Posted on 05/23/2017 12:49:38 PM PDT by Leaning Right
To the editor: So Mayor Mitch Landrieu and the City Council of New Orleans feel that the statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee was a “public nuisance”? (“New Orleans removes a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from its perch of 133 years,” May 19)
Good thing Landrieu is not mayor of Washington, where the Vietnam Veterans Memorial represents a period of public divisiveness. It has been called the memorial that nobody wanted except the Vietnam vets.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Lincoln's "compassion" is irrelevant, inasmuch as he was assassinated five days after Appomattox. The new U.S. president, Andrew Johnson, was a personal enemy of Davis since their days together in the Senate. Nor did Johnson share any of Lincoln's "compassion" toward the South.
The Johnson administration very much wanted to prosecute Davis for treason. It hired respected jurist Francis Lieber of Massachusetts to prepare the case against him (and, for good measure, to see if he could link Davis to the Lincoln murder). Lieber spent months poring over Confederate documents and could find absolutely zero evidence connecting Davis to Lincoln's assassination. So then the administration fell back on the charge of treason, and was advised by Lieber, "Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten." (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3). Davis was released from Fortress Monroe after one year in solitary confinement.
The unconstitutionality of the doctrine of secession was not, in the mid-19th century, a cut-and-dried notion. In fact, when Mississippi seceded from the Union on Jan. 9, 1861, then-U.S. Senator Jefferson Davis did not immediately return to his home state, as did his other Southern colleagues. He stayed in D.C. for almost two weeks, hoping to be arrested for treason, thereby putting the constitutionality of secession in front of the courts...and possibly averting the war. The arrest never came. While Davis was incarcerated at Ft. Monroe, he spent much of his time preparing his legal defense, which of course would be a constitutional defense of secession. He never got the opportunity to use it.
Except for a backhanded slap at secession by a Reconstruction-era SCOTUS (1869) in an obscure bond case (Texas v White), the constitutionality of secession has never been specifically litigated. Until such time as it has, any reference to Lee, Davis, or any other Confederate as "traitors" is merely personal opinion without judicial concurrence. Surely you can understand how some people might find that offensive.
What would the charge have been? Loitering in DC may have been a misdemeanor, but just coming from a state where some had decided to secede wasn't. There would have had to have been some specific act on Davis's part, so I'm pretty sure he was safe, so far as the law went. He left DC well before he was chosen as POTCSA.
When prosecution for treason was considered after the war, there were all kinds of legal technicalities advanced as reasons not to have a trial. Most of them weren't very convincing. There was no trial because of the political awkwardness. It would have kept the country divided and a jury's verdict couldn't have been reliably predicted.
Until such time as it has, any reference to Lee, Davis, or any other Confederate as "traitors" is merely personal opinion without judicial concurrence. Surely you can understand how some people might find that offensive.
Ditto for Benedict Arnold, I believe. And even Alger Hiss wasn't convicted of treason.
But online, when has something being considered "offensive" put it off-limits?
What I find offensive is that these two launched a war to preserve an economic system based on the use of slave labor. As to the questions I asked you: If the South had won would they have ended slavery? And would they have been gracious to the North in it’s defeat. And finally why do you continue to defend these traitors, that’s what they were. As to Davis, that moron was one of the most prominent reasons the South lost the war.
Last things first. It should not be off-limits. And the person making the charge shouldn't be surprised when he gets pushback.
When prosecution for treason was considered after the war, there were all kinds of legal technicalities advanced as reasons not to have a trial. Most of them weren't very convincing. There was no trial because of the political awkwardness. It would have kept the country divided and a jury's verdict couldn't have been reliably predicted.
What were the technicalities? I'm aware that Chief Justice Salmon Chase warned the administration of the possibility of losing on constitutional grounds, but I'm not convinced that a jury couldn't have been cherry-picked, even in Virginia. Davis was hardly more popular in Virginia than in the North by the end of the war. The administration certainly had no problem getting a Virginia grand jury to indict him in the first place.
And if cotton thrived in cold climates you wouldn't have the luxury of claiming the moral high ground. The North was hardly clean and pure in this business. You are aware, I'm sure, that when almost all the Northern states abolished slavery they allowed a grace period whereby slave owners could sell their slaves down South to avoid financial loss?
Thank you for your personal opinion.
I'm familiar with your General Kearny. When he was killed, that despicable Confederate general you detest so much sent his body back across the lines with a personal note of condolence.
If the South wasn’t trying to conquer the North why was Lee in Pennsylvania? As to General Kearny I would recommend author and Kearny biographer William ‘’Bill’’ Styple. Another of my towns notables. He has written extensively on Phil Kearny.
In the spirit of academic debate and as a man my apologies for my early churlishness and profanity. My Irish temper does get the better of me sometimes. You don’t seem quite the bad sort after all.
He had to get the Federal armies out of the Shenandoah Valley during growing season, else he’d be unable to feed his own army. Moving into Pennsylvania and swinging toward Washington would pretty much ensure the Federal armies would follow. He also hoped his move would pull Federal troops out of Mississippi, as Vicksburg was vital to the Southern war effort. The Pennsylvania campaign was both offensive and defensive. No question but that he’d have taken Washington if he had the opportunity...that’s war.
Cheerfully accepted.
Yes but Lees move was ill-fated to say the least. He not only lost at Gettysburg but the very next day, July 4, 1863 Vicksburg fell after Grants month-long siege of it. This geographically split the Confederacy in two and gave the North control of the vital Mississippi River and forced Davis to move to the capitol to Richmond. And for some eighty odd years afterward the city of Vicksburg didn’t celebrate The Fourth Of July.
The capital of the CSA was moved from Montgomery, Alabama to Richmond in May, 1861.
Thanks for the correction. Well, my eyelids grow heavy. Work tomorrow. I’d like to continue talking again “Texas’’. Good night and God Bless America.
I can't say how valid it is. If it's true, the arguments seem pretty slippery.
Finding a jury in Virginia wouldn't have been impossible, but as a unanimous verdict was required, you could never be sure there wouldn't be one joker in the deck.
I'm dubious of Chase using the particular argument cited in the article, but who knows. The part of the article I quoted above dovetails with what we do know, which is that Chase warned the Johnson administration in June, 1865: "If you bring these (Confederate) leaders to trial it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. Lincoln wanted Davis to escape and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one." (Foote, The Civil War, Vol. 3, p.762)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.