 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 DEBATE: Were Confederate soldiers traitors? |
Aaron Scott |
| What say you? |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
12/21/20 12:37 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Dave Dorsey |
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.
Fighting to overthrow your government could be treasonous, but to my knowledge the CSA didn't want to plant a flag in Washington, DC. They just wanted to separate so they could own human beings as property in peace. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/21/20 12:53 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Were colonists traitors in the 1700's? |
caseyleejones |
| Just wondering.... |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11798
12/21/20 1:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Were colonists traitors in the 1700's? |
Dave Dorsey |
| caseyleejones wrote: | | Just wondering.... |
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.
Of course, I'm glad they did. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 13654
12/21/20 1:30 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: DEBATE: Were Confederate soldiers traitors? |
skinnybishop |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | | What say you? |
No.
_________________
Eddie Wiggins |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
12/21/20 1:37 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
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 opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
12/21/20 2:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| I say no. |
Aaron Scott |
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.)
So unless someone can show that the Americans were traitors by leaving Britain, they can't make the case for the South being traitorous. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
12/21/20 2:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I say no. |
skinnybishop |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | 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.)
So unless someone can show that the Americans were traitors by leaving Britain, they can't make the case for the South being traitorous. |
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?
_________________
Eddie Wiggins |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
12/22/20 7:44 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| The government had stronger states rights back then. People thought of themselves more as citizens of South Carolina or Georgia than they do today. The country is called the United STATES of America after all, and these Confederates were loyal to the state. Armies were organized by state. Obviously, they got rid of that later. |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
12/22/20 9:09 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I say no. |
Aaron Scott |
| skinnybishop wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | 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.)
So unless someone can show that the Americans were traitors by leaving Britain, they can't make the case for the South being traitorous. |
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....
It was on South Carolina land. So long as SC was part of the Union, that was perfectly acceptable. But upon seceding, that land was being held by, for all intents and purposes, a foreign power. AND they had been given time to evacuate, etc. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
12/22/20 9:27 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| THESE United States vs. THE United States |
Aaron Scott |
| Link wrote: | | The government had stronger states rights back then. People thought of themselves more as citizens of South Carolina or Georgia than they do today. The country is called the United STATES of America after all, and these Confederates were loyal to the state. Armies were organized by state. Obviously, they got rid of that later. |
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.
But AFTER the Civil War, we called ourselves THE United States, changing our views from being a group of united "nations" to a single nation. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6042
12/22/20 9:30 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
