Jefferson Davis & Benedict Arnold

[roo_ster]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGM4YzgzNGQwOWEyNDU1OGVmYTFhMDA1ZjNiYThhMTA=

Jefferson Davis was an unhung traitor. He did not, like Benedict Arnold, receive money for his treachery, but he received office instead. The difference is one of degree, not of kind. The two men stand on an evil eminence of infamy in our history.

Roosevelt to George McClellan Harvey, Sept. 19, 1904

One note: Arnold received money and a comission in the Limey Army, if I am not mistaken.

[richyoung]

By the same logic, so's George Washington....

[Ezekiel]

Concur.

Washington, however, won.

There's your "difference," historically.

By the same logic, so's George Washington....

[BrokenPaw]

I seem to recall reading a quote somewhere:  "Treason is a matter of dates."  I don't know who said it, but it's exactly true.

-BP

[roo_ster]

Ezekiel nailed it.  Failed traitors got hung, or in less enlightened time, drawn & quartered.  Successful traitors ate foi gras and died in their beds.

FWIW, I thought that TR's opinion was of interest in this matter, as well as the kid glove treatment the leaders of the rebellion received from the victors.

[Hugh Damright]

Yankees sure like to say that the South committed treason. It is a lie. Yankees turned against our Constitution, they defied federal law, and it was because of this Yankee treason that the South had to secede in hopes of preserving our free and constitutional government. Jefferson Davis was a great man. Only a very sick bigoted fool of a man would suggest that Jefferson Davis turned against the Constitution for personal power.

[SomeKid]

Hugh is Damright.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yankees sure like to say that the South committed treason. It is a lie. Yankees turned against our Constitution, they defied federal law, and it was because of this Yankee treason that the South had to secede in hopes of preserving our free and constitutional government. Jefferson Davis was a great man. Only a very sick bigoted fool of a man would suggest that Jefferson Davis turned against the Constitution for personal power.

If the South had truly wanted to preserve the Constitution and their liberties, then they should have worked within the political system to bring that about.  Instead, they set off down a path calculated to cause a war.  Worse, they neglected to win the war they deliberately started.  That their position on political liberties may have been the right one doesn't justify the rank stupidity of the manner in which the Southern leadership handled matter.

I think the rebellion of the South was as much about Southern pride and ego as it was about political motives.

[BryanP]

Don't insult Benedict Arnold that way.  He was a loyal subject of his king.   

[Glock Glockler]

If the South had truly wanted to preserve the Constitution and their liberties, then they should have worked within the political system to bring that about

So the Colonies should have worked within the system instead of declaring independance?  The only thing the South is guilty of is loosing. 

[El Tejon]

People say the South committed treason because the South committed Treason.  The South initiated war on the Union to save slavery and their beloved "way of life", i.e. one man owning another man.

While Jefferson Davis, Bobby Lee, and many, many others should have been executed, Lincoln was too great a man to allow this to happen and it may have started a guerilla war turning the entire South into Missouri or Arkansas.

[Ezekiel]

The only thing the South is guilty of is loosing.

The above seems more than a little romanticized.

From a knee-jerk perspective, dissolving the union -- to "save" it -- seems counterproductive.  The South desired a new Nation, not a preserved union incorporating their ideals.

If we're going to be simplistic, the Civil War was an insurrection put down.  Jefferson Davis was lucky to receive the treatment he got.

Winning changes everything, no? 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If the South had truly wanted to preserve the Constitution and their liberties, then they should have worked within the political system to bring that about

So the Colonies should have worked within the system instead of declaring independance?  The only thing the South is guilty of is loosing. 

The differences between the colonial rebellion and the Southern rebellion were that, one, the South could have achieved their goals  politically whereas the colonies couldn't have, and two, that the South never had a chance of winning militarily whereas the colonials did.

Judging by deeds rather than words, it becomes clear the political liberties were somewhat lower on the list of priorities than Jeff Davis and his fellow rebels would have us believe.  There were better ways to achieve their stated goals then to throw the country into a bloody and  hopeless war.

Oh, and I wouldn't understate the "guilt" of losing.  If you're going to start a war, you'd better be prepared to win it.  If you don't win it, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.  It is nothing short of a miracle that Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis didn't finish the war dangling from trees.

[El Tejon]

As long as the North co-existed with the South could never ensure that their political goal, the preservation of slavery, would be achieved.  Even with all the giveaways to the South, Missouri Compromise, Kansas, Compromise of 1850, Fugitive Slave Act, inter alia, the existence of a alternative free zone would eventually undermined the racial supremacy that the South was built upon. 

The South had to committ treason if it was to save slavery.  Knights of the Golden Circle aside, Southern slave-holding expansion into Central and South America, was a delusion and simply not feasible.  The South had to hedgehog.

[CAnnoneer]

the South could have achieved their goals  politically

Please explain how. Due to demographics and western expansion, they were losing control of Congress irreversibly. This is like saying gunowners in San Francisco could have kept their guns by working within the system. Both local gun bans and the political eve of the Civil War are bolshevik examples of the majority moving to trample the minority.

[Perd Hapley]

The South could have achieved their goals politically whereas the colonies couldn't have,

True.  The Founders were quite diligent in trying to affect change through the usual channels.  The South panicked at the election of Lincoln.

Oh, and I wouldn't understate the "guilt" of losing.  If you're going to start a war, you'd better be prepared to win it.  If you don't win it, then you have nobody to blame but yourself.

A revolutionary war yes.  Other wars?  Meh. 

[richyoung]

If the South had truly wanted to preserve the Constitution and their liberties, then they should have worked within the political system to bring that about. 

Per the Constitution, neighboring states were OBLIGATED to return escapoed slaves.  Not only did they NOT do that, they actively PROMOTED the practice.  In doing so, the Northern states had made the Constitution ull and void, by failing to fulfill their obligations under it to the Southern states.

Instead, they set off down a path calculated to cause a war.

NO.  They seceeded.  The NORTH chose to have a war.

Worse, they neglected to win the war they deliberately started.  

Point taken.  The South was both unable and unwilling to out-"crimes against humanity" Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln.

That their position on political liberties may have been the right one doesn't justify the rank stupidity of the manner in which the Southern leadership handled matter.

Given that working within the system wasn't working, what choice did they have but to withdraw?  Even the Columbia Record Club will eventually let you leave...

I think the rebellion of the South was as much about Southern pride and ego as it was about political motives.

I hope the rest of yur thinking is less grounded in prejudice, and more in fact.

[K Frame]

"The NORTH chose to have a war."

Yep, the North chose to open hostilities by firing siege guns at the citizens of another "nation."

Oh, wait, the South Carolina militia, with the backing of the confederate government, chose to do that.

That's certainly a way to avoid a general war.

Using that "logic," the United States CHOSE to have a war in 1941 when the Japanese decided to assert their "rights."

[richyoung]

"The NORTH chose to have a war."

Yep, the North chose to open hostilities by firing siege guns at the citizens of another "nation."

...who were part of the army of a foreign nation in continued occupation of sovereign land it no longer had a right to be on.

Oh, wait, the South Carolina militia, with the backing of the confederate government, chose to do that.

And where, pray tell, is Fort Sumter located?  Here's ahint - it AINT in Maine!  How many times did the South attempt a peaceful evacuation?  Lincoln WANTED a fight, and he arranged things so that he got one!

That's certainly a way to avoid a general war.

Sometimes the playground bully leaves you no option but to fight - even if it means striking the first blow.

Using that "logic," the United States CHOSE to have a war in 1941 when the Japanese decided to assert their "rights."

The US did INDEED "choose" to have a war in 1941 with Japan.  The plan to instigate it was outlined in the McCollum memo.  You can read it at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo

[roo_ster]

The rebels started a war that did not have to be.  So Lincoln ordered the men in Ft Sumter to stay put.  Big deal.  They were no threat to the rebels, who played into Lincoln's hands.

...the Confederate cabinet decided at a meeting in Montgomery, Alabama, to open fire on Fort Sumter in an attempt to force its surrender before the relief fleet arrived. Only Secretary of State Robert Toombs opposed this decision: he reportedly told Jefferson Davis the attack "will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest.... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal."

Rebel perfidy was met and exceeded by rebel politcal idiocy.

--------------------

One other similarity that Davis & Arnold shared was a record of good military capability before betraying their country.  Too bad for the rebels that Davis's political capability did not match his previously demonstrated military capability.

--------------------

[WR Olsen]

For an interesting study of the legal/political actions that lead to the Civil War try reading a book titled:
"Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney" (sorry but I can't remember the author) Rather than emotions it discusses the legal arguments that lead to the war.

[Iain]

Civil wars are bloody things, even so long after the fact.

What's that quote, something like treason never prospers for if it does none dare call it treason.

[richyoung]

The rebels started a war that did not have to be. 

that's not your call to make - it was the residents of the south who had the right to make that call, and the right to leave the union.

So Lincoln ordered the men in Ft Sumter to stay put.

 

In a place they no longer had a right to be.  Suppose Britain refusing to remove armed forces from Hong Kong after their lease on it expired?

Big deal.  They were no threat to the rebels,

A fort with cannon in the middle of a priciple harbor occupied by hostile armed forces is "no threat" to harbor traffic?  You aren't building up much credibility....