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

 

[Andersonh1]

Where do you get "millions" from? The actual total of people from 3 Southern states that voted for secession was around 300,000 and that total is suspect as being overblown. The remaining secession votes were cast by state legislatures. with no referendum for the people to vote on. Lincoln on the other hand, won with a popular vote of 1,866,000 and Douglas, who secessionists were not going to vote for, garnered 1,380,000 votes and that total almost equals the entire Southern state's adult White male population including 20 year olds.

I had the total population in my head when I typed the number, rather than voting population, sorry. I stand corrected on that.

 

[thomas aagaard]

As much as I admire Dr. Williams and his opinions, I disagree.

Do you also admire it when he prevaricated about very simple facts? And use it to falsify history?
Like his claim that the south paid 75% of all Tariffs.
(when New York collected about 2/3 of all tariffs collected in the country)
read the list few lines of this "article
http://washingtonexaminer.com/walter-williams-was-the-civil-war-about-tariff-revenue/article/2521959


(New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million. [Source: Douglas B. Ball,Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, "Trade Figures by Port in 1860" and "Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)"])

 

[DaveGberg]

In the article that inspired this thread, Walter Williams claims:

Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty."​

Williams has used this quote multiple times, never citing a source, starting with a piece he wrote for the 19 Apr 2002 edition of Capitalist Magazine, titled Do States Have a Right of Secession? (That piece is available on the web to anyone who wants to google it). Magazines don't necessarily allow footnotes, but Williams certainly had the opportunity to cite his source when he used the quote in a book he wrote in 2015. Google doesn't find any occurrences of this quote prior to the Capitalist Magazine article, and subsequent uses are either unsourced or cite Williams, so the quote is presumptively bogus.

I did a quick Google search on both Kunkel and his alleged quote and only came up with citations from various neo-confederate websites.

But putting that aside, I don't see the significance if Kunkel had even made that comment. Other than serving in congress he doesn't appear to have a significant role in the unfolding crisis. Lots of people held the view that the south had no right to secede but the north had no right to intervene... it was championed by Buchannan and Taney... but views hardened on all sides once things started going into motion.

I chalk up Rep. Kunkel's quote as bland filler in Williams rather weak opinion piece.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Google doesn't find any occurrences of this quote prior to the Capitalist Magazine article, and subsequent uses are either unsourced or cite Williams, so the quote is presumptively bogus.

Yep., when one google the quote there are not that many hits.
And every single one I looked at give us either Williams as a source or more often there is no source.

The oldest pages I can find online with the quote are from 2002 and 2003.
The 2002 one is an article by Williams.
From 2003 one don't give a source.. and quote "DiLorenzo".
And the other page is by "mike Griffith" and he quote Williams.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

Once again, I am jumping into an ongoing debate extremely late, but here goes. In my view, the issue is not whether Confederate generals committed treason. Clearly they did, especially but not only, if they had sworn oaths to the Union as federal officers. So too did the colonists who took up arms against King George III commit treason against Britain. The question is whether their acts were justified and whether they should have been punished for it. In most cases, I am glad that the federal government did not pursue treason charges against Confederate generals, though such charges would have been justified. The good of the country was served by declining to pursue a righteous vendetta against those individuals.

However, this question is very germane to the issue of how we should view monuments to traitors, whether convicted or otherwise. Forgiveness is one thing. Full exoneration, much less admiration and acclaim, are distinctly other things. It is one thing to decide that mitigating circumstances existed for a person's treason, or even to admire the dedication and skill with which that person pursued his treasonous objectives. But unless one embraces a traitor's acts as fully justified, it is entirely another matter to apotheosize such a person in a marble monument as a permanent object of public acclaim and celebration.

 

[jgoodguy]

Once again, I am jumping into an ongoing debate extremely late, but here goes. In my view, the issue is not whether Confederate generals committed treason. Clearly they did, especially but not only, if they had sworn oaths to the Union as federal officers. So too did the colonists who took up arms against King George III commit treason against Britain. The question is whether their acts were justified and whether they should have been punished for it. In most cases, I am glad that the federal government did not pursue treason charges against Confederate generals, though such charges would have been justified. The good of the country was served by declining to pursue a righteous vendetta against those individuals.

However, this question is very germane to the issue of how we should view monuments to traitors, whether convicted or otherwise. Forgiveness should not equal admiration. It is one thing to decide that mitigating circumstances existed for a person's treason, or even to admire the dedication and skill with which that person pursued his treasonous objectives. But unless one fully embraces the traitor's acts as fully justified, it is entirely another matter to apotheosize such a person in a marble monument as a permanent object of public acclaim and celebration.

Perhaps treason is more public opinion than crime?

 

[O' Be Joyful]

I did a quick Google search on both Kunkel and his alleged quote and only came up with citations from various neo-confederate websites.

But putting that aside, I don't see the significance if Kunkel had even made that comment. Other than serving in congress he doesn't appear to have a significant role in the unfolding crisis. Lots of people held the view that the south had no right to secede but the north had no right to intervene... it was championed by Buchannan and Taney... but views hardened on all sides once things started going into motion.

I chalk up Rep. Kunkel's quote as bland filler in Williams rather weak opinion piece.

I am willing to venture that one of his fellow "scholars" at Abbeville dug out that nugget. I would like to see someone contact the learned professor to inquire as to the source and original context, just to see if he would respond. He most certainly has brought new found notoriety to Kunkel that he seems to have failed to achieve in life. The Republic has survived the election of numerous fools to Congress in our history.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

Perhaps treason is more public opinion than crime?

One could put it this way: If southern secession was treasonous, then Confederate generals were traitors. If not, then they weren't. Thus, by their very existence, every monument to a Confederate general suggests at least implicitly, if not explicitly, that southern secession was both legitimate and honorable, even if not strictly "lawful."

 

[WJC]

Do you also admire it when he prevaricated about very simple facts? And use it to falsify history?
Like his claim that the south paid 75% of all Tariffs.
(when New York collected about 2/3 of all tariffs collected in the country)
read the list few lines of this "article
http://washingtonexaminer.com/walter-williams-was-the-civil-war-about-tariff-revenue/article/2521959


(New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million. [Source: Douglas B. Ball,Financial Failure and Confederate Defeat, p. 205, Table 18, "Trade Figures by Port in 1860" and "Customs Collections by Major Port (1860)"])

Thanks for your response.
I believe I made myself clear: I do not agree with his assertions in this article.
As you know, Dr. Williams has written many articles....

 

[jgoodguy]

One could put it this way: If southern secession was treasonous, then Confederate generals were traitors. If not, then they weren't. Thus, by their very existence, every monument to a Confederate general suggests at least implicitly, if not explicitly, that southern secession was both legitimate and honorable, even if not strictly "lawful."

I like it.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Thanks for your response.
I believe I made myself clear: I do not agree with his assertions in this article.
As you know, Dr. Williams has written many articles....

But you did write that you " I admire Dr. Williams and his opinions"

And therefor I ask if you also admire him and his opinions, when he is making statements that are pure lies?

And gave you one example of his prevarications.

 

[cash]

I did a quick Google search on both Kunkel and his alleged quote and only came up with citations from various neo-confederate websites.

But putting that aside, I don't see the significance if Kunkel had even made that comment. Other than serving in congress he doesn't appear to have a significant role in the unfolding crisis. Lots of people held the view that the south had no right to secede but the north had no right to intervene... it was championed by Buchannan and Taney... but views hardened on all sides once things started going into motion.

I chalk up Rep. Kunkel's quote as bland filler in Williams rather weak opinion piece.

It was a resolution by Representative Roger A. Pryor of Virginia, offered December 31, 1860.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=055/llcg055.db&recNum=221

The resolution was immediately tabled. Kunkel was a 2-term Democrat from Maryland, sympathetic to the confederacy, who voted against a resolution that approved of Anderson's actions in moving to Fort Sumter, basically calling Anderson a coward.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=055/llcg055.db&recNum=282

Kunkel's quote is indeed bland filler, especially when we remember most of the Congress disagreed.

 

[OpnCoronet]

There is no no supreme law against secession in what you posted whatever.
Slice it up anyway you want and there is no law that says secession is illegal.
Thanks for your opinion though.

Not an opinion, a Law, with no Peer in Law. The Law(Supremacy Clause) says quirte clearly, secession is illegal, if it violates any of the expressed powers and rights contained in the Constitution and its Laws.

The silence of the Constitution and its laws, cannot be made to justify the violation or to negate any of its expressed powers

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

Once again, the question was never whether unilateral secession was "legal." It wasn't. The question has always been whether breaking the law by unilaterally seceding was justified. In a democracy, committing treason is virtually never justified until all other remedies have been exhausted, and even then, only in the most extraordinary circumstances. The election of a president on a policy of containing slavery within its current borders did not even begin to meet the criterion of a qualifying extraordinary circumstance justifying treason. Opponents of Lincoln's slavery policy could have opposed it by legal means by making their case to the nation, or to a possibly quite sympathetic Supreme Court. Failing in this, they could have pursued secession by legal, Constitutional means. Failing this, slavery expansion advocates could have done their duty as loyal citizens of their democracy by acceding to the will of the majority of the American people. However, it is not at all surprising that champions of slavery were not overly impressed with the duties incumbent upon them as citizens of a democracy.

 

[WilliamH]

I guess they had to choose between being traitors to the United States or traitors to their home State. Either way I don't see that it really matters. In almost all cases they were not treated as traitors but instead were treated with the honor one gives to a military foe (treated as POWs instead of criminals).

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

I guess they had to choose between being traitors to the United States or traitors to their home State. Either way I don't see that it really matters. In almost all cases they were not treated as traitors but instead were treated with the honor one gives to a military foe (treated as POWs instead of criminals).

The idea that one could commit treason against one's home state could have only made sense if one supposed that a state was a legitimate, sovereign entity. Most Confederate generals had previously sworn oaths to uphold the federal Constitution, which contradicts that notion. Thus, once again, if unilateral southern secession was treason, then Confederate generals were traitors. If not, then they weren't.

 

[jgoodguy]

I guess they had to choose between being traitors to the United States or traitors to their home State. Either way I don't see that it really matters. In almost all cases they were not treated as traitors but instead were treated with the honor one gives to a military foe (treated as POWs instead of criminals).

The idea that one could commit treason against one's home state could have only made sense if one supposed that a state was a legitimate, sovereign entity. Most Confederate generals had previously sworn oaths to uphold the federal Constitution, which contradicts that notion. Thus, once again, if unilateral southern secession was treason, then Confederate generals were traitors. If not, then they weren't.

Sounds like a Civil War for sure.

 

[wausaubob]

In order for the actions of the Confederate generals to be something other than treason, they would have had to be able to impose the theory of unilateral secession on the other 23 states by military force sufficient to defend the seceded territory.
They were completely unable to do that, for reasons that existed in 1860, though it took about 3 years for them to become obvious.

 

[wausaubob]

Sounds like a Civil War for sure.

They were two centuries apart in their interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. The South had an eighteenth century interpretation of the constitution which was necessary in colonial times when poor communication among the regions, and a basically agricultural economy made local autonomy a necessity and a reality. It was this system that created the huge plantations consisting of thousands of acres, and landowners that sometimes owned several such plantations, so that the plantation owners functioned as feudal lords, sans titles, which they sorely envied.
But as the lines given to Rhett Butler in the 1939 version of Gone With the Wind, that is living in the past, and look around at Atlanta in August 1864, as depicted in the movie, this is what comes of living in the past.
It was an easy summation as of 1939, however as of 1860, the United States was anticipating the 20th century. Railroads and telegraph connections made local autonomy less important. National railroad companies, with a uniform gauge, and interconnected railroads, were going to the next step.
The territory of the United States had reached the Pacific Ocean and so had the telegraph.
The United States had already subsidized a successful railroad project in Illinois.
And the rabid expansionist policies of the U.S. had already reached a geographical limit and the South was going to have trouble convincing the U.S. to initiate any great expansionist wars.
The Constitution was written to be flexible enough to allow a transition to the future. It did not enshrine slavery as permanently protected, or as the responsibility of the United States.
The secessionist states wanted to go back the colonial era, when provincial separation protected slavery.
In so doing they were committing treason against the flexible character of the Constitution, without a permanent guarantee of slavery.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Once again, the question was never whether unilateral secession was "legal."

But, in fact, that was the precise argument that justified secession to confederate leaders. The North's resistance to the exercise of the slave states right to leave the Union if they wanted, was unjustified, because, in their view, the Constitution clearly allowed them to do so., i.e., unilateral secession was legal, or, in this case, was justified, because the Constitution, did not specifically deny it.

P.S. there was more to it than that; interpretation of the DoI, the whys and whereforths of Revolutionary War, etc., but, to me the above constitutes the essence of the arguments, at the time, tht secession was justified and legal, and Union resistance, unholy and malignant.