Was John Brown a Traitor? (Poll)

Was John Brown a Traitor?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 60.8%
  • No

    Votes: 35 36.1%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 3 3.1%

  • Total voters
    97

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I have not looked into it but what laws regarding sending in federal troops to enforce federal court orders changed from 1865 to 1956? 1956 being of course the year President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas

Leftyhunter
Big change

Militia Act of 1903
Senator Charles Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Big change

Militia Act of 1903
Senator Charles Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]

Perhaps the most important part:

In return, the federal government gained greater control over the National Guard. ThePresident of the United States was empowered to call up the National Guard for up to nine months to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or enforce federal laws. Guardsmen had to answer a presidential call or face court-martial.​
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
Big change

Militia Act of 1903
Senator Charles Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and designated the militia [per Title 10, Section 311] as two groups: the Unorganized Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]
I just read the Wiki article. It does not directly pertain to a President sending in the regular army to enforce judicial orders when state authorities refuse to do so. It did provide President Eisenhower with the authority to replace the 101st with federalized Arkansas National Guard.
Leftyhunter
 

NathanTowne

Corporal
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Location
United States
John Brown was a criminal. He had no intentions to overthrow the U.S. government. His intention was to lead a slave rebellion to free the slaves in the south.

Note: This was my 5000 post and I was promoted to Captain... Yea...

Under that definition though, neither secession nor nullification would be treasonous either. It is important to take care to be consistent.

Each, in themselves, would be treasonous if treason consists of rebellious activity intended to overthrow the authority of the U.S. government. In that event, the Harper's Ferry raid would certainly apply as well.

We could further narrow the field by restricting the definition to cases in which these rebellious activities resulted in an attack upon U.S. forces, or resistance by force, to the execution of the laws. That would allow you to rule out cases like those in which people aided the underground railroad, or the Kentucky resolutions, but you are still left with a situation in which nullification were to be defended by force, as well as the Harper's Ferry raid, as constituting treason.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Under your definition, neither secession nor nullification would be treasonous either, so you must be careful to be consistent. Each, in themselves, would be treasonous if treason consists of rebellious activity intended to overthrow the authority of the U.S. government. In that event, the Harper's Ferry raid was certainly apply as well.
As an aside, the way I explain it, treason is a specific crime difficult to prove. Convicting someone of treasonous actions or activity has a much lower bar.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Under your definition, neither secession nor nullification would be treasonous either, so you must be careful to be consistent. Each, in themselves, would be treasonous if treason consists of rebellious activity intended to overthrow the authority of the U.S. government. In that event, the Harper's Ferry raid was certainly apply as well.
Please be careful of the use of personal pronouns in referencing members. Address the post please and not the member.
 

NathanTowne

Corporal
Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Location
United States
Omg years later I return and we are still arguing over the same things lol rofl

If someone is intent on drawing a very tight line between domestic terrorism and treason and come to the conclusion that Brown's Raid at Harper's Ferry constituted the former, but not the later, I am not sure that it makes a tremendous difference anyways. I think that, in this case, the argument is a bit suspect, but in practical effect it doesn't really alter much regarding the nature of the crime
 
Top