Were the members of the CSA forces/government traitors?

Were members of the CSA Military/Government traitors? to the USA?

  • Yes

    Votes: 110 52.4%
  • No

    Votes: 28 13.3%
  • Yes, if they previously swore an oath to the USA.

    Votes: 50 23.8%
  • No, all former oaths were invalid upon creation of the CSA

    Votes: 14 6.7%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 8 3.8%

  • Total voters
    210
  • Poll closed .
By 1865 hanging Jefferson Davis would have been a kindness, ending his misery and making him a martyr.

Much better to let him live in personal and financial trouble, planning every public appearance based on whether or not he would be able to avoid other key Confederate figures and to be remembered as a traitor to most of the country and as an incompetent who lost a winnable and worthy cause by the rest.
 
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
this is the definition to traitor in the US so yes they were traitors to the us, so were the Germans in ww1, and yes the solders in the union army were traitors to Confederacy
anything after that is a matter of who we think was right in a war that happened be for most of our grandfathers. i think that the south should have left but at the same time the union should have given up that base it would be like having the British with a base on Ellis island. so they were all wrong now wait put that pitch fork down down i say nooo!
this comment was cut short by death of author by all civil war reenactors world wide
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
this is the definition to traitor in the US so yes they were traitors to the us, so were the Germans in ww1, and yes the solders in the union army were traitors to Confederacy
What? No they weren't. The Union existed before the Confederacy did, and for that matter the Union Army soldiers had never sworn allegience to the CSA, so they couldn't betray it.

The Confederates, on the other hand, had sworn allegience to the USA and then betrayed it when they sided with the Confederacy.

There's a good reason why the Confederates are often called "Rebels."
 
What? No they weren't. The Union existed before the Confederacy did, and for that matter the Union Army soldiers had never sworn allegience to the CSA, so they couldn't betray it.

The Confederates, on the other hand, had sworn allegience to the USA and then betrayed it when they sided with the Confederacy.

There's a good reason why the Confederates are often called "Rebels."

it was in response to that the US's definition applies to non-citizens if you put CSA in were it says United States than the US government is the traitors it was a comment on the definition
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
the soldiers were not traitors, the politicians were.
Nonsense. While there certainly ought to be exceptions made for those Southerners unlucky enough to be drafted, any soldier who volunteered to take up arms for the Confederacy is a traitor to the Union, and that includes the entirety of the Confederate officer corps.
 
On the other hand there are different degrees of treason, and I would argue that people like Jefferson Davis, RE Lee, George Washington, or John Adams who openly rebelled against the established authority, are far less odious than individuals like Benedict Arnold who switch sides during a conflict or those who spy or collaborate behind the scenes with an enemy. In my mind, it would have been pure and unjustifiable vindictiveness to hang Jefferson Davis or, if the ARW failed, George Washingtron.
I don't think it's a question of degree. George Washington is no more or less a traitor than Jefferson Davis was. I guess I just don't buy that there's an inherent moral judgment in the term: George Washington may have been a traitor, but the reasons for that betrayal were at least arguably justified. Jefferson Davis, eh... not so much. I don't see the issue with recognizing certain traitors as heroic or laudable in their actions (betraying a corrupt or unrepresentative regime) and others as being scumbags.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I don't think it's a question of degree. George Washington is no more or less a traitor than Jefferson Davis was. I guess I just don't buy that there's an inherent moral judgment in the term: George Washington may have been a traitor, but the reasons for that betrayal were at least arguably justified. Jefferson Davis, eh... not so much. I don't see the issue with recognizing certain traitors as heroic or laudable in their actions (betraying a corrupt or unrepresentative regime) and others as being scumbags.
This. I don't understand why people can't see the importance of motive when it comes to being a traitor, which should not be a loaded term.
 
People have a right to revolt, but taking up arms makes them a traitor by law to the government/authority they're revolting against; the moral implications of that are much more complex.
 
Top