Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BroJoeK

So you are good with legally elected representatives being arrested because of their political opinions? Typical Lincoln propaganda. Why were none of the Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis tried for treason after Lee’s surrender? Here’s why..

Salmon P. Chase

“If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His [Jefferson Davis’] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason.”

If Washington, Jefferson and Adams were right, so were Lee, Davis and Jackson.

I find it odd, that Conservatives would ever agree with the expansion of the Federal government and if secession was not the legal domain of the states, why did states including New York and Rhode Island have secession powers written in to their state constitutions?

Lincoln made illegal war on the South.


116 posted on 01/06/2018 6:14:00 AM PST by TallahasseeConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: TallahasseeConservative
“If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His [Jefferson Davis’] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason.”

It would be interesting to see the quote in context and find out what was left out by the ellipsis. But even with the partial quote it's hard to disagree with Chief Justice Chase. Secession isn't treason as defined by the Constitution. But rebellion is. And that's what led to the Davis treason indictment.

If Washington, Jefferson and Adams were right, so were Lee, Davis and Jackson.

Washington, Jefferson, and Adams won. Lee, Davis, and Jackson lost. Winning your rebellion excuses a multitude of sins.

I find it odd, that Conservatives would ever agree with the expansion of the Federal government and if secession was not the legal domain of the states, why did states including New York and Rhode Island have secession powers written in to their state constitutions?

I don't think they have it written into their state constitutions,especially Rhode Island which didn't adopt a constitution until 1842. But even if they did, it's the U.S. Constitution "..and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." The Constitution does not allow for unilateral secession as was attempted by the Southern states.

Lincoln made illegal war on the South.

Lincoln fought the war the South forced on him.

119 posted on 01/06/2018 6:25:20 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

To: TallahasseeConservative

I have gone back and read all of the versions of both the New York State Constitution from 1777 on and the Rhode Island Constitution of 1842. I have be unable to find the chapter and sections authorizing Secession. I may have missed them. Please give me the applicable Article and sections for these constitutions, would like to read them.


129 posted on 01/06/2018 7:28:53 AM PST by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

To: TallahasseeConservative
So you are good with legally elected representatives being arrested because of their political opinions?

When they break the law or commit sedition against the United States? You bet!

Why were none of the Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis tried for treason after Lee’s surrender?

Mostly due to Lincoln's kind benevolence when he issued instructions to "let them up easy". Lincoln didn't want the war that he was given, had no desire to hold a grudge, and wanted the nation to heal. After his cowardly murder there were many who wanted revenge against the confeds but cooler heads prevailed.

The Taney Supreme Court might not have allowed a conviction for treason to stand but Taney died in 1864 and was succeeded by Chase. Your Chase quote is interesting but not particularly persuasive since this is the same Salmon P. Chase that rendered the ruling against the legality of secession in the Texas v. White case.

In any event, decisions to continue prosecution for treason were abandoned because in the view of Chief Justice Chase, (who would have presided over such a trial) the ratification of the 14th Amendment with the punitive measures contained in Clause 3 meant that Davis had been punished once for his actions in leading the rebellion. Trial, conviction, and additional punishment would have violated his 5th Amendment protections against double jeopardy.

136 posted on 01/06/2018 8:14:02 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is diff bright.erent now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

To: TallahasseeConservative
TallahasseeConservative: "So you are good with legally elected representatives being arrested because of their political opinions?"

No, because of treason, you remember, don't you, the US Constitution?

Levying war, aid & comfort, that kind of thing.

TallahasseeConservative: "Why were none of the Confederate leaders, including Jefferson Davis tried for treason after Lee’s surrender?
Here’s why..
Salmon P. Chase:..."

First, remember this about Chase: at the time of this quote Chase was running for the nomination for President as a Democrat, so he was saying things which made his fellow Democrats feel all warm & fuzzy.

Second, secession is indeed not defined as treason in the Constitution, but waging war against the United States certainly is.

Third, you may remember some of Lincoln's final public words:

Others who did not want to try former Confederates for treason included Democrat President Andrew Johnson (from Eastern Tennessee) and Republican President Grant.

TallahasseeConservative: "If Washington, Jefferson and Adams were right, so were Lee, Davis and Jackson."

Nonsense, because there's no accurate comparison of the two situations, unless you give Confederates the role of Brits imposing their rule over Americans.

TallahasseeConservative: "I find it odd, that Conservatives would ever agree with the expansion of the Federal government..."

Conservatives did not agree -- 90% of the expansion of Federal government was done by your fellow Democrats including their colluuuuuuuusion with you Southern Democrats.

TallahasseeConservative: "if secession was not the legal domain of the states, why did states including New York and Rhode Island have secession powers written in to their state constitutions?"

As has been often pointed out on these threads, our Founders considered "secession" or disunion valid & legitimate under two, but only two, conditions.

  1. From absolute necessity, as was the case in 1776 when the Brits first revoked charters of self government then declared Americans in rebellion, effectively a declaration of war.
  2. By mutual consent, as was the case in 1788 when the new Constitution was approved and the old Articles of Confederation revoked peacefully, lawfully.

But no Founder -- none, zero, nada Founder -- approved declarations of secession "at pleasure" meaning without major necessity or mutual consent.
And yet that is just what 1861 secessionists did.

As Madison said:


138 posted on 01/06/2018 8:23:27 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson