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

 

[Rio Bravo]

No, they were NOT Traitors...............they were Patriots fighting in support of the democratic Right of Self determination.
The Confederacy had the legal Right to secede !

 

[contestedground]

No, they were NOT Traitors...............they were Patriots fighting in support of the democratic Right of Self determination.
The Confederacy had the legal Right to secede !

Well, self-determination for some people.

Sorry, but it's just a habit.

 

[NedBaldwin]

This is true, but neither is the DOI but yet many turn to the writers of those documents to understand their meaning and intent of the law. They shouldn't be totally discounted.

There is a distinction in that the DOI was an act of congress and is considered as part of the organic law of the US whereas the Federalist were essays published by private citizens.

 

[jackt62]

The easy answer is to say they were "traitors" because they took up rebellion against the United States. But to be a little more objective about the matter, the confederate generals were not, in their minds, looking to overthrow the US government, but like many others in the south, believed that secession was a legitimate action. While I abhor the primary reason for secession (slavery) that is a separate issue from that of treason.

 

[Rio Bravo]

It was the North who were denying the wishes of the Southern States & their basic Rights of Freedom & chosen Independence.

 

[19thGeorgia]

Did Lincoln commit treason?

 

[NedBaldwin]

I'll take the meaning as clearly explained in the Federalist Papers.

Do you find it clearly explained in the Federalist Papers?
Madison's explanation in 44 doesn't seem clear to me.
Hamilton in 33 is also not that clear, he does seem to say US Law "could not legally be opposed or controlled" by a State.
Is there some other part I missed?

 

[JerseyBart]

It was the North who were denying the wishes of the Southern States & their basic Rights of Freedom & chosen Independence.

Please explain.

 

[civilken]

In a strictly technical sense, yes. All Confederates met the constitutional definition of "making war on the United States; adhering to those making war; or giving aid and comfort to those making war." After December 25, 1868, no. That was the date of Proclamation 179, Andrew Johnson's blanket pardon of all confederates for the crime of treason. Lincoln had previously made it clear, before his death, that he didn't want any treason trials.

and I agree with the president is over and let them all go home it was the best way to start the healing..

 

[civilken]

This strikes me as a reasonable and accurate opinion. Well, Dang!, I wish it weren't so, but we can't rewind more than 150 years of history, can we? US Army officers who left the Union to serve with the Confederacy were technically traitors, and there's no getting around it. I believe they followed their individual consciences, but that doesn't absolve them of their treason to the USA.

That said, please read on. I am a great believer in and follower of President Lincoln's remarks when he said: "With malice towards none. With Charity for all."

I'm right THERE with Mr. Lincoln....that's where our hearts should be with regard to our brethren.

yes and I do agree with you time to move on and for the country to move forward.

 

[Sid J.]

Williams is, as always, terrible on the facts, but his logic here is pretty mushy as well. He concludes with:

"Those who'd label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I'm sure Great Britain's King George would have agreed."

As Washington was no doubt a traitor to Britain, Williams has concluded that Lee eat al an rightly be considered traitors by the USA. This secession argument is neither here nor there in Williams' conclusion. I guess it's some show biz razzle dazzle to draw in some punters.

But the secession argument itself is kinda stupid on its own. Marylanders are then traitors, right? Any Yankee who went South is a of course a traitor.

It really strikes me as odd that the pro- southern here are so vehemently in of support Williams conclusion that Confederates were traitors. Perhaps reading to the end next time?

 

[huskerblitz]

There is a distinction in that the DOI was an act of congress and is considered as part of the organic law of the US whereas the Federalist were essays published by private citizens.

No, the DOI is simply a declaration. It is not a legal binding document. The 'congress' you mention is every bit as legal as the Confederate Congress most claim as being illegitimate. The DOI has no force of law.

 

[JerseyBart]

Williams is, as always, terrible on the facts, but his logic here is pretty mushy as well. He concludes with:

"Those who'd label Gen. Robert E. Lee as a traitor might also label George Washington as a traitor. I'm sure Great Britain's King George would have agreed."

As Washington was no doubt a traitor to Britain, Williams has concluded that Lee eat al an rightly be considered traitors by the USA. This secession argument is neither here nor there in Williams' conclusion. I guess it's some show biz razzle dazzle to draw in some punters.

But the secession argument itself is kinda stupid on its own. Marylanders are then traitors, right? Any Yankee who went South is a of course a traitor.

It really strikes me as odd that the pro- southern here are so vehemently in support Williams conclusion that Confederates were traitors. Perhaps reading to the end next time?

My 5th graders easily understood both wars were rebellious acts of treason against the mother country. One was successful. One wasn't.

 

[Rio Bravo]

Please explain.

Didn't the very U.S. Constitution give the South the Right to withdraw from the Union whenever it chose ?

 

[Jimklag]

Didn't the very U.S. Constitution give the South the Right to withdraw from the Union whenever it chose ?

Nope

 

[DaveGberg]

Didn't the very U.S. Constitution give the South the Right to withdraw from the Union whenever it chose ?

Nope

 

[NedBaldwin]

No, the DOI is simply a declaration. It is not a legal binding document. The 'congress' you mention is every bit as legal as the Confederate Congress most claim as being illegitimate. The DOI has no force of law.

The DOI was an act of Congress. The actions of that Congress are treated as fully legal to this day so your rejection of the legality of that body is odd.

The DOI is included among the Organic Laws of the United States, as published currently by the US Congress, and Jefferson called it "the fundamental act of Union of these States".

 

[JerseyBart]

Didn't the very U.S. Constitution give the South the Right to withdraw from the Union whenever it chose ?

See posts 175 and 176.

 

[unionblue]

No, they were NOT Traitors...............they were Patriots fighting in support of the democratic Right of Self determination.
The Confederacy had the legal Right to secede !

They were traitors doing their dead-level best to enforce, keep, protect, and expand the institution of slavery, the self-determination to deny the "Right of Self determination" to nearly four million human beings.

And if the Confederacy had a "legal Right to secede" why didn't they sue in court over the matter?

It was the North who were denying the wishes of the Southern States & their basic Rights of Freedom & chosen Independence.

Hogwash. It was the South defying a free and fair election of ALL the nation's citizens in order to impose it's own will over the wishes of it's citizens.

Didn't the very U.S. Constitution give the South the Right to withdraw from the Union whenever it chose ?

Hardly.

Or why take the issue to the battlefield instead of the courts?

 

[Rio Bravo]

But as the C.S.A., they were a foreign Country, with it's own Constitution, President, Cabinet, Legislature & Army. They were NONE of the business of the U.S. After Secession !