If Secession Was Illegal - then How Come...?

The Patriotist ^ | 2003 | Al Benson, Jr.

[Aurelius]

Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'

Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."

Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?

At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."

Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.

Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???

Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.

[ought-six]

"Fascists don't support the Constitution of the United States nor do they oppose the suppression of a rebellion by the racist tyrants who ran the Slaverocracy."

Which just makes my point (as far as fascists not supporting the Constitution). As for your bigoted comment re: "racist tyrants who ran the Slaveocracy," may I remind you, madam, that slavery, albeit not an admirable institution, was still a legal one UNDER THE CONSTITUTION! So, whom did you say did not support the Constitution?

[Robert Drobot]

Bump

[PLMerite]

bump for later

[Grand Old Partisan]

President Lincoln himself acknowledged that slavery was legal then, but the "Slaveocracy" was indeed run by "racist tyrants". In fact, Republicans used to call Democrats "Slaveocrats".

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is no need to remind me of points remarked upon by me earlier while my memory is slipping I am aware of such trivialities as the legality of slavery and pointed out that Lincoln had no plans to change it but through legal means. However, the racist tyrants from the South didn't seem to believe him, fools that they were. Perhaps someone could demonstrate to you that legal does not equal moral.

Nor did they believe that Abe would use all constitutional means to preserve and protect that very constitution and the Union it created. As is the case with such lunacies throughout history they found their society destroyed and the people of the South even deeper in the financial and social quagmire after their insane rebellion.

Being members of a culture on the wrong side of every question about American development since the beginning of the Nation they persisted in their errors to the bitter end. Only a few men were able to rise above the inherently inhuman society of the South: Washington, the Laurens family, etc. and actually carry through to a modern position on slavery. Only a few of the leaders were anything but ignorant, blustering poppinjays struting about shrieking about "honor" when their whole lifestyle was dishonorable to the core. The only thing more ludicrous is their modern day supporters' attempts to paint them and their ideas as anything but what they were.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You don't have to tell me you are as impervious to the truth as a rock is to water. That is obvious from your position in the Pantheon of ignorance, the D.S.s.

Aurelius definition of "vile venom"- any truth about the Civil War or which contradicts or refutes any of the absurd bilge which passes for scholarly research in history which is accepted as truth by retrograde retards in support of the Confederacy and its goals.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Old wives' tales and urban legends often get accepted as truth particularly when spread by resentful survivors of events. They are embellished over the yrs so that what starts out as a kernel of truth, a woman was raped, gets blown into "a pregnant woman was gang-raped."

Would I believe every story passed down through my family about its antecedents? No. Though I would like to believe there was a Cherokee princess in my bloodline as claimed, I don't really.

[Corin Stormhands]

The loyalist state government of Virginia approved the creation of West Virginia. To this day, the Commonwealth of Virginia, not to mention the Federal Government, recognizes the Unionist Governor of Virginia as the Governor of Virginia from 1861-1868 and the Senators and Representatives of that Unionist state government as Members of Congress.

Not correct. The Library of Virginia online records note that there were two Virginia Governors at the time.

Papers for the pre-Civil War period include topics related to slavery and John Brown’s raid. From 1776–1861 there is much correspondence from counties now part of West Virginia. The papers for the Civil War years, 1861–1865, are numerous and concern many aspects of Virginia’s participation in that conflict. Researchers should note that there were two Virginia governments during these years, the regular Richmond government and the “restored” or unionist government which sat in Wheeling and Alexandria. There is a set of documents for each.

However, the official state website lists John Letcher as Governor from 1861-1864. Letcher signed the Secession Ordinance. It also notes that Confederate General William Smith served as Governor from 1864-1865 (Smith had previously been Governor from 1846 to 1849). The provisional Governors are listed beginning in 1865.

Letcher and Smith are also listed in the official report of the Secretary of the Commonwealth (the copy I'm holding in my hand is from 1999-2000, page 712). The "unionist" Government is not noted in this report.

Federal records would logically note otherwise. However, the Commonwealth recognizes the Confederate Government.

oops.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Thanks for the research, but regardless of whether the Virginia state website says there was also a rebel governor during the administration of Francis Pierpont (1861-1868), the actions of the Pierpont administration were the ones with force of law. For example, the U.S. Senators named by the Pierpont administration are recognized by the Commonwealth as U.S. Senators, such as Senator John Carlisle:

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000150

The very fact that the Commonwealth acquiesces in the creation of West Virginia is a recognition of the legitimacy of the Pierpont administration.

[Corin Stormhands]

You miss my point. I acknowledged that the Federal records would show otherwise.

But the official records of the Commonwealth do not list Pierpoint as Governor until 1865.

[Grand Old Partisan]

Yes, but for example the Senators named by Pierpont administration are recognized as Senators, thereby acknowledging the legitimacy of his administration.

[Corin Stormhands]

Yes, but for example the Senators named by Pierpont administration are recognized as Senators, thereby acknowledging the legitimacy of his administration.

But you still miss the point that you are incorrect to say the Commonwealth recognizes the unionist Government. Of course Confederate Virginia didn't have an representatives serving in the Union Congress....like, DUH!

I'm not even arguing with you about what government was legitimate or not (that's a whole 'nother thread). I'm just telling you that Virginia official recognizes the Confederate Governors as the Governors of Virginia from 1861-1865.

[nolu chan]

Disunion by armed force is treason, and treason must and will be put down at all hazards. The Union is not, and cannot be dissolved until this government is overthrown by the traitors who have raised the disunion flag. Can they overthrow it? We think not."

Illinois State Journal, November 14, 1860

Walt

Lincoln's hometown newspaper would always be a good, reliable source of moderate, unbiased authoritative reporting. Let's see what else they had to say on the issues:

We believe that ABRAHAM LINCOLN, whatever may be the troubles that beset his pathway now, will perform his whole duty to his country and the cause of which he is the representative, and, in 1864, deliver up to his successor the reins of Government over a people reunited, prosperous and happy.

[nc] Oh, yeah.

http://mason.gmu.edu/~rtownsen/Hist615_Maps/Final/Editorials/SpfldDIllStateJnl_3_6_61.htm

Lincoln’s Inaugural Address
Springfield Daily Illinois State Journal
March 6, 1861

The Inaugural Address of our noble Chief Magistrate has electrified the whole country. It has satisfied people of all parties who love the Union and desire its preservation.

[nc] Chief Justice Roger B. Taney dissenting.

* * *

Our telegraphic dispatches inform us that the address is generally well received in the North, but that it does not give entire satisfaction to the South.

[nc] Almost, but not quite, entire satisfaction.

* * *

The Jews once rolled a stone against the Sepulchre to prevent the rising of the Son of God, but as well might they have rolled a stone against the Eastern horizon to prevent the rising of the orb of day, as thus to stifle the fulfilment of prophecy.

[nc] Those jews thought they would get away with it just because they were disguised as Romans.

[nc] Kinda reminds me of Animal House:
Bluto: What? Over? Did you say "over?" Nothing is over until we decide it it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.

* * *

http://mason.gmu.edu/~rtownsen/Hist615_Maps/Final/Editorials/SpfldDIllStateJnl_4_9_61.htm

The Power of the President to Act Independent of Congress
Springfield Daily Illinois State Journal
April 9, 1861

It is a very common opinion that he simply swears to execute the laws, and from this assumption are deduced some of the most dangerous and fatal conclusions. On the contrary, his obligation is of a still higher nature. HE SWEARS TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. In the discharge of this high responsibility, he may, if necessary, discard and reject the law.

* * *

As before remarked, it would be wise to secure the co-operation of Congress, but suppose that Congress is blinded by prejudice or infected with treason, shall the Executive admit that he is the servile tool of Congress or dependent upon it for the exercise of his authority, when he has the army and navy at his command?

* * *

[nc] Yep. When you have an army and a navy at your command, screw Congress. Any of 'em act up, have the army arrest 'em and put 'em in jail or deport 'em.

* * *

... the Executive has the power to collect those revenues.

[nc] Show me the money!

... he has the Constitutional power to collect the revenue in any way that may be deemed expedient for the purpose of suppression treason and maintaining the Constitution.

[nc] Can't be letting all that revenue secede.

[Aurelius]

Keep blowing it out. I am saving your posts, along with those of a few others, for a thread which I shall title: 100 most inane posts at FR. I will include your stupid argument that the only possible meaning of "perpetual", is one which appears as a secondary or tertiary definition in standard dictionaries. I got a lot of laughs out of that one.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am honored by the inclusion in your list since all thinking people will see it as a mark of pride. As for perpetual it means 1 "lasting for an eternity" 2 "lasting for an indefinitely long duration" 3 "instituted to be in effect or have tenure for an unlimited duration" 4 "ceasely repeated or continuing without interruption." In other words precisely what I have said and in direct contradiction to your nonsense.

But please demonstrate your ignorance in case any here have not seen it clearly.

[Aurelius]

"I am honored by the inclusion in your list since all thinking people will see it as a mark of pride. "

Thinking people already see you as a fool.

Seriously, you waste your blather on me.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The only thinking people you know are those ridiculing the puerile crap you post. There are legions of those.

[Aurelius]

You can repeat it and repeat it and repeat it, with endless minor unimaginative variations. You are wasting your time. Nothing that you can do is going to make me take a single thing that you post seriously, or see you as anything but a big fat joke.

[Capriole]

Fine. Have it your way. I have no vested interest in persuading you of the veracity of my ancestors. I would merely point out that in the nineteenth century getting raped was not something to be bruited about. Women did not tend to make up such things since the suggestion that a rape had taken place invited eternal gossip, questions about the paternity of their children, questions about their health, and other social consequences.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I am not sure what the point of all this is.

Disunion by armed force -is- treason.

Walt