# Were those who fought for the Confederacy “traitors?” **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2017, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851 "2017-08-17T04:22:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/1 "2017-08-17T04:22:46Z")
It seems like calling mere secession “treason” requires viewing the perpetual-union theory of the United States as settled law. But in 1860, such a theory was nowhere in the plain text of the Constitution, nor to my knowledge, in any Supreme Court ruling. Obviously, we don’t think of a Brexit vote, to withdraw from a federation, as “treason,” nor Slovakia’s divorce from Czechia. Even 150 years after _Texas vs. White,_ we don’t call Calexit petition circulators _traitors._ Or did it only become treason once it became an armed rebellion? ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/2 "2017-08-17T06:00:50Z")
No. The United States prior to 1860 was very different from the one after 1865. The latter was a credible nation/state with a foreign policy and a navy capable of carrying it out; the former was something more along the lines of the 1970s European Common Market. To paraphrase English Bob from **Unforgiven** , why _not_ rebel against it? Robert E. Lee–whose boyhood home I lived down the street from for a solid and recent decade–felt Lincoln was a tyrant. This is at odds with Lincoln’s current reputation as a Gandhi-level secular saint, but (A) Lee knew him personally and we didn’t, and (B) Gandhi was problematic too. (That Lee was A-OK with Jefferson Davis is problematic, but these alliances were formed in haste.) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/3 "2017-08-17T06:44:11Z")
Yes. Absolutely it was treasonous: > [@](#): > > trea·son > ˈtrēzən/ > noun > noun: treason; noun: high treason; plural noun: high treasons > > ``` > the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. > > ``` Of course the victors write the history books. Had the South won they would be hailed as freedom fighters. But they were still treasonous by definition. The soldiers participating in the US revolution against Great Britain were treasonous. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/4 "2017-08-17T07:47:43Z")
[QUOTE=US Constitution, Article III, Section 3] Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. [/QUOTE] Those who fought for the Confederacy were levying war against the United States, so yes. ---
**Author:** ![igor\_frankensteen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/839c29/32.png) [@igor\_frankensteen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/igor_frankensteen)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/5 "2017-08-17T11:56:50Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > It seems like calling mere secession “treason” requires viewing the perpetual-union theory of the United States as settled law. But in 1860, such a theory was nowhere in the plain text of the Constitution, nor to my knowledge, in any Supreme Court ruling. Obviously, we don’t think of a Brexit vote, to withdraw from a federation, as “treason,” nor Slovakia’s divorce from Czechia. Even 150 years after _Texas vs. White,_ we don’t call Calexit petition circulators _traitors._ > > Or did it only become treason once it became an armed rebellion? ``` You are playing games with yourself and others with this. Read the Constitution. Look at the clause that clearly declares that any State which finds that it wishes to withdraw from the U.S. and establish themselves as independent countries, may do so by a vote of two-thirds of the State legislature. Oh, wait. THERE IS NO CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT ALLOWS A STATE TO UP AND LEAVE. ``` The other situations you cite are cases where there WAS an official method provided to alter the agreement in question. And in those other cases, that procedure was followed. What you are equating, is similar to “thinking” that O.J. Simpson applied to his concern about his memorabilia being stolen and illegally sold: he reasoned that it was okay to commit armed robbery, provided he was angry at people who had themselves committed a crime. It is treasonous to advocate, support, or actually try to overthrow the Constitutional government of the United States. Had the upset states decided to use the legal processes to challenge the course that the country was taking, they would NOT have been traitors. But they didn’t. They decide to ignore the Constitution. And even if they had won, they would have been traitors. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/6 "2017-08-17T13:11:03Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > ``` > Oh, wait. THERE IS NO CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT ALLOWS A STATE TO UP AND LEAVE. > > ``` And do you think that is fair? _Should_ people be forced to abide with rules made up generations before they were born with no prospect of changing those rules? If there are states where a majority of the population wants to succeed, why should they be forced to stay at gunpoint? Do you think that people should be forced to stay married all their lives with no chance of divorce? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/7 "2017-08-17T13:18:55Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > And do you think that is fair? _Should_ people be forced to abide with rules made up generations before they were born with no prospect of changing those rules? If there are states where a majority of the population wants to succeed, why should they be forced to stay at gunpoint? Do you think that people should be forced to stay married all their lives with no chance of divorce? What does “fair” have to do with anything? The point is that, in order to leave the Union, a state either has to try and convince the rest of the union to create a mechanism for that leaving (one proposed theory is that it would be allowed by vote of the same number of states as can ratify an amendment to the Constitution), or the state has to try what the South did. Which means those who support that state in its efforts end up committing treason, should the result be a war. But if they succeed, that treason will be irrelevant, as it was with the Founding Fathers. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/8 "2017-08-17T13:20:27Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > And do you think that is fair? _Should_ people be forced to abide with rules made up generations before they were born with no prospect of changing those rules? If there are states where a majority of the population wants to succeed, why should they be forced to stay at gunpoint? Do you think that people should be forced to stay married all their lives with no chance of divorce? Sure because guess what…they can change the rules. They are called “amendments”. We’ve done it 27 times so far. There is also a means to call a constitutional convention where it can be re-written. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/9 "2017-08-17T13:28:03Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > Or did it only become treason once it became an armed rebellion? I think this is correct. Even today, I don’t think it would be actual treason if a state attempted to secede but didn’t do anything violent in furtherance of that end. (Assuming we’re talking about treason, the crime, and not treason, the rhetorical device that includes everything from flag burning to election fraud.) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/10 "2017-08-17T13:28:54Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > Obviously, we don’t think of a Brexit vote, to withdraw from a federation, as “treason,” nor Slovakia’s divorce from Czechia. Have a missed the bloody battle in which General Nigel Farage laid seige to Westminster? Fuck, I gotta start reading newspapers again. This habit of mine to get news online is clearly failing me. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/11 "2017-08-17T13:35:37Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > If there are states where a majority of the population wants to succeed, why should they be forced to stay at gunpoint? This is ironic, because if you include the black population it’s doubtful that any of the Confederate states actually had a majority of the population wanting to secede. And no, I don’t think that if 51% of a state wants to oppress the other 49% and resent the federal government stopping them they can just revolt and the federal government respond to their citizens in the 49% ‘sucks to be you’. The Us government has a duty to protect US citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/12 "2017-08-17T13:46:22Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > I think this is correct. Even today, I don’t think it would be actual treason if a state attempted to secede but didn’t do anything violent in furtherance of that end. (Assuming we’re talking about treason, the crime, and not treason, the rhetorical device that includes everything from flag burning to election fraud.) Pressing to get a constitutional amendment passed is definitely not treason. If a state was trying to get 3/4 of the other states to vote for an amendment removing them from the union, there’s no rational way to call it treason in the strict sense. (Like you said, the rhetorical device is a broad brush that doesn’t mean much). But legitimate secession in the US has a really high barrier, you can’t just get 51% of a legislature elected by gerrymandering and suppressing minority voters to say ‘we’re out, screw you guys’. I don’t see how it would realistically happen, if a state has enough influence to get the support of 3/4 of the states needed to secede, they probably have enough influence to be happier in the US than out. This got discussed in the thread on Calexit a while back - a state leaving would lose a lot of its influence and would probably need to have to make brutal concessions. And it’s not just pettiness over a state leaving, things like social security payments and payouts, or federal property within a state are a really big deal where both sides have legitimate interests. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/13 "2017-08-17T13:49:21Z")
> [@igor\_frankensteen](#): > > You are playing games with yourself and others with this. > > ``` > Read the Constitution. Look at the clause that clearly declares that any State which finds that it wishes to withdraw from the U.S. and establish themselves as independent countries, may do so by a vote of two-thirds of the State legislature. > > Oh, wait. THERE IS NO CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT ALLOWS A STATE TO UP AND LEAVE. > > ``` You don’t need one. The constitution is a limit on what the feds can do. If there is no clause forbidding a state to do X, then a state can do X. For the feds, there must be a clause allowing the feds to do X before they can do X. A significance difference that is also laid out in the 9th and 10th amendments. States don’t need the constitution to allow them to do things. The constitution is such that: For the feds, if it is not allowed, it cannot be done. For the states, if it is not forbidden, it can be done. This was not so clear cut as you seem to think it was in 1860. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/14 "2017-08-17T13:51:00Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > This is ironic, because if you include the black population it’s doubtful that any of the Confederate states actually had a majority of the population wanting to secede. I’m not talking about the specifics of the actual situation, but the concept. Let’s say that Calexit goes forward and California really decides to succeed from the union. If they do, does that make them “traitors”? And should the remaining states go to war with California to keep them in a union that they no longer wish to belong in? You can’t say “America, love it or leave it” unless you are willing to allow people to leave it. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/15 "2017-08-17T13:55:04Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > You can’t say “America, love it or leave it” unless you are willing to allow people to leave it. You can leave it any time you like…as individuals. As an organization that has temporary title to land that belongs to the people of the United States, you don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/16 "2017-08-17T14:21:00Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > I’m not talking about the specifics of the actual situation, but the concept. Let’s say that Calexit goes forward and California really decides to succeed from the union. If they do, does that make them “traitors”? And should the remaining states go to war with California to keep them in a union that they no longer wish to belong in? It would be absurd if it were that simple to secede from the union. States would be dropping out anytime someone got a bug up their ass. If California wants to secede they can do that. Have them get a constitutional amendment passed that says California is no longer part of the US. I suspect that would suffice. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/17 "2017-08-17T16:30:56Z")
I think the sticking point for some is that “treason” has significant negative connotations. Personally speaking, I don’t think that’s something innate to the term, just as “loyalty” is not an inherent good. If the question was something like, as with the OP, “Did the Confederate states leave the union illegally?” or “Did the Confederate states rebel against a national authority?”, there might well be different answers than a “Were they traitors?” question would. Same thing for the Founding Fathers, really. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/18 "2017-08-17T16:32:43Z")
Yes, they were. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/19 "2017-08-17T16:45:42Z")
But they wouldn’t have been if they’d won. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/20 "2017-08-17T17:04:40Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > You can’t say “America, love it or leave it” unless you are willing to allow people to leave it. We do allow _people_ to leave. It’s when they want to take their land with them that it becomes an issue. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851.md?page=2)