Where you from Walt? Obviously north of the Potomac River, and probably in one of those yankee blue liberal states that went for Gore and socialism.
Posted on 12/20/2001 4:02:40 PM PST by t-shirt
But for treason to have been committed, it must have been performed by an American citizen. The record clearly indicates that Davis et al had renounced their US citizenship when they formed the Confederacy. Renouncing citizenship is not a treasonous act, so that mitigates any claim for treason immediately. So regardless of whether or not secession was legal, Davis et al were no longer US citizens. That's why Davis was not tried and convicted.
But Walt I do thank you for your post, and must admit, I do read them. Every once in a while you can find some fascinating tidbit that slips through the cracks:
In 1861, President Lincoln appointed Dana as United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Massachusetts. As such, in 1863, he successfully defended the United States in the Prize Cases before the United States Supreme Court (these were a group of cases, consolidated for appeal, on the capture of ships attempting to break the blockade of the Confederate ports. The issue argued revolved around two separate issues: was the Rebellion a "war" and when did the "Civil War" begin, in April, '61, with President Lincoln's Declaration of a blockade or in the summer when Congress approved what the president had done. The court unanimously ruled in favor of the administration's position that the Rebellion was a war but more narrowly (5-4) supporting the premise that the president's call for troops on April marked the beginning of the war. Not surprisingly Chief Justice Taney felt that the war could only begin when Congress said it did, very much as he had done in ex parte Merryman [67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, on line at http://www2.law.cornell.edu])
According to this reasoning, either Lincoln started the war or Congress did. But I'll check the actual decision itself:
The objection made to this act of ratification, that it is ex post facto and therefore unconstitutional and void, might possibly have some weight on the trial of an indictment in a criminal Court. But precedents from that source cannot be received as authoritative in a tribunal administering public and international law.
Justice Grier, Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1862)
Here Grier admits that the Congressional approval of Lincoln's actions have some legal problems. But even more interesting is this statement:
By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare war against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But, by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.
Justice Grier, Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1862)
There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth, neither Congress nor the President cannot declare war against a state. If the was is a "war", then the states are a foreign territory, and seccession is legally recognized. If the war is not a "war", then Davis et al cannot be charged with treason (levying war).
To convenient by half. You can do the same. Try it.
Too, the language in the Constitution says nothing about citizenship.
Ooops.
Walt
Ho hum.
According to the Militia Act of May 2, 1792, as amended Feb 28, 1795, Sec. 2:
"And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislatures of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
You'll note it says nothing about a state having passed an ordnance of secession to be a bar to federal action.
So Lincoln had the law plainly on his side when the war began.
It should also be noted that this legislation was passed at the request of George Washington.
Walt
I'm too lazy to scroll back up. Did Griner say the US coudln't wage war? I don't think that's right.
Here's some more from the Prize Cases:
"....By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare war against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But, by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."
Lincoln's actions were definitely within the scope of his authority.
Walt
If we allow these revisionist goons to have their way, they will rename Washington - the city and the state - just because Washington was a slave-owner. What drivel!!
If we allow these revisionist goons to have their way, they will rename Washington - the city and the state - just because Washington was a slave-owner. What drivel!!
Yankees who believe they hold the moral high ground should read about the treatment of Confederate soldiers in Yankee prisons, such as Point Lookout and Elmira, New York. The North had food and medical supplies to give the prisoners but withheld them because the South did not have the same supplies to give to Yankee prisoners (in part because of the Yankee blockade). If this had happened in these days and times, the North would be convicted of war crimes.
Exchanging prisoners would have saved the lives of many men on both sides but General Grant and Secretary of War Stanton stopped the ongoing exchange because the Southern soldiers reenlisted right back in their units while the Yankee soldiers just went home.
Signing a parole and then taking up arms again is dishonorable, isn't it?
Walt
We agree. A few Confederate soldiers did get out of the Yankee prisons by signing the parole, but most didn't and consequently they stayed in prison. Signing paroles was not a condition of the general prisoner exchanges.
I don't claim to know much about this, but didn't Grant stop paroles based on widespread abuse by the CSA? The garrison of Vicksburg was paroled and most of them were back under arms very quickly, as I recall.
Walt
You've made me check the history books. In July 1863 Grant paroled 30,000 Vicksburg prisoners. However, Grant didn't know that "on July 3, 1863 Secretary of War Stanton issued General Orders No. 207, which declared all paroles after this date worthless....Technically the act of declaring the paroles illegal at once set the Confederate prisoners free." (From Immortal Captives by Muriel Phillips Joslyn, copyright 1996.)
The Confederates released at Vicksburg were free to do what they wanted because of Stanton's order. Stanton's order also caused problems for other releases of Southern prisoners that occured after the July 3 date. US General Franklin Gardiner said, "All prisoners captured from Lee's army and impoperly paroled were immediately returned to duty and we could make no complaint." My interpretation is that the Southerners did not have to wait for a specified period before reenlisting because the exchanges were not valid under Stanton's order.
Techically. Right.
Well, gentlemen shouldn't let technicalities stand in the way of their honor. Sure was convenient for the CSA.
Walt
Where you from Walt? Obviously north of the Potomac River, and probably in one of those yankee blue liberal states that went for Gore and socialism.
Given that the United States Constitution nowhere prohibits secession, that phrase would indeed describe anyone who forcefully opposed the secession of the Southern States.
By the way, shall we discuss the secession of the States that ratified the Constitution, from the so-called "perpetual union" formed under the Articles of Confederation? When ever the subject pops up, you seem to make yourself scarce...
Ho hum.
It doesn't prohibit murder either. Secession is outside the law and all the bleating in the world won't change that.
Walt
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.