Statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson removed today in...

[Vern Humphrey]

That is true....however on Christmas Day, 1868 Andrew Johnson issued a blanket pardon for all soldiers who had fought for the Confederacy for the crimes of "...treason or bearing arms against the United States." Abraham Lincoln had previously pardoned some
Confederate officials and officers above the rank of Colonel. Acceptance of a pardon equals a concession that the individual committed the offenses specified in the pardon.

Not necessarily. But the Army of Northern Virginia did not need a pardon. Grant (one of only two generals in the Civil War who had a sense of strategy) realized that to re-unite the nation, the Confederates would have to be allowed to go home unmolested.

Jefferson Davis was held prisoner for two years, but never charged or brought to trial, and finally paroled for $100,000. The money was donated by former Abolitionists, led by Horace Greeley, on t he grounds that Davis' right to a speedy trial had been violated.

[Art]

Not necessarily. But the Army of Northern Virginia did not need a pardon. Grant (one of only two generals in the Civil War who had a sense of strategy) realized that to re-unite the nation, the Confederates would have to be allowed to go home unmolested.

Jefferson Davis was held prisoner for two years, but never charged or brought to trial, and finally paroled for $100,000. The money was donated by former Abolitionists, led by Horace Greeley, on t he grounds that Davis' right to a speedy trial had been violated.

Grant paroled the soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia, he did not pardon them, only the President can issue a pardon. If Johnson hadn't pardoned the entire Confederate Army these people could have been tried at a later date. When it comes to Davis, who was actually charged with Treason, it appears to me that the fine was a settlement, similar to Bill Clinton's paying a civil fine, settling with Paula Jones and giving up his law license to avoid criminal prosecution for perjury. Both were in effect, plea bargains. Davis never got his full civil rights restored, nor did Robert E. Lee, at least during their lifetimes being precluded by the 14th Amendment.

If Johnson had not been President, and the Radical Republicans had their way, I believe that quite a few former Confederate politicians and high ranking military officers would have been charged with Treason. Even if they hadn't been the possibility would have been hanging over them like a "Sword of Damocles." Johnson short circuited that with a blanket pardon.

[Vern Humphrey]

Grant paroled the soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia, he did not pardon them, only the President can issue a pardon. If Johnson hadn't pardoned the entire Confederate Army these people could have been tried at a later date. When it comes to Davis, it appears to me that the fine was a settlement, similar to Bill Clinton's paying a civil fine, settling with Paula Jones and giving up his law license to avoid criminal prosecution for perjury. Both were in effect, plea bargains.

If Johnson had not been President, and the Radical Republicans had their way, I believe that quite a few former Confederate politicians and high ranking military officers would have been charged with Treason. Even if they hadn't been the possibility would have been hanging over them like a "Sword of Damocles." Johnson short circuited that with a blanket pardon.

They MIGHT have been charged. But it was essential to rebuilding the nation that they NOT be charged.

As I said, Grant was only two generals in the Civil War who had a sense of strategy (the other was Winfield Scott). He understood that the way to re-unite the country (which is what the war was all about) the Confederates had to be treated with dignity and respect. That's way, for example, his terms to Lee included a provision that "officers may keep their sidearms" -- they were not required to perform the traditional act of surrender by giving up their swords.

[Art]

They MIGHT have been charged. But it was essential to rebuilding the nation that they NOT be charged.

As I said, Grant was only two generals in the Civil War who had a sense of strategy (the other was Winfield Scott). He understood that the way to re-unite the country (which is what the war was all about) the Confederates had to be treated with dignity and respect. That's way, for example, his terms to Lee included a provision that "officers may keep their sidearms" -- they were not required to perform the traditional act of surrender by giving up their swords.

You are correct that there was a political decision not to charge any of the high ranking Confederates with Treason, except Davis. I do not dispute that the decision was a wise one. That does not change the fact that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt (see U.S. v Burdick) or that there was administrative disenfranchisement of high ranking Confederates for what amounted to the elements of the crime of Treason under the 14th Amendment.

[Vern Humphrey]

You are correct that there was a political decision not to charge any of the high ranking Confederates with Treason, except Davis. I do not dispute that the decision was a wise one. That does not change the fact that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt (see U.S. v Burdick) or that there was administrative disenfranchisement of high ranking Confederates for what amounted to the elements of the crime of Treason under the 14th Amendment.

"Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt"

It was never accepted -- it was a blanket pardon.

[Art]

"Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt"

It was never accepted -- it was a blanket pardon.

If you don't affirmatively reject it you accept it. Joe Arpaio is a recent example. After being pardoned by President Trump he claimed he had been vindicated. He was reminded that his acceptance of the pardon was an admission of guilt and to not accept it he would have had to affirmatively reject it. He did not reject the pardon.

Again, see Burdick.

[Vern Humphrey]

Here's what an expert said about it:

"The right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship — on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror — must be the result."

Ulysses S. Grant

The "crime" the Confederates committed was not in withdrawing from the Union, nor in making war on the United States. Their crime was they did not win the war.

Vae victis.

[Art]

Here's what an expert said about it:

"The right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship ? on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror ? must be the result."

Ulysses S. Grant

The "crime" the Confederates committed was not in withdrawing from the Union, nor in making war on the United States. Their crime was they did not win the war.

Vae victis.

The difference between a rebellion and a revolution has everything to do with success you're right on that point. If you win you're a patriot. If you lose you're a traitor. John Brown fomented a rebellion. John Brown lost. John Brown hung. If the United States had not won it's revolution I guarantee most of the founders would have been "stretching hemp." Franklin said as much. The United States was just much more magnanimous than the Brits, or indeed almost anybody else.

Again, if nobody had exposure to the crime of treason nobody would have needed a pardon.

[Vern Humphrey]

The difference between a rebellion and a revolution has everything to do with success you're right on that point. If you win you're a patriot. If you lose you're a traitor. John Brown fomented a rebellion. John Brown lost. John Brown hung. If the United States had not won it's revolution I guarantee most of the founders would have been "stretching hemp." Franklin said as much. The United States was just much more magnanimous than the Brits, or indeed almost anybody else.

Again, if nobody had exposure to the crime of treason nobody would have needed a pardon.

No one needed a pardon. The terms of Lee's surrender were adequate.

Two of my great grandfathers served in the Union Army, and neither of them ever accused the Confederates of treason.

[togor]

Art is clearly right on the basic point (hope he doesn't mind me saying that).

Enjoying the exchange.

[Allen]

A few questions from an outsider:
Were they not traitors to the United States of America?
Did they not lead armies that caused the deaths of many American soldiers?
Should traitors have statues erected to their memory?
Did they not commit treason in order to protect the institution of slavery? Was this a moral position?

Who were the traitors? The North declared war on the South. The initial cause of the war was not over slavery so these generals were in place prior to that to defend themselves.

[Vern Humphrey]

Let me point out that George Washington did exactly what Robert E. Lee did -- commanded the army of a nation that had declared independence of a more powerful nation.

[Art]

......The initial cause of the war was not over slavery.....

Horse hockey.

Read "The Cornerstone Speech" by Alexander Stevens, later Confederate Vice President which was made on 3/21/61, about three weeks before those South Carolinians fired on Ft. Sumpter; or the declarations of secession of the individual Confederate States starting with Mississippi. The Mississippi Declaration is so vile it's hard to believe anyone in this country, even a slavery advocate, would have written something that disgusting in 1861!!! At least the Secessionists were out in the open about what they really thought.

Stephens was at least smoother about it than those Mississippians.

Trivia note: Alexander Stephens was the great grandfather of singer Ray Stevens.

[oscars]

A big thank you for your post Art!

[dryheat]

Ants and even higher forms of life like to fight.