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

 

[suzenatale]

On Christmas Day, 1868, every confederate was pardoned.

It was my understanding that Lee was not pardoned untill 1975

 

[Bee]

It was my understanding that Lee was not pardoned untill 1975

On October 2, 1865, the same day that Lee was inaugurated as president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, he signed his Amnesty Oath, thereby complying fully with the provision of Johnson's proclamation. But Lee was not pardoned, nor was his citizenship restored. And the fact that he had submitted an amnesty oath at all was soon lost to history.

More than a hundred years later, in 1970, an archivist at the National Archives discovered Lee's Amnesty Oath among State Department records (reported in Prologue, Winter 1970). Apparently Secretary of State William H. Seward had given Lee's application to a friend as a souvenir, and the State Department had pigeonholed the oath.

In 1975, Lee's full rights of citizenship were posthumously restored by a joint congressional resolution effective June 13, 1865.

At the August 5, 1975, signing ceremony, President Gerald R. Ford acknowledged the discovery of Lee's Oath of Allegiance in the National Archives and remarked: &quote;General Lee's character has been an example to succeeding generations, making the restoration of his citizenship an event in which every American can take pride.&quote; https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/spring/piece-lee.html

​

 

[suzenatale]

Not sure why it didnt apply to him though after reading it...
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360

 

[Andersonh1]

Speaking only for myself, I don't look on them fondly. I look at them as men who had to make an agonizing choice and think there but for the grace of God go I.

Exactly. What would we have chosen in their place? Unless we can walk a mile in their shoes, I doubt we really know.

 

[suzenatale]

On October 2, 1865, the same day that Lee was inaugurated as president of Washington College in Lexington, Virginia, he signed his Amnesty Oath, thereby complying fully with the provision of Johnson's proclamation. But Lee was not pardoned, nor was his citizenship restored. And the fact that he had submitted an amnesty oath at all was soon lost to history.

More than a hundred years later, in 1970, an archivist at the National Archives discovered Lee's Amnesty Oath among State Department records (reported in Prologue, Winter 1970). Apparently Secretary of State William H. Seward had given Lee's application to a friend as a souvenir, and the State Department had pigeonholed the oath.

In 1975, Lee's full rights of citizenship were posthumously restored by a joint congressional resolution effective June 13, 1865.

At the August 5, 1975, signing ceremony, President Gerald R. Ford acknowledged the discovery of Lee's Oath of Allegiance in the National Archives and remarked: &quote;General Lee's character has been an example to succeeding generations, making the restoration of his citizenship an event in which every American can take pride.&quote; https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/spring/piece-lee.html

View attachment 146107

​

Now Im wondering if this 1975 thing was a huge goof and Lee was actually pardoned in 68?

 

[cash]

It was my understanding that Lee was not pardoned untill 1975

Lee was pardoned, because the Christmas 1868 pardon was for every confederate.

Lee did not have his disabilities imposed by the 14th Amendment removed by Congress until 1975.

 

[cash]

Now Im wondering if this 1975 thing was a huge goof and Lee was actually pardoned in 68?

Two separate things. He was pardoned in 1868, but the disabilities imposed by the 14th Amendment could only be removed by Act of Congress.

 

[suzenatale]

Two separate things. He was pardoned in 1868, but the disabilities imposed by the 14th Amendment could only be removed by Act of Congress.

But I thought any oath to put on such disabilities was unconstitutional?

 

[cash]

But I thought any oath to put on such disabilities was unconstitutional?

The 14th Amendment doesn't require an oath, and even if it did, as part of the Constitution it would by definition be constitutional.

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

 

[cash]

Johnson's earlier proclamation required an amnesty oath, but that was in 1865, three years before Lee and the rest of the confederates were pardoned.

 

[suzenatale]

The 14th Amendment doesn't require an oath, and even if it did, as part of the Constitution it would by definition be constitutional.

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

If not by trial or test oath how do you prove they engaged in rebellion?

 

[Bee]

Now Im wondering if this 1975 thing was a huge goof and Lee was actually pardoned in 68?

I almost did not put up this article, because it is misleading in that it appears by wording that the Pardon/Citizenship disabilities were one in the same.

 

[Schwallanscher]

If not by trial or test oath how do you prove they engaged in rebellion?

in lee's case wearing grey colours for a couple of years might have been a hint

 

[suzenatale]

in lee's case wearing grey colours for a couple ogf years might have been a hint

I mean, we all know they did it, but the question of this thead seems to be did the legal system come to that conclusion. If a punishment for it was placed upon them by the 14th amendment, than how were they found guilty. I guess it would not be unlike being found "guilty" of being a woman and thus not allowed to vote. Im not a lawyer so Im more asking for explanation than giving.

 

[CSA Today]

in lee's case wearing grey colours for a couple ogf years might have been a hint

We do love wearing grey.

 

[Schwallanscher]

I mean, we all know they did it, but the question of this thead seems to be did the legal system come to that conclusion. If a punishment for it was placed upon them by the 14th amendment, than how were they found guilty. I guess it would not be unlike being found "guilty" of being a woman and thus not allowed to vote. Im not a lawyer so Im more asking for explanation than giving.

i don't think it needed to be proven - these guys considered themselves gentlemen (at least among each others). he wouldn't have denied it if asked be it in court or otherwise. i imagine if he were tried he pleaded 'guilty as charged'. i don't think anybody could get an answer like let's say 'i never said that' from him (that is if he did say it, of course).

 

[Schwallanscher]

We do love wearing grey.

in your case that wouldn't be a hint at least not to treason.

 

[suzenatale]

i don't think it needed to be proven - these guys considered themselves gentlemen (at least among each others). he wouldn't have denied it if asked be it in court or otherwise. i imagine if he were tried he pleaded 'guilty as charged'. i don't think anybody could get an answer like let's say 'i never said that' from him (that is if he did say it, of course).

Well the part if the 14th Anendment we still use denying criminals the right to vote, they must be found guilty in court. The whole thing was a stange arrangement I must say.

 

[CSA Today]

in your case that wouldn't be a hint at least not to treason.

Since you used a double negative I'm not sure what you meant, but whatever.

 

[Schwallanscher]

Since you used a double negative I'm not sure what you meant, but whatever.

there's no double negative - if you like put a comma behind hint (it's not necessary though)