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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Brexit was a vote to leave the EU based on rules agreed to when they joined.
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?
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!
I can only direct you to John Mace’s post - #13.
I’ve always thought of treason as betraying your country and siding with its enemies. Rebellion is a different thing entirely.
Rebellion is “levying war against” the United States, so the Constitution says it’s treason and you’re wrong.
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.
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.
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).
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?
“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.