by Jung Freud, The Unz Review:
One man’s treason is another man’s reason and vice versa.
Was Southern Secession an act of treason? Yes, if you regard the American Union as inviolable and indivisible. No, if you believe in states’ rights, including the right to secede. It all depends on the premise, the foundational prejudice, of one’s worldview. One could say the US was created out of treason against the Mother Country. Or one can say it was founded on liberty and independence away from Father Tyranny, like with Zeus’ rebellion against his father Cronus.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Besides, if the US is so against treason(or ‘insurrections’), why encourage it around the world? The US cultivates collaborator agents in every country and encourages(and bribes) them to serve US interests than their own national interests. For twenty years, the US remained in Afghanistan by propping up a puppet regime that many Afghans regarded as treasonous.
Also, looking back on US history, was Manifest Destiny a treasonous act? If American values and ideals are about equal respect for all peoples and cultures, then Manifest Destiny violated such a principle by expanding westward and committing ‘genocide’ on the native folks. Was the US conquest of the SW Territories treasonous? After all, if the US was committed to national independence and sovereignty, did it not violate the sovereignty of Mexico by provoking a war to grab a chunk of its territory?
Of course, one can counter-argue that the vision of America has been to spread liberty and expand progress. So, if US expansion led to more freedoms and opportunities, it was justified, not only for Americans but in the eyes of history.
So, on the matter of the Confederacy, one can make a case for or against treason. Depending on the premise, either argument is valid or invalid. It’s like a conscientious objector can be regarded as a traitor/coward or a hero/saint depending on one’s views.
And then, there are matters of dual or higher loyalty. Muhammad Ali considered himself an American but also a BLACK American and a black Muslim. As such, he had a loyalty higher than to what he perceived as White America. He didn’t serve in Vietnam because he saw it as a white man’s war. In a way, one could say he was treasonous, but in another way, he was being true to his higher loyalties, i.e. had he served in the war, he would have been treasonous to Allah(as conceived by the Nation of Islam).
Generally, treason is most despicable when it’s mainly about personal gain, opportunism, and vanity. If you turn against your own people for thirty pieces of silver, you are scum. Or if you switch loyalties to the other side simply because it seems ‘cooler’ and more prestigious to hang with the richer/greater power, then you’re hollow, lacking a core.
In other cases, what may seem treasonous from the traditional perspective may be necessary reforms. Any great social upheaval or revolution is an act of treason against the past, resulting in much crisis and agony. But it makes for the birth of an improved or new order that may well benefit the great majority. Rise of Modern Turkey was an act of treason against the traditional Ottoman order, but it was time for change. Moreover, such a ‘treason’, fueled by idealism and vision, could be construed as a higher loyalty for the preservation of the order in a dangerous and threatening world. (Besides, one could argue arch-conservatism is also an act of treason. If the role of the ruling class is to govern well and improve the lives of its subjects, then its absolute refusal to implement essential reforms could be seen as a dereliction of duty.)
