Was John Brown a Traitor? (Poll)

Was John Brown a Traitor?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 61.5%
  • No

    Votes: 35 36.5%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 2 2.1%

  • Total voters
    96

NathanTowne

Corporal
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Location
United States
You didn't assert use of Federal military forces in that case. So now you are shifting the goal posts.



You're mistaken as to what the historical record shows.



Probably not.

I was obviously referring to response to attack upon a U.S. facility and servicemen, which is how we got on the subject, so I am not sure what your confusion on this is. If armed insurrection prohibited the functions of the U.S. government, they could be sustained via the force of the United States military.

No, I am not mistaken regarding the historical record. It is pretty clear on these central questions.

I have made my basic points on this. I will just leave it at that unless something else comes up on the thread that it would be valuable for me to respond to.
 
Last edited:

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
The first part of your post is inaccurate as it relates to the defense of Federal property and the protection of U.S. servicemen performing legitimate constitutional functions. Depending on the circumstances, it could require legislative consent. There are some constitutional issues around the edges, but that is a basic synopsis, which is sufficient for this thread. There were also free passage issues and the like, but again, that is really outside of the point.

Of course, in the case of insurrections within the States, the U.S. military could only provide direct assistance with the consent of the State government. Of course, intervening preemptively would also be unconstitutional, in almost all cases.

I do understand all of that.

As for the second point, I think that the historical record points to a different conclusion, so that is that. We are just not going to see eye to eye on this.
The President of the United States can deploy U.S. troops to a state without the consent of that state in order to enforce an order of a fedeal court. *** Edited out non-CW related politics. ***
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited by a moderator:

E_just_E

Captain
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
Center Valley, PA
The President of the United States can deploy U.S. troops to a state without the consent of that state

Of course. And that is a legal fact since the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act became the Law of the land.

In 2007... And for natural disasters.

Before that, the Law of the Land was The Posse Comitatus Act (of 1878)...

The legal situation in the 1850s was not that clear, but the Insurrection Act of 1807, was likely it and that clearly required permission from the Congress...
 
Last edited:

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
The President of the United States can deploy U.S. troops to a state without the consent of that state in order to enforce an order of a fedeal court. For example President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to assist the U.S. Marshals Service to intergrate Little Rock Central High School. President Kennedy sent the 82nd Airborne to do the same at Mississippi State University "Old Miss".
Leftyhunter

By the Militia Act of 1795 and the Insurrection Act of 1807, the President could use military force when the laws were obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary judicial proceedings or the marshals. The President could also use military force in the event of invasion or imminent invasion by a foreign power or, as the Militia Act says, Indian tribes. Otherwise the state legislature or the governor had to formally request the President use the militia and/or the military. Since the 1960s were not the 1850s, and the various statutes had undergone amendment and other change since then, I don't think that makes a good example.
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Of course. And that is a legal fact since the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act became the Law of the land.

In 2007... And for natural disasters.

Before that, the Law of the Land was The Posse Comitatus Act (of 1878)...

The legal situation in the 1850s was not that clear, but the Insurrection Act of 1807, was likely it and that clearly required permission from the Congress...
Not seeing why the John Warner Act applies. President Eisenhower and Kennedy sent in federal troops to the South decades before John Warner was,a senator. Neither President cared what the state of Arkansas and Mississippi thought about what they did.
Leftyhunter
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
By the Militia Act of 1795 and the Insurrection Act of 1807, the President could use military force when the laws were obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary judicial proceedings or the marshals. The President could also use military force in the event of invasion or imminent invasion by a foreign power or, as the Militia Act says, Indian tribes. Otherwise the state legislature or the governor had to formally request the President use the militia and/or the military. Since the 1960s were not the 1850s, and the various statutes had undergone amendment and other change since then, I don't think that makes a good example.
My point was simply that a president can under certain circumstances send in federal troops to enforce federal law or a federal court decision regardless of what a state Govenor and or legislator wish.
The Supreme Court had no issue with the actions of either President Eisenhower or Kennedy. Neither has you know did the Supreme Court have a problem with Lincoln sending troops to the South.
Leftyhunter
 

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
Treason consists only of levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to its enemies

And then there is the strange case of William Bruce Mumford..................But that's off topic and for another forum..............


Respectfully,
William
7.JPG
 

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
My point was simply that a president can under certain circumstances send in federal troops to enforce federal law or a federal court decision regardless of what a state Govenor and or legislator wish.
The Supreme Court had no issue with the actions of either President Eisenhower or Kennedy. Neither has you know did the Supreme Court have a problem with Lincoln sending troops to the South.
Leftyhunter

The circumstances have to meet the law at the time. Again, I'm not sure the 20th Century examples are relevant considering there were changes to laws in the intervening 100+ years. Lincoln's situation matched the requirements of the Militia Act of 1795 and the Insurrection Act of 1807. In cases that don't meet the requirements of the law, the President cannot send in military force.
 

E_just_E

Captain
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Location
Center Valley, PA
Not seeing why the John Warner Act applies. President Eisenhower and Kennedy sent in federal troops to the South decades before John Warner was,a senator. Neither President cared what the state of Arkansas and Mississippi thought about what they did.
Leftyhunter

Yes. Correct. But they were illegal. Like the Kent State Massacre (to mention an example of a State doing something illegal.)
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The question though was whether his actions constituted treason against the United States. I think that the Harper's Ferry raid pretty clearly did.
His actions appear treasonous and as a treason trial would have been held in the US district court in VA, the outcome seems to have been the same.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
You didn't assert use of Federal military forces in that case. So now you are shifting the goal posts.



You're mistaken as to what the historical record shows.



Probably not.
As mod. Please be careful with personal references to members.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
That assumes a judge wouldn't throw out the charge when it came to court.
The sequence of events as I understand is that the prosecutor would determine charges, empanel a grand jury, give evidence call witnesses and so on assuming he is competent get a a true bill with arrests, indictments and then a preliminary hearing to determine to proceed. My guess is that the charge gets to that point, then there will be a trial.
 

Bee

Captain
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
I appreciate the links, definitions and reading material provided by everyone. Like so many "after the fact" events in the Civil War: we know the outcome, the results won't change, but it is fun and interesting to analyze the process that unfolded at the time.
 
Last edited:

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
The sequence of events as I understand is that the prosecutor would determine charges, empanel a grand jury, give evidence call witnesses and so on assuming he is competent get a a true bill with arrests, indictments and then a preliminary hearing to determine to proceed. My guess is that the charge gets to that point, then there will be a trial.

The judge can throw out the charges if they don't conform to the law.
 
Top