I didn't say I would have hung them all, just that they were all traitors and could have been hung.
I regard any American who fires on the troops of his nation as a traitor and I do not care what State he comes from or what he thinks his 'new'nation is.
Maybe those American Muslims who were fighting for the Taliban should not be considered traitors either.
No, that's wrong. The change of allegiance, open and stated clearly and following their States, shields them all from charges of treason. Maybe you didn't read that post back upthread about what treason consists in, and contrasting Benedict Arnold with the Confederates. But if you persist in this line of obloquy, I'm going to start calling you names.
Now stop it. We've discussed this, you're just doing this to annoy people.
I repeat, if anyone could have been tried for treason they would have. Davis's motives were honorable and his actions all out-front. Snarking little backbiters and procured perjurers to the contrary notwithstanding, men like that will never be considered traitors who wear their hearts and their allegiances on their sleeves, no matter how badly they fall out with whoever is this week's flavor of Obergruppenfuehrer in national politics.
You couldn't polish Jeff Davis's shoe bottoms; you aren't about to sit in judgment of him.
Your comparison of American Confederates to the Taliban is just low mudslinging. Americans caught in Afghanistan were unlawful combatants and had not renounced their citizenship. Completely different circumstances, and you know it.
What a putz. What a boor. Were you born this way, or have you been on a course of independent study?
Do you feel the same about renegade bands of American troops who fire upon civilians and other American troops? It happened in St. Louis in 1861 when a renegade union commander armed a band of paramilitaries known as the Wide Awakes into the federal service and opened fire on civilians in the streets.
How about American troops that attack other American troops that they deem not to be radical enough for their tastes? That same band of renegades from St. Louis did just that in Missouri by instigating a war with the Missouri State Militia.
How about American troops that attack American elected officials? Our same band of Wide Awakes in Missouri subsequently marched on the state capitol and chased the legislature out of town to install their own replacements.
The Founding Fathers NEVER intended for American troops to be employed in widescale action against the American people. That is why they gave us a 2nd amendment and that is why they recognized that the people ought to be able to and should resist unjust exercises of power regardless of where they come from, be they a foreign invader or even American troops under a renegade commander and would-be despot.
"By the principles of the American revolution, arbitrary power may and ought to be resisted even by arms if necessary. The time may come when it shall be the duty of a State, in order to preserve itself from the oppression of the general government, to have recourse to the sword" - Luther Martin, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, 1788
I see that we've essentially avoided the question that I posed considering whether Americans are best considered as subjects of their governmnet, only to go on posting as though the answer were given and decided definitive.