Were Confederate Generals Traitors?

[CMWinkler]

Were Confederate Generals Traitors?

By Walter E. Williams | June 27, 2017 | 8:37 AM EDT



Expired Image Removed
At the 150th anniversary of the Civil War's Battle of Chancellorsville, a Confederate re-enactor issues orders to troops to get them into position during the re-enactment of Maj. Gen. Stonewall Jackson's flank attack against the Union XI Corps. (DOD Photo/Sgt. 1st Class Raymond J. Piper, Soldiers Live)
My "Rewriting American History" column of a fortnight ago, about the dismantling of Confederate monuments, generated considerable mail.

Some argued there should not be statues honoring traitors such as Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, who fought against the Union. Victors of wars get to write the history, and the history they write often does not reflect the facts. Let's look at some of the facts and ask: Did the South have a right to secede from the Union? If it did, we can't label Confederate generals as traitors.

More: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/walter-e-williams/were-confederate-generals-traitors#disqus_thread

 

[StephenColbert27]

My 5th graders easily understood both wars were rebellious acts of treason against the mother country. One was successful. One wasn't.

If you win, it's a revolution. If you lose, it's a rebellion.

 

[NedBaldwin]

But as the C.S.A., they were a foreign Country, with it's own Constitution, President, Cabinet, Legislature & Army. They were NONE of the business of the U.S. After Secession !

What made them foreign?

 

[StephenColbert27]

But as the C.S.A., they were a foreign Country, with it's own Constitution, President, Cabinet, Legislature & Army. They were NONE of the business of the U.S. After Secession !

I would think the garrison of Fort Sumter might want a word with you.

 

[Andersonh1]

Did Lincoln commit treason?

At the very least, he was awfully tone-deaf to the wishes of millions of people living in the southern states. A wiser man would have realized something was terribly wrong that could not be remedied by simply declaring their votes "unlawful" and then saying "we'll keep on collecting the revenue".

 

[Andersonh1]

OK, but Federalists papers are not law, legal advice or Constitutional law.

I'll have to remember that the next time someone gives me Madison's opinion as an authority on the Constitution.

 

[StephenColbert27]

At the very least, he was awfully tone-deaf to the wishes of millions of people living in the southern states. A wiser man would have realized something was terribly wrong that could not be remedied by simply declaring their votes "unlawful" and then saying "we'll keep on collecting the revenue".

The South was pretty tone-deaf to the future of stability and utility of democracy if unilateral secession as a result of an unfavorable election became standard-practice.

 

[Jimklag]

It was the North who were denying the wishes of the Southern States & their basic Rights of Freedom & chosen Independence.

This post doesn't pass the giggle test. To answer it is a waste of time.

 

[jgoodguy]

I'll have to remember that the next time someone gives me Madison's opinion as an authority on the Constitution.

Good idea!

 

[NedBaldwin]

...simply declaring their votes "unlawful" ...

What does that even mean?

 

[jgoodguy]

This is true, but neither is the DOI but yet many turn to the writers of those documents to understand their meaning and intent of the law. They shouldn't be totally discounted.

Sorta agree, the Constitution was the work of a committee with various potions and intents. While the DOI was the work or Jefferson, it was approved by a committee. The history of why is important, but the future determines. For example the DOI was for a republic of white property owners in 1776 by 1863 it became the property of all.

All law is in a state of flux and the future folks determine what it is.

 

[Jimklag]

Did Lincoln commit treason?

What? Am I hallucinating?

 

[John Hartwell]

In their own view, no, they weren't.
To the Federals, yes, they were.
To us, today, what difference does it make?.
To me personally, I don't give a d*mn.

 

[Bee]

But as the C.S.A., they were a foreign Country, with it's own Constitution, President, Cabinet, Legislature & Army. They were NONE of the business of the U.S. After Secession !

Well.....at least you use "they" instead of "we". It's a start.....!

 

[jgoodguy]

We have unimpeachable historical evidence confederate soldiers levied war on America.

Everyone from grandma that gave her wedding band to the cause, woman that pieced work for the CSA, drummer boys, aliens under the sovereignty of the CSA etc levied war in some manner.

 

[Andersonh1]

What does that even mean?

I'm paraphrasing Lincoln's first inaugural.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

 

[thomas aagaard]

The CSA was not recognized by any sovereign state in the world.
They had no right to unilaterally leave the union, take over federal property by force and then open fire on a US fort on US soil.

Had SC gone to congress and said "we want to leave" then yes, I agree that they would have every right to do so... in agreement with the other states on what they should pay.

 

[Jimklag]

But as the C.S.A., they were a foreign Country, with it's own Constitution, President, Cabinet, Legislature & Army. They were NONE of the business of the U.S. After Secession !

Another bit if nonsense. As a Civil War testified, "they" were quite properly the principle business of the U. S.

 

[jgoodguy]

At the very least, he was awfully tone-deaf to the wishes of millions of people living in the southern states. A wiser man would have realized something was terribly wrong that could not be remedied by simply declaring their votes "unlawful" and then saying "we'll keep on collecting the revenue".

Better than the fellow with a eye ache losing his temper and starting a war.

 

[jgoodguy]

I'm paraphrasing Lincoln's first inaugural.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

Are you of the opinion that the size of a mob determines legality?

 

[Andersonh1]

Better than the fellow with a eye ache losing his temper and starting a war.

Not really. Lincoln was living in fantasy land, not taking the wishes of millions seriously. He seemed to think a good stern scolding would keep them in line.