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]

The pardon itself also says the word treason.

"Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360

 

[cash]

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.

Get someone to explain "pardon."

 

[jgoodguy]

The pardon itself also says the word treason.

"Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360

Note phrase "or of adhering to their enemies " This is a catch all pardon or amnesty.
In short claiming everyone affected is a traitor or guilty of treason is not fully supported.
Also note "every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion" would not be necessarily sufficient to be guilty of treason.

In short it short circuits any attempt at prosecution of from Jeff Davis to the common enlisted man, to the conscript, to the old widder woman giving her ring to the 'Cause'. Using this as evidence of treason is faulty at best.

 

[cash]

Note phrase "or of adhering to their enemies " This is a catch all pardon or amnesty.
In short claiming everyone affected is a traitor or guilty of treason is not fully supported.
Also note "every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion" would not be necessarily sufficient to be guilty of treason.

In short it short circuits any attempt at prosecution of from Jeff Davis to the common enlisted man, to the conscript, to the old widder woman giving her ring to the 'Cause'. Using this as evidence of treason is faulty at best.

No, it's not really. Look at the Constitutional definition of treason. The pardon encompasses all acts of treason and shows the Executive Branch views all on the confederate side as traitors.

 

[jgoodguy]

No, it's not really. Look at the Constitutional definition of treason. The pardon encompasses all acts of treason and shows the Executive Branch views all on the confederate side as traitors.

The pardon is a catch all that is specifically designed to prevent prosecution not only of treason but anything appearing to an ambitious US prosecutor as treason. It is not evidence of treason in and of itself.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

The pardon is a catch all that is specifically designed to prevent prosecution not only of treason but anything appearing to an ambitious US prosecutor as treason. It is not evidence of treason in and of itself.

I don't know. An old widder giving her ring to the rebel cause may seem relatively innocuous, but it may still be treason, as Constitutionally defined. Would not a cash or material donation to an organization making active war on the US be considered treason today?

 

[jgoodguy]

I don't know. An old widder giving her ring to the rebel cause may seem relatively innocuous, but it may still be treason, as Constitutionally defined. Would not a cash or material donation to an organization making active war on the US be considered treason today?

No rich or powerful person has ever been convicted of Treason in the US. All small fry. I imagine that a motivated prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich for treason and maybe get a conviction if a CSA soldier ate it.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

No rich or powerful person has ever been convicted of Treason in the US. All small fry. ...

I have no crystal ball, but those words could turn out to be very ironic sooner than we think.

 

[suzenatale]

Note phrase "or of adhering to their enemies " This is a catch all pardon or amnesty.
In short claiming everyone affected is a traitor or guilty of treason is not fully supported.
Also note "every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion" would not be necessarily sufficient to be guilty of treason.

In short it short circuits any attempt at prosecution of from Jeff Davis to the common enlisted man, to the conscript, to the old widder woman giving her ring to the 'Cause'. Using this as evidence of treason is faulty at best.

I did notice, but surely you do not think the Confederate generals are mere widder woman.
Who are the "enemies" these people are "adhering to" if not the army? And are you suggesting the generals only "indirectly" "participated in the late insurrection or rebellion"?

And I did include the supreme court case that talked at length on this pardon and can help clarify

"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."

 

[suzenatale]

No rich or powerful person has ever been convicted of Treason in the US. All small fry. I imagine that a motivated prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich for treason and maybe get a conviction if a CSA soldier ate it.

That's an interesting point, I dont think Arnold had a trial, Washington just ordered Lafayette to hang him if you catch him.
Between that and the punnishments of the 14th amendment without a trial, there are certaily some interesting precedents set up for punishing treason.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

I don't know. An old widder giving her ring to the rebel cause may seem relatively innocuous, but it may still be treason, as Constitutionally defined. Would not a cash or material donation to an organization making active war on the US be considered treason today?

She may not have been guilty of Treason for aiding the enemy according to SCOTUS associate justice Stephen J. Field, who as part of his SCOTUS duties was acting in the capacity of a federal circuit judge in the 10th Federal Circuit, presided over an 1863 treason trial known as United States v. Greathouse et al.
Confederate privateers were on trial and at issue in establishing their guilt were the two clauses of the Constitution's Article III. Field wrote in his opinion:

"The constitutional provision, as you perceive, is divided into two clauses, levying was against the United States, and adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The term enemies, as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government. An enemy is always the subject of a foreign power who owes no allegiance to our government or country. We may, therefore, omit all consideration of this second clause in the constitutional definition of treason. To convict the defendants they must be brought within the first clause of the definition. They must be shown to have committed acts which amount to a levying of war against the United States. To constitute a levying of war there must be an assemblage of persons in force, to overthrow the government, or to coerce its conduct. The words embrace not only those acts by which war is brought into existence, but also those acts by which war is prosecuted. They levy war who create or carry on war. The offense is complete, whether the force be directed to the entire overthrow of the government throughout the country, or only in certain portions of the country, or to defeat the execution and compel the repeal of one of its public laws."

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

She may not have been guilty of Treason for aiding the enemy according to SCOTUS associate justice Stephen J. Field, who as part of his SCOTUS duties was acting in the capacity of a federal circuit judge in the 10th Federal Circuit, presided over an 1863 treason trial known as United States v. Greathouse et al.
Confederate privateers were on trial and at issue in establishing their guilt were the two clauses of the Constitution's Article III. Field wrote in his opinion:

"The constitutional provision, as you perceive, is divided into two clauses, levying was against the United States, and adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. The term enemies, as used in the second clause, according to its settled meaning, at the time the constitution was adopted, applies only to the subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us. It does not embrace rebels in insurrection against their own government. An enemy is always the subject of a foreign power who owes no allegiance to our government or country. We may, therefore, omit all consideration of this second clause in the constitutional definition of treason. To convict the defendants they must be brought within the first clause of the definition. They must be shown to have committed acts which amount to a levying of war against the United States. To constitute a levying of war there must be an assemblage of persons in force, to overthrow the government, or to coerce its conduct. The words embrace not only those acts by which war is brought into existence, but also those acts by which war is prosecuted. They levy war who create or carry on war. The offense is complete, whether the force be directed to the entire overthrow of the government throughout the country, or only in certain portions of the country, or to defeat the execution and compel the repeal of one of its public laws."

I'm not sure what this passage means. It would be perfectly reasonable to interpret it as follows: If southern rebellion had only been an idea and not an actual reality, then no war would have been "brought into existence," or have been "prosecuted." Hence, Article III would not have applied.

 

[cash]

I'm not sure what this passage means. It would be perfectly reasonable to interpret it as follows: If southern rebellion had only been an idea and not an actual reality, then no war would have been "brought into existence," or have been "prosecuted." Hence, Article III would not have applied.

It means "aid and comfort" only applies in a war against a foreign power.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

It means "aid and comfort" only applies in a war against a foreign power.

I suppose. So Field's position was that handing a musket to a rebel (or effectively buying him one) at war with the US government would not be treason, while actually shooting a musket in the service of such a rebellion would be? Then I wonder whether Field considered the former case to be lawful, or merely not covered under Article III.

 

[cash]

I suppose. So Field's position was that handing a musket to a rebel (or effectively buying him one) at war with the US government would not be treason, while actually shooting a musket in the service of such a rebellion would be? Then I wonder whether Field considered the former case to be lawful, or merely not covered under Article III.

In a civil war only those who levy war against the United States are traitors.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

In a civil war only those who levy war against the United States are traitors.

I guess my question is: Where is the line between "aiding and abetting," and "levying war?" If I load a musket and hand it to someone who shoots it, which am I doing? If I only buy the musket for the one shooting it, which am I doing? If buying weapons for active rebels is not treason, under what Constitutional provision or other law would federal authorities be authorized to prevent someone from doing that?

 

[cash]

I guess my question is: Where is the line between "aiding and abetting," and "levying war?" If I load a musket and hand it to someone who shoots it, which am I doing? If I only buy the musket for the one shooting it, which am I doing? If buying weapons for active rebels is not treason, under what Constitutional provision or other law would federal authorities be authorized to prevent someone from doing that?

To load and hand it to him you are part of the body of men in the field and thus levying war.

If your son goes to war and as he's leaving you hand him a musket you are in the clear.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

To load and hand it to him you are part of the body of men in the field and thus levying war.

If your son goes to war and as he's leaving you hand him a musket you are in the clear.

What if you buy a thousand muskets and hand them to a thousand sons on their way to war with the US? Are you actually "in the clear," or just not guilty of treason?

 

[jgoodguy]

That's an interesting point, I dont think Arnold had a trial, Washington just ordered Lafayette to hang him if you catch him.
Between that and the punnishments of the 14th amendment without a trial, there are certaily some interesting precedents set up for punishing treason.

The only person executed for treason during the Civil War was a civilian William Bruce Mumford whose offense was tearing down a US flag and getting caught. Pretty much a rather strange legal proceeding more of the drumhead variety than normal legal.

Arnold was a spy and military officer, so the legal proceedings were minimal, but according to wiki

The Richmond Campaign

The destruction of Richmond, one of the most important cities in the United States, outraged the American populace. George Washingtonwas so angered and humiliated by the destruction of Richmond, that he put a 5,000 guinea bounty on Arnold's head and ordered his aide, the Marquis de Lafayette, to hang Arnold if he encountered him in battle. Continental marksmen were issued targets painted in Benedict's appearance to practice on, if in the event they saw him.

Not so much treason but humiliation.

Like most unindicted co-conspirator traitors, Arnold died well off and in bed.

 

[cash]

What if you buy a thousand muskets and hand them to a thousand sons on their way to war with the US? Are you actually "in the clear," or just not guilty of treason?

You may be in violation of some other statute.