Traitor vs rebel

[CTH]

I'd like to think of traitors as people who betray their country for their own selfish reasons, and rebels as people who do what they do for the greater good.

 

[Mild53]

It is a hateful word used as oneupsmanship.

I can avoid being called a traitor, by avoiding doing things traitorous.

 

[Mild53]

I'd like to think of traitors as people who betray their country for their own selfish reasons, and rebels as people who do what they do for the greater good.

In the case of southern secession, the secession documents said the states seceded primarily to preserve slavery ( or the peculiar insitution). Did slave owners advocate secession for the greater good? Whose greater good?

 

[Mild53]

So a person can have their citizenship stripped of them by others? If a person is legally born a US citizen what gives a state a right to strip that from them against their will.. Its up the individual to make that choice not a revolutionary council...

Good point, those who were Unionists in seceding states had no choice; if the confederacy was a legitiamte government, then thier citizenship in the US was tripped from them against their will. The treatment of Unionists in the South, was pretty uncivilized.

 

[Mild53]

The rebels were not granted amnesty and pardons for singing to loudly in church.

The same people that want to claim the similarity of the American revolution with the rebellion of the Slave states want to deny that those engaged in either were committing treason.

Yes, our revolutionary forefathers were Treasonous to the British government. I am not at all insulted if Brits want to call them traitors. In retrospect the cause they fought for, freedom and the right to home rule was a noble one. The secession documents all point to the preservation of slavery as the reason for secession. Is this cause a noble one?

 

[dvrmte]

Hey, I am forced to submit and support a government I don't want! No, it is absurd to think that anyone, at anytime, can opt out of a nation's laws and sieze property ( admittedly paid for by their taxes) at the muzzle of a gun. I can change government by voting... and the south was hardly powerless. Citizens at the time referred to secessionists as traitors, and I see no reason to reinterpet history to make it PC.

Well you and all the Mainers that believe as you do need to get together and see how much your votes really count. Keep telling yourself that 'your vote' can change government, that's what they want you to think.

Southerners and Northerners often referred to abolitionists as traitors who provoked the War.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Why are some labeled with one and some the other? Traitor seems to be used in a much more hateful way.

To-may-to, to-mah-to by my way of thinking.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Lee and others had the right to resign. That is not treason!

Waging war against your country is.

 

[KeyserSoze]

It is a hateful word used as oneupsmanship.

But an accurate one when applied to the Southern rebels.

 

[KeyserSoze]

The assumption that anyone in the seceding states was a traitor to the United States rests on an absurdity. That men may be compelled to submit and support a government they don't want, and that separation and resistance to it somehow makes them traitors.

Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Where is that an inaccurate description of the rebel's actions?

 

[dvrmte]

The secession documents all point to the preservation of slavery as the reason for secession. Is this cause a noble one?

Could you point out the part of South Carolina's where it points to the preservation of slavery? I see that they all point to Northern violations of, or a refusal to comply with the obligations of the Constitution. Remember, 'cause and effect'. There was no defense without an offense.

 

[godofredus]

OK, in the North there were draft riots, vows that we will not fight for "Negro liberation", but I find it hard to find Secesh sympathizers driven from their homes, threatened with death, etc. True their are the few cases of suspension of habeas corpus, but execution?

Anyhow:

A couple of decent on-line articles on the issues of treason in the Civil War – War of the Rebellion. North Carolina unionists:

http://southernunionists.com/the-war-within-the-confederacy-white-unionist-of-north-carolina/

In the east, rebel soldiers attacked Unionists for much lesser deeds than those of the Stiles family. Soldiers destroyed the home and business of James Roberts, a grocer in Carteret County, and threatened to tie Roberts and his father and three brothers to a stake and burn them to death merely for holding Unionist sentiments. Soldiers likewise attacked James Stanton, a Quaker in the same county, beating him and stealing his goods. In another incident, rebel soldiers evacuating Elizabeth City set fire to the home of William Lister, a small local manufacturer, and shot him to death when he came to the window for air. Lister's offenses consisted of a stubborn outspokenness against the Confederacy and naming his son after AbrahamLincoln.

Even when Unionists did not find themselves harassed by military authorities, in many areas where the Confederacy was strong their Confederate-minded neighbors subjected them to enormous social pressures and continual threats of violence. Local hooligans in Craven County, for example, kidnapped Henry Covert, a seventy-two year old ship's carpenter, and threatened him with tar and feathers "for talking on the Union side." The neighbors of Charles Long, a shoemaker near Chapel Hill, wanted him arrested because he would not vote for Jefferson Davis and talked about getting up a mob to hang him or ride him on a rail. In a similar case, the neighbors of B.L.D. Williams in Wake County held an extra-legal "trial" and considered confiscating his property for "talking too much." Only the intervention of an influential friend stopped theseproceedings.


And this: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~arcivwar/loyal.htm

And here:

https://mississippiconfederates.wor...nment-unionists-in-tippah-county-mississippi/

I want to close this story with a brief quote from the bookThe Iron Furnace: Or, Slavery And Secession, by Reverend John H. Aughey of Choctaw County, Mississippi. Aughey was an outspoken supporter of the Union during the Civil War, so much so that he was arrested and thrown into prison at Tupelo and threatened with execution. The good reverend eventually escaped from prison, but he was weak and exhausted and left with the dilemma of whom to turn to for help. For Aughey, the choice was simple:

 

[godofredus]

Could you read point out the part of South Carolina's where it points to the preservation of slavery? I see that they all point to Northern violations of, or a refusal to comply with the obligations of the Constitution. Remember, 'cause and effect'. There was no defense without an offense.

I really don't want to call you "ignorant," or other pejorative terms, but you have been on this board so long, I can't believe you have missed this:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
The South Carolina secession document:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Emphasis added

 

[DanF]

Could you read point out the part of South Carolina's where it points to the preservation of slavery? I see that they all point to Northern violations of, or a refusal to comply with the obligations of the Constitution. Remember, 'cause and effect'. There was no defense without an offense.

What violations?

Violations of the Fugative SLAVE law? Preventing slaveholders from bringing their slaves into territories?

If it wasn't about slavery why does the S. C. Articles of secession portray the conflict as being between slaveholding and non slaveholding states?


Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

As can be seen from the above excerpts from S. C. Aeticles of secession it was very much about slavery.

 

[cash]

I really don't want to call you "ignorant," or other pejorative terms, but you have been on this board so long, I can't believe you have missed this:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
The South Carolina secession document:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Emphasis added

"For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief. "

 

[ole]

Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

It's quite clear, by this definition, that the Rebels could easily have been convicted of treason. The only defense against that charge involves showing that they were, in fact, citizens of another nation.

Meanwhile, no one seems to mind the appellation "Rebel." On the other hand, the word "traitor" excites overmuch.

No one's mind is going to get changed. How about lightening it up?

 

[Henry Whitworth]

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; "

To whom are they referring?

 

[cash]

To whom are they referring?

Black people.

 

[peteanddelmar]

An observation: the majority of citizens have never sworn a specific oath not to take up arms against the government. Their citizenship is a matter of inheritance, not individual volition. However, those who are US soldiers do swear such an oath. Someone like Lee was actually violating an oath he had personally agreed to.

It's quite clear, by this definition, that the Rebels could easily have been convicted of treason. The only defense against that charge involves showing that they were, in fact, citizens of another nation.

Meanwhile, no one seems to mind the appellation "Rebel." On the other hand, the word "traitor" excites overmuch.

No one's mind is going to get changed.

How about lightening it up?[/QUOT

Hey, my icon is Sherman but I admire generals and men from both sides. Lee had character.

Let's do lighten up. I was from a pro Union family but surrounded by southern culture and friends. And southern literature. But I know the story. So let's all give respect where it's due and I'm sorry I started an inflator u post. Philip.

 

[peteanddelmar]

Oops my post didn't post. Sorry I started an inflammatory post. I truly admire men from both sides.

Here's a doozy. My favorite general has changed from Lee to Sherman!

Many northern generals didn't want Lee punished as a traitor. But he sure got more bad press than many others. Who were barbaric!

You're gonn find I'm pretty two sided on this deal. But I do protect character when I find it. Even in a rebel-secede general!