With the exception of some who were hanged by a lynch mob, they were tried by a civilian court (an impromptu civilian court on the frontier) organized by Confederate army officers. The Confederate Articles of War includes the following:
”Art. 57. Whosoever shall be convicted of holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as shall be ordered by the sentence of a court-martial.”
Northern military courts applied a similar rule to anyone who gave intelligence to the enemy without the authority of the general in command. Federal military courts claimed jurisdiction over editors, newspaper correspondents, and all others publishing what they considered improper intelligence.
Why the Texas case was not tried in a military court I don't know, but it sounds like the issues involved fall under this article of war. Two years after the Texas hangings, a Confederate judge ordered that civilian courts had jurisdiction in the trial of someone accused of treasonable correspondence with the enemy and plotting to turn cotton over to them.
At Gainsville, the Confederate Army rounded up about 150 Unionists after it learned of plots to seize or destroy Confederate arsenals, support Union armies when they came, and spy for the Federals. Apparently some correspondence with the North was believed to have taken place. Some of the arrested men confessed and others were just convicted. Forty (total) were hung. The great bulk of the Unionists rounded up by the Confederate Army were either found innocent or released.
Whatever the convicted ones did was apparently considered a hanging offense (it wouldn’t take much under the Articles of War above then in effect). Court justice was and is not perfect. It could well be that innocent men were hung. But some were apparently guilty of more than just being loyal to the Union.
”Art. 57. Whosoever shall be convicted of holding correspondence with, or giving intelligence to the enemy, either directly or indirectly, shall suffer death or such other punishment as shall be ordered by the sentence of a court-martial.”
Yeah, fourteen were lynched.
As I recall from our exchange on an earlier thread, the first seven condemned were all non-slave holders. That seems how it broke down. The victims were non-slave holders and the executioners were slave holders.
The book I have on this was written by one of the descendants of one of the murdered men. So that probably colors his take on it some. But he said there was nothing more than some general talk of aiding US forces if they approached the area.
I'd be a little leery of citing CSA "law" if I were you. Everything the Germans did to the Jews was strictly legal under German law.
I'd also point out that there were a number of arrests of secessionists in Maryland. Telegragh lines were cut, bridges burned, and U.S. troops fired on. In one instance four U.S. soldiers were killed.
And yet every single person arrested by the federal government for these actions was released unharmed.
So please don't try and suggest that the traitors out in Texas were justified in hanging these men, whose only crime was loyalty to Old Glory.
One thing about this whole ACW rant on FR and elsewhere is this tit for tat thing.
"Yes, CSA troops rampaged and murdered, but they were provoked by Union actions", we hear.
The only problem with this, even if it were true, which it's not, is that no one is putting forth a cult for the Union men of the day. We are told that the secessionists were honorable, christian men and all that, worthy of our respect and veneration.
You'd think that would give them less excuse for bloody murder-- seems like they should be held to a more strict standard, them being the basis of a cult and all, but their murderous actions, to say nothing of the theft of federal property, the legislation passed directing that lawful debts owed to northern PRIVATE creditors be paid to the treasury of the so-called CSA and all that doesn't faze some of their defenders.
In fact, these dishonorable actions don't seem to faze ANY of their defenders.
Walt