Were the Confederates traitors

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If they were traitors, so were the founding fathers.

The founding fathers won, the confederates lost.

That what happened to us Injuns.

Winner takes all.

This is a fun thread but meaningless in and of itself.

 

[DGS49]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the States from Ieaving the Union.

Jefferson Davis was never arrested and/or charged with treason, although his whereabouts were weII known. Some believe that he was never charged because it was feared that if his case came before the Supreme Court, they very we might have concIuded that the Confederate States were entitIed to Ieave.

 

[Quantrill]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the States from Ieaving the Union.

Jefferson Davis was never arrested and/or charged with treason, although his whereabouts were weII known. Some believe that he was never charged because it was feared that if his case came before the Supreme Court, they very we might have concIuded that the Confederate States were entitIed to Ieave.

I agree. And the 10th Amendment gives every state the right to secede.

Jeff Davis was arrested and sent to prison where he stayed for two years awaiting his trial for treason. His trial was well known and publicized that the North would show the world what they do to traitors. It would be a trial to prove that secession was treason and they would hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree.

Then a problem arose. The prosecution started looking into the case instead of just going on their biased northern feelings of revenge. And then they backed off. This occurred several times as the North kept getting other prosecutors. They told the prisident, Johnson at that time, that you have your military victory. Don't take a chance on this trial and stain that victory with a not guilty verdict for Davis.

Now they were in a dilemma. What to do with Jeff Davis. Through a dog and pony show they figured out how 'legaly' to set Jeff Davis free and it not appear they were responisble.

Thus, the most hated man in the North went free after all those boasts of trying him and secession in a real court of law.

In other words, When they set Jeff Davis free, this was an admission that he and the South was right. Neither he or the South were traitors.

But somebody was. The North.

Quantrill

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Nonsense by Quantrill right out of the gate.

No state has a 10thA right to secede.

 

[longly]

Nonsense by Quantrill right out of the gate.

No state has a 10thA right to secede.

John, are you saying that states have no sovereign rights recognized by the Tenth Amendment?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

John, are you saying that states have no sovereign rights recognized by the Tenth Amendment?

Secession, longly, is not one of those supposed rights per your thinking.

 

[Quantrill]

Nonsense by Quantrill right out of the gate.

No state has a 10thA right to secede.

Article X of the Bill of Rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Article X deals with both the powers delegated and those not delegated to the the Federal Governament. Those not delegated, of course, remain with the States.

But, by declaring the powers given to the Federal Government were delegated, means they can always be resumed. Delegated doesn't mean surrendered. And the one who delgates can resume those powers if they believe it is warranted.

Ratification statement of Virginia upon entering the Union: "We the delegates of the peopole of Virginia, duly elected....do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."

Every State delegated powers to the Federal Government. What is delegated can be resumed. The taking back of those powers is secession.

Part of the Secession Statement of South Carolina after it gave its reasons: "We therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates in convention assembled...has resumed her position among the nations of the world as a separate and independent State, with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right, do.

Quantrill

 

[Mushroom]

The Confederacy could not have chosen a worse leader than Jefferson Davis. It was Davis who made the disastrous, hot-heated decision to fire on Fort Sumter, which made any peaceful compromise impossible and inflamed Northern public opinion in favor of using force against the seceded states.

That was not President Davis, but General Beauregard that made that order. He did send an ultimatum to the fort demanding their surrender, and it would be leveled if that was not done and a relied force was spotted attempting to reach the fort.

But the ultimate decision to fire on 11 April was entirely General Beauregard's, as well as Colonel James Chesnut. Those were the actual military commanders in charge at the scene, and when Colonel Chesnut was not satisfied with the response that they would evacuate on 15 April his response was that they would begin firing on one hour. Which they did.

But ultimately, nothing would have changed no matter who was President. The problem was that they patterned their government too closely upon the original US Government under the Articles of Confederation. There was a reason the first Government of the US was almost constantly on the verge of collapse, and ultimately scrapped itself to form the Government still in place to this day. Ultimately a Confederation with a weak central government is just not a good or stable government.

Especially in a time of conflict. The CSA was constantly broke, and the President had even less power than the US Vice President does.

 

[Mushroom]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the States from Ieaving the Union.

Actually, the basis for that predates the Constitution itself.

The first Government of the US was formed under the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union". Which opened as thus:

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we, the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in the Words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

And this is how the document closed:

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, Know Ye, that we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do, by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained. And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, in Congress. Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the ninth Day of July, in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy eight, and in the third year of the Independence of America.

Articles of Confederation (1777)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: Articles of Confederation; 3/1/1781; Miscellaneous Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774 - 1789; Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, Record Group 360; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. View All...

www.archives.gov

Over and over in that original governing document, it was stated that the Union was perpetual and could never be broken.

Then there is the legal precedents that come from that. Because the "original" US government never collapsed, it was never overthrown. It was replaced in a process authorized in the Articles of Confederation to then form a new government. It was never repealed, never struck down or overthrown. It was simply replaced, with most of the actual structure remaining in place.

People simply went to bed on 3 March 1789 with the Articles of Confederation as the government, and woke up on 4 March 1789 with the Constitution as the form of government. But the key thing to remember, the "Perpetual Union" was already in place at that time.

 

[Winco]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the States from Ieaving the Union.

Yes, Please, find a way for WA, OR, and CA to form a NEW perfect Union.

So much Prosperity in these 3 states.
Also, if all the Eastern Desert areas in each State don't want to be included, then great, go **** yourself and join Idaho and Nevada. Should be great.....LOLLOLLLLL

 

[cnm]

Today, the political left considers the rebels who participated in the American Civil War—also known as the War Between the States—as traitors.

Of course they are. The losing side in an armed rebellion are always traitors.

If they don't like that then they should have won.

 

[Winco]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the States from Ieaving the Union.

May the Western Parts of WA, OR, and CA, all leave the Union.
**** the vacant land masses of the Eastern parts of these States.
They are on their own.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Article X of the Bill of Rights: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Article X deals with both the powers delegated and those not delegated to the the Federal Governament. Those not delegated, of course, remain with the States.
But, by declaring the powers given to the Federal Government were delegated, means they can always be resumed. Delegated doesn't mean surrendered. And the one who delgates can resume those powers if they believe it is warranted.
Ratification statement of Virginia upon entering the Union: "We the delegates of the peopole of Virginia, duly elected....do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression."
Every State delegated powers to the Federal Government. What is delegated can be resumed. The taking back of those powers is secession.
Part of the Secession Statement of South Carolina after it gave its reasons: "We therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates in convention assembled...has resumed her position among the nations of the world as a separate and independent State, with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent States may of right, do.

Quantrill

Yes, we all know the argument. It's false.

 

[there4eyeM]

Of course, by the dictionary definition, those supporting the attempt to destroy the United States and the Perpetual Union they signed onto could certainly be called traitors. Questioning that is rather facile trolling.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Is there a legitimate reasons for the Confederates not be considered traitors?

Copilot said​

That's a deeply layered question, Melvin—and one that historians, legal scholars, and cultural commentators have wrestled with for over 160 years. While the U.S. Constitution defines treason as levying war against the government or aiding its enemies, which would technically apply to Confederate leaders and soldiers, there are several arguments and historical developments that complicate the label of “traitor.”

Legal and Constitutional Ambiguities​

• Secession was not clearly illegal at the time. The Constitution didn’t explicitly forbid states from leaving the Union. Some argued that states had a sovereign right to secede, based on the idea of dual citizenship—both to their state and to the federal government1.
• No Confederate leader was tried for treason. Although Robert E. Lee was indicted, he was never prosecuted. President Andrew Johnson issued a full pardon in 1868 to all former Confederates1, and the Supreme Court later ruled that a full pardon “blots out the existence of guilt”1.

Post-War Reconciliation​

• The political climate after the war leaned toward reconciliation rather than punishment. Ulysses S. Grant supported amnesty for most Confederates, and many were allowed to return to public office1.
• This leniency helped shape a narrative that framed Confederate soldiers as misguided patriots rather than criminals.

Philosophical and Cultural Arguments​

• Some defenders argue that Confederates fought for their states, not against the U.S. per se. They saw themselves as defending their homeland and way of life, however morally flawed that cause may have been.
• Others point to the complexity of loyalty in a fractured nation—where allegiance to one’s state could feel more immediate than to a distant federal government.

Counterpoint: Why Many Still Call It Treason​

• Confederates took up arms against the United States, broke their oaths, and fought to preserve slavery. By the textbook definition, that’s treason23.
• The fact that they weren’t punished doesn’t erase the legal or moral implications of their actions.

1www.abbevilleinstitute.org2www.misbar.com3sites.duke.edu


What are modern views on Confederate monuments? Can you summarize key arguments for both sides? What role did the Supreme Court play in this matter?

 

[Unkotare]

Today, the political left considers the rebels who participated in the American Civil War—also known as the War Between the States—as traitors.

My opinion is that people think this way because they are not true Americans; they are imperialists. They believe in the right to rule and own other people.

Our country is different from most others in the world in that sovereignty does not rest in a king or a government, but in the people. In our country, the people are sovereign.

In the United States, the people are organized in two ways: by states and as a collection of states forming a nation. The nation itself is sovereign. The government of the United States is sovereign because it derives its sovereignty from the people.

Likewise, the people of each state are sovereign, and the state governments are sovereign because they also derive their authority from the people.

I believe—though I’m likely in the minority—that the treason clause in the Constitution refers to individuals, not states. After all, the Founders did the same thing with the Declaration of Independence, and I don't believe they saw themselves as traitors. For the Declaration to be accepted, it had to be ratified by a majority of the states—each a sovereign unit. States cannot commit treason because they are sovereign, and the Founders, acting as agents of those sovereign states, were not traitors. I don't think the Founders saw themselves as traitors.

Likewise, the individuals who voted for secession were not traitors, because as a collective—acting as sovereign states—they were exercising a sovereign right.

You can’t be a traitor against yourself.

Of course they were traitors. By definition. They got what they had coming.

 

[Quantrill]

Yes, we all know the argument. It's false.

Whose 'we'? Are you asking for help?

It's not false because you say it's false. I have showed you that secession was legal by the Constitution and the State ratification and secessation statements, and Jeff Davis 'no trial' which was a testimony to the legality of secession. The North knew it would lose the case in a court of law. They knew they would be the ones seen as guilty of some 800,000 lives and the destruction.

You in turn have showed nothing but you saying so.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Of course they were traitors. By definition. They got what they had coming.

Whose definition? Yours? Doesn't mean much.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

Whose definition? ...

The dictionary's.

 

[Quantrill]

Of course, by the dictionary definition, those supporting the attempt to destroy the United States and the Perpetual Union they signed onto could certainly be called traitors. Questioning that is rather facile trolling.

First of all, the Union was no longer perpetual. Where do you get that? Maybe in the Articles of Confederation. But that Union got tossed out the window in Philadelphia. So much for the 'perpetual union'. And the Constitution we are under today, the one of 1787, the framers were more careful not to make such a stupid statement, since it was they that tossed the other union away.

The South was not attempting to destroy the United States. The United States would still remain in tact. The South just seceded peacefully and left that Union. It is the North that pursued the War as she would not let the South go.

Quantrill