Posted on 10/18/2012 7:39:31 PM PDT by DogByte6RER
Lincoln Assassination Eyewitness appears on television's "I've Got a Secret" on February 9, 1956.
On a 1956 game show, a man appeared who had been present at Ford's Theatre on the night of April 14, 1865.
(Note: Link over to the YouTube site provided to watch this amazing historical video.)
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Even though I mention it frequently, still virtually nobody has heard of it, or understands its significance.
Now I wish I could remember where I first saw the Confederacy's declaration of war, or the link to it, but I'm certain we've had many discussions of it, going back some years.
The neo-Confederate response is along the lines of, "oh, that wasn't really a declaration of war, just like Fort Sumter and the others weren't really acts of war..."
Here is my link to the Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States.
Thanks much. If that’s not a formal declaration of war, I don’t know what would be.
1. At the time of Lincoln's first three suspensions (April 27, May 10, July 2, 1861), Congress was not in session.
As my post pointed out, none of Lincoln's many pronouncements of the suspension of the writ were made when Congress was in session, with the possible exception, as I pointed out, of the December 2, 1861 suspension of the writ in Missouri on the same day that Congress reconvened. In case you missed my words, here is what I said:
Lincoln suspended the privilege of the writ multiple times when Congress was not in session. The one possible exception to this was when Lincoln suspended it for Missouri on the same day that Congress reconvened. Perhaps he sent his proclamation out before Congress formally opened its session that day.
None of Lincoln's suspension proclamations, other than the December 2 one I pointed out, were issued when Congress was in session.
When Congress reconvened July 1861, the Senate took up a bill to authorize Lincoln's habeas corpus suspensions. But the bill's language did not suit even some supporters -- i.e., Illinois Senator Lyman Thrumbul -- so neither it nor Thrumbull's alternative bill were voted on. Note that no bill to censure or revoke the President's actions was ever introduced.
You forgot to mention this bill [Congressional Globe, May 12, 1862, page 2070, remarks by Mr. Shellabarger, a Lincoln supporter, my emphasis below]:
Mr. Chairman, in England and America, in this House and in the Senate, by the British minister residing at this Government, and by the London Times, by Jefferson Davis and my colleague [Mr. Vallandigham,] the President of the United States has been denounced as a tyrant and despot, because he ordered certain conspirators engaged in attempts to overthrow the Government to be arrested and detained in military custody. And my colleague proposes, by a bill now pending in this House, to imprison the President of the United States for not exceeding two years if he shall repeat the conduct of which he has been guilty in the imprisonment of Merryman and his confederates. And sir, within a few days of the time I speak, in this House, this conduct has been declared to be, in the opinion of most distinguished members, illegal and arbitrary.
Since our subject was habeas corpus, I didn't mention Lincoln's other transgressions that were enumerated by Davis. Thank you for adding them to our conversation.
One that has always struck me as particularly onerous was the arrest of elected officials of a state legislature for action that they might take in the future. Were they guilty of a thought "crime"? Where does the Constitution allow arrests for thought "crimes" or the possible future "crime" of doing what authors of the Federalist papers agreed the Constitution allowed them to do?
Congress again debated the question in December 1862, and again the question was authorizing and indemnifying President Lincoln's suspensions of habeas corpus -- not censuring or revoking them -- and this time the result was the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863.
I included the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 in my post, but I didn't talk about the almost two years that Congress took to pass it.
I think you are mixed up about Vallandigham's actual sentence. Here was the sentence pronounced by the military court:
And the Commission do therefore sentence him, the said CLEMENT L. VALLANDIGHAM, a citizen of the State of Ohio, to be placed in close confinement in some fortress of the United States, to be designated by the Commanding Office, of this Department, there to be kept during the continuance of the war.
II. The proceedings, finding and sentence in the foregoing case are approved and confirmed, and it is directed that the place of confinement of the prisoner, CLEMENT L. VALLANDIGHAM, in accordance with said sentence, be Fort Warren, Boston Harbor.
The sentence was set aside by Lincoln who imposed exile. Where does the Constitution give Lincoln the power to exile people? I suspect both sides exiled a few prisoners to the other side during the war.
... the US Supreme Court wisely ruled that it could not address the matter without Congressional approval. After the war was safely won, then the Supreme Court reasserted itself, in a different case (Ex Parte Milligan- 1866) by ruling that military courts could not be used when civil courts were operational.
Why did the Supreme Court flip-flop? In the Vallandigham situation, the Supreme Court knew that Lincoln was in power. His administration had arrested a Maryland judge for ruling against Lincoln's position on habeas corpus and had threatened to arrest Taney for his Ex Parte Merryman order. Taney's possible arrest had been mentioned by Taney and another Supreme Court Justice as well as Lincoln's marshal Lamon. Once Lincoln was dead, the Supreme Court perhaps felt freer to rule, as they did unanimously, that military courts like the one that convicted Vallandigham could not be used against civilians where civil courts were functioning.
During the war, the South had a court system that did help protect civilians against the military. Did the North? From the Nov 24, 1864 Daily Picayune of New Orleans:
Can Civilians be Tried by Military Courts?
There is no longer a question among us; the military courts of the Federal army having exercised the power to do so without rebuke or effective resistance from the civil tribunals. Not so in the Confederacy. Below we give an article from the Houston, Texas Telegraph, reviewing the decision of Judge Moise, of the C. S. District Court of Louisiana, who discharged from custody a W. McKee, charged with cotton frauds on Red River, last spring. Judge Moise seems quite independent of the military power.
Our readers have seen the announcement of the sentence of A. W. McKee by a court martial in Louisiana to be shot, and of the decision by Judge Moise, of the Confederate States District Court in Louisiana, that the court martial had no jurisdiction over McKee, and releasing him from their bonds, to answer any civil offense for which he might be prosecuted.
...the military jurisdiction was denied, on the ground that the constitution only gives to Congress the power "to make rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces," and every other citizen being, by the constitution, entitled to trial by due course of the law of the land.
And his suspension of civil rights was understandable during a Civil War.
Yes, I did miss that point, and it is interesting to note.
But it does not change the more salient fact I pointed out, namely, that once Congress returned in July 1861 it had every opportunity to censure or revoke Lincoln's actions, and chose not to.
Indeed, all of Congress' serious debates on this subject involved the question of precisely how to indemnify and authorize various suspensions of habeas corpus.
These debates ended with a compromise signed into law by Lincoln in March 1863.
rusty: "You forgot to mention this bill [Congressional Globe, May 12, 1862, page 2070, remarks by Mr. Shellabarger, a Lincoln supporter, my emphasis below]: "
I've not read of that anywhere else, and searching for your reference did not produce results.
Doubtless, it did happen, but context is everything and so far I can't find anything on that.
rusty quoting 1862 Congressional Globe:
And with such friends as the British minister, the London Times, Jefferson Davis and Copperhead Vallandigham, why would any bill in Congress have needed enemies?
I would suggest to you rusty, that any such bill was submitted as a joke, and was properly treated as such.
Doubtless, you refer to Maryland.
rusty: "The sentence was set aside by Lincoln who imposed exile.
Where does the Constitution give Lincoln the power to exile people?"
Of course I agree that exiling a copperhead Ohio congressman to the Confederacy was the most cruel, inhumane and doubtless unconstitutional punishment imaginable. ;-)
As for the legalities, I'd suppose that since the worthy congressman was tried in a military court, then the Commander in Chief has some authority to modify or commute its sentences:
rusty: "During the war, the South had a court system that did help protect civilians against the military."
And you can cite examples of this in Union sympathizing areas of, for example, East Tennessee?
[you]: I've not read of that anywhere else, and searching for your reference did not produce results.
Doubtless, it did happen, but context is everything and so far I can't find anything on that.
It took me about three minutes to find the bill in question. It was H.R. 170 of the 37th Congress, 2nd Session. The copy of it I found has a date of December 23, 1861, and it was introduced by Vallandigham.
Here's a link to it: A Bill to regulate and enforce the writ of habeas corpus, and for the better securing the liberty of the citizen
I recognize that as head of the military Lincoln had the power to reprieve or pardon the sentence of a military court, even one that was unconstitutionally trying a citizen when the civil courts were open in a state that was not in insurrection. But exile? Throw someone out of the country for exercising his first amendment rights?
Take a look at the trial transcript sometime. Vallandigham recommended in the speech for which he was arrested that people use the ballot box to remove Lincoln from office. How unpatriotic! Treason! Can't have that, can we? IIRC, Vallandigham did also call him "King" Lincoln. Well, a king does have the dictatorial power to exile someone from his country, so I guess Vallandigham was right.
As the Indiana governor's letter to Lincoln said in part about the Vallandigham arrest and trial (here is the link again: Governor to King):
According to my views of the question arrest, imprisonment and trial, under Gen. Burnsides' Order, No. 38.1 are a clear violation of the Act of Congress, approved March 3rd 1863, providing for the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus and regulating arrests in States, in which the Administration of the laws, has continued unimpaired in the Federal Courts.
If the General Commanding the Department, can issue his orders establishing a new class of offenses and arrest, and try persons for their violation by a Military Commission, then the Act of Congress amounts to nothing.
But aside from this, I am satisfied that the effect of the order is bad, and that it has wholly failed to accomplish the purpose for which it was intended; that on the contrary it is greatly intensifying the hatred of the masses of the Democratic party, toward the Government, and is rapidly converting what in many, was mere clamor and general opposition to the Administration into bitter hostility to the Government and the War.
...
My judgment is against all this business, as illegal and highly inexpedient ...
Couldn't have said it better myself.
There are several points to be made here:
Indeed, those usual wartime restrictions on free speech are one reason Congress has been so reluctant to officially declare a war since WWII.
By 1864 Vallandigham openly attended the Democrat convention in Chicago, and was put on the Democrat ticket as Secretary of War!
Such a punishment for treason.
As for Indiana Governor King's remarks about:
This happens whenever Republicans are in charge, regardless of whether Dems have some legitimate excuse or not.
The problem is, if one believes that something is necessary to save the country and the Constitution, one tends not to see it as unconstitutional.
After years of war, our Founders well understood, and provided in the Constitution for restrictions on normal freedoms during times of "insurrections," "rebellion or invasion".
Indeed their Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were originally passed in preparation for war with France -- now called the "Quazi-War".
And in the very beginning, those acts were not opposed by Jefferson & Madison's political party, though as the possibility of major war faded, their opposition became very strong, and the nation nearly succumbed.
President Jefferson himself used the acts to prosecute political opponents.
So I'll say it again: this is one reason Congress has been so reluctant to officially declare a war these past 70+ years -- because of all the historical precedents it would invoke.
And that is especially true when the real "war" is considered to be just as much ideological as military -- in the war between freedom and tyranny we considered ourselves "defeated" to the degree that we must adopt tyranny just to suppress our enemies.
But the bottom line is still: our Founders and every generation since have well understood that wartime requires sacrifices in terms of both lives and freedoms.
It's one reason why they hated war.
During wartime such "free speech" falls under Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
That’s a serious charge. Did Vallandigham levy war against the United States? No, at least not at this time.
Did he adhere to the enemies of the United States? No, he did not support two separate countries, and he argued for the return of the Southern states under the Constitution as it had been before the war. He argued that Lincoln had changed the objective of the war from preserving the Union to freeing the slaves. Vallandigham was for the former objective.
Did Vallandigham give the enemies of the United States aid and comfort? Actually in his speech that got him arrested he had pointed out that the Richmond Enquirer newspaper, which he called a Jeff Davis’ organ, had wanted Vallandigham and two others thrown in prison because of their doing so much against Southern recognition and independence.
In a post above I had recommended that you look at Vallandigham’s military trial for what he said in the May 1, 1863 speech for which he was arrested and for which he was being tried. Here is a link to the trial testimony: Vallandigham trial
Specifications against Vallandigham at trial
SPECIFICATION.
In this, that the said Clement L. Vallandigham, a citizen of the State of Ohio, on or about the first day of May, 1863, at Mount Vernon, Knox County, Ohio, did publicly address a large meeting of citizens, and did utter sentiments in words, or in effect, as follows, declaring the present war “ a wicked, cruel, and unnecessary war;” “ a war not being waged for the preservation of the Union;” “ a war for the purpose of crushing out liberty and erecting a despotism;” “ a war for the freedom of the blacks and the enslavement of the whites;” stating “ that if the Administration had so wished, the war could have been honorably terminated months ago; ‘ that “ peace might have been honorably obtained by listening to the proposed intermediation of France;” that “ propositions by which the Northern States could be won back, and the South guaranteed their rights under the Constitution, had been rejected the day before the late battle of Fredericksburg, by Lincoln and his minions,” meaning thereby the President of the United States, and those under him in authority; charging “ that the Government of the United States was about to appoint military marshals in every district, to re-strain the people of their liberties, to deprive them of their rights and privileges;” characterizing General Orders No. 38, from Headquarters Department of the Ohio, as “ a base usurpation of arbitrary authority,” inviting his hearers to resist the same, by saying, “ the sooner the people inform the minions of usurped power that they will not submit to such restrictions upon their liberties, the better;” declaring “ that he was at all times, and upon all occasions, resolved to do what he could to defeat the attempts now being made to build up a monarchy upon the ruins of our free government;” asserting “ that he firmly believed, as he said six months ago, that the men in power are attempting to establish a despotism in this country, more cruel and more oppressive than ever existed before.”
All of which opinions and sentiments he well knew did aid, comfort, and encourage those in arms against the Government, and could but induce in his hearers a distrust of their own Government, sympathy for those in arms against it, and a disposition to resist the laws of the land.
During the trial, Vallandigham personally cross examined the prosecution’s witnesses. They were military officers who had heard Vallandigham’s speech for which Vallandigham had been arrested. Here’s are some excerpts from the trial. Vallandigham asks the questions, and the prosecution witnesses respond :
Burnside’s General Orders No. 38 Link
Q.- Referring to General Orders No. 38, did I not say that, in so far as it undertook to subject citizens not in the land or naval forces or militia of the United States, in actual service, to trial by court-martial or military commission, I believed it to be unconstitutional, and a usurpation of arbitrary power?.
A.-He did, except the words “ in so far.”
I will note at this point that Vallandigham is in agreement with the later unanimous Ex Parte Milligan decision of the US Supreme Court, and he was in agreement with Indiana Governor Morton who said in his letter to Lincoln that Burnsides General Order 38 was against the law passed by Congress for areas not in insurrection and that the whole business of the trial was illegal.
Where military trials are justified
Q.-Referring to two citizens of Kentucky tried, by Military Court in Cincinnati, did I not say that what they were charged with was actual treason, punishable by death, and that, if guilty, the penalty by statute was hanging, and they ought to be hung, after being tried by a judicial court and a jury-instead of which they had been tried by a military court, as I understood, and sentenced to fine and imprisonment-one of them a fine of three hundred dollars?
A.-That was, in substance, what he said. …
Q.-Did I not also say, in that connection, that the rebel officer who was tried as a spy by the Military Court at Cincinnati was legally and properly tried and convicted, according to the rules and articles of war; that that was a clear case where the Court had jurisdiction?
A.-It is my recollection that he denounced the Court as an unlawful tribunal, and that he did use the above language, and then gave the instances referred to in my direct testimony. He probably did refer to Campbell’s case.
Then the Judge Advocate speaks up.
The Judge-Advocate stated that the accused did distinguish in his speech the different cases for the purpose of showing jurisdiction, condemning those cases in which he held the Court to have no jurisdiction, and approving the case of the spy.
Support for the Union
Q.-Did I not expressly refer to myself in that connection, and say that I had refused, and always would refuse, to agree to a separation of the States-in other words, to peace, on terms of disunion?
A.-He stated something to that effect. He stated that he wished to have a voice in the manner in which the Union was to be reconstructed, and that he wished also our Southern brethren to have a voice.
Q.- Did I not distinctly, in the conclusion of the speech, enjoin upon the people to stand by the Union at all events, and that, if war failed, not to give the Union up; to try, by peaceable means, by compromise, to restore it as our fathers made it, and that though others might consent, or be forced to consent, I would not myself be one of those who would take any part in agreeing to a dissolution of the Union?
A.-Yes. He said he and the peace men were the only ones who wished the restoration of the Union.
Jeff Davis Someone in the audience at the May 1, 1863, speech had shouted out that Jeff Davis was a gentleman. The prosecutor asked the following question of a witness:
Q.-Did you hear many, and how many, cheering for Jeff Davis, or expressing sympathy for him?
A.-I heard no cheers for Jeff Davis, but I heard a shout in the crowd, that “ Jeff Davis was a gentleman, and that was what the President was not.”
Vallandigham asked the witness in cross examination:
Q.-Do you mean to be understood to say that I heard the reference to Jeff Davis, or gave any assent to it whatever?
A.-I can not say that he did. It was said loud enough for him to hear, if his attention had been directed that way. He gave no assent; neither did he give any dissent.
Vallandigham produced a defense witness, an old friend of General Burnside and co-speaker at the May 1 meeting. He remembered an occasion where Vallandigham had denounced applause for Jeff Davis:
Q.-Do you remember any rebuke, in connection with the Butler County case, of men who hurrahed for “ Jeff Davis?”
A.--Yes, I do. He denounced the applause of Davis.
Against Resistance to Military or Civil Law and for Use of the Ballot Box
Q.-You say that I said that I would not counsel resistance to military or civil laws. Did I not expressly counsel the people to obey the Constitution and all laws, and to pay proper respect to men in authority, but to maintain their political rights’ through the ballot-box, and to redress personal wrongs through the judicial tribunals of the country, and in that way put down the Administration and all usurpations of power?
A.-He said, at the last of his speech, to come up united at the ballot-box and hurl the tyrant from his throne. I did not understand him to counsel the people to submit to the authorities at all times. I do not remember the language as stated, but part of it I remember.
From Vallandigham’s defense witness:
A.-I can not say as to his “ strongest language,” for he always speaks pretty strongly. He denounced, in strong language, any usurpations of power to stop public discussions and the suffrage. He appealed to the people to protect their rights, as a remedy for every grievance of a private nature. He counseled no resistance except such as might be had at the ballot-box.
Q.-Was any thing said by him at all looking to forcible resistance of either laws or military orders?
A.-Not as I understand it. He stated the sole remedy to be in the ballot-box, and in the courts. I remember this distinctly, for I had been pursuing the same line of remark at Chicago and Fort Wayne, and other places where I had been speaking, and with the purpose of repressing any tendency toward violence among our Democratic people.
Conscription Testimony of a prosecution witness:
That he [Valladigham] would not counsel resistance to military or civil law; that was not needed. That a people were unworthy to be freemen who would submit to such encroachments on their liberties. He was then speaking of the conscription act.
He closed by warning the people not to be deceived. That “ an attempt would shortly be made to enforce the conscription act; “ that “ they should remember that this war was not a war for the preservation of the Union; that “ it was a wicked Abolition war, and that if those in authority were allowed to accomplish their purposes, the people would be deprived of their liberties, and a monarchy established; but that, as for him, he was resolved that he would never be a priest to minister upon the altar upon which his country was being sacrificed.”
Testimony of Vallandigham’s defense witness
Q.-Was any thing said by me on that occasion in denunciation of the conscription bill, or looking in any way to resistance to it?
A.-My best recollection is that Mr. Vallandigham did not say a word about the conscription.
Q.-Did he refer to the French conscription bill, and, if not, was such reference made, and by whom?
A.-He did not. I did.
The prosecution witness said that Vallandigham talked about conscription. Let's assume that he did and urged using the ballot box to fight against it. Is that not the right procedure if you are against a conscription law?
This brings to mind the objections of Georgia Governor Brown to Confederate conscription: See: Link. IIRC, Brown made a huge number of Georgia militia members officers so that they could not be conscripted into the Confederate Army. Brown was not arrested.
Lincoln and war Testimony by prosecution witness about what Vallandigham said in his speech:
That in less than one month Mr. Lincoln had plunged the country into this cruel, bloody, and unnecessary war.
Lincoln told the Senate he had nothing important to tell them so they could adjourn, which they did. He did this on the same day he had a secret draft order written to send a battle fleet down to Fort Sumter. His own generals and cabinet told him sending such a fleet down to Fort Sumter would start a shooting war. It did.
Despotism and description of the war Testimony of prosecution witness
After finishing his exordium, he spoke of the designs of those in power being to erect a despotism; that “ it was not their intention to effect a restoration of the Union; that previous to the bloody battle of Fredericksburg an attempt was made to stay this wicked, cruel, and unnecessary war.” That the war could have been ended in February last. That, a day or two before the battle of Fredericksburg, a proposition had been made for the readmission of Southern Senators into the United States Congress, and that the refusal was still in existence over the President’s own signature, which would be made public as soon as the ban of secrecy enjoined by the President was removed.
Cross examination by Vallandigham
Q.-In speaking of the character of the war, did I not expressly say, as Mr. Lincoln, in his proclamation, July 1, 1862, said: “ This unnecessary and injurious civil war? “
A.-I do not recollect that he did. The language he made use of I understood to be his own.
Lincoln started tossing people in prison for expressing their opinion, assumed powers delegated in the Constitution to Congress, assumed the powers of the judiciary by ignoring a legal order against his action by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and started using military courts to try people in states not in insurrection and where the civil courts were functioning, interfered with the electoral process (his troops struck Democrats off the ballot in some locations and prevented know supporters of secession from voting in other areas) arrested state legislators in Maryland to prevent them from voting on secession, threw out the legally elected state government in Missouri, instigated a shooting war by sending a battle fleet to Fort Sumter.
If you were president back then, would you have arrested me for saying that such actions were leading to a despotism and the solution was not resistance to military and civil law but the use of the ballot box to vote such a president out?
If you are arguing that Clement Vallandigham was wrongly arrested and convicted, and that he was not "guilty as charged", that's one thing.
Here is General Burnside's General Order Number 38:
"The habit of declaring sympathies for the enemy will no longer be tolerated in the department.
Persons committing such offences will be at once arrested, with a view to being tried as above stated, or sent beyond our lines into the lines of their friends."
Burnside's order and Vallandigham's conviction under it were used in a campaign song by Vallandigham in his 1863 run for Ohio governor:
Then like a free-born western man,
Our Val spoke bold and true,
O, when he’s chosen governor
What will poor Burnside do.
Wont he skedaddle,
As he’s well used to do."
So in 1863 Vallandigham was convicted, exiled to the Confederacy, immediately returned to Canada, ran for Ohio governor and in 1864 was included on the Democrat presidential ticket as Secretary of War.
He continued politically active after the war, until an unfortunate accident ended his life in 1871.
I would point out again:
The habit of declaring sympathies for the enemy will no longer be tolerated in the department.
Where did Vallandigham declare sympathy for the enemy? Was telling people to obey the military and civil laws but vote the rascal out at the ballot box and declaring that he would never be a party to the separation of the country declaring sympathy for the enemy? I learn something new every day.
Why wasn't McClellan arrested for running against Lincoln in 1864? Wasn't McClellan arguing for people to obey the laws and throw the rascal out at the ballot box?
Georgia Governor Brown took actions that crippled the Confederate war effort far more than what Vallandigham did to the Union war effort. Was Brown ever arrested like Vallandigham was or did the Confederacy tolerate such actions?
I provided a link above that dealt with Brown's opposition to Confederate conscription and the suspension of habeas corpus. Here is another link that summarizes how Brown crippled the Confederate war effort: Link.
Let me put it to you this way: in the past 25 years, how many dozens or hundreds of convicted murderers, rapists and others have been released from death rows, prisons, and sent home because DNA evidence later proved they did not commit the crimes that lawful, careful courts convicted them of?
So anyone can reasonably argue that miscarriages of justice are always possible in our legal system, even under the most carefully controlled circumstances, such as a civilian murder trial.
The record shows the court believed Vallandigham did express sympathy for the enemy and he was, per General Order #38, exiled for it.
But he ran for Ohio governor from exile, and when he returned to the Democrats' Chicago convention in 1864, President Lincoln knew of it and refused to order Vallandigham's arrest.
The record also suggests that Vallandigham did in fact help the Confederates while in Richmond and in Canada.
So he was not perfectly innocent.
Part of the confederate plan was to liberate confederate prisoners of war.[35]
The intended revolt never materialized."
Again I ask: can you cite an equivalent example of Confederate response to political dissent?
There's no comparison.
Georgia's Governor Joseph Brown was a Confederate patriot, who championed secession and acts of force which led to war.
During the war, Brown did everything possible to keep Georgia troops and civilians supplied with necessities.
Brown's problem was two-fold:
But Brown did not publicly oppose the Confederacy, or the war -- just the opposite.
Instead, he lawfully worked hard -- with increasing backing from Georgia's legislature -- to support and defend Georgians, over the demands of the Confederacy's central government.
So there is no comparison between Georgia's Governor Joseph Brown and Ohio's former Congressmen Clement Vallandigham.
Sorry, Brown did finally oppose the war:
Yes, after the war was obviously lost, and the Confederacy itself had no power to discipline Brown.
Starting an appropriate thread on North vs. South would be fine.
Leni
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.