Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by 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.
Wierd, ain't it? I would add that everything eventually ends in an appeal to force or consensus of opinion. Difficult for a rational person to swallow, save at gunpoint.
But of course! Force and opinion are their two favorite arguments.
But it always starts out with a gratuitous assertion on their part which they presume to be true, valid, and substantiated simply by virtue of having been stated, of course, by them. They seem to think that burdens of proof do not apply where they are concerned and reply to any request of substantiation by acting as if doing so is below them. After this initial failure, it becomes timely for us to post contrary proof of their original claim anyway, to which they respond with absurd semantical games of denial and excuse making. The proper response there is to remove the cover of words under which they are hiding, and all of a sudden the tune changes. Now, they tell us, we are wrong ad baculum for losing the war and ad populum by way of the majority consensus of uneducated dupes like themselves and those that they fool.
Pot, kettle...meet black. He will probably inform you that war is peace, night is day, and it all depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.
Classic! Well said...
Yawn. Where do you keep getting all of this intellectually light weight tripe, Walt?
"It is obvious that, on general principles of law and reason, there exists no such thing as a government created by, or resting upon, any consent, compact, or agreement of "the people of the United States" with each other; that the only visible, tangible, responsible government that exists, is that of a few individuals only, who act in concert, and call themselves by the several names of senators, representatives, presidents, judges, marshals, treasurers, collectors, generals, colonels, captains, etc., etc." - Lysander Spooner, 1870
I don't believe I have ever made any of the statements you attribute to me and at least the second two appear to be scarecrows of your own design. For the first, I do generally agree with it though it is a severe oversimplification of the argument. Treason as defined by certain governments is a distinct animal from treason as defined under common law. The former is often nothing more than an excuse for an unjust state to prosecute those who object to its abuses and violations of liberty or, in some cases, simply oppose an official position or policy of the state. This is almost always an illegitimate application of the treason principle. The latter is not and is therefore a legitimately punishable offense.
More amusement, actually. You and your fellow Wlat Brigadiers are one of the funniest freak shows running on FR these days.
It's probably good that you give him consent to use your words before he assumes it for himself. Mac's a known plagiarist, you know.
Once you accept everything that they say as axiomatic, the rest is crystal clear. absurd semantical games of denial
Yes, well we know that sometimes the word states means provinces, territories, fiefdoms, yadda yadda. A simple case of man perverting language to fit his agenda.
Fair enough, as under a strictly constructed original intent interpretation of that clause, it was improper to accuse the south of that crime.
I find it particularly amusing for you to pretend that the Jefferson quote has any real significance
The only significance I have noted it to possess in this debate is that it contradicts your allegation that Jefferson opposed any notion of splitting the union.
when you know very well that The Great Man himself brought Burr to trial THREE times for Treason when he attempted to do what you claim J. was claiming would be just fine
What Jefferson thought of Burr is wholly irrelevant to this discussion and does not change the fact that he wrote what he did.
Precisely. It is the old "Lincoln is perfect therefore what his critics say is wrong, and since his critics are all wrong he must be perfect" game that they play. It's wholly circular onto itself, but accept any one point in the circle and you can navigate to all of the others.
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.