WI: Union Punishes Most Confederate Leadership After the US Civil War?

What if instead of letting the top Confederate leadership such as President Jefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee, and others return to civilian life mercifully and without much consequence, they are instead tried as traitors to the Union, convicted, and subsequently executed or imprisoned for their actions? How does this cause post-war sentiment to change?
 

jahenders

Banned
On May 29, 1865, President Johnson issued a proclamation and pardon to those who had rebelled, but it had exceptions that included Jefferson Davis, Lee, etc. They had to request, and receive special presidential approval. Lee did this on June 13, 1865, but Johnson didn't grant a 2nd amnesty, which removed previous exceptions, until 1868.

After the war Jefferson Davis was initially imprisoned in irons in Ft Monroe, then gradually in improving conditions. He was released after a special bond of $100K was paid by prominent citizens (inc Horace Greeley) in 1867 and then fled to Canada. He lived there until Johnson's 2nd amnesty in 1868.

Treason trials for many rebels were considered but Johnson's cabinet never agreed to proceed. Had they done so it could have greatly increased Southern animosity and might have led to some riot, insurrection, or people leaving the South.

What if instead of letting the top Confederate leadership such as President Jefferson Davis, General Robert E. Lee, and others return to civilian life mercifully and without much consequence, they are instead tried as traitors to the Union, convicted, and subsequently executed or imprisoned for their actions? How does this cause post-war sentiment to change?
 
This can ever go really well or really bad:

Really bad would mean that these men become martyrs to the Confederate strife, were victums of a fascist government and may give rise to stronger southern centiment, which may try and rise again - similar to Irish Republicanism.

Or really well would have these men tried and found to be war criminals and guilty of trying to destroy a union, that stands for freedom and liberty - similar to Nuremburg trial.

Or even worse, President Jefferson Davies, takes the stand and is able to preach his ideology on a larger scale, winning heart and minds - similar trial of Hitler after the Beer Hall Putsch.
 
Treason trials for many rebels were considered but Johnson's cabinet never agreed to proceed.


Even Johnson's opponents didn't fancy the idea.

Iirc, even Thaddeus Stevens, while perfectly happy to disfranchise Rebs and bar them from office, reportedly said that were Davis ever put on trial for his life, then he, Stevens, would be willing to serve without fee as defence counsel.​
 
....

After the war Jefferson Davis was initially imprisoned in irons in Ft Monroe, then gradually in improving conditions. He was released after a special bond of $100K was paid by prominent citizens (inc Horace Greeley) in 1867 and then fled to Canada. He lived there until Johnson's 2nd amnesty in 1868. .......

He lived in a dark stone house in Lennoxville, Quebec. a mere 40 miles north of the border with Vermont. The region was mostly English-speaking back in those days, having been settled by United Empire Loyalists and late loyalists.

The nearby lake resort town of North Hatley included the summer retreats of several wealthy "southern" families. They would have preferred to vacation in the Adirondack Mountains of upstate New York, but knew they were not welcome after the ACW.
 
Well the thing is that few supported extreme punitive measures after the war. Most people wanted peace and reconciliation, not endless bloodletting.

At most you might hang egregious offenders like Forrest and Wirz while imprisoning Davis and preventing any former Confederate leaders from voting, and the American public would probably think that punishment aplenty.
 
At most you might hang egregious offenders like Forrest and Wirz while imprisoning Davis and preventing any former Confederate leaders from voting, and the American public would probably think that punishment aplenty.

Agreed, the public didn't have the desire to totally destroy them.

Even the above you would probably need a number of things to happen. 1. Confederate spies burning New York City as was contemplated; 2. General Lee being killed along with Longstreet, leaving a general in charge who fights to the last man in Virginia; 3. The assassination of Johnsona nd Seward as well as Lincoln.

If all these thigns happen, I can see a lot of anger and desire to disenfranchise them permanently, and war crimes for those who supported the burning of New York which would then spread to those like Forrest who were most egregious.
 
There is a fine line in this punishment though. One one side the the fact that these people committed rebellion, therefore they deserve to be punished. But in doing so, if you punish them you may actually legitimize the fact that confederacy existed as a state - which is what the Union wanted to avoid.
 
What do you guys think of this proposal:

This what should have happened to the South after the Civil War. Aside from passing the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, rip out the the treacherous viper that is the Planter Aristocracy from the South. Hang the leaders of the Confederacy or at least jail them for a long time, or exile them from the United States. This should also serve to destroy a good portion of the Planter Aristocracy. Redistribute the land of the Planter Aristocracy to both blacks and the poor whites that bore the brunt of the horrors of the Civil War. This gives blacks a way to make a living in something they have prior experience in and gives poor whites a stake in the new system while serving to take away the power of the Planter Aristocracy. And then encourage immigration of families from the North and Europe to the South during Reconstruction. This will serve to bring large numbers of people who have no ties to the Antebellum South and thus no "Lost Cause" to romanticize. Will they still be racist against blacks? Yes. Will they be as bad as a vengeful Planter Aristocracy? Probably not. Having families immigrate right as the South has suffered a demographic catastrophe will also serve to create a substantial pro-Republican voting bloc that has no attachment to the old ways, or better still view them as barbaric.

The Old South may howl about it, but they'll largely be unable to vote anyways and by the time the changes are in full swing, a huge segment of current South's population will have incentive to keep the reforms going.
 
TheKnightIrish's TL A Glorious Union is dealing with mass execution, exiles, confiscations and withdrawal of citizenship. Very interesting legal basis.
 
Jefferson Davis was a bail jumper. How utterly .... predictable, now that I think of it. Not honourable, in any way shape or form, of course. But what I would expect
 
Treason and mercy

IMVHO, no punishment would legitimize the CSA as a State, despite Darth's comment; treason is a punishment for warring and betraying the state one is part of. And their actions fit the constitutional definition of treason perfectly.

One thought that would be, I think, perfectly legal and break the planter aristocracy completely: Offer anyone who served as an officer in the confederate army, or a rebellious state army, or any government office, a choice: trial for treason, with punishment as per the existing laws if convicted--or waive trial, plead guilty, and merely forfeit ALL property within the United States, right to own land, vote, or serve in government. (Punishment per existing laws was usually hanging--sometimes even a traitor to a STATE--when the accused wasn't even a resident of the state--John Brown comes to mind there.)

The confiscated land could be sold off to defray the cost of the war, and/or given to freed slaves...

Anyone who committed particularly heinous crimes, of course, doesn't get offered the deal.
 
Jefferson Davis was a bail jumper. How utterly .... predictable, now that I think of it. Not honourable, in any way shape or form, of course. But what I would expect

I was always under the impression he was just set loose since the government didn't want him around.

One thought that would be, I think, perfectly legal and break the planter aristocracy completely: Offer anyone who served as an officer in the confederate army, or a rebellious state army, or any government office, a choice: trial for treason, with punishment as per the existing laws if convicted--or waive trial, plead guilty, and merely forfeit ALL property within the United States, right to own land, vote, or serve in government. (Punishment per existing laws was usually hanging--sometimes even a traitor to a STATE--when the accused wasn't even a resident of the state--John Brown comes to mind there.)

The confiscated land could be sold off to defray the cost of the war, and/or given to freed slaves...

Anyone who committed particularly heinous crimes, of course, doesn't get offered the deal.

That would involve serious land confiscation though, something only the most Radical wanted to happen. I think it's fairly easy to understand why Lincoln and Congress would want to avoid that precedent.

Though KnightIrish handles the idea very well in his TL.
 
....

After the war Jefferson Davis was initially imprisoned in irons in Ft Monroe, then gradually in improving conditions. He was released after a special bond of $100K was paid by prominent citizens (inc Horace Greeley) in 1867 and then fled to Canada. He lived there until Johnson's 2nd amnesty in 1868. .......
.

Davis's imprisonment and mistreatment did, in fact, make him something of a martyr in the South. Impressively, it made him something he never really was during the war - popular among southerners.

By going relatively easy on Confederate leaders, the Lincoln and Johnson Administrations made it easier to reconcile southern societies to the restoration of the Union. Line 'em up against the wall, and it's a recipe for generations of Union military occupation, and low intensity conflict. Which would have made the North a different place, too.
 
Davis's imprisonment and mistreatment did, in fact, make him something of a martyr in the South. Impressively, it made him something he never really was during the war - popular among southerners.

By going relatively easy on Confederate leaders, the Lincoln and Johnson Administrations made it easier to reconcile southern societies to the restoration of the Union. Line 'em up against the wall, and it's a recipe for generations of Union military occupation, and low intensity conflict. Which would have made the North a different place, too.

Not if you give poor whites and blacks a stake in the new Reconstruction system by giving them the Planter Class' land, many of whom would've been killed off or exiled due to treason. And the South was demographically hurt by the Civil War. Before the native South population can recover, encourage European immigration and Northern immigration of families to the South, decreasing the percentage of the population that has a tie to the Antebellum South.
 
Not if you give poor whites and blacks a stake in the new Reconstruction system by giving them the Planter Class' land, many of whom would've been killed off or exiled due to treason. And the South was demographically hurt by the Civil War. Before the native South population can recover, encourage European immigration and Northern immigration of families to the South, decreasing the percentage of the population that has a tie to the Antebellum South.

That might work with blacks, but the poor southern whites had too deep an investment in their identity to easily shake. They had just died and suffered in unprecedented (in American history, certainly) numbers by way of proof. And even in the postwar environment, they had the comfort of still not being at the bottom of the class structure pole of the South. Now you'd be taking that away from them.

There were certainly large-scale resettlement schemes mooted in the North during the war. But they all would have involved a massive expenditure of resources on par with the war itself. And the kind of social engineering involved would have required a different kind of government, effectively a continued wartime government. Not least because you'd need a robust military occupation for decades to make it stick. There was just no real appetite for that in the North.

Harry Turtledove has a alt-history short story roughly along similar lines, called "Must and Shall." Lincoln is killed by a Confederate sniper and Hannibal Hamlin decides to stick it hard to the South, executions for most Southern leaders (Lee included) and placement of African-Americans in privileged political positions. In the 1940's, the South is still under military occupation, with sporadic guerrilla warfare fighting a Union government that's pretty authoritarian even in the North. Seems about right. Very dystopian.
 
I was always under the impression he was just set loose since the government didn't want him around..

That's why bail was set at $100,000.00? Hmmm? What's that in 2015 Dollars? What do you think that would be? Ten Million? Fifteen?

Yeah. Right. Davis showed his true colours.
 
That's why bail was set at $100,000.00? Hmmm? What's that in 2015 Dollars? What do you think that would be? Ten Million? Fifteen?

Yeah. Right. Davis showed his true colours.

I meant after he jumped bail. I didn't think the US particularly wanted him returned.

Not implying he's some bastion of virtue or anything.
 
That's why bail was set at $100,000.00? Hmmm? What's that in 2015 Dollars? What do you think that would be? Ten Million? Fifteen?

Yeah. Right. Davis showed his true colours.

1. Looks like $1.6 million, roughly. Depends on what measure you use.

2. The terms of Davis's bail were that he had to be present if and when he was put on trial, with the date set for Nov. 25. It did not restrict him from leaving the jurisdiction or the country. Davis actually did return to Richmond in November 1867 to prepare for his trial. The "Court convened on the 26th, but Chase was not present, and the government asked for a postponement. Davis was released on his own recognizance, and the defense asked that some sort of consideration be given him so he would not be "subjected to a renewal of the inconvenience" of making the trip to Richmond if a trial was not going to be held. As it turned out, Davis would not have to appear in court again during any of the subsequent proceedings." (Source) Thus, as far as I know, the bail was not forfeit. Apparently, he visited Ontario because that is where his family was living at the time.

3. Whatever else was true of Davis, it would have been out of character for him to leave that bail forfeit; he had a strong, if curious, sense of personal honor, one that was almost debilitating for him in political life. You can see that, and his intent to return, in his personal letters. Of course, you can also read of his expressed fears that he would be put before a "mongrel" (i.e., black) jury.
 
One thought that would be, I think, perfectly legal and break the planter aristocracy completely:


To what purpose?

The Planter class lost power anyway a generation or so later, but the governments that displaced them were if anything even more racist.
 
Top