CONFISCATIONS IN THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR. [TO THE EDITOR OF
THE "SPEOTATOR."J SIB,—I have several times seen it stated by correspondents of yours that after the suppression of our great rebellion, in 1865, we made wholesale confiscations of rebel property. What extraordinary news! By our Federal system there can be no confiscation of estates except on conviction of treason. Now the Government of the United States has never con- victed man, woman, or child of treason. Aaron Burr was tried once for treason, but acquitted. Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason, but released without trial. Some sixty or eighty persons in Pennsylvania were once indicted for treason as having set free some fugitive slaves, buigthe Court quashed the proceedings as illegal. Where then did the 'con- fiscations come in? Had there been any confiscations they must soon have lapsed, as our Constitution strictly enjoins the restoration of such estates to the heirs on the death of the persons attainted. But as there has never been a con- viction of treason under Federal law, there bas never been a confiscation under Federal law. Can it be that your, corre- spondents have vaguely had in mind sales of Southern estates for non-payment of Federal taxes? That would not be con- fiscation; besides that, among the multitudinous complaints from the South (many very well founded), I have never once
seen such sales mentioned as a grievance. I conclude, there- ._ fore, that they must have been few. The most noted one, that of the Lee Estate, opposite Washington, was annulled by the Supreme Court. Sometimes things are known abroad that are overlooked at home. Pray what portentous fact of our history, unknown to a citizen of seventy-five, have your correspondents in mind?— I am, Sir, &c., CHARLES C. STARBUCK.
Andover, Mass., U.S.A.
[We are much obliged for our correspondent's useful cor- rection. The facts that support his statements are given in a correspondence published in the Times of Wednesday. But though there were no confiscations after sentence of treason, there was, we take it, a very great deal of virtual confiscation in pursuance of the President's war powers. The liberation of the slaves was theoretically an act of confiscation, though of property which ought never to have existed. The seizing of cotton was a true and most legitimate act of con- fiscation. The most active Federal generals in the field— Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan—unless we are greatly mis- taken, constantly seized and made use of the property of rebels.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
