Brent Cooper
Trial and appellate counsel for Cooper & Scully (1993–present)Wed

Why did the Union not execute generals and politicians of the
Confederacy for treason after the Civil War? Wouldn't it have been
justified?

Several reasons. Grant promised Lee it would not happen. The Appomattox
terms of surrender offered and signed by Grant included the clause “…
.... In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox
Court-House, and since, upon the same terms given to Lee, cannot be
tried for treason so long as they observe the terms of their parole.

“But on June 7, 1865, U.S. District Judge John C. Underwood in Norfolk,
Virginia, handed down treason indictments against Lee, James Longstreet,
Jubal Early, and others stating the terms of parole agreed upon with Lee
were “a mere military arrangement, and can have no influence upon civil
rights or the status of the persons interested.” When Lee, who was
preparing to apply for amnesty, became aware of the indictments, he
wrote Grant asking if the Appomattox terms were still in effect.”

“Grant also visited personally with President Johnson to discuss the
situation, but was dismayed to find that Johnson fully intended to let
the proceedings continue. Grant insisted the Appomattox terms be
honored. Johnson asked when the men could be tried. “Never,” Grant
responded, “unless they violate their paroles.”

“Andrew Johnson, however, was just as stubborn as Grant and told the
general he wouldn’t interfere with the prosecution. Grant too refused to
back down, telling the President he would resign his commission if the
surrender terms were not honored. Johnson realized he had lost; the
public would never support him over the far-more popular Grant. Word was
sent to the U.S. District Attorney in Norfolk to drop the proceedings.“

So that takes care of the generals.

Next is the politicians. Jefferson Davis was arrested and charged with
treason. But he was never brought to trial and even was released.

Richard Henry Dana Jr., one of the main prosecuting lawyers, was
convinced that Davis’ attorney, Charles O’Conor, was going to say
secession is legal, and, if secession was legal, Davis could not have
committed treason. There was ample legal precedent for the argument.
Most of it created by Northern states. On occasion lawyers lose faith in
their ability to win a case and begin to pitch ideas against trying it,
in the hopes that their client will agree in its futility. Dana’s client
of course, was Andrew Johnson. Dana knew that many of the Northern
states had threatened secession in the past. Surely, David’s lawyer
would argue, that the Northern states would not be threatening secession
if such an act were illegal.

if Davis were tried and won, would the trial undo what had been fought
for in the war? Dana convinced Johnson that a trial of Davis in. O way
guaranteed a conviction and it wasn’t worth the risk involved.

So that takes care of the politicians.

Grant Protects Lee From Treason Trial

4.6K viewsView 64 upvotesView shares

Profile photo for Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson
12h ago
I don’t know about the legal conundrum facing President Johnson but it
is very clear that the US founding fathers would have disagreed with The
concept that the Federation was eternal. Read the declaration of
independence and it says something about governments being formed… And
the rights of citizens to unform these governments. Whilst I appreciate
that the declaration of independence has limited legal validity it has a
degree of moral validity especially in the USA which would make it
difficult to convict Confederate generals or politicians. After all do
USA could hardly imitate King James the second and lop off the heads of
those who have committed treason . By revolting against King Charles.
This was why I thought Biden should have pardoned the treason of those
who assaulted the Capitol provided they reported to a Court House pled
guilty to Treason and begged forgiveness.

Profile photo for Brent Cooper
Brent Cooper
2h ago
Some of the northern founding fathers were the ones talking about
secession of the north

Profile photo for Paul Riggs
Paul Riggs
Wed
Richard H Dana Jr was also the author of the memoir “Two Years Before
the Mast” which told of his medically-recommended break from his legal
studies for the health of his eyesight after a case of measles. He chose
to spend it as a common sailor on a merchant brig Pilgrim. It includes a
harrowing trip “around the horn” and 1830s views of landing at San Pedro
to take on hides from the “ranchos” around the village of Los Angeles up
the trickle of river from the landings. Great read for history buffs.

Pete Julian

I once read that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court warned Johnson
against trying DAVIS for secession/treason, as it was his opinion that
DAVIS was not guilty and be vindicated, finding that secession was
legal. Jeffersonian AMERICA died in 1865, and Hamilton’s vision for an
all powerful central government took over.

Ned Johnson

Profile photo for Brent Cooper
Brent Cooper
Wed
The Trial of Jefferson Davis is a great book if you can find it

Profile photo for Dan Urriola
Dan Urriola
Wed
Another interesting read. Thank you.

I would have agreed with O'Conor in that case. I don't think they should
be considered treasonous. Right or wrong in what they did.

States willingly entered the Union and there is nothing in the
Constitution forbidding them to leave. I'd say they had every right to
succeed. What happened after was simply a war between separate
Countries. The American Civil War wasn't really a civil war.

My favorite thing today is to listen to my neighbors in California argue
to succeed. By all means, please do. Same issue today though, we keep
all of the military bases etc.

Profile photo for Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson
10h ago
In the event of successful secession the seceding party and the original
entity become different countries. In the event of a successful
Californian or Texan secession The government of the seceding state
Determines which bases become foreign military bases.

If California Seceded Californians would no longer be Americans in the
sense that it is often used. They would become Americans in the same way
as Mexicans are currently Americans.

as it stands at the moment my understanding is that no State can secede
from the union. However the British would’ve said the same thing about
the American colonies in 1775.

Profile photo for John Root
John Root
2h ago
I always thought one of the big post-war goals was reconciliation
between the North and the South. Trying and executing Southern
politicians and generals certainly wouldn’t have contributed positively
to this goal.