Were Confederate Generals Traitors?

CMWinkler

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
picture-744-1430428316.jpg

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
 
I think what @suzenatale is saying is that while the constitution states that a person engaged in the rebellion is barred from holding office, the government still has the burden to prove that person did in fact, engage in the rebellion. The proof may be overwhelming based on that historical fact, but the government still has that burden nonetheless.

Apparently not, though, since they were punished without first being tried.
 
Okay, then I have no idea how that happened legally. If it is not my theory than I don't know. Do you have a quote? It might help us with this whole were they traitors business.

In the treason case United States v. Jefferson Davis, the Defense claimed the trial constituted double jeopardy because Davis had already been punished by the 14th Amendment. Chase, who was the presiding justice, so ruled.
 
If the states never left the Union,what was the nature of the crime that these men committed ? Did this action which require a oath have a role in the hostile feelings that the former Confederates felt? Were civilians required to take the oath?Sorry but I admit lack of Knowledge on this subject.

The crime was treason.
 
In the treason case United States v. Jefferson Davis, the Defense claimed the trial constituted double jeopardy because Davis had already been punished by the 14th Amendment. Chase, who was the presiding justice, so ruled.
Oh, wait, they didn't decide that they passed it to the Supreme Court.

The government charged Davis with treason against the United States for organizing and arming the 1864 military invasions of Maryland and the District of Columbia during the American Civil War (1861–1865). The defendant demanded a trial as the best forum for proving the constitutionality of secession, and the government requested numerous delays to prepare its case. Although the indictment was finished in March 1868, the Johnson impeachment further delayed the case. The court finally heard preliminary motions in December 1868, when the defense asked for a dismissal claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already punished Davis by preventing him from holding public office in the future and that further prosecution and punishment would violate the double jeopardy restriction of the Fifth Amendment. The court divided in its official opinion and certified the question to the United States Supreme Court. Fearing the court would rule in favor of Davis, Johnson released an amnesty proclamation on December 25, 1868, issuing a pardon to all persons who had participated in the rebellion.

After enduring two years of imprisonment and nearly four years of uncertainty, Davis became a free man. The incomplete prosecution of his case and others' gave clear indication that the government intended Reconstruction to realign southern society rather than punish a select few leaders for causing the rebellion.https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Jefferson_Davis_s_Imprisonment
 
Oh, wait, they didn't decide that they passed it to the Supreme Court.

The government charged Davis with treason against the United States for organizing and arming the 1864 military invasions of Maryland and the District of Columbia during the American Civil War (1861–1865). The defendant demanded a trial as the best forum for proving the constitutionality of secession, and the government requested numerous delays to prepare its case. Although the indictment was finished in March 1868, the Johnson impeachment further delayed the case. The court finally heard preliminary motions in December 1868, when the defense asked for a dismissal claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already punished Davis by preventing him from holding public office in the future and that further prosecution and punishment would violate the double jeopardy restriction of the Fifth Amendment. The court divided in its official opinion and certified the question to the United States Supreme Court. Fearing the court would rule in favor of Davis, Johnson released an amnesty proclamation on December 25, 1868, issuing a pardon to all persons who had participated in the rebellion.

After enduring two years of imprisonment and nearly four years of uncertainty, Davis became a free man. The incomplete prosecution of his case and others' gave clear indication that the government intended Reconstruction to realign southern society rather than punish a select few leaders for causing the rebellion.https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Jefferson_Davis_s_Imprisonment

Actually, the Supreme Court never ruled on this, but Chase, the Chief Justice, did record his ruling that Davis was punished by the 14th Amendment:

"Among these amendments was the one imposing perpetual disfranchisement for aiding in rebellion, after having held certain offices. As soon as this amendment was declared adopted in the ambiguous language of the proclamation announcing the fact, or the hypothetical fact (it declared that if the votes of the late Confederate States were to be considered binding, and if the other states had no right to retract their ratifications of the amendment, then it was ratified and adopted--otherwise not) the counsel for Mr. Davis prepared to attack the prosecution pending against him on the grounds disclosed in the following proceedings, which the reporter understands were inspired and suggested from the highest official source--not the president of the United States. It was arranged that the chief justice should attend the court at the November term, 1868, and hear the argument on the motion to quash or dismiss the prosecution. On the thirtieth day of that month, Robert Ould, Esq., one of Mr. Davis' counsel, filed the following affidavit: 'On this tppearehirtieth day of November, 1868, Robert Ould personally appeared in open court, and, being sworn, made oath that defendant, Jefferson Davis, was in the year 1845, previous to the alleged commission of the offenses set forth and charged in said indictment, a member of the congress of the United States, to wit, a member of the house of representatives of the United States from the state of Mississippi in said congress, and as such the said Jefferson Davis did, on the eighth day of December, 1845, take an oath to support the constitution of the United States.' On filing the above affidavit, the counsel of Mr. Davis obtained a rule on the attorney for the United States, to show cause why the indictment should not be quashed." [7 Fed. Cas. 63, 88-89]

"On Saturday morning, December 5th, the Chief Justice announced that the court had failed to agree upon a decision in regard to the motion to quash the indictments against Mr. Jefferson Davis. The counsel for the defendant then asked that the fact of the disagreement be certified to the supreme court of the United States. The Court signified its acquiescence, and thereupon the following paper was entered upon the record: 'At this term of the court, begun and held at Richmond, in the said district, on the 23d day of November, 1868, and continued until this day, a motion was made on behalf of the defendant to quash or set aside the said indictment, and to dismiss the same and the prosecution thereof. And upon that motion it appeared that the said Jefferson Davis, having previous to the offenses charged in the said indictment taken an oath as a member of congress to support the constitution of the United States, the question arose whether, by the operation and effect of the third clause of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, the defendant is exempted from indictment or prosecution for treason in levying war and participating or engaging in the late Rebellion. And upon that question the opinions of the judges were opposed. And thereupon the said point is upon the request of the said defendant, stated under the direction of the said judges, and certified under the seal of the said circuit court to the supreme court of the United States at its next session.' " [7 Fed. Cas. 63, 102]

"No further proceedings were had in the cause. The proclamation of general amnesty by the president of the United States at the end of December, 1868, effectually disposed of the criminal prosecution, and the certificate of disagreement rests among the records of the supreme court, undisturbed by a single motion for either a hearing or a dismissal. At a subsequent term of the circuit court, the indictments against Mr. Davis were, on motion of his counsel, dismissed. The Chief Justice instructed the reporter to record him as having been of opinion on the disagreement, that the indictment should be quashed, and all further proceedings barred by the effect of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States." [7 Fed. Cas. 63, 102]
 
Actually, the Supreme Court never ruled on this, but Chase, the Chief Justice, did record his ruling that Davis was punished by the 14th Amendment:

"Among these amendments was the one imposing perpetual disfranchisement for aiding in rebellion, after having held certain offices. As soon as this amendment was declared adopted in the ambiguous language of the proclamation announcing the fact, or the hypothetical fact (it declared that if the votes of the late Confederate States were to be considered binding, and if the other states had no right to retract their ratifications of the amendment, then it was ratified and adopted--otherwise not) the counsel for Mr. Davis prepared to attack the prosecution pending against him on the grounds disclosed in the following proceedings, which the reporter understands were inspired and suggested from the highest official source--not the president of the United States. It was arranged that the chief justice should attend the court at the November term, 1868, and hear the argument on the motion to quash or dismiss the prosecution. On the thirtieth day of that month, Robert Ould, Esq., one of Mr. Davis' counsel, filed the following affidavit: 'On this tppearehirtieth day of November, 1868, Robert Ould personally appeared in open court, and, being sworn, made oath that defendant, Jefferson Davis, was in the year 1845, previous to the alleged commission of the offenses set forth and charged in said indictment, a member of the congress of the United States, to wit, a member of the house of representatives of the United States from the state of Mississippi in said congress, and as such the said Jefferson Davis did, on the eighth day of December, 1845, take an oath to support the constitution of the United States.' On filing the above affidavit, the counsel of Mr. Davis obtained a rule on the attorney for the United States, to show cause why the indictment should not be quashed." [7 Fed. Cas. 63, 88-89]

"On Saturday morning, December 5th, the Chief Justice announced that the court had failed to agree upon a decision in regard to the motion to quash the indictments against Mr. Jefferson Davis. The counsel for the defendant then asked that the fact of the disagreement be certified to the supreme court of the United States. The Court signified its acquiescence, and thereupon the following paper was entered upon the record: 'At this term of the court, begun and held at Richmond, in the said district, on the 23d day of November, 1868, and continued until this day, a motion was made on behalf of the defendant to quash or set aside the said indictment, and to dismiss the same and the prosecution thereof. And upon that motion it appeared that the said Jefferson Davis, having previous to the offenses charged in the said indictment taken an oath as a member of congress to support the constitution of the United States, the question arose whether, by the operation and effect of the third clause of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, the defendant is exempted from indictment or prosecution for treason in levying war and participating or engaging in the late Rebellion. And upon that question the opinions of the judges were opposed. And thereupon the said point is upon the request of the said defendant, stated under the direction of the said judges, and certified under the seal of the said circuit court to the supreme court of the United States at its next session.' " [7 Fed. Cas. 63, 102]

"No further proceedings were had in the cause. The proclamation of general amnesty by the president of the United States at the end of December, 1868, effectually disposed of the criminal prosecution, and the certificate of disagreement rests among the records of the supreme court, undisturbed by a single motion for either a hearing or a dismissal. At a subsequent term of the circuit court, the indictments against Mr. Davis were, on motion of his counsel, dismissed. The Chief Justice instructed the reporter to record him as having been of opinion on the disagreement, that the indictment should be quashed, and all further proceedings barred by the effect of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States." [7 Fed. Cas. 63, 102]
I have to wonder at that point what the US would have stood to gain had they been able to pursue the case against Davis. The war was won, the Confederacy was dead, and the nation was weary and ready to move on. A trial would have given Davis his podium to stake is claim that the secession was legal, and there was still the possibility of acquittal. It seems that the risk of trying Davis outweighed any rewards.
 
I have to wonder at that point what the US would have stood to gain had they been able to pursue the case against Davis. The war was won, the Confederacy was dead, and the nation was weary and ready to move on. A trial would have given Davis his podium to stake is claim that the secession was legal, and there was still the possibility of acquittal. It seems that the risk of trying Davis outweighed any rewards.

The prosecutors feared jury nullification. Since the trial would have to take place in Richmond, they didn't think they could find a jury that would vote to convict no matter what the evidence.

The Supreme Court was going to rule secession a legal nullity by the Constitution anyway, so that's not really a consideration.

Chase also believed there was nothing to gain other than vengeance. He wanted to move on.
 
Actually, the Supreme Court never ruled on this, but Chase, the Chief Justice, did record his ruling that Davis was punished by the 14th Amendment:

"Among these amendments was the one imposing perpetual disfranchisement for aiding in rebellion, after having held certain offices. As soon as this amendment was declared adopted in the ambiguous language of the proclamation announcing the fact, or the hypothetical fact (it declared that if the votes of the late Confederate States were to be considered binding, and if the other states had no right to retract their ratifications of the amendment, then it was ratified and adopted--otherwise not) the counsel for Mr. Davis prepared to attack the prosecution pending against him on the grounds disclosed in the following proceedings, which the reporter understands were inspired and suggested from the highest official source--not the president of the United States. It was arranged that the chief justice should attend the court at the November term, 1868, and hear the argument on the motion to quash or dismiss the prosecution. On the thirtieth day of that month, Robert Ould, Esq., one of Mr. Davis' counsel, filed the following affidavit: 'On this tppearehirtieth day of November, 1868, Robert Ould personally appeared in open court, and, being sworn, made oath that defendant, Jefferson Davis, was in the year 1845, previous to the alleged commission of the offenses set forth and charged in said indictment, a member of the congress of the United States, to wit, a member of the house of representatives of the United States from the state of Mississippi in said congress, and as such the said Jefferson Davis did, on the eighth day of December, 1845, take an oath to support the constitution of the United States.' On filing the above affidavit, the counsel of Mr. Davis obtained a rule on the attorney for the United States, to show cause why the indictment should not be quashed." [7 Fed. Cas. 63, 88-89]

"On Saturday morning, December 5th, the Chief Justice announced that the court had failed to agree upon a decision in regard to the motion to quash the indictments against Mr. Jefferson Davis. The counsel for the defendant then asked that the fact of the disagreement be certified to the supreme court of the United States. The Court signified its acquiescence, and thereupon the following paper was entered upon the record: 'At this term of the court, begun and held at Richmond, in the said district, on the 23d day of November, 1868, and continued until this day, a motion was made on behalf of the defendant to quash or set aside the said indictment, and to dismiss the same and the prosecution thereof. And upon that motion it appeared that the said Jefferson Davis, having previous to the offenses charged in the said indictment taken an oath as a member of congress to support the constitution of the United States, the question arose whether, by the operation and effect of the third clause of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, the defendant is exempted from indictment or prosecution for treason in levying war and participating or engaging in the late Rebellion. And upon that question the opinions of the judges were opposed. And thereupon the said point is upon the request of the said defendant, stated under the direction of the said judges, and certified under the seal of the said circuit court to the supreme court of the United States at its next session.' " [7 Fed. Cas. 63, 102]

"No further proceedings were had in the cause. The proclamation of general amnesty by the president of the United States at the end of December, 1868, effectually disposed of the criminal prosecution, and the certificate of disagreement rests among the records of the supreme court, undisturbed by a single motion for either a hearing or a dismissal. At a subsequent term of the circuit court, the indictments against Mr. Davis were, on motion of his counsel, dismissed. The Chief Justice instructed the reporter to record him as having been of opinion on the disagreement, that the indictment should be quashed, and all further proceedings barred by the effect of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States." [7 Fed. Cas. 63, 102]
Yeah but can one judges opinion in a case where they dont agree be later used to prove anything? Isn't it only if the court decides something that one can use their reasons for deciding?
 
Anyone had to take it who wanted to vote or hold office.

I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.​

— Statutes at Large, Thirty Seventh Congress, Second Session[1]


The Oath was a key factor in removing many ex-Confederates from the political arena during the Reconstruction era of the late 1860s. To take the Ironclad Oath, a person had to swear he had never borne arms against the Union or supported the Confederacy — that is, he had "never voluntarily borne arms against the United States," had "voluntarily" given "no aid, countenance, counsel or encouragement" to persons in rebellion and had exercised or attempted to exercise the functions of no office under the Confederacy. A farmer who sold grain to the Confederate Army would be covered. The oath was detested by ex-Confederates; some called it "The ****esty Oath."[2]

Congress devised the oath in July 1862 for all federal employees, lawyers, and federal elected officials. It was applied to Southern voters in the Wade–Davis Bill of 1864, which President Abraham Lincoln vetoed. President Andrew Johnson also opposed it. Both Johnson and Lincoln wanted Southerners instead to swear to an oath that in the future they would support the Union. Lincoln's amnesty oath was integral to his ten percent plan for reconstruction. In 1864 Congress extended the provisions of the ironclad oath to its own members, but overlooked perjury when it came to seating Southern Republicans. Hyman says that in 1866, Northern Congressmen "described the oath as the last bulwark against the return of ex-rebels to power, the barrier behind which Southern Unionists and Negroes protected themselves."[3]

The first Supplemental Reconstruction Act (March 23, 1867) required an oath of past loyalty in order for any man in the South to vote. The local registrar had to swear that he had never held office under Confederacy, nor given aid or comfort to it. They also had to take the ironclad oath.[4]

In 1867 the United States Supreme Court held that the federal ironclad oath for attorneys and the similar Missouri state oath for ministers, teachers, and other professionals were unconstitutional, because they violated the constitutional prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.[5][6][7]

In March 1867 Radicals in Congress passed a law that prohibited anyone from voting in the election of delegates to state constitutional conventions or in the subsequent ratification who was prohibited from holding office under section 3 of the pending Fourteenth Amendment.[8] Those exclusions were less inclusive than the requirements of the Ironclad Oath. These exclusions allowed the Republican coalitions to carry the elections in every Southern state except Virginia. The Republican-dominated legislatures wrote and enacted new constitutions. These new state constitutions applied to all state officials and could not be repealed by an ordinary vote of the legislature.

The Republicans applied the oath in the South to keep political opponents from holding office or (in some states) from even voting.[9] Hyman says, "most Southerners, even good Republican supporters, were disfranchised by the ironclad oath's blanket provisions rather than by the Fourteenth Amendment's highly selective disabilities."[10]

Perman emphasizes that the Republican ascendancy in the South was "extremely precarious" because the electorate had been defined by Congress, and "many potential opponents had been disfranchised, while others have simply refused to participate in what they regarded as a rigged election."[11] Perman argues that while the Radicals had controlled the state constitutional conventions, they increasingly lost power inside the Republican Party to conservative forces that repudiated disfranchisement and proscription. Voters in Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi voted down the new constitutions even though many opponents were disfranchised. The result was that by 1870 in every state except Arkansas, the Republicans dropped the restrictions against ex-Confederates and supporters, such as the ironclad oath. In Arkansas the Republican split and fought an internal civil war called the Brooks–Baxter War.[12]

In 1871, Congress modified the ironclad oath in order to permit all former rebels to use the 1868 formula to swear to "future loyalty." President Ulysses S. Grant vetoed the law, but Congress passed it.[13]
After reading this is there any question of why Reconstruction was so took so long in the South and the hostile feelings it created? After the surrendering of the armies the war should have ended there ,but under the guidelines that the Radicals in posted on the former Confederacy the war went from military to political social war.With these revengeful Radicals now in control of both houses Lincoln himself have had difficulty in control of these men.To them the South was to act as a submissive country ,a first of what today is called nation building Grant nor Sherman had at the oath forced upon the armies of Lee nor Johnston .Is this a accurate view? I am a Southerner so pardon view of Reconstruction .
 
Whether secession was outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution was itself a Constitutional question. In no other instance are states empowered to decide Constitutional questions on their own, but must defer to the Supreme Court. Claiming the right of unilateral secession essentially meant that a state could decide to abide by the Constitution or not as it, and it alone saw fit - essentially Calhoun's nullification doctrine. Under those circumstances, there can be no such thing as a binding Constitutional commitment, because the Constitution itself isn't binding. Thus, if a democratic election in which your state took part doesn't go your way, simply secede. No nation could possibly have survived, much less flourished, once it had swallowed such a poisonous, self-destructive proposition.




It does seem that all secessionists and, most southerners in general, seemed to assume that because they chose to join the Union under the Constitution, that they could withdraw, at their choice. without consideration, as to any changed relationships occurred as a result of their joining that Union, i.e., a state's relationship to the Constitution (and other states under that same document and Union) was not the same, after joining the Union, as it was before joining.

They came into the Union, under a process not prescribed by themselves, and, thus, could not, logically (or reasonably) expect to leave it by any unilaterally chosen prescription.
 
After reading this is there any question of why Reconstruction was so took so long in the South and the hostile feelings it created? After the surrendering of the armies the war should have ended there ,but under the guidelines that the Radicals in posted on the former Confederacy the war went from military to political social war.With these revengeful Radicals now in control of both houses Lincoln himself have had difficulty in control of these men.To them the South was to act as a submissive country ,a first of what today is called nation building Grant nor Sherman had at the oath forced upon the armies of Lee nor Johnston .Is this a accurate view? I am a Southerner so pardon view of Reconstruction .
If you mean by "Reconstruction took so long" that Civil Rights took so long. It seems to me we made considerable progress while the oath was in effect and lost all that progress when the former rebles were allowed to vote and hold office again.
There was never going to be a way to please them so they would treat their former slaves right. Nothing except not ending slavery would have pleased them.

If they had some messed up notion that they had the right to take it out on black people because someone made them angry, well that is their own messed up notion and just an excuse, and not a real justification for abuse. RE Lee hinted at this, dont upset master or its your fault idea.

"Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . "
http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm
 
Last edited:
After reading this is there any question of why Reconstruction was so took so long in the South and the hostile feelings it created? After the surrendering of the armies the war should have ended there ,but under the guidelines that the Radicals in posted on the former Confederacy the war went from military to political social war.With these revengeful Radicals now in control of both houses Lincoln himself have had difficulty in control of these men.To them the South was to act as a submissive country ,a first of what today is called nation building Grant nor Sherman had at the oath forced upon the armies of Lee nor Johnston .Is this a accurate view? I am a Southerner so pardon view of Reconstruction .

They didn't have that much problem with it. The big problem was black rights.
 
The crime was treason.
;You,Sir.sound like a Radical Black Republican., seeking revenge for what the war that the RBR were as responsible for the war with the threat of forceful submission to the will of a government under the direction of persons who would remove all of the South's rights as to property and most important to process dominion over of our ways of life and freedoms . Treason,Sir,is a legal term that can be used by the victor to hang loyal people for defending their beliefs .Mr. Lincoln would not support your referring to Confederates as such,in fact ,Sir,he was willing to allow the former sates in rebellion to return to their former state in the Union. Sir, I mean no offence to you as this is written in response to your quote as a Confederate would possible answer it.One last statement ,Treason in a capital offence, a hanging offence ,yet none of the leaders ,administration or military were hung.They took a oath or they left the country.
 
;You,Sir.sound like a Radical Black Republican., seeking revenge for what the war that the RBR were as responsible for the war with the threat of forceful submission to the will of a government under the direction of persons who would remove all of the South's rights as to property and most important to process dominion over of our ways of life and freedoms . Treason,Sir,is a legal term that can be used by the victor to hang loyal people for defending their beliefs .Mr. Lincoln would not support your referring to Confederates as such,in fact ,Sir,he was willing to allow the former sates in rebellion to return to their former state in the Union. Sir, I mean no offence to you as this is written in response to your quote as a Confederate would possible answer it.One last statement ,Treason in a capital offence, a hanging offence ,yet none of the leaders ,administration or military were hung.They took a oath or they left the country.

Read history books instead of engaging in histrionics.

They committed treason against the United States. That is historical fact.
 
;You,Sir.sound like a Radical Black Republican., seeking revenge for what the war that the RBR were as responsible for the war with the threat of forceful submission to the will of a government under the direction of persons who would remove all of the South's rights as to property and most important to process dominion over of our ways of life and freedoms . Treason,Sir,is a legal term that can be used by the victor to hang loyal people for defending their beliefs .Mr. Lincoln would not support your referring to Confederates as such,in fact ,Sir,he was willing to allow the former sates in rebellion to return to their former state in the Union. Sir, I mean no offence to you as this is written in response to your quote as a Confederate would possible answer it.One last statement ,Treason in a capital offence, a hanging offence ,yet none of the leaders ,administration or military were hung.They took a oath or they left the country.
Is this a quote cause it hardly sounds modern? "Radical Black Republicans?' "the South's rights as to property":O o:

But anyway. Just because someone forgives someone does not mean a thing never happened. Obviously Lincoln was fighting a war against them for some reason. Unless you are suggesting Lincoln believed that secession was perfectly legal.

We already went over why they were not hung.
They were pardoned for their crime of Treason as seen in the supreme court case EX PARTE GARLAND

"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."
 
Read history books instead of engaging in histrionics.

They committed treason against the United States. That is historical fact.
They didn't have that much problem with it. The big problem was black rights.
One's thought can not be alter in a short time neither can it be forced to do so ,.This is what the political leaders attempted to do with the South. When one is forced to alter their way of life and thoughts what will be the results.? Again,why were there no treason trials ?Why was Davis or Lee are any of the leaders not placed on trial for treason ? Surely Stevens and his breatheren radicals would have demanded such a trial.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top