Why not treason?

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
We've had numerous threads on was Lee a traitor and such, I can't seem to find an open one to tack this onto.

Maybe this has already been brought up, but I just came across Grant saying that those who signed a parol could not be tried as traitors based on the terms of their parol.


Expired Image Removed
http://books.google.com/books?id=N8UNAQAAMAAJ&dq=lay down arms appomattox&pg=PA305#v=onepage&q=lay down arms appomattox&f=false

Also see: https://archive.org/stream/militarymemoirso001997mbp#page/n635/mode/2up

As moderator jgoodguy,if you intend to make an off topic post please read #5
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We've had numerous threads on was Lee a traitor and such, I can't seem to find an open one to tack this onto.

Maybe this has already been brought up, but I just came across Grant saying that those who signed a parol could not be tried as traitors based on the terms of their parol.


Expired Image Removed
http://books.google.com/books?id=N8UNAQAAMAAJ&dq=lay down arms appomattox&pg=PA305#v=onepage&q=lay down arms appomattox&f=false

Also see: https://archive.org/stream/militarymemoirso001997mbp#page/n635/mode/2up

"The war is over, the Rebels are our countrymen again, and the best sign of rejoicing after the victory will be to abstain from all demonstrations in the field."

--General Ulysses S. Grant, quoted in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War, vol. 4, 1888.

(Grant was ordering his troops to stop gun-salute celebrations after General Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House, Virginia, on April 9, 1865. This quotation and a detailed description of the surrender were recorded by Grant's aide-de-camp, Brigadier General Horace Porter.)

Unionblue
 
The definition of traitor in the constitution is quite clear. That it was decided to not prosecute all or any of the rebels is largely due to Lincoln, Grant, Johnson and Sherman. "Let 'em up easy."

There was those that wanted to string them up but the problem of finding a venue for the trials and other legal issues ran out the clock as Johnson granted various amnesties and the 14th amendment got passed with a provision that appeared to have already punished Lee, Davis et.al. and so a trial for treason would be double jeopardy.

The bottom line is that they could have, but there was no political will to do so. So Lincoln, Grant, Johnson and Sherman and others(Chief Justice Chase was one) carried the day.
 
As moderator:

The topic of this thread is legal issues surrounding a charge of treason against Robert E. Lee.

Any poster deciding to make a moral or inflammatory statement will be off topic after warning. Deletion and other unpleasant actions may be the result.
 
I think that Grant said that he believed that those soldiers surrendered under the various agreements between army commanders had their fates governed by the specific terms of surrender. This would obviously not cover those Confederates who did not surrender or civilian leaders not covered by military protocols.

I wonder about the power of a military commander to provide an amnesty protecting the surrendered Confederates from a charge like treason, which is essentially a civil charge.

There is also the fact that many in the Confederate command structure, including Lee, took actions to try to involve countries in Europe in the war. These were traditionally treasonous acts and I wonder if they would have been covered by the parole.
 
I think that Grant said that he believed that those soldiers surrendered under the various agreements between army commanders had their fates governed by the specific terms of surrender. This would obviously not cover those Confederates who did not surrender or civilian leaders not covered by military protocols.

I wonder about the power of a military commander to provide an amnesty protecting the surrendered Confederates from a charge like treason, which is essentially a civil charge.

There is also the fact that many in the Confederate command structure, including Lee, took actions to try to involve countries in Europe in the war. These were traditionally treasonous acts and I wonder if they would have been covered by the parole.

We would need a US Supreme Court case to determine that, which never happened and Chief Justice Chase opined that one would never happen.

IMHO a military agreement could be overridden by a determined civilian authority for any reason. The fallout of that would be enormous.
 
While this applies to Davis, IMHO it would also apply to all high ranking Confederates including Lee.
In short no legal prosecution of treason is going to happen. The legal disarray is astounding to me. The ambiguity of secession just after the Civil War is interesting. Without a trial and its judgements, all discussion of what constitutes Civil War treason and what the punishment would be is highly speculative.

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/jefferson_davis_s_imprisonment#start_entry
The government charged Davis with treason against the United States for organizing and arming the 1864 military invasions of Maryland and the District of Columbia during the American Civil War (1861–1865). The defendant demanded a trial as the best forum for proving the constitutionality of secession, and the government requested numerous delays to prepare its case. Although the indictment was finished in March 1868, the Johnson impeachment further delayed the case. The court finally heard preliminary motions in December 1868, when the defense asked for a dismissal claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already punished Davis by preventing him from holding public office in the future and that further prosecution and punishment would violate the double jeopardy restriction of the Fifth Amendment. The court divided in its official opinion and certified the question to the United States Supreme Court. Fearing the court would rule in favor of Davis, Johnson released an amnesty proclamation on December 25, 1868, issuing a pardon to all persons who had participated in the rebellion.

14th amendment section 3
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/776296.pdf
Section 3 can be interpreted as a criminal sanction for engaging in
rebellion; that is, the inability to hold public office can arguably be seen
as a penal sanction imposed by the government for the act of
insurrection. It can also be seen as a disability imposed on those who
had taken an oath and then violated the oath.11 If found to be a
punishment as opposed to a mere disqualification, similar to
disqualifications such as age and foreign birth, Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment would bar any other criminal prosecution for
rebellion by virtue of the double jeopardy clause of the United States
Constitution.12 In the legal proceedings that came to be known as United
States v. Jefferson Davis, a legal determination was required to
determine whether or not Section 3 imposed a simple disqualification or
an actual punishment.13 In 1868, a preliminary ruling in favor of the
criminal sanction argument was utilized for the benefit of a most
unlikely party – namely, Jefferson Davis.

Early on, Chase "foresaw constitutional and legal problems of a
formidable nature that would hamper if not foreclose a trial" for Davis.44
Aside from the legal and constitutional implications, Chase undoubtedly
considered the impact of his participation in any litigation in light of his
own political ambitions, which were always uppermost in his mind.45
The White House always loomed on the horizon for Chase and he never
rejected the possibility of leaving the bench for higher office.

Supporters of Davis argued that Davis and other leading secessionists
applied the compact theory of the federal government, a theory
advocated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and their successors
who saw the American government as a confederation of states.64 If the
question of secession came before the high court, Chase as Chief Justice
would be compelled to take a position on the issue, a prospect not
necessarily advantageous to any future presidential candidate

The Supreme Court
was so widely distrusted by the moderate Republicans in the 40th
Congress of 1867-1868 that it could easily have been the object of
destruction rather than Andrew Johnson.67 Even with the four Lincoln
appointments to the court, not even Chase could predict the outcome of a
case which forced a ruling on the issue of secession.68 A decision that
states could secede would mean that the 625,000 persons who lost their
lives in the recent conflict died in vain.69 A trial of Jefferson Davis for
treason would bring all of these issues to the fore, a fact that fueled
Davis's desire to have a trial.

While Davis's confinement was the talk of newspapers North and
South during the months of May and June 1865, the nation's attention in
terms of legal proceedings was focused on the trials of the Lincoln
conspirators.80 With assassin John Wilkes Booth already dead, the
Johnson administration proceeded to try the conspirators before a
military commission, a procedure about which Chase voiced
misgivings.81 Chase consistently stated that military commissions
should not function as courts.82 The assassination took place in the
District of Columbia where civilian courts were open and functioning
and should be utilized.83 A year later, Chase, along with a majority of
the Supreme Court would rule that when the civilian courts were open
and functioning, civilians should not be tried by military commission.84

Just after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
in July 1868, an associate of Charles O'Conor, counsel for Davis, had a
conversation with Chase.277 Chase made it clear that he took the
position that the disability imposed by Section 3 of the Fourteenth
Amendment constituted a punishment within the meaning of the law.278
If Davis were subjected to a punishment as a result of the Fourteenth
Amendment, no further punishment could be imposed by virtue of the
double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution.279 According
to Chase, the defense could anticipate a favorable ruling on a motion to
quash the indictment, thereby disposing of the case on a procedural
technicality.280 The merits of the case would not be reached. Section 3
of the Fourteenth Amendment would save Chase from making a decision
on the question of whether or not secession is treason.281
 
The surrender terms which Grant proposed and Lee accepted were put forth by Grant in a letter on April 9. I have placed in bold font the wording I think defines the situation. The officers and men were paroled, agreeing not to take up arms against the U.S. until exchanged. Until exchanged they were permitted to return home and "not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their parole ...". IMO what Grant is saying is that Lee's men never were exchanged, so by terms of the surrender they could not be prosecuted. What the legalities were I'll leave to people smarter than I am.

Appomattox C.H. Va.
Apl. 9th 1865
Gen R.E. Lee
Comd'g C.S.A.

General,

In accordance with the substance of my letter to you of the 8th instant, I propose to receive the surrender of the Army of N. Va. on the following terms; to wit:

Rolls of all the officers and men to be made in duplicate one copy to be given to an officer designated by me, the other to be retained by such officer or officers as you may designate. The officers to give their individual paroles not to take up arms against the Government of the United States until properly exchanged and each company or regimental commander sign a like parole for the men of their commands.

The arms, artillery, and public property are to be parked and stacked and turned over to the officer appointed by me to receive them. This will not embrace the side arms of the officers, nor their private horses or baggage. This done officers and man will be allowed to return to their homes not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their parole and the laws in force where they may reside.

Very respectfully,

U.S. Grant, Lieutenant-General.
 
I wonder about the power of a military commander to provide an amnesty protecting the surrendered Confederates from a charge like treason, which is essentially a civil charge.

US v. Rucker, 27 Fed Cas. 911, Case No. 16,203, 1866

"In this case, General Rucker, who had been arrested for treason, moved to be discharged from arrest, on the ground that he was embraced in the agreement of capitulation between Sherman and Johnston, by which it was stipulated that he should not be molested by the authorities of the United States.

"The Court held, that the granting of these terms of surrender was 'the exercise of a belligerent right, sanctioned by the laws of war; and not that of sovereignty, as distinguished from belligerent. The sovereignty of the government did not reside in the president as the military chief of the nation, and he could not delegate to his subordinate officers in the field any right of sovereignty which did not properly pertain to him in his military character, under the constitution and laws of the United States;' that the agreement was a military parole, intended to terminate with the war; but that the war was now ended.

"The Court accordingly refused to discharge the prisoner, but admitted him to bail."
 
US v. Rucker, 27 Fed Cas. 911, Case No. 16,203, 1866

"In this case, General Rucker, who had been arrested for treason, moved to be discharged from arrest, on the ground that he was embraced in the agreement of capitulation between Sherman and Johnston, by which it was stipulated that he should not be molested by the authorities of the United States.

"The Court held, that the granting of these terms of surrender was 'the exercise of a belligerent right, sanctioned by the laws of war; and not that of sovereignty, as distinguished from belligerent. The sovereignty of the government did not reside in the president as the military chief of the nation, and he could not delegate to his subordinate officers in the field any right of sovereignty which did not properly pertain to him in his military character, under the constitution and laws of the United States;' that the agreement was a military parole, intended to terminate with the war; but that the war was now ended.

"The Court accordingly refused to discharge the prisoner, but admitted him to bail."
Do you know the ultimate disposition of the case?
 
Do you know the ultimate disposition of the case?

One thing for sure, Rucker was not convicted of treason, or that would be in the record.
Later on the US government named an installation in Alabama Fort Rucker for a Confederate Army of Tennessee General.

My guess is that the case was dismissed at some point.

Cash makes the point that the sovereign government can override the Military.

I'll make the point that when it does the Military will object because in the future no one will want to surrender but fight to the last man when the sovereign government does it too much.
 
It was never heard by the Supreme Court. Rucker was covered by pardons issued by Andrew Johnson.


Not necessarily. From the 1865 Pardon which excluded generals.

Third, all who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy.

or if Rucker refused a loyalty oath.

Edit
The Proclamation 179 - Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War on December 25, 1868 would cover Rucker.
 
That's what Grant feared as well.
I think this (and the comment to which it responds) are very good insights. I also agree completely with Cash's assertion just above. I believe Lincoln and Grant were thinking just alike on all of these issues--further, that they believed the absolute legality of these paroles should not have been tested in the courts, because that process would have been far too damaging to the country.
 
Grant was interested in what was right. He gave his word that they wouldn't be molested and he wouldn't stand for a politician breaking Grant's word.

Here is what Grant wrote/said in the matter. Grant's point was the military view that fighting to the last man by an opponent is not a good thing.

http://www.aleksandreia.com/2009/09/16/grant-lee-parole-treason/
In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox C.H. and since upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole. This is my understanding. Good faith as well as true policy dictates that we should observe the conditions of that convention. Bad faith on the part of the Government or a construction of that convention subjecting officers to trial for treason, would produce a feeling of insecurity in the minds of all paroled officers and men. If so disposed they might even regard such an infraction of terms, by the government as an entire release from all obligation on their part.

I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the President at the time, and of the country generally. The action of Judge Underwood in Norfolk has already had an injurious effect, and I would ask that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them." [3]

Grant went directly to President Johnson. As Smith tells it:
When Grant when to the White House, he found Johnson unyielding. The President said he wanted "to make treason odious," stating that Lee and other rebel leaders had to face punishment. Grant objected. He told Johnson he could do as he pleased "about civil rights, confiscation of property, and so on," but the terms of Appomattox had to be honored.

"When can these men be tried," asked Johnson.

"Never," replied Grant. "Never, unless they violate their parole."

Johnson persisted, demanding by what right "a military commander interferes to protect an arch-traitor from the laws."

Grant, who rarely lost his temper, was livid. He told the president that as the responsible commander in the field he had an obligation to destroy Lee's army. "I have made certain terms with Lee, the best and only terms. If I had told him and his army that their liberty would be invaded, that they would be open to arrest, trial, and execution for treason, Lee would never have surrendered, and we should have lost many lives in destroying him. My terms of surrender were according to military law, and so long as General Lee observes his parole, I will never consent to his arrest. I will resign the command of the army rather than execute any order to arrest Lee or any of his commanders so long as they obey the law."

Andrew Johnson was a stubborn man, but he knew when he was overmatched. He realized that without Grant's support his administration would be in serious trouble. He did not doubt Grant meant what he said, and so he backed down. On June 20 Attorney General Speed instructed the United States attorney in Norfolk to drop the proceedings. Grant then wrote to Lee, enclosed a copy of his endorsement of Lee's request for clemency, and without mentioning his discussion with Johnson, said simply that the government had accepted his interpretation. [...] [4] [Emphasis in original]

So it appears this particular legal question was never actually adjudicated. At least not in the courts of the United States. Instead, it was decided by the President…mainly on the strength of an amicus curiae brief filed by Gen. U.S. Grant.
 
There's a good reason why Grant said what he said: the conduct of Lee--and the others--did not constitute treason.

Here is the legal definition of treason. Article III of the Constitution defines the term. "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security. Treason can include revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its agencies, particularly involved in security) but is separate and worse than "sedition" which involves a conspiracy to upset the operation of the government.

This is some very useful information that I think answers the question:

The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the common law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.

Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.

Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal amnesty.

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.

As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by evidence that the defendant committed an overt act of treason. Each overt act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary.

Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally protected speech (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

Because treason involves the betrayal of allegiance to the United States, a person need not be a U.S. citizen to commit treason under the Constitution. Persons who owe temporary allegiance to the United States can commit treason. Aliens who are domiciliaries of the United States, for example, can commit traitorous acts during the period of their domicile. A subversive act does not need to occur on U.S. soil to be punishable as treason. For example, Mildred Gillars, a U.S. citizen who became known as Axis Sally, was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a Nazi radio station in Germany during World War II.

Treason is punishable by death. If a death sentence is not imposed, defendants face a minimum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (18 U.S.C.A. § 2381). A person who is convicted of treason may not hold federal office at any time thereafter.


This remains an open question. No court ever ruled on it, and Johnson's amnesty made it a moot point. As a lawyer who deals in these questions, I don't believe that the intent of the Framers was for the treason clause to cover internal rebellion, and I doubt that the Supreme Court would have found that internal rebellion constituted treason. Treason is intended to apply to foreign enemies, not internal rebellion. Hence, had the amnesty not been issued, I seriously doubt that Lee would ever have been convicted.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top