Tyler was elected to the Confederate Congress in 1862 but died before taking his seat. Given that he was a Senator-Elect to a government pursuing war with the USA, does this make him a traitor?
Was President Tyler a traitor
- Thread starter chessfiend
- Start date
that may be, but what you feel, isn't the law, so while Tyler may have felt his loyalty lay with his state, in it leaving the Union to form a Racist slave-owning Oligarchy with other like minded states, the law says thats high treason against the United State of America, also the oath of the President....
Yeah, well I wouldn't argue with you as long as you consider George Washington to be a traitor too. As a British officer in the King's service, his loyalty lay to George and not to some rag-tag, racist colonials who wanted all the land they could see. Law says that what he did was treason against the British Empire.
Yes this is definetly not a simple question, I, being a citizen of the United States, a northerner, and a staunch unionist what's more would say that he is a traitor though. Because while George Washington did betray the king, but he was only a middling officer from the colonies, not the british head of state. Tyler was President of the United States, and then he sided with the confederacy.
I bear him no ill will though, because, as Lothaw said, those were the days when you were loyal to your state first and the United States second.
The problem is that protecting the constitution can mean many different things based on a subjective viewpoint. If one believes that the constitution of the Untied States is in such jeopardy that it cannot be saved, then saving the spirit of the constitution by creating a new American country founded on the democratic principles of the forefathers* can be seen as saving it.
I'm not saying that it was the right course of action, but it's an understandable one.
*Not my point of view.
Do we know what his plans were? Any speeches of his from 1862? I mean, without knowing what his reasons were *for* running, I can't say that he wasn't running for the specific purpose of trying to end the rebellion.
Of course, that may not have been his intent in running. And, I'll admit that if he openly expressed the view that - if elected - he would try to work withint he government to bring the CSA back intot he Union - it's not as likely to get him elected. But, I have never read one way or another why he ran. And, that means I don't think it's fair to say for sure he was a traitor.
I will, however, admit that it looks very bleak to me. The part of me that wants to be fair says whaat I said in the first two paragrphs. But, yeah, there's part of me that considers him a traitor, too,.
Did he ever voice an opinion that, if elected, he'd be likely to push for reconciliation and end the rebellion?
Of course, that may not have been his intent in running. And, I'll admit that if he openly expressed the view that - if elected - he would try to work withint he government to bring the CSA back intot he Union - it's not as likely to get him elected. But, I have never read one way or another why he ran. And, that means I don't think it's fair to say for sure he was a traitor.
I will, however, admit that it looks very bleak to me. The part of me that wants to be fair says whaat I said in the first two paragrphs. But, yeah, there's part of me that considers him a traitor, too,.
Did he ever voice an opinion that, if elected, he'd be likely to push for reconciliation and end the rebellion?You know, I was just thinking about how difficult it is for a U.S. citizen to abjure their citizenship. If John Tyler (and other Confederates) did not take the proper steps to abandon their citizenship, then they were (and are) all traitors regardless of the traditional arguments about the legality of secession.
You both realize that he hadn't been president for over 15 years when he went over to the Confederates, right?
Does every Johnny Reb deserve the title "traitor" or is it a singular issue in the case of a former President?
Seeing as how many times the Confederacy was not labeled as such, but as a 'territory in rebellion' or somesuch... I'd think that no, they were not traitors, as someone previously stated the feelings towards the country as a whole was very different in that time period. The United States were fittingly referred to as a collective, "these United States" instead of the now common single "the United States." So feelings were very much centered on your state above all else.
Seeing as how many times the Confederacy was not labeled as such, but as a 'territory in rebellion' or somesuch... I'd think that no, they were not traitors, as someone previously stated the feelings towards the country as a whole was very different in that time period. The United States were fittingly referred to as a collective, "these United States" instead of the now common single "the United States." So feelings were very much centered on your state above all else.
What are you talking about? There are tons of references to natural born citizen or citizen of the United States throughout the Constitution. Notice that it is always citizen of the United States, not citizen of these United States. Kind of strange if those references refered to nothing.
That's not fair. What about Camille Armand Jules Marie, Prince de Polignac? He was never a US citien but he was a Confederate General, joining the Confederacy from Central America where he had immigrated to following his resignation from the French Army. How could he be a traitor if he never had an alligence to the United States in the first place?