Skip to main content

View Diary: Why does the US military name bases for traitors? (379 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Service in an army (0+ / 0-)

    in opposition to the United States is surely treason. Leading that army onto the battlefield against the army of the United States is most assuredly treason.

    •  Look friend, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      txlosthorn

      have you read the information regarding treason in the Constitution?  In a nut shell, they gave up US citizenship so how could they commit treason if they are not Union (at the time) citizens?  have you studied the Civil War or are you just looking to fire people up?

      "We must fight their falsehood with our truth, but we must also fight falsehood in our truth." Niebuhr

      by Void Indigo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 06:42:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But that simply isnt the case (0+ / 0-)

        They didn't give up United States citizenship. Texas v. White states emphatically that the United States is whole and indivisible. Service in what amounts to a state militia does not reject citizenship that service in a foreign nation's military does. They were still bound by the constitution.

        •  If I recall, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          txlosthorn

          England made the same type of claim. Citizens of the crown can not reject their status and as such are committing treason against the crown. Do you consider Washington and the signers of the Declaration of Independence guilty of treason against the crown?

          "We must fight their falsehood with our truth, but we must also fight falsehood in our truth." Niebuhr

          by Void Indigo on Mon May 04, 2009 at 06:55:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps (0+ / 0-)

            I am not familiar with English jurisprudence, but I would think they would have the opinion that these people would be traitors to the nation. But it would be complicated by the fact that they did not have proper representation in parliament, something which I believe was held as a right of all englishmen.

            The difference is that the South had proper representation. They had the same rights and privileges as anyone else. I can see an argument for secession if their rights were somehow being violates, but they were not.

            Such legalities are a moot point. We won our War of Independence. They lost.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site