American civil war question

[Bomb#20]

The point is history shows it does not put things to rest.

... Maybe if America used that same gumption to destroy all Confederate monuments and hang all the traitors back then we wouldn't have January 6, 2021, to talk about. ...

You talk a lot about traitors, but who's a traitor to what country depends on point of view. If some poor white guy refused to fight to help his rich neighbor hold onto his slaves he'd have been considered a traitor to Virginia, and maybe hanged for it. If the South had won the war, afterwards Andrew Johnson would have been considered a traitor to Tennessee for not resigning from the Senate when his country seceded from the federation and for helping Lincoln make war on Tennessee, and maybe hanged for it, assuming the Confederacy were able to lay their hands on him.

It's legendary that before the war the customary phrase was "The United States are ..."; it was only after the war that people typically started saying "The United States is...". Your own quote says: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them...". "Them", not "it". So who owed allegiance to "them", and who was levying war against "them"? From the point of view of most southerners, a Virginian owed allegiance to Virginia and stopped owing allegiance to The United States the minute Virginia seceded from the federation. And what state was the south levying war against? From their point of view it was the north levying war against states; nearly all the fighting took place in the south; the southerners figured they were resisting a foreign invasion, not making war on any northern states. Some POW famously replied when his Union captors asked him why he was fighting so a rich man could keep his slaves, "Because you're down here." (And sure, Jefferson Davis, a member of the U.S. government who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, started the war by firing on United States troops. That makes Jefferson Davis a traitor. It doesn't make every Mississippian who shot back a traitor when a northern army showed up to take its revenge.)

There's precedent for all this. Once upon a time Scotland and England were two kingdoms with the same king -- the same Scottish king. (It only happened because Elizabeth died without having children and since royalty kept intermarrying the king of Scotland happened to be her cousin, so he inherited England.) From Scotland's point of view, no problem -- they had the same Scottish kings as ever, and what did they care if now their king owned some foreign country as well? Well, no problem until the English decided they were done with Scottish kings and hired some German king to become King of England. And, as an afterthought, Scotland. Then the Scots were all "Hang on. We agreed to have the same king as you because he was Scottish. No way did we agree to put Scotland under a German.", and the English were all "No backsies!" The squabble went on for decades and it all came to a head in 1746 on Culloden Moor, which is just about as far away from England as you can get and still be in Scotland. 7000 Scots under Bonnie Prince Charlie tried to put his father, who they saw as the rightful King of Scotland (and England), back on the Scottish throne.

Of course they lost -- rebelling against England and shooting so many redcoats you get your independence isn't something just anybody can pull off. Afterwards the 5000-odd survivors ran away, and then the redcoats hunted them down, because they weren't just defeated enemy troops going home after the war was over -- they were "traitors"(TM). A hundred-odd were executed; many more were sent to penal colonies and sold as slaves.

So was it right to hunt them down? Were those 7000 Scots really traitors to King George? Or were they patriots loyal to Scotland? It depends on point of view. Do you think they were traitors?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Do I really need to explain that to you? Think about it and if you're still stumped I'll try to help.

Yeah, I'm stumped and need your help because you didn't say what Lincoln and Johnson should have done with the defeated treasonist filth in the south after the Civil War. Unless I missed it.

I admire your sand. You know, Frederick Douglas, "agitate, agitate...."

My point is that enslaving people was not something relegated to the southern states of the union in the middle of the 19th century. And discrimination is not something that only occurred to blacks. These things don't just disappear because a law is passed or a war is fought. You know that. Progress is certainly being made. Nothing is achieved by alienating potential allies in a cause. Do you think MLK or John Lewis would have advocated your position? Did Frederick Douglas advocate your position?

 

[Bomb#20]

And you can tell whether somebody participated in raping children & selling babies and thought that was worth destroying America for by inspecting his street address to check if he's in the local civilian population?

Edit: I don't mean Bomb#20 to get outta here. I like you It's a figure of speech.

I like you too!

I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you insinuating that no confederate leaders and soldiers were captured?

Huh? Of course not; how the heck did you get that? I'm saying the proposal in the OP, "Lincoln and Johnson should have just taken all the Confederate political leaders and hung them as well as all the southern aristocrats." was not the right thing to do and would have been a war crime. I'm saying your suggestion that my unwillingness to support mass execution of an entire social class would have made me an ineffective general, and your suggestion that my unwillingness to commit war crimes would have been overly generous to a population whom you condemn as criminals en masse based on crimes committed by some particular individuals in the designated population, are unreasonable.

The law was to try and then execute them for treason after being found guilty. This was done many times but dwindled over time.

I don't know what cases you're referring to; as far as I'm aware only two confederate soldiers were executed after the war after conviction in legal trials, and those were for their own specific war crimes, not for treason. That isn't to say that POWs weren't ever lynched by Union troops after kangaroo court trials, but if that's what you're talking about it only means U.S. law should have kept better control over its soldiers.

As far as the rest of the south, the only thing I find reasonable is to remove and restrict every ... last one of them from surving in any governmental copacity. from the police to the judges. That would have been a great time to apoint black people in leadership positions.

That, I have no problem with. I'm arguing with you because you were arguing with me because I was opposing mass executions.

 

[bilby]

If it was a Civil War, then the Confederate leaders committed treason.

If, instead, it was a War of Secession, then they did not.

A failure to try the leaders of the CSA is a clear indication that the Union saw it as a War of Secession; The label 'Civil War' was a propaganda exercise, not a reflection of the reality. We can hear their words, but their actions (or inactions) are deafening.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It depends on point of view. Do you think they were traitors?

Okay, then to be fair and explicit, when we say 'traitor,' we only specifically mean those Americans who were ever subject to the US Constitution, which has a specific definition of treason, and then, during the Civil War, took up arms against the Union, or it's soldiers, or support those who did.

I suppose we could have discrete classes, such as
1) "those who voluntarily...arms...support..." would be called "traitors"
2) "those whose hearts weren't really in it, but due to peer pressure, or family pressure, or maybe inertia...arms...support..." would be called 'traitors.'
Everyone else could pick another term. The 'traitor to treason' category from your example might be...citizen?

 

[Gospel]

If it was a Civil War, then the Confederate leaders committed treason.

If, instead, it was a War of Secession, then they did not.

A failure to try the leaders of the CSA is a clear indication that the Union saw it as a War of Secession; The label 'Civil War' was a propaganda exercise, not a reflection of the reality. We can hear their words, but their actions (or inactions) are deafening.

Civil War = Treason and death. If not death at a minimum they should have been removed from all government positions (too bad the second didn't happen)
War of Secession = you have no fucking rights. All enemy combatants are killed on-site & if you surrender you lose EVERYTHING. All property and status and so on.

They lose either way in my book.

 

[Gospel]

I have no idea what you're getting at. Are you insinuating that no confederate leaders and soldiers were captured?

Huh? Of course not; how the heck did you get that? I'm saying the proposal in the OP, "Lincoln and Johnson should have just taken all the Confederate political leaders and hung them as well as all the southern aristocrats." was not the right thing to do and would have been a war crime. I'm saying your suggestion that my unwillingness to support mass execution of an entire social class would have made me an ineffective general, and your suggestion that my unwillingness to commit war crimes would have been overly generous to a population whom you condemn as criminals en masse based on crimes committed by some particular individuals in the designated population, are unreasonable.

Sorry, I thought your questions were about how to determine whether or not an individual committed the crimes I mentioned. To me, if they raised arms to defend it or assisted in any other way they aided and abetted it and are guilty as a result. The trials for the captured were meant to determine their involvement in the war. Maybe I should have made it clear I was talking about those that were found guilty.

The law was to try and then execute them for treason after being found guilty. This was done many times but dwindled over time.

I don't know what cases you're referring to; as far as I'm aware only two confederate soldiers were executed after the war after conviction in legal trials, and those were for their own specific war crimes, not for treason. That isn't to say that POWs weren't ever lynched by Union troops after kangaroo court trials, but if that's what you're talking about it only means U.S. law should have kept better control over its soldiers.

You're right. Not sure why I mixed up a single General's rouge execution with official ones (however so scarce). It's been a long time since I read about the civil war. I'm shooting from the hip over here. Anyhow, that just adds to the list of mistakes America made.

As far as the rest of the south, the only thing I find reasonable is to remove and restrict every ... last one of them from surving in any governmental copacity. from the police to the judges. That would have been a great time to apoint black people in leadership positions.

That, I have no problem with. I'm arguing with you because you were arguing with me because I was opposing mass executions.

That misunderstanding is all on me yo. The topic of Civil War makes my knee jerk so hard I kick myself in the face.

 

[Gospel]

The point is history shows it does not put things to rest.

... Maybe if America used that same gumption to destroy all Confederate monuments and hang all the traitors back then we wouldn't have January 6, 2021, to talk about. ...

You talk a lot about traitors, but who's a traitor to what country depends on point of view. If some poor white guy refused to fight to help his rich neighbor hold onto his slaves he'd have been considered a traitor to Virginia, and maybe hanged for it. If the South had won the war, afterwards Andrew Johnson would have been considered a traitor to Tennessee for not resigning from the Senate when his country seceded from the federation and for helping Lincoln make war on Tennessee, and maybe hanged for it, assuming the Confederacy were able to lay their hands on him.

It's legendary that before the war the customary phrase was "The United States are ..."; it was only after the war that people typically started saying "The United States is...". Your own quote says: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them...". "Them", not "it". So who owed allegiance to "them", and who was levying war against "them"? From the point of view of most southerners, a Virginian owed allegiance to Virginia and stopped owing allegiance to The United States the minute Virginia seceded from the federation. And what state was the south levying war against? From their point of view it was the north levying war against states; nearly all the fighting took place in the south; the southerners figured they were resisting a foreign invasion, not making war on any northern states. Some POW famously replied when his Union captors asked him why he was fighting so a rich man could keep his slaves, "Because you're down here." (And sure, Jefferson Davis, a member of the U.S. government who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, started the war by firing on United States troops. That makes Jefferson Davis a traitor. It doesn't make every Mississippian who shot back a traitor when a northern army showed up to take its revenge.)

There's precedent for all this. Once upon a time Scotland and England were two kingdoms with the same king -- the same Scottish king. (It only happened because Elizabeth died without having children and since royalty kept intermarrying the king of Scotland happened to be her cousin, so he inherited England.) From Scotland's point of view, no problem -- they had the same Scottish kings as ever, and what did they care if now their king owned some foreign country as well? Well, no problem until the English decided they were done with Scottish kings and hired some German king to become King of England. And, as an afterthought, Scotland. Then the Scots were all "Hang on. We agreed to have the same king as you because he was Scottish. No way did we agree to put Scotland under a German.", and the English were all "No backsies!" The squabble went on for decades and it all came to a head in 1746 on Culloden Moor, which is just about as far away from England as you can get and still be in Scotland. 7000 Scots under Bonnie Prince Charlie tried to put his father, who they saw as the rightful King of Scotland (and England), back on the Scottish throne.

Of course they lost -- rebelling against England and shooting so many redcoats you get your independence isn't something just anybody can pull off. Afterwards the 5000-odd survivors ran away, and then the redcoats hunted them down, because they weren't just defeated enemy troops going home after the war was over -- they were "traitors"(TM). A hundred-odd were executed; many more were sent to penal colonies and sold as slaves.

So was it right to hunt them down? Were those 7000 Scots really traitors to King George? Or were they patriots loyal to Scotland? It depends on point of view. Do you think they were traitors?

Taking what you wrote as is without doing research I'd say Yes, they were traitors (both stories). The only difference to me is the 5000 Scottish may have earned some sense of pride for what they fought and died for. The southern dude firing on union troops for being there was not defending an established nation. That's why his answer was "because you're down here" instead of "defending the Confederate States of America" or some shit.

 

[Gospel]

What could they do? If the Union position was that the Southern states never legally left the Union, then the Confederates were entitled to due process and a jury trial.

Executed the Law of the United States of America instead of Pardoning them. Everyone had a stomach for all the atrocities America has commited before, why stop when it's for the right reason? Hmm? Oh I know, because they look like you.

No. If they were acquitted at trial or on appeal, it would have been a political catastrophe; that the Union/federal government was wrong to pursue the war.

Hey little Timothy, when you are done riding the fantasy roller coaster meet me at the park's exit and we'll talk. How in all of our non-existent God's creation would there be grounds for acquittal? It's either they got caught in the act of Civil War or War of succession, pick your poison.

 

[bilby]

The point is history shows it does not put things to rest.

... Maybe if America used that same gumption to destroy all Confederate monuments and hang all the traitors back then we wouldn't have January 6, 2021, to talk about. ...

You talk a lot about traitors, but who's a traitor to what country depends on point of view. If some poor white guy refused to fight to help his rich neighbor hold onto his slaves he'd have been considered a traitor to Virginia, and maybe hanged for it. If the South had won the war, afterwards Andrew Johnson would have been considered a traitor to Tennessee for not resigning from the Senate when his country seceded from the federation and for helping Lincoln make war on Tennessee, and maybe hanged for it, assuming the Confederacy were able to lay their hands on him.

It's legendary that before the war the customary phrase was "The United States are ..."; it was only after the war that people typically started saying "The United States is...". Your own quote says: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them...". "Them", not "it". So who owed allegiance to "them", and who was levying war against "them"? From the point of view of most southerners, a Virginian owed allegiance to Virginia and stopped owing allegiance to The United States the minute Virginia seceded from the federation. And what state was the south levying war against? From their point of view it was the north levying war against states; nearly all the fighting took place in the south; the southerners figured they were resisting a foreign invasion, not making war on any northern states. Some POW famously replied when his Union captors asked him why he was fighting so a rich man could keep his slaves, "Because you're down here." (And sure, Jefferson Davis, a member of the U.S. government who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, started the war by firing on United States troops. That makes Jefferson Davis a traitor. It doesn't make every Mississippian who shot back a traitor when a northern army showed up to take its revenge.)

There's precedent for all this. Once upon a time Scotland and England were two kingdoms with the same king -- the same Scottish king. (It only happened because Elizabeth died without having children and since royalty kept intermarrying the king of Scotland happened to be her cousin, so he inherited England.) From Scotland's point of view, no problem -- they had the same Scottish kings as ever, and what did they care if now their king owned some foreign country as well? Well, no problem until the English decided they were done with Scottish kings and hired some German king to become King of England. And, as an afterthought, Scotland. Then the Scots were all "Hang on. We agreed to have the same king as you because he was Scottish. No way did we agree to put Scotland under a German.", and the English were all "No backsies!" The squabble went on for decades and it all came to a head in 1746 on Culloden Moor, which is just about as far away from England as you can get and still be in Scotland. 7000 Scots under Bonnie Prince Charlie tried to put his father, who they saw as the rightful King of Scotland (and England), back on the Scottish throne.

Of course they lost -- rebelling against England and shooting so many redcoats you get your independence isn't something just anybody can pull off. Afterwards the 5000-odd survivors ran away, and then the redcoats hunted them down, because they weren't just defeated enemy troops going home after the war was over -- they were "traitors"(TM). A hundred-odd were executed; many more were sent to penal colonies and sold as slaves.

So was it right to hunt them down? Were those 7000 Scots really traitors to King George? Or were they patriots loyal to Scotland? It depends on point of view. Do you think they were traitors?

A couple of points of information:

The English had no particular issue with two-and-seven Jimmy and his descendants being Scottish; their major beef was with his being a Catholic, which many Scots were also none too happy about. It was his conversion from Protestantism in 1668 (two decades before his accession to the crown) that caused the problems and ultimately led to his being deposed.

And the new King that the English invited to take over was Dutch, not German. (And was married to James's older sister, Mary, which the English argued made the whole thing legitimate).

 

[Gospel]

Thanks, bilby. Wholesome posts like that keep me coming back.

 

[Toni]

You probably have a different kind of family than I do. I really like to pretend that the worst racists and worst fuck ups are related to me by marriage and not genetically but that would include ignoring some unpleasant facts. I stand by my opinion that the worst of the racists in my personal family are not genetically related to me--but they are still family. That does not mean that some of my genetically linked family members are not racist fucks. Unfortunately, we have some of those too.

I have a bunch of racists in my family who are not people I call brother or sister but who I have to claim as cousin, or refer to as my step cousins or my father's step children from (pick a marriage) or my grandmother's third husband who was a member of the Klan (dead now for over 50 years). I cannot forget that these are my family, no matter how despicable I find some of their attitudes about race, among other issues. Some of them have some other pretty despicable beliefs, and actions but let's just keep it to race. I don't like that at all. For some, I simply do not have any kind of relationship with them and haven't since I reached adulthood and had a choice.

But there are other people I grew up with, none of whom would count themselves as racist (even my Klan grandfather didn't think he was a racist) who are otherwise pretty decent human beings--they work hard, and would do just about anything for anyone. But probably more so if the person in need was also white and American born.. And preferably, grew up in the same county.

I think we are fooling ourselves if we do not recognize that most white people have some work to do regarding how we treat other people who may not look like us or speak the same language or with the same accent. And the more the other people don't look like us, the more we don't treat them like us.

And we need to. We need to treat everyone like us. Like our brothers and sisters.

That doesn't mean that we have to like them or want to invite them in our houses. It definitely does not mean that we do not charge them with crimes they have committed, and if found guilty, impose the appropriate sentence. It doesn't mean we have to agree with them or talk to them. But if we don't talk with them--not to, but with, we will never get them to change their minds. And if you haven't noticed: they ain't dying out so we can't count on that.

I'm not talking about what you should do with your personal relationship with your family members. I ain't Doctor Phill bruh. I'm talking about what America should have done with traitors who waged war against America after the Civil War was over.

I don't disagree that traitors should have been imprisoned. I'm very anti-capital punishment but yeah, I could go along with that.

But they didn't hang. There was a big effort at reconciliation because literally family members were fighting family members. With guns. In a war. AND in the south, a lot of people were starving or nearly so, with no one to plant and harvest crops, etc. I understand the desire to reconcile rather than punish. I think that they got off very lightly.

And those monuments should NEVER have been allowed to be erected in the first place. You know, don't you, that many/most were actually commissioned and put up during the 50's and 60's, in reaction to the growing Civil Rights movement? NOT immediately after the war but 90-100years later. Disgusting. Worse than that, actually.

I'm just writing from a where do we go from here perspective. I think it begins (for white people) with long, hard looks in the mirror and then at your family and then your friends and then how do you treat people and how do you think the law treats people.

It isn't just black people who are tired of cops killing unarmed people, especially kids.

 

[Trausti]

No. If they were acquitted at trial or on appeal, it would have been a political catastrophe; that the Union/federal government was wrong to pursue the war.

Hey little Timothy, when you are done riding the fantasy roller coaster meet me at the park's exit and we'll talk. How in all of our non-existent God's creation would there be grounds for acquittal? It's either they got caught in the act of Civil War or War of succession, pick your poison.

What section of the Constitution did South Carolina break when it seceded? The South Carolina legislature voted to seceded. Where was the Constitutional provision that said they could not do that?

 

[Gospel]

No. If they were acquitted at trial or on appeal, it would have been a political catastrophe; that the Union/federal government was wrong to pursue the war.

Hey little Timothy, when you are done riding the fantasy roller coaster meet me at the park's exit and we'll talk. How in all of our non-existent God's creation would there be grounds for acquittal? It's either they got caught in the act of Civil War or War of succession, pick your poison.

What section of the Constitution did South Carolina break when it seceded? The South Carolina legislature voted to seceded. Where was the Constitutional provision that said they could not do that?

Where is the constitutional provision that said South Carolina couldn't be re-colonized?

 

[Trausti]

What section of the Constitution did South Carolina break when it seceded? The South Carolina legislature voted to seceded. Where was the Constitutional provision that said they could not do that?

Where is the constitutional provision that said South Carolina couldn't be re-colonized?

So if you’re conceding the vagaries/ ambiguity then you understand why no one was tried.

 

[Bomb#20]

It depends on point of view. Do you think they were traitors?

Okay, then to be fair and explicit, when we say 'traitor,' we only specifically mean those Americans who were ever subject to the US Constitution, which has a specific definition of treason, and then, during the Civil War, took up arms against the Union, or it's soldiers, or support those who did.

I suppose we could have discrete classes, such as
1) "those who voluntarily...arms...support..." would be called "traitors"
2) "those whose hearts weren't really in it, but due to peer pressure, or family pressure, or maybe inertia...arms...support..." would be called 'traitors.'
Everyone else could pick another term. The 'traitor to treason' category from your example might be...citizen?

So is that a "no", then? You're saying "traitor" means only Americans, so the Scots the redcoats were hunting down and executing after the Scotland rebellion were lawful combatants? Because that would pretty much amount to complete agreement that it depends on point of view.

Or was that a "yes", the Jacobites were traitors too, and your "we only specifically mean those Americans who were ever subject to the US Constitution" was meant to be interpreted in the context of the U.S. civil war, and analogous reasoning would apply to other conflicts? Because that would pretty much amount to arguing that the redcoats would have been within their rights to hang American POWs during the Revolutionary War.

 

[Bomb#20]

A couple of points of information:

The English had no particular issue with two-and-seven Jimmy and his descendants being Scottish; their major beef was with his being a Catholic, which many Scots were also none too happy about. It was his conversion from Protestantism in 1668 (two decades before his accession to the crown) that caused the problems and ultimately led to his being deposed.

And the new King that the English invited to take over was Dutch, not German. (And was married to James's older sister, Mary, which the English argued made the whole thing legitimate).

Well sure; but then the Dutchman died without issue too, so the English made another Scot queen: Anne Stuart. It was only after she died that the English were finally done with Scottish rulers; that's when they sent out for a German.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It depends on point of view. Do you think they were traitors?

Okay, then to be fair and explicit, when we say 'traitor,' we only specifically mean those Americans who were ever subject to the US Constitution, which has a specific definition of treason, and then, during the Civil War, took up arms against the Union, or it's soldiers, or support those who did.

I suppose we could have discrete classes, such as
1) "those who voluntarily...arms...support..." would be called "traitors"
2) "those whose hearts weren't really in it, but due to peer pressure, or family pressure, or maybe inertia...arms...support..." would be called 'traitors.'
Everyone else could pick another term. The 'traitor to treason' category from your example might be...citizen?

So is that a "no", then? You're saying "traitor" means only Americans, so the Scots the redcoats were hunting down and executing after the Scotland rebellion were lawful combatants? Because that would pretty much amount to complete agreement that it depends on point of view.

Or was that a "yes", the Jacobites were traitors too, and your "we only specifically mean those Americans who were ever subject to the US Constitution" was meant to be interpreted in the context of the U.S. civil war, and analogous reasoning would apply to other conflicts? Because that would pretty much amount to arguing that the redcoats would have been within their rights to hang American POWs during the Revolutionary War.

During the Revolutionary War, anything even slightly critical of the Monarch was defined or could be defined as treason, including pretty much any political cartoon or Talk Show host's monologue. So one Boston Tory officer of the law got drunk and bragged he'd have arrested King George Himself if the king were doing illegal things in his jurisdiction, and he ended up hanged for treason.

Which is why they took the step of defining 'treason' in the Constitution rather specifically, as a direct reaction to how it was applied in the country they chose to disassociate themselves from. Bringing in examples from the system that was rejected doesn't really amplify questions about the system that applied, except maybe in a 'how not to do it' sense.

 

[Gospel]

What section of the Constitution did South Carolina break when it seceded? The South Carolina legislature voted to seceded. Where was the Constitutional provision that said they could not do that?

Where is the constitutional provision that said South Carolina couldn't be re-colonized?

So if you’re conceding the vagaries/ ambiguity then you understand why no one was tried.

No, that is just turbulence from the fantasy coaster you're on. I was being snippy but to answer your question, there was no, has never been and never will be provisions for seceding. In other words, there is no constitutional procedure for leaving the union and there still isn't one today. South Carolina broke every section of the Constitution in its attempt to secede.

There you have it,

 

[Jarhyn]

So if you’re conceding the vagaries/ ambiguity then you understand why no one was tried.

No, that is just turbulence from the fantasy coaster you're on. I was being snippy but to answer your question, there was no, has never been and never will be provisions for seceding. In other words, there is no constitutional procedure for leaving the union and there still isn't one today. South Carolina broke every section of the Constitution in its attempt to secede.

There you have it,

They rejected the constitution, their oaths to it as lawmakers that all of them had taken, and declared themselves traitors to it's very existence and authority over them.

They did this because they wished to treat men as slaves.