Traitor vs rebel

[Elennsar]

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".

But that use makes people go out of their way to avoid acknowledging that treason as a legal offense is not necessarily an unadmirable quality. If what Washington was doing was right, does the fact he was defying the will of his "rightful sovereign" somehow turn a fight for liberty into a bad thing?

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?

I can only speak for myself, but:

I don't mind if people think Lee was heroic. At all.

But alking about the historical Lee is far more interesting to me than the fictional saint.

Put it simply, do we see Lee as less well mannered because he actually could tell a dirty joke?

I don't.

If we applied the logic people use to object to calling Lee a traitor because of the Constitution's definition of treason to that, however, we couldn't talk about Lee's wonderful sense of humor without repeated nonsensical "defenses" of Lee being too pure to be human. And he would be very boring if we couldn't talk about his sense of humor.

 

[Freddy]

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 Constitution does not require an oath of allegiance for a crime of treason to be charged.

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. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

[W. Richardson]

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.

I agree and have been "preaching" this forever as to "interpretation" of history. It all depends how one or from which side one views the subject from. The best way to understand history is to, if possible, view it and study it from both sides of the coin. FarawayFriend once again you are right on spot with your post.

Respectfully,

William

 

[Specster]

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

That is an amazing take on the situation. I was thinking along the lines that a rebel has a justifiable cause where as a traitor is someone you trust and backstabs you for personal gain. That is totally subjective - knee jerk....

UB - your response was novel and I did not even consider that angle. Hats off to your ancestors....

 

[W. Richardson]

It is a hateful word used as oneupsmanship.

I agree with you, but I have no issue with any Confederphobic using the word traitor if it enhances their day.
I can see their viewpoint from the Union side that Lee was a traitor, I don't accept it or see it that way myself though.
I suppose even our founding fathers were traitor's as seen by the English and in all honesty, in the English viewpoint, they were.............Washington is still a hero to me and an honorable man, just as much as Lee is.

Respectfully,

William

 

[War Horse]

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

Excellent point and accruate. Thank you for this.

 

[Specster]

The Constitution does not require an oath of allegiance for a crime of treason to be charged.

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. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Attainder - (Webster

"extinction of the civil rights and capacities of a person upon sentence of death or outlawry usually after a conviction of treason."

Not a word you see every day, nor one I had encountered before

 

[JerseyBart]

What would southerners then and what do modern southerners think now of southerners who did not support secession and the attempted confederacy?

 

[DanF]

According to Mark Neely in "southern rights: the myth of confederate constitutionality"

Confederate records show numerous imprisonments of individuals whose only "offense" is listed as "union man".

 

[JerseyBart]

Was John Brown a traitor?

 

[Elennsar]

Was John Brown a traitor?

I am not sure.

I think his raid on the Harper's Ferry arsenal narrowly escapes the US legal definition, though. Stealing Federal arms and weaponry is not "levying war against" the United States - but only in the sense I'm fairly sure its a different felony if done on its own.

Color me at present amenable to a reasonable arguement either way, and I say this as someone who admires and respects John Brown.

 

[JerseyBart]

I am not sure.

I think his raid on the Harper's Ferry arsenal narrowly escapes the US legal definition, though. Stealing Federal arms and weaponry is not "levying war against" the United States - but only in the sense I'm fairly sure its a different felony if done on its own.

Color me at present amenable to a reasonable arguement either way, and I say this as someone who admires and respects John Brown.

I'm just asking questions wondering what southerners then and now think.

 

[cash]

I am not sure.

I think his raid on the Harper's Ferry arsenal narrowly escapes the US legal definition, though. Stealing Federal arms and weaponry is not "levying war against" the United States - but only in the sense I'm fairly sure its a different felony if done on its own.

Color me at present amenable to a reasonable arguement either way, and I say this as someone who admires and respects John Brown.

He didn't levy war on the United States. He was a criminal, not a traitor, though he was wrongly convicted of treason against Virginia, a state of which he was never a citizen.

 

[DanF]

Was John Brown a traitor?

I think he was a nutjob psychopath. But if treason is levying war against the U. S. There is no evidence that he intended such. (as far as I know).

I think it is unfortunate they had not caught and hanged him years earlier.

 

[huskerblitz]

I think he was a nutjob psychopath. But if treason is levying war against the U. S. There is no evidence that he intended such. (as far as I know).

I think it is unfortunate they had not caught and hanged him years earlier.

Does that matter really? You shoot someone in the commission of a robbery....that's still murder regardless if one never intended on killing anyone. I didn't 'intend' to speed, but doggone it...still got a ticket for speeding!

 

[DanF]

Does that matter really? You shoot someone in the commission of a robbery....that's still murder regardless if one never intended on killing anyone. I didn't 'intend' to speed, but doggone it...still got a ticket for speeding!

It matters if you want to establish certain offenses. Browns raid appears to have been just that, a raid with the intention of seizing arms to spark a slave uprising.

Establishing treason means establishing that Brown was levying war against the U. S. Govt. Instead of merely committing criminal offenses.

Of course that would mean giving jurisdiction to Va. since Federal law didnt cover offenses like murder.

 

[huskerblitz]

This is getting off-topic, but this can be picked up in one of the multitude of John Brown threads here. But if his attorney portrayed the 'raid' as a military affair on a federal arsenal, well perhaps the label of traitor fits. But again, probably best for another thread.

 

[Elennsar]

He didn't levy war on the United States. He was a criminal, not a traitor, though he was wrongly convicted of treason against Virginia, a state of which he was never a citizen.

Seems reasonable. I'm not sure how broadly "levy war" would apply given his intended slave revolt, however.

"Treason to Virginia' is just absurd, though.

 

[ole]

Well, yes. He deserved hanging for the "raid." But treason to Virginia does invade the territory of silly.

 

[Mild53]

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.

My point is that despite not having government going my way now, I think that what we have is better than the alternatives. The US is still the best country in the world. I'd rather work my views from within. By the way, one of my points in this forum has been that confederate leaders failed their constituents by not working from within to secede, rather than firing on Ft Sumter.


As for abolitionists being called traitors, maybe that was historically so. You can certainly make a better case for John Brown being a traitor than a hero. However, the cause of abolitionists, freedom to slaves, was a more noble cause than secession to preserve the right to own slaves. Whatever label you give them, their work lead to change that was absolutely necessary. Secession? Was this really necessary?