kepi
First Sergeant
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2015
- Location
- United States of America
Was anyone ever convicted for treason after the Civil War?
William Mumford for pulling down an American flag in New Orleans.
WOW! That's harsh.He was hanged in public on the grounds of the U.S. Mint in New Orleans.
The following gives a brief outline concerning Mumford's execution. Note the event occurred during the War, not afterward.I have not heard this before. What happened to him?
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.
Wikipedia has this on the specific charges against Wirz:What about Henry Wirz, commander of Andersonville? I know he was charged with killing prisoners of war, but what about treason?
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.
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.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
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.