Was Robert E. Lee guilty of treason?

@farmerman,

Quote:

ALL Confederate officers were pardoned with the only prohibition being that they could NOT serve public office or as officers in the US Army or NAvy. This too was removed in 1871 after Lees death

Longstreet the high ranking confederate general held some very high positions in the Federal government after the civil war.

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Longstreet#Post-bellum_life

He applied for various jobs through the Rutherford B. Hayes administration and was briefly considered for Secretary of the Navy. He served briefly as deputy collector of internal revenue and as postmaster of Gainesville. In 1880 Hayes appointed Longstreet as his ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, and later he served from 1897 to 1904, under Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, as U.S. Commissioner of Railroads, succeeding Wade Hampton III.[74]

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Lincoln and Johnston did not see it that way. ALL Confederate officers were pardoned with the only prohibition being that they could NOT serve public office or as officers in the US Army or NAvy. This too was removed in 1871 after Lees death .

That affirms my point rather than contradicting it. Presidents pardon the guilty, not the innocent.

3 Replies

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

The Union troops were pretty ruff, cutting old ladies' throats sometimes, looting.
Hence, the need of Confederate veterans fighting a guerrilla
defensive operation as the KKK

BillRM wrote:

You David rewriting history?

Of course not; what good comes from that??

BillRM wrote:

Shame on you and the KKK right after the war was a terrorist outfit
set up to keep the free slaves in line and away from any political power.

Yes, thay were very concerned indeed
about violent black rebellion.
I stand by what I wrote until disproven. U deny Union atrocities ???
I admire their fighting back instead of cowering in fear.
Guerrilla resistance was necessary.

BillRM wrote:

I bet you think that the movie Birth of the Nation was history fact!!!!!!!!!

Its been maybe around 5O or 6O years
since I 've seen it; I shud not comment
on something that I dont remember sufficiently well.

David

0 Replies

@Thomas,

you made 2 separate points out of my post. I merely stated that the prohibitions against service were placed on all Confederate officers at the time of the end of the war between April and July 1865. The removal of the prohibition from govt and military service was then REMOVED just after Lee died.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

than if America quit the UN ?

Thomas wrote:

Yes. First, the UN charter bars no country from leaving the United Nations.
The US constitution, by contrast, states explicitly that "No State shall enter
into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation".

To your mind, woud the secession have been OK
if the INDIVIDUALLY departed States had remained solitary ?

Thomas wrote:

Second, the states in rebellion didn't just leave the United States.
They had militants attack US facilities first, and formally seceded only later.

I understand your point (the 2nd one).

David

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

That affirms my point rather than contradicting it. Presidents pardon the guilty, not the innocent.

Y0u can accept a pardon without admitting any guilt of any kind.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

So, wrt to this thread

Was Lee guilty of treason ----NO (guilty is a verdict)

Was he charged with treason---NO

2 Replies

@Thomas,

farmerman wrote:

Lincoln and Johnston did not see it that way.
ALL Confederate officers were pardoned with the only prohibition being that they could NOT serve public office or as officers in the US Army or NAvy. This too was removed in 1871 after Lees death .

Thomas wrote:

That affirms my point rather than contradicting it.

Presidents pardon the guilty, not the innocent.

If that be true,
then whereas the guilty are freely protected,
the INNOCENT remain fully exposed to criminal prosecution, however ill founded,
like George Zimmerman, for instance.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

So, wrt to this thread

Was Lee guilty of treason ----NO (guilty is a verdict)

Was he charged with treason---NO

What does wrt mean ???

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You peddle the most egregious bullsh*t.
Your grasp of history is on a par with the quality of your orthography.

Thank u for that contribution, Mr. Setanta.
Maybe u believe that I am secretly Robert E. Lee, the topic of this thread.

Thanx again.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

To your mind, woud the secession have been OK
if the INDIVIDUALLY departed States had remained solitary ?

You mean, if they had held a popular vote on secession, followed some orderly process after the vote came out positive, and not initiated violence against the United States? I would consider that an open question, much closer to your leaving-the-EU scenario. If I had to pick a favorite side, though, I would still be inclined to say that Texas v. White was correctly decided.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

What does wrt mean ???

With Regard To.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

President Lincoln was going to use force to bring the south back into line period and the south did indeed send peace envoys to work out the details of the southern states leaving the union in a peaceful manner.

Lincoln repeat Lincoln would not meet with them or allow anyone else in the Federal government to meet with them.

There is no way Lincoln was going to allow the south to leave the union in a peaceful manner or in any other manner.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

To your mind, woud the secession have been OK
if the INDIVIDUALLY departed States had remained solitary ?

Thomas wrote:

You mean, if they had held a popular vote on secession,
followed some orderly process after the vote came out positive,
and not initiated violence against the United States?

OK, but what I actually had in mind
was referring to your designated objection to the formation
of a CONFEDERATION or an alliance by the departed States,
as distinct from their remaining solitary and INDIVIDUAL,
as Texas was before it ratified the Constitution.

I see it differently, to wit:
that Constitutional prohibition against confederations
was meant to apply to States who continued political existence within the Union,
not after thay had hit the road.

Thomas wrote:

I would consider that an open question, much closer to your leaving-the-EU scenario. If I had to pick a favorite side, though, I would still be inclined to say that Texas v. White was correctly decided.

I guess u don t see an issue with inherent judicial corruption
with the USSC being indirectly de facto a judge in its own cause??

The Court and each of its Justices were in the pay of an entity
that benefited from its holding. Was the Court really free
to hold that the States had a legitimate 1Oth Amendment right
to leave the Union because thay never agreed to remain confined within it?????
(assuming that thay do not form a confederation)

Judges are ethically required to avoid EVEN THE APPEARANCE of impropriety.

If the Court had ruled that there was nothing improper
with the withdrawal, then it 'd be declaring that Martyr Lincoln
wasted huge numbers of human lives and other injuries
and that in consequence of the Southern secession,
those States were no longer within the Union,
nor were thay when the bonds were sold.
Was that judicial option a political reality ?
Was it really feasible for the Court to do that??
If not, then what does that mean for impartiality??
I wonder if any of those judges were appointed by Lincoln himself.
I have not researched it. Do u see my point ?

David

1 Reply

Before Lincoln was inaugurated, months before he was inaugurated, so-called state troops of Alabama, Florida and South Carolina attacked Federal installations. The south started the war, not Mr. Lincoln. That is all bullshit, Bill.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I guess u don t see an issue with inherent judicial corruption with the USSC being indirectly de facto a judge in its own cause??

No, because the cause was not the Supreme Court's, and the Court's reasoning in Texas v. White was perfectly solid:

(1) In their Articles of Confederation, The United States of America explicitly established themselves as a perpetual union.

(2) In the Constitution, the United States explicitly established themselves as "a more perfect union" --- more perfect, that is, than the one established in the Articles of Confederation, which was already perpetual.

(3) Because the Constitution explicitly specifies the union between the states to be "more perfect" than the "perpetual" one established in the Articles of Confederation, secession is prohibited by it against the states, so the 10th Amendment does not apply.

No, I don't see any corruption there.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

so-called state troops of Alabama, Florida and South Carolina attacked Federal installations. The south started the war, not Mr. Lincoln. That is all bullshit, Bill.

Bullshit back to you as what some state troopers might have done is hardly the south starting the civil war and if Lincoln did wish to deal with the south going it own way in a peaceful manner he could have gotten that outcome.

He instead lite the fuse of the civil war by attempting to resupply Fort Sumter.

Do not get me wrong I think he took the right actions if maintaining the union against the wishes of the southerns at any cost was his goal.

Second guessing him also is kind of pointless at this point in history but he might had been able to stop the process even late in the game by negotiations with Virginia as the break away states was not viable without Virginia and could had been talk/force back into the union with the help of Virginia.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

You're far to ignorant to talk to, and now that you've latched on to this thread like a remora, it's totally screwed.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Was Lee guilty of treason ----NO (guilty is a verdict)

This is my ignorance of legalese talking, but one would not be considered guilty of a crime they did commit even if they were never tried and convicted? If, for instance, I stole a pack of gum from the corner store in my youth but was never caught. Wouldn't I have been guilty of theft?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I picked up the Kindle edition of Mr. Thomas's book on your recommendation. I've learned a lot in this thread. Your contributions have been very helpful. Are you a historian by trade?

1 Reply

Was Robert E. Lee guilty of treason?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know