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

 

[OpnCoronet]

.
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 the Constitution and its laws are the Supreme Law of the land and no state can violate(any of) them, State Constitution or Laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, If a right to secession, separate from Revolution, actually existed in the world of 1860-1861 and If that right resided in the individual state, etc., it still would be true, that it could only be legally exercised through a Constitutional process recognized by the Constitution and its laws, i.e., The Constitution and its laws, do not mention Secession(of any kind), but, it does contained clearly expressed powers and right that cannot be violated, in its exercise, state constitution and laws not withstanding.

In Constitutional Terms, the Supremacy Clause is not, particularly, a virtue, but A Law.

 

[wausaubob]

Never quote the Constitutional definition of treason without the whole thing.
"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."

Under the Constitution all the above must happen before we get Constitutional Treason.

Sort of implies an unconditional obligation to support the government of the United States. It does not distinguish between foreign and domestic enemies. It does not create an exception for combinations that manage to get control of a state government.
If the Constitution was not creating a concept of United States citizenship, incompletely defined, then how could a resident of Virginia or Delaware be obligated to support the United States any more than a resident of Bermuda or British Oregon?
If the concept of treason against the United States can even be mentioned, doesn't mean that the United States is more than an arbitrary and temporary political construct, that can be overthrown by any powerful coalition of dissenting forces?

 

[jgoodguy]

IMHO high officials and officers of the CSA committed obvious treasonous actions against the US.
They were punished first by losing the war and second by the 14th amendment. The Union figured that was enough.
Call them unindicted coconspirators in treason.

 

[huskerblitz]

There were court rulings that concluded secession and the associated rebellion were treason.
We dont need a court ruling to show that Confederate generals levied war against the US during that rebellion; they never hid from their role.

We do if people want to call them traitors as defined. Need to have that conviction.

 

[Rebforever]

The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution and its laws are the Supreme Law of the land and no state can violate(any of) them, State Constitution or Laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, If a right to secession, separate from Revolution, actually existed in the world of 1860-1861 and If that right resided in the individual state, etc., it still would be true, that it could only be legally exercised through a Constitutional process recognized by the Constitution and its laws, i.e., The Constitution and its laws, do not mention Secession(of any kind), but, it does contained clearly expressed powers and right that cannot be violated, in its exercise, state constitution and laws not withstanding.

In Constitutional Terms, the Supremacy Clause is not, particularly, a virtue, but A Law.

There is no no supreme law against secession in what you posted whatever.
Slice it up anyway you want and there is no law that says secession is illegal.
Thanks for your opinion though.

 

[jgoodguy]

Sort of implies an unconditional obligation to support the government of the United States. It does not distinguish between foreign and domestic enemies. It does not create an exception for combinations that manage to get control of a state government.
If the Constitution was not creating a concept of United States citizenship, incompletely defined, then how could a resident of Virginia or Delaware be obligated to support the United States any more than a resident of Bermuda or British Oregon?
If the concept of treason against the United States can even be mentioned, doesn't mean that the United States is more than an arbitrary and temporary political construct, that can be overthrown by any powerful coalition of dissenting forces?

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

• Sir John Harington

 

[NedBaldwin]

We do if people want to call them traitors as defined. Need to have that conviction.

No, you dont need the conviction.

 

[wausaubob]

Is it possible to commit treason against a non-sovereign ruler?
If the United States is not a construct of the people, and is just an arbitrary association, like a commercial corporation, can a person create treason against the United States?

 

[NedBaldwin]

There is no no supreme law against secession in what you posted whatever.
Slice it up anyway you want and there is no law that says secession is illegal.
Thanks for your opinion though.

There is law (the Constitution) that says it is illegal. This has been known for 200+ years and confirmed by the courts.

 

[huskerblitz]

No, you dont need the conviction.

We do, unless you want to start adding the phrase 'alleged'.

 

[wausaubob]

The definition of treason means that a collection of state citizens cannot form a conspiracy to overthrow the United States or capture part of the United States territory. It means that though the United States is a republic, and uses democratic processes, it has the right to command obedience to those processes, the same as the Queen of England, the King of Prussia or the Czar of Russia.

 

[jgoodguy]

We do, unless you want to start adding the phrase 'alleged'.

Exactly, a trial determines the facts and applies the law.

 

[wausaubob]

A not guilty verdict does not come close to equaling a finding of innocence.
Not guilty means the power of the state is not going to support this conviction, for whatever reason.
This is inherent in the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, which constrains state power.

 

[DaveGberg]

The definition of treason means that a collection of state citizens cannot form a conspiracy to overthrow the United States or capture part of the United States territory. It means that though the United States is a republic, and uses democratic processes, it has the right to command obedience to those processes, the same as the Queen of England, the King of Prussia or the Czar of Russia.

You're overreaching a bit. Treason is narrowly defined in the constitution and has a very high bar to prove. There's nothing that implies commanding obedience. There's a whole range of acts of disobedience below that bar, some protected under the constitution, some permitted, and some illegal.

 

[NedBaldwin]

We do, unless you want to start adding the phrase 'alleged'.

We dont.
"Alleged" is used when there is doubt as to whether someone did something.
Is it alleged that Robert E Lee led a Confederate army that fought against the US Army?
No. There is no dispute that he did.
So there is no need to add the phrase alleged.

 

[huskerblitz]

We dont.
"Alleged" is used when there is doubt as to whether someone did something.
Is it alleged that Robert E Lee led a Confederate army that fought against the US Army?
No. There is no dispute that he did.
So there is no need to add the phrase alleged.

Not quite. "Alleged" is used when there hasn't been a conviction for a crime one may be charged with.

 

[DaveGberg]

Not quite. "Alleged" is used when there hasn't been a conviction for a crime one may be charged with.

So it's only alleged that the New England Patriots won Super Bowl LI?

Well, at least I got one positive thing from this thread...

 

[jgoodguy]

We dont.
"Alleged" is used when there is doubt as to whether someone did something.
Is it alleged that Robert E Lee led a Confederate army that fought against the US Army?
No. There is no dispute that he did.
So there is no need to add the phrase alleged.

Good point, OTOH convicting Lee of Treason under US law is problematical.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Not quite. "Alleged" is used when there hasn't been a conviction for a crime one may be charged with.

Yes quite.
Alleged is used when an accusation is unproven.
Conviction is one way to prove an allegation but not the only way to do so.

We have Supreme court rulings that secession is treason and that provide a definition of levying war, so that basis for the law is not in doubt.

So do we need a conviction to determines the facts? I ask again, are you claiming that is is unproven that Lee led an army against the US?

 

[jgoodguy]

There there is

Section 3.
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."

Once dead, there is no treason, just dead.