[GOPcapitalist]

He was out to hamstring the government's war on the rebellion, as the one selection from MHQ said. That's close.

So your rational then is that anything that in any way impedes the government's waging of a war the way it so chooses is "treasonous." Sorry Walt, but that argument will not fly. War by definition operates under various rules of waging, practice, and engagement. The Constitution prescribes some of those rules, and one of them pertains to habeas corpus suspensions. Simply enforcing the prescribed rule for habeas corpus suspensions is not treasonous, Walt, as it is exercised under the very same document from which treason may be said to have occurred.

Now if you want to see a case of real treason, look at that committed against the states of Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri and others by the yankee aggressors.

[WhiskeyPapa]

So your rational then is that anything that in any way impedes the government's waging of a war the way it so chooses is "treasonous."

That is pretty much what the Court has said during the ACW, WWI and WWII.

Walt