Traitor vs rebel

[Mild53]

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.

Always remember, at the core of perceived despotism of the north was the threat to slavery. The secession documents all point to the theat to slavery as the reason for the action.

 

[johan_steele]

Always remember, at the core of perceived despotism of the north was the threat to slavery. The secession documents all point to the theat to slavery as the reason for the action.

It still is.

 

[DanF]

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

It was an extremely dumb move on Virginia's part.

 

[dvrmte]

I really don't want to call you "ignorant," or other pejorative terms, but you have been on this board so long, I can't believe you have missed this:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
The South Carolina secession document:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Emphasis added

I can't believe you misread what you went to the trouble of underlining and bolding, but I won't call you ignorant. It says exactly what I said it said. The d@mn Yankees deliberately broke the compact with their violations and disregard of their constitutional obligations.

 

[dvrmte]

What violations?

Violations of the Fugative SLAVE law? Preventing slaveholders from bringing their slaves into territories?

If it wasn't about slavery why does the S. C. Articles of secession portray the conflict as being between slaveholding and non slaveholding states?


Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

As can be seen from the above excerpts from S. C. Aeticles of secession it was very much about slavery.

It's so simple even Wiki can figure it out.


The opening portion of the declaration outlines the historical background of South Carolina and offers a legal justification for its secession. It asserts that the right of states to secede is implicit in the Constitutionand this right was explicitly reaffirmed by South Carolina in 1852. The declaration states that the agreement between South Carolina and the United States is subject to the law of compact, which creates obligations on both parties and which revokes the agreement if either party fails to uphold its obligations.

The next section asserts that the government of the United States and of states within that government had failed to uphold their obligations to South Carolina. The specific issue stated was the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and clauses in the U.S. Constitution protecting slavery and the federal government's perceived role in attempting to abolish slavery.

The next section states that while these problems had existed for twenty-five years, the situation had recently become unacceptable due to the election of a President (this was Abraham Lincoln although he is not mentioned by name) who was planning to outlaw slavery.

 

[DanF]

I can't believe you misread what you went to the trouble of underlining and bolding, but I won't call you ignorant. It says exactly what I said it said. The d@mn Yankees deliberately broke the compact with their violations and disregard of their constitutional obligations.

Why dont you point out in the Constitution where individual States decide what is constitutional or not or that they can take unilateral based on their unsubstantiated claims.

The constitution is very clear on who has the authority to decide and resolve controversies/cases between states.


Article lll
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

 

[DanF]

It's so simple even Wiki can figure it out.


The opening portion of the declaration outlines the historical background of South Carolina and offers a legal justification for its secession. It asserts that the right of states to secede is implicit in the Constitutionand this right was explicitly reaffirmed by South Carolina in 1852. The declaration states that the agreement between South Carolina and the United States is subject to the law of compact, which creates obligations on both parties and which revokes the agreement if either party fails to uphold its obligations.

The next section asserts that the government of the United States and of states within that government had failed to uphold their obligations to South Carolina. The specific issue stated was the refusal of some states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and clauses in the U.S. Constitution protecting slavery and the federal government's perceived role in attempting to abolish slavery.

The next section states that while these problems had existed for twenty-five years, the situation had recently become unacceptable due to the election of a President (this was Abraham Lincoln although he is not mentioned by name) who was planning to outlaw slavery.

The only things the above reflects are the claims of South Carolina. It does not make them true.

 

[godofredus]

I can't believe you misread what you went to the trouble of underlining and bolding, but I won't call you ignorant. It says exactly what I said it said. The d@mn Yankees deliberately broke the compact with their violations and disregard of their constitutional obligations.

How did the Yankees break the compact? For example, Lincoln tried to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act (a law which violated states rights by the way). In their delusional paranoid fashion the South Carolinian's say you're not doing it. In
Chicago in early April of 1861 the fear of enforcement of the fugitive slave act was so pervasive that more than 100 Negro residents fled the city for Canada. See Civil War Chicago, ed by Karamanski and McMahon, pp 43-44 The Chicago Evening Journal, April 8, 1861....
In a handful of cases outraged citizens tried to block re-capture; in most cases, no such luck.
The South was smarter, for close to 100 years after the conclusion of peace, Southern congress critters successfully blocked anti-lynching bills.

I know I will never change your mind, I have argued with you before. It is just that some newby reader of the board might believe your balderdash, so I strive to correct you.

 

[johan_steele]

It's interesting to note that the secessionists were only complaining about issues having to do with slavery... and it is clear there are still those who approve of & defend their complaints. There are those who defend slavery still along with the defacto apartheid that came after. Thank god they are a minority; though I wonder if they realize it.

If a man despises their government & their country to the point where they even make efforts to distort and denigrate history does that make them a traitor? I think so, guilty of treason? No, I don't think so. Rebel? To be a rebel a man has to have the courage of their convictions... which I suspect few do.