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

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.

please explain to me why the Philadelphia Inquirer is used as a IMPORTANT & TRUTHFUL source for south-BASHING by the REVISIONISTS & the walt brigade BUT when pointing out the HYPROCISY & LIES of the damnyankees it suddenly/magically becomes "a muckraking newspaper".

i'm LOL at you.

also GRANT's own "officer's personal property record" at the US Archives lists his TWO (2) slaves by name. do you believe that i went to the Archives in 1865 to "plant southron propaganda" in his OFFICIAL service records???? (despite what my 12YO neice thinks, i'm NOT that old!).

free dixie,sw

SORRY, N-S, but PistolPaknMama DID quote the exact date,section, page & column the last time it came up on the forum. you said, in response to her fact cite, that her source was false and from a known southron propaganda machine.

have you forgotten that????? or is it just "inconvienient" for you to remember, as it was when you asserted that the Black Confederate Soldiers Memorial Assn did NOT exist, when in fact you had posted comments on the thread that discussed the organization at length????

every time you do something of that sort you look FOOLISH and/or a LIAR of the 1st rank. which are you????

free dixie,sw

ANYTHING, no matter what the source, is WRONG if it disagrees with your pre-conceived notions and attempts to "sanitize" the damnyankees and their WAR CRIMES. there is not enough water & soap in all the world to wash the innocent blood from the hands of the damnyankees; my advice to you is to stop trying. it makes you look like either a liar or an idiot.

weren't you the one who said, a couple of years ago, that the US Archives were NOT a good historical source, as the rebels had "contaminated the records"???

that day i LOL at you!

free dixie,sw

In April 1865, Lincoln to General Butler, fully corroborated and matching other statements known to have been made by Lincoln, as quoted by reputable historians.

But what shall we do with the negroes after they are free? I can hardly believe that the South and North can live in peace, unless we can get rid of the negroes. Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . . I believe that it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves.

Benjamin F. Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler: A Review of His Legal, Political, and Military Career (or, Butler’s Book) (Boston: A. M. Thayer & Co. Book Publishers, 1892), p. 903.

CLEMENT LAIRD VALLANDIGHAM
March 13, 1863
Dayton, Ohio

Referring to the Conscription Bill, he said:

The three-hundred-dollar provision is a most unjust discrimination against the poor. I propose that the City Council of Dayton appropriate money enough, and vote a tax for it, to release the city from the draft, and thus spare the lives and limbs of those citizens who are too poor to pay. I would recommend the same measure to Cincinnati, Chicago, and other cities of the North. The tax will equalize the burden, and make the rich pay some part of that "last dollar." Three hundred dollars, too, is just the price fixed, by an Abolition congress, for the emancipated negroes of the District of Columbia. It is not the price of blood. The Administration says to every man between twenty and forty-five, THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS OR YOUR LIFE. A tax by every city, township and country is just the way to meet and equalize the demand.

[italics in original]

By March 1859, when Dent gifted Jones to Grant, Grant freed Jones.
What is your source for the assertion that Jones was given to Grant in March 1859 rather than sometime in 1858? (I have seen nothing to prove either contention.)

What contention are you talking about? The fact that Grant owned a slave from sometime in 1858 until March 29, 1859 is supported by letters found in "The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, Vol. 1 through 4". In a letter that Grant wrote to his father dated March 21, 1858 he said, "I have now three Negro men, two hired by the year and one of Mr. Dent's."

My post (to Capitan Refugio) referred to the following contention of Capitan Refugio at #1825:

It has sometimes been suggested that US Grant himself owned slaves. This is a misrepresentation. For a brief period in 1858-1859, Grant employed three African men. In a letter, Grant wrote, "I now have three Negro men, two hired by the year and one of Mr. Dent's." The Dent slave was a 35-year old mulatto named William Jones. By March 1859, when Dent gifted Jones to Grant, Grant freed Jones.

Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . .

This is what Butler alleges in 1892 that President Lincoln said in 1865. No one else was present. Now Butler had considerable power before and during the ACW. After the war he lost power and spend the rest of his life trying to regain it. I don't know why he attributed such statements to President Lincoln, but I know that the interview he supposedly had where this statement above was uttered is supported in no contemporary record -- by anyone--- even Butler, and I know it doesn't square with what we KNOW President Lincoln said:

Compare:

"You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union... negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept." With:

"Certainly they cannot if we don’t get rid of the negroes whom we have armed and disciplined and who have fought with us. . . ."

With:

It simply beggars credibility to suggest that Lincoln made the one statement in 1863 and then made the other in 1865. They are totally inconsistent, and what Butler alleges cannot be corroborated.

The letter I quote was written to Erastus Corning and other Democrats, I believe from New York. The letter is dated 8/24/63. It appears in any number of contemporary sources and was widely published at the time. The statement Butler alleges was --not-- published at the time. It sure would have made a big splash. Only thing is, it's a fabrication.

Walt

A copy of this speech was sent to The University of Texas Library by S. A. Hackworth. The Brenham Inquirer, April 3, 1861, mentions the speech, also the ominous threats made against Houston's life should he try to make a speech at Brenham; it also states that a "brave secession leader" addressed "the howling mob" stating that he would protect General Houston while he made any speech he might wish to make. But The Enquirer did not report the speech or any part of it; but did give the date as March 31, 1861.

A speech that was not transcribed in any paper but magically appeared at UT on an unknown date upon delivery by a person we know nothing about who simply professed to have a transcript? You'll have to do better than that, Walt.

In April 1865, Lincoln to General Butler, fully corroborated and matching other statements known to have been made by Lincoln, as quoted and authenticated by multiple reputable historians.

I don't know why he attributed such statements to President Lincoln, but I know that the interview he supposedly had where this statement above was uttered is supported in no contemporary record -- by anyone--- even Butler

Sure it is. Butler is known to have been in Washington to meet with Lincoln at the time of that conversation.

and I know it doesn't square with what we KNOW President Lincoln said

Sure it does. Lincoln never repudiated colonization and as far as we know was still pushing it only a few months prior. The latest documented official correspondence in which Lincoln furthered colonization is a letter from AG Edward Bates to Lincoln on Nov. 30, 1864 responding to a request by Lincoln to retain Mitchell, his colonization commissioner, on the job for further colonization policies. So unless Lincoln had an unknown, unspoken, unwritten, and undocumented change of beliefs between November 30th 1864 and early 1865 when he met with Butler, absolutely no basis exists to doubt the contents of that conversation.

Sure it is. Butler is known to have been in Washington to meet with Lincoln at the time of that conversation.

No it's not and you know perfectly well what my meaning is. Butler didn't say in 1865 that the gist of any conversation he with President Lincoln at that time included forced deportation of blacks, and certainly not of black soldiers. It would have caused quite a stir.

I can't for the life of me understand the motivation of anyone who would push such a ridiculous idea, given that no objective reading of these events could possibly support it.

Walt

By definition, to make a so-called "constitutional" defense of Clinton against impeachment is to employ loose construction.

Sez who? I've shown on several different levels, how opposition to the Clinton impeachment is based on a more restrictive interpretation than your own. Your only response has been to retreat to Blackstone's Commentaries and act as if it has precedence over the US Constitution.

Do I have to remind you who introduced Blackstone into this conversation? [Hint: it wasn't you].

You posted a second hand excerpt of a law article that invoked Blackstone's name along side claims of defense for Clinton.

No, I posted a link to the Brigham Young University Federalist Society , which did a comprehensive treatment of the Consititutional issues surrounding the Clinton Impeachment. Read on, you might learn something.

[exerpt]

"In an attempt to facilitate a further airing of the public d ebate of the issues presented by the Clinton impeachment proceedings and Senate trial, the Brigham Young University Chapter of the Federalist Society sponsored a discussion by a panel of four of the prominent players in the proceedings.

The panel, convened at Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School on April 2, 1999, consisted of four individuals who performed frontline roles in the Clinton trial:

Senator Robert Bennett of Utah, who sat in judgment of the President during the Senate trial; Congressman Chris Cannon of Utah, who prosecuted the President as one of the House Managers in the Senate trial; Attorney Gregory Craig, who was retained as Special White House Impeachment Counsel shortly before the House impeached the President and who headed up the President’s defense team during the Senate trial; and Senate Legal Counsel Thomas Griffith, who helped moderate and establish the trial procedures used by the Senate in the trial."

Is it possible these people might know something about Clinton Impeachment that you don't? [Hint: You bet your ass they do]

As I have both noted and demonstrated, to invoke Blackstone while claiming that perjury is not impeachable is to willfully defraud a reader.

Once again, Blackstone was invoked only to demonstrate that the word 'high' as a restrictive qualifier on the construct "crimes and misdemeanors" has a foundation in English Common law. Everything else you claim was said regarding Blackstone is made of straw.

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.