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.
Old newspapers of the period are a useful source too, although not as easily accessible as the Internet and subject, of course, to the bias of the particular newspaper.
You mentioned Fort Pillow in your next post. One of my local libraries has microfilns of old newspapers. I've found what two Memphis papers said about Fort Pillow right after the battle. One quoted a Union officer saying that General Forrest shot one of his own men for refusing to give quarter to Federal troops. That sort of thing often gets left out of history summaries.
The other Memphis paper, one with a decidedly pro-Union slant, mentioned that many Federal soldiers were killed inside the fort after surrender.
Neither paper mentioned that black troops kept firing on Confederate troops during the surrender negotiations under a white flag before the final storming of the fort. During those negotiations, Forrest pointed out the superior number of Confederate troops and ammunition and twice offered the Federals the opportunity to surrender. The Feds were badly outnumbered and should have surrendered.
Neither paper said anything about Federal prisoners surrendering during the battle, then later picking up their arms and fighting again, though that apparently happened. Of course, if my fellow prisoners were being killed after surrender, I'd probably pick up my rifle again too.
I read somewhere (book? web?) that some the Federal troops involved at Fort Pillow had been harassing the families of the Tennessee Confederate troops. If that is correct, then there may well have been some personal payback involved in the actions of some of the Confederate troops.
Hard to know what really happened. History is complex, and it helps to read both sides.
So do I. I guess he means to bring him down from being the 4th member of Holy Trinity to only be a mere superhero.
You have your hero, I have mine. Give me "Dutch" anyday, or Washington or Jefferson. But I do agree, Lincoln did promote the "republican" policy of big government, protectionist tariffs, mercantilism, cronyism etc. Just like todays' Dims.
As Taney points out, habeas corpus is mentioned in Article I, and Article I talks about the powers of Congress, not the powers of the executive. It is Article II that refers to the powers of the executive. Habeas corpus is not mentioned in Article II.
Of course, Chief Justice Marshall ruled long before Merryman that suspension of the writ power was a matter for the legislature to decide.
Actually, the events at Fort Pillow are a matter of great historical dispute. Most credible historians will note that brutality did indeed occur while also acknowledging that many of the northern accounts were greatly exaggerated for propaganda purposes after the battle. Often this was by persons who were nowhere near the scene and did not witness what they claimed to have happen.
What we do know for certain of Fort Pillow is as follows:
1. The yankees were severely short on officers, the fort's commander having been killed in battle earlier that day. The surviving yankee officer who took command also attempted to conceal that fact from the confederates by forging the deceased commander's name onto correspondence with them when Forrest was demanding a surrender. Thus, for all practical purposes when the battle began, the yankees were not only outnumbered (which the confederates knew) but in a state of chaotic disorganization (which the confederates did not know).
2. When the confederates stormed the walls of the fort, two of the surviving yankee officers gave conflicting orders to their troops. One instructed them to stand their ground and fight while another, acting almost simultaneously, instructed them to retreat into the river where they hoped to recieve cover from a nearby gunboat.
3. No organized attempt was ever made by the yankee officers to surrender during the battle until the bitter end. Those who fled to the river continued firing while doing so and the fort's flag did not come down until the confederates reached it and removed it. Thus, practically all surrenders made or attempted during the battle were individual acts of single soldiers in the midst of continuous and disorganized fighting.
4. It is known that in some cases, individual soldiers who had previously surrendered during the fort's storming observed that those who had retreated into the river were continuing the fight and subsequently picked up arms to resume fighting. This added further confusion to an already chaotic scene.
5. In the midst of the chaos, the confederates engaged in brutality by shooting down both individually surrendered men and those who were trying to surrender. Some of this was a result of confusion caused by an inability to distinguish them from those that were still fighting. Some of this was caused by vengeance (there was extensive bad blood between a Tennesse CSA division in the battle and Tennessee unionists in the fort because the latter had been involved in the torture and execution of a local civilian some months earlier). And some of it was in cold blood. It also is likely that the combination of these events account for almost all of the reports of atrocities at Fort Pillow. The far fetched claims that later emerged, such as the nailing of POW's to fences and dousing them with lighted oil, are uncorroborated and originated from persons with no first hand knowledge of the battle.
6. Contrary to popular myth, the yankee garrison was NOT all black and in fact was majority white. According to POW records, about 200 out of roughly 600 men survived the battle. Black casualties were a greater percentage than white casualties, though much of this is likely due to the yankee command's disorganization afflicting the black divisions the most. They were literally abandoned by the white commanders on the field and without orders. Eyewitness accounts of the battle including several from the union side state that that the killing, where it occurred, was mostly indiscriminate to race. Of the credible eyewitness accounts that note blacks to have been targetted, they are largely individual and anecdotal cases and are comparatively fewer.
7. It is highly unlikely that the brutality that did occur was sanctioned by Forrest, and from what can be discerned, he and his subordinates did what they could to halt it upon discovering that it was occurring.
In sum, the events at Fort Pillow were a combination of multiple factors, the foremost probably being the disastrous disorganization of the yankee troops and the failure of their surviving officers to exercise any substantial command whatsoever. Secondary to that were the high emotions running between the Tennessee division and the unionists, which quickly devolved into brutal bloodshed during the heat of battle. But to portray it as some sort of orchestrated act of unconscionable cruelty against a wholly innocent and defenseless union force is outright absurd. Had they survived, many of the union commanders, especially Bradley, would likely have been court martialed for their deriliction of duty during the battle and may have even been executed for it.
Ever man has some faults ;o) Regardless of his shortcomings, he's by far the best President of modern times.
Washington was excellent, but Jefferson is over-rated. He was what today is called a "limosine liberal".
PLEASE! Jefferson makes right-wingers look liberal.
Nonsense. The Senate was in session until March 28 - only a week before Lincoln kicked his scheme to start a fight at Fort Sumter into gear. He could have EASILY asked them to stay a little longer and in fact many in the Senate, while it was still in session, assumed that he would. He could have also EASILY called the House into session as most of its members were around as of the March 4th inaugural and could have stayed. By the time April rolled around, those that were not there would have had plenty of time to travel to Washington. The fact is that Lincoln did not want Congress there to interfere with his warmaking. His behavior was accordingly inexcusable.
Yet according to you, at no time were these 'rebels' not citizens!!!!!
So tell me, at what point does political dissent relieve one from his role in our constitutional government? Could you replace the word 'rebels' in that sentence with 'citizens' in good conscience?
You really do worship at the feet of government, to the point of sickness.
I've seen you try to make this case before and don't believe it. It would not take months for Congress to reconvene. Lincoln sometimes held people in prison for months without preferring charges against them.
I think you are forgetting some of the other parts of the Constitution Lincoln violated in the Merryman case. As Taney says:
The constitution provides, as I have before said, that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' It declares that 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms.
Be angry with me if it makes you feel better. It sure 'nuff costs me nothing.
There is a reason it is called the 'Lost Cause'.
If we ever get rid of fedsupremacy, we will have to do it as a nation, not as a region.
Let me know when you have a sure-fire, no BS, foolproof plan to straighten this mess out.
I guarantee a fair hearing and no laughter until you are done speaking.
You need to do a little learning about your own. The only thing giant about Hamilton was his ideal of government's proper size.
"WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression..."
Texas seceded to protect slavery.
Walt
Idolatry's infestation of modern culture is nothing short of rampant - far more so than even the most hideous of more easily discerned obscenities such as abortion. Part of the problem is that it is in the INTEREST of a government to encourage idolatry toward itself as a means of attaining and solidifying its own power. They build monuments not to God or anything truthful, but rather to themselves and encourage their subjects to venerate the same. Unfortunately there are many dupes out there who worship at the feet of the state, often unwittingly.
As Spooner so eloquently put it, supporters of governments are made up of three classes:
1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth.
These are the politicians, welfare whores, corporate welfare whores, bureaucrats, and other leaches of the state.
2. Dupes - a large class, no doubt - each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and such like absurdities.
This is where Partisan falls.
3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.
This third category is, unfortunately, where most of the remainder of us are relegated for the time being. We support the government not because it is great but because it is the lesser of many evils, and as such, becomes a pragmatic though never final device to attain at least some liberty. We participate in it even though it offends us, but only to the extent that doing so will ameliorate the evils it and others inflict upon our own liberty and our own rights.
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.