Jefferson Davis

[web101990]

okay this has nothing to do with TAO but i thought i might get some responses on this. In case you dont know Jefferson Davis was president of the CSA (Confederate States of America) the country the south made during the US civil war. When the war was over the US government attempted to bring Davis to court for charges of Treason.

i have to have a speech ready for my honors english class persuading the audience that Davis is guilty of Treason. I need a main idea, and three side main ideas branching off the main idea. I know he is guilty of treason, im just coming up with blanks on the main idea stuff.

anyone here have some ideas or know about this stuff?


By the way...anyone watch the flyers vs hurricanes game tonight? .2 second GTG, and then a shootout win.

[Megabyte]

Jefferson Davis was president of the CSA (Confederate States of America) the country the south made during the US civil war.


there's your main idea, he led the group which cecedded(?) from the union and started a massive war which cost thousands of lives and decades of animostity.

[Twilurk]

eh... depends. If the south is to be considered a sovereign nation (which they were, technically) then there was no treason. He was elected leader of a seperate nation.

If the south is to be considered part of the union at all times, then he's treasonous for accepting such a position of animosity and hate towards the union.

[Megabyte]

eh... depends. If the south is to be considered a sovereign nation (which they were, technically) then there was no treason.


winners write history ;)
The US did not aknowledge them as a sovereign body, nor were they legally permitted to leave the Union under those circumstances.

Besides, he's writing a paper on why he was a traitor, not arguing the morality of legality of the situation.

[ThinkTank]

Don't you just love TAO.

Everyone is so knowledgeable. :)

[Match Strike]

eh... depends. If the south is to be considered a sovereign nation (which they were, technically) then there was no treason. He was elected leader of a seperate nation.

If the south is to be considered part of the union at all times, then he's treasonous for accepting such a position of animosity and hate towards the union.
Treason is defined in the Constitution as the levvying of war against the United States. JD was a resident of a state of America. He most certainly waged war against the United States. Therefore, he was guilty of treason.

If I declare myself a separte nation, that doesn't mean I am.

[Twilurk]

Palestine didn't/doesn't admit that Israel is a sovereign nation, nor that it has a right to be.

However the rest of the world decided otherwise. In the civil war the south was seeking, and got, trade/trade deals with other countries. That makes it sovereign, no matter what the union thinks.

Of course after the union beats the confederates into a bloody pulp you can obviously claim they never had a nation in the first place, and were just a rebellion.

Anywho, since this argument can easily go both ways (and ultimately goes nowhere) I'd just try him for other crimes.


Edited:
^ Guy above me ^

Actually, if you declare yourself seperate from the USA and then can get other nations to accept it, you've become a seperate nation. Now your country may suck, and it might not last long, but it is a seperate nation. The USA would then have to invade a sovereign nation to get you to come back.

As for levvying war against the USA, that's a poor definition against treason. Treason would have to be helping a war being levvied against the USA. If you're the one actually at war with the USA, you're not exactly a citizen anymore... which means you're not a traitor, you're just an asshole who wants to fight.

[Megabyte]

Of course after the union beats the confederates into a bloody pulp you can obviously claim they never had a nation in the first place, and were just a rebellion.

wisom will show you this is how everything is

morality is based on the history of the victors, not on objective perspectives

as such, its not a claim, its a reality

[Twilurk]

Well, in a very real sense you're right. However, it was also a seperate nation in another very real sense. So while both are true, and both are valid, the one that's accepted and regarded as right is the one that was set forth by the people with the power to control.

However, if we went to another country history might say otherwise. A few hundred years later it may be a very different thing. At some point it's no longer the victors that write history, but the past itself. It'll never be fully accurate, or completely fleshed out... however it won't be a product of victors.

Well, I take that back. It's a product of the winners, of winners, of winners, of winners. At some point, though, the distance becomes so great as to be acceptably ignored.

Oh course this ignorance on the part of these new winners of the world might just be the reason why we think we can get away with our "history" that doesn't really teach anything in the USA.

Sigh... so confusing.

Anywho, we're both right. That's what I wanted to say!

[max2k106]

The Confederacy sucked. There's your thesis.

They were a bunch of slave driving, banjo playin, tobacco farmin, toothless hicks.

And there's our stereotype of the day.

[web101990]

thanks guys, that really helps.

and im writing it in a point of view of a 19th century person, not a 21st, so i can be an ignorant northerner.:)