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.
Bingo. Federalists, abolutionists and republicans called for secession/dissolution long before the South seceded.
free dixie,sw
in point of fact, the parties raided in MO were generally the poorest of the poor AND those who were UNarmed & thus defenseless. (rational persons might take a hint from their fate.)
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
if not she should be.
was her ancestor one of the "mysteriously disappearred"????
free dixie,sw
Well thats a great defense of...Blackstone. Which is not the issue here at all. You have given in to the temptation of inserting Blackstone's commentaries directly into the US Constitution. That the founders relied on English law to formulate our own, is quite evident. To assume as you have that they did so verbatum, is simply put, false.
Blackstone did not anticipate the Office of the President when he made his comments on the law, and the American founders correctly, did not transfer his words untranslated into the US Constitution. The word 'high' appears before "crimes and misdemeanors" in Article II Section IV for a reason, to act as a qualifier on the words that follow. Whether or not that particualr phrase appears in Blackstone's Commentaries on English Law is..meaningless to both the US Constitution, and this discussion.
I prefer not to employ the crutch of a second hand appeal to authority when I may easily access the real thing in its original form via Blackstone's commentaries.
Translation: My opponent has cited an unimpeachable source to back up his claims. However, I prefer to employ the literal Blackstone scarecrow defense, rather than acknowledge the validity of my opponents assertions, as they regard the framers and US law.
Nice try. Better luck next time, ok?
the address is : PLPOW desendents org.,1214 moyer rd, newport news,va 23606-2453 OR plpow@erols.com
also see: http://plpow.tripod.com
our president is Mrs. Patricia Buck. annual dues are $ 25.00.
my guess (and that is all it is!) is that the official figure of EITHER 3,546 OR 4,506 deaths (even the damnyankees can't agree on the number!) is LOW by about 15,000- 20,000, including the "mysteriously disappearred" (i.e. those poor souls MURDERED in coldblood by the fiends that operated the DEATH CAMP).
the "mysteriously disappearred" were those who ARRIVED at PLPOWC, but who never left alive;most of those unfortunates were also "not officially admitted to custody of the provost marshal". evidently, they were "killed on arrival". your wife's ancestor is LIKELY one of those poor souls.
in memory of our HERO-MARTYRS.
free dixie,sw
The book also details the offers made by Judge Robert Ould, Agent of [prisoner] Exchange for the Confederates, to allow the North to send doctors, medicines, and food to Northern prisoners in Confederate camps. These offers were ignored by the North, resulting in much misery and death.
The book mentions one other thing about Ould that I've not posted before. Apparently he was called by Wirz, the commandant of Andersonville prison, as a witness for the defense in Wirz's trial. The intent was that Ould would describe the overtures the Confederate government had made to the North to get supplies for the Federal prisoners.
The prosecution would not let Ould testify at Wirz's trial. As Ould says:
"I thought the time had come when I could put before the world these humane offers of the Confederate authorities, and the manner in which they had been treated. I so expressed myself more than once -- perhaps too publically. But it was a vain thought. Early in the morning of the day on which I expected to give my testimony I received a note from Chipman, the Judge Advocate, requiring me to surrender my subpoena. I refused, as it was my protection in Washington. Without it the doors of the Old Capitol might have opened and closed upon me. I engaged, however, to appear before the Court, and I did so, the same morning. I still refused to surrender my subpoena, and therefore the Judge Advocate endorsed on it these words: "The within subpoena is hereby revoked; the person named is discharged from further attendance." I have got the curious dcument before me now signed with the name of "N. P. Chipman, Colonel," etc. I intend to keep it if I can as evidence of the first case of any court, of any sort, where a witness who was summoned for the defense was dismissed by the prosecution. I hastened to depart, confident that Richmond was a safer place for me than the metropolis.
The hell it isn't. Blackstone was indisputably the common law basis of the founding fathers. As Madison remarked they were virtually all familiar with his commentaries and had them on hand. One of the leading historians on the writings of the founding fathers goes so far as to observe that Blackstone was the third most quoted book in political writings between 1760-1800, the only other two being the Bible and Montesqieu.
You have given in to the temptation of inserting Blackstone's commentaries directly into the US Constitution.
Not at all. I am simply noting the indisputable fact that the founders drafted the constitution's legal system upon Blackstone's commentaries. As such it is proper to read that document in with Blackstone in mind. But not only is it proper, it is also standing court precedent that the constitution be read in light of common law:
"The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history. The code of constitutional and statutory construction which, therefore, is gradually formed by the judgments of this court, in the application of the constitution and the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, has for its basis so much of the common law as may be implied in the subject, and constitutes a common law resting on national authority." - Smith v. Alabama, 1888
Blackstone did not anticipate the Office of the President when he made his comments on the law
Irrelevant. His commentaries were not so much concerned with offices but rather the nature of the offence. In addition, the constitution makes no distinction between "high crimes and misdemeanors" in its application to judges with a lifetime appointment, as was the common reference in Blackstone, and presidents. They are both held to the same standard.
The word 'high' appears before "crimes and misdemeanors" in Article II Section IV for a reason, to act as a qualifier on the words that follow.
You have absolutely zero evidence that it was intended is a modifier upon Blackstone. In fact, all existing evidence suggest it was chosen as a term of art dependent upon the whole and taken directly from the common law tradition dating to 1386. Thus your interpretation may be rejected in a word. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Whether or not that particualr phrase appears in Blackstone's Commentaries on English Law is..meaningless to both the US Constitution, and this discussion.
Standing court precedent and all common sense says otherwise. Heck, until you discovered upon my posting that Blackstone's commentaries directly SUPPORT the notion that perjury is an impeachable offense, YOU were trying to claim him as proof of your pro-Clinton cause.
Translation: My opponent has cited an unimpeachable source to back up his claims.
Better check your translator again, mac. Any source that puts forward the absurd claim that Blackstone did not find perjury impeachable, as your Brigham Young links do, is by at its core an exercise in fraud.
Evidently. Both Wlat and his chief apprentice garbage_truck now jump to Bill Clinton's defense on a regular basis now. Partisan is close behind them, making comments that could be easily mistaken with FOB's like Julian Bond and Jesse Jackson. The Wlat Brigade has essentially become FR's "Progressive Caucus" in residence.
Exactly. And Hamilton's language has a very strong Blackstone tint to it.
What guarantees did the North have that the food and medicine would reach the prisoners that they were intended for? And why should the North relieve the confederacy of their responsibility to treat prisoners in a humane manner? The food and shelter were there, the south chose not to use it for prisoners.
Ould offered in January 1864 that surgeons from the Federal side be allowed to come through the lines and treat the Federal prisoners. "I also propose that these surgeons shall act as commissaries, with power to receive and distribute such contributions of money, food, clothing and medicines as may be forwarded for the relief of prisoners. I further propose that these surgeons be selected by their own Governments, and that they shall have full liberty at any and all times, through the agents of exchange, to make reports not only of their own acts, but of any matters relating to the Welfare of prisoners."
I presume you agree that Federal surgeons would have been trustworthy enough to get the food and medicines to the prisoners.
And why should the North relieve the confederacy of their responsibility to treat prisoners in a humane manner? The food and shelter were there, the south chose not to use it for prisoners.
I think food production had gotten in pretty bad shape in the South. I've posted before about a report to the Confederate Congress about the families of soldiers not having eaten meat for six months. There was widespread starvation after the war.
Food production was an issue in the Confederate decision not to put their slaves in the army. The argument was that farm production would go to pot if the slaves went into the army, and that that would hurt Lee more than Grant could.
Another problem was probably the distribution system. If I remember correctly, the Confederate rail system was set up to take cotton and other goods to the coast. Perhaps there were not all that many cross-country lines (conjecture on my part). Food goods would have to be shipped to the coast, then back into the interior on other rail lines.
Also as I remember, there was a Federal officer named Page, a prisoner at Andersonville, who pointed out that the the prisoners suffered food shortages when the supplies were cut off by Federal troop action.
The shortages of medicines in the South due to the Federal blockade of the ports was well known. Ould's proposal would have eliminated much of the lack of medicines for Federal prisoners.
[ns, in an earlier post on another thread]: I had come across some of those figures before, for example the statistics on food imports from the midwest and west. The confederacy wasn't self sufficient in food.
Conservatives? Not hardly. They defend X42?????? Who's a thunk it? </sarcasm>
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.