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

 

[O' Be Joyful]

nobody recognized them

Stand Watie did.

 

[Schwallanscher]

Stand Watie did.

really? where is it? south pacific sea?

 

[jgoodguy]

Those who were not traitors to the United States called it a liberation.

Former slaves especially.

 

[KansasFreestater]

Maybe time to revisit this thread from a couple years ago that argues that union (which would preclude secession) was a foundational concept from the very beginning, even predating the Declaration of Independence.

 

[suzenatale]

We still run into issues here, though. There was no trial to convict or prove that a crime existed. Is OJ a murderer? No, not in our legal system because there was no conviction. And shouldn't we use the Constitutionally definition of the word since it is the basis of it?

Well except they asked to be pardoned.

Apparently doing so is admission of guilt,

"I asked a downcast but nonetheless dignified Mr. Kerner if he had considered seeking a pardon. He was emphatic in his response.

"No," he told me, "I would neither seek nor accept a Presidential pardon, which requires an admission of guilt. I would not perjure myself to obtain a pardon. I am innocent." Mr. Kerner died some months later proclaiming his innocence.

That understanding was confirmed to me by Deputy Attorney General Charles B. Renfrew, a former Federal judge serving in the Carter Justice Department.

Mr. Renfrew told me that no application for a Presidential pardon would be passed on by the Justice Department to the White House unless the petitioner formally acknowledged guilt."
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/10/o...on-still-imply-admission-of-guilt-514193.html
​

Also Lee lost his citizenship. Trial or no there was a punishment for the crime.

 

[jgoodguy]

Maybe time to revisit this thread from a couple years ago that argues that union (which would preclude secession) was a foundational concept from the very beginning, even predating the Declaration of Independence.

Except that the very nature of a confederation like the articles of confederation is a treaty organization and not a consolidated union of the Constitution.

 

[DaveGberg]

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.

I've read through both links, thanks. At least I got something factual out of this. The Williams' article has a very low signal-to-noise ratio, and the signal itself is garbled.

 

[Booklady]

One of the things that bothers me about debate on this subject is that I never saw Confederates as attempting to overthrow or violently take over the U.S. government. Confederate military officers, like Lee, who had been U.S. military officers resigned their commissions, in their own eyes left the U.S., and were fighting to be allowed to establish a new country not do away with their old one. Yes, they certainly ended up fighting a war against their [former] [hoped for former] [however one wants to put it] nation, but what would have happened if they had won? Would they have overthrown the United States and forced it to become the CSA, or would the CSA have just gone off on its own? I don't think it would have been the former.

 

[DaveGberg]

One of the things that bothers me about debate on this subject is that I never saw Confederates as attempting to overthrow or violently take over the U.S. government. Confederate military officers, like Lee, who had been U.S. military officers resigned their commissions, in their own eyes left the U.S., and were fighting to be allowed to establish a new country not do away with their old one. Yes, they certainly ended up fighting a war against their [former] [hoped for former] [however one wants to put it] nation, but what would have happened if they had won? Would they have overthrown the United States and forced it to become the CSA, or would the CSA have just gone off on its own? I don't think it would have been the former.

The charge of treason is levying war against the United States, the objective doesn't come into play

 

[Booklady]

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun

1. the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

Anyway, I recognize it's a subjective opinion, not a legal analysis. Like I said, it's just something that bothers me about this debate (not this particular debate here; debating the general subject of treasonous Confederates). I feel like these guys wanted to walk away, not take anything over. It ought to make a difference in how we look back at them. They weren't killing the czar and his family.

 

[DaveGberg]

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun

1. the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

Wrong definition. The definition under the Constitution governs:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

As you can see, the objective doesn't factor in

 

[cash]

One of the things that bothers me about debate on this subject is that I never saw Confederates as attempting to overthrow or violently take over the U.S. government.

Not necessary for them to have committed treason.

 

[Booklady]

Wrong definition. The definition under the Constitution governs:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

As you can see, the objective doesn't factor in

Well, then technically, constitutionally, they committed treason. Yep.
Still matters to how I look back at them, and how I dislike the debate, that they were not treasonous in that other sense of the word. Not asking you to agree with what bothers me.

 

[DaveGberg]

Well, then technically, constitutionally, they committed treason. Yep.
Still matters to how I look back at them, and how I dislike the debate, that they were not treasonous in that other sense of the word. Not asking you to agree with what bothers me.

Sure. I think you're touching on a couple of points. First, how we look back at them should be through the facts as best as we understand them and not through some gauzy eyed reminiscing.

Second is (IMO) less about whether the Confederate Generals committed treason (the narrow topic of this thread), but the reasons why the Union decided not to pursue those charges and if that was a good decision. Personally I think it was.

Cheers.

 

[wausaubob]

I am pretty sure that by 1861, by established practice, the concept of United States citizenship, and a duty to the United State, to protect it and defend it, the idea that a United States citizen was similar to a British subject, was in practice.
The legal fiction, that the various 13 original states were just allies, and that their residents were only citizens of the respective states, was useful to those who advocated resistance to the federal government.
The theory of the South was that the national government was like a monarch in a constitutional monarchy.
The national government was the titular ruler only, and should not levy taxes, raise armies or construct navies, or do anything that the wealthy land owners of South Carolina don't like.
Its a nice legal fiction, but it had also been tried before the constitution had been adopted, and it did not work. Hence the attempt to construct a more perfect union.

 

[cash]

Well, then technically, constitutionally, they committed treason. Yep.

Not just technically, but in fact.

Still matters to how I look back at them, and how I dislike the debate, that they were not treasonous in that other sense of the word. Not asking you to agree with what bothers me.

We can look on them as fondly as we wish.

 

[John S. Carter]

Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
View attachment 145502
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

The officers who went West Point were under oath to protect and defend the Constitution ,there by they may be considered as such.That would include most of the corp commanders and Robert E. Lee. Question; where not the officers who were attending West Point given the choose to remain or to leave the school ? Would that amount to removing these officers from that oath,there by removing any traitor label from these officers? If they were traitors then why did the Johnson administration not prosecute these officers,while the revenge mode was so in the North ? Was it fear of the Southern people,rising in hostility ,With military forces surly any difficulties would have been easily dealt with.The general in charge of Andersonville POW camp , is the only one I know who went to trial, shame that they did not bother with their own commandants in charge of Northern POWs

 

[cash]

The officers who went West Point were under oath to protect and defend the Constitution ,there by they may be considered as such.That would include most of the corp commanders and Robert E. Lee. Question; where not the officers who were attending West Point given the choose to remain or to leave the school ? Would that amount to removing these officers from that oath,there by removing any traitor label from these officers? If they were traitors then why did the Johnson administration not prosecute these officers,while the revenge mode was so in the North ? Was it fear of the Southern people,rising in hostility ,With military forces surly any difficulties would have been easily dealt with.The general in charge of Andersonville POW camp , is the only one I know who went to trial, shame that they did not bother with their own commandants in charge of Northern POWs

Poor history.

Taking the oath has nothing to do with committing treason. Johnson pardoned them all for the crime of treason.

All we need to do is read some real history books to understand what happened. This ain't that hard.

 

[suzenatale]

? If they were traitors then why did the Johnson administration not prosecute these officers,while the revenge mode was so in the North ? Was it fear of the Southern people,rising in hostility ,With military forces surly any difficulties would have been easily dealt with.The general in charge of Andersonville POW camp , is the only one I know who went to trial, shame that they did not bother with their own commandants in charge of Northern POWs

They were not prosecuted in the usual manner but rather through the 14th Amendment,

"Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
​

It refers to them as having committed a crime and this was something they were later given or had to request pardon for.
And a pardon can only be given if a crime was committed.

As far as I know none of them ever tried to argue that this was an unfair punishment as no crime was ever committed by them. They asked for a pardon which is an admission of guilt.

"Gentlemen present themselves here who were once practitioners before this court, but who confess in form that they have been traitors, and virtually confess that they have forfeited the privileges which they had under the rules of this court. Confessing all this, they maintain their right to take the original oath again, and to come back to practise before this court because they have been pardoned by the President."
​

Rather than try everyone they held them to an oath that questioned whether they were a traitor. If they wanted a privilege they had to swear that they were never traitors, or say they were and be pardoned.

"The act prescribing the oath does not say, that when a man comes here and admits that he has committed the offence, the court shall try and punish him for that offence. It says, that in order to practise he shall take an oath that he has never committed treason, that he has never joined the Rebellion. That is all. He may take the oath or not as he pleases. No one compels him to take it. Is it a penalty, when he must invoke the penalty on his own head if there is penalty? That oath does not punish him, nor authorize anybody to punish him, nor say that he has done anything heretofore that is punishable in the sense of crime or delict. He may stay away; no one can touch him."
​

Here's all the legal stuff for our lawyers.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/71/333.html

 

[suzenatale]

It sounds like the supreme court was of the opinion that participating in the rebellion was treason.

"The pardon produced by the petitioner is a full pardon 'for all offences by him committed, arising from participation, direct or implied, in the Rebellion,' and is subject to certain conditions which have been complied with. The effect of this pardon is to relieve the petitioner from all penalties and disabilities attached to the offence of treason, committed by his participation in the Rebellion. So far as that offence is concerned, he is thus placed beyond the reach of punishment of any kind. But to exclude him, by reason of that offence, from continuing in the enjoyment of a previously acquired right, is to enforce a punishment for that offence notwithstanding the pardon. If such exclusion can be effected by the exaction of an expurgatory oath covering the offence, the pardon may be avoided, and that accomplished indirectly which cannot be reached by direct legislation. It is not within the constitutional power of Congress thus to inflict punishment beyond the reach of executive clemency. From the petitioner, therefore, the oath required by the act of January 24th, 1865, could not be exacted, even if that act were not subject to any other objection than the one thus stated."​

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/71/333.html