The War Between the States has been cast as a fight over slavery, taxes, preservation of the Union and states' rights. A small episode in the war occurred [1] on the fields of Kentucky along the Green River which presents the war in a different light. On that field, two commanders led their men into a deadly conflict on December 17, 1861. Their ideologies represented separate world views. Their battle foreshadowed many future struggles. The battle eventually concluded, yet the war of the ideas they represented and believed continues being acted out.

Both commanders experienced battles earlier in their lives. They fought for political independence. Each of their families was steeped in previous military experiences. Although both believed in fighting for principles and were willing to pay the price for it, the vision for which each man strove took them in different directions. The two commanders were Augustus von Willich and Benjamin Franklin Terry.

Augustus von Willich was the son of a Prussian military officer born in Braunsburg, Prussia in 1810. Since he belonged to the elite Junker class in Prussian society, he was allowed admittance to the military academy at Potsdam. He entered the academy at the age of 12. By the time he was fifteen, he served as an ensign in the Prussian army. This was an exciting time to be in the Prussian army, in the aftermath years of Napoleon Bonaparte's defeat and increasing influence of Prussia. Many military experts considered the Prussian army one of the best in the world at that time.

By the time he was 21, Augustus served as a captain in the artillery. His military career looked promising at that time. Willich then took initiative and led a group of officers in unapproved activities. His activities involved the study and discussion of books considered dangerous and forbidden. The books dealt with communism and communistic thinking. These new ideas found fertile ground in young Willich's mind. He began sharing his ideas with others. These activities led to increased scrutiny by his superiors who considered court-martialing the young officer.[2]

Willich then resigned his commission, and worked as a carpenter. He believed his labor in that field would help him identify with the proletariat. Eventually, he joined the League of Communists.

By the mid-1840's Europe experienced increasing political turmoil. Communistic and socialistic ideas were spread across the continent. Willich actively involved himself in the political turmoil churning in Europe. In 1848, many separate groups attempted turning Europe into a communistic territory through revolution. Willich did his part by organizing workers in Baden. The workers were then armed, and openly fought against Prussian government forces. Willich's force managed to slow the movement of the Prussian troops during the uprising.[3] His force gained notoriety as being the first to fly the red flag of the workers revolution. His force also gained notoriety for having as an aide-de-camp, Fredrick Engels. In the previous year, Engels published a book with Karl Marx entitled the Communist Manifesto. Willich's force was eventually overwhelmed, and he sought exile in Switzerland. After Switzerland, he went to London. While in London, he became a member of the Executive of the 'Bund der Kommunistin.'

In 1853, Willich came to the United States, settling in Cincinnati, Ohio. He felt at home, being that the city contained a large German population. Eventually, he became editor of a German language newspaper, known as the Republikanner. From the position of editor, he once more promoted his ideas of socialism. He also criticized organized religions, especially Catholicism and democracy. The Republikanner openly supported efforts of the Republican party including the candidates John Fremont and Abraham Lincoln. Willich considered himself a 'militant proletarian communist.' Others considered him a 'communist with a heart.'[4]

As the sectional conflicts escalated between the United States, Willich continued his inflammatory rhetoric. When John Brown was executed, he exclaimed "Whet your sabers and nerve your arms for the day of retribution when slavery and democracy will be crushed in a common grave." His rhetoric escalated as war neared.

When war broke out, many of the German immigrants volunteered for service. Willich, a known communist, was commissioned as a colonel and chosen to lead a German unit formed in Indiana.[5] He proceeded training them in Prussian military tactics, even to the point of responding to Prussian bugle calls.

Such was the background of August Willich, who fought against Benjamin Franklin Terry and his regiment on 17 December 1861 near Woodsonville, Kentucky.

Willich's counterpart, Benjamin Franklin Terry was born February 18, 1826 in Russelville, Kentucky. His father, Joseph Terry, served in the War of 1812. Both his grandfathers had served as officers in the American Revolution. One of them also served in the War of 1812 under Andrew Jackson. His maternal uncle served with Andrew Jackson in the Battle of New Orleans. One of his grandfathers served as a member of the House of Burgesses in Virginia, alongside Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson.

While still a child, his parents moved to Mississippi. Benjamin was the oldest of five brothers born to his parents. While in Mississippi, his parents separated. His father wished to open a place for gambling. His mother found Joseph Terry's ideas unacceptable, and left him for religious convictions on the issue. She took the Terry boys to the Texas region of Mexico in 1833 or 1834. In Texas, they lived with her brother, Benjamin Fort Smith, who owned land in Brazoria County as part of Stephen F. Austin's new colony in the territory of Texas. His mother died shortly after coming to Texas.

B. F. Terry was then raised by his uncle, and taught them on the plantation. The impetuous 15 year old wished to join General Sam Houston. He and his 13 year old brother set out to find General Houston and his army of Texians. Unfortunately, the Battle of San Jacinto ended the war before they found him. His uncle died in 1842, leaving B. F. Terry [who preferred being called ‘Frank'] to run his plantation. Later that year, he married Mary Bingham, the daughter of one of Stephen F. Austin's 'old three hundred.'[6]

In 1849, he went to California to partake in the gold rush. He and his party overcame many obstacles and met with success. Frank returned after having partnered with William J. Kyle in purchasing more acreage for the sugar plantation. He changed the name from Oakland to Sugarland.

With the success of the plantation, he then ventured to construct the first railroad in Texas. The contract to build the Buffalo Bayou, Brazos and Colorado Railway was awarded to Terry and Kyle. The railroad allowed greater development and growth. His business successes brought him notoriety in Texas. His home was a center of entertainment and socializing for the area around Richmond, Texas. He was later awarded the contract to build a second railroad, 'The Houston Tap.'

When the Mexican leader Juan Cortina incited difficulties in south Texas, Frank Terry volunteered his service to track Cortina down. While on the expedition, he met Robert E. Lee, who led the mission.

As the political situation between the states worsened, Frank Terry became increasingly outspoken. Terry was a fiery secessionist. After the election of Lincoln, Terry was elected a representative to the secessionist convention in Austin, Texas. At the convention, he presented the case for secession based largely on the deficiencies of the Federal government in fulfilling its responsibilities toward Texas.

Terry not only supported secession verbally, he volunteered his services. He participated in the seizure of Federal facilities at Ft. Brown after the sovereign citizens of Texas voted to secede.

He and his friends actively sought the authority to raise a regiment of troops. Terry was an excellent horseman and the cavalry was his choice of regiment. The initial attempts were rebuffed. He and his friends then voluntarily served as scouts for James Longstreet's unit at the Battle of First Manassas. During the battle, he shot the Federal flag from the Fairfax County courthouse, by severing its lanyard. His actions earned him the attention and approval he sought concerning raising a regiment.[7]

The regiment mustered in Houston, Texas. From there they traveled to Kentucky. Once in Kentucky, they joined fellow Texan, Albert Sidney Johnston. General Johnston used them in a scouting role as his forces sought to maintain the independence of their nation. In December of 1861, he sent Terry's Texas Rangers as part of a force to reconnoiter Green River near Woodsonville.[8]

The situation at Woodsonville escalated from a skirmish into a small battle, Augustus von Willich and B. F. Terry each fighting for heart felt beliefs. Communism and democracy clashed that day. German born troops found themselves fighting on American soil and the Texans fighting to enforce the will of the people on Kentucky soil. In the short, intense action, Terry died. A little over a year later, Terry's Texas Rangers captured Augustus von Willich, then a general. After his capture he questioned who caught him, when informed, he said, "I would rather be a private in that outfit than a General in the Federal army."

This 'War Between The States' contained many thought-provoking incidents. Some, such as Terry and Willich have been lost to history books, but on closer scrutiny, allow us to see the struggle differently. The lives of these two men portray two distinct ideas about government, world view, liberty and freedom. Those two views continue struggle for dominance far away from where this drama played out on the fields of Kentucky. The drama takes on even darker aspects when President Clinton announced to the world that he identified with the 'forty-eighters' [the groups of socialists revolting in Europe.] For most Americans the reference was ignored or not understood. To a student of history, the implications are far reaching as effects of Lincoln's War continue through the present day.

Try reading the Constitution, bud.
"In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact..."
Now, do you suppose a State such as Virginia, the Capital of the Confederacy's State, would be a Party, in a trial over secession? The Yankees were too afraid to bring Jeff Davis to trial. There is no valid ruling on the 1861 secession, because they didn't want one.
You ought to brush up on the Constitution before you take on another Constitutional Conservative, and I'm just a layman. Here's a clue, for free: "Original Jurisdiction" means it's not an appellate court.

You are correct. You are a layman. Lets begin you education by posting the complete text of Article III.

Get the original (unBOLDed) document.

United States Constitution - Article III

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.


: Clause 1:; The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; <11>--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.<11>; Clause 2:; In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.; Clause 3:; The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.


: Clause 1:; Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.; Clause 2:; The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Search the US Constitution

No you say Section 2 Clause 2 is 'proof' that Davis would have been tried in the Supreme Court, not by a jury. But scan down a little to Section 2 Clause 3 that says all criminal cases with the exception of Impeachment, be Jury Trials. It could be a civil jury or a military jury but it had to be a jury trial.

And read a little further. What crime do you think Davis would have been charged with? Treason? Section 3 covers that nicely. He definately made war on the United States, and I'm sure there were at least two witnesses to that fact. The State of Virginia can not be charged with treason or any other criminal offense. Only people can be charged with criminal offenses and when they are charged, they have the right to trial by jury.

Just for your edification, Section 2, Clause 2 applies to foreign ambasadors and consoles involved in legal disputes in the US. It has nothing to do whatsoever with criminal charges against a state official. Here's some case law on it;

---------------------------------------------------

Suits Affecting Ambassadors, Other Public Ministers, and Consuls
The earliest interpretation of the grant of original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court came in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which conferred on the federal district courts jurisdiction of suits to which a consul might be a party. This legislative interpretation was sustained in 1793 in a circuit court case in which the judges held the Congress might vest concurrent jurisdiction involving consuls in the inferior courts and sustained an indictment against a consul. 736 Many years later, the Supreme Court held that consuls could be sued in the federal courts, 737 and in another case in the same year declared sweepingly that Congress could grant concur rent jurisdiction to the inferior courts in cases where Supreme Court has been invested with original jurisdiction. 738 Nor does the grant of original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases affecting ambassadors and consuls of itself preclude suits in state courts against consular officials. The leading case is Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 739 in which a Rumanian vice-consul contested an Ohio judgment against him for divorce and alimony.
A number of incidental questions arise in connection with the phrase ''affecting ambassadors and consuls.'' Does the ambassador or consul to be affected have to be a party in interest, or is a mere indirect interest in the outcome of the proceeding sufficient? In United States v. Ortega, 740 the Court ruled that a prosecution of a person for violating international law and the laws of the United States by offering violence to the person of a foreign minister was not a suit ''affecting'' the minister but a public prosecution for vindication of the laws of nations and the United States. Another question concerns the official status of a person claiming to be an ambassador or consul.
The Court has refused to review the decision of the Executive with respect to the public character of a person claiming to be a public minister and has laid down the rule that it has the right to accept a certificate from the Department of State on such a question. 741 A third question was whether the clause included ambassadors and consuls accredited by the United States to foreign governments. The Court held that it includes only persons accredited to the United States by foreign governments. 742 However, in matters of especial delicacy, such as suits against ambassadors and public ministers or their servants, where the law of nations permits such suits, and in all controversies of a civil nature in which a State is a party, Congress until recently made the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court exclusive of that of other courts. 743 By its compliance with the congressional distribution of exclusive and concurrent original jurisdiction, the Court has tacitly sanctioned the power of Congress to make such jurisdiction exclusive or concurrent as it may choose.

So where are all the federal laws that describe the official method of seceeding? (Hint - there are none.)

Because it was covered with Article IV and Article III. No need to outline all the general laws for every situation when you have blanket statements such as Articles III and IV.

Please find a legal dictionary. "Prove" does not mean "guide".

You're being deceitful again. I haven't been saying that prove means guide. I've been saying that the states prove their acts, Congress does the guiding. Therefore prescribing general laws is the guiding part. The fact that you try to twist my words constantly proves that you're having a hard time debating what I actually have been saying. You're trying to change the argument because you can't get anywhere otherwise. Too bad, the whole debate is on this thread and easily seen.

Proof of the state acts, not permmission or guidance.

Prescribing general laws for states to prove their acts is the same as guiding. The Congress guides the states in the process of proving their acts.

Proof that the legislative act was passed, proof of marriage or divorce, proof of a criminal offense, proof of bankruptcy, proof of ownership, proof of incorporation, proof of a legal agreement, etc. The Article simply forces each state to recognize the legislative acts, judicials proceedings, and other state actions.

And prescribes laws for states to prove their acts. The Congress decides how a state will prove it's acts, plain as day.

You refer to Texas v. White, a decision written by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, a lawyer appointed as chief justice in 1864 by Lincoln, a man who had NEVER served as a judge?

A judge is a judge. If you think judges have to be judges before they become judges, then you should amend the Constitution so that only judges are judges. :^)

The decision where he states that the union was perpetual under the Articles of Confederation, and made more perfect under the Constitution? The decision where he states that Texas could not leave the Union?

If that's what he said, then that's what he said, supported by the Constitution until you amend it.

And that presents a problem. How can a union that is so perpetual, so perfect, be indisolvable, if it can, in fact, be dissolved? Not only by force, but also by consent - that's Chase's definition of a "permanent" union?

He's the judge. Supported by the Constitution.

But, in the proposed Constitution, only 9 had to ratify to create a new government, abandoning the remaining states. Again, so much for a permanent union. In fact, to change the AoC required all members to agree to the changes, but to dissolve it - or to secede from it - simply took the vote of the state involved.

That's you opinion but unfortunately for you, the Constitution recognizes a judge's opinion over yours.

I never touched the ratification agreements of Virginia, New York et al that expressly reserved the power to reassume the powers of government, nor did I refer to the Amendments IX and X of the Constitution, nor the words of the founders.

No need to. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not any ratification agreements.

I don't need too - Chase's decision is fallacious. A permanent union based on one that was just dissolved? A permanent union that can be dissolved by consent? What the hell does Chase think "permanent" to mean?

Looks like he's saying that all the states have to agree to let a state secede. Whether or not he's right doesn't matter. His opinion was the the secession of 1861 was illegal and his decision stands

Not quite, there is a provision making ex post facto legislation illegal and unconstitional Even if the federal congress could have enacted legislation, it did not do so, before, during or after the war.

The Congress may precribe laws for states to prove their acts. Plain as day.

I think I need to take this a line at a time.

"Prescribing general laws for states to prove their acts is the same as guiding. The Congress guides the states in the process of proving their acts."

If "proving" state acts really meant what you thought it to mean, wouldn't you think that the men wrote the Constitution would have the same undestanding of it? To "prove" an act of the legislature, or other state acts, is quite simply, the evidence/documentation necessary to officially recognize the existence and validity of legisative acts, judgements, court decisions, births, deaths, marriages etc. of one state, in all other states.

Our state-issued driver's license is evidence/proof of our being licensed to drive in one state, and prevents us from having to obtain a driver's license in every state. This article also prevents us from having to be re-married if we move to another state. If you are found not guilty of a crime in one state, this article requires the other states to recognize that outcome. The same applies for a judgement against someone, it is not necessary to obtain a judgement in all state, just one of them.

For the legislature to guide secession, the legislature must enact the legislation beforehand, or else the action is legal (as long as it's constitutional) - the states are not required to ask permission. The absence of federal laws on an issue cannot preclude a state from acting, only the existence of legislation prohibiting it. And any law must must obey the Constitutional requirements. A federal or state law can be found unconstitutional, as can a court decision - even one issued by SCOTUS, but a clause in the Constitution can't. It's the LAW of the land - nothing can change it - except amendment.

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.