- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/3/14 at 2:45 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
The Union held no moral high ground
They most certainly did - and that is inclusive of all the considerations you've laid out in the remainder of the paragraph which I don't really disagree with.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 3:00 pm to Broke
quote:
Were our founding fathers guilty of treason?
If caught many would have been hung by the neck till dead.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 3:12 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
They most certainly did
How so?
Posted on 1/3/14 at 3:46 pm to thetempleowl
If by treason you mean the common definition of waging war against one's own country, then Jeff Davis and all the rest of the confederates were treasonous traitors to the United States. This doesn't seem controversial at all to me. By definition he committed treason.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 3:47 pm to Lima Whiskey
"How so?"
Ultimately, by the end of the war, the Federals had stated their intention to end slavery in the US. Even as a proud Southerner, I say that gave the North the moral high ground.
Ultimately, by the end of the war, the Federals had stated their intention to end slavery in the US. Even as a proud Southerner, I say that gave the North the moral high ground.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 4:01 pm to PaddlingTiger
quote:Secession was outlawed by the Constitution?
If by treason you mean the common definition of waging war against one's own country, then Jeff Davis and all the rest of the confederates were treasonous traitors to the United States. This doesn't seem controversial at all to me. By definition he committed treason.
Link?
Posted on 1/3/14 at 4:10 pm to NC_Tigah
"Secession was outlawed by the Constitution?"
I suspect the poster who asserted it was so outlawed will be looking for quite some time. One thing to consider is how the Union was formed. The states came together voluntarily and to my knowledge never said that their union was irrevocable. Our Civil War involved recognized sovereign bodies (states) that had grouped themselves into a federation (the north) or confederation (south). If Davis committed treason against the US, then pro-Union Southerners who moved north and fought for the Federals also committted treason against their home states.
I suspect the poster who asserted it was so outlawed will be looking for quite some time. One thing to consider is how the Union was formed. The states came together voluntarily and to my knowledge never said that their union was irrevocable. Our Civil War involved recognized sovereign bodies (states) that had grouped themselves into a federation (the north) or confederation (south). If Davis committed treason against the US, then pro-Union Southerners who moved north and fought for the Federals also committted treason against their home states.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 4:21 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
It does not matter whether secession was outlawed by the Constitution. Davis and the the other confederates took up arms against the US and then lost. After they lost they rejoined the country they had previously attacked. So by definition they are treasonous traitors to the United States. There is no grey area here. Jefferson Davis and the rest of the confederates committed treason.
This post was edited on 1/3/14 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 1/3/14 at 4:28 pm to thetempleowl
quote:
He was arrested after the war and imprisoned in Virginia for two years before being freed on bail.
so much for that speedy trial party of the constitution, eh?
good to know that the government has never cared to follow its own rules
Posted on 1/3/14 at 4:28 pm to PaddlingTiger
I am as far from a lawyer or a constitutional lawyer as one could get. But it seems to me their actions were treasonable but nothing in the laws at the time could have convicted them of such.
Does this make any sense?
We need a non charging lawyer around here
Does this make any sense?
We need a non charging lawyer around here
Posted on 1/3/14 at 4:29 pm to PaddlingTiger
"So by definition they are treasonous traitors to the United States."
Meh, at best a close call.
Here is the first definition I found: "the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government."
Betraying "one's country"? Well, maybe, but they were citizens of their own sovereign states adn the CSA.
Attempting to kill the sovereign? Either no or N/A.
Overthrowing the government? If the USA had allowed the seceding states to depart, the government in Washington would have never been challenged.
"By definition," it's a hard case for treason.
Meh, at best a close call.
Here is the first definition I found: "the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government."
Betraying "one's country"? Well, maybe, but they were citizens of their own sovereign states adn the CSA.
Attempting to kill the sovereign? Either no or N/A.
Overthrowing the government? If the USA had allowed the seceding states to depart, the government in Washington would have never been challenged.
"By definition," it's a hard case for treason.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 4:35 pm to goatmilker
"But it seems to me their actions were treasonable but nothing in the laws at the time could have convicted them of such. Does this make any sense?"
In my humble opinion, I think you're both onto something important ... and not making sense.
In our system, something has to be prohibited by law to subject you to punishment by the government, AND the government may not pass a law after your conduct and then say you violated the law. This is a big deal! What I think you've hit upon is an important distinction between law and morality. Secessionists may well have been, on balance, immoral because their cause was so bound up with the continuation of slavery, but this alone does not make their conduct treasonous or illegal. Similarly, the Federals may have acted morally to preserve the union and (eventually) to end slavery, but this does not mean that the north was legally correct in ignoring the South's duly enacted acts of secession. Thanks for your thoughtful post in a good thread!
In my humble opinion, I think you're both onto something important ... and not making sense.
In our system, something has to be prohibited by law to subject you to punishment by the government, AND the government may not pass a law after your conduct and then say you violated the law. This is a big deal! What I think you've hit upon is an important distinction between law and morality. Secessionists may well have been, on balance, immoral because their cause was so bound up with the continuation of slavery, but this alone does not make their conduct treasonous or illegal. Similarly, the Federals may have acted morally to preserve the union and (eventually) to end slavery, but this does not mean that the north was legally correct in ignoring the South's duly enacted acts of secession. Thanks for your thoughtful post in a good thread!
Posted on 1/3/14 at 4:46 pm to goatmilker
quote:
If you want to use todays standards both sides were filled to the brim with war criminals
Tis true. Weren't the confederates summarily executing any black POWs captured while fighting for the UNion - and their immediate officers regardless of race - ? Or was that just in the movie "Glory" ?
Posted on 1/3/14 at 4:54 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Ultimately, by the end of the war, the Federals had stated their intention to end slavery in the US. Even as a proud Southerner, I say that gave the North the moral high ground.
What does it mean to be a "proud Southerner"?
quote:
"How so?"
It's very simple:
One side fought to codify slavery and white supremacy (explicitly). The other side did not. Just look at the extreme political battles in the preceding 10 years. They were almost all over the expansion of slavery. And just look in the aftermath of the war at what was going on in CSA states well into the 1960's.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 6:09 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
What does it mean to be a "proud Southerner"?
1. Loves grits
2. Loves the outdoors
3. Loves our history warts and all
4. Loves good manners
5. Loves being able to take care of themselves
I'm sure there are others
Posted on 1/3/14 at 6:17 pm to PaddlingTiger
quote:
It does not matter whether secession was outlawed by the Constitution. Davis and the the other confederates took up arms against the US and then lost. After they lost they rejoined the country they had previously attacked. So by definition they are treasonous traitors to the United States
It doesn't work that way PT.
quote:Because they came back to the union?
Jefferson Davis and the rest of the confederates committed treason.
Posted on 1/3/14 at 6:17 pm to PaddlingTiger
quote:
There is no grey area here. Jefferson Davis and the rest of the confederates committed treason.
There is a lot of grey area. Secession was technically legal and the Southern States wanted a peaceful secession to form the CSA. The North wouldn't allow it and it erupted into violence. But technically, the CSA was it's own country so in reality, they weren't traitors because they didn't fight to break away, they broke away and then the fighting started
Posted on 1/3/14 at 6:40 pm to PaddlingTiger
They were not trying to overthrow the government in Washington. Lincoln would still be President, there would still be a Congress
Is a war for independence treason?
Is a war for independence treason?
Posted on 1/3/14 at 7:22 pm to prplhze2000
quote:
Is a war for independence treason?
Yes. Shooting at the army is treason.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News