June 23, 1960, The Aspermont Star, Aspermont, Texas
TREASON
The history of liberty often shows that a would-be tyrant likes to accuse his opponents of treason. So, to safeguard our liberty the constitution itself sets out the kind of proof we need to find some one guilty of treason.
For this reason America has had relatively few cases of treason. not so in early English and Roman law. "Treasonous acts" covered many things, in fact, anything that seemed to threaten the community safety.
In the fourteenth century the English tried to define treason: Since every subject owed allegiance to the King, trivial breaches of a private nature became "petite (small) treason." But a subject disloyal enough as to attack or plot against the king himself was guilty of "high" treason.
The kings liked this: For one to imagine the king's death became treason subject to death.
The broadened treason widen-ed further to include crimes against private persons. Later even the king himself was not exempt: In 1649 they indicted, convicted, and beheaded King Charles I for treason.
King Henry VIII made it high treason to slander Queen Anne or her children. Failure to take an oath not to slander the queen itself became treason.
Under Elizabeth I it became treason for anyone to hold a religion which did not conform to the crown's.
Conviction of treason was easy. In some cases you needed to witnesses. Trials were short and the accused could not have defense counsel.
In conflicts for power, the losing politicians often became "traitors" as they do in many countries to this day. Our early settlers lived in troubled times with the coming revolution creating new factions. For them treason was also a frequent accusation.
But after the revolution the founding fathers and the people had had enough.
They decided to limit "treason" and faced these problems: Should the new executive put down rebellious and define treasons himself? Should the Congress during 'troubled times' have the power to define treason?
No. The new Constitution took treason out of politics. It said treason "shall consist only of levying war against the United States or in giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
Conviction required testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act.
Great observations!
BTW you have mail
TREASON
“The history of liberty often shows that a would-be tyrant likes to accuse his opponents of treason. So, to safeguard our liberty the constitution itself sets out the kind of proof we need to find some one guilty of treason.
For this reason America has had relatively few cases of treason. not so in early English and Roman law. “Treasonous acts” covered many things, in fact, anything that seemed to threaten the community safety.
In the fourteenth century the English tried to define treason: Since every subject owed allegiance to the King, trivial breaches of a private nature became “petite (small) treason.” But a subject disloyal enough as to attack or plot against the king himself was guilty of “high” treason.....”
SNIP
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Thank you for your excellent brief primer on history of Treason, RonaBadger. Most enlightening.
