Traitor vs rebel

[DanF]

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

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.

 

[James B White]

Seems that the two words are like lots of pairs of words, one with positive connotations (or at least neutral), and one with negative connotations. Either can be used, depending on which meaning the speaker wants to get across: home with character or run-down old house, sexually confident woman or ****, mischievious child or ornery brat, etc.

 

[DanF]

Rebels and traitors is the only way to describe those making war on the legitimate govt. Of the united States as those doing so were neither the citizens or soldiers of another country. They were citizens of the united states engaged in insurrection/rebellion.

The CSA at no time was a legal govt.

 

[cash]

Every confederate soldier was rebelling against the United States; therefore, they were all rebels.

Every confederate soldier owed allegiance to the United States and was levying war against the United States; therefore, they were all traitors.

 

[BillO]

Both sides marched off to war thinking they were defending the constitution.

 

[RobertP]

The way I look at it is that the military-aged population, who were healthy and eligible to serve the Confederate States and who refused to do so, or who served in the Union uniform were traitors.

 

[wilber6150]

The way I look at it is that the military-aged population, who were healthy and eligible to serve the Confederate States and who refused to do so, or who served in the Union uniform were traitors.

Traitors to the country they were born in and whose flag they grew up under?

 

[Henry Whitworth]

They're definitely loaded words and they both definitely apply to the Confederates. It's a choice of how one wants to view them. A "traitor" is one who betrays. A "rebel" is defined as one who "rises up" against a government or other established power. Look at the roots of the word. "bel" is from bellum which means war. Re-war. It's a defeated party declaring war again. It signifies defiance against an unjust power. Of course, most Confederates had no problem viewing themselves as Rebels. But they were still literally traitors against the United States. Choosing to call them one or the other signifies how the person using the term views them, not anything literal about the Confederates themselves.

I think it's even more complicated than most would have it. The Civil War can also be viewed as a rebellion against the slave powers.

 

[Patrick H]

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

Once again, I think UnionBlue has it just right--and very succinctly, too. The only thing I could add (or perhaps modify) is that it SHOULD be a label and not an emotion. But I agree with our original poster that sometimes the word "traitor" seems to be used in a rather hateful or hurtful way in discussions on our forum. It's not always used that way, of course, but I occasionally hear it that way in my mind's ear.

 

[RobertP]

Traitors to the country they were born in and whose flag they grew up under?

Yes Wilber, but they were living in a new country when called to arms.

 

[DanF]

The way I look at it is that the military-aged population, who were healthy and eligible to serve the Confederate States and who refused to do so, or who served in the Union uniform were traitors.

That only tells me that your view is not formed by reason, logic, or reality. But is instead a product of ideology.

 

[DanF]

Yes Wilber, but they were living in a new country when called to arms.

No they weren't the Confederacy was never a country, new or otherwse.

Lamar v. Micou, the Court ruled, "The so-called Confederate government was in no sense a lawful government, but was a mere government of force, having its origin and foundation in rebellion against the United States." [112 US 452. 476]

 

[Henry Whitworth]

Yes Wilber, but they were living in a new country when called to arms.

Or they were defending their original country against an uprising led by the most rich and powerful of their region. Some Southerners were rebelling against local powers by siding with the Union.

 

[wilber6150]

Yes Wilber, but they were living in a new country when called to arms.

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...

 

[DanF]

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...

Maybe they "jumped over the broom" into de land O' the confederacy! "

 

[dvrmte]

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

What would you call your neighbor if he joined a foreign government's army that was waging war against your community?

 

[Mild53]

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 .

Good point, if you were loyal to the union and living in the south, fellow citizens refered to you as a traitor, not as a person of strong values and committment.

I've read hundreds of letters written by Northern Soliders, and they often refered to confederates as traitors.

If you want to be historically accurate, then traitors is not too harsh a word to use. The term "Rebel" is actually PC, at least from the viewpoint of Northern Soldiers.

 

[FarawayFriend]

Once again, I think UnionBlue has it just right--and very succinctly, too. The only thing I could add (or perhaps modify) is that it SHOULD be a label and not an emotion. But I agree with our original poster that sometimes the word "traitor" seems to be used in a rather hateful or hurtful way in discussions on our forum. It's not always used that way, of course, but I occasionally hear it that way in my mind's ear.

I don't see how the word "traitor" could be used other than implying something negative.
Your could use "rebel" in a negative, neutral or positive way, depending on your own point of view, but never "traitor".

 

[DanF]

What would you call your neighbor if he joined a foreign government's army that was waging war against your community?

A traitor,

But what does that have to do with the CW? There were no foreign govt involved. In fact there was only one legitimate, legal govt. Involved.

 

[Mild53]

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.

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.