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

 

[Jimklag]

The 10th amendment is not the "anything goes" amendment. It affirms that powers not delegated to federal government are reserved to the states and the people. AND the people.

Under what power does the state have to unilaterally rescind the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizenship?
Under what power does a state have to unilaterally nullify a federal act, say one that admits a state into the union?
Under what power does a state have to confiscate property and treasure that was paid for by the people?

These are just some of the things that have to be deconflicted from the Supremacy Clause before a state can claim that right under the 10th Amendment.

It just ain't that simple.

How did we get from "Were Confederate Generals Traitors?" to parsing the 10th Amendment? If there is one certainty in our constitution, it is the definition of treason which has exactly zero to do with secession or implied powers.

 

[DaveGberg]

How did we get from "Were Confederate Generals Traitors?" to parsing the 10th Amendment? If there is one certainty in our constitution, it is the definition of treason which has exactly zero to do with secession or implied powers.

'Tis the nature of the beast...

Williams stakes his position that the Condederate Generals were innocent of treason because the states seceded. That argument then rests on the legality of secession. And every secession debate ultimately entails someone invoking the 10th Amendment.

Williams' argument then falls apart like a house of cards if secession is shown to be illegal.

Or that's the way I see it... ;-)

 

[JerseyBart]

The 10th amendment is not the "anything goes" amendment. It affirms that powers not delegated to federal government are reserved to the states and the people. AND the people.

Under what power does the state have to unilaterally rescind the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizenship?
Under what power does a state have to unilaterally nullify a federal act, say one that admits a state into the union?
Under what power does a state have to confiscate property and treasure that was paid for by the people?

These are just some of the things that have to be deconflicted from the Supremacy Clause before a state can claim that right under the 10th Amendment.

It just ain't that simple.

But attempting to defend an "anything goes" era in our history, especially a failed rebellion, is made easier, but not historically correct, by the 10th Amendment.

 

[jgoodguy]

Then enters the 10th Amendment which the "Treasury of Virtue" always seems to forget.

"Treasury of Virtue" is not a person, it is a rhetorical device that Robert Penn Warren used as a call to arms to get the Yankees to support the Civil Rights Movement.

The 10th by the way

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since secession is nowhere described as a power, the 10th does not apply. If it did exist, it resides in the people or the States with no provision of figuring out which.

Powers to suppress an alleged secession are granted to the United States government.

 

[DaveGberg]

But attempting to defend an "anything goes" era in our history, especially a failed rebellion, is made easier, but not historically correct, by the 10th Amendment.

The irony being that the 10th Amendment was put into place to avoid a rebellion, not to enable one.

 

[JerseyBart]

The irony being that the 10th Amendment was put into place to avoid a rebellion, not to enable one.

Too many ironies from the civil war era.

 

[Jimklag]

'Tis the nature of the beast...

Williams stakes his position that the Condederate Generals were innocent of treason because the states seceded. That argument then rests on the legality of secession. And every secession debate ultimately entails someone invoking the 10th Amendment.

Williams' argument then falls apart like a house of cards if secession is shown to be illegal.

Or that's the way I see it... ;-)

In the USA, a traitor is a person who makes war on the USA, adheres to the cause of a person making war on the USA, or gives aid and comfort to someone making war on the USA. Those are the sole qualifications for the office of traitor. There is no connection to secession. So, Mr. Williams is most comprehensively incorrect.

 

[Andersonh1]

Since secession is nowhere described as a power, the 10th does not apply. If it did exist, it resides in the people or the States with no provision of figuring out which.

Federalist 45: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

It's a misunderstanding of the 10th amendment to say that because something is not explicitly described, it's not a power of the states or the people. The Federal Constitution is primarily concerned with establishing and defining the Federal government, and as such it mainly defines the powers of that government, not the states. What definitions and limitations of state governments are found in the Constitution are there to define the division of power between federal and state, and among the states as a group.

State powers by and large are not found in the Federal Constitution, with a few exceptions. So just because the 10th doesn't list secession as a power of states doesn't mean the states don't have that power. You'd have to look elsewhere to confirm or deny that power.

 

[DaveGberg]

In the USA, a traitor is a person who makes war on the USA, adheres to the cause of a person making war on the USA, or gives aid and comfort to someone making war on the USA. Those are the sole qualifications for the office of traitor. There is no connection to secession. So, Mr. Williams is most comprehensively incorrect.

For many reasons.

 

[Jimklag]

For many reasons.

Roge-o

 

[huskerblitz]

Besides being a prominent footnote to the civil war, it's important for us to understand where that red line exists.

It doesn't change the facts. And it creates a circular argument (as shown here). It becomes more about one's point-of-view more than anything else. For me personally, I don't care if they were traitors or not traitors. It happened more than 100 years before my birth.

The question of treason was settled at Appomattox. In 2017 a discussion of that issue has a limited commercial purpose of creating attention for a divisive issue on which people might have strong opinions.

Pretty much

 

[Rebforever]

The 10th amendment is not the "anything goes" amendment. It affirms that powers not delegated to federal government are reserved to the states and the people. AND the people.

[quoteUnder what power does the state have to unilaterally rescind the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizenship?

The 10th Amendment.

Under what power does a state have to unilaterally nullify a federal act, say one that admits a state into the union?

The 10th Amendment. Secession was not illegal under the Constitution.

Under what power does a state have to confiscate property and treasure that was paid for by the people?

Paid for by the Southern people. The same ones that voted for Secession.

These are just some of the things that have to be deconflicted from the Supremacy Clause before a state can claim that right under the 10th Amendment.

It just ain't that simple.

The supremacy clause does not mention one word about secession.
Yes, simplicity seems to slip by those that live in the house of "Treasury of Virtue"!

 

[DaveGberg]

State powers by and large are not found in the Federal Constitution, with a few exceptions. So just because the 10th doesn't list secession as a power of states doesn't mean the states don't have that power. You'd have to look elsewhere to confirm or deny that power.

It's not that simple. A state doesn't have the right to nullify a law that the federal government enacted within its constitutional bounds. Arkansas, to name one state, was admitted by an act of congress. Admission of states is a federal power under the Constitution. Arkansas cannot claim the power to secede by the 10th amendment because it was admitted under full force of the Constitution.

 

[wausaubob]

Who gets to define the nature of that implied power to secede?
The dissenting minority, located in a particular section, or the whole people of the United States?
How is democracy better than dictatorship if a dissatisfied minority can separate themselves from the whole and resort to violence to protect that separation?
If the results of democracy are not binding, then just get rid of it and function with one man rule and let the rich fight it out as to who that one man will be.

 

[DaveGberg]

The 10th Amendment.



The 10th Amendment. Secession was not illegal under the Constitution.



Paid for by the Southern people. The same ones that voted for Secession.



The supremacy clause does not mention one word about secession.
Yes, simplicity seems to slip by those that live in the house of "Treasury of Virtue"!

The supremacy clause says that laws made under the constitution are held above a law made by the state when a conflict exists. The states don't have a right to nullify a federal law that falls within the constitution

 

[huskerblitz]

It's not that simple. A state doesn't have the right to nullify a law that the federal government enacted within its constitutional bounds. Arkansas, to name one state, was admitted by an act of congress. Admission of states is a federal power under the Constitution. Arkansas cannot claim the power to secede by the 10th amendment because it was admitted under full force of the Constitution.

I do agree that a state cannot simply nullify a federal law, at least not easily or without consequence. But the remainder of your statement doesn't make sense. The 10th Amendment is part of the Constitution...meaning it, like all other parts, has full force of the Constitution. Either something is Constitutional or it's not. You make it sound as if the 10th or any other amendment is a less-than the actual original text. Simply not true.

 

[NedBaldwin]

It doesn't change the facts.

It is the facts.

The Confederates were traitors is a statement of fact

 

[huskerblitz]

It is the facts.

The Confederates were traitors is a statement of fact

If you say so. Doesn't appear to be a universal fact based on this and many other threads.

 

[unionblue]

They were traitors.

 

[jgoodguy]

Federalist 45: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

It's a misunderstanding of the 10th amendment to say that because something is not explicitly described, it's not a power of the states or the people. The Federal Constitution is primarily concerned with establishing and defining the Federal government, and as such it mainly defines the powers of that government, not the states. What definitions and limitations of state governments are found in the Constitution are there to define the division of power between federal and state, and among the states as a group.

State powers by and large are not found in the Federal Constitution, with a few exceptions. So just because the 10th doesn't list secession as a power of states doesn't mean the states don't have that power. You'd have to look elsewhere to confirm or deny that power.

My positions are:

• There is no defined power of secession anywhere-US Constitution or State Constitutions at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. A power just cannot be imagined or made up ad hoc. It has to exist in written form somewhere. Therefore it does not exist. Reference Chief Justice Taney-a Southern advocate "No power or right is constitutional but what can be exercised in a form or mode provided in the constitution for its exercise. Secession is therefore not constitutional, but revolutionary; and is only morally competent, like war, upon failure of justice."
• Assuming it did exist and applying the 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." then there are powers delegated to the Federal government that limit it. Such a assumed secession power is subordinate to Constitution powers delegated to the Federal Government and only residual powers exist. In order to proceed, secession must be with permission of the other States or The People as a whole who formally change/waive the powers granted to the Federal Government.
• Applying the 10th to the States "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is a unevidenced conceit that an alleged secession power is an exclusive power of the States because there is no evidence of such a power and The People as a whole are a are the ultimate source of power and such a right might well reside with them and not the States. Without an authoritative decision by the SCOTUS, a power of secession for a State is just mere rhetoric.