Grant Grant's Power

[archieclement]

"Treason against US wouldn't be any different then treason to UK."

Except for this minor difference: as a citizen of the United States I care about treason against the United States. I couldn't care less about treason against the UK, France, Brazil, etc etc etc. But I certainly respect your right to hold the opinion that it is no different.

So your position is then our Founding Fathers as British citizens should cared more about treason to UK. Noted........

They didn't anymore then citizens of 11 states. As the hypocrisy of punishing one while celebrating the other is rather obvious, and as I said to me doesn't seem all that surprising we didn't.

As well the details like secession wasn't legally determined illegal to after the fact, as well the government wasn't even convinced treason convictions could been had after the fact, as civil law is back in play, and a jury of ones peers. All factor towards forgiveness as well. And personally see little to been gained from some postwar bloodletting other then to increase resentment, which certainly carries risk of a continuous cycle of violence.

As well forgiveness as an American trait, isn't exclusive to ACW. Many wars we do not require blood of the defeated.

 

[Belfoured]

So your position is then our Founding Fathers as British citizens should cared more about treason to UK. Noted........

They didn't anymore then citizens of 11 states. As the hypocrisy of punishing one while celebrating the other is rather obvious, and as I said to me doesn't seem surprising we didn't.

As well the details like secession wasn't legally determined illegal to after the fact, as well the government wasn't even convinced treason convictions could been had after the fact, as civil law is back in play, and a jury of ones peers.

"So your position is then our Founding Fathers as British citizens should cared more about treason to UK. Noted......"

Nice try but dead wrong. So I'll help out here. Since I couldn't care less about treason against the UK, I'm fine with them committing treason against the Crown. In fact, I would have supported it and salute the fact that they didn't care about it. Since I only care about treason against the United States, I'm equally fine with them putting that and the accompanying penalty in Article III Section 3.

You think that treason against the UK and the US are the same. "Noted".

 

[archieclement]

"So your position is then our Founding Fathers as British citizens should cared more about treason to UK. Noted......"

Nice try but dead wrong. So I'll help out here. Since I couldn't care less about treason against the UK, I'm fine with them committing treason against the Crown. In fact, I would have supported it and salute the fact that they didn't care about it. Since I only care about treason against the United States, I'm equally fine with them putting that and the accompanying penalty in Article III Section 3.

You think that treason against the UK and the US are the same. "Noted".

Simply absurd then. As treason is actually treason regardless of nationality.

Either subjects of a country should or shouldn't. Whether British or US. So your hypocrisy is noted.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Only persons who have zero allegiance or loyalty towards any country would think that all treason is the same.

 

[Belfoured]

Simply absurd then. As treason is actually treason regardless of nationality.

Either subjects of a country should or shouldn't. Whether British or US. So your hypocrisy is noted.

Your equation of loyalty to the US and loyalty to other nations, including our opponents, is noted.

We can keep this silly "last post wins" contest going but it serves no purpose other than distraction.

 

[huskerblitz]

Your equation of loyalty to the US and loyalty to other nations, including our opponents, is noted.

We can keep this silly "last post wins" contest going but it serves no purpose other than distraction.

I agree that that type of debate is silly. It's all perspective.

 

[archieclement]

Your equation of loyalty to the US and loyalty to other nations, including our opponents, is noted.

We can keep this silly "last post wins" contest going but it serves no purpose other than distraction.

Then quit......you post just to continue it?

Ok.......certainly treason applies to other nationalities as well British colonists.

Ultimately however it's our government and legal system to set policy as to prosecute or not. They did, and I'm quite fine with our system as well.

 

[Belfoured]

Then quit......you post just to continue it?

Ok.......certainly treason applies to other nationalities as well British colonists.

Ultimately however it's our government and legal system to set policy as to prosecute or not. They did, and I'm quite fine with our system as well.

You're the one who keeps it going. I'm done.

 

[wausaubob]

The colonists were British subjects and citizens. Anybody can do a fan dance round that but the actions they took were treason against Britain and the Crown. As you point out, they knew it and to their credit admitted it. And, as you also point out, the DOI had nothing to do with the Constitution.

If secession was a right, than the established government had a duty to let the secessionist states go. But that is not what the Constitution requires. It imposes a duty on the government to protect the US, and every citizen of every state. The non secessionist citizens of the potential Confederate states had a right to remain in the US.

 

[wausaubob]

There were other revolutions in Europe that were not successful. Our European friends could comment. I believe that even in the French revolution, the revolutionaries got to experience the wonders of the guillitene first hand. In Germany and Austria I believe the revolutionaries fled, to Britain and the US, when their revolt failed. Even Cromwell was dismembered posthumously, I believe, after the restoration.

 

[JerryD]

So your position is then our Founding Fathers as British citizens should cared more about treason to UK. Noted........

That's not even close to what he said. In fact, he said the exact opposite. You can do better than that, Archie. That one was especially weak. I mean, putting words into someone's mouth that is the opposite of what they actually said? C'mon now! That does not fool anyone.

 

[JerryD]

Simply absurd then. As treason is actually treason regardless of nationality.

Either subjects of a country should or shouldn't. Whether British or US. So your hypocrisy is noted.

Doesn't this fly in the face of what you said just a few post earlier in this very thread that not all treason is bad? I agreed with that one. For some rulers, its just to oppose them. So now you are saying all treason is bad? Are you seriously arguing two sides of the very same argument? It looks like you are just spoiling for a fight and you don't really believe anything you say, so long as you can disagree with someone. Not sure how else to interpret the difference between your posts 15 and 23.

 

[archieclement]

Doesn't this fly in the face of what you said just a few post earlier in this very thread that no all treason is bad? I agreed with that one. For some rulers, its just to oppose them. So now you are saying all treason is bad? Are you seriously arguing two sides of the very same argument? It looks like you are just spoiling for a fight and you don't really believe anything you say, so long as you can disagree with someone. Not sure how else to interpret the difference between your posts 15 and 23.

Not at all, however if one believes it's not inherently bad, which I do, the US however is no more exempt then any other country.

Certainly as a country we celebrate treason, its our founding and likely why we historically have love affair with rebels/vigilantes.

Certainly in our system if it's crime deserving of some harsh penalty is up to our government and legal system, they elected not to. I have no issue with that either, how our system works. Personally I've always thought the strength of our system is prosecutoral discretion and then a jury of peers who can exercise discretion as well by jury nullification.

 

[wausaubob]

Getting back to the original subject, Grant had options. He could have insisted on retaining the officers as hostages until the end of the war. The US did not need exchange credits at that time. The Confederate POW system was unraveling. Or he could have called on General Lee, as head of all Confederate military forces to sign the surrender for all forces. That segues into a mistake. Grant and the administration omitted to inform General Sherman of what had been agreed to. As Sherman later remarked, it would have been helpful if someone had told him the terms.

 

[wausaubob]

Isn't there a distinction with respect to results between the ARW and the US Civil War?

 

[JerryD]

Not at all, however if one believes it's not inherently bad, which I do, the US however is no more exempt then any other country.

Certainly as a country we celebrate treason, its our founding and likely why we historically have love affair with rebels/vigilantes.

Certainly in our system if it's crime deserving of some harsh penalty is up to our government and legal system, they elected not to. I have no issue with that either, how our system works. Personally I've always thought the strength of our system is prosecutoral discretion and then a jury of peers who can exercise discretion as well by jury nullification.

To be honest, this is pretty much how I view the topic as well. Different folks can have different opinions on which governments are worthy of being overthrown (or separated from, in the CSA's case), but I dont believe in a blanket statement that all treason is bad. There is a an old saying that one man's rebels is another's freedom fighters.

 

[wausaubob]

To be honest, this is pretty much how I view the topic as well. Different folks can have different opinions on which governments are worthy of being overthrown (or separated from, in the CSA's case), but I dont believe in a blanket statement that all treason is bad. There is a an old saying that one man's rebels is another's freedom fighters.

Isn't that a line in the first Shogun miniseries? The Japanese Shogun accuses his Dutch prisoner of being a traitor. And the Dutchman replies: Not if we win.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Not at all, however if one believes it's not inherently bad, which I do, the US however is no more exempt then any other country.

Certainly as a country we celebrate treason, its our founding and likely why we historically have love affair with rebels/vigilantes.

Treason is inherently bad. Just like murder is inherently bad. The only thing that makes treason - or murder - justifiable is if the situation warrants such a bad remedy.

We don't "celebrate treason." We celebrate a revolution for justifiable causes in which we won our independence. There is a long history here of pro-confederates trying to associate the confederate cause with the American Revolution. It's a lame comparison for many reasons.

But yes, we have a habit to honor those who operate outside of the law in the name of a good cause. Like John Brown.

 

[archieclement]

Treason is inherently bad. Just like murder is inherently bad. The only thing that makes treason - or murder - justifiable is if the situation warrants such a bad remedy.

We don't "celebrate treason." We celebrate a revolution for justifiable causes in which we won our independence. There is a long history here of pro-confederates trying to associate the confederate cause with the American Revolution. It's a lame comparison for many reasons.

But yes, we have a habit to honor those who operate outside of the law in the name of a good cause. Like John Brown.

Indeed and in ARW 13 colonies decided it was warranted, in the ACW 11 states decided it warranted likewise.

And by the time of the ACW, the 11 states represent twice the population of the 13 colonies. (using non enslaved for both)

And I disagree we certainly celebrate treason, counties and cities are named for people committing treason. Why rebel and don't tread on me flags have always been popular.

But that treason is indeed treason isn't a lame comparison at all, and that we celebrate and honor being founded on revolution and treason certainly shows it's not somehow inherently bad. That 5 million people felt it was warranted is little different then 2 million, other then it's a larger group deciding it warranted in ACW. They lost militarily, but certainly wasn't somehow less people feeling it was justified or warranted.

 

[archieclement]

Isn't that a line in the first Shogun miniseries? The Japanese Shogun accuses his Dutch prisoner of being a traitor. And the Dutchman replies: Not if we win.

And I'm fine with that.......but then that rather eliminates moralizing as simply brute force decides. Just as slave revolutions, Indian Wars or John Brown were put down.

Might makes right can be a standard, and has been often throughout history. Which is rather tied to victors make/write history. As was the case with the ACW, that the victors chose reconciliation over retribution, was still the victors deciding the outcome.