Traitor vs rebel

[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!

I'm not as smart as many here. I don't have the logical discipline. But I can see good men on both sides.

 

[wilber6150]

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.

You are kind of leaving out what these so called violations and obligations were related to?

 

[War Horse]

Maybe I'm wrong but isn't it true that once you rise up against authority you are a rebel. Once you openly conspire to harm your government you are a traitor. Both words are accurate and correct concerning the confederacy. Victory for the opposing side seems to erase the negative connotation of these words only because the rebel government then and only then becomes a legitimate government.

 

[Lost Cause]

Maybe I'm wrong but isn't it true that once you rise up against authority you are a rebel. Once you openly conspire to harm your government you are a traitor. Both words are accurate and correct concerning the confederacy. Victory for the opposing side seems to erase the negative connotation of these words only because the rebel government then and only then becomes a legitimate government.

Once victory is obtained, it is a revolution. If the Confederacy had won, it would have likely been called the second revolution.

 

[War Horse]

Once victory is obtained, it is a revolution. If the Confederacy had won, it would have likely been called the second revolution.

I completely agree with this. Lee would be considered the father of the confederacy. It's a dance on the edge of a razor blade.

 

[Lost Cause]

I completely agree with this. Lee would be considered the father of the confederacy. It's a dance on the edge of a razor blade.

Absolutely, this certainly explains Lee's inner confliction right before the war.

 

[DanF]

I completely agree with this. Lee would be considered the father of the confederacy. It's a dance on the edge of a razor blade.

Unfortunately for Lee the baby turned out to be illigitimate.

 

[peteanddelmar]

I completely agree with this. Lee would be considered the father of the confederacy. It's a dance on the edge of a razor blade.

Very well put sir!

 

[Henry Whitworth]

Interesting for people to introduce the word revolution here. That comes from the latin -revolutio -to turn around.

I think the real revolution that happened was against the old plantation powers. The social revolution knocked the foundation out from under the institution of slavery and ****. An incomplete revolution, to be sure, but that to me seems like the real, long term, revolution that was sparked in 1860. It wasn't the Confederacy that was trying to turn something around, they were fighting against change. It was an ultra-conservative movement, not a revolutionary one.

 

[ole]

Philip:

In your post #60. See the word "[/QUOT"? Go to edit and finish the word with the required "E]". Do that and your post will be out of the post box.

ole said: ↑
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?

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.

 

[Elennsar]

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".

This is a couple pages back, but as a someone who started this off with stating their feelings loudly:

If the US government - God forbid - became a despotic state endangering the lives and liberties of innocents, I'd like to think I'd be brave enough to be willing to give its enemies aid and comfort, hell, to be one of its enemies.

Same as I'd be willing to break any other unjust law for the greater good.

Robin Hood was just as much an outlaw because the reason for it was lousy as if it had been because he was a vile scumbag who kicked children and puppies.

Lee had character, Washington had character, Arnold did not - but "It's only unlawful for those without character." isn't how the law works.

It might be how common usage (mine included) works - I rarely call anyone a traitor unless I think they're going beyond unlawful in any other context - but I don't think it does any good at sorting out truth to talk about rebellion and treason as once you get the Good Guy title, you can't have any other terms applied that describe what you did.

 

[War Horse]

This is a couple pages back, but as a someone who started this off with stating their feelings loudly:

If the US government - God forbid - became a If the Constitution's despotic state endangering the lives and liberties of innocents, I'd like to think I'd be brave enough to be willing to give its enemies aid and comfort, hell, to be one of its enemies.

Same as I'd be willing to break any other unjust law for the greater good.

Robin Hood was just as much an outlaw because the reason for it was lousy as if it had been because he was a vile scumbag who kicked children and puppies.

The second amendment allows the ability to do just that.

 

[JerseyBart]

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

Yes, it is a hateful word. I'd hate to be called a traitor, but it would be accurate for doing traitorous deeds. Traitorous deeds...also hateful.

 

[FarawayFriend]

This is a couple pages back, but as a someone who started this off with stating their feelings loudly:

If the US government - God forbid - became a despotic state endangering the lives and liberties of innocents, I'd like to think I'd be brave enough to be willing to give its enemies aid and comfort, hell, to be one of its enemies.

Same as I'd be willing to break any other unjust law for the greater good.

Robin Hood was just as much an outlaw because the reason for it was lousy as if it had been because he was a vile scumbag who kicked children and puppies.

Lee had character, Washington had character, Arnold did not - but "It's only unlawful for those without character." isn't how the law works.

It might be how common usage (mine included) works - I rarely call anyone a traitor unless I think they're going beyond unlawful in any other context - but I don't think it does any good at sorting out truth to talk about rebellion and treason as once you get the Good Guy title, you can't have any other terms applied that describe what you did.

Just to avoid misunderstanding, I was not judging any action, I was referring to the use of the word "traitor" as opposed to the word "rebel".
You can say "I admire him. He is a rebel." but not "I admire him. He is a traitor".

 

[cash]

Just to avoid misunderstanding, I was not judging any action, I was referring to the use of the word "traitor" as opposed to the word "rebel".
You can say "I admire him. He is a rebel." but not "I admire him. He is a traitor".

I admire George Washington, and he was a traitor to the British.

 

[huskerblitz]

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.

This is my kind of reaction as well. If the deed is for one's own personal gain (Arnold) would be a traitor in my mind. I don't view supporters of the Confederacy in that regard. It was a collective effort to fix what they believed was wrong in government.

I do believe traitor is used on this forum more to incite opposing viewpoints than to attempt to remain historical.

 

[cash]

I do believe traitor is used on this forum more to incite opposing viewpoints than to attempt to remain historical.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." [US Constitution, Article II, Section 3]

If we're to "remain historical," then we have to acknowledge the confederates levied war against the United States. Therefore, they met the definition of treason. To say they didn't is to engage in fantasy, rather than to attempt to remain historical.

 

[huskerblitz]

If you say so. Doesn't change my view of why the people that use it do so.

 

[wilber6150]

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

What would you call a commnunity that decided you are no longer a citizen of the country that you were born in and your relatives fought to create against your will and that community decideds to take hostile action against it?

 

[godofredus]

Why don't we agree to disagree? I won't complain when someone calls R.E.Lee and company "heroic Americans." and you don't bug me when I call them traitors?

This is now a famous quote, familiar to all of us of a certain age:

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Harington_(inventor)

• Epigrams, Book iv, Epistle 5. Compare: "Prosperum ac felix scelus/ Virtus vocatur" ("Successful and fortunate crime/ is called virtue"), Seneca, Herc. Furens, ii. 250.

(By the way, Wiki lists him as "inventor" because he invented the flush toilet)