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

 

[thomas aagaard]

I would agree, only if the Constitutionality of such a law had been upheld by the Supreme Court. But I would bet $100 against a dime that never happened, even if such a law did exist, which is unlikely.

I believe John Brown was convicted of treason against the State of Virginia... will look into it.


Hope wiki is acceptable for this?
"Brown was charged with treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, multiple first-degree murders, and inciting an insurrection among Virginia slaves."

 

[19thGeorgia]

as i said before i'm an european, could you please link me to the relevant article (or whatever it is called) in virginia's constitution


... i also reserve the right to question your use of the word 'invasion'

"Treason against the state..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=K...=virginia "treason against the state"&f=false

 

[WJC]

The one tangible thing I know for sure is that a heck of a lot more secession analysis happened after the Civil War than before it.

Sadly! But then, what would we do for entertainment?

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

I believe John Brown was convicted of treason against the State of Virginia... will look into it.


Hope wiki is acceptable for this?
"Brown was charged with treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, multiple first-degree murders, and inciting an insurrection among Virginia slaves."

And the SCOTUS's opinion on that conviction is where?

 

[thomas aagaard]

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/witnesses-and-testimony-trial-john-brown

First: For conspiring with Negroes to produce insurrection.
Second: For treason in the Commonwealth; and,
Third: For murder.


The fact is that he was executed and the SCOTUS did not stop it.

 

[CMWinkler]

You may question the use of the word 'invasion', but it is a very flexible word. It may be said that the union never invaded a State, but did invade the nominal territory of rebels and insurgents.

I think the folks here in Tennessee who were occupied by Union troops from March 1862 onward would call it an invasion.

 

[jgoodguy]

I think the folks here in Tennessee who were occupied by Union troops from March 1862 onward would call it an invasion.

In Alabama the North Alabama unionists call it liberation. I suspect the East Tennessee folks did the same.

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

Yep, found the same here:
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/witnesses-and-testimony-trial-john-brown

First: For conspiring with Negroes to produce insurrection.
Second: For treason in the Commonwealth; and,
Third: For murder.


The fact is that he was executed and the SCOTUS did not stop it.

The SCOTUS would only have had an opportunity to stop it if an appeal had been made to them through the courts. But in any case, I have had a few minutes to do a little digging of my own, and discovered that several state constitutions have treason clauses. I don't know if any of them have ever been tested in the SCOTUS, or if the SCOTUS had ever declined to hear such an appeal, but perhaps you missed your chance to win $100. I don't know.

 

[thomas aagaard]

"Treason against the state..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=K_FQAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA94&dq=virginia+"treason+against+the+state"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP3v358uPUAhXCMz4KHV8bCg0Q6AEISTAH#v=onepage&q=virginia "treason against the state"&f=false

Under this law, I think it is rather obvious that a man like Gen. Thomas was in fact guilty of treason against the state of Virginia.
Since no one can really claim that he did not wage war against the state.



---------------------------
And as fare as I can tell, a similar law (from 1950) is still in effect in the state.

http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc1802000/18.2-481.html

The rule against trying to get slaves to rebel is gone. But the "levying war" is not"

 

[Schwallanscher]

Is there something in the German constitution where you get to reserve that right. I'm not European except by DNA. 100% European by DNA. Which section is that right under?

1 we don't have a constitution, we have a basic law - there's a difference (a big one) but that's off-topic
2 'to reserve the right' is nothing to be found in any consitution, anyway - it's a phrase lawyers use

 

[CW Watch & Sword Guy]

Under this law, I think it is rather obvious that a man like Gen. Thomas was in fact guilty of treason against the state of Virginia.
Since no one can really claim that he did not wage war against the state.



---------------------------
And as fare as I can tell, a similar law (from 1950) is still in effect in the state.

http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc1802000/18.2-481.html

The rule against trying to get slaves to rebel is gone. But the "levying war" is not"

If a treason conviction handed down by a VA Court of General Thomas for honoring his military oath to the United States had been appealed to the SCOTUS, I can only imagine the VA conviction would have been overturned.

 

[Schwallanscher]

You may question the use of the word 'invasion', but it is a very flexible word. It may be said that the union never invaded a State, but did invade the nominal territory of rebels and insurgents.

i wouldn't use the word 'to invade' in that case - i'd use 'to take it back'

 

[Schwallanscher]

"Treason against the state..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=K_FQAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA94&dq=virginia+"treason+against+the+state"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP3v358uPUAhXCMz4KHV8bCg0Q6AEISTAH#v=onepage&q=virginia "treason against the state"&f=false

thx - need to chew on that a bit

 

[Schwallanscher]

Under this law, I think it is rather obvious that a man like Gen. Thomas was in fact guilty of treason against the state of Virginia.
Since no one can really claim that he did not wage war against the state.

to levy means to impose not to wage - in my book that's a difference but i don't know how americans see that

 

[thomas aagaard]

It actually also mean "wage war"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/levy

 

[CMWinkler]

In Alabama the North Alabama unionists call it liberation. I suspect the East Tennessee folks did the same.

As with most things it is a matter of perception.

 

[Schwallanscher]

It actually also mean "wage war"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/levy

2.1 Begin to wage (war)
'they then proceeded without further ceremony to levy war upon the king'

that's also imposing

as the south fired on ft sumter, they did the imposing part

 

[cash]

I don't mean to speak for @Will Carry, but I believe his statement was meant as a hypothetical to illustrate that one's choice was between betraying one's Country or fighting/betraying one's family.

So then no such orders exist? So the whole effort is an exercise in imagination?

After General Pope issued general orders that targeted Confederated civilians (talking supplies, responsible for guerrilla activity, loyalty oaths etc…) then General Lee said this about his Nephew who had stayed loyal to the Union and was serving with General Pope:

"I could forgive the latter (Louis Marshall his nephew) for fighting against us if he had not joined such a miscreant as Pope"

https://books.google.com/books?id=2tJZ_TCHUjAC&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=Lee's+nephew+fighting+with+pope&source=bl&ots=FpRSk4hwv-&sig=15bvX5mESgYtMLUhEdXRaKb34xs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiYrNny5ePUAhWIGz4KHfASAXgQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=Lee's%20nephew%20fighting%20with%20pope&f=false

And yet Pope's orders were not what was postulated, so they aren't relevant to it, are they?

 

[cash]

If Lee had remained in the US Army and was part of the invasion of Virginia he would be committing treason against his own state.

Baloney. His state was in rebellion against the United States, so his state government was no longer legitimate.

 

[cash]

I think the folks here in Tennessee who were occupied by Union troops from March 1862 onward would call it an invasion.

Those who were not traitors to the United States called it a liberation.