Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
06-29-2017, 06:31 PM,
#1
Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
Posts: 1,271
Threads: 966
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 1
#1
Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
Reply
Find
Reply
06-29-2017, 10:43 PM,
#2
RE: Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
**
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation: 0
#2
Yes, they were.
Reply
Find
Reply
06-30-2017, 02:47 PM,
#3
RE: Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
***
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 8
#3
(06-29-2017, 10:43 PM)rwhite135 Wrote: Yes, they were.

Depends on your point of view... loyalty to one's state counted more in the era before big government.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
(06-29-2017, 10:43 PM)rwhite135 Wrote: Yes, they were.
Depends on your point of view... loyalty to one's state counted more in the era before big government.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
Reply
Find
Reply
07-02-2017, 02:15 AM,
#4
RE: Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
**
Posts: 607
Threads: 35
Joined: Jan 2015
Reputation: 0
#4
They were supporting actions that those states were constitutionally prohibited from doing. In particular, states are prohibited from entering into confederations, which is why they chose to call themselves the Confederate States of America. It was a thumb to the eye of the Union and the United States Constitution. Article 2, Section 10, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 states, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..." The Southern States violated this mandate, when they acted as they did. One's point of view does not make their actions any less wrong in the eyes of the law. This is why Johnson essentially issued a blanket pardon to former Confederates, during Reconstruction. What they did was treasonous but the pardon was a sign of forgiveness in hopes of helping heal the divide.

Before anyone weighs in with the argument that Lincoln violated the constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus, he actually acted within the edicts of the document. The only time that the government can take such action is in times of invasion or rebellion, as stated by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2. It stipulates and I quote, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The insurrection and rebellion perpetrated by the south clearly justified such actions.

Before anyone weighs in with the argument that Lincoln violated the constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus, he actually acted within the edicts of the document. The only time that the government can take such action is in times of invasion or rebellion, as stated by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2. It stipulates and I quote, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The insurrection and rebellion perpetrated by the south clearly justified such actions.
Reply
Find
Reply
07-02-2017, 08:07 PM,
#5
RE: Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
***
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 8
#5
(07-02-2017, 02:15 AM)rwhite135 Wrote: They were supporting actions that those states were constitutionally prohibited from doing. In particular, states are prohibited from entering into confederations, which is why they chose to call themselves the Confederate States of America. It was a thumb to the eye of the Union and the United States Constitution. Article 2, Section 10, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 states, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..." The Southern States violated this mandate, when they acted as they did. One's point of view does not make their actions any less wrong in the eyes of the law. This is why Johnson essentially issued a blanket pardon to former Confederates, during Reconstruction. What they did was treasonous but the pardon was a sign of forgiveness in hopes of helping heal the divide.

Before anyone weighs in with the argument that Lincoln violated the constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus, he actually acted within the edicts of the document. The only time that the government can take such action is in times of invasion or rebellion, as stated by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2. It stipulates and I quote, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The insurrection and rebellion perpetrated by the south clearly justified such actions.

Technically correct, and the use of force by Lincoln ended the point in a few years. However the Constitution is silent on a state being able to recind its ratification and leave the Union. Three states specifically had their entery into the Union conditional on them being able to leave in the Future (TX, who also has the option to split into 5 states, FL and Arkansas. I think it is probably a mute point at this time.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
(07-02-2017, 02:15 AM)rwhite135 Wrote: They were supporting actions that those states were constitutionally prohibited from doing. In particular, states are prohibited from entering into confederations, which is why they chose to call themselves the Confederate States of America. It was a thumb to the eye of the Union and the United States Constitution. Article 2, Section 10, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1 states, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..." The Southern States violated this mandate, when they acted as they did. One's point of view does not make their actions any less wrong in the eyes of the law. This is why Johnson essentially issued a blanket pardon to former Confederates, during Reconstruction. What they did was treasonous but the pardon was a sign of forgiveness in hopes of helping heal the divide.

Before anyone weighs in with the argument that Lincoln violated the constitution by suspending Habeas Corpus, he actually acted within the edicts of the document. The only time that the government can take such action is in times of invasion or rebellion, as stated by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2. It stipulates and I quote, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The insurrection and rebellion perpetrated by the south clearly justified such actions.
Technically correct, and the use of force by Lincoln ended the point in a few years. However the Constitution is silent on a state being able to recind its ratification and leave the Union. Three states specifically had their entery into the Union conditional on them being able to leave in the Future (TX, who also has the option to split into 5 states, FL and Arkansas. I think it is probably a mute point at this time.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
Reply
Find
Reply
07-07-2017, 08:32 PM,
#6
RE: Were Confederate Generals Traitors?
*
Posts: 320
Threads: 14
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation: 0
#6
The Confederate Generals were not traitors. The Southern States had a clear right to secede, in just the same way the colonies seceded from Great Britain. Lee was correct in resigning from the US army, as his stated loyalties were first and foremost to his state, and not the Federal Government.
Reply
Find
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Red Dot Arms Forum | Return to Top | | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication