Which specific law or clause of the constitution are you referring to that forbade secession?
I think some of you who think this is a question with a simple answer are overlooking the complexities of our dual-sovereignty federal union. Notice, for instance, that the Constitution’s language: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them. . . .” Not it, a singular nation, but them, the members of a federation. Those who fought for the Confederacy were not levying war against the states of which they were citizens. It’s the 14th Amendment—passed after the war—that gives us the language “All persons born or naturalized in the United States. . . are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
I haven’t looked up the original texts myself, but this historian makes the point that, when Lee was indicted for treason, he argued “that the Constitution possessed an exonerating vagueness as to the relationship between citizenship in one’s home state and the United States could be used to sow a reasonable doubt” about the elements of the offense having been satisfied.
The idea that the states are mere administrative divisions of a singular nation is very much a modern gloss on things, and one that would not have had many adherents in 1860. The 1789 Constitution was the result of 13 independent states coming together to put limited aspects of their sovereignty under a national government—and only those few aspects. The Constitution’s actual text is silent on the question of whether the Union is perpetual.
I’m merely pointing out that treason isn’t necessarily a reason history looks unkindly toward a group of people - but rather the cause they fought for.
Do you disagree? Is calling George Washington a traitor of equivalent pejorative impact as calling Robert E. Lee a traitor?
I thought college football took care of stuff like this.
The reason that calling Washington a traitor doesn’t bother people is that he betrayed an oppressive government in order to be for us. Lee betrayed us in order to to be for an oppressive government.
That doesn’t mean that we have to cater to the fragile feelings of right wingers and white nationalists so as to not offend their delicate sensibilities about Lee being a traitor. It’s just a fact. I can’t see how you can disagree with such an obvious factual statement as “Lee was a traitor to the United States, to which he promised his allegiance.”
Big distinction: Washington was a traitor to the United Kingdom. Lee was a traitor to the United States.
All traitors think of themselves as patriots, right? Everyone thinks they’re the good guys.
You do have a prior case. Aaron Burr was tried for treason in 1807. He was acquitted because although he engaged in conspiracy, he did not engage in an “overt act” - I would think taking up arms would be an overt act.
I answered the question in the post below the one quoted. Attempting to pass a constitutional amendment is not treason, even if it’s vanishingly unlikely to succeed. I also don’t think they’re morally justified in secession with a 51% vote and doubt that they could get 3/4 of states to agree with such a slim margin of support in their own state.
People are free to leave America. They’re not free to force other Americans to leave it, or to seize American property. America has a duty to protect American citizens and not to let foreign countries seize their homes and violate their rights.
If the Confederacy had won the Civil War, they would have been patriots. Since they didn’t, they are traitors.
But after 170 years, I’m willing to forgive.
Washington, and the rest of our Founding Fathers, fully expected to be hanged if they lost. Not be pardoned and have statues erected to them.
And if the revolution had failed, Washington and all the other founding fathers would have been strung up and executed as traitors to the crown. We would have no statues to any of them.We would learn in school about the time a few hundred years ago that there were traitor who fought against the british, and lost.
The south’s revolution failed. If it had succeeded, then I could understand why they would want to keep monuments to those who helped keep them as slave owners. It would make sense to put up statues of Davis and Lee, reminding all the citizens and slave as to who was in charge now.
The north tried very hard to take it easy on the south after the war. In most regimes, all those who led soldiers or took public office in the rebellion would have been executed as traitors. The united states was going for more of a healing and reconciliation ideal, so they did not prosecute them for their crimes against their country.
That may have been a mistake. History has shown that appeasing racists and bigots does not make them go away. They are not racists and bigots because they want the attention, they are racists and bigots because they hate those who are different than they are. Our country had a chance at that time to show what its feeling are towards those who betray their country in the name of racism, and we kinda flubbed it. We said that you can be a racist, a bigot, and you can even fight against your own country, and that’s okay.
“We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
~ Dr. Benjamin Franklin, 1776
I’m not sure it was a conscious calculation. The North was not yet a beacon of racial equality either; it was barely ready just to abolish slavery or let blacks vote. The feeling even among the most militant civil rights activists may have been that a major step had been achieved, that was as far as things could be pushed at the time, and the priority had to be getting Southerners to feel like Americans again.
It was very much a conscious calculation to “reconcile” with the South rather that to treat them as conquered. Southerners did lose voting rights for a time, but they just had to pledge loyalty to get them back. Reconciliation had little to do with Civil Rights - leaders - Lincoln in particular - thought it was the best path forward to heal the nation.
A very common but dangerous misconception. The North tried very hard to take it easy on certain specific portions of the South. Taking it easy on a plantation owner is very different from taking it easy on his recently-freed workforce. Mostly who we took it easy on was the super-rich minority, not the poor plurality or majority.
Actually no, they would have still been traitors to the US. I suspect they would be viewed in a much more negative light, since there would be a lot fewer Confederate apologist historians writing about the Lost Cause in a US that didn’t include the Confederate states. Also, the USA would have good reason to demonize the CSA, since they would probably need a strong, vilified opponent to justify measures against further secession from other regions.
It’s not so much the ‘forgive’ part, as the ‘forget’ part.
William Faulkner, about his native South: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
Was Robert E. Lee guilty of treason? Obviously. As I said in another thread, he went to West Point and accepted a commission in the army, swearing an oath to protect and defend the US. He then waged war on the US. He should have hanged.
It is arguable that the other Confederate leaders were not traitors, although they did wage war on the US. As far as the foot-soldiers, no, I would never have called them treasonous.
The fatuous idea that the war was over states’ rights flies in the face of the fugitive slave act forced on the north by the south and their sympathizers that was described in something I just read as the largest reach of the federal government into states in history up to that point.
Not according to Pat Buchanan.