The Civil War

[striker42]

Stuff about the Civil War was coming up a lot in the Monuments thread and I think it deserves a thread of its own. I hope this can be kept to academic discussions about the historical event, the people involved, and the issues surrounding it.

To kick off the discussion, it was mentioned in the monuments thread that Confederates were traitors. So the question I pose is were they really traitors? Not in any moral sense but in an actual legal sense.

I think the case of Jefferson Davis is relevant here. Davis was never tried for treason. Had he been put on trial his defense would have been this: 1- You can only commit treason against the US if you owe loyalty to the US, 2- Jefferson's state of Mississippi seceded from the Union, 3- When Mississippi seceded, Davis no longer owed loyalty to the US, 4- If Davis didn't owe loyalty to the US, he couldn't commit treason.

The crux of this legal argument is whether a State could legally secede from the Union. Before the Civil War and even for a while after, this was considered a real question. So much so that the fear of a court ruling secession was legal played a part in the government delaying the case.

I also had a professor in law school who was originally British but was a naturalized US citizen. This guy clerked for a SCOTUS justice and proclaimed himself to be extremely liberal. He actually argued from an academic standpoint that a state, as a sovereign political entity, that voluntarily enters the Union has the right to leave it if it so wishes.

It's an interesting debate though it's entirely academic. The Civil War pragmatically answered the question.

So what do you think? I can see arguments for and against whether the South seceding was legal under the Constitution.

[nsacpi]

Just guilty of fighting for one of the worst causes any group of human beings have ever fought for.

[The Chosen One]

Just guilty of fighting for one of the worst causes any group of human beings have ever fought for.

Civil war wasn't about slavery it was about economics!

Free labor had nothing to do with economics!

[Runnin]

All who fought for the South were traitors and should've been hung, but that would've been impractical and even bigger national nightmare. But I still think the Union was too lenient with them after surrender. The Stars and Bars should've been banned forever, but that would probably have made it more powerful.

[cajunrevenge]

You still think the South lost. Sure they lost the war, but the south won the peace.

[cajunrevenge]

Just guilty of fighting for one of the worst causes any group of human beings have ever fought for.

I actually doubt that. Certainly not #1. A lot of really ****ty causes for wars throughout history.

[nsacpi]

I actually doubt that. Certainly not #1. A lot of really ****ty causes for wars throughout history.

In the top 5.

[cajunrevenge]

Depends, do you consider a genocide a war?

[nsacpi]

Depends, do you consider a genocide a war?

Sometimes it's just a law enforcement action. Helping people relocate to a new neighborhood.

[striker42]

All who fought for the South were traitors and should've been hung, but that would've been impractical and even bigger national nightmare. But I still think the Union was too lenient with them after surrender. The Stars and Bars should've been banned forever, but that would probably have made it more powerful.

I would argue that Confederates were not legally guilty of treason and so could not be hanged as traitors. Whether States could secede under the Constitution was very much an open legal question at the time. If a State could legally secede then once it did so, its citizens would no longer be US citizens and would owe no loyalty to the US. As such they could not commit treason. If a State could not secede, then its citizens would still owe loyalty to the US even if the state tried to secede.

To determine if Confederates were guilty of treason, the question really isn't whether States could legally secede. The question is whether it was ambiguous if a State could secede. You cannot be guilty of a crime if the law regarding the crime is ambiguous. Imagine if the Government passed a law saying "Doing bad stuff is a crime." What is bad stuff? Who defines that? You can't comport your action in accordance with the law if it's not clear what those actions should be.

Applying this to secession, it was ambiguous as to whether a State had the right to secede. As such, when States seceded it was ambiguous as to whether citizens of those States still owed loyalty to the US. Since it was not clear whether they owed loyalty to the US, they cannot be held to have committed treason.

Whether they were traitors is one question. Whether they committed treason for which they could be hanged is different. The answer to that is no, they did not commit treason.

[cajunrevenge]

Imagine if the Government passed a law saying "Doing bad stuff is a crime."

I dont have to. Disorderly conduct. Or atleast thats the way its interpreted by cops.

[nsacpi]

I would argue that Confederates were not legally guilty of treason and so could not be hanged as traitors.

Major André was not legally guilty of treason either. I walk past the spot he was strung up now and then. There is plaque commemorating the event. No one has petitioned for its removal strangely enough.

[nsacpi]

it was ambiguous as to whether a State had the right to secede. A

similarly it was ambiguous whether we had a right to declare independence from Britain...sometimes it takes a war to decide these things...and justice during wartime tends to take a distinctive form...the confederates were lucky Grant gave them such lenient terms

[cajunrevenge]

I think what you are thinking of is an uncivil war.

[nsacpi]

I think what you are thinking of is an uncivil war.

ha...well most wars are uncivil...

after world war II, there was a process implemented call denazification...something like that would have been a good idea after the civil war

[cajunrevenge]

Well they used to just line up and fire at each other. Thats pretty civil for war.

[striker42]

ha...well most wars are uncivil...

after world war II, there was a process implemented call denazification...something like that would have been a good idea after the civil war

Well, they tried Reconstruction but that probably caused more animosity than anything else.

[striker42]

Major André was not legally guilty of treason either. I walk past the spot he was strung up now and then. There is plaque commemorating the event. No one has petitioned for its removal strangely enough.

Wasn't Andre acting as a spy in civilian clothes at the time he was captured? Spies out of uniform were usually hanged backed then. Happened a lot in the Civil War as well.

[nsacpi]

Well, they tried Reconstruction but that probably caused more animosity than anything else.

Andrew Johnson

kind of like having very poorly chosen one for president during a time of great crisis

Truman had a little bit better idea after the war...sometimes laidership matters

[nsacpi]

Wasn't Andre acting as a spy in civilian clothes at the time he was captured? Spies out of uniform were usually hanged backed then. Happened a lot in the Civil War as well.

as I understand it Major Andre was a British citizen on British soil (as the colonies were then regarded) acting on behalf of the king and parliament