United States v. Greathouse, et al. split from Were Confederate Generals Traitors?

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
#1
If you are not a US citizen and not in the sovereignty of the US you are in the clear.
If you are not in the soverign territory of the US you are in the clear.
If there is no state of war, you may be in the clear regardless.
A foreigner is likely not guilty unless caught and then up to the prosecutor.
See United States v. Greathouse, et al.

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/united-states-v-greathouse-et-al/

Alfred Rubery, an English subject, was convicted of treason and subsequently pardoned by Abraham Lincoln.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#2
  1. If you are not a US citizen and not in the sovereignty of the US you are in the clear.
  2. If you are not in the soverign territory of the US you are in the clear.
  3. If there is no state of war, you may be in the clear regardless.
  4. A foreigner is likely not guilty unless caught and then up to the prosecutor.
See United States v. Greathouse, et al.

https://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/united-states-v-greathouse-et-al/

Alfred Rubery, an English subject, was convicted of treason and subsequently pardoned by Abraham Lincoln.
Mr. Rubery ignored items 1,2,3 and 4. If indeed it is treason the ruling in Mr. Rubery's case is incoherent based on the normal definition of treason. But treason was neither charged nor convicted.

I've looked at this case before.

The jury found the defendants guilty. Sentence imposing both fine and imprisonment
was pronounced upon them. Rubery was subsequently pardoned by President Lincoln, at
the request of “our good friend,” John Bright, of England. The other defendants were sub-
sequently, during the attendance of Mr. Justice Field upon the supreme court, at Wash-
ington, brought before District Judge Hoffman, sitting in the circuit court, on habeas cor-
pus, and released from imprisonment upon taking the oath prescribed in the proclamation
of President Lincoln, issued after their sentence, and upon giving bond for their future
good behavior.
[Case No. 5,741.]
Suggests something other than pure treason at work.
The charge to the Jury was
If, therefore, you find that the facts, on the assumed truth of which these observations
are based, are proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence, our opinion is that they
constitute a levying of war against the United States, and “an engaging in giving aid and
comfort to the rebellion,” within the meaning: of the second section of the act of 1862,
and as charged in the indictment
The penalty for treason was death under the statute quoted. c37s2ch195.pdf July 17, 1863.
CHAP. CXCV.-An Act to suppress Insurrection, to punish Treason and Rebellion, to
seize and confiscate the Property of Rebels, and for other Purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That every person who shall Treason, how
hereafter commit the crime of treason against the United States, and shall punished.
be adjudged guilty thereof, shall suffer death,
and all his slaves, if any,
shall be declared and made free; or, at the discretion of the court, he
shall be imprisoned for not less than five years and fined not less than ten
thousand dollars, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made
free; said fine shall be levied and collected on any or all of the property,
Post, p. 627. real and personal, excluding slaves, of which the said person so convicted
was the owner at the time of committing the said crime, any sale or con-
veyance to the contrary notwithstanding.
Looks to me that the charge was “an engaging in giving aid and comfort to the rebellion,”

From the above link

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall hereafter
Engagin or incite, set on foot, assist, or engage in any rebellion or insurrection against
assisting, &c., in the authority of the United States, or the laws thereof, or shall give aid
rebelliogte6ainst or comfort thereto, or shall engage in, or give aid and comfort to, any such
States, how pun- existing rebellion or insurrection, and be convicted thereof, such person
ished. shall be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years,
or by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, and by the liberation of
all his slaves, if any he have; or by both of said punishments, at the
discretion of the court.
Under this section an Enlishman could be convict and while the US citizens could sign an oath and be free, the Englishman could not sign it so Lincoln pardons him at the request of John Bright a prominent British politician.

In short, no treason is sight.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
#3
Mr. Rubery ignored items 1,2,3 and 4. If indeed it is treason the ruling in Mr. Rubery's case is incoherent based on the normal definition of treason. But treason was neither charged nor convicted.

I've looked at this case before.


Suggests something other than pure treason at work.
The charge to the Jury was


The penalty for treason was death under the statute quoted. c37s2ch195.pdf July 17, 1863.


Looks to me that the charge was “an engaging in giving aid and comfort to the rebellion,”

From the above link



Under this section an Enlishman could be convict and while the US citizens could sign an oath and be free, the Englishman could not sign it so Lincoln pardons him at the request of John Bright a prominent British politician.

In short, no treason is sight.
Sorry, but your sight has a blind spot.

What was the name of the act they violated?

In his instructions to the jury, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field said, “The defendants are therefore in fact on trial for treason, and they have had all the protection and privileges allowed to parties accused of treason, without being liable, in case of conviction, to the penalty which all other civilized nations have awarded to this, the highest of crimes known to the law.” [26 Fed. Cas. 18, 23]

"The indictment alleged in substance: (1) The existence of a rebellion against the United States, their authority and laws; (2) That the defendants traitorously engaged in, and gave aid and comfort to, the same; (3) That in the execution of their treasonable purposes, they procured, fitted out and armed a vessel to cruise in the service of the rebellion, on the high seas, and commit hostilities against the citizens, property and vessels of the United States; and that the vessel sailed on such cruise."

http://uniset.ca/other/cs5/2AbbUS364.html
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
#4
The penalty for treason was death under the statute quoted. c37s2ch195.pdf July 17, 1863.
Apparently you missed this part: "or, at the discretion of the court, he shall be imprisoned for not less than five years and fined not less than ten thousand dollars, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free; said fine shall be levied and collected on any or all of the property, real and personal, excluding slaves, of which the said person so convicted was the owner at the time of committing the said crime, any sale or conveyance to the contrary notwithstanding."
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#5
Apparently you missed this part: "or, at the discretion of the court, he shall be imprisoned for not less than five years and fined not less than ten thousand dollars, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free; said fine shall be levied and collected on any or all of the property, real and personal, excluding slaves, of which the said person so convicted was the owner at the time of committing the said crime, any sale or conveyance to the contrary notwithstanding."
Noted without comment.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#6
Apparently you missed this part: "or, at the discretion of the court, he shall be imprisoned for not less than five years and fined not less than ten thousand dollars, and all his slaves, if any, shall be declared and made free; said fine shall be levied and collected on any or all of the property, real and personal, excluding slaves, of which the said person so convicted was the owner at the time of committing the said crime, any sale or conveyance to the contrary notwithstanding."
I missed nothing. Otherwise no comment.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#8
Sorry, but your sight has a blind spot.

What was the name of the act they violated?

In his instructions to the jury, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field said, “The defendants are therefore in fact on trial for treason, and they have had all the protection and privileges allowed to parties accused of treason, without being liable, in case of conviction, to the penalty which all other civilized nations have awarded to this, the highest of crimes known to the law.” [26 Fed. Cas. 18, 23]

"The indictment alleged in substance: (1) The existence of a rebellion against the United States, their authority and laws; (2) That the defendants traitorously engaged in, and gave aid and comfort to, the same; (3) That in the execution of their treasonable purposes, they procured, fitted out and armed a vessel to cruise in the service of the rebellion, on the high seas, and commit hostilities against the citizens, property and vessels of the United States; and that the vessel sailed on such cruise."

http://uniset.ca/other/cs5/2AbbUS364.html
As noted, treason is only for citizens therefore it must be a lessor charge. Otherwise no comment.
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
#10

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#11

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
33,528
Location
Right here.
#12
Except that in this case an Englishman was duly convicted. One can be convicted of treason and not be a citizen. They only have to owe allegiance to the United States. An Englishman living in the United States, while not a citizen, owes allegiance to the United States.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...cee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.b5610b708be3
From the link above, the idea that treason can only be committed by citizens is a myth.

"Even well-trained constitutional lawyers have sometimes repeated this myth. In his otherwise excellent book “Constitutional Faith,' for instance, Sanford Levinson writes that treason 'can be committed only by a citizen.'

But the offense of treason can be committed by any person who owes allegiance to the United States, and this can include noncitizens. Treason law recognizes two kinds of allegiance: permanent and temporary. U.S. citizens owe permanent allegiance to the United States, and this duty carries with them wherever they go in the world. By contrast, noncitizens in the United States (other than ambassadors and their staffs) owe a duty of temporary allegiance, the Supreme Court found in an 1872 case. While they are within the United States and receiving protection from it, noncitizens are governed by American treason law. If a person on a green card or a student or tourist visa, for example, wages war against the United States or provides aid and comfort to our enemies, he cannot escape a treason prosecution simply by asserting his foreign citizenship.

Under this law, there is a strong argument that the 9/11 hijackers committed treason by levying war against the United States. When a noncitizen leaves the country, however, the duty of temporary allegiance disappears."
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#13



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top