Charlottesville

[David Lockmiller]

(08-25-2017 02:28 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Interesting related article: http://www.civilwarprofiles.com/grant-pr...son-trial/

The following is an excerpt:

Following the end of Civil War hostilities in 1865, there were many in the North who wanted the civil and military officials of the Confederacy to stand trial for treason.

The New York Times was a leading proponent for treason charges against Lee, writing in a June 4, 1865 editorial: “He has ‘levied war against the United States’ more strenuously than any other man in the land, and thereby has been specially guilty of the crime of treason, as defined in the Constitution of the United States,” and “whether Gen. Lee should be hung [or] not, is a minor question.”

[O]n 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.

After reading Lee’s letter, Grant forwarded his own views to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton on June 16, 1865.

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.

Grant then responded to Lee’s letter. Copying his comments to Stanton in the reply, he wrote on June 20, 1865: “This opinion, I am informed, is substantially the same as that entertained by the Government.” Lee was safe from trial, but Grant never told him how far he had gone to protect him. [End of excerpt.]

Grant was a true gentleman. He did not inform Lee of his intention expressed directly to President Johnson to "resign his commission if the surrender terms were not honored" because that would have created a personal obligation on the part of General Lee that should never have been necessary.

President Lincoln would also have done the right thing regardless of any expression to the contrary made by the Editorial Board of the New York Times at the time.