Since no one has, I'll start it.....
- Thread starter armysoulja504
- Start date
trai·tor·ous
ˈtrādərəs/
adjective
ˈtrādər/
noun
ˈtrādərəs/
adjective
- relating to or characteristic of a traitor; treacherous.
"when his traitorous actions were discovered, he was imprisoned"
synonyms: treacherous, disloyal, treasonous, renegade, backstabbing; More
ˈtrādər/
noun
- a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
"they see me as a traitor, a sellout to the enemy"
synonyms: betrayer, backstabber, double-crosser, renegade, fifth columnist; More
Choosing to leave a government and form your own isn't traitorous. In fact, it was a fundamental right upon which we based our founding in our secession from England.
The definition of treason according to the constitution "shall consist only in levying War against them (the states), or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (emphasis mine)
Lincoln declared war on those states and by his own logic committed treason in doing so because he believed that secession was not a right guaranteed to all the states. Therefore, they could not leave and were a part of the union whether they wanted to be or not. He was an ardent nationalist and slavery was a propaganda tool used to gain support for the war effort. It wasn't a real justification for the war outside of the public eye for the Union.
Now, don't take this as I'm justifying the primary reason they seceded. That was a disgusting use of the right that was considered to be a fundamental right of the people upon our founding. I won't argue the common man that died for the CSA was defending his country, people, and property as the majority of southerners did not own slaves. However, you cannot deny that the southern elites and government left because they thought that owning slaves was not only a right but the proper place in society for the black man. Look no further than the "Cornerstone Speech" given by CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens. He tried to back track on it after the war too.
The definition of treason according to the constitution "shall consist only in levying War against them (the states), or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (emphasis mine)
Lincoln declared war on those states and by his own logic committed treason in doing so because he believed that secession was not a right guaranteed to all the states. Therefore, they could not leave and were a part of the union whether they wanted to be or not. He was an ardent nationalist and slavery was a propaganda tool used to gain support for the war effort. It wasn't a real justification for the war outside of the public eye for the Union.
Now, don't take this as I'm justifying the primary reason they seceded. That was a disgusting use of the right that was considered to be a fundamental right of the people upon our founding. I won't argue the common man that died for the CSA was defending his country, people, and property as the majority of southerners did not own slaves. However, you cannot deny that the southern elites and government left because they thought that owning slaves was not only a right but the proper place in society for the black man. Look no further than the "Cornerstone Speech" given by CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens. He tried to back track on it after the war too.
It is by definition traitorous. You can claim it as your right to be traitorous, but it that doesn't change the facts. The signatories of the Declaration of Independence knew full well that they were risking their lives since the penalty for their traitorous action was death.
I didn't say anything about treason, since it is more of a legal term, but there you have it: The CSA levied war against the United States. Seems cut and dry to me.
The CSA fired upon federal troops in Ft. Sumter prior to Lincoln declaring war. The secession was explicitly about slavery, the war was about preservation of the union.
Even if I grant that secession was a legal and non-traitorous action for the states (which I don't) every federally enlisted soldier who joined that secession turn his back on his country, and they furthered the betrayal by seizing equipment from their country.
A person who commits treason is a traitor.
Has the concept of what constitutes a federal republic been lost you? Prior to Lincoln the union was made up of a group of sovereign and independent states. The state for for which you were a citizen was your country. So in the eyes of those like Lee it would have been traitorous to take up arms against his country. Hence the United States of America which was a federation of "countries" joined in compact with each other. It did not meet the definition of a country it was a body of representation with few and defined powers to act on behalf of the states that created it. You're wrong plain and simple.
The army of South Carolina fired on Sumpter and there is a difference. Lincoln invaded Virginia. So no, the CSA did not levy war against any state. Lincoln wanted them to fire that shot btw.
The CSA had representatives in Washington trying to negotiate payment for the forts and repayment of loans. They tried to leave peacefully. The Secretary was ordered by Lincoln not to engage in serious negotiation.
And because it appears you missed it the first time.
"However, you cannot deny that the southern elites and government left because they thought that owning slaves was not only a right but the proper place in society for the black man. Look no further than the "Cornerstone Speech" given by CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens. He tried to back track on it after the war too."
The war was about revenue and industrialization. They didn't want to compete for those cheap raw goods.
People need to set the nationalistic and propagandist views on this subject to the side and see it for what it was instead of trying to assign some noble bullshit tag on Lincoln and his motivations. The southern propagandists need to quit trying to make what the southern governments did appear as noble.
Has the concept of what constitutes a federal republic been lost you? Prior to Lincoln the union was made up of a group of sovereign and independent states. The state for for which you were a citizen was your country. So in the eyes of those like Lee it would have been traitorous to take up arms against his country. Hence the United States of America which was a federation of "countries" joined in compact with each other. It did not meet the definition of a country it was a body of representation with few and defined powers to act on behalf of the states that created it. You're wrong plain and simple.
The army of South Carolina fired on Sumpter and there is a difference. Lincoln invaded Virginia. So no, the CSA did not levy war against any state. Lincoln wanted them to fire that shot btw.
The CSA had representatives in Washington trying to negotiate payment for the forts and repayment of loans. They tried to leave peacefully. The Secretary was ordered by Lincoln not to engage in serious negotiation.
And because it appears you missed it the first time.
"However, you cannot deny that the southern elites and government left because they thought that owning slaves was not only a right but the proper place in society for the black man. Look no further than the "Cornerstone Speech" given by CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens. He tried to back track on it after the war too."
The war was about revenue and industrialization. They didn't want to compete for those cheap raw goods.
People need to set the nationalistic and propagandist views on this subject to the side and see it for what it was instead of trying to assign some noble bullshit tag on Lincoln and his motivations. The southern propagandists need to quit trying to make what the southern governments did appear as noble.
I agree with Ben Carson when he says that you can put up Confederate Flags everywhere or take them all down and neither will make a difference until the hearts and minds of the individuals change.
Exactly. If the gubment and progressives were actually interested at all in saving lives, the first place to start would be overhauling the American grocery store. Refined sugar will kill substantially more people in this country this year than guns.
And if they actually wanted to address gun violence, the most obvious place to start would be gangs who kill each other. Gun death data also is artificially inflated by suicides who would simply choose an alternate method without access to a gun, which is basically an easy-button for suicide. But yeah. we all obviously live in fear of the daily shootout dangers of life in America. Happens all the time.
The corpses weren't even cold before Obama Shalama ding dong was on TV tsk tsking us again for not having the sense to just get on board with his date rape of the Constitution.
And before someone mentions again how futile resistance against the government would be - as a defense for why it's pointless to arm yourself as a safeguard against tyranny, consider these numbers.
There are 13.7 MILLION licensed hunters in the US. Simple "gun owners" outnumber licensed hunters 5:1. There are 70-80 million gun owners in this country.
While those numbers don't reflect any kind of standing army, it is completely insurmountable militarily. Afghanistan... Vietnam... those guerrilla "armies" had no real problem holding their own against the might of a foreign superpower. So, yes. The average gun owner and hunter in this country holds a lot more power against the government than the statists would have you believe.
Now... we have to admit that most gun owners aren't going to fight much and would grudgingly give in rather than risk their comfort and safety by resisting. However... even if you successfully disarmed 95% of those people, that leaves up to 4,000,000 people in this country who would be well armed, imbedded and motivated to resist. To militarily engage them, you would turn any kind of public opinion on it's ear and motivate millions more. And never mind the fact that you would be asking the US military to engage their own citizens - and that number would no doubt include a huge percentage of military veterans.
The only way to safely disarm the threat of an armed guerrilla resistance movement in this country is to gradually - Ironically, through a political war of attrition - institute "common sense" law after "common sense" law until every gun is accounted for and eventually criminalized and confiscated, while continuing to militarize local police forces. And that's obviously what the plan is, and that is why we need to always fight tooth and nail against gun laws.
I agree with a lot of that, but the people at Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, Nickel Mines, Va Tech, Ft. Hood, Omaha, Tucson, Navy Yard, Edmond Post Office, Charleston and others weren't being irresponsible or making a conscious decision to eat crap and fact the health consequences later. They were going to school, or seeing a move, or praying, or at work and some simpleton nut walked in and killed everyone. If you see any type of analog between the two I question if you're even trying to be objective. Those causes of death are voluntary, self -destructive behavior. (Sans driving, which is heavily regulated, as guns should be.)
When's the last time someone with Uncle Sam walked into a public place in the U.S. and started killing people? If asked to leave someone in charge of my safety in public, I would choose a professional cop over armed schizophrenics any day.
Imagine where this country would be if instead of rogue shooters, these shooters were all al qaeda.
Yeah. I disagree. Say what you want, but I think they had a real problem on their hands in both cases.
Right now the "armed guerilla resistance" is resisting its ass off. Resisting in our fO#%@&@% schools, theaters, malls...
I think you guys get loaded up on Red Dawn or Mad Max and then do your political thinking. What is the outrageous example of civil rights violations you're so concerned with that might justify us shooting at Americans? Anything on the radar screen?
Well Thor even the Rosenbergs don't meet your definition then. The definition says levying war. Even the Rosenbergs didn't levy war like the confederates did. I don't see why you're so resistant to this. You rebel and get your ass kicked, you're a traitor. You rebel and win, you're a revolutionary. This is not some new, strange dynamic.
Sys what is your plan for gun control? That's been my issue all along. I agree with Mega's take that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not for hunting but for defense from a tyrannical government. I also am a gun owner many times over. However, you want me to give up my firearms to make the world safer. If for whatever reason my mind could be changed what would your plan be? When I give up my guns, I will for the most part be relying on the government to protect me. The government can do this by keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and by doing a better job of protecting me through law enforcement. How can this effectively be accomplished? That's my biggest problem when the left starts talking about gun control. I've never heard any practical solutions that make sense. It's a pipe dream that presents the illusion of safety. With millions of untraceable guns in circulation in this country and an open border with Mexico how are you going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?
FIFY. you are confusing the system under the Articles of Confederation with the system under the Constitution. The language in the AoC the mentions sovereign and independent states is conspicuously absent form the US Constitution. States are also forbidden the things which make a state sovereign and independent, such as treaty making, seigniorage. The Constitution also dictates what form of government states must have (republican). Most damning is that congress is given the power of naturalization and the constitution's repeated use of the term "Citizen of the United States"
And you are still missing the main point that Lee was enlisted in the United States Army, trained at the United States Military Academy and then went on to defect adn wage war against the United States. Whether you recognize the cause as just or not, that is the very definition of traitor.
Incorrect, the shots were fired by The Confederate States Army, under direction of the Traitor P G Beauregard (also a member of the United States Army and trained at the United States Military Academy). And the CSA quite literally waged war on the United States (which is how it is written in the Constitution). Invading a secessionist Virginia is not invading the United States.
I wonder if Lincoln would have sold his army, equipment, and forts to any other foreign government.
I caught it the first time.
What evidence do you have for this. Given that the cheap raw goods were sold at market and thus competed for anyway, and the stated intention of those who fought the war all signs point towards "preservation of the union"
Preservation of the union isn't exactly a noble cause.
You would think trans fats and sugar were in the first amendment. Remember Bloomberg's soda bad? Progressives have tried this.
I don't know if you have noticed, but the reason people always say "but these gun reforms wouldn't have prevented the last mass shooting" is because the new gun reforms are secretly aimed at gang violence. The calls for reform are usually just centered around mass shootings because more people care about innocent victims than gang members.
The easy button thing does matter.
This touches on an important point. When the second amendment was written there weren't large standing armies of ordinary citizens. The permanent elements of the military were aristocratic, and much more prone to be abused for tyrannical ends. So the growing technological advantage militaries have over the citizenry is at the same time offset by the democratization of the military that is required to operate that technology.
This absolutist view only makes sense if confiscation and tyranny are coherent goals of our government (they aren't).
Do you have compromises that would reduce gun violence (mainly gang) without infringing?
I don't think we ever can, entirely. There are so many guns, owned by so many people, that as a practical matter it's lunacy to ever "take" everyone's guns. I don't think any serious person ever contends it's possible -- it's just a really dramatic idea that scares the shit out of right wingers. I don't think any democratic president or serious politician has ever even proposed taking everyone's guns. It's the NRA's anthem, and their lemming followers think any gun control is the same as gub'mint "taking" their guns. It's not. Slippery slopes aren't all that scary, and we all deal with them every day.
I do think there should be two real basic, but aggressive things done:
1. Registry and regulation -- in part to prevent schizo's from getting guns, in part for 2.
2. Some civil justice reform, starting with strict liability for damages from whomever uses a gun to kill people, or enables the use (specifically, selling to) of a gun by someone else to kill people. That means if you want to trade your .38, you aren't going to trade it to someone you don't trust. I think that would do as much to make it hard on wackjobs to get guns as anything, and reasonable people can do what they want with as many guns as they want -- just understand when you voluntarily convey that gun, you're on the hook for whatever happens with that gun. As a practical matter, guns would get real expensive and much harder to get. Government isn't really doing anything in this scenario -- the lawyers for the families of the dead people are, and whoever sold Jared Laughner and this latest guy their guns would have serious problems. It would be effective, but right wingers would flip out. It would be a hard, hard hit for the firearm industry, too.
I agree it's impossible to confiscate all guns. I think it's chickenshit for Colt to make things designed to kill people, and then avoid liability when their product is used for its intended purpose.
I think it's insane to think these guns are helpful to keep government in line. It's fantasy. What are you going to do, take your .30-'06 and go shoot at fbi guys? What's going to happen that you take a gun and shoot at someone from the federal government? It's a serious question -- everyone's gonna go kick some government ass, what's that look like? What issue is gonna make you shoot at them?
Your concerns with "guerilla resistance" is some cerebral stuff, though. Please let me know when you're ready to go kick some government ass, I really want to be there.
FWIW, if I'm ever invited to participate in your guerilla resistance, I'll nominate you as Brigadier Major Ubergeneral Vader.
Not one single state ratified a national form of government, not one. They ratified a federal government. "We, the people of the United States," was the exact same language that was used in the articles of confederation. The statement also implies that there are several states, each with their own separate sovereignties. The people of the United States not the United State or state of America etc. Had they intended for the new constitution to abolish their sovereignty they would have used different language and they would not have made it very clear that the constitution was framed, ordained, and established by the states for the states, an agent to act on their behalf with specific powers granted by them with all others being reserved.
By New-Hampshire, "to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remedy the defects of the federal union."
Massachusetts, "in conformity with the resolution of Congress recommending a convention for the sole purpose of revising the articles of confederation, to render the federal constitution adequate to the preservation of the union."
Connecticut, "for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union."
New-York, in the same words.
New-Jersey, "for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the union, as to trade and other important subjects, and of devising such other provisions, as shall appear to be necessary, to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies thereof."
Pennsylvania, "to devise such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the union."
Delaware, in the same words, with a proviso, that each state shall have one vote in Congress.
Maryland, in the same words, without the proviso.
Virginia, in the same words. This state passed the first law for appointing delegates to the convention.
North-Carolina, "for the purpose of revising the federal constitution."
South-Carolina, "to devise such alterations as may be thought necessary, to render the federal constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the confederated states."
Georgia, "to devise such alterations as may render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union."
~ John Taylor
Our amendment process is another example that expresses the sovereignty of each state. Ratification is an act of the state legislatures or conventions. Congress may propose but the authority lies with the states. The very fact that had states not ratified the constitution they would not be a part of this union implied sovereignty. And again, the term federal implies a league of sovereign entities joining into a compact.
The people created each state and the states created the federal government. The states derive their powers from the people and the federal government derives its powers from the states.
If you want to agree to disagree that is fine. John Taylor of Caroline wrote an excellent price on this subject.
By New-Hampshire, "to discuss and decide upon the most effectual means to remedy the defects of the federal union."
Massachusetts, "in conformity with the resolution of Congress recommending a convention for the sole purpose of revising the articles of confederation, to render the federal constitution adequate to the preservation of the union."
Connecticut, "for the sole and express purpose of revising the articles of confederation, to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union."
New-York, in the same words.
New-Jersey, "for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the union, as to trade and other important subjects, and of devising such other provisions, as shall appear to be necessary, to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies thereof."
Pennsylvania, "to devise such alterations and further provisions, as may be necessary to render the federal constitution fully adequate to the exigencies of the union."
Delaware, in the same words, with a proviso, that each state shall have one vote in Congress.
Maryland, in the same words, without the proviso.
Virginia, in the same words. This state passed the first law for appointing delegates to the convention.
North-Carolina, "for the purpose of revising the federal constitution."
South-Carolina, "to devise such alterations as may be thought necessary, to render the federal constitution entirely adequate to the actual situation and future good government of the confederated states."
Georgia, "to devise such alterations as may render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union."
~ John Taylor
Our amendment process is another example that expresses the sovereignty of each state. Ratification is an act of the state legislatures or conventions. Congress may propose but the authority lies with the states. The very fact that had states not ratified the constitution they would not be a part of this union implied sovereignty. And again, the term federal implies a league of sovereign entities joining into a compact.
The people created each state and the states created the federal government. The states derive their powers from the people and the federal government derives its powers from the states.
If you want to agree to disagree that is fine. John Taylor of Caroline wrote an excellent price on this subject.
Last edited:
I think the "keeping the government in line" part would occur much differently than you have described.
Most of the former or current military and f and current LEOs that I personally know are people who own firearms personally and they come from families that own firearms.
So, the question is, if orders come down from on high to start disarming citizens, what percentage of the M&Ps would actually go and disarm their fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, cousins and uncles?
I'm guessing, the percentage would be low enough to cause a lot of concerns. Trying to stamp out something without the means to actually do it, only ramps up the market.
Intentionally obtuse as usual. You are like arguing with my ex wife.
Unless you have a collapsed economy and people are starving. Then self preservation is your primary goal and if confiscation means food on the table for you and yours then so be it.
Federal in this context is opposed to confederal or unity. Any constitution which includes states, and a strong federal government would be considered federal. But again we aren't talking about mere citizens of southern states, we are talking about officers in the United States Army.
And for every Taylor there is a Webster or Marshall. There are references to the United States as a country in literature and correspondence going back to 1787.
Last edited:
If they ever banned guns and tried to confiscate them it would surely get the border fence built. That would be the only way to stop the black market which would arise and make the number of illegal immigrants and drugs coming across pale in comparison to the number of guns.
Webster was wrong, Marshall was wrong, Lincoln was wrong and you are wrong. This matter was specifically addressed in the federalist letters in response to concerns that the people were being duped into a national and not federal government. You are arguing that a national government was established and that in the act of ratifying the constitution of the US they relinquished their sovereignty. Is it any surprise some of these people are trying to seize a power that doesn't exist? Congratulations to Lincoln, he changed the rules through the use of force and at only the expense of almost 700,000 lives.
Federalist Letter No. 39
On examining the first relation, it appears on one hand that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation; but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act therefore establishing the Constitution, will not be a national but a federal act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors, the act of the people as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of amajority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no other wise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes; or by considering the will of a majority of the States, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.
Federalist Letter No. 39
On examining the first relation, it appears on one hand that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation; but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act therefore establishing the Constitution, will not be a national but a federal act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors, the act of the people as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of amajority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no other wise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes; or by considering the will of a majority of the States, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.
ThorOdinson, you're talking to a wet soiled diaper. Liberals have, without the authority or scope, rewritten and reinterpreted the Constitution for years. It's what they do to try to grant supreme rule to their elite and loyal followers. Liberals are almost like Muslims. They promote and cling to a leftist idea they have created and promoted without any regard to reality or the scope of their "power."
I was pretty explicit in arguing that Federal in these contexts is as opposed to Confederal, and Unity. And National in this context has the same meaning as Unity. Any constitution that has a feature with per state representation such as the Senate is by definition Federal. Any constitution under which the states retain police power is by definition Federal. Federal does not mean sovereign states.
Oh and you know that FP 39 is available via Google right? You conveniently left out all the ways the constitution is both national and federal, and in some cases strictly national in character. This blending of systems is why both Marshall and Taylor could exist under the same constitution.
The point remains, Lee turned his back on his country.
"They do not know what they say. If it came to a conflict of arms, the war will last at least four years. Northern politicians will not appreciate the determination and pluck of the South, and Southern politicians do not appreciate the numbers, resources, and patient perseverance of the North. Both sides forget that we are all Americans. I foresee that our country will pass through a terrible ordeal, a necessary expiation, perhaps, for our national sins."
Robert E Lee
Stop trying to defer the argument and centering it on the definition of Federal. You argued that the states gave up their sovereignty. They did not and even as you read on in FP 39 you see that their sovereignty is involiable (never to be broken, infringed, or dishonored). That has been my primary point through all of this. Again, most people's loyalty in that time lied with state first, federal government next. They had a concept that has been completely lost for better or worse. So they were not being traitorous in any fashion by their standards. We'll just agree to disagree on this and put it to bed. Thank you for staying civil, it was a good conversation.
If the contention is that the war was about slavery, that would make us the only country that ever used war to rid itself of such.
The war was over states rights, even if the southern states were fighting to maintain a right to something horrific.
The war was over states rights, even if the southern states were fighting to maintain a right to something horrific.
Conflicting loyalty exists for all traitors. Some traitors put ideology before country (Rosenbergs?, Founders). Some traitors put their race before country (McVeigh?). Some traitors put religion before country (Ft Hood Shooter). Some traitors put their state before country (Lee).
