7. what did most confederate generals and leaders decide to do after robert e. lee surrendered?

He was defendant of treason. Only the hunger for reconciliation saved him.

Vii weeks after Robert Eastward. Lee's give up at Appomattox Court House, Judge John C. Underwood demanded justice, while providing instructions to a federal chiliad jury in Norfolk, Virginia. He defined treason every bit "wholesale murder" that "embraces in its sweep all the crimes of the Decalogue." This horrific act, Underwood alleged, had murdered tens of thousands of young Americans during the contempo war, "by the slaughter on the battlefields, and by starvation in the most loathsome dungeons." He was outraged that the men about responsible for the rebellion – "with hands dripping with the blood of our slaughtered innocents and martyred President" – were yet still at large.

Underwood urged the grand jurors to send a message to their countrymen that time to come rebellions would not be tolerated, stating, "It is for you lot to teach them that those who sow the wind must reap the cyclone; that clemency and mercy to them would be cruelty and murder to the innocent and unborn." He then concluded his remarks by advising that Robert Due east. Lee would not exist protected from prosecution by his agreement with Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox on April 9, 1865.

On June 7, 1865, Underwood'south m jury indicted Robert East. Lee for treason, charging him with "wickedly, maliciously, and traitorously" carrying on state of war confronting the Constitution and the "peace and nobility" of the U.s.. Lee faced death by hanging, if constitute guilty of the charges.

Americans today might not know about Lee's indictment by the Norfolk g jury. The actual indictment went missing for 72 years and many scholars remain unaware that information technology has been constitute. All told, 39 Amalgamated leaders would be indicted for treason by Underwood's court.

Our amnesia near this episode becomes evident periodically. Before long afterward a rally held by white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia, White Firm Chief of Staff John Kelly said in an interview that Robert E. Lee "gave up his state to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. It was ever loyalty to state beginning back in those days. Now information technology's different today."

It wasn't different back then. Amalgamated leaders, who placed their allegiance to their states above the federal authority, were charged with treason by the United states of america government. In the antiquated linguistic communication of his indictment, Lee was accused of "not having the fright of God before his eyes, nor weighing the duty of his said allegiance, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil … to subvert, and to stir, move and incite coup, rebellion and state of war against the said United states." Like his fellow citizens, Kelly appears unaware of this history. Somehow, we seem to have erased this event from our commonage retention.

Despite President Andrew Johnson'due south commitment to prosecuting the indicted rebels, the charges were somewhen dropped in Feb 1869, afterwards a series of false starts and procedural delays. In the stop, the very understandable desire for reconciliation among both northerners and southerners after the war was accounted more than of import than the obligation to punish those who tried to destroy the Republic. The pervasive idea that the Ceremonious War was just a misunderstanding between "men and women of skilful faith on both sides," as General Kelly said in the interview, is a straight result of the decision to drop the treason charges against the Confederate leadership.

Even though Lee may take been an excellent soldier and a fine admirer, he also violated the U.S. Constitution in gild to defend a society built upon chattel slavery. This mustn't be forgotten. In Trump'due south America, we are witnessing the reemergence of white nationalism along with virtually daily challenges to constitutional norms. In calorie-free of these alarming trends, Americans will benefit from revisiting the legal case confronting Robert East. Lee after the Civil War.

Initially, Lee had reason to be hopeful. Full general Grant intended that the Confederate soldiers would not face up treason trials and severe punishments. His agreement with Lee at Appomattox ended, "each officer and man will exist allowed to return to his home, not to be disturbed by the The states potency so long every bit they notice their paroles and the laws in force where they may reside." That terminal line has been described past the historian Bruce Catton equally 1 of the greatest sentences in American history.

Grant maintained that Lee "would not have surrendered his army, and given up all their arms, if he had supposed that after the give up he was going to be tried for treason and hanged." There was another consideration as well. After having waged a fell full war against the South, Grant wrote his wife in tardily April 1865 that he was "broken-hearted to see peace restored, so that farther devastation need not take identify in the country."He felt the suffering of the South in the future would "be beyond conception" and observed, "People who talk of farther retaliation and penalty, except of the political leaders, either practise not conceive of the suffering endured already or they are heartless and unfeeling and wish to stay at habitation out of danger while the penalty is being inflicted."

Andrew Johnson, who became president after the death of Lincoln just half-dozen days after Appomattox, saw things much differently. A southerner from Tennessee, who remained loyal to the Union, Johnson was well-known for his uncompromising stance on treason. After the autumn of Richmond in early April 1865, he had declared, "treason is the highest crime known in the catalogue of crimes" and "treason must exist fabricated odious and traitors must be punished." For Johnson, death would be "as well easy a punishment" for the traitors. In 1 of his greatest speeches, delivered in the Senate in December 1860, he said South Carolina had put itself "in an mental attitude of levying war confronting the U.s.." He added, "it is treason, nothing just treason." A few months afterwards, Johnson declared on the Senate flooring that if he were president and was faced with traitors, he would "have them arrested and if convicted, within the meaning and telescopic of the Constitution, by Eternal God," he'd have them executed.

Johnson's desire for retribution represented a stark contrast with the seemingly lenient, benevolent attitude of Abraham Lincoln. On the forenoon of April ten, the twenty-four hours after the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Courtroom Business firm, Johnson had hurried over to the White House so he could protest straight with the president against the indulgent terms given to Lee past Grant. Johnson believed Grant should take held Lee in prison until the administration figured out what to do with him. During the late afternoon on April 14, just hours before the attack at Ford's Theatre, Johnson had met privately with the president, telling Lincoln he was going also piece of cake on the rebels. Johnson noted that he'd be much, much tougher on traitors if he were president.

Upon becoming president, Johnson received widespread back up for his program to prosecute the leading rebels. Grieving northerners wrote Johnson messages proverb that the assassination of Lincoln was somehow a natural outcome of treason confronting the Union. 1 citizen described John Wilkes Berth equally having graduated from the "university of treason" that had Jefferson Davis and Robert Due east. Lee as teachers. Beyond the Due north, at that place was an outflow of anger over the assassination and Andrew Johnson heard the growing drumbeat for bringing Lee, Davis, and the other Confederate leaders to justice.

Earlier Johnson could prosecute Lee, he needed to brand sure that Grant's understanding with Lee didn't prohibit civil charges from being filed after the state of war was concluded. Johnson sought advice on this subject from Full general Benjamin Butler, a prominent attorney from Massachusetts who had also served in the field for much of the war. Later on surveying the historical record, Butler argued that a parole was merely a military arrangement that allowed a prisoner "the privilege of fractional liberty, instead of close confinement." Information technology did not in whatsoever way lessen the possibility of being tried for crimes resulting from wartime activities.

Having reviewed Lee'southward agreement with Grant, Butler asserted: "Their give up was a purely armed forces convention and referred to military terms but. It could non and did not alter in any style or in whatsoever degree the ceremonious rights or criminal liabilities of the captives either in persons or belongings as a treaty of peace might have done." Butler so concluded "that there is no objection arising out of their give up every bit prisoners of war to the trial of Lee and his officers for whatsoever offenses confronting municipal laws." This finding paved the fashion for the Johnson administration's determination to pursue charges against Lee in Judge Underwood's courtroom in June 1865.

Grant fiercely objected to the decision to indict Lee and the other Confederate leaders. In a alphabetic character on Lee's behalf to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, Grant wrote:

In my opinion the officers and men paroled at Appomattox C.H. and since upon the same terms given to Lee, can not be tried for treason so long equally they notice the terms of their parole…. I will state further that the terms granted by me met with the hearty approval of the President at the time, and of the country generally. The action of Judge Underwood in Norfolk has already had an injurious result, and I would enquire that he be ordered to quash all indictments found against paroled prisoners of war, and to desist from further prosecution of them.

Despite Grant's sincerity, his beliefs nearly the paroles were most certainly incorrect. It's difficult to imagine that an understanding hammered out between two generals on a battlefield could protect thousands of men from treason charges or possible state of war crimes.

Unsurprisingly, Johnson differed with Grant and told him so. What happened between them remains a mystery. Between June 16 and June 20, 1865, Grant and Johnson met in one case or twice to talk over the indictment of Lee by the Norfolk grand jury. The ii disagreed vehemently on how to handle Lee in the future. Johnson wanted to prosecute him, while Grant believed the paroles protected him from penalisation for his wartime deportment. Grant may take even threatened to resign his commission if Lee was arrested and prosecuted. Finally, on June 20, 1865, Chaser General James Speed wrote Norfolk District Chaser Lucius Chandler, regarding the recently indicted Confederate leaders: "I am instructed past the President to direct you not to have warrants of abort taken out against them or any of them til further orders."

Many writers take repeated Grant's belief that this resulted in a "quashing" of the charges confronting Lee. This view is mistaken. In his alphabetic character to Chandler, Speed instructed him not to arrest them "til farther orders." Johnson and Speed were willing to concede that the paroles protected the Amalgamated officers as long as the war continued. The war wouldn't officially end until the rebellion was finally put down in Texas in August 1866. Toward the end of 1865, Johnson and his cabinet decided to prosecute Jefferson Davis first instead. Information technology made sense to begin treason trials with the erstwhile Confederate President, who was frequently referred to as an "arch traitor" by the northern press. Davis was existence held at Fortress Monroe in Virginia and was mistakenly believed by many Americans to have been connected to the conspirators in the Lincoln assassination. If the government couldn't win a example against Davis, so time to come treason trials against the residuum of the Amalgamated leadership would exist untenable, to say the least. It's likely Lee would have been tried side by side, after a successful prosecution of Davis.

By early 1866, the Johnson assistants had fabricated several decisions that would take a major impact on possible cases confronting the former rebels. Showtime, it had decided that treason trials must exist held before a civil court rather than a armed services tribunal and any jury trials would exist held where the crimes were committed. In the cases of Davis and Lee, the appropriate venue would be in the state of Virginia. Johnson's cabinet also agreed that Chief Justice Salmon Chase must preside over treason trials, along with Estimate John C. Underwood, in the Circuit Courtroom serving Virginia in Richmond. Everyone believed the Primary Justice would provide legitimacy to whatever guilty verdicts that might exist found. Plus, the abolitionist Approximate Underwood was viewed as too partisan to handle the cases on his ain.

The insistence that Hunt preside over the Davis trial resulted in countless delays. The Main Justice wouldn't announced in the Circuit Court until the war officially declared over in August 1866. Once he was ready in March 1867, then it was the government'due south prosecution team that needed more time. After being pushed until the jump of 1868, the trial was delayed again while Chase presided over the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. There seemed to be no end to the comedy of errors.

The postponements may accept spared the Johnson administration a humiliating "not guilty" verdict in the Davis example. The decision to try treason cases in Virginia made information technology highly likely that one or more jurors would vote for acquittal. In 1866, Judge Underwood had told the Joint Committee on Reconstruction that the only way Davis or Lee could be convicted of treason would be with a "packed jury." When questioned nigh whether he could pack a jury to convict Davis, Underwood answered, "I think it would exist very difficult, simply it could be washed; I could pack a jury to convict him; I know very hostage, ardent Union men in Virginia." Underwood eventually assembled the commencement mixed-race jury in Virginia history for the Davis trial, but the prosecution team was nevertheless wary. And Andrew Johnson'southward racism fabricated him extremely uncomfortable that a jury that included African Americans might decide such an important example.

Ultimately, it seemed more and more likely that the government might lose in the Davis instance and Johnson, who became a lame duck in November 1868, decided to drop all of the charges against Davis, Lee, and the other 37 Amalgamated leaders in February 1869, just one calendar month earlier the inauguration of the new president, Ulysses South. Grant. Despite Andrew Johnson's best efforts, it's undeniable he failed to make treason odious. There would be no convictions and punishments for the offense of treason committed during the Civil War. When Johnson left role, John Chocolate-brown had been the but American in United states of america history executed for treason.

Johnson blamed Hunt for the failure, citing the delays of 1865 and 1866. He besides faulted Congress for impeaching him. If Johnson had been off-white, he too, would accept had to take some of the blame. His administration'due south conclusion to try treason cases where the crimes were really committed causeless that impartial juries could be found in these places. This was wishful thinking. Only war machine commissions or northern juries were likely to convict Davis, Lee, and the other Confederate leaders of treason.

In the end, his administration offered amnesty to all participants in the rebellion, while insisting treason had in fact been committed by the Confederate leadership. Perhaps treason had not been made odious, yet it's also true America has never had a widespread rebellion since. The 14th Amendment made it clear that citizens now owed their chief fidelity to the federal government, non the individual states.

Years after Lee's death, John William Jones – a clergyman at Washington College – wrote, "this noble man died 'a prisoner of war on parole' – his application for 'amnesty' was never granted, or even noticed – and the commonest privileges of citizenship, which are accorded to the virtually ignorant negro were denied thisrex of men." Jones is not quite right in his assessment. Thetruestory of Lee'south penalty for his office in the state of war is far more nuanced than Jones indicated.

The toughest penalty against Lee was the government's decision in January 1864 to acquire his family manor at Arlington due to unpaid taxes. This was a huge loss for Lee personally and his family would not exist compensated for it during his lifetime. The Arlington estate, now the site of Arlington National Cemetery, remains federal property to this day.

Lee suffered yet another penalisation past the government for his role in the war, equally a result of the ratification of the 14th Amendment in July 1868. According to Section 3: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any role, civil or war machine, under the United states of america, or under whatsoever state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or equally an officeholder of the United states of america … shall have engaged in coup or rebellion confronting the aforementioned, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

In addition to being prevented from holding public office, Lee was initially prohibited from voting in his beloved Virginia after the war. Lee's voting rights, along with other former rebels, were restored in July 1869, however. At the time of his death, Lee would take been eligible to vote in Virginia.

On Christmas Day, 1868, Johnson provided a general immunity and pardon to anybody who participated in the rebellion, including Lee. For political reasons, Johnson never intended to reply individually to Lee's pardon application of 1865. Johnson had decided to not personally pardon either Lee or Jefferson Davis. The latter, a bitter foe of Johnson, would never ask for one.

When we step back and await at the U.S. government's treatment of Lee, we see that he did endure substantial economic and political penalties for his part in commanding the armies of the Confederate States of America. Most of them, but non all, had been removed by the time of his decease. When you gene in the loss of Arlington, information technology'southward fair to say that Lee paid dearly for his decision to side with the Southward. Northerners and southerners nevertheless tended to view Lee'south treatment differently. Many northerners felt Lee had been lucky to escape the hangman'southward noose, and should have been somewhat more than conciliatory toward the regime every bit a upshot. The vast majority of southerners, on the other manus, believed their hero had been treated harshly by the authorities. It fabricated it difficult for them to restore their allegiance to a government that would act in such a mode.

Today, nosotros no longer remember the seriousness of the treason charges that were fabricated against Lee in 1865. Past forgetting, it's been easier to remember Robert E. Lee as an "honorable man," as John Kelly recently described him. The renowned abolitionist Frederick Douglass warned future generations of Americans about the danger of forgetting this history in a speech communication titled "Address at the Graves of the Unknown Dead" on Decoration Twenty-four hours, May 30, 1871. Delivered at Arlington National Cemetery, the sometime location of Lee's family unit estate, Douglass wondered, "I say, if this war is to be forgotten, I ask, in the name of all things sacred, what shall men remember?" He urged his audience to never forget that "victory to the rebellion meant death to the Republic."

greenjimery.blogspot.com

Source: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/169189

Share this post