Are you arguing for the sake of argument, or do you really not see a difference between Washington (rebelling to get out from beneath an oppressive government) and Davis (rebelling to maintain an oppressive government)? Did you not read that a traitor may be a traitor to a cause, and is the constitution and declaration of independence not a cause? Do you really think that Washington would not have been tried as a traitor has he lost? Is this anything beyond one massive, annoying nitpick?
Daniel
The Confederate States were never recognized as a real country by the US (thus Lincoln could free the slaves in the Confederate States by the Emancipation Proclamation). Thus it was impossible, by US law, for Davis to be a citizen of the CSA. Indeed all Confederates were US citizens according to US law during the Civil War years.
Well the founders won their war, so Britian recognized the US (or the proto-US anyways) and the founders as citizens thereof. But I’d say your right that the Founders did commit treason against their mothercountry in the commonsense definition even if perhaps not legally. But being a traitor is not necessarily a bad thing, betraying a bad gov’t can be a virtue.
Well, I was going to ask you where he had betrayed a cause or a trust but I see you have a rather generous definition for ‘cause.’ This is a bit of a reach. Independence was the cause, the Declaration a document stating that cause. Representative government was the cause, the Constitution a document describing it.
Yes, Washington would have been tried had he lost. Being a traitor must not be such a bad thing, and I am left to wonder why you intend the epithet to be perjorative.
The argument can be made that the states had the right to secede. Accordingly, Davis was a traitor by none of your definitions. That yours is a majority opinion by no means makes it the truth.
Actually, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and the rest of the founding fathers were traitors to the Crown. However we live in the USA and thus they are our founders. Jefferson Davis was a traitor to the USA, our country. Your argument is empty of content, or as others wrote, the winners get to write history.
Davis was the leader of a losing cause and therefore a traitorous figure in US history. The fact he led the rebels to preserve the institution of slavery is what makes him a despicable figure of history. If you want to argue the merits of each founding father, please feel free to do so. Adams is the only one that shines of the ones you mentioned by name and he signed the Sedition act. Hard to find a major figure without controversy, but Washington did not turn traitor to preserve slavery. It is sad that Washington and Jefferson did not find a way to end slavery back then, but obviously, the colonies were not ready. By the civil war it was down to a privilege class of Southern Gentry that preferred war and death to ending their decadent and evil lifestyle.
Jim
Jim
Fine, whatever. If this is your hill, go ahead and claim it. It’s a very silly hill.
Daniel
US law says that the States didn’t have the right to suceede. Since Davis was a US citizen (and senator, I believe), that is the definition that counts, at least legally.
Well, only six percent of Southerners owned slaves, and 3 percent of Southerners owned the bulk of them. A very smal privileged class. Why do you suppose so many men were willing to fight and die when slavery was not an issue for them?
They were hoodwinked pretty badly, weren’t they.
Actually I suspect, that many if not most were swayed by propaganda and a fear of a large number of Freed “Negro” slaves.
Jim
You are conflating two questions:
The South clearly seceded to preserve the institution of slavery. Their various declarations of secession spell this out.
It is equally clear that many (if not most) individual soldiers fought (as they saw it) to defend their country from invasion.
Did you see my links? A case can be made that states had the right to secede at the time of the Civil War under the U.S. Constitution. Whether it is against the law now is immaterial.
From the Declaration of Independence:
*“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to whichthe Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impell them to the separation.”
*
U.S. Constitution: Tenth Amendment
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
*
U.S. Constitution: Ninth Amendment
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
*
Well, I was responding to a comment about a ‘decadent and evil lifstyle,’ and pointing out that it was shared by a tiny minority.
Slavery was a horrible offense against humanity, and we as a country are far better off for it having been dissolved. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether the states had a right to secede, and therefore whether Davis was a traitor. In point of fact, the argument could be made that Washington *et.al. *are more rightly to be called traitors, as they acted without the protection of a constitution.
Uh, no. Cite?
Did you read your own cite? One of those appearances was for his bail hearing. The second was for the supposed start of the trial, but the government asked for a postponement. All other court actions were related to a motion to dismiss. Which was eventually supreseded by a nolle prosequi. The trial never officially started and thus it is incorrect to say that he was tried for treason.
Good catch. Also from the cite–
Bolding mine.
Could this possibly be a more academic point? Unless someone is willing to make the case that Davis wasn’t a despicable defender of slavery who does not deserve to be honored, I don’t give a crap what case “could be made.” A case can be made for any old foolish idea, but that doesn’t mean it’s a defensible case.
Davis was a despicable defender of slavery, and that was the foundation for his fame. He should be remembered, but not honored. If the word “traitor” sticks in your craw for some god-knows-why reason, don’t use that word–but don’t let your dismissal of that word obfuscate the reasons for remembering Davis as a villain.
Daniel
It was against the law then. Hence the need for amnesty from charges of treason and rebellion (hell, hence the need for the war).
Cases can be made on whether it should’ve been illegal (and you may well be right that it should’ve been legal), but Davis status as a traitor depends on the law as it was, not as it should’ve been.
You may well be right, though I still don’t get when something can be said to have been “brought to trial”. Is a motion to dismiss not part of the trial, even if it goes so far as to reach a decision? And that decision was brought before the Supreme Court, can the Supreme Court rule on a decision that isn’t generated by a trial?
True, but I like arguing over academic points. I’m learning stuff 
Well, we’re a bit far afield of the OP, but I’ll play along.
While it is true that the U.S. Constitution didn’t specifically prohibit secession, it was adopted “in Order to form a more perfect Union,” acording to its preamble. It succeeded the Articles of Confederation, which referred to a “perpetual Union,” so how could it have been intended as any less permanent?
The Constitution also provided that “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation [or] without the consent of Congress… keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, … or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 1, 3.
FWIW (and it’s worth quite a lot, I think), in 1783, George Washington wrote that the first thing “essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an independent power [is] an indissoluble Union of the states under one Federal head.” After the Whiskey Rebellion, he wrote of his satisfaction that “my fellow citizens understand the true principles of government and liberty [and appreciate] their inseparable union.” As new states and their citizens joined the Union, Washington said the nation should bind “those people to us by a chain which never can be broken” (emphases added).
I guess I will have to ask you what law you are talking about. Your argument that it must have been illegal because a war was fought is circular logic, unless you are arguing that the North was incapable of illegal acts.
When your own cite damns you it is time to concede the point.
Was this illegal?
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impell them to the separation.
This “my way or the highway” approach is so unlike you. The War Between the States was not a single issue conflict, and I suspect you know it. It almost seems as if it is personal to you. At any rate, my intent is not to antagonize you, and I apologize if I have.
I will amend my statement to “a defensible case…”
Who has suggested Davis should be honored?
Heh heh.
Of course it was. That’s why England brought over troops.
So defend it already.
Daniel
I am dubious about spending federal money to rebuild Jefferson Davis’ retirement home, but would support it on one condition - that at least an equal amount be dedicated to reconstructing Elizabeth Van Lew’s home in Richmond VA.
Van Lew was a wealthy Richmond woman who used her home to shelter escaped Union prisoners during the Civil War. She also passed valuable intelligence on to the North (to put it more bluntly, she was a spy). In revenge, influential people in her hometown saw to it that after her death in 1900, [her grand home](http://www.mdgorman.com/Other Sites/Van Lew Mansion Photo.htm) was demolished and a school built in its place (even though the other surviving comparable residences in town were maintained as historic sites).
Move the school and rebuild the home of an authentic Civil war heroine, and I can see spending tax dollars on Jeff Davis’ retirement house.
Dang, son. I guess them Iraquis musta been breakin’ the law. That’s why we sent over the troops, right? I mean, you and Malodorous keep making that point.
I’ve liked you to two books that state the case. I have referred to the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution. Can you show me where secession is specifically outlawed?
The authors of the various articles of secession believed they had a case. Here is the document justifying the secession of South Carolina from the Union. Among other points, it refers to the many references in the Declaration of Independence to Free and Independent States, as well as interpreting the tenth amenment as reserving the right of secession to the States, inasmuch as it is not specifically delegated to the Union.