With one difference. Under British law, “treason” was pretty much whatever the King said was treason. The U.S. Consitution, on the other hand, placed strict limits on what could qualify as treason, in 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”
When the South seceded, they were not the “Enemies” of the U.S.; they were – in the minds of the North – still part of the U.S… The act of declaring secession, in and of itself, cannot be considered treason under the definition given in Article III, Section 3. The Southern states did not actually commit any act that would qualify as treason until one of these States opened fire on Fort Sumter.
Direct answer to the Post Headliner: Because they’re nuts. All of them, steeped in twisted history, distorted family and community pride and fail to recognize that not only were they traitors to the Union, but pawns by Southern Business which made their living off of slave labor.
I have no use for a traitors flag to be flying anywhere in the US today. I still find some rednecks determined to refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, like it was all the North’s fault, though I have not spotted many Stars and Bars around, in the back windows of pickup trucks within the last ten years or so.
All this talk about being “traitors to the Union” neglects the strong feeling of State loyalty many Americans felt at the time of the Civil War. As far as General Lee was concerned, for example, he wasn’t terribly thrilled about the idea of secession, but when it happened, he stuck by his State and fought as a loyal soldier of Virginia. Near the end of the War, in fact, Georgia considered seceding from the Confederacy and becoming an independent nation.
So what’s my point? My point is, if your State decided to secede from the Union, you were forced to become either a traitor to the Union or a traitor to your State, and at the time, State loyalty in many people’s minds came first.
Actually, that’s not the case, for two reasons. First, by the time of the American Revolution, the King had very limited powers of legislation under the prerogative - he could not legislate under the prerogative at all in the U.K., nor in colonies which had representative assemblies. Therefore, the King could not “pretty much” say what was treason - it depended on statutes passed by Parliament and the colonial legislatures.
Second, Parliament had in fact enacted statutes defining the offence of treason. In 1351, Parliament enacted 25 Edward III, st. 5 c. 2, commonly called the Treason Act 1351. It’s been amended from time to time over the intervening centuries, but remains in force today in the U.K. as the basic statutory definition of treason. King George III couldn’t have changed it by his own powers if he had tried.
The relevant portions of the Treason Act 1351define treason as either levying war on Her Majesty within her realm, or assisting Her Majesty’s enemies to levy war against Her Majesty, either within or without Her Majesty’s realm. By an amendment enacted in 1695, Parliament provided that two witnesses are necessary to prove the offence of treason: Treason Act, 1695 7 and 8 William III, c. 3.
It appears likely that the drafters of the U.S. Constitution decided to entrench these British principles respecting treason in the Constitution, much as the Bill of Rights entrenches other principles of the British law. ACLU Boy wrote:
Well, I’m not so sure about that. It would depend on the particular stage of the Revolution, and the actions of the particular individual.
To start with, notwithstanding the “lives, fortunes and sacred honour” stuff, merely signing the Declaration of Independence wouldn’t be treason - treason was limited to acts of war, and voting for independence is not an act of war, in and of itself.
As well, I don’t think that those revolutionaries who engaged in acts of war against the British would be committing treason, from the perspective of the English courts. As mentioned earlier, the relevant portion of the English Treason Act, 1351defines treason as levying war on His Majesty within his realm, or assisting the enemies of His Majesty to levy war against him, either within or without his realm. The English courts have given a relatively narrow interpretation to the word “realm” - at the time of the U.S. Revolution, it meant England, Wales, and Scotland. It did not include the Channel Islands, Man, or overseas colonies. So, the act of rebellion in the American colonies would not appear to be treason from the perspective of the English courts - i.e., if a colonial rebel had been found in England he could not have been tried for treason in the English courts, because he had not engaged in war against His Majesty in His Majesty’s realm, the United Kingdom.
The situation would have changed as soon as the French got involved (how often do you hear that sentence in history?). Once the American rebels started co-operating with the French to levy war against the British, the fact that the acts of war were not committed in the realm would be irrelevant - co-operating with His Majesty’s enemies to wage war against His Majesty would be treason, even in the colonies. So, a rebel who did that could be tried for treason in the English courts.
Now, that’s all from the perspective of the English. The situation would likely have been different under colonial law, if the rebellion had been crushed and say, the colony of Virginia put Washington on trial. Under British colonial law, English laws were automatically inherited by a colony, so the the Treason Act, 1351would have been in force in Virginia, as a statute of that colony, and “realm” in that context likely would have meant the colony of Virginia. So under Virginia law, Washington likely could have been tried as a traitor for levying war against His Majesty in Virginia.
I was unclear–my fault for trying to be literary. I used the term “attempted secession” as meaning the Civil War as a whole, not merely the acts of the states declaring themselves no longer part of the Union.
(By the way…in terms of acts of war, the first was really firing on the supply ship *Star of the West,*which Buchanan dispatched to resupply Sumter. The ship turned back, Buchanan decided it was easier to leave the problem to his successor, and Lincoln didn’t press the issue.)
What exactly is wrong with treason? It is simply committing an act of war where whom your warring against would not like you to be. Its not really different from any other act of war.
Both the civil war and the American revolution were acts of treason. That means nothing except the fact that the people they were warring against passed a law against that act calling it treason.
ITR champion people do notice it more when their region is under attack. I have never heard someone from elsewhere in the country complain about this. Attacks on the south from bigots are just one of the stereotypes that people have.
I dunno. Patrick Henry (who was a renowned lawyer) included this line in his “Give me liberty or give me death” speech:
And Ben Franklin said:
And since we’ve gone off on a legalistic tangent, what “act of war” did the state of Virginia commit before she was invaded (first battle of Bull Run)?
So, Minty, if Quebec secedes from Canada, would that then be an act of war? Would the Grand Army of Saskatchewon then be justified in devising an anaconda stragety to bring Quebec back into the fold?
Hoo-boy. This is turning into a train-wreck. Anybody want a veggie-burger?
Secession from a voluntarily-entered union without the consent of the rest of the nation is an act of war. When states or territories decide to join the United States, they surrender any claims they once had to unfettered sovereignty. They may not reclaim that complete sovereignty without the consent of the United States as a whole.
Matter of fact, we already had a little argument over precisely this principle, 'round about 140 years ago. I seem to recall the secessionists lost the debate rather decisively.
Of course, whether the rest of Canada cared enough about retaining Quebec to go to war over it would be entirely up to them. I suspect their basic reaction would be a heart-felt “Good riddance!”
And veggie burgers? Feh! Make mine a chopped-brisket sandwich with plenty of jalapenos on the side. And a Dr. Pepper.
That’s odd. I don’t see any language like that in my copy of the Constitution. Where are you reading that, minty?
Might makes right, I guess. So then if I assemble an army that claims the Constitution says that only poodles may be elected to Congress, and then we win the ensuing war, then does that prove that we were correct?
IANAL, so I’m not as familiar with these legalities as I assume you are. Is your statement based on your own experience, your personal opinion, or from a detailed reading of the constitution? I just gave it a quick read and don’t see anywhere that it says a state cannot decide to call it quits. Is there another source for this?
The veggie-burger thing seemed appropriate in light of this thread’s similarities (jerking knees, bizarre posts, and other curiosities) to Scylla’s BBQ Pit Veganinanitarianism thread. As for me, I’ll have a pulled pork shoulder bbq sandwich with slaw, Wicker’s sauce, beans, and sweet tea. Yum.
I was going to settle this entire question with a dazzling stroke of logic, but then some cocoanut macaroons appeared in the kitchen and hold a superior claim on my attention.
Plus the movers are bound to show up any minute with my Kentucky flag…
The legality of secession is quite well settled. To wit, it ain’t legal. State of Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868). It’s fascinating reading, and I highly recommended it to anyone who cares about this subject. The discussion of secession begins at the bottom of page 719. (Findlaw denotes page breaks by bracketing the numbers in green type. The opinion itself starts about 1/3 of the way down the page.)
Personally, I prefer the serrano & poblano spinach they’ve got over at Stubb’s BBQ here in Austin. (Awesome sandwiches, so-so platters.) But barring that, I’ll go with the fries.
Do you think a Supreme Court comprised of poodles would find my poodle rebellion constitutional?
Small wonder, then, that the Supreme Court after the Civil War adopted the Union interpretation of the Constitution. I note that the Court, though it flashes “the Constitution” like a saber in that opinion, did not seem to find any actual language in the Constitution itself to support its position. You know, something simple like “perpetual union” or “indissoluble union” would have done the trick.
My own view (in the absence of any language in the Constitution like “perpetual” or “indissoluble”) is that the former colonies, who had just fought a bloody war against one central authority, would not have intentionally turned around and bound themselves to another unless they thought they had the option to withdraw. And in fact, if the words “perpetual” or “indissoluble” had been used, I seriously doubt that the Constitution would have ever been ratified.
Stubb’s Rules!!
Speaking of ruling or…er, secession.
Secession is an act of war in that you can’t expect the ruling state to just sit back and say “Whatever”.
Essentially treason is a person or persons acting against
the state of which they are a citizen. Native born or naturalized.
By the way, spoke-, I’d also point out that you cannot point to any language in the Constitution that says states can withdraw at will. This is just one of those matters where the Constitution is silent. Considering the occasional secessionist threats of the Southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention, that silence was probably quite intentional.
Yet in White, the Supreme Court had to decide one way or another, so it did. And now that it’s done so, that settles the matter, barring a constitutional amendment.
