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

 

[matthew mckeon]

This again? This sad dodge around the fact that the Confederate project was monstrous. This endless back and forth about article this and clause that, and what Patrick Henry said and what the Articles of Confederation said, and what about the Treaty of Paris. Its about as fruitful as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In Texas v. White(I know what year it was written), the argument goes the Articles of Confederation were perpetual and the Constitution was creating a "more perfect union" so secession isn't constitutional.

But the issue of secession was settled in a court room. It was settled on the battlefield. Anyone think that a state can unilaterally can secede? If you do, I can only say, what ever you're on, stop taking it or double the dose, because right now, it ain't working.

 

[cash]

Virginia's Ordinance of Secession stated that the perversion of power by the federal government caused injury to the people of VA but also resulted in the oppression of the southern states. They weren't just talking about their own state but the other southern states as well. Therefore, these were "the people of the United States" that were originally referred to in the ratification document. I think the people of Virginia knew what they were talking about in their own secession document. However, you will probably say they were liars also just because you don't agree.

Virginia was not acting in concert with other states. They were acting on their own, hence your interpretation fails to hold water.

The claim that I call people liars simply for disagreeing is a deliberate mischaracterization as anyone who checks the archives can see.

 

[cash]

If they had joined the Confederacy without resigning first, then that would be treason.

Incorrect. Since unilateral secession was not a legal act, they all remained citizens of the United States who owed allegiance to the United States and levied war on the United States, therefore meeting the definition of treason.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Virginia's Ordinance of Secession stated that the perversion of power by the federal government caused injury to the people of VA but also resulted in the oppression of the southern states. They weren't just talking about their own state but the other southern states as well. Therefore, these were "the people of the United States" that were originally referred to in the ratification document. I think the people of Virginia knew what they were talking about in their own secession document. However, you will probably say they were liars also just because you don't agree.

John Marshall was a Virginian, a Founding Father, and a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He most certainly knew what he was talking about when giving his majority opinion in a SCOTUS case involving the state of Virginia. He wrote:
"It is very true that whenever hostility to the existing system shall become universal, it will be also irresistible. The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it."
Excerpt from the 1821 case of Cohens v Virginia

 

[jgoodguy]

But just because a state proclaims its secession doesn't mean the Union has to honor it. The nation has the right to put down rebellions... when is a secession a secession and when is it a rebellion? And who decides?

The problem is that a State does not secede, its people do.

From Texas vs White

1. The word "State" describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country, or territorial region, inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently, it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times, it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government.

2. In the Constitution, the term "State" most frequently expresses the combined idea, just noticed, of people, territory, and government. A State, in the ordinary sense of the Constitution, is a political community of free citizens, occupying a territory of defined boundaries and organised under a government sanctioned and limited by a written constitution, and established by the consent of the governed.

3. But the term is also used to express the idea of a people or political community, as distinguished from the government. In this sense, it is used in the clause which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.

 

[Rebforever]

This again? This sad dodge around the fact that the Confederate project was monstrous. This endless back and forth about article this and clause that, and what Patrick Henry said and what the Articles of Confederation said, and what about the Treaty of Paris. Its about as fruitful as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In Texas v. White(I know what year it was written), the argument goes the Articles of Confederation were perpetual and the Constitution was creating a "more perfect union" so secession isn't constitutional.

But the issue of secession was settled in a court room. It was settled on the battlefield. Anyone think that a state can unilaterally can secede? If you do, I can only say, what ever you're on, stop taking it or double the dose, because right now, it ain't working.

And there are still no laws against secession.

 

[cash]

And there are still no laws against secession.

Incorrect again. The Constitution prevents unilateral secession because the Constitution, which is the organic law of the United States, prevents a state from declaring it and US Laws and Treaties do not apply to that state.

 

[Patrick H]

Virginia was not acting in concert with other states. They were acting on their own, hence your interpretation fails to hold water.

The claim that I call people liars simply for disagreeing is a deliberate mischaracterization as anyone who checks the archives can see.

Well, Cash, you said this about Professor Williams in your post number 5: "Walter Williams is not as accomplished a liar as Clyde Williams, but he tries harder." Seems pretty obvious you called him and Clyde Williams liars. You went on to accuse Prof. Williams of a "bald faced lie". You called people liars.

 

[cash]

Well, Cash, you said this about Professor Williams in your post number 5: "Walter Williams is not as accomplished a liar as Clyde Williams, but he tries harder." Seems pretty obvious you called him and Clyde Williams liars. You went on to accuse Prof. Williams of a "bald faced lie". You called people liars.

Not simply for disagreeing, but for actually lying.

 

[CMWinkler]

That's enough. Address the thread topic or be banned. Those are the choices.

 

[Patrick H]

Thank you, CMWinkler. I will now check myself.

 

[Jimklag]

were Civil War generals traitors. I believe they were if they were in the United States Army at the time and left to join the Confederacy..

In a strictly technical sense, yes. All Confederates met the constitutional definition of "making war on the United States; adhering to those making war; or giving aid and comfort to those making war." After December 25, 1868, no. That was the date of Proclamation 179, Andrew Johnson's blanket pardon of all confederates for the crime of treason. Lincoln had previously made it clear, before his death, that he didn't want any treason trials.

 

[Patrick H]

In a strictly technical sense, yes. All Confederates met the constitutional definition of "making war on the United States; adhering to those making war; or giving aid and comfort to those making war." After December 25, 1868, no. That was the date of Proclamation 179, Andrew Johnson's blanket pardon of all confederates for the crime of treason. Lincoln had previously made a political decision before his death that he didn't want any treason trials.

Thank you for this.

 

[Jimklag]

Thank you for this.

My pleasure.

 

[Bee]

Walter Williams...I was trying to think of why his connection to the Civil War was familiar to me: He was the subject of a very long thread here on CWT:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/bl...s-walter-williams-latest.120894/#post-1262464

I wonder if he writes his articles knowingly of the controversy that they will stir? Otherwise, he is a great "contributor" here at CWT

 

[DaveGberg]

I wonder if he writes his articles knowingly of the controversy that they will stir? Otherwise, he is a great "contributor" here at CWT

Of that I have no doubt.

 

[Patrick H]

Walter Williams...I was trying to think of why his connection to the Civil War was familiar to me: He was the subject of a very long thread here on CWT:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/bl...s-walter-williams-latest.120894/#post-1262464

I wonder if he writes his articles knowingly of the controversy that they will stir? Otherwise, he is a great "contributor" here at CWT

I don't think there's any question that he knows he is stirring up controversy. He does it with great regularity in my local newspaper. Just think: He gets well paid for it, too! What a gig!

 

[NedBaldwin]

Got a source for this statement?

Source: myself, in the thread "There can be no peaceable secession" -- northern impetus for war before Sumter"

Links to individual resolutions:

Michigan

New York

Massachusetts

Pennsylvani

Minnesota

Wisconsin

 

[JerseyBart]

This again? This sad dodge around the fact that the Confederate project was monstrous. This endless back and forth about article this and clause that, and what Patrick Henry said and what the Articles of Confederation said, and what about the Treaty of Paris. Its about as fruitful as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In Texas v. White(I know what year it was written), the argument goes the Articles of Confederation were perpetual and the Constitution was creating a "more perfect union" so secession isn't constitutional.

But the issue of secession was settled in a court room. It was settled on the battlefield. Anyone think that a state can unilaterally can secede? If you do, I can only say, what ever you're on, stop taking it or double the dose, because right now, it ain't working.

But someone said the dodge was okay and typed it up so...

 

[NedBaldwin]

Source: myself, in the thread "There can be no peaceable secession" -- northern impetus for war before Sumter"

Links to individual resolutions:

Michigan

New York

Massachusetts

Pennsylvani

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Bonus round:

Ohio

Maine