Traitor vs rebel

[peteanddelmar]

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

 

[unionblue]

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

Why?

My direct Confederate ancestors could be and are viewed by me as traitors to the United States, as they actively fought against them.

But then, my Revolutionary War ancestors were viewed as traitors to the English crown too.

The difference? One side lost the other side won.

It's a label, not an emotion.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[FarawayFriend]

Very interesting question!
I'd say it depends from which side you are viewing.
If you are looking from the attacked side, you would see the attackers as traitors.
If you are on the attacking side, you would consider yourself as rebel.

Just my opinion.

 

[Elennsar]

This is what I try to do when using those terms as relates to discussions related to American affairs:

I use "rebel" for Washington rather than traitor because everyone accepts that he is guilty of treason as it was seen by the law. There's no need to establish that what he did was in violation of law and the obligation of allegiance of subjects or citizens to their government, although it can be argued that the government's actions had forfeited any claim to said allegiance.

I use "traitor" for Lee and other Confederates primarily in pointing out that "taking up arms against the United States is treason", because despite the fact the average person in these discussions would rather use almost any other word for the act of fighting the US in the ACW than "treason" the wording of the legal definition is pretty straight forward.

Outside that context, I'm fine with calling Lee a rebel or a Confederate. He was guilty of treason as defined by the Constitution, he is not guilty as defined by conscience except to the extent obedience to lawful government is right and opposition is wrong, which is ultimately a matter being an element of the man's overall character rather than a sign of the complete absence of such, for which see below.

Benedict Arnold, however, violated, shamelessly and purposefully with selfish and vindictive intent, the trust placed in him by others. He was an oathbreaker, in the most bitterly condemnatory sense I can use that word.

He has no claim to have done his best to follow his conscience even if it happened to lead him to actions one might consider inappropriate here.

Providence may forgive any contrite sinner, and I dearly hope for Arnold's sake he is one. But if he's chosen Hell, I only wish that the Devil can keep it hot enough to melt the dross that clings to his soul.


Victory or defeat does not enter into either my loathing of Arnold, my respect for Washington, or my pity of Lee.

 

[Allie]

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.

 

[Barrycdog]

Patriot is also used.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

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.

The fact that they never swore an oath does not preclude an American or even a non- American from being charged with treason:

"By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, whilst domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence.

"This obligation of temporary allegiance by an alien resident in a friendly country is everywhere recognized by publicists and statesmen. In the case of Thrasher, a citizen of the United States resident in Cuba, who complained of injuries suffered from the government of that island, Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, made, in 1851, a report to the President in answer to a resolution of the House of Representatives, in which he said: 'Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by the mere fact of his residence, and that temporary protection which he enjoys, and is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens. This is the universal understanding in all civilized states, and nowhere a more established doctrine than in this country.' And again: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulation.'

"The same doctrine is stated in Hale's Pleas of the Crown, East's Crown Law, and Foster's Discourse upon High Treason, all of which are treatises of approved merit.

"Such being the established doctrine, the claimants here were amenable to the laws of the United States prescribing punishment for treason and for giving aid and comfort to the rebellion. They were, as domiciled aliens in the country prior to the rebellion, under the obligation of fidelity and obedience to the government of the United States. They subsequently took their lot with the insurgents, and would be subject like them to punishment under the laws they violated but for the proclamation of the President of December 25th, 1868. That proclamation, in its comprehensive terms, includes them and all others in like situation. It grants 'unconditionally, and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion, a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.'"
Excerpt from the 1873 majority opinion delivered by Justice Field in Carlisle v United States, 83 US 147

 

[Rebforever]

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.

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

 

[RobertP]

It's interesting how times are changing. My wife graduated from Ole Miss so we were watching the Rebels with interest during the football bowl season. They were soundly trounced by a determined TCU team in the Peach Bowl in Atlanta that obviously had something to prove over being left out of the 4 team playoff. Anyway, I was reading an Ole Miss fan message board where a few were wondering why Horned Frog fans called them 'traitors' at the game. It was determined to be a reference to the Rebel mascot and Mississippi baggage by the enlightened crowd from in Ft. Worth where there are Confederate monuments in almost every town around.

 

[wilber6150]

What about those who fought aginst the Union from states that didn't seceed? Confederate states didn't have a problem labeling those stayed loyal to the Union as traitors .

 

[Rebforever]

What about those who fought aginst the Union from states that didn't seceed? Confederate states didn't have a problem labeling those stayed loyal to the Union as traitors .

Treason was never proven on anyone. Just a hateful word that is spread around for one upsmenship. You know it and I know it.

 

[Allie]

"By allegiance is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign.

The relevant text is in bold.

 

[wilber6150]

Treason was never proven on anyone. Just a hateful word that is spread around for one upsmenship. You know it and I know it.

A hateful word that Confederate states had no problem applying to anyone that stayed loyal to the Union even to the point of creating legislation on it, so why shouldn't that to apply to those that fought against the Union? What was George Thomas considered in Virginia or the South? What about those that fought against both their states and the Union, what defense against the charge of treason do they have?

 

[johan_steele]

My opinion is thus: A rebel is a man with the courage of his convictions; willing to fight and die for his beliefs. Treason is betrayal or attempting to harm ones country on the sly; often while pretending to be loyal to the country they are secretly trying to hurt.

A man who resigns his commision then moves to join an enemy army isn't guilty of treason he's a rebel. A man who was born and raised in one nation then upon a certain point decides it is in his best interest to fight against the nation where he was born and raised.

A man who keeps his commision, remaining in the army then secretly funnels troop dispositions, movements etc to the enemy is treasonous. A man who has served his nation who paints himeself as a proud veteran while at the same time secretly making every effort to undermine those who have or are serving.

 

[wilber6150]

I would add the label to those that while still working for a government gave material and informational aid to those that conspire against that government....

 

[Rebforever]

A hateful word that Confederate states had no problem applying to anyone that stayed loyal to the Union even to the point of creating legislation on it, so why shouldn't that to apply to those that fought against the Union? What was George Thomas considered in Virginia or the South? What about those that fought against both their states and the Union, what defense against the charge of treason do they have?

It is a hateful word used as oneupsmanship.

 

[wilber6150]

It is a hateful word use as oneupsmanship.

Always has been a hateful word thats why duels were fought over its usage and why men took great care that their actions couldn't be considered tratorious...

 

[dvrmte]

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.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

The relevant text is in bold.

Relevant to what? What recognized sovereign or government did they become citizens of?

 

[wilber6150]

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.

And yet Southeners who fought for the Union against a government they didn't want or support were certainly seen that way ...