The Confederacy, post succession, was very much an external force "levying war against the United States". Trump's insurrectionists, whatever you think of them, weren't.
American jurisprudence has also come a ways since the 1860s.
I'm not sure the civil war is a good argument. If they seceded lawfully, they weren't citizens. If they weren't lawfully seceding, they were traitors/insurrectionists. In arms no less.
More germane might be the experiments at Oak Ridge.
Civil war implies it was a local phenomenon -- it was not. Foreign invaders occupied territory which has thankfully been restored to the democratically elected government.
"Actually yes, the attack on Fort Sumter was an act of treason."
Yes, the attack on Fort Sumter is now considered an act of treason, to no dispute, since the north has won and (probably) the country is better for it.
However, at the time of the conflict, it was the sovereign state of South Carolina exercising its sovereignty on its territory.
I personally think the emphasis on state sovereignty of the phrase "War Between the States" is ever more relevant today in the face of the ever expanding power grab of the federal government.
The DoI did not release slaves, which is fairly explicit statement that slaves are people. Of course Deciding that slaves were 3/5th of a person, and slavery was legal is an explicit statement the “all men are created equal” was not something believed by the signatories of the DoI.
That said the “State power” argument in this case has always been the justification for the treason committed by the confederacy. When faced with a legally elected president, making a legal change that they didn’t like, the confederate states mutinied.
They have retroactively tried to call it the “war of northern aggression” (hint, you committed treason, so it’s not). Then they’ve claimed it was about states rights - if it was, then the Supreme Court would have ruled it unconstitutional, they’ve also never mutinied over anything else.
That's not remotely true. There were several million people involved in active efforts to undermine and end slavery through direct action, including through actions like the Underground Railroad, rebellions like Stono, and of course it ultimately did lead directly to civil war.
Perhaps, but the "malice towards none" part is disappointing. Many people claim that the problem we have today (with the Confederacy still having its supporters today) is a result of Lincoln's assassination stopping his work, but the Second Inaugural suggests that even had he lived he wouldn't have been interested in putting Davis, Lee, etc. on trial for treason.
This was long before the civil war. And my objection was to the idea that advanced countries somehow subscribe less to process - I don’t see compelling evidence that this is true.
I don't know the history of that so I can't argue it. If you could link to some education on it, I'd like to read about it.
I would imagine that it's possible in some circumstances for this to be true for some, mostly confederate figures. I'm really skeptical that that's true for figures like Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln.
reply