No Contradiction in Being a Rebel and an American

Atlanta Journal and Constitution ^ | 02/23/2002 | Ira Harkey

[groanup]

Did a search and didn't see it earlier. Hope it's not a re-post.

[ArcLight]

Lovely piece of writing, from a fellow who sounds utterly charming. But I still say the Rebs were traitors.

[GOPcapitalist]

But I still say the Rebs were traitors.

Interesting. Here's what a prominent legal mind of the civil war era had to say on that subject. He was also a leader in the abolitionist movement, BTW, and spent many years prior to the war offering legal defense free of charge to fugitive slaves....

"The Constitution says:

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

This is the only definition of treason given by the Constitution, and it is to be interpreted, like all other criminal laws, in the sense most favorable to liberty and justice. Consequently the treason here spoken of, must be held to be treason in fact, and not merely something that may have been falsely called by that name.

To determine, then, what is treason in fact, we are not to look to the codes of Kings, and Czars, and Kaisers, who maintain their power by force and fraud; who contemptuously call mankind their "subjects;" who claim to have a special license from heaven to rule on earth; who teach that it is a religious duty of mankind to obey them; who bribe a servile and corrupt priest-hood to impress these ideas upon the ignorant and superstitious; who spurn the idea that their authority is derived from, or dependent at all upon, the consent of their people; and who attempt to defame, by the false epithet of traitors, all who assert their own rights, and the rights of their fellow men, against such usurpations.

Instead of regarding this false and calumnious meaning of the word treason, we are to look at its true and legitimate meaning in our mother tongue; at its use in common life; and at what would necessarily be its true meaning in any other contracts, or articles of association, which men might voluntarily enter into with each other.

The true and legitimate meaning of the word treason, then, necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith. Without these, there can be no treason. A traitor is a betrayer --- one who practices injury, while professing friendship. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, solely because, while professing friendship for the American cause, he attempted to injure it. An open enemy, however criminal in other respects, is no traitor.

Neither does a man, who has once been my friend, become a traitor by becoming an enemy, if before doing me an injury, he gives me fair warning that he has become an enemy; and if he makes no unfair use of any advantage which my confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in his power.

For example, our fathers --- even if we were to admit them to have been wrong in other respects --- certainly were not traitors in fact, after the fourth of July, 1776; since on that day they gave notice to the King of Great Britain that they repudiated his authority, and should wage war against him. And they made no unfair use of any advantages which his confidence had previously placed in their power.

It cannot be denied that, in the late war, the Southern people proved themselves to be open and avowed enemies, and not treacherous friends. It cannot be denied that they gave us fair warning that they would no longer be our political associates, but would, if need were, fight for a separation. It cannot be alleged that they made any unfair use of advantages which our confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in their power. Therefore they were not traitors in fact: and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution.

Furthermore, men are not traitors in fact, who take up arms against the government, without having disavowed allegiance to it, provided they do it, either to resist the usurpations of the government, or to resist what they sincerely believe to be such usurpations.

It is a maxim of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent. And this maxim is as applicable to treason as to any other crime. For example, our fathers were not traitors in fact, for resisting the British Crown, before the fourth of July, 1776 --- that is, before they had thrown off allegiance to him --- provided they honestly believed that they were simply defending their rights against his usurpations. Even if they were mistaken in their law, that mistake, if an innocent one, could not make them traitors in fact.

For the same reason, the Southern people, if they sincerely believed --- as it has been extensively, if not generally, conceded, at the North, that they did --- in the so-called constitutional theory of "State Rights," did not become traitors in fact, by acting upon it; and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution." - Lysander Spooner, 1870

[dark_lord]

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

The obvious rejoinder is that, by seceding from "the United States" and then levying war against them, in plain fact they committed treason. From this perspective, it does not matter even if the North started the war. Any armed resistance would be "levying war" and thus could be defined as treasonous.

And I say that with half of my ancestors on each side of that conflict.

Of course, clearly most of those in the South did not think of their actions as treasonous, simply because they no longer considered themselves as citizens of the United States. But think of this...if a whole bunch of Islamic types today moved to a sparsely populated state and tried to secede, and used violence to defend their secession - would it be treason? If yes, then it was treasonous then. If not, then it wasn't.

[Capriole]

I still say the Rebs were traitors.

So were George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and their co-conspirators. But they won their war and ejected from their precincts anyone capable of arresting them and trying them for treason. That is the difference; that is why today we consider them heroes, brave souls: they earned their hero status by force of arms. If Robert Edward Lee and Jefferson Davis had won their war, people would not call them traitors either. But they lost, so people like you refer to them this way.

History is written by the victors.

[dixiechick2000]

What a nice article. Having been born and raised in Miss'ippi, as were my relatives before me dating back to way before "that recent unpleasantness" (as it was called), I very much understand what he is saying.

"I never heard anyone in our house say "nigger" until I brought the word in from outside one day. In a frightening fury my mother threatened to wash out my mouth with soap if I said it again."

This was my experience, as well, except the threat was a switchin'! I was eight years old...it was time that I learned, even though I didn't know what the word meant. My mother took great pains to explain to me how "that word" caused much hurt and was very disrepectful to others, something I didn't understand before. It's been many years since that day, but I have never used "that word" and I honestly don't believe I could even say it if I wanted to. BTW, she let me know that this applied to other derogatory terms with reference to someone's nationality and/or race.

" My eyes grow moist when I hear the strains of "Dixie," but also when I read the Gettysburg Address. How come? Maybe it is because winners take victory as a given, while losers dwell on their misfortune. The opposing states occupying one psyche may, as I've noted, produce comfort, not discord."

Well said! I am very proud of my Southern heritage, and I love the good ol' USofA.

American by birth...Southern by the grace of God!

[cyborg]

good read bump

[Chapita]

The first time my grandmother slapped me across the face was when I was six years old and was reciting the old, Eenie, Meenie, Minee, Mo, catch a nigger by the toe.

And my grandfather was the manager of the Dunleith Plantation. Grannie claimed that any white person with any class at all did not refer to negroes with that term.

There was another poem I never let her hear me recite; "In 1954, my daddy went to war; pulled the trigger, shot a n-gger, in 1954!"

[William Terrell]

The whole article.

---

I don't flaunt any images of the Confederate battle flag on my person or chattels, but a certain Southernness still abides in me. That condition befuddles some Yankees, one of whom asked me if I wanted a return of racial segregation.

"How come you talk about all that Dixie stuff" another asked, "when you spent 15 years fighting for Negro rights, and in Mississippi at that?"

Well, there is Dixie stuff and there is Dixie stuff. The hoodlum Dixie stuff is a loudmouthed call for the return of Simon Legree to the plantation. My Dixie stuff examines a sentiment held by a dwindling number of Old South gaffers whose great-grandfathers fought for the South. We do not yearn or conspire for a return of Old South culture. We simply bear a deep commemorative love for those great-grandfathers who wore the Gray, and rags.

When I was a boy, I didn't go around emitting the Rebel yell. I didn't know, still don't know, what it is. Ones who do usually are those who also claim that any Southerner can lick any 10 damnyankees.

My mother and father and all my grandparents were Southerners but never told me I could whip 10 damnyankees. They never said "damnyankee" in any context. My mother's grandmother used to tell me of watching Union soldiers search her home for valuables, thrusting their swords, hoping to strike buried treasure.

There was never rancor in her ancient voice. I never heard anyone in our house say "nigger" until I brought the word in from outside one day. In a frightening fury my mother threatened to wash out my mouth with soap if I said it again. She had been born in Tennessee, raised in Louisiana, schooled in Mississippi.

Love for ex-slaves

After the Civil War, two young ex-slaves remained with my great-grandmother when she moved from the plantation to New Orleans. Born in 1858, they were a twin boy and girl, named William and Pigeon. They stayed with my grandma until she died, then went to her oldest daughter's family, then to the next oldest.

Finally they came to my mother, the oldest of the next generation. They had adopted the family name, Trousdale. They were too old to work, but William butled a bit and Pigeon dusted. We children -- my sister, my brother and I -- loved the kind, dear pair. Certain people have snickered when I've said that. But children that age don't patronize. If they say they love, they love.

My mother and great-grandmother and William and Pigeon started me toward a "traitorous anti-Southern" belief that black Americans were entitled to the same legal rights and privileges other Americans enjoyed, a belief I tried to promulgate in a Mississippi newspaper from 1948 to 1963.

So, where is the two-sided Dixie stuff? Let's see. I am a European-American, to give myself today's chic hyphenation. Specifically, I am German-English-Scotch-Welsh-Irish, a typical all-American amalgam whose ancestors fought in the Revolution, 1812, Mexico, Cuba, France and everywhere else that U.S. arms were deployed.

In 1942, I volunteered for the Navy, although I was married, had two children and thus was some distance from the draft. Southern men have an honored tradition of volunteering for war. There was little indication yet of the Dixie-stuff duality in me. But somehow, wearing the uniform stirred my latent feelings of belonging to two once violently opposed partisanships.

Comfort, not discord

Now, after the turn of the calendar from 1900 to 2000, a comfortable two-sided psychological state has grown more prominent in me. My eyes grow moist when I hear the strains of "Dixie," but also when I read the Gettysburg Address. How come? Maybe it is because winners take victory as a given, while losers dwell on their misfortune. The opposing states occupying one psyche may, as I've noted, produce comfort, not discord.

I do know, however, that there is a firm pride in me for my Southern background, pride also for my Rebel descent. Several years ago an uneducated newspaperman wrote a snarling piece about the Confederacy, referring to it as treason. I wonder whether that writer was descended from Revolutionary soldiers, the original American traitors. I am. My great-great-great grandfather fought for North Carolina's militia and the Continental Army. My hereditary Rebel credentials are immaculate. If this be treason, so be it.

There are many Southerners of my age (85) who scorn the hate symbol that some Southern hoodlums have made of the battle flag -- but who also revere the Stars and Bars. And not at all in contradiction do they they also give obeisance to the Stars and Stripes. Yet can a person hold dual loyalties?

Here is how: I do not desert nor dishonor the USA when I honor and cherish the memory of my four great-grandfathers of Mississippi, Louisiana and Tennessee who fought for the South, particularly Dan Harkey of the 2nd Mississippi Cavalry, who was killed in June 1863 as Grant moved toward Vicksburg.

Three of these men were po-folk, not fighting over slavery but for something honorable. I cherish also the memory of another Southern rebel, my Carolina triple-great-grandfather, who fought with Francis Marion in the Revolution. Rebel blood flows in me. Yankee friends, maybe you are Rebel-descended, too.

How can two loyalties live side by side? Easy. There are still a few thousand old birds like me talking Dixie stuff with their millions of descendants. Our dual loyalties cause no dissonance.

We are Confederate-Americans.

[GOPcapitalist]

From this perspective, it does not matter even if the North started the war. Any armed resistance would be "levying war" and thus could be defined as treasonous.

If that is indeed the case, than the government which would adhere to such a definition is itself calling upon a doctrine no different than the old monarchies of Europe - that the might of the state determines right from wrong, and that any resistance to that might, no matter how externally legitimate, qualifies as "treason" on the grounds that it is a form of resistence.

Spooner's argument counters this possibility by presuming, as had universally been admitted, that the United States came into being on greatly different grounds than the old European monarchies where the king was the state, the state was right, and any resistance to the state or king was therefore in the wrong. If indeed the United States formed under different terms, then the act of secession could not have been treasonous. If the act was treasonous though, then the United States would be exerting claims to a power of no noticeable difference from that claimed by the European monarchies, thus meaning that the entire theoretical premise they claimed for exerting that power - to preserve the American "experiment in self government" and prove to the world that it could succeed - was nothing more than a sham.

[ArcLight]

History is written by the victors.

Yer dern tootin. The Rebs lost. The Union side gets to write the history. Therefore, the Rebs were traitors. Gee...that was easy.

[dark_lord]

From an academic and philosophical perspective you may be absolutely correct. Nevertheless, treason is specified in the US Constitution as: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." They did levy war. Therefore they did commit treason. Otherwise you have to argue that the Constitution does not mean what it says, but only means it under certain circumstances or conditions.

[groanup]

"Yer dern tootin. The Rebs lost. The Union side gets to write the history. Therefore, the Rebs were traitors. Gee...that was easy."

You must have pondered over you keyboard for hours to come up with that one.

[groanup]

Thanks for posting

[groanup]

"They did levy war"

Perhaps.

Levy:

1. To impose or collect (a tax, for example).

2. To draft into military service.

3. To declare and wage (a war).

[Capriole]

The Rebs lost. The Union side gets to write the history. Therefore, the Rebs were traitors. Gee...that was easy.

Easy...or facile, and so childish as to suggest the sort of one-sided, intolerant emotionalism one expects only from liberals. It always amazes me when people who purport to be conservatives, and thus theoretically allied with the position of logic, decline to give carefulstudy to the historical record and instead issue generalizations that are on the same level as the liberals who dismiss the Middle East situation by saying that it's about oil. I am even more amazed when closely-reasoned arguments referring to original source material fail to elicit an equally well-thought-out response from a fellow conservative.

At which university did you do your graduate study in history, sir?

[GOPcapitalist]

They did levy war. Therefore they did commit treason.

Under that same loose definition, does not anything that levies war against the United States commit treason? In other words, did Spain commit treason when it levied war against the United States in 1898? If treason is defined as any act of levying war against the United States, it must be true that they did. Yet surely it must be conceded that this position is absurd, as charging another country with treason for simply being engaged in a war with the United States is silly.

That aside, historically the south did not "levy war" against the united states. Rather the northern states levied war against them and, as participants in that war, they defended their territory against an invading army.

Otherwise you have to argue that the Constitution does not mean what it says, but only means it under certain circumstances or conditions.

Not necessarily. As demonstrated above, it is absurd to conclude that by way of the treason clause, the Constitution considered the participant in any type of warfare whatsoever opposite of the United States to be treason within the United States. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the term is legally defined and used by what is most likely a common law tradition. By reading it in that light one may come to Spooner's argument.

[William Terrell]

YW