Civil War News Facebook Poll

Originally published October 2020 · pp. 14–15

The following three questions were posted on the Civil War News Facebook page. Currently, the media narrative is to call the Confederate generals traitors, therefore, providing a sufficient reason to redesignate military bases named after them, and remove any monuments or statues, and rename streets, schools, and buildings memorializing them. While these are simple questions, the goal was to poll what people really think and understand. Civil War News has over 73,000 Facebook followers. The response of 265 individuals who took the time to not only answer the questions but provide commentary represents a small percentage, but there is no doubt the folks who responded are passionate and fairly knowledgeable about the topic. Some had a hard time limiting their commentary. The range of commentary provided additional food for thought. The responses indicated a near total lack of effective teaching about United States history. Both sides of the argument about treason and base naming made it evident by exposing the current educational system’s lack of dealing with America’s past. The first two questions are directly linked, however, not everyone understands the difference. The comments were lightly edited for punctuation and grammar. Some off-topic responses were deleted, but no revision has been made to the relevant comments.

Here are the three questions our followers were asked: 1. Do you think Confederate generals were traitors? 2. Do you think Confederate generals committed treason? 3. Do you think military base names should be changed if named after Confederates? Responses: 1. No: 233 2. No: 233 3. No: 231

Yes: 32 Yes: 32 Yes: 33

Facebook Comments History has always drawn a distinction between separatists, seeking independence from a greater nation, and traitors who seek to overthrow a nation and take over. So no to all 3. The question I ask to those who say traitor is this: Who was tried for treason and who was convicted of treason? No to all three questions. No to all. States were sovereign and the founding fathers intentionally omitted any laws forbidding the secession of a state. The reason this was purposely done was to give states the right to leave a government that used tyranny as a means of control. No. No. No. The people really should study their U.S. history. No, no, and definitely no. It all has to start somewhere and say enough is enough. No to all three. 1) Confederate generals were not traitors to their states 2) They did not commit treason because they were soldiers of their states akin to the National Guard. 3) Confederate generals were American generals after 1959. No to all three. And quite frankly, I’m offended by those questions. No to all three questions. We cannot place 21st century thinking on 19th-century people. Just as they would be appalled at some of the things our society views as OK today. Fine line between a traitor and a patriot…all brave AMERICANS deserving of respect. Funny to watch you all defend men who ruined their own states fighting for a cause to keep people from liberty by using them as slaves and then doubling down with the KKK, Jim Crow, and massive resistance. No, it was not just about slavery, but it was about keeping black people in their place of servitude and using racism as a tool. The South fought a war not to be free, but to keep others in bondage for perpetuity. No to all three. One of my favorite quotes is by Ovid. He said “Treason doth never prosper, what is the reason? For if treason prospers, none dare call it treason.” Only recently, 155 years following the close of the Civil War are we having this debate (the three questions). A little late for this BS in my opinion. No, no and no. Because it won’t end there—it’s just the beginning of a cultural revolution. Definitely NOT! Now liberals are asking that schools quit teaching history. That would not change any history, it would just result in more ignorant children. We should teach much more history so all students would know about the mistake’s mankind has made in the past.

No to all. States were sovereign and the founding fathers intentionally omitted any laws forbidding the secession of a state. The reason this was purposely done was to give states the right to leave a government that used tyranny as a means of control.

Yes, they committed treason and as such had to be pardoned for treason. Most of the military bases in question were hastily named at the beginning of WW2 by local governments. I don’t see any problem with renaming them.

States had the right to secede. A new country was formed. It was invaded. Confederate soldiers fought to defend it against that invasion. They definitely were traitors. They violated their oath of allegiance. When you take up arms against the nation and enter into open armed conflict, I would say you are in the midst of an act of treason. If we accept they were [traitors], then we must also remove Washington; he was a traitor as was Thomas Jefferson and the others. They all fought for what they believed to be right. The Confederates didn’t want to remove government like Washington did, they just wanted to have a say in how their states were run. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. Yes to all three, but only because winners make the history. The founding fathers were also traitors, but history views them much differently since America won that war. Most people who study American history understand more about the reasons people fought for the south than modern day “cancel culturalists” who seem to want to have the moral high ground. But historians also understand these are all controversial issues. Backed in a corner and made to answer with a simple yes or no, I’ll say NO on all three.

They fought for something they believed in. They were traitors and committed acts of treason in the same manner the Sons of Liberty and the Founding Fathers did. Thank God we won that war. Who knows where we’d be if we hadn’t?

I think a much better question to ask is, how many Confederate general officers were against secession, thinking it wasn’t legal.

I do believe they would be considered traitors, so yes to number 2 also, and I can definitely see a reason to change the names of the bases. No. History is history. You can’t change what was. Perhaps some form of educational plaque should be put at each to explain the times. People need to learn their history. The plaque at Fort Bragg could explain that Braxton Bragg was an inept Confederate general whose temperament cost him job after job following the war. Response: And a plaque at Lincoln’s crypt that explains the many crimes he committed on the people of the south. Also, Lincoln’s violations of the U.S. Constitution. The Presidential oath of office that Lincoln swore to was “to preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution of the U.S. Secession of states was not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution at that time. And there were no laws against it. Therefore, it was completely legal. By the same view, …the colonial patriot was a traitor to the crown. No to base changing, it’s our history, I believe that the Confederates thought they were right, it’s also our history, we won and that’s all there is to it. I could just scream at this business of changing our history and everything of who we are. No, they were not traitors; it was not treason. Leave the base names alone. Yes, yes and no. We cannot continue to erase our history. Like history or not, it is AMERICAN

HISTORY. Yes, they were traitors. Yes they committed treason. And they along with all Confederates were pardoned of this crime. My humble opinion on number 3 is to leave them alone. If there is a reason to update them to a more modern “hero/icon’s name so be it. But I don’t believe they should be changed just because they were Confederates. All those men were Americans first and in the end. I’m of the train of thought that, back then, States were still a separate and independent entity, or at least most people felt that way, so it was more defense of their home than treason against a country. I say no to all three. If the Confederate generals were previously in the U.S. Military, resigned their commissions and served as Confederate generals…yes, they were traitors and committed treason. After the War, did they sign loyalty oaths and did President Johnson issue a pardon…yes…then they were welcomed back as citizens. Did some serve in the U.S. Military after…yes…then it is mute to continue saying that they are still traitors. Response: The problem with your statement is they felt they had to be faithful to their first duty which is home state and family, they resigned their commission in the U.S. but legally resigning is not committing treason because they were no longer bound to that oath and decided to follow their state which legally voted to secede. US Army officer oath – 1830 to 1862: “I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve THEM honestly and faithfully against all THEIR enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the ----> rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States.” <--- I can find no period reference to the oath being viewed as a lifetime oath, meaning it applied up until separated from the service by resignation, dismissal or retirement. If there was an understanding that it was a true lifetime commitment, you would have had far fewer southerners with U.S.

commissions rushing to serve the CS military. No perpetuity clause in the Constitution (rejected in the Constitutional Convention), and the limitations on the power of government by the 10th Amendment, means no treason. Class dismissed. NO, do you say Washington was a traitor and committed treason against the Crown? No, you call him a patriot! The Confederates were patriots for their region. No to renaming bases. If you said yes, then you don’t support the constitution. Davis was not tried because he would have been exonerated by the constitution, so said the chief justice of the supreme court of the U.S. in 1866, when asked to indict Davis. Response: The southern people through their legislatures exercised their god given right to self-determination and were subsequently invaded by the U.S. army. Robert E Lee was asked by the Lincoln admin to lead an army to invade S.C., his answer is history, and I quote “I can’t believe a president would raise an army to invade his own country.” Sounds like tyranny to me. The southerner viewed the conflict as the second war of independence. Maybe you should have spent more time stopping your racist southern legislatures from erecting participation trophies on battlefields. Then the minimal parts of the southern cause that deserve a shred of dignity wouldn’t be so expendable. Yes, to all. Based on what another responder outlines in his comments under section 3. Treason shall consist only in levying war against the United States. As West Point graduates they knew they were committing treason. I disagree with them not being tried but I understand why they weren’t. Response: Weird that West Point would actually teach the right of secession. Jefferson Davis was never tried and condemned for treason, while illegally imprisoned for 2 years without a conviction. As Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase stated “If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion…His [Jefferson Davis’] capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Let’s just hide the past and pretend it didn’t happen. I’m sure that will fix everything. What freaking planet did I wake up to. Get a grip. Live today and stop trying to destroy this country by hiding its history. The hatred is just stupid.

CWN Yes, yes, and yes. How can we glorify men who betrayed their oath of allegiance to the USA and fought to preserve slavery? Thousands of U.S. soldiers died; due to the deeds of these despicable traitors. Would the war have happened at all if these turncoats had lived up to their oaths? Response: When they legally resigned their commission in the U.S. army they are no longer bound to that oath, so ultimately, they didn’t betray their oath, but decided to stay faithful to their first duty which is home state and family. How would the rebels have fared without, Lee, Johnson, Johnston, Longstreet, Stuart, Jackson and the rest of the West Point grads who betrayed their oaths. Honoring that oath would have saved hundreds of thousands lives. Resigning their commission is not defined as betrayal. So, I guess you would take up arms against your home state and family. What exactly would have saved thousands of lives is if the north recognized the rights of states to self-govern without the interference of a tyrannical central government and to recognize that they joined the union by free will and with the right to withdraw when they chose to do so when the union imposed its will on the sovereign states. No to all of them…it is HISTORY, and our family are reenactors for the Union. Yes x 3. Doesn’t change my appreciation or admiration for their battlefield skill, but yes to all three. Had the Confederacy won the war, would they have rejoined the U.S., but with their slaves? No. The U.S. never recognized their right to secede, but saw them as traitors to their flag, uniform, and country. Of course, they were traitors and the reason they are not treated as Washington and Revolutionary War vets is because they lost. Had they won, in the Confederacy at least, however that might look now, they would be treated as patriots. Seems a lot of folks are pretty mixed up on the definition of “patriot” in this country. Rename the bases. They were named after Confederates to curry favor in the racist south at the turn of the century through WW2, no other reason. Would like to say we are beyond that, but a quick review of these responses proves otherwise. Yes. Under the U.S. Constitution, the Confederate generals were traitors. They should have been executed.

The Confederates attacked a Federal fort and started the War. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them. Legally resigning from the U.S. army means they are no longer bound by that oath which cannot be defined as treasonous; they chose to stay loyal to their home state and family which is their first duty. Tell me did Lincoln acknowledge the south’s right to secession? What rights did Lincoln have to blockade the waters if he didn’t recognize their seceded status? Why resupply Ft. Sumter to force South Carolina back into the union if he didn’t recognize secession? Why raise an army of 75,000 volunteers to invade his own country? If Lincoln refused to acknowledge secession, then Lincoln waged a war against his own country. The Confederate generals and other soldiers were not traitors. The Confederate states seceded from the Union under the terms used in the original U.S. Declaration of Independence, which the U.S. sees as legal (though the British may have seen it different). Upon secession, the South formed a new country, a confederacy, where States were stronger than the central government. Officers in most cases resigned their commissions in the U.S. Army in order to stay with their home states or the Confederacy. Confederate officers were only bound by the new Confederate constitution and the laws of their state. Therefore, not traitors because they were citizens of a new country and fighting for their states. In the second inaugural address, Lincoln called for binding up the wounds of the nation, with malice toward none and justice for all. This is why there were not mass hangings of former officers of the Confederacy as a component of Reconstruction. Likewise, the same officers did not commit treason. You cannot commit treason against a country you are no longer a citizen of. Treason is a label, or as Ben Franklin said, “the rule by which the winners get to hang the losers.” Lincoln removed that purge from the rebuilding of our nation. Base names are for specific officers who had not only great leadership during the war, but also who had other accomplishments in their lives. There is no information presented that these base names were put in place to make a segment of the population fear or to try to repress that part of the population. They are there as honorifics and should remain. Too judge a situation that I don’t know all the truth about is foolish. I know Robert E. Lee loved the U.S. but served for his home state. I have heard this war called “the War of Northern Aggression” so I don’t feel we know everything that happened. No to all three questions. No to all three. Now, since others have already elaborated, I’ll toss my $0.02 worth in. Question #1 is inextricably linked to question #2. If Southern Generals did not commit “treason” then by definition they were not “traitors”. There is a reason the federal government was afraid to take President Jefferson Davis into court and try him for treason… and it had nothing to do with any sort of good will. They didn’t want to risk losing in court what had been won on the battlefield. Go read up on the Constitutional Convention, last agenda item of the day, for May 31, 1787. Then accept that this was the agreement that was reached and what the States were agreeing to when they ratified the Constitution. Finally, compare what was predicted in that debate with what Lincoln did in 1861, and try to parse out the difference. Federalist 39 also makes for good reading and elaborates on what was envisioned as the only force holding a State in the union. Simpleton accusations of “treason” and “traitor” are not proof of either and show just how little so many know of the history of this nation and the principles of its founding. Now as for renaming of military bases that were named for Confederates—these bases are located in the South. Naming these bases after Southerners/ Confederates was a way of reconciling the regions of the country and putting the past behind

U.S. and we collectively went on to fight one war after another as a united country. We have a diverse history that is bound up together now and, whether some like it or not, that history includes the secession of the Southern States and the resultant war that followed. The ones demanding these names be changed are the very ones stirring up divisions in the country now and stoking disunity. If ANYTHING, these base names (as well as memorials) need to remain in place specifically as a reminder of what happened before when the country reached a point of irreconcilable differences. Their very existence achieves that goal. It is incredibly stupid to go down that path as the ill will created will more than outweigh any perceived benefit a small factious group of agitators would gain at the expense of everyone else.