Interestingly enough John Brown was charged with and convicted of Treason for the raid and seizure of Harpers Ferry.
None of these matters are subject to prosecution for treason.
I do find it hilarious that the Know Nothings are upset with the possibility of ending the dollar’s role as a Reserve currency. One would suspect that they would be opposed to having it serve that role since it requires a greater expansion of monetary aggregates than would be the case if it was not serving in that role. Plus, it conflicts with the neo-isolationism and economic autarky they advocate.
I understand that but thank you for further clarification. Again, "treason" need not have narrow legal meaning. Consider for instance its application to some act in France or Australia: whatever is labeled as treasonous, whether fairly or not, lies outside the realm of our Constitution. It is not in the constitutional sense but in its general sense that I was using this word.
One would suspect that they would be opposed to having it serve that role
Very true; consistency is not a pronounced feature of the isolationists' worldview.
I share the feelings in this particular case, however. It is one thing for us to debate whether the existence of a single reserve currency is desirable or whether the demise of the dollar as such currency is inevitable. It is something altogether difference, however, when a U.S. official, be it a member of the administration, Congress or the Fed, precommits to stand aside should the dollar collapse occur. I do find Geithner's statement to be nothing short of preposterous.
It well may be that I am overlooking something essential here, something that mitigates Geithner's behavior. Please tell me if so. What do you think of this?