I personally don’t think secessionism is treason. Treachery is a betrayal of trust. Northerners who secretly worked to advance the Confederacy would be traitors, as would southerners who covertly worked for the United States. But I don’t think secessionism in general aligns with the definition of treason.
Re: Were colonists traitors in the 1700’s?
I think there’s a stronger case for this. They were fighting against their own country with the intent of seizing land claimed by that country.
No________________
I don’t think so. I wish someone could have worked out some kind of compromise. We killed more Americans in that war than any other.My heart breaks when I hear someone says, We need to do it again!Anyway No. ________________Some facts but mostly just my [email protected]/
Every time I read some such foolishness (occasionally in the New York Times), I try to let them know that, nope, the South SECEDED from the Union before a shot was fired.We are traitors in the same sense that Americans were traitors to Britain when we took up arms against them. Of course, our philosophy was based on John Locke’s, who said that if a government does not protect your God-given rights, then a people are free to overthrow that government and install a new one. I’m not sure it was as bad as all that, though. I figure there was some people who just wanted to not have Britain be their boss, so they found ways to influence the people that they were being horribly mistreated, etc.The South felt the same way: That their God-given rights to life, liberty, and property (which is actually what Locke said) was being undercut by the government. YES, that sprang from the issue of slavery, even though slavery was not the only issue in play. But for those times and understandings, it seemed to the South that the North was trying to control what they did with their property. (NOTE: The North was NOT trying to end slavery, but was against it spreading anywhere else.)
Some would argue that the South’s attack on Ft. Sumter was treason. They fired on a government installation etc. There are a couple of problems with that:First, that is EXACTLY what Lincoln wanted. He is as responsible for the attack as anyone. Second, if attacking a government installation is treason, then what about barricading off an entire city block, in Seattle? Or attacking police cars, or police officers________________
Re: I say no.
Some would argue that the South’s attack on Ft. Sumter was treason. They fired on a government installation etc. There are a couple of problems with that:First, that is EXACTLY what Lincoln wanted. He is as responsible for the attack as anyone. Second, if attacking a government installation is treason, then what about barricading off an entire city block, in Seattle? Or attacking police cars, or police officers? About Ft. Sumter….
I read an interesting statement about how prior to the Civil War, we referred to ourselves as THESE United States–a group of sovereign countries, I guess you could say, who were bound together by a treaty of some sort. In fact, on the Lewis and Clark expedition, they told the Indians of the 17 great nations (I believe that was the phrasing) that sent their respects, etc.