The Aftermath of the Civil War: Pardons and the Complexities of Treason Trials

After the American Civil War, a significant question arose concerning the legal and moral treatment of Confederate leaders: were they tried for treason or other crimes, or were they pardoned without a formal legal process? The reasons for their pardons and the context behind these decisions form a complex narrative that reflects the broader political and social forces at play in post-war America.

The Decision to Pardon

The decision not to try Confederate leaders for treason was not based on a lack of support for the cause but rather on pragmatic considerations. For instance, President Andrew Johnson, in his approach to post-war reconstruction, prioritized national unity over punitive measures. Johnson believed that prosecuting the leaders of the Confederacy would only erect barriers to the reintegration of the southern states into the Union. As the Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase stated to Secretary of War Stanton, '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 [which he himself demanded] will be a greater one. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled.' This statement underscores the political and practical reasons behind the decision to pardon rather than pursue formal legal action.

Legal and Political Considerations

The legal issue of whether secession constitutes treason was, at the time, a contentious and unresolved matter. The South seceded to establish a constitutional republic, and they believed that their actions were constitutionally valid. Jefferson Davis and his cabinet, therefore, did not view themselves as traitors in the traditional sense, but more as lawmakers striving for a legitimate governance structure. The Union, on the other hand, considered secession a rebellion and an act of treason, which was one of the reasons for the war. However, the legal basis for such a charge was shaky. The Southern states had followed a process outlined in the U.S. Constitution that allowed for secession, albeit not one that the Union recognized.

Furthermore, the logistical challenges of trying Confederate leaders were significant. Organizing a fair and unbiased jury in the regions where these trials might have taken place would have been extremely difficult. The local populace, both recently freed slaves and white southerners, harbored a mix of emotions ranging from loyalty to the Confederate cause to a desire for reconciliation and a need to rebuild their lives and communities. A fair trial under these conditions would have been nearly impossible.

The Historical Context and Scholarly Perspectives

Scholars and historians have provided various perspectives on the complex issues surrounding the confederate leaders and their treatment. Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, in his book The Real Lincoln, and other authors like Kenneth M. Brown and Fawn M. Brodie, have challenged the traditional narratives of the Civil War, offering alternative viewpoints that highlight the war’s economic and political dimensions rather than just the abolition of slavery. These works suggest that Lincoln's overriding motive was not the moral issue of slavery but the preservation of the Union and the protection of Northern economic interests.

Meanwhile, the works of James McPherson, such as Battle Cry of Freedom, provide a more traditional but still nuanced account of the conflict. These authors dissect the political, social, and economic factors that led to the war and influenced its outcome, including the debates over states' rights, the economic interests of the North and South, and the moral issue of slavery.

Similarly, Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists by David A. Kennedy and Marion C. Benson explore the role of Marxism in the Civil War, suggesting that the conflict was partially driven by economic and ideological tensions rather than solely a moral crusade against slavery.

In conclusion, the decision to pardon Confederate leaders at the end of the Civil War reflects a strategic choice to facilitate national reconciliation and rebuild the Union. The complex legal and political landscape, combined with logistical challenges, meant that a formal trial might not have been either feasible or advisable. The scholarship on this topic continues to evolve, providing a richer, more nuanced understanding of this pivotal period in American history.