# Why is the Confederacy not worthy of contempt? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2009, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994 "2009-11-10T03:09:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/301 "2009-11-24T23:18:27Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I love the concept of trying to tear apart the Union on behalf of slavery being viewed as a “character flaw”. :dubious: Which I’ve never said it was. Are you really this benighted or just incapable of taking on actual statements other than by posting almost 60 year old Tom Lehrer lyrics in some sort of “wit by association” attempt and (barely) paraphrasing wikipedia articles you just read to sound like your own insights? > [@](#): > > And nostalgia is fine and dandy, as long as you don’t attempt to rewrite history to create a world that never was. I no more rewrite history than you read it. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/302 "2009-11-24T23:23:33Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > And certainly the Allies could have tried alot more people than they did, stricly on the legal merits. The decision not to was in part a political decision. It’s _always_ a political decision in cases like this–you can ask any historian. > > That these decisions are in part political _does not make them wrong_. However, a problem does arise when years later people goes on to say “Gosh, they never tried grandpa for mopery after the Clone Wars, so obviously these claims that we engaged in mopery are just a bunch of vicious anti-Clone propaganda”–when the reality is that a big reason why granpda was never tried for mopery is that thousands of others were equally guilty and it was decided that it in the interests of peace it was better to be magnanimous than pursue complete and inflexible justice. Explain how trying Jefferson Davis for treason would require trying everybody associated with the Confederacy for treason. Davis was a notorious micromanager, it was one of the things that damned him as a political commander, there was not a single aspect of the war that he was not directly involved in, thus, as was said of Göring 81 years later, “His guilt is unique in its enormity”, and I doubt you would argue this. So, honest question, no bitching or accusations, how would this one trial necessitate “hundreds of thousands”- or even two- others? Wirz was tried and hanged for Andersonville yet he was neither the only officer there nor was Andersonville’s mortality rate any higher than a couple of other PoW camps yet it never set off a round of trials- just him, that’s all. How would Davis have been different? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/303 "2009-11-24T23:24:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Whereas the President of the United States, on the 8th day of December, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and on the 26 day of March, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, did, with the object to suppress the existing rebellion, to induce all persons to return to their loyalty, and to restore the authority of the United States, issue proclamations offering amnesty and pardon to certain persons who had directly or by implication participated in the said rebellion; and whereas many persons who had so engaged in said rebellion have, since the issuance of said proclamations, failed or neglected to take the benefits offered thereby; and whereas many persons who have been justly deprived of all claim to amnesty and pardon thereunder, by reason of their participation directly or by implication in said rebellion, and continued hostility to the government of the United States since the date of said proclamation, now desire to apply for and obtain amnesty and pardon: > > To the end, therefore, that the authority of the government of the United States may be restored, and that peace, order, and freedom may be established, I, ANDREW JOHNSON, President of the United States, do proclaim and declare that I hereby grant to all persons who have, directly or indirectly, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafter excepted, amnesty and pardon, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves, and except in cases where legal proceedings, under the laws of the United States providing for the confiscation of property of persons engaged in rebellion, have been instituted; but upon the condition, nevertheless, that every such person shall take and subscribe the following oath, (or affirmation,) and thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate; and which oath shall be registered for permanent preservation, and shall be of the tenor and effect following, to wit: > > I, \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) in presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union of the States thereunder; and that I will, in like manner, abide by, and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves. So help me God. > > The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation: 1st, all who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended Confederate government; 2nd, all who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion; 3d, all who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy; 4th, all who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion; 5th, all who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion; 6th, all who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities; 7th, all persons who have been, or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion; 8th, all military and naval officers in the rebel service, who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point or the United States Naval Academy; 9th, all persons who held the pretended offices of governors of States in insurrection against the United States; 10th, all persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States, and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the pretended Confederate States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion; 11th, all persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States; 12th, all persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military, or naval authorities, or agents of the United States as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind, either before or after conviction; 13th, all persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars; 14th, all persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President’s proclamation of December 8th, A.D. 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States since the date of said proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate. > > Provided, That special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes; and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States. > > The Secretary of State will establish rules and regulations for administering and recording the said amnesty oath, so as to insure its benefit to the people, and guard the government against fraud. > > In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. > > Done at the City of Washington, the twenty-ninth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-ninth. – [Proclamation by Andrew Johnson](http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/AndrewJ.html) A pardon is “an act of grace, proceeding from the power intrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed.” (See [_Burdick v. United States_](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=236&page=79).) To accept a pardon is implicitly to admit one’s guilt. The purposes of this general pardon and amnesty were the commendable but clearly political ones “that the authority of the government of the United States may be restored, and that peace, order, and freedom may be established”. Instead of having trials for every single person arguably guilt of treason, and probably re-igniting the war in the process, better to grant an “act of grace” and, with conditions, forgive and forget. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/304 "2009-11-24T23:30:39Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Explain how trying Jefferson Davis for treason would require trying everybody associated with the Confederacy for treason. Davis was a notorious micromanager, it was one of the things that damned him as a political commander, there was not a single aspect of the war that he was not directly involved in, thus, as was said of Göring 81 years later, “His guilt is unique in its enormity”, and I doubt you would argue this. > So, honest question, no bitching or accusations, how would this one trial necessitate “hundreds of thousands”- or even two- others? Wirz was tried and hanged for Andersonville yet he was neither the only officer there nor was Andersonville’s mortality rate any higher than a couple of other PoW camps yet it never set off a round of trials- just him, that’s all. How would Davis have been different? I’m saying that the general decision not to try _anyone_ for treason–not even the hapless Major Wirz was tried for “treason”–was in part a political decision (not just a legal one). Given Jefferson Davis’ greater role, it would be downright bizarre to argue that everyone with _lesser_ guilt than him required the intervention of a political act to be spared possible prosecution, but then Davis himself escaped prosecution solely on the legal merits. The charges against Davis were never thrown out by a court, and he obviously was never acquitted. The charges were dropped by the prosecution. I think this was in part part of the larger political decision not to hunt down those who had participated in the “rebellion”. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/305 "2009-11-24T23:35:58Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Not that I would expect somebody who is stupid to understand the distinction. You should have been warned by the moderator a long time ago, but I don’t blame them for not catching your veiled insults. Wading through the piles of rambling bullshit that you mistake for coherent writing is a lot to ask from anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/306 "2009-11-24T23:47:29Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > The charges against Davis were never thrown out by a court, and he obviously was never acquitted. The charges were dropped by the prosecution. I think this was in part part of the larger political decision not to hunt down those who had participated in the “rebellion”. Why do you think this? The soldiers had already been paroled- millions of them- all ranks- when they surrendered. It was a standard issue document; go to [footnote.com](http://footnote.com) and you can pull them up all day- they were in no danger of prosecution, so that left only the generals and the government. There was **no** reason it would need lead to decimation of the ranks or anything like- just Davis and Stephens and - well, basically people who could fit in one prison anywhere in the nation- would have really been in danger. There’s no factual merit to it would have required massive trials and executions. So why drop the charges? Why let Davis off scot free? ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2009, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/307 "2009-11-24T23:54:05Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You should have been warned by the moderator a long time ago, but I don’t blame them for not catching your veiled insults. Wading through the piles of rambling bullshit that you mistake for coherent writing is a lot to ask from anyone. Once again, nothing substantive, just furor. Do you honestly believe that any neutral reader of this thread who knows anything about debate or history and has no agenda or motive would believe that I have not written better and more coherently, shown way more command of facts and of language, and consistently made better arguments and rebuttals than you have throughout this thread? Not a rhetorical question, I’m curious: do you really think you’ve bested me anywhere in this debate or even held your own with factual knowledge or with the merits or design of any argument you have made on those occasions when you were attempting to make an argument rather than a personal statement? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/308 "2009-11-25T00:00:05Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > And I’m not saying he wasn’t a traitor- in fact I believe he was- but if it was such a clear cut issue, why not try him? Because of politics. What _else_ could be the reason? If a review of history clearly indicates that he was guilty of this (i.e. there isn’t any doubt that he initiated rebellion against his own country…and the fight that was waged was real and bloody…) what are you suggesting with this question? That the Union didn’t _really_ believe Davis was a traitor, and therefore it’s wrong to say it’s a clearcut issue now? That the whole matter is sooo complex and sooo complicated that it’s wrong to simply call these guys traitors and not worry about the nicknames they gave their coon dogs? The thing is, I believe you when you say you aren’t a friend of the Confederates and you think Davis et al are traitors, yadda yadda yadda, but then you pipe up with some whiny question like this which suggests you want history to appear more ambiguous than it was so the Confederate “heroes” don’t look so bad. It’s a transparent move, though. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/309 "2009-11-25T00:03:06Z")
Eh the confederacy was evil and people proud of it are either evil pieces of shit or profoundly stupid. As noted earlier in the thread the Confederacy formed as a result of the anti-slave states becoming powerful enough to out vote the slaving monsters. The thing is American history is full of monsters and evil pieces of shit. We have an ethnic cleansing piece of shit war criminal on our twenty dollar bill. What’s the difference between Andrew Jackson, Masanobu Tsuji, or a slaver’s ship? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/310 "2009-11-25T00:05:32Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I love the concept of trying to tear apart the Union on behalf of slavery being viewed as a “character flaw”. > [@Sampiro](#): > > Which I’ve never said it was. Are you really this benighted or just incapable of taking on actual statements Your memory is conveniently short. > [@Sampiro](#): > > But why is the nostalgia in other parts of the country (nostalgia here being defined as it has been by some in this thread by the fact that there are northern Civil War reenactors, there are schools and parks and cities and bridges named for non-southerners whose views would be looked upon somewhere between benighted and evil today, and there’s no outroar to tear down statues of people like Franklin and Sherman and Roosevelt who had definite darker sides, and all of this on land seized from Indians) acceptable **yet in the south it’s indicative of character flaws**? (bolding added to aid in lost memory retrieval) [Here’s an appraisal of why Jefferson Davis was not convicted of treason](http://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/faqs.cfm) (from those Northern devils at Rice University) :), and it has nothing to do with Davis being an elegant Southern gentleman, the languages he spoke or the slaves he didn’t whip. > [@Sampiro](#): > > Do you honestly believe that any neutral reader of this thread who knows anything about debate or history and has no agenda or motive would believe that I have not written better and more coherently, shown way more command of facts and of language, and consistently made better arguments and rebuttals Yep, especially that bit about renaming streets/bridges that currently celebrate “Confederate heroes” being equivalent to the Taliban destroying ancient works of art. The “Sampiro” award for worst analogy is a legacy you can be proud of. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/311 "2009-11-25T00:09:14Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Because of politics. What _else_ could be the reason? How about the chance he would have been acquitted because the issue of the legality of secession (which had been proposed and attempted many times and many ways in many regions of the nation including NYC itself during the war) was a gray area? [QUOTE=you with the face] If a review of history clearly indicates that he was guilty of this (i.e. there isn’t any doubt that he initiated rebellion against his own country…and the fight that was waged was real and bloody…) what are you suggesting with this question? [/QUOTE] How about the chance he would have been acquitted because the issue of the legality of secession (which had been proposed and attempted many times and many ways in many regions of the nation including NYC itself during the war) was a gray area? > [@you with the face](#): > > That the Union didn’t _really_ believe Davis was a traitor, and therefore it’s wrong to say it’s a clearcut issue now? How about the chance he would have been acquitted because the issue of the legality of secession (which had been proposed and attempted many times and many ways in many regions of the nation including NYC itself during the war) was a gray area? [quote] That the whole matter is sooo complex and sooo complicated that it’s wrong to simply call these guys traitors and not worry about the nicknames they gave their coon dogs? The fact you have no knowledge base to draw from does not mean you should use the politicians trick of deriding it in others. And yes, it is a complex and complicated matter. > [@](#): > > The thing is, I believe you when you say you aren’t a friend of the Confederates and you think Davis et al are traitors, yadda yadda yadda, but then you pipe up with some whiny question like this which suggests you want history to appear more ambiguous than it was so the Confederate “heroes” don’t look so bad. History is far more ambiguous than clear cut always. > [@](#): > > It’s a transparent move, though. If it’s important to you. But you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/312 "2009-11-25T00:12:00Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Why do you think this? The soldiers had already been paroled- millions of them- all ranks- when they surrendered. It was a standard issue document; go to [footnote.com](http://footnote.com) and you can pull them up all day- they were in no danger of prosecution, so that left only the generals and the government. There was **no** reason it would need lead to decimation of the ranks or anything like- just Davis and Stephens and - well, basically people who could fit in one prison anywhere in the nation- would have really been in danger. There’s no factual merit to it would have required massive trials and executions. So why drop the charges? Why let Davis off scot free? You earlier said “Horace Greeley spoke publicly of their doubts as to his guilt (and paid his bail)”. What [Greeley actually said](http://www.archive.org/details/letterofhoracegr01gree) was a bit more complicated than that: > [@](#): > > We hear men say:–‘Yes, forgive the great mass of those who have been misled into rebellion, but punish the leaders as they deserve.’ But who can accurately draw the line between leaders and followers in the premises? By what test shall they be discriminated? > [@](#): > > _The New-York Times_, doing injustice to its own sagacity…says “Let us hang Jeff Davis and spare the rest”. We do not concur in this advice. Davis did not devise nor instigate the Rebellion…His prominence is purely official and representative…There is not an ex-Rebel in the world–no matter how penitent–who will not have unpleasant sensations about the neck on the day when the Confederate President is be hung. Greeley wasn’t arguing that Davis was not guilty. He was arguing that Davis wasn’t any more guilty than anyone else, and that the interests of reconciliation and restoring peace and harmony would be ill-served by hanging Davis. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/313 "2009-11-25T00:17:56Z")
[quote=“Jackmannii, post:310, topic:516994”] Your memory is conveniently short.QUOTE] Once again your skill at cutting and pasting is evidenced but your skill at analysis not so much. Tom Lehrer has a whole catalogue you haven’t quoted from yet- stick to that. Read your own cut and pastes: asking why southerners not changing the names of things named generations ago for people who have been dead for a century and did shitty things when they were alive is a character flaw while non-southerners not changing the names of things named generations ago for people who have been dead for a century and did shitty things when they were alive is not worthy of attack. That’s a tad difference than saying secession and slavery themselves were no more than character flaws and it is either dishonest or moronic to try and make it say that. I make no judgment as to which. I have also never said that the charges were dropped against Davis because he was a nice guy (he wasn’t). This too is either dishonest or moronic on your part. I make no judgment as to which. My comment on the Taliban was hyperbole to demonstrate slippery slope, which is allowed in debate. Stalin removed Trotsky from pictures, Egyptians chiseled off the names of pharaohs they didn’t like from monuments they built, the Taliban destroyed Buddhas- other than degree how is removing the past from evidence in America any more commendable? (And again, does anybody _really_ think this is about the names of bridges?) ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/314 "2009-11-25T00:19:00Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > How about the chance he would have been acquitted because the issue of the legality of secession (which had been proposed and attempted many times and many ways in many regions of the nation including NYC itself during the war) was a gray area? [As of 1868](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=74&invol=700) the United States Supreme Court did not seem to find the legality of secession to be a “gray area”. Given the country’s own revolutionary past, the _morality_ of secession and the _politics_ of secession might be gray areas. But not, according to the ultimate arbiters of legality, the _legality_ of it. Which brings us back to the point that what happened or didn’t happen to Jeff Davis was a political question, not just a legal one. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/315 "2009-11-25T00:19:43Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > You earlier said “Horace Greeley spoke publicly of their doubts as to his guilt (and paid his bail)”. What [Greeley actually said](http://www.archive.org/details/letterofhoracegr01gree) was a bit more complicated than that: > Greeley wasn’t arguing that Davis was not guilty. He was arguing that Davis wasn’t any more guilty than anyone else, and that the interests of reconciliation and restoring peace and harmony would be ill-served by hanging Davis. **THIS** - everyone pay attention because I’m about to pay MEBuckner a compliment- **THIS** is a good cite and well argued. So do you think the lawyers at the time would have had no chance whatever of getting a conviction for treason? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/316 "2009-11-25T00:20:22Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Not a rhetorical question, I’m curious: do you really think you’ve bested me… Gee, I dunno. I do know you haven’t bested me. You are an ineffective communicator. Jewels of insight could be dripping from your posts, but they are lost in a sea of superfluous snot trails that take themselves way too seriously. Half the time it doesn’t even seem like you know what your own point is because you argue against things that you should be agreeing with, if your repeated asides and disclaimers are to be believed. Maybe you think you are rocking and rolling in this debate, but to me, it only appears as if you’re enthralled with reading your own writing. Since you asked. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/317 "2009-11-25T00:26:14Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Eh the confederacy was evil and people proud of it are either evil pieces of shit or profoundly stupid. As noted earlier in the thread the Confederacy formed as a result of the anti-slave states becoming powerful enough to out vote the slaving monsters. > > The thing is American history is full of monsters and evil pieces of shit. We have an ethnic cleansing piece of shit war criminal on our twenty dollar bill. What’s the difference between Andrew Jackson, Masanobu Tsuji, or a slaver’s ship? Different wording, but my point exactly. Why’s the south more villainous than having a holiday and feast this week celebrated by cartoonish cut outs and elementary school pageants honoring the same group of people who before inviting the Indians to din-din started by denouncing Indians as satanic savages and afterwards stole more and more and more of their land and ultimately burned their men, women and children alive (not just once) in battle? It’s not, so pass the turkey and get on with your lives. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/318 "2009-11-25T00:27:39Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Gee, I dunno. I do know you haven’t bested me. You are an ineffective communicator. Jewels of insight could be dripping from your posts, but they are lost in a sea of superfluous snot trails that take themselves way too seriously. Half the time it doesn’t even seem like you know what your own point is because you argue against things that you should be agreeing with, if your repeated asides and disclaimers are to be believed. > > Maybe you think you are rocking and rolling in this debate, but to me, it only appears as if you’re enthralled with reading your own writing. > > Since you asked. I’ll admit I rather like it at times, but I think your closest friends would argue that you’ve added nothing substantive to this debate. Nothing at all. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/319 "2009-11-25T00:28:25Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > How about the chance he would have been acquitted because the issue of the legality of secession (which had been proposed and attempted many times and many ways in many regions of the nation including NYC itself during the war) was a gray area? The legality of secession is neither here nor there when it comes to historical fact: Davis made war with the United States, thus causing massive bloodshed and pain all around. Maybe a good lawyer could make a somewhat convincing argument for why Davis was technically not guilty of treason, but it would only be based on a technicality. Should this change how we view him now? Of course not. OJ was found not guilty. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994/320 "2009-11-25T00:29:10Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > So do you think the lawyers at the time would have had no chance whatever of getting a conviction for treason? I have no idea what the question means. Where have I argued anything about what chance the lawyers of the time–I assume you mean the prosecturs–would have had of getting a conviction for treason? I never said it was a sure thing they could have convicted Davis–we all know guilty people aren’t always convicted; partly that’s just the way our system is set up. “Better ninety-nine guilty men go free”, and so forth; not to mention that the system of trial by jury means Davis could have been _acquitted_ for political reasons if the wrong (or right) jury were chosen. But what I’ve been arguing is that in the end it was felt better not to even _try_ to get a conviction. The prosecution chose not to pursue the matter. And one argument for this decision not to pursue the treason charges against Davis was part of the overall political argument against pursuing treason charges against anybody at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-confederacy-not-worthy-of-contempt/516994.md?page=17)