Posted on 06/21/2005 2:42:35 PM PDT by CurlyBill
Read the article again SLOWLY and try to digest the truth contained there in. Southerners were NOT traitors and their goal was NOT the destruction of the North.
That's easy... Jefferson Davis.
Their goal was the destruction of the United States of America. If they had succeeded in their treacherous aims, we would have turned into another Europe of feuding states constantly at war with one another, rather than a great Super Power.
OR, we would have turned into (North to South) Canada, USA, CSA, and Mexico.
We've been at war with others on this same continent. All is still well.
Or do you enjoy your gloom and doom re-writing of history more?
She is no longer a damnyankee. 0|;-)
She also now appreciates grits without maple syrup.
Life is good.
Re-writing history? I'm not the one trying to make a bunch of traitors out to be heroes.
"Some people on FR need to read this entire article and AT LEAST TRY TO BREAK FREE FROM THE BONDS OF LEFTIST POLITICAL CORRECTNESS THAT HAS THEM COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED ON THIS ISSUE."
Well, heck. At least you aren't intolerant of any other viewpoint than your own.
All charges and indictments were dropped, nolle prosequi. Confederate veterans maintain veteran status and are entitled to benefits that all War Between the States veterans are allotted.
I guess it doesn't change the fact you still didn't answer the question. Have a nice evening.
No... just hopeful some will see the light. I suppose you would just have me post Oprah-like non-contraversial crap?
Yeah, you're the one making a bunch of heros out to be traitors!
They gave their lives for a cause they believed in. This flag (as the article shows) was made to prevent further blue on blue.
The Southern soldiers made no atempts to take and hold USA soil (exempting the capitol, which was ridiculously close to CSA boundries anyway) so claiming they were in it to "destroy America" is on par with saying "Bush lied!"
Okay... look up The United States v. Jefferson Davis.
In that case, a Confederate was charged with treason.
http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/faqs.cfm#case
The Case Against Jefferson Davis
What, exactly, happened in the case of The United States v. Jefferson Davis? Enough intrigues, maneuvers, plot twists, and changes of the political wind exist to fill a book (and it would make a good one). It is quite a complex matter, but the bottom line is that the case never went to trial and the indictments were dismissed. The proceedings dragged on into 1869, but Davis himself was only in the courtroom on two separate days.
Jefferson Davis, c1868
Davis was captured by troops and held at a military base (Fort Monroe) in a state (Virginia) under martial law. Had he been linked to the Lincoln assassination, his trial would have taken place before a military tribunal, but the fabricated case connecting him to the assassination (the primary informant was convicted of perjury) fell apart before Davis was charged. The government soon decided that any trial for treason would have to be in a civil court, and in Virginia, the base of Davis' alleged treasonable activities, directing armed rebellion against the United States. Neither John C. Underwood, circuit court judge for the District of Virginia, nor Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, who presided over the circuit including the Virginia district, felt he had any authority as long as Davis was held by the military. Chase in particular wanted to avoid such dangerous legal waters, and he continued to find excuses to avoid hearing the case. Underwood's competence was questionable, and he was known to be overly zealous (he had bragged to a congressional committee in 1866 that he could pack a jury to insure a conviction), so Chase's presence was essential for a respectable verdict.
John C. Underwood Because of the issues of military control of Davis' imprisonment, Chase refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus in June 1866, but almost a year later, in conjuction with an order to the military authorities from the president, a writ of habeas corpus brought Davis to Richmond to be transferred to the authority of the federal courts. He appeared before Underwood on May 13, 1867, bail was set at $100,000, and the bond was immediately posted. "Deafening applause" broke out in the courtroom when Davis was freed. Horace Greeley, one of a growing number of northerners who wanted the case settled so the country could get on with the healing process, had secured backing for the bond and personally guaranteed a quarter of it. He was in the courtroom that day and met Davis after his release.
After half a year with his family in Canada, Davis returned to Richmond in November 1867 for what was supposed to be the beginning of the trial. Court convened on the 26th, but Chase was not present, and the government asked for a postponement. Davis was released on his own recognizance, and the defense asked that some sort of consideration be given him so he would not be "subjected to a renewal of the inconvenience" of making the trip to Richmond if a trial was not going to be held. As it turned out, Davis would not have to appear in court again during any of the subsequent proceedings.
As time passed, many elements changed, and so did the players. U.S. attorneys general came and went (three different men were involved in the Davis case). Andrew Johnson was impeached and nearly convicted. And the 14th Amendment was passed and ratified. Johnson began to fear that if Davis were tried and acquitted--a very real possibility with a Virginia jury--he (Johnson) would be impeached again and removed from office. For a variety of reasons, no significant action was taken until after the 1868 election.
Salmon P. Chase
In an unusual twist, Chase made known to Davis' attorneys, a distinguished group of northern and southern litigators, his opinion that the third section of the 14th Amendment nullified the indictment against Davis. His contention was that by stripping the right to vote from high Confederate officials, a punishment for treasonable activities had been legislated, so Davis could not be punished again for the same crime. Davis' friends reminded his lawyers that Davis (who was in Europe and out of telegraphic range) wanted a trial because he saw it as an opportunity to vindicate both himself and the actions of the Confederacy, i.e. the constitutional right to secede. Davis' lawyers, however, pointed out that Davis' life was at stake, and there was a general agreement that they could not pass up the opportunity to arrange what they believed to be an honorable settlement. One of the attorneys later wrote Davis that the defense team also felt that if they could establish a precedent based on the 14th Amendment, it would lift the threat of prosecution for other Confederate leaders as well.
On November 30, 1868, Davis' lawyers filed a motion requiring that the government attorneys show cause why the indictment (the latest of at least four indictments which had been handed down with the same charge--another long story) should not be quashed. A hearing on the motion was held before Chase and Underwood on December 3-4, and on the 5th they announced their finding. The vote was split--Chase favoring laying aside the indictment, and Underwood, who had overseen the grand juries responsible for the indictment, wanting the case to be tried. Chase's anger with Underwood was obvious, and he stated for the record why he believed the 14th Amendment exempted Davis from further prosecution.
The certificate of division between Chase and Underwood was forwarded to the Supreme Court, and the indictment technically remained pending, but there would be no more action taken. It was clear that Chase would favor overturning a guilty verdict, making the government hesitant to proceed. The Davis case remained on the circuit court docket for February 15, 1869, but the government indicated at that time that it would not prosecute (nolle prosequi). The indictment was, therefore, dismissed, as were indictments against thirty-seven other ex-Confederates, including Robert E. Lee. Davis' lawyers contacted the Justice Department to make sure that other indictments against him in Washington and Tennessee were not going to be prosecuted.
The full story of the case remains to be told, but there are a couple of articles which provide good background information. Eberhard P. Deutsch, "United States v. Jefferson Davis: Constitutional Issues in the Trial for Treason," American Bar Association Journal, 52 (Feb. and March 1966): 139-45, 263-68, deals with the legal matters of the case. Roy F. Nichols, "United States vs. Jefferson Davis, 1865-1869," American Historical Review, 31(Jan. 1926): 266-84, covers many of the political issues involved. Bradley T. Johnson's detailed court record is reprinted in Davis, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist, edited by Dunbar Rowland (10 vols., 1923), 7:138-227. No work has been done on public perception of the case in North and South. The involvement of influential northerners, with Horace Greeley at the center of activity, was a major factor in what transpired. There is also much left to be written about the maneuvering of Chase, Johnson, and the Justice Department.
Thanks for posting the link. The charges were dropped in 1869. Prosecutors didn't have a case.
Greeley was a Democrat and ran against Grant in the election of 1872. Consider him the intellectual forefather to the MoveOn.org ilk that wanted to "Move On" and let Slick Willie off on the impeachment rap.
And Andrew Johnson was the first president to get impeached. He retained office. That sounds more Slick Willie than any of your nonsense.
Since the charges against Jeff Davis were DROPPED, I guess that just proves you don't have a clue of what you are debating......But, a few of us have already guessed that :)
If CONGRESS and the Courts didn't prove or call them traitors, what gives YOU that right?
Geez...your ignorance knows no bounds......
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.