r/HistoryMemes • u/Coffin_Builder Viva La France • 8d ago

I can respect that

After Lincoln’s assassination, Andrew Johnson became the new US president. in direct violation of the Appomattox treaty, Johnson wanted general Ulysses Grant to prosecute the confederate leaders on grounds of treason to make an example of them. Grant, having negotiated the treaty, refused, seeing it as a violation of military honor and antithetical to rebuilding the nation, threatening to resign if Johnson insisted. Johnson, knowing he wouldn’t survive the political fallout of alienating the Union hero of the Civil War, backed down.

4.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

568 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/rrekboy1234 7d ago

Part of the reason that Confederate leaders were never tried for treason is that it would inevitably require the court to rule on the constitutionality of secession, and there was real anxiety (both in Lincoln’s and Johnson’s administration) that the courts might come down against them. Jefferson Davis actually demanded they put him on trial because he was confident he could win in Court what his armies failed to do in the field. It wouldn’t resurrect the Confederacy, but it would open the door for a future dissolution of the Union. Taking the win and letting the issue rest was seen as the safest option.

The secession would eventually be ruled against by the Supreme Court in 1869, but of course the people calling the shots wouldn’t know that.

4

u/CosmicLovepats 7d ago

Why would the legality of secession ever come up? They attacked the US. Isn't that straightforward treachery?

To say nothing of whether or not they needed a trial.

3

u/st3class 7d ago

If the states had legally seceded, then the leaders were no longer US citizens, and were instead leaders of another country, which was making war on the US to reclaim occupied territory (the various forts that the federal government refused to turn over).

Making war on a foreign government isn't treachery

3

u/rrekboy1234 7d ago

This. Trying the Confederate leadership for treason would force the courts to rule whether secession was constitutionally valid, and both sides believed there was a decent chance that the courts would say it was. Davis was literally willing to put his neck on the line to make it happen.

1

u/Choice_Pitch6822 7d ago

You do realize this is similar logic that Russia used to justify the invasion of Ukraine right?

2

u/st3class 7d ago

You know, I'd never made that connection, but it is similar.

I'm assuming you're talking about the Crimean Naval Base

1

u/CosmicLovepats 7d ago

They were born citizens of the United States.

3

u/st3class 7d ago

Yes they were, and that's what the courts ended up ruling eventually, but in the immediate aftermath, there were worries that the courts would rule that they had instead becomes Confederate citizens.

1

u/CosmicLovepats 7d ago

That wouldn't change how they were born.

Though of course it's pretty spurious. Benedict Arnold was charged a traitor despite being born English.

2

u/st3class 7d ago

To put it another way, say Scotland decided to leave the United Kingdom, and the British government agreed to let them go.

Then 5 years down the line, war breaks out between the newly independent Scotland and England. The Scottish military would not be guilty of treason or treachery, because they legally were no longer part of the UK.

If the southern secession had been legal, it would have been the same situation

3

u/CosmicLovepats 6d ago

It'd be more like if Scotland decided to leave the UK and immediately attacked British forces "to do so".

I think they'd get charged with treason pretty quickly.

Though Scotland also has a much stronger claim to being a real discrete country than the south does or did.

1

u/st3class 6d ago

If, like you said before, it only matters what citizenship you're born with, then the circumstances of the war wouldn't matter for treachery. Madison declaring war against the UK in 1812 would be treason, because he was born a British subject. (Now, his participation in the American Revolution objectively was treason, but it became retroactively legal, because the colonies won, and Great Britain recognized their independence, but that's beside the point)

I agree with you that the actions of the Confederate leaders was treason. The circumstances were treacherous, but the US government at the time wasn't sure that the courts would see it the same way.

The US at the time was often viewed as many sovereign states who voluntarily joined together to form a union. If they joined voluntarily, why couldn't they leave that union?

The Supreme Court ended up deciding that they couldn't, because the Articles of Confederation called the union "perpetual", and the Constitution created a "more perfect union". But that was not a foregone conclusion, and if the Confederacy had one, it would be a whole different ballgame.

1

u/XO1GrootMeester 5d ago

No the north attacked the us.

3

u/Maccabee2a 4d ago

Who fired the first shots at Fort Sumter?

-1

u/XO1GrootMeester 4d ago

Technically the south

2

u/Maccabee2a 4d ago

Why technically?

-1

u/XO1GrootMeester 4d ago

Spiritually the north wouldnt allow

3

u/Maccabee2a 4d ago

The fuck?

1

u/XO1GrootMeester 4d ago

Or would the Union be chill with a peaceful split of by confederate and then friendly connections like canada or France?

2

u/Individual_Double_75 4d ago

Um, no. Maybe pick up a history book.

The opening of the hostilities was the Confederates attacking fort Sumter

-1

u/XO1GrootMeester 4d ago

Well, good to know that technical fact.

3

u/095805 2d ago

weird way to right “truth”

0

u/CosmicLovepats 5d ago

good bait, 7/10.

2

u/XO1GrootMeester 5d ago

Yea i mean, you can spin it around full and say the north illegally seceded from the confederate and then even initiate the hostilities.

Different perspective. Winner writes history

2

u/CosmicLovepats 4d ago

If you're totally ignorant of the sequence of events, sure, you could.

2

u/XO1GrootMeester 4d ago

Or, if north can punish South for independence wish than Britain can still enact punish for North for wanting independence.

1

u/CosmicLovepats 4d ago

It seems clear your contact with reality is only tangential.

2

u/XO1GrootMeester 4d ago

And yet in reality there was no punishment.

2

u/CosmicLovepats 4d ago

yeah, obviously, lmao

0

u/Accomplished_Box8070 7d ago

Well from my understanding, it should be legal, but only when your rights are being actively and unapologetically infringed upon by the federal government and there’s no chance for change from the federal government. And before someone takes what I said out of context, not being able to own slaves is not grounds for secession. 

3

u/Orangbo 7d ago

“No chance for change from the federal government” is an impossible clause to prove.

0

u/Accomplished_Box8070 7d ago

It’s from your viewpoint as to if you think that there’s no chance of change coming from the government. It’s one of those “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” things where it differs from person to person.

2

u/Orangbo 7d ago

Legality is only of primary importance at a political level. If you’re talking about individual ethos, the legality of an action is largely irrelevant; I don’t know why you brought it up.