Old Contemptibles | 14 Dec 2017 6:35 p.m. PST |
Was George Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers traitors? Of course they were. They betrayed King and country. What is the difference between our founders of the Revolution and the Confederates? Both can count slave owners and non-slave owners amongst them. The only real difference is that Washington and the founders won their rebellion and the Confederates lost theirs. |
Albino Squirrel | 22 Dec 2017 10:52 a.m. PST |
Well, their only choices were to be traitors to their country or traitors to their state. They sided with their state, which they were much more loyal to. Who can blame them? |
donlowry | 23 Dec 2017 9:57 a.m. PST |
|
badger22 | 25 Dec 2017 9:45 p.m. PST |
And not all of them did. Any number of southerners fought for the North, including my Moms family, all of whom lived in Arkansas. |
Blutarski | 26 Dec 2017 1:36 p.m. PST |
We tend nowadays to view the states as mere administrative sub-divisions of the republic. That was most definitely not the case at the founding of the nation. Each state took a vote of its citizens as to whether or not they wished to join the new political entity to be known as the United States of America, an entity legally defined by the Constitution as possessing explicitly limited and carefully delineated powers. All other powers were reserved to the people. Nowhere in the Constitution is the act of a voluntary later secession by a member state prohibited. The indissolubility of the Union argument was, as I understand it, a rhetorical creation of Daniel Webster that was politically embraced with no constitutional justification or precedent and ultimately enacted by force of arms. In other words, the "consent of the governed" was ignored. But, as always, the winners write the history books. B
|
catavar | 26 Dec 2017 5:24 p.m. PST |
Americans had agreed on a process in which an elected federal official would lead their country (made up of states). After Lincoln was elected many, but not all, southerners decided they were going to ignore the results (even though many probably took part in the process) and do what they wanted anyway. To my understanding Lincoln never directly threatened the southern states way of life. He just didn't agree with it and did not want to see the institution of slavery practiced in any more states. So, having lost their argument thru legit channels and fearing what the newly (and by legit means) president might do, some southern states (like it or not) decided that the rules (on how the USA was governed) no longer applied to them. They rebelled. Pretty simple really. Please don't blame the messenger. |
Blutarski | 26 Dec 2017 6:02 p.m. PST |
1 – The states consented to join the republic by popular vote. 2 – A number of the states later chose to "unjoin", i.e. secede by popular vote … against which there was no prohibition contained within the Constitution; in fact, it is clearly stated therein that all powers not explicitly conferred to the national government remained in the hands of the people. The national government had no enumerated legal authority under the Constitution to forcibly prevent or oppose secession by a member state – simple as that. The concept of "states' rights" in these modern time is looked upon by many as a quaint and politically meaningless curiosity. But the feeling was quite dramatically different in many quarters back then: it was a topic taken very seriously. R E Lee, for example, declined Lincoln's offer of command of the Union Army because he felt his principal loyalty rested with his home state of Virginia. Read about the Nullification Crisis of 1832. The fact of the matter is that there were continuous political squabbles on a variety of fronts between the factions of North and South vying to advance and/or preserve their particular interests during the entire period between the establishment of the United State and the 1860 over the direction of the nation and its policies. Up until 1860 they were resolved by cool heads and compromise in Congress. I am so dismayed by the way our history is presently being dishonestly taught in the schools. B
|
catavar | 27 Dec 2017 1:18 p.m. PST |
The states also consented to elect a federal leader democratically. I doubt that part of that agreement allowed any state that wanted could ignore the result. It just doesn't make sense. Same with Lee. When he swore to serve his country I doubt their was a line that stated he could take up arms, against the country he just swore to, if his state allowed it. It's simple. Unless there was a line like that listed in the pledge he took then he revolted. Individuals in these states decided that they were going to ignore the results of a process that they had previously agreed to. It had nothing to do with states rights. They were willing to accept the results of the election as long as they won. They didn't so they revolted. When Lincoln (a lawyer) wrote the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation… (The proclamation's opening paragraph stressed prosecuting the war to restore " the constitutional relationship between the United States and each of the States" -The Grand Design by Donald Stoker). All of the above is just my opinion; or two cents as we used to say. Take it for what it's worth. |
donlowry | 27 Dec 2017 5:20 p.m. PST |
"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forbearance in its formation and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy [meaning the pre-Constitution Union] at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled." -- R. E. Lee to his oldest son, Custis (R. E. Lee: A Biography, I:421, by Douglas Southall Freeman) I think that says it pretty well. |
Blutarski | 28 Dec 2017 6:09 p.m. PST |
"I think that says it pretty well." The above quote is perfectly fine and legitimate as an expression of the personal sentiment of one man, even R E Lee. But it in no way addresses the express legality of the matter as it stood in 1860. Google search "right of secession" and read for yourself. The following excerpt from an essay by Walter Williams is a good introductory. All are certainly encouraged to check the veracity of the historical references cited - "At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States." Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional? On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty." The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil – evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content." The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go." There's more evidence seen at the time our Constitution was ratified. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty." - – - Meanwhile, best wishes to all for a Happy, Healthy and Prosperous New Year. B
|
catavar | 29 Dec 2017 12:26 p.m. PST |
Thanks for those quotes. Very interesting reading. Still many only prove certain individuals and/or newspaper writers had doubts or different opinions regarding secession. Some politicians may have introduced those bills just to cement their view and to leave no possibility for doubt by others. We just don't know their motives. Maryland had many southern supporters and the quote (to me at least) only gives his opinion on what would happen if the union was enforced. As for the three states listed, in what way had the fed abused it's powers? Lincoln was elected by a democratic process already in place and agreed to by the states. In my opinion there was no legit reason for the states to leave. I know this can be a controversial subject and in the end these are all just our opinions. Still, I can't help believe that Lincoln, and apparently Lee as well, knew what he was talking about. Best regards to you and yours this New Year. |
Blutarski | 29 Dec 2017 1:20 p.m. PST |
You are welcome, catavar. Perhaps we might leave it at this – the issue under discussion is a very complicated question situated at the intersection of constitutional law and personal moral conscience. Ditto to you and yours re the New Year. B |
McLaddie | 31 Dec 2017 12:18 p.m. PST |
Just to look at this from another POV. Traitors are generally treated as criminals, executed or imprisoned. For instance, after the Hungarian Revolution of 1848-9, a Hungarian effort to gain independence from the Austrian Empire [supported by the US, by the way], captured Hungarian officers and political leaders were summarily shot or imprisoned, as well as hunted down for years. How does that compare to the treatment of Confederate officers and Government officials? |
Charlie 12 | 31 Dec 2017 8:20 p.m. PST |
The Right of Secession… Blutarski quotes Walter Williams (who also the author of the OP article). It might be instructive to look at the authors bona vides. Williams is neither an historian nor constitutional scholar by training; he's an economist (and a libertarian economist, which puts him on the fringe of that (and my) profession; some say lunatic fringe). He's also a well known pundit for the libertarian/right movement, which, to this day still advocates that the states have the right of secession (never mind the 1869 Supreme Court ruling in Texas v White which defined the United States as "an indestructible union" and the multiple opinions thereafter including Antonin Scalia). So Williams, a gifted layperson (he is a solid researcher and writer), does come at this issue with particular (and non-consensus) view. And non-historical. As for the opinions of the time, James Madison himself wrote of this during the Nullification Crisis of 1832 in a letter to Daniel Webster following a speech by Webster in opposition of nullification. He said: "I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy." So the author of much of the Constitution himself was clear; secession is not an option. Revolution, however, is. As for whether the Confederate Generals were traitors or not? The question is moot. And irrelevant. Any reading of the period shows reconciliation, not retribution as the primary goal. And in 1868 a presidential "pardon and amnesty" for the offense of treason to "every person who directly or indirectly participated in the late insurrection or rebellion" was issued which ended the question. Simply put: The South rebelled. They lost. And they were welcomed back. End of story….. |
Trajanus | 01 Jan 2018 3:18 a.m. PST |
Hold the phone! If it were not treason, why issue a pardon? I don't see wording that says "Just in case anyone out there is worried about it" ! On that basis the answer to the OP is yes! Or are we still of a view you can partake in a rebellion and not be a traitor? |
arthur1815 | 01 Jan 2018 10:18 a.m. PST |
Of course you can 'partake in a rebellion and not be a traitor' – provided you win! The creation of the United States demonstrates that. |
McLaddie | 01 Jan 2018 3:50 p.m. PST |
Of course you can 'partake in a rebellion and not be a traitor' – provided you win! The creation of the United States demonstrates that. Uh, no. They were traitors by both definition and self-admission. Hancock, Jefferson and many other patriots recognized that they were committing traitorous acts, and would be hung or imprisoned if they lost the war. That they won means they didn't face trial and execution, but their acts were traitorous all the same. One can be a patriot to a cause and act traitorously too. |
donlowry | 02 Jan 2018 10:28 a.m. PST |
How does that compare to the treatment of Confederate officers and Government officials? Well, they were denied the right to vote in Federal election or run for Federal office, but that was about it. Lincoln was more interested in getting the country united again than in punishing those who opposed him. Stanton and eventually Johnson were more inclined to punish, but the paroles of the surrendered officers protected them. Even Jeff Davis was eventually released from confinement. |
Old Pete | 02 Jan 2018 11:40 a.m. PST |
One man's patriot could be another man's traitor, depending who wins of course. Think `arthur1815` you got it spot on. |
Blutarski | 02 Jan 2018 12:40 p.m. PST |
Charlie 12 – I'm not sure where you are headed with your above post. You might not like the Mr Williams' present-day politics, but that is extraneous to the matter at hand. The argument that Mr Williams' lacks credentials as a "constitutional scholar" is similarly extraneous, given that his sole role was as a reporter of easily verifiable historical facts - > "At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound." and - > "The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers." Unless it can be demonstrated that the above citations are incorrect or misrepresentative, it seems pretty clear that the right of secession and states' rights in general were perfectly valid concepts in American Constitutional politics in the early 19th century. BTW – Re James Madison and Nullification, I ran cross an interesting article that describes Madison (in somewhat John Kerryesque terms) as having been for it before he was against it. The same could be said for Webster in connection with the tariffs 19th century American political history was an extremely complex and dynamic period, with great political crosswinds and crises buffeting a young republic still coming to grips with the unforeseen implications of a compact of governance such as had never before been crafted by any nation. At the end of the day, it is pretty clear (to me at least) that pure politics played a very large role in the maturation, direction and interpretation of the Constitution.
B
|
Charlie 12 | 02 Jan 2018 3:24 p.m. PST |
The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers The sticking point is that the ratification documents lacked any power of enforcement. The states could say anything they wanted. But short of re-opening the Constitutional Convention, they had no power. And its all moot. The war itself settled the matter de facto and the Supreme Court in 1868 settled the question de jure. As for Madison "switching sides"; that shows more, in my view, a maturity of mind that adapts in light of new, unforeseen challenges. |
Charlie 12 | 02 Jan 2018 3:45 p.m. PST |
Well, they were denied the right to vote in Federal election or run for Federal office, but that was about it. Lincoln was more interested in getting the country united again than in punishing those who opposed him. Stanton and eventually Johnson were more inclined to punish, but the paroles of the surrendered officers protected them. Even Jeff Davis was eventually released from confinement. AFAIK, only the top members of the Confederate government were ever arrested and jailed after the war. None of the senior officers of the CSA were ever in custody. Much of the desire to punish officials such as Davis, et al, was fueled by a belief that the Confederate government was involved in Lincoln's assassination (which, of course, they were not). As time wore on, tensions cooled and reconciliation became the norm. As early as 1866, pardons were routinely given when asked for (notable exception was Longstreet; Johnson, for reasons unknown, refused to pardon him on his first application and had to wait for the general pardon of 1868). |
Old Contemptibles | 03 Jan 2018 4:27 p.m. PST |
The issue at the beginning was the spread of slavery to the new territories. From Sept. 1862 it was just about slavery. |
Stephen Miller | 03 Jan 2018 5:19 p.m. PST |
At least those CSA officers that had resigned their US Army commissions at the start of the war were not eligible to be officers in the US Army again; that prohibitions lasted throughout most of the Indian Wars but was definately ended with the commencement of the Spanish-American War in 1898, if not earlier. I'm not sure if they could serve as enlisted personnel without changing their names. (I have read about former southern officer that did join the USA after changing their names.) I know by the 1870, if not earlier, young men from the South were eligible to go to West Point and gain commissions. |
Blutarski | 03 Jan 2018 8:26 p.m. PST |
A certain number of ex-Confederate officers sought and found employment with foreign nations. IIRC, the port defenses of Alexandria, Egypt were re-organized and updated by an ex-Confederate officer. B |
Blutarski | 03 Jan 2018 8:32 p.m. PST |
|
donlowry | 04 Jan 2018 11:02 a.m. PST |
Much of the desire to punish officials such as Davis, et al, was fueled by a belief that the Confederate government was involved in Lincoln's assassination (which, of course, they were not). Actually, it was -- although the original plan was to capture him and take him to Richmond. Booth may have changed the plan to assassination on his own. See the book "Come Retribution". link |
138SquadronRAF | 05 Jan 2018 12:08 p.m. PST |
Sorry, Blutarski – another myth, together with that of the Lost Cause, that has to die: link |
Charlie 12 | 05 Jan 2018 9:22 p.m. PST |
T A R I F F S To explode that old 'Lost Cause' myth: link It appears your Mr. Williams blew his research big time (to be charitable). And not the first time. Some day, the 'Lost Cause' (and its arch proponents, the UDC and SCV) will quietly go away forever… |
grahambeyrout | 06 Jan 2018 9:25 p.m. PST |
Some day, the 'Lost Cause' (and its arch proponents, the UDC and SCV) will quietly go away forever… Charlie 12 I suspect it will go away about the same time as pigs fly. And why do I think that? A) It is used by both sides indiscriminately, and as become a little more than a cypher. B) It provides a deep emotional need for the South C) It has become a rallying symbol of anti-establishment movements not only in the USA but in parts of Europe. The German skin head carrying the Confederate Battle Flag, does so because it shows he does not like his government. He too in his eyes is fighting a lost cause D) The lost cause is argument of many facets. Defeat one, and it comes back on a different tack. and finally of course E) it adds a bit of zest to wargaming the period |
Blutarski | 09 Jan 2018 10:26 a.m. PST |
Charlie 12 wrote – "It appears your Mr. Williams blew his research big time (to be charitable). And not the first time." Hi! Hope everyone had a lovely holiday season. Just returned from our niece's wedding. Actually, Dr Williams was absolutely spot on. The party with his pants down around his ankles is actually the good Mr Hall. While the statistics regarding the tonnage of cargo handled through the port of New York and the amount of duties (i.e. – import tariff proceeds) collected by the customs district of New York are do doubt accurate, they do not in any way support Hall's argument, because Hall does not understand the underlying flow of cargo logistics during that period. The irredeemable defect in Mr Hall's argument can be identified by an investigation of two topics: > (a) the history of the port of New York between 1840-1860 with respect to the American cotton trade and Atlantic trade routes. > (b) the workings of "the Cotton Triangle". I'll be happy to explain how it all worked if you do not have time yourself to pursue it. I speak from a background of 45 years in international trade and freight forwarding. To sum up, I think Mr Hall owes Dr Williams a formal apology, particularly for his unseemly and disrespectful reference to "turd polishing". postscript – Just to be clear on the point, I never made any assertion that "Tariffs" represented THE cause of the Civil War. Such a remark would be as ridiculous as arguing that "Slavery" was THE cause. Any objective review of the historical record makes it manifestly clear that a number of interest groups, each with its own political, regional, moral, economic and/or pecuniary agendas, acted over time in combination to ignite this great American debacle that came to be known as the Civil War. B |
PVT641 | 11 Jan 2018 12:15 p.m. PST |
Rebellion is always legal in the first person; "Our rebellion'. It is only in the third person that it is illegal; "Their rebellion". |
Marcus Brutus | 11 Jan 2018 3:40 p.m. PST |
Blutarski, your arguments above overlook an important sequential element. When the Second Continental Congress met the conditions and authority for independence were layed out in the Declaration of Independence. Interestingly, the States drew their authority to declare themselves independent and sovereign on the basis of the authority 2nd Congress and collaborated closely with this body in the 1770s. In a sense States became sovereign on the basis of the authority of the federal body in place at the time of declaring themselves independent. They did not, and this is very important, declare themselves sovereign solely on the basis of their innate right to self determination. There was always a common understanding in all the States that some federal body would exercise the authority of the Continental Congress going forward. The only question was what it would look like. When the Southern states seceded from the Union in 1860/61 they were asserting a right of self determination that was unknown at the time of Independence. In fact, one might call it a founding myth of the Confederacy. |
Blutarski | 11 Jan 2018 7:25 p.m. PST |
Marcus Brutus – What then do you make of the following statement from Dr Williams' essay? > "The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers." It can fairly, I think, be argued that denial of a right of secession was not derived in any way from the original wording of the Constitution as ratified by the states, but by a series of activist Supreme Court decisions that artfully re-cast the nature of the relationship between the states and the national government. The phrase "a more perfect union" is not synonymous with "an indissoluble union" except by a generous application of sophistry; in similar fashion did the Supreme Court disconnect "the people" from "the states" within which they dwelled and consigned them in their entirety to some amorphous conglomerate which related solely to the national government. The right of secession was, at the end of the day, a hotly debated topic until it was made moot by raw force of arms in the ACW. Strictly my opinion. YMMV. B |
Marcus Brutus | 11 Jan 2018 8:02 p.m. PST |
Which ratification are we talking about? I'd have to know more about the specific issues at play in each of the states to provide an educated response. In a general sense if States were sovereign on the basis of their own self determination then why would any state need to declare what was self evidently obvious? The fact that several of the states needed to make explicit declarations proves that it was not self evident nor generally agreed up at the time that individual states had the power of exclusive self determination. A state could certainly make an assertion of sovereignty at the time of ratification but that does that mean that other States nor the federal authority (whatever it was at the time) were bound by this assertion. This is especially the case after 70+ years with a federal authority under the 1787 constitution. The Federal government under the 1787 constitution had a direct relationship with the citizens of the various states (which made it much different from the Articles of Confederation) and no state had the authority to abrogate this relationship by a simple claim of self determination. |
Blutarski | 11 Jan 2018 8:21 p.m. PST |
Note – Please see my expanded remarks with which your latest post crossed. As regards latest question, a simple and very plausible answer is that the states were clarifying a point upon which the Constitution was silent: i.e., that the states were voluntarily joining into a union, but were serving notice that they reserved the right to withdraw from membership should they perceive themselves victimized by an intolerable degree of abusive treatment. The original writings of the period, IMO, clearly show that the right of secession, while hotly debated, was quite alive and justifiable in the eyes of very large sectors of the USA on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. As I mentioned above, YMMV. B |
Marcus Brutus | 12 Jan 2018 6:05 a.m. PST |
I think it is quite likely that you are correct that certain states were attempting to assert a power that the 1787 Constitution was silent on. That does not mean, however, that by asserting the right to withdraw that other states or the Federal government were bound by this assertion. That is like me adding an addendum or an extra clause into my copy of a contract which we both sign. You are not bound by that additional addendum or clause nor would any court uphold it. That is especially true if the contract has been in place for 70+ years. My broader point is that no state, in asserting its right of sovereignty, separated from the British crown on the basis of its own innate right or claim of self determination. Rather, the assertion was done through the 2nd Continental Congress as a collective and the states used the authority of this Congress and its declaration to make their claims for self determination. Claims of absolute state sovereignty were certainly debated in the time between the American Revolution and the American Civil War but I don't think one can reasonably show that this claim of absolute state sovereignty was broadly agreed upon at the time of the founding of the Republic. |
Blutarski | 12 Jan 2018 1:29 p.m. PST |
Marcus – The contract you refer is silent with respect to right of secession. But the contract does clearly and indisputably lay down that the powers of the new federal government were to be confined to those explicitly granted to it and that all other powers rested in the hands of "the people". The power to forcibly prevent a voluntary withdrawal of a state from the union was not a power granted to the new national government. The popular state-by-state referendum votes for ratification of the new constitution were happily accepted as expressing "the will of the people". IMO it follows logically that the same power of the people of any given state, as expressed by popular referendum, should suffice to sever their state's relationship with the national government (as is being currently discussed today by California!). But the Supreme Court suddenly and cleverly (and politically, IMO), by the stroke of a pen, arbitrarily re-defined and negated "the will of the people – divorcing it from the individual states and arrogating it to the new national government. This topic can be argued from both sides, probably ad infinitum, but IMO the real issue is that the right of secession and states' rights in general were still considered as valid concepts within the American political agora of the pre-civil war era. Perhaps we must simply agree to disagree at this point. B |
Marcus Brutus | 12 Jan 2018 7:49 p.m. PST |
Blutarski, I don't think your reasoning quite works. If it were simply a question of any state severing its relationship with the Federal government that would be one thing. However matters changed in 1787 with the new constitution. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Federal Government, under the 1787 constitution, has a direct relationship with the citizens of each and every state. No state has the authority under the Constitution to unilaterally sever the relationship between the Federal government and the citizens of that state. What was created by the collective agreement of the states needs to be dissolved by the collective agreement of the states. The means for that would be a constitutional convention. |
vonLoudon | 17 Jan 2018 12:24 p.m. PST |
Then why are there sovereign states Marcus? Under your reasoning the states gave up their sovereignty. No need for states at all. They are just a little distribution mechanism for the largess of the central government. If the citizens could not call for the separation of their state what is the purpose of the Bill of Rights? It would then be irrelevant to have rights which today's Wackos embrace heartily as they worship the Central Power. Ever hear of the 10th Amendment? |
Bill N | 17 Jan 2018 5:07 p.m. PST |
This discussion seems to be more about 2017-18 than about 1861-65. At the end of the ACW the U.S. could certainly have prosecuted Confederate generals for treason. The crime was on the books, and their actions fit the definition of the crime. If the U.S. had taken the cases to trial it is likely some Confederate generals would have been convicted. Others would have been found not guilty. There was significant uncertainty at the time whether juries could be counted on to convict. The U.S. decided not to pursue those charges, and by 1870 Presidential pardons meant it was no longer a possibility. |
gamer1 | 18 Jan 2018 3:10 p.m. PST |
Okay I'll bit just cause I have a few moments to kill and I do mean kill, waste, burn, etc. My real reply is actually a question for the OP, what's the real point of the post???????? If you are half as smart as I hope you are you already knew this would not likely generate new info, has been brought up Lord knows how many times before, with various bait, must have known same points would be made and same circles would be walked over again. As the actor in the Midway movie said(Yamamoto?) "we have covered this ground before" Me thinks the real reason is just to throw out some bait so there can be some more bashing/hating on the south. Are you going to post on the American Revolution "Were the founding fathers traitors"????? I assume your opinion on them is the same since they fit the same bill as stated already? Are you going to put a post about the English civil war and who was the bad guys?????? I could go on but I think point made. Why waste time on questions like this????????? Everyone on here knows some like the south for whatever reason and some hate it for usually the same reasons. My post have always been related to gaming the civil war, I think this forum would be better served in the capacity I believe it was intended for, not political debates that never end, ever…………..geezzzzzz. After awhile these post are just so much white noise:) Just let it go and never play the south in a game, than you can rest easy knowing you took the morale high ground, ow and never play the WW2 Germans in a game or a long list of other bad guys:) Yes I am probably being over the top, I just would like to be able to go to a forum like this and not have to see political issues all the time, and the same ones at that, I get that enough in real life. Ow well, bring on the torches, let the flaming begin……or continue? |
Blutarski | 18 Jan 2018 3:33 p.m. PST |
+1 gamer1. The "OP's" really might consider exercising some restraint as to topic selection. B
|
Quaama | 21 Jan 2018 4:50 p.m. PST |
My answer is no. They were serving their home state. +1 gamer1. Also, although I can't provide an exact quote, I recall that when I read Gen. Longstreet's autobiography he commented on this issue. The opinion he expressed was that it was perfectly legal, and proper, for officers in the US army to resign their commissions and then accept a posting with their home state as part of the CSA. He further commented that it would not be proper for enlisted men to do the same (as they legally should have served out their term with the US army) and any officers should under no circumstances encourage their enlisted men to go with them. |
Charlie 12 | 21 Jan 2018 5:52 p.m. PST |
My answer is no. They were serving their home state. Which has absolutely ZERO impact on the original question. The officers serving their "states" were serving in the CONFEDERATE STATES ARMY. Bill N put it succinctly; they could have been prosecuted as the CONFEDERACY was in rebellion against the government as defined by the Constitution. They weren't for the simple reason that conciliation was more important than retribution. And Longstreet is completely correct. Once resigned, any former US Army officer is free to pursue any course he wishes; just as any other civilian. Quaama, it very evident that you have drunk deeply of the "Lost Cause" myth, a myth that has been thoroughly rejected by all historians of any note. It's also amusing you quote Longstreet, given how he is so thoroughly reviled by the "Lost Causers"….. |
Charlie 12 | 21 Jan 2018 6:56 p.m. PST |
The "OP's" really might consider exercising some restraint as to topic selection. On that, 100% agreement. Will it ever happen? Pigs will fly first… |
BeefForDinner | 21 Jan 2018 8:18 p.m. PST |
I'm confused as to why you would say that he has drunk deeply of the "Lost Cause" myth given what he wrote. He wasn't denying the prominence of slavery in the war, he didn't comment at all on it in fact. |
Charlie 12 | 21 Jan 2018 9:20 p.m. PST |
Well, you'll have to remain confused because I'm done with this idiot topic. It's "use by date" has loooong expired (if it was a jar of mayonnaise, it'd be green and furry by now….). |
Quaama | 21 Jan 2018 9:44 p.m. PST |
@ Charlie 12 I understand the original question to be the topic headline (Were the Confederate Generals Traitors?) which was also the title of the attached link from the original post. That was what I answered and I think I can comment on any thread I desire without being subject to comments like "You just had to rake up this thread, didn't you?". I don't see why it is amusing that I referred to Longstreet's autobiography as I like to read widely on a number of topics and always try to get information from both sides. I certainly don't revile Longstreet so that would seem to put me out of the 'lost cause' club which I don't recall ever joining. |
The H Man | 24 Jan 2018 9:41 p.m. PST |
Without reading the lot: I think the question of was the south fighting for their country in their opinion? If they were fighting to protect their country form what the government at the time was doing, then perhaps they were fighting for their country and, thus, not traitors. Can you draw a line between a country and its current ruling power. I think so. Culture and such is not always dictated by government. I think it came down to both sides fighting for the same country, just with different rulers in mind. Were they traitors to the union, possibly, but were they on the union side at the time to be able to betray them? I have no answers, just more questions. |