I have been hearing or reading more comments (especially from the young, who’ve been taught so much false history, that the South was guilty of ‘treason’ when they seceded and fought against the North. To most young people who have been fed the PC party line, slavery was ‘a terrible evil’ and therefore, I guess, the Southern cause was illegitimate. Whatever. But this kind of view of the WBTS is catching on among those who can’t or won’t read, and use discernment in their sources.
Kudos, though, to those Freepers in this discussion who can see the obvious fact that the WBTS was not ”treason”. Why? Because the South was not seeking to overthrow or subvert the D.C. government, nor were they trying to destroy the system. They merely wanted out, just as our original Founding Fathers did when they announced their determination to govern themselves and not be governed by people who were in fact denying their basic rights.
Our own founding documents stated this, almost 100 years before the South seceded. What kind of ‘free country’ will let a state be admitted to the Union but will never let a state out, or in fact, will wage total war (as Sherman did) to guarantee that those wanting to secede are kept by force?
There is a world of difference there. The South did not want to rule over the Northerners and impose their views of government on them, though the opposite was most definitely the case. Think about it; the North wanted to impose their absolute worldview on the South. The devastation of the South would not have happened, if they had just been allowed to leave and go their own way. The South had one way of life and the North a much different one. Only one side wanted to force an unwilling populace to agree to things which were antithetical to their own ways. You can force people to toe your line, but then you have a subject people who obey and conform reluctantly and resentfully.
No, the South was not guilty of ‘treason’, not collectively nor individually.
As to the definition of treason under U.S. Law, it seems there are lots of people who have committed treason and faced no consequences. A certain ex-president, for example:
“Treason requires overt acts such as giving sensitive government security secrets to other countries, even if such countries are not enemies. Treason can include spying on behalf of a foreign power or divulging military secrets.”
Interestingly, of the convicted:
“There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.”
John Brown, abolitionist extraordinaire, and inspiring hero of some Antifas — I understand there is or was a ‘John Brown Brigade’ among leftist admirers. Lots of people are still in sympathy with his kind of cause. That’s the spirit of our times, whether we realize it or not. Unless the PC lies about the WBTS stop, soon everybody will believe the John Brown version of history.