Who were more "traitorous" right before and/or during the American Civil War? (Poll.)

Who were more "traitorous" right before and/or during the American Civil War?


  • Total voters
    30
Joined
May 29, 2015
Location
Chesapeake, Virginia!
Who were more "traitorous" right before and/or during the American Civil War in all of your opinions and why? Just wondering.

PS: There is no right or wrong answer. Just a matter of opinions. And please do not think that being "traitorous" is necessarily (Even though it is generally a bad thing.) a bad thing because it can be either a good thing, a bad thing, or neither a good or a bad thing depending on the situation.
 
trai·tor noun a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc

When is that a good thing?

Like for example, traitors can be good people and fight against their own bad, unmoral, uncivilized, unjust, and etc group, organization, country, and etc. So, the people being labeled as traitors can be a good thing sense they are doing good and fighting evil by doing so by opposing/betraying their own group and/or etc.

Things like that.
 
you're right, its a loaded question because traitorous never has a positive connotation.

The word traitorous can have a positive connotation if good people betray bad people but, generally the words "traitors" and "traitorous" have negative connotation because mostly bad people betraying good people are generally called "traitors". But, that is not always the case...particularly in history. It is very interesting.
 
Before the war: Rebels.
Just because they didn't like how a fair and honest election went, they threw a temper tantrum and broke up the country.

During the war: Confederate sympathizers in the North.
Their own relatives and neighbors and friends were being slaughtered by rebel forces -- and yet they sympathized with their own countrymen's killers? Nasty! No wonder they were called copperheads.
 
Well, since both the Confederates and the Union sympathizers in the South were choosing between (at least) two loyalties, loyalty to the nation as a whole versus loyalty to one's neighbors and states, I'd have to say Copperheads who as far as I can tell were loyal to neither their state nor their nation. However, even Copperheads probably felt they were being loyal to a higher principle. Perhaps someone who understands it better can explain who or what Copperheads felt they were being loyal to.

If I recall correctly, the mods have expressed a distaste for throwing the word "traitor" around all willy-nilly, so perhaps you might try to find a better way to phrase the question. Although I'm not sure it can be done - the question may be inherently offensive.
 
Secesh...no doubt. However, that is my 21st century viewpoint.

To many of the Secesh (and Copperheads in the North), they felt they were NOT violating the Constitution, and that the North actually was by using war to force them to stay in the Union. We need to remember how little time had passed between the Revolutionary War and the ACW. To many Secesh, it was a second Revolution.

Also, it should be remembered that Jefferson Davis was NOT put on trial (as he hoped he would be), because the Republicans were worried that the case may ultimately be decided in the favor of the South by the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
Like for example, traitors can be good people and fight against their own bad, unmoral, uncivilized, unjust, and etc group, organization, country, and etc.

The word traitorous can have a positive connotation if good people betray bad people

I agree but the two are different. In the first there is a betrayal of something one is actually a part of. In the second that is not necessarily the case. If one is a citizen of a country, derives whatever benefits come with that, claims to be a good citizen, and then betrays the country that is a bad thing. If an FBI agent infiltrates a criminal drug gang then betrays them he or she was only pretending to be a part of it, thus not actually betraying a friend or group and so not really a traitor. In that scenario even "liar" might take on a positive connotation. @NedBaldwin kind of says it in post 7 above.

so perhaps you might try to find a better way to phrase the question. Although I'm not sure it can be done - the question may be inherently offensive.

I like, none of the above.

I'm not sure the question is as much offensive as incomplete. I don't know how many choices we are allowed to put in polls. I didn't answer because I don't know, or can't wrap my head around one over the other. It might have been better to have added "all of the above" and "none of the above" as choices. Maybe "traitorous" could have been rendered as "disaffected" (adj. - dissatisfied with the people in authority and no longer willing to support them.)

It is an interesting thought experiment. The most red hot southerners had been saying for decades that they would be willing to leave the union, so they were not pretending loyalty to something they claimed to agree with. The southern unionists had been arguing the opposite for decades, so when they betrayed their southern neighbors they had never pretended that they would go along. I just got a book on the Copperheads but haven't read it yet, so I don't feel comfortable commenting on them.

It seems to me that in their time and context all of them thought they were doing what was right, and most of them had clearly stated their positions. No betrayal or claim of loyalty there. That is the reason the Lost Cause/TOV arguments don't interest me. Whatever improvements might have been made in the phrasing the forced choice(s) in your poll question does invite people to think about the nuances.
 
I based my vote on the opinion of the times. Many Union men and women did consider the Confederates to be traitors. President Andrew Johnson pretty much issued a national amnesty for them after the war.

I don't perceive that Confederates/former Confederates saw the federals as "traitors." Although there was some feeling that the Union's actions were unconstitutional.

- Alan
 
Also, it should be remembered that Jefferson Davis was NOT put on trial (as he hoped he would be), because the Republicans were worried that the case may ultimately be decided in the favor of the South by the Supreme Court.
I dont think that was actually the reason.
 
I agree but the two are different. In the first there is a betrayal of something one is actually a part of. In the second that is not necessarily the case. If one is a citizen of a country, derives whatever benefits come with that, claims to be a good citizen, and then betrays the country that is a bad thing. If an FBI agent infiltrates a criminal drug gang then betrays them he or she was only pretending to be a part of it, thus not actually betraying a friend or group and so not really a traitor. In that scenario even "liar" might take on a positive connotation. @NedBaldwin kind of says it in post 7 above.





I'm not sure the question is as much offensive as incomplete. I don't know how many choices we are allowed to put in polls. I didn't answer because I don't know, or can't wrap my head around one over the other. It might have been better to have added "all of the above" and "none of the above" as choices. Maybe "traitorous" could have been rendered as "disaffected" (adj. - dissatisfied with the people in authority and no longer willing to support them.)

It is an interesting thought experiment. The most red hot southerners had been saying for decades that they would be willing to leave the union, so they were not pretending loyalty to something they claimed to agree with. The southern unionists had been arguing the opposite for decades, so when they betrayed their southern neighbors they had never pretended that they would go along. I just got a book on the Copperheads but haven't read it yet, so I don't feel comfortable commenting on them.

It seems to me that in their time and context all of them thought they were doing what was right, and most of them had clearly stated their positions. No betrayal or claim of loyalty there. That is the reason the Lost Cause/TOV arguments don't interest me. Whatever improvements might have been made in the phrasing the forced choice(s) in your poll question does invite people to think about the nuances.

I see. But, what if a person is a citizen of a certain county and has done nothing unmoral in or to their country (And also claims to be a good citizen.) and their country hates, discriminates, persecutes, assaults, insults, blackmails, threatens, enslaves, tries to kill them, and etc for literary no good or no logical reason and that particular citizen of the country has no choice but, raise up against their country or become a enemy to their country (After the citizen tries all peaceful ways to restore the peace and law and order in the country.) in order for them to try their very best to restore peace, law, and order, save their lives, and etc.
Like for a example, a country that used to be a good moral, peaceful, righteous lawful and orderly country but, turns very "bad" for some reason and really starts hating, discriminates, persecutes, and tries to kill minority groups (Such as Christians and such.) and after those minority groups really tries everything peaceful to restore the peace, law, and order but, fails to do so. The minority groups have no choice to because a enemy to their own country and are forced declare war just to restore peace, law, and order to their country in order to save their very lives and etc.
I really hope you get my point.
PS: I really would hate to put in that scary situation and I would not want any other people to put in that situation either. I think making peace by forcing to declaring war should be the very last things and options in everybody's minds (The hated minority's.) after really trying to make peace and restore law and order by being peaceful, not using violence, and etc. I can't say that every "good traitor" vs. "bad" group or country scenario has been or will turn out like this but, they should try their very best to do what I just mentioned above. That way the persecuted and/or discriminated group can honestly say that they really tried their very best to be "innocent", blameless, "good" moral, peaceful, and etc as possible and that way most of the unwanted weight and blame falls on the "bad" group, country, and/or etc.
 
Secesh...no doubt. However, that is my 21st century viewpoint.

To many of the Secesh (and Copperheads in the North), they felt they were NOT violating the Constitution, and that the North actually was by using war to force them to stay in the Union. We need to remember how little time had passed between the Revolutionary War and the ACW. To many Secesh, it was a second Revolution.

Also, it should be remembered that Jefferson Davis was NOT put on trial (as he hoped he would be), because the Republicans were worried that the case may ultimately be decided in the favor of the South by the Supreme Court.
I dont think that was actually the reason.

That's what I have read and heard from historians. Please you or someone out there fill me in on this if I am wrong or if you can expand on it.

As for the current constitutionality of succession by a state(s), I have steered several people from my roundtable to this article over the past several years:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/

I THINK THIS MAY BE TREADING INTO ANOTHER FORUM??
 
Please you or someone out there fill me in on this if I am wrong or if you can expand on it.
The gov was preparing to try Davis during the 1867-1868 time frame. There had already been several Supreme Court cases which had decided against the Confederacy. I see no reason why the court would change its mind.


As for the current constitutionality of succession by a state(s), I have steered several people from my roundtable to this article over the past several years:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/
Its an interesting article though I find it lacking.
Perhaps I will start a new thread to show its errors.
 
I see. But, what if a person is a citizen of a certain county and has done nothing unmoral in or to their country (And also claims to be a good citizen.) and their country hates, discriminates, persecutes, assaults, insults, blackmails, threatens, enslaves, tries to kill them, and etc for literary no good or no logical reason and that particular citizen of the country has no choice but, raise up against their country or become a enemy to their country (After the citizen tries all peaceful ways to restore the peace and law and order in the country.) in order for them to try their very best to restore peace, law, and order, save their lives, and etc.
Like for a example, a country that used to be a good moral, peaceful, righteous lawful and orderly country but, turns very "bad" for some reason and really starts hating, discriminates, persecutes, and tries to kill minority groups (Such as Christians and such.) and after those minority groups really tries everything peaceful to restore the peace, law, and order but, fails to do so. The minority groups have no choice to because a enemy to their own country and are forced declare war just to restore peace, law, and order to their country in order to save their very lives and etc.

I get your point also. No one has to sit still while a government is killing them. I think in that scenario it is the people in the government of that country who are the traitors, having entered into an agreement with the people to be moral etc and then betraying that contract. Your example sets out a scenario in which the issues are crystal clear. I am not convinced that it was crystal clear to either side in 1860, and hadn't been since 1789. Each side seems to have thought it was clear, and that the other side were the betrayers.

For the ACW I tend to lean toward the arguments in: Huston, James L. "Southerners Against Secession: The Arguments of the Constitutional Unionists in 1850-51." Civil War History 46, no. 4 (2000): 281-299. But they had been having the argument for seven decades, with secessionists making arguments of their own. The book "Ratification" by Pauline Maier taught me a lot this spring. For example, I was not aware that about half the population in the US did not even want to enter into the Constitution, some of these objections coming from either side for different reasons (apparently Rhode Island never ratified willingly).

Please don't think that my posts #3 & 12 above were meant to pick on your poll question. It seems clear to me today which ones I might want to hang the label of "traitor" on, yet I would do so with extreme reluctance. To me "traitor" implies a willing betrayal with underhanded deceit (like a guy who cheats on his wife). Both sides had stated their cases, both north and south had threatened secession before (with the west having its own ideas after the war started), and I am not convinced that any of them believed that what they were doing was underhanded or deceitful. I don't think that the issue of secession (or for that matter the definition of "property") was clear at that time, so would have preferred to have some fourth option in the poll. Maybe I just wanted to be lazy or wiggle out of a straight answer. :whistling:
 
Back
Top