# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/21 "2017-08-17T17:22:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. I’m sure you’re aware of Texas v White. I take it you disagree with the ruling? Once in, you’re in. You can disagree but unless this ruling is overturned, unilateral secession is illegal. Back to the question at hand, yes the confederates were traitors. That is the nature of armed rebellion. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/22 "2017-08-17T17:30:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > 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. The Constitution also says: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. There’s a venue for Constitutional questions, and it’s not the battlefield, it is the courtroom. ---
**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, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/23 "2017-08-17T17:34:07Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’m sure you’re aware of Texas v White. I take it you disagree with the ruling? What year was that ruling made? After you do that, look up the part in the constitution about ex post facto law. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/24 "2017-08-17T17:45:50Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What year was that ruling made? After you do that, look up the part in the constitution about ex post facto law. The Supremes said that all of the articles of secession before the ruling (1869) were null and void. Why weren’t they bothered by ex post facto law? [From the Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/27/so-you-want-to-secede-from-the-u-s-a-four-step-guide/?utm_term=.22ec198b43b9) > [@](#): > > In 2006, Justice Antonin Scalia was asked by screenwriter Dan Turkewitz if the idea of Maine seceding from the country made sense as a possible plot point. Scalia, perhaps unexpectedly, replied. > > “I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court,” Scalia wrote. “To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. … Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.” If Scalia is not enough of a states’ rights advocate to recognize the legality of secession, I don’t think the right to secede exists. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/25 "2017-08-17T17:56:20Z")
> [@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? > > You can’t say “America, love it or leave it” unless you are willing to allow people to leave it. If California left through legal means, then no, not traitors. If they try to leave through legal means, and are foiled in their attempts, and then decide to leave through violent means, then yes, traitors. Not that hard to break down, really. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/26 "2017-08-17T17:59:50Z")
> [@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? Well, because the Calexit people dont want to unilaterally leave. They want the State to petition Congress and Congress to say Ok. In most cases they dont really want to leave they just want those in Power to take note of their dis-satisfaction. Congress can let a State go. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/27 "2017-08-17T18:03:18Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’m sure you’re aware of Texas v White. I take it you disagree with the ruling? That was in 1869. After the civil war. **John Mace** said “This was not so clear cut as you seem to think it was in 1860.”. How does that ruling relate to his statement? ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/28 "2017-08-17T18:35:43Z")
> [@Mr\_Downtown](#): > > Obviously, we don’t think of a Brexit vote, to withdraw from a federation, as “treason,” Brexit was a vote to leave the EU based on rules agreed to when they joined. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/29 "2017-08-17T18:50:09Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > That was in 1869. After the civil war. **John Mace** said “This was not so clear cut as you seem to think it was in 1860.”. How does that ruling relate to his statement? It’s clear cut now. I don’t much care what a bunch of slaveowners thought in 1860. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/30 "2017-08-17T18:52:25Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > It’s clear cut now. I don’t much care what a bunch of slaveowners thought in 1860. But in order to decide whether someone was a “traitor” in 1860, it’s important to know what the state of jurisprudence was on the topic at the time, no? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/31 "2017-08-17T19:04:37Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > But in order to decide whether someone was a “traitor” in 1860, it’s important to know what the state of jurisprudence was on the topic at the time, no? Show me in the Constitution where it grants a state the unilateral right to secede. It doesn’t show it anywhere. There is no part of the Constitution that grants that right. If you wanted to secede from the Union it would take a Constitutional amendment. Now, how does the Constitution define treason? “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” So anyone who fought in the Civil War against the United States committed treason. Open and shut case. Next question! ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/32 "2017-08-17T19:07:03Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Show me in the Constitution where it grants a state the unilateral right to secede. It doesn’t show it anywhere. There is no part of the Constitution that grants that right. If you wanted to secede from the Union it would take a Constitutional amendment. I can only direct you to **John Mace** ’s post - #13. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/33 "2017-08-17T20:01:10Z")
I’ve always thought of treason as betraying your country and siding with its enemies. Rebellion is a different thing entirely. ---
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/34 "2017-08-17T20:12:47Z")
Rebellion is “levying war against” the United States, so the Constitution says it’s treason and you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![etasyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9f8e36/32.png) [@etasyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etasyde)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/35 "2017-08-17T20:13:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’ve always thought of treason as betraying your country and siding with its enemies. Rebellion is a different thing entirely. If we’re going to be sloppy with our definitions, then there is no real point in discussion. Treason is clearly defined in the constitution, and really the only relevant definition for such a discussion. You can try to argue that the Confederates were no longer beholden to the Constitution (a position worth exploring even if I’m inclined to disagree), but not that the definition provided therein is anything but what it is. Rebellion **is treason**. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/36 "2017-08-17T20:21:52Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > But in order to decide whether someone was a “traitor” in 1860, it’s important to know what the state of jurisprudence was on the topic at the time, no? Not at all. Taking up arms against your home country is the very definition of treason. If that isn’t treason, then there simply is no such thing as treason. Which is fine if you want to use the word that way, but the rest of us in the English language don’t agree with your usage of it. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/37 "2017-08-17T20:22:43Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Those who fought for the Confederacy were levying war against the United States, so yes. Legally after the fact, and what we must live with, it was decided that the Confederacy was never ever a separate country but always part of the USA, so how could it be said that they levy war against the United States, as they were always part of the United States and held no other legal nationality or legal flag. As such I would say not treason as the US, as it was set up, sort of allowed this to happen, basically it was another option if the congress thing was not working right for ya. Therefor patriots for all that the USA stood for (better and worse). ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2017, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/38 "2017-08-17T20:25:36Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’ve always thought of treason as betraying your country and siding with its enemies. Rebellion is a different thing entirely. What sort of distinction do you think you’re making here? Like, a homegrown revolution isn’t treason, but if you help France overthrow the US government, it is? Was the American Revolution treason against the UK, then? Is the fact that no foreign countries recognized or supported the CSA during its rebellion what you’re hanging your hat on? ---
**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, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/39 "2017-08-17T20:29:34Z")
> [@etasyde](#): > > Rebellion **is treason**. So then why do we have a separate statute for each. Look [here](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115) and [here](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381). And then look [here.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383) ---
**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, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851/40 "2017-08-17T20:30:23Z")
> [@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? “Fair” has nothing to do with this discussion. This discussion is about whether the rebelling states were traitorous or not. This is about the laws AS THEY ARE, and whether or not people broke them. Besides. There are, as I pointed out, ways for people who are disgruntled (or however you want to describe them) to express their opposition, and even to leave, if they like. They can arrange to have the rules changed. What they are NOT allowed to do, is ignore the rules, and take what does not belong to them as they go. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/were-those-who-fought-for-the-confederacy-traitors/793851.md?page=3)