Texas Town 'Balances' Confederate Statue With One Of Lawyer Who Fought KKK

That is actually a great response. I seriously doubt anyone would actually erect a statue of Benedict Arnold, but the same cannot be said for any Confederate General. Why is it ok to erect a statue of one traitor but not another? What is the difference between the two?

CDR (Join to see) - No difference at all

Capt Gregory Prickett
If a person joined the Confederate Army because he was just a good old boy, and in those days States meant more than the Union (the Union was something that everyone didn't trust) than that person didn't have any intent to be a traitor. Without the intent there is no crime? Plus from what I read President Lincoln said whoever put down their arms could go home free and clear. Did he say this? If he did, then in effect it was a pardon at that time. I guess the Constitution made it treason without intent. I will have to read it again and pay more attention.

SFC (Join to see) - I'm done, and will go back to my original statement. I'm not going to play word games with you. This isn't a difficult legal issue. Confederate soldiers waged war against the United States and committed treason. Your example of Clinton did not meet that requirement.

Your example showed the exact reason that the Founding Fathers included a provision on treason in the Constitution, because the King of England did what you want to do--if someone is part of the opposition and they do anything that is against the ruling reign, then they committed treason. That's not acceptable as an American.

Capt Prickett
I let Clinton go a long time ago. No word games. I should have checked your constitution reference when you quoted it yesterday:
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
You are correct they are traitors by definition but there must be 2 eyewitnesses to convict. You were also correct that it is extremely hard to prosecute treason. I apologize for not looking up your reference yesterday, I should have. This is clearly a law that doesn’t require intent, but requires 2 eye witnesses. Thank you for your patience.

Capt Gregory Prickett - I'd say that by far the most prominent state right they cared about was the right to keep slaves, contemporary documents show that too. I'm not sure I'd give contemporaries a pass if they were only concerned with state's rights from a ideological standpoint. The issue of slavery as a state right was so prominent such individuals would have to know what the practical implication of that ideology was.

Ironically enough, the Civil War did more to harm the cause of state's rights than just about anything else I can think of.