Until Every Drop of Blood Is Paid: A More Radical American Civil War

I mean, those are more counterexamples than anything else. Austerlitz and Jena-Auerstedt might have ended the sub-conflicts that they were part of, but the wider Napoleonic Wars raged on regardless until Napoleon himself was cast down. And while Waterloo did end the Napoleonic Wars decisively, it also came at the very end of a broader conflict lasting over twenty years that had slowly worn down France's strength and ability to resist, and in particular after the campaigns of 1812-1814 that had destroyed Napoleon's army and deprived France of the resources needed to carry on a long fight.

If anything, they prove that even incredibly lopsided battlefield victories will not result in the ultimate end of the conflict; instead, the enemy has to be ground down, and only when he's at the end of his rope does a "decisive" victory actually decide the conflict for good. If Waterloo had been fought and won in 1805 instead of 1815 it would merely have been an equivalent to Gettysburg or Antietam; important, but not the end of the war because at that point Napoleon could have retreated, reformed his armies, and tried again. It only achieved the status it did because the losing side had largely lost the ability to fight and losing the battle left them entirely without resources.

When Napoleon returned to France in the spring of 1815 and re-assumed the throne, the numerical equation (or what the Soviets would later call the "correlation of forces") was grim. His only real hope was to decisively defeat at least one of the enemy army groupings facing him and then count on war-weariness after over 20 years of nearly incessant conflict to force the Coalition powers into allowing him to retain control of France proper up to the Rhine. It was entirely possible, of course. The war-weariness was real, and Napoleon's mystique was still so powerful, that a decisive victory might well have caused at least one of the nations facing him to decide that it just wasn't worth it any longer and drop out of the Coalition.

As it happened, Napoleon defeated Blucher at Ligny, but not decisively, and due to both the fortunes of war and various mistakes (d'Erlon's corps got mixed up about where it was supposed to go, for instance, and spent much of the day uselessly marching back and forth between the two battlefields without ever going into action), Ney got stalemated against Wellington at Quatre Bras. Then Grouchy was sent off to chase Blucher instead of staying with the main force, where his troops might have provided the decisive factor, Even so, the 18th really was, as Wellington later put it, a damned near-run (or "damned fine", in the sense of extremely narrow) thing; the Anglo-Allied Army was a genuine patchwork of units of wildly variable quality and reliability, and one successful charge might well have caused the shakier parts to break completely, even after the Prussians had begun to arrive in the late afternoon. By the time Napoleon finally sent the Imperial Guard in, though, it was too late.
 
Also even if Napoleon had won at Waterloo the 7th coalition still would've fought on. The Russian army which hadn't been involved in the fighting would've been bearing down on him.
I'm not sure about that. One of Napoleon's famous maxims - many of them may be apocryphal, but I'm fairly certain he said this one - was that "the moral is to the material as three to one". As I just posted, twenty years of almost unending conflict had worn down most of the peoples of Europe almost as badly as the Thirty Years' War had done less than two centuries previously. The psychological impact if Napoleon had been able to beat Wellington and Blucher - or even worse, if he had been able to destroy either the Anglo-Allied or Prussian Army in Belgium - might have been enough to split off at least one of the Coalition nations and force the others to the table. The Russian Army, the largest contingent of the Coalition forces, was still out of position at the time of the Waterloo Campaign and didn't take part in any of the actual fighting (battles were still ongoing into early July IIRC).
 
I think the movie version is more sympathetic. For example, in the book she has children with her two first husbands, children whom she neglects and abuses because she simply doesn't love them.
I find it interesting that in both book and movie, as terribly flawed - damaged, in fact - as Scarlett is, she often comes across (unintentionally, I don't doubt) as the only sane woman in the room when it comes to the "Lost Cause", so to speak, and Rhett even more so (we have our introduction to him when he tries to, Sherman-like, convince an unfriendly audience of Georgia planters that the South simply doesn't have the manpower and resources to defeat the North), It's even more interesting that Rhett, who is often looked askance at by respectable society if not outright shunned, actually has more of an ethical center than Scarlett.

A TTL version of the book would basically have to turn Scarlett into at least an antihero, acknowledging that she was right about the Southern cause being foolhardy and foredoomed - and find a way to have both her and Rhett turn, if reluctantly, antislavery. That means, naturally, beefing up "Mammy's" role even more, which is just fine with me - it's a testament to Hattie McDaniel's acting chops that she turned what could very easily have been a stereotypical caricature into the living, breathing moral center of the film. Oh yes, and give her an actual name, too. Maybe the TTL version ends up with Scarlett and Rhett turning Tara over to her and her family and lighting out for New Orleans (which Scarlett adored in the book) or even further west, San Francisco say.
 
That means, naturally, beefing up "Mammy's" role even more, which is just fine with me - it's a testament to Hattie McDaniel's acting chops that she turned what could very easily have been a stereotypical caricature into the living, breathing moral center of the film. Oh yes, and give her an actual name, too. Maybe the TTL version ends up with Scarlett and Rhett turning Tara over to her and her family and lighting out for New Orleans (which Scarlett adored in the book) or even further west, San Francisco say.
This would be great; I said before that somethign akin to "The Wind Done Gone" would be a possible way the book could go TTL, with it being fromt he POV of the former slaves. I hadn't realized they didn't even give her a name - going all the way to Scarlett and Rhett turning the place over to her might be possible, but some might depend on when it's written.

Still, though, if that happens a lot in TTL's Reconstruction period, it might just be seen as a normal part of history.

My question, though, would be whether TTL's Hollywood would be willing to show a woman taking over the plantation. Although if the number of males is down substantially enough, that, too, could be something that just seems historically accurate.
 
I find it interesting that in both book and movie, as terribly flawed - damaged, in fact - as Scarlett is, she often comes across (unintentionally, I don't doubt) as the only sane woman in the room when it comes to the "Lost Cause", so to speak, and Rhett even more so (we have our introduction to him when he tries to, Sherman-like, convince an unfriendly audience of Georgia planters that the South simply doesn't have the manpower and resources to defeat the North), It's even more interesting that Rhett, who is often looked askance at by respectable society if not outright shunned, actually has more of an ethical center than Scarlett.

A TTL version of the book would basically have to turn Scarlett into at least an antihero, acknowledging that she was right about the Southern cause being foolhardy and foredoom Aed - and find a way to have both her and Rhett turn, if reluctantly, antislavery. That means, naturally, beefing up "Mammy's" role even more, which is just fine with me - it's a testament to Hattie McDaniel's acting chops that she turned what could very easily have been a stereotypical caricature into the living, breathing moral center of the film. Oh yes, and give her an actual name, too. Maybe the TTL version ends up with Scarlett and Rhett turning Tara over to her and her family and lighting out for New Orleans (which Scarlett adored in the book) or even further west, San Francisco say.
I must say, I don´t think it would work this way. If in this Alt-America something is created, what halfway is comparable to our "Gone with the wind", I think it needs this three points:
1. It must at least have a slight pro-southern bias! Don´t get me wrong, it will not be the lying piece of Lost-Cause-propaganda it is in OTL, because that would be ITTL as popular as "the Turner Diaries" IOTL. But it will at least say: "Not everything about the Old South was bad. Some things were actually quite charming!"hc
2. Scarlett will never become a good person. This is just her thing and that the way Mitchels wanted her. A woman going her own way, which don´t sacrifice herself for her family. Maybe she will even realize, how much she personal gained from the new times, but she will still complain, that its destroyed her southern fairytail-fantasy with Ashly.
3. Scarlett and Rhett will not have an happy ending. Its sort of the point of the book. Scarlett is a terrible person, which got rich and gained personal independence. Giving her also personal happiness, would be to much.
Rhett on the other side, I see as a good person,, which desperatly wantto be bad. Maybe there is a reason for this, a "dark" secret. Maybe he found out as a boy, that that famous one drop of negro blood runs through his veins and thats his life, his family and the entire South is build upon a lie.
Rhett rebells against southern society, but for all his snark and cynism he can´t break free. Always he falls baack in the role of southern gentleman. At least till the end, when ITTL it will be heavy implied, that Rhetts breakup with Scarlett, will be his finaal bbreak with the South..
 
Last edited:
Perhaps there could at least be a vague understanding that trauma exists and isn't any kind of moral or character flaw, but is akin to an injury or disease. Even if they have basically no idea how to actually treat it, removing the social stigma around trauma and other forms of mental illness could be revolutionary. In particular, it would facilitate the creation of support groups that could not only provide a lot of help on an informal basis, but lobby for the government to fund research into mental illnesses. Having even that level of understanding in the 1800s would prevent an incalculable amount of suffering.

Perhaps some prominent clergyman, having spent time trying to console traumatized soldiers, gives a sermon about "Injuries of the Soul".
It would be a nice start. If people start making the connection that those soldiers in the thick of the guerrilla war are those who suffer the most from "War Madness" then an acceptance that horrible circumstances can damage the mind and that understanding is needed for healing could indeed be revolutionary.

Sorry if this has been already discussed but I remember that for this timeline, Lincoln goes on to survive and fully serve his 2nd term.
I'm glad for it of course, but I'm curious... what shall become of Booth's attempt though? Will it simply not happen? Perhaps somebody catches on to the conspirators earlier and rats them out?
I will say that Booth will appear later. The specifics of what he does I will not tell.

I did not expect that. I thought he would be the voice of reason as I read the build up.
Unfortunately, our Ted is far too gone. Even if he had tried, it's unlikely he could have calmed down an enraged mob.

We talking here about massive butterflies. Maybe with Washington and Baltimore for some time under confed controll, Booth openly join the southern cause. If not, his pro-southern attidute will get him in trouble in a more radicalized North.
I think it's unlikely he could end up as an actual soldier in the Confederate Army. He claimed it was because dear mom asked him to stay out of the conflict, but Booth never seemed willing to actually join them, though he did help them in other ways. Certainly, by this point, if those other ways were discovered (which include contacting Confederate spies and smuggling supplies) he would probably end up before a firing squad. It's the more likely because Maryland is still under Butler's iron fist, and with discontent simmering due to the new constitution the general is all too happy to bring out full force against those who are (apparently) disloyal.

I'm not sure about that. One of Napoleon's famous maxims - many of them may be apocryphal, but I'm fairly certain he said this one - was that "the moral is to the material as three to one". As I just posted, twenty years of almost unending conflict had worn down most of the peoples of Europe almost as badly as the Thirty Years' War had done less than two centuries previously. The psychological impact if Napoleon had been able to beat Wellington and Blucher - or even worse, if he had been able to destroy either the Anglo-Allied or Prussian Army in Belgium - might have been enough to split off at least one of the Coalition nations and force the others to the table. The Russian Army, the largest contingent of the Coalition forces, was still out of position at the time of the Waterloo Campaign and didn't take part in any of the actual fighting (battles were still ongoing into early July IIRC).
I mean, the Napoleon quote can be applied to the ACW too. Many think the South never stood any chance, and it may surprise some, but I think the South could have won with some well timed victories. Say, a flashy victory just before the 1862 midterms could have brought the Lincoln administration to a halt, and/or resisting successfully until the 1864 election could then bring in a new President who would accept peace.

I find it interesting that in both book and movie, as terribly flawed - damaged, in fact - as Scarlett is, she often comes across (unintentionally, I don't doubt) as the only sane woman in the room when it comes to the "Lost Cause", so to speak, and Rhett even more so (we have our introduction to him when he tries to, Sherman-like, convince an unfriendly audience of Georgia planters that the South simply doesn't have the manpower and resources to defeat the North), It's even more interesting that Rhett, who is often looked askance at by respectable society if not outright shunned, actually has more of an ethical center than Scarlett.

A TTL version of the book would basically have to turn Scarlett into at least an antihero, acknowledging that she was right about the Southern cause being foolhardy and foredoomed - and find a way to have both her and Rhett turn, if reluctantly, antislavery. That means, naturally, beefing up "Mammy's" role even more, which is just fine with me - it's a testament to Hattie McDaniel's acting chops that she turned what could very easily have been a stereotypical caricature into the living, breathing moral center of the film. Oh yes, and give her an actual name, too. Maybe the TTL version ends up with Scarlett and Rhett turning Tara over to her and her family and lighting out for New Orleans (which Scarlett adored in the book) or even further west, San Francisco say.
I love Rhett's introductory scene for that reason. Well, that and Clark Gable's almost irresistible charm.

Regarding the idea of the book ending in then turning over the plantation to "Mammy" (how did I not realize she didn't have an actual name?), that could be a nice ending, I agree, but I don't think it would fit with the rest of the story or Scarlett's character. I was thinking rather of Rhett and Scarlett becoming scalawags. Rhett out of principle and self-preservation, Scarlett out of just self-preservation. It's worth noting, too, that going by the rules Lincoln established ITTL Tara actually wouldn't be in any danger - legal danger, at least, for the O'Haras never occupied any prominent place in the Confederate military or government, so the plantation would be spared from confiscation as long as they took the loyalty oath. Even Ashley Wilkes would be safe from prosecution, as long as he didn't commit war crimes or something. Now, something interesting would be that Ashley, and maybe Rhett, actually joined the Klan in the book. The movie kind of dances around that, but the book is explicit, and the Union authorities are unlikely to feel very merciful.

I must say, I don´t think it would work this way. If in this Alt-America something is created, what halfway is comparable to our "Gone with the wind", I think it needs this three points:
1. It must at least have a slight pro-southern bias! Don´t get me wrong, it will not be the lying piece of Lost-Cause-propaganda it is in OTL, because that would be ITTL as popular as "the Turner Diaries" IOTL. But it will at least say: "Not everything about the Old South was bad. Some things wereactuallyquite charming!"hc
2. Scarlett will never become a good person. This is just her thing and that the way Mitchels wanted her. A woman going her own way, which don´t sacrifice herself for her family. Maybe she will even realize, how much she personal gained from the new times, but she will still complain, that its destroyed her southern fairytail-fantasy with Ashly.
3. Scarlett and Rhett will not have an happy ending. Its sort of the point of the book. Scarlett is a terrible person, which got rich and gained personal independence. Giving her also personal happiness, would be to much.
Rhett on the other side, I see as a good person,, which desperatly wantto be bad. Maybe there is a reason for this, a "dark" secret. Maybe he found out as a boy, that that famous one drop of negro blood runs through his veins and thats his life, his family and the entire South is build upon a lie.
Maybe I will write something more later.
The topic of post-war memory has already been discussed. My position was and remains that some affection for the South is inevitable, with the accompanying minimizing of its problems. I envision something similar to old folks talking about the 50's - ignoring, rather than romanticizing, the problems that existed. Less "the slaves were happy!", more "yeah slavery was bad and all but those were times of chivalry and good manners". Ultimately, this should all be distilled into a kind of "Clean Confederates" myth, that says that the poor Confederate soldier fought honorably and valiantly, but only because a greedy aristocrat deluded him. The cause was not good, no one would deny that, but surely you can't blame old Papa, who only fought for home and hearth, had no slaves and was actually quite friendly to them once the war was over, right?
 
Hey, here's a random thought to hopefully spark some discussion: what will be the result of the treason trials? Because there will be some treason trials, mostly for the most prominent Confederates who didn't manage to get away. Say, Stephens is captured and put on trial, and he argues that he couldn't have committed treason because he forfeited his US citizenship upon joining the rebellion. Judges (military commissions) would tell him that the very act of forfeiting his citizenship in order to join a rebellion constitutes treason, and that, moreover, he couldn't have forfeited his citizenship because his intent was criminal. Otherwise, treason would never exist. But that could result in Stephens or others arguing that, then, they are still US citizens and thus should not be under "political disabilities". Ultimately, I'll have the prominent Confederates end in trial and condemmed (not always to execution, mind you, to prevent martyrs) but the juridical butterflies that could result would be very interesting.
 
I think legally treason is working for another nation.you want to avoid the word treason as it could make the confederacy seem valid.





legally speaking the confederates were therfore insurgents or one could argue mass rioters and seditious not traitors.

also the process to forfeit citizenship could therfore be made illegal or formalized earlier.
and duel citizenship might be affected.
 
Last edited:
If anybody could make that argument in the South, it would indeed be 'Little Aleck' Stephens. Stephens could get the Speer treatment for his role in the rebellion if that legal hair-splitting works, otherwise Stephens swings by the neck like all of his comrades.
 
Here we go:
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~pa91/military/cfawar.html
Article 7. Any officer or soldier who shall begin, excite, cause or join in any mutiny or sedition in any troop or company in the service of the United States, or in any party, post, detachment, or guard, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as by a court martial shall be inflicted.
Article 8. Any officer, non-commissioned officer, or soldier, who, being present at any mutiny or sedition, does not use his utmost endeavour to suppress the same, or coming to the knowledge of any intended mutiny, does not, without delay, give information thereof to his commanding [page 361] officer, shall be punished by the sentence of a court martial with death, or otherwise, according to the nature of his offense.
Technically any US military personnel who joined the CS military are guilty of mutiny and sedition, punishable by death or other punishment as determined by court-martial.

I find it reasonable for the US to try and hang the most notorious Confederate officers, but hunting down and killing every CS mutineer is not workable or likely to be morally tolerable by the US populace.

The non-military politicians are subject to the Crimes Act of 1790:
f any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted, on confession in open court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and shall suffer death.

This does not specify that the war levied must be waged by or enemies adhered to must be a recognized state.

The CS leadership did wage war against the United States as elected US officials. They adhered to an insurrection against the United States. Under this definition, they are guilty of treason and subject to the death penalty.

Lincoln will probably commute most of the sentences to prison or the like, coupled with confiscation of property, but he can hang a few of the worst fire-eaters with near impunity.
 
Hey, here's a random thought to hopefully spark some discussion: what will be the result of the treason trials? Because there will be some treason trials, mostly for the most prominent Confederates who didn't manage to get away. Say, Stephens is captured and put on trial, and he argues that he couldn't have committed treason because he forfeited his US citizenship upon joining the rebellion. Judges (military commissions) would tell him that the very act of forfeiting his citizenship in order to join a rebellion constitutes treason, and that, moreover, he couldn't have forfeited his citizenship because his intent was criminal. Otherwise, treason would never exist. But that could result in Stephens or others arguing that, then, they are still US citizens and thus should not be under "political disabilities". Ultimately, I'll have the prominent Confederates end in trial and condemmed (not always to execution, mind you, to prevent martyrs) but the juridical butterflies that could result would be very interesting.
Rebellion. Have them be charged with rebellion instead of treason. Avoids the issue of indicating that the Confederacy was ever a legitimate government.
 
Ultimately, I'll have the prominent Confederates end in trial and condemmed (not always to execution, mind you, to prevent martyrs) but the juridical butterflies that could result would be very interesting.
Hang vicous, hands on war criminals (William Quantrill and the like), let all the others rot in prison, with some to be released later as long as they sign pledges to either keep there mouth shut or go on a apology tour.
 
Hey, here's a random thought to hopefully spark some discussion: what will be the result of the treason trials? Because there will be some treason trials, mostly for the most prominent Confederates who didn't manage to get away. Say, Stephens is captured and put on trial, and he argues that he couldn't have committed treason because he forfeited his US citizenship upon joining the rebellion. Judges (military commissions) would tell him that the very act of forfeiting his citizenship in order to join a rebellion constitutes treason, and that, moreover, he couldn't have forfeited his citizenship because his intent was criminal. Otherwise, treason would never exist. But that could result in Stephens or others arguing that, then, they are still US citizens and thus should not be under "political disabilities". Ultimately, I'll have the prominent Confederates end in trial and condemmed (not always to execution, mind you, to prevent martyrs) but the juridical butterflies that could result would be very interesting.
Drawing from "Secession on Trial: The Treason Prosecution of Jefferson Davis" by Professor Cynthia Nicoletti, I understand that there was a lot of debate among Johnson's cabinet as to whether it was possible to try Confederate leaders for treason in a military court. A military court could definitely charge any Confederate leader with war crimes but charging civilians with treason was a lot more contentious. It could be construed as a political weapon and in the case of Jefferson Davis' trial, a military commission was considered to guarantee a conviction. I've also read that the Treason Clause prohibits the use of military courts to prosecute an individual of treason, but this didn't prevent it from happening during WW2. It could create a concerning precedent - that the government uses its military arm to charge treason as it pleases.

As for a civilian court, there's the problem of the jury but I think that a clear cut case for treason could be made from Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase's decision in the 1867 case Shortridge et al. v. Macon. Salmon P. Chase stated there is no doubt the Southern states that seceded had severed its connection to the United States; there is no doubt they claimed to have joined another country and joined a war against the United States, and there is no doubt the practical relations with the United States were suspended. Chase, however, also stated "these acts did not effect, even for a moment, the separation... from the Union, any more than the acts of an individual who commits grave offenses against the state by resisting its officers and defying its authority, separate him from the state. Such acts may subject the offender even to outlawry, but can discharge him from no duty and can relieve him from no responsibility.” So Mr. Stephens can claim that he was no longer a citizen of the United States, but the secession ordinance did not absolve him of his duties and obligations as a citizen of the United States.

Treason was the levying of war, and war levied "under the pretended authority" of the Confederate government was definitely treason against the United States. I think there's a clear cut case that the Confederate leaders committed treason. That said, there's the risk that Confederate sympathizers could find their way onto the jury and refuse to convict Confederate leaders on trial, which was the main reason why Stanton and other cabinet members favored military court.
 
Also, remember in The Growing Mouse how I had the Court rule the Wilmington insurgents were properly found guilty because they didn't attempt to mitigate their concerns by proper legal means first (i.e. election recounts, just waiting till the next election, etc.)? You can have the court use the same argument here. "A number of legal means existed... free and fair elections are not the only way to ensure one's voice is heard, for the right to sue in Federal court was freely available if a citizen wished to argue that their rights were being violated..."

Sure, the courts would have said "heck, no!" to a request to leave the Union, but this not only proves that the civilians acted against the interests of society, it also encourages the concept that "this is a nation of laws and the system allows you to have a redress of grievances. If you are not satisfied with the answer, you are free to go elsewhere, for there are plenty of other countries."

This allows a doctrine of Insurgency Law to take root which is not the same as treason and thus doesn't open up that can of worms.
 
Also, remember in The Growing Mouse how I had the Court rule the Wilmington insurgents were properly found guilty because they didn't attempt to mitigate their concerns by proper legal means first (i.e. election recounts, just waiting till the next election, etc.)? You can have the court use the same argument here. "A number of legal means existed... free and fair elections are not the only way to ensure one's voice is heard, for the right to sue in Federal court was freely available if a citizen wished to argue that their rights were being violated..."

Sure, the courts would have said "heck, no!" to a request to leave the Union, but this not only proves that the civilians acted against the interests of society, it also encourages the concept that "this is a nation of laws and the system allows you to have a redress of grievances. If you are not satisfied with the answer, you are free to go elsewhere, for there are plenty of other countries."

This allows a doctrine of Insurgency Law to take root which is not the same as treason and thus doesn't open up that can of worms.
I mean, you right off the bat has evidence they were planning on leaving, all those arms transfers south, Lincoln not even being on the ballot in the Dixie states, all those previous years of threatening.....

This isn't just something impulsively done. They had years of foreshadowing. Use it against them.
 
Hang vicous, hands on war criminals (William Quantrill and the like), let all the others rot in prison, with some to be released later as long as they sign pledges to either keep there mouth shut or go on a apology tour.

Johnny Breck is probably getting life, but it'd be darkly hilarious if Jeff Davis got a rope and a sour apple tree.
I can see Breckenridge throwing himself at the mercy of the court as a beaten and broken man who acknowledges what he did. No doubt he'd get life in prison and come to write letters or novels decrying the foolishness of the attempted rebellion.


I believe that treason could be used against rebel leadership with the view that, regardless of the CSA not being recognized by the Union or any other major power, those fighting for and leading it were under the impression and, more importantly, intent of being a legitimate separate government. Their intent to betray their country, that still recognized them as citizens and civil or military servants, to serve another power actively fighting against them would be treason. Sedition and insurrection could certainly be used as a carrot for getting some of the charged to plead guilty or for those of lesser rank in the military or government of the CSA.
The concern for setting a precedent is certainly a deterring factor but we're not talking about large protests or a riot. This is a unique circumstance where there was a large and coordinated effort to sunder the country by violent and extra-legal means over the thought that something would impinge on the rights of citizens without exhausting all legal means available.
It's like comparing voluntary manslaughter and murder, or even different degrees of murder. Knowing full well that you're going to kill someone, planning it, and going through is handled very differently and harshly than doing so out of a crime of passion or doing so under the influence of substances or a mental illness.

I think anyone with a legal background here would be best suited for answering @Red_Galiray on the matter of treason. But my personal impression in crime is that intent and planning are one of the biggest factors in criminal cases.
 
Last edited:
Top