extended another proclamation less than a year later on July 4, 1868, granting amnesty to all former Confederates, excluding approximately three hundred, who were “under presentment or indictment in any court of the United States upon a charge of treason or other felony.” (Koontz 1996, vii)

He later granted a final pardon to all former Confederates on December 25, 1868, hoping that his actions would “secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people and their respect and attachment to the National Government.”(Dorris 1960, 28)​

-- Alan


Indeed. But do you see the word "treason" anywhere? The crime charged with for those who received amnestry is rebellion. Even more importantly, here are the crimes that the ones who were expempt from amnesty committed (look hard, you cannot find the word "treason".)

The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation: 1st, all who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended Confederate government; 2nd, all who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion; 3d, all who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy; 4th, all who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion; 5th, all who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion; 6th, all who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities; 7th, all persons who have been, or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion; 8th, all military and naval officers in the rebel service, who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point or the United States Naval Academy; 9th, all persons who held the pretended offices of governors of States in insurrection against the United States; 10th, all persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States, and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the pretended Confederate States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion; 11th, all persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States; 12th, all persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military, or naval authorities, or agents of the United States as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind, either before or after conviction; 13th, all persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars; 14th, all persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President’s proclamation of December 8th, A.D. 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States since the date of said proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate.

Treason is an opinion of individuals and never a formal legal charge by the US government. Rebellion was the official charge...
 
Yep, James N' comment is supported in "Bloody Crimes" by James Swanson, who wrote:

"By the fall of 1866, the government had still taken no action to prosecute Davis for treason. He welcomed his trial, whatever its result. If he was acquitted, then the South was not wrong - it did have the constitutional right to leave the Union, and secession was not treason. His death, he believed, would win mercy for the South. The U.S. government wanted neither result. A federal court verdict declaring secession not treasonable would overturn the whole purpose and result of the war. Some of the ablest attorneys in America had offered to defend Davis, and a guilty verdict was by no means certain. And a guilty verdict, followed by Davis's execution, would create a martyr and might inspire the South to rise up again. John Reagan said it would be best for all concerned to release Davis: 'I urged that the welfare of the whole country would be subserved by setting him free without a trial; for the South it would be a signal that harsh and vindictive measures were to be relaxed; and for the North it would indicate that they were willing to let the decision of the right of secession rest where it was and not try to secure a judicial verdict . . . the war had passed judgment and that hereafter secession would mean rebellion."

IMO "might inspire the South to rise up again" is perhaps an overstatement if by that Swanson meant a renewal of the rebellion by the same means and in the same manner as before. OTOH, if he had in mind the risk of guerilla bands bent on vengeance then that seems a reasonable concern. He points out the oddity of the Lincoln conspirators having been executed for treason; that Wirz had been executed for war crimes - and yet the leader of the entire shebang walked free.
 
During the years right after the war, the Supreme Court of the US and courts of some of the States declared secession to be illegal and treasonous. So I dont see this being a reason.

Davis posted bail on May 13, 1867 and walked out of court a free man - all by pre-arrangement with the US government. The Supreme Court made only one ruling on secession - April 15, 1869 almost two years later. The majority ruled in favour of the reconstruction government of Texas which claimed that its own secession government had illegally sold US bonds that were state property.

This was a fight that the Johnson administration (and Stanton in particular) did not want to fight in 1866-7. They dared not risk Jefferson Davis' acquittal. I wonder what they'd have done if they thought a victory was certain.
 
Back
Top