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

 

[civilken]

If they were traitors why did the victorious Union bring these men to military trials? Then if they were traitors why did Grant not take action against Lee and his command at the surrender?Why was Davis or any of his cabinet ,those who where still in the country,ever brought to trail,surely his and Lee's trail would have been the story of the decade? In the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination surely the radicals in Congress would have been on edge to finally achieving their ultimate revenge on the slave masters who brought on this was.Was there ever a Supreme Court decision on what action determines what treason is ? Lee and other officials lost their citizenship for their actions . Did the regular solider loss his ?

before you raise questions and make statements it would help if you get a little more research and you will know why Lee was not brought up on charges lets just say thanks grant for standing up to JohnsonI

 

[MattL]

If they were traitors why did the victorious Union bring these men to military trials? Then if they were traitors why did Grant not take action against Lee and his command at the surrender?Why was Davis or any of his cabinet ,those who where still in the country,ever brought to trail,surely his and Lee's trail would have been the story of the decade? In the aftermath of Lincoln's assassination surely the radicals in Congress would have been on edge to finally achieving their ultimate revenge on the slave masters who brought on this was.Was there ever a Supreme Court decision on what action determines what treason is ? Lee and other officials lost their citizenship for their actions . Did the regular solider loss his ?

1) Traitor(s) is a different word than treason. Here is Webster's definition of "Traitor"

----
1) one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty
2) one who commits treason
----

So one use is in application to those who commit treason. Not all traitors face any legal punishment for being such, heck being a traitor isn't always illegal. Even Webster only applies the "treason" association as a second definition.


2) Trial, legal issues, etc... Andrew Johnson as President paroned them all in December of 1868.

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

----
Expired Image Removed
Whereas the President of the United States has heretofore set forth several proclamations offering amnesty and pardon to persons who had been or were concerned in the late rebellion against the lawful authority of the Government of the United States, which proclamations were severally issued on the 8th day of December, 1863, on the 26th day of March, 1864, on the 29th day of May, 1865, on the 7th day of September, 1867, and on the 4th day of July, in the present year; and

Whereas the authority of the Federal Government having been reestablished in all the States and Territories within the jurisdiction of the United States, it is believed that such prudential reservations and exceptions as at the dates of said several proclamations were deemed necessary and proper may now be wisely and justly relinquished, and that an universal amnesty and pardon for participation in said rebellion extended to all who have borne any part therein will tend to secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people, and their respect for and attachment to the National Government, designed by its patriotic founders for the general good:

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.

In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, the 25th day of December, A. D. 1868, and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:

F. W. SEWARD,

Acting Secretary of State .
----

Notice he pardons the "offense of treason"... so clearly someone committed treason. Due to the nature of such a pardon there is no reason for further trials or efforts to be followed up since there would be no consequence to such things. So legally we will never know.

As far as non-legal uses of the terms that comes down to personal use. I really can't fathom how going to war with your former Nation doesn't make you a traitor, it seems pretty cut and dry. You can argue they betrayed you first, it's all their fault, etc... but you're still a traitor.

 

[Lnwlf]

The California Secession Movement IS OFF TOPIC for this thread, not to mention the site policy of No Discussion of Modern Politics. Further posts on this will be deleted.

Posted as Moderator

 

[Cdoug96]

The U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, states:

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.



It seems like that based on this, one could make that argument that not only was every Confederate general a traitor, but so were all persons who willingly fought for the Confederacy, and any civilians who willingly aided those who fought for the Confederacy, and any person who willingly supplied information to the Confederacy as a spy, excetera.

Thankfully almost all involved in such activities during the American Civil War were officially pardoned because I do not think that the punishment and process of prosection of those so involved would be clean or cheap, and attempting to punish those people would very likely have lead to much more bloody business on American lands.

 

[John S. Carter]

The U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, states:

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.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.



It seems like that based on this, one could make that argument that not only was every Confederate general a traitor, but so were all persons who willingly fought for the Confederacy, and any civilians who willingly aided those who fought for the Confederacy, and any person who willingly supplied information to the Confederacy as a spy, excetera.

Thankfully almost all involved in such activities during the American Civil War were officially pardoned because I do not think that the punishment and process of prosection of those so involved would be clean or cheap, and attempting to punish those people would very likely have lead to much more bloody business on American lands.

If the government was to have had trials would they been as one for civilians ,administration , and military ? Would these be civilian or military? Suppose Congress would have held special courts of inquiry with special prosecutor,those trials would still be on going!Then we can only have hoped that they would not have become a political kangaroo courts with the political not justice being the primary motives.May be as they did in MID EVIL Europe,traveling inquisition.Better burn those Confederate banners ,flags,caps, and definitely no icons ,pictures nor statues.