Automotive Deals BOTYSFKT Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1 harmonquest_s1  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis STEM Water Sports
Customer Discussions > History forum

America's Worst Traitors


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 294 posts in this discussion
Posted on Dec 12, 2010 11:53:50 PM PST
McCarthy, no. In his original list of names, a large majority of the list has been proven to have some sort of connection with the USSR by either the venoa cables or mitrokhin archieve. The only reason I list Roosevelt and Truman are based on their closest advisors. I cannot prove that either espionage against the United States. It is rather strange, to me, that a large amount of soviet spies were in both administrations closest offices(such as the state and the defense offices as well as close advisors. HDW and Alger Hiss being prime examples of Soviet Spies). As for Lee, he was not a traitor(and neather was Jefferson Davis). The biggest problem with the American War between the States is that both sides were right-and both sides were wrong. The Confederacy as a movement was more of a political movement of citizens within states that felt that their constitutional liberties were being invaded. Northern aggression with legislation and radical reform groups were at the heart of the reasons for Southern succession. Now, the institution of slavery was wrong, and it was a major factor in the succession of the South(although not the only reason). But to say that the "emancipation of slavery was the direct cause for the war" is an invalid statement. Southern legislation in the Confederacy actually intended on ending the institution of slavery(although not giving blacks the right to vote or own large property or the right to choose new fields of work). Jefferson Davis himself has written on the issue, in which in letters dated from 1866, he regards slavery as not being a major issue, That by radical reform and by fast legislation, the issue becomes exploding and violent towards personal liberty. For any succession group, they should not be labeled as traitors. Up until the 1860's, the right to succession had always been perceived as a common right guaranteed by the constitution. Some groups(in NE) wanted to succeed prior to the war of 1812. Jefferson himself declared that "nothing is wrong with a little rebellion now and then". Rebellions and acts of succession end of shaping society, for better or for worst. Succession has taught federal governments the meaning of "liberty and freedom". So, if you think more logically, the succession of the South may have been a good thing. Direct results of the war include: Black emancipation, grow of large companies, more sturdy federal government, improved education, expansion of medical knowledge, military growth, and redefinition of "the American Dream".

Posted on Dec 13, 2010 12:36:36 AM PST
Ham Salad says:
"The only reason I list Roosevelt and Truman are based on their closest advisors."

That's an extremely vague and unfounded statement. Would you care to elaborate?

As for slavery not being the cause of the war, I believe you are mistaken. Almost all the factors of "state independence" being infringed upon, that led to the war, were concerned with slavery. And the fact that a well-known anti-slavery candidate had just won the race for president. Saying that it was about state independence and not necessarily slavery was a tactically political move by Southern politicians, so that they appeal to a broader base. It also doesn't help their case seeing as how all the states that seceded were indeed slave states.

Also, spelling mistakes don't usually bother me but you used it so many times in your post that I'd like to point out that it's seceded and secession, not succeeded and succession.

Posted on Dec 13, 2010 12:42:52 AM PST
John Wilkes Booth
Lee Harvey Oswald
Leon Czolgosz
Charles Guiteau

No brainers...Presidential Assassins...

Libarals do indeed understand treason. There should never be a reason to initiate a coup d'état with the murder of our nation's leader.

Forgotten Hollywood Forgotten History

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 2:25:20 AM PST
Thank you for the correct spelling of the words(rather late and I am not at a full level of concentration). As for the question dealing with Roosevelt and Truman's administration. The venona project(which was a project done by Army Intel hidden from both Truman and Roosevelt because the DoA was not certain that Roosevelt or Truman could be trusted with the information) indicates several figures in the administrations. Among the names decrypted from the text, a few examples are: Lauchlin Bernard Currie(economic advisor to Roosevelt and Truman), Laurence Douggan(US State Department),Harold Glasser(Department of the Treasury),Harry Hopkins(one of Roosevelt's closets advisors and new deal architects),Alger Hiss(US State Department),J. Robert Oppenheimer(director of the Manhattan Project and chief advisor to US Atomic Energy Commission),Vladamir Pozner(US War Department), and Harry Dexter White(US Treasury and advisor to Roosevelt). The Mitrokhin Archive goes on to further the list(unfortunately I haven't a copy of names nearby or I would type in a few).V. Mitrokhiv was a USSR archiver who defected to the United Kingdom and brought with him his archive and career work. In the collection of papers(some six volumes have been released to the public), the majority of the information deals with Soviet agents in the United States and United Kingdom.

Now, the war between the states: different interpretations of the same sources can give different opinions as to the cause of the war. I have indicated that I do not believe that emancipation of slaves and the end of slavery was the biggest cause of the war. After about eleven years of studying the war(speaking to Prof's from several institutions including Allen of Ole Miss and Blight of Yale) I have concluded that radical Northern politics and social/economic differences are to blame for secession in the first place.Now, I am not advocating slavery as an institution. I strongly oppose oppression of any people(and if I lived in the time period, I more than likely would have been a radical Republican myself). Lincoln was not a anti-slavery politician. Dr. Foner's new book is an excellent source on this issue, if you haven't read it Asystole(Lincoln: The Fiery Trial). Lincoln's main viewpoint on slavery deals with what most radical(although he was a rather moderate) Republicans was at the time period- to stop the spread of slavery into new territory. This was a political move by the radicals, because with more power in western territory they could achieve and pass more legislation without full national approval(a similar tactic taken by the Democratic Party from 2006-2010). Constitutionally, slavery was a institution allowed to practice in the country. The south had every right to own slaves and to do with them as they pleased. Cotton, the major crop of the time, was largely grown in the Southeastern portion of the United States. When the radical began to impose their will in new territory, at the dispense of the conservatives, arguments occurred. But these are not the only causes of the war. Other causes included: Northern Legislation, A President that was absent from 8 States Ballots, States Rights, the increasing size of the federal government, and the big one: Economic and social differences between the North and the South. To say that slavery "was the cause of the war," is simply incorrect. Many factors are attributed to wars. Secession of the Southern States was in order(in the opinions of the states themselves) to balance a more constitutionally protected government. And as I pointed out, in 1866, Jefferson Davis wrote to his wife on the subject, in which he regards slavery as not the primary issue regarding secession. Jefferson Davis a few months later wrote the issues of racism, stating essentially that the south is not a racist community. That southern whites do not hate blacks, but because of radical legislation and the occupied state of the CSA, racism and hatred of blacks in sure to come. Reconstruction(a topic Dr.Foner has dedicated his life to and writes well on the topic) proved Davis correct. One of the most unconstitutional acts in American History occurred during reconstruction, field order 15. Special Field Order 15 did nothing for the Union in popularity. Acts such as this show the state of affairs in the Union during this time period of radical control. Thus, the anti-black and white supremest movement. Davis made it clear in his Feb 1866 letter to his wife that slowing down the equality of blacks would be best for the Union. And back to Lincoln- if he would have been alive to advance his reconstruction plans, the equality of blacks would have dwindled. He planned on shipping many blacks to Liberia, as was the intended purpose of Liberia. Lincoln was not this "great emancipator," as most of America believes. In fact, he was quite the opposite. Lincoln once wrote that he, "would do anything to preserve the union". Emancipation was only accomplished to avoid European aid to the confederacy, as the French had taken an interest to the Confederate cause. In a nutshell, that is summary of the cause of the war and the venona project.

Posted on Dec 13, 2010 2:29:20 AM PST
can I include Nancy Pelosi as a traitor? No reason, other than the fact that she is one of the architect's behind the destruction of our economy and anti-American legislation.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 2:34:18 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 8, 2011 8:02:22 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 5:28:52 AM PST
Mickey says:
Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the U.S. Army, joined a foreign army, invaded the United States and killed thousands of his former countryman - that's pretty treasonous.

My point was, this is not as simple as it seems.

Posted on Dec 13, 2010 5:29:14 AM PST
Marian says:
Ms. Pelosi is guilty only of having an enormous ego and thoroughly enjoying the office that her peers have elected her to. In terms of what she managed to get passed for her party, she was a great success. The fact that much of that legislation is an economic time bomb is not a treasonable act, merely a short-sighted and foolish one. We will be better for having her out of office.

As to rebellion or treason, I rely on the comment by the character of Ben Franklin (1776):
"A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal."

The War Between the States (yes, I am a southerner) was an issue of states rights. Until that point, the states were supreme and the federal government was looked on as a binding force that spoke for the states. Lee was intensely patriotic and a graduate of West Point. He was offered the command of the Union forces by Lincoln but felt that he had a prior call from his state.

Beyond that, the South was mostly an agricultural society. The North was primarily industrial, needing railroads, canals, roads, and other totally different things from the government. The South needed less of this and did not want to pay for Northern needs. West Virginia and East Tennessee fit better with the North in profile. Kentucky fit better with the South. Those areas that needed to be secured for safety were occupied by their "own" troops (eg East Tennessee was occupied by the Confederate Army for much of the war because it opened a way into Virginia.)

On top of that, the Presidency and control of Congress had just swung out of Southern influence. The South voted as a block against Lincoln and he was still elected. It did not take much imagination to realize that the South was about to be carried into territory that would not benefit them. They would be unable to stop any of what was happening because they did not have the votes and each election (western, anti-slavery states) would put control further out of their hands.

My own belief is that while many people focus on the owners of slaves and plantations (a very small group), the majority of soldiers from the South were there for one reason. The war was fought almost entirely in the South. These were men protecting their families from the soldiers of an opposing army. Crops, animals, food, lives - especially lives of loved ones were at stake. There was little for the men to do except band together and try to protect their families. Wouldn't you have done the same? These were the same men that had just successfully fought side by side in the Mexican war. They had been comrades in arms.

As to slavery as a cause, it doesn't wash. Uncle Tom's Cabin provided a good excuse for Northern citizens to use. In this, slavery's role in the war was rather like the role of the Jewish population in "starting" WWII. They were scapegoats for those who needed a common enemy to fire up the citizenry. If slavery had been the actual issue, Lincoln would not have waited two years before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. He also would not have made it applicable only to those states that did not rejoin the Union by Jan 1, 1863. If a Southern state had rejoined the union before that date, slavery in that state would have been condoned by the Federal government.

Entirely too many opinions of the South and the Civil War have been formed from watching "Gone with the Wind" and "The Beverly Hillbillies." In the 1970's, I was told by a southern history professor that all southern women were seen as either Ellie Mae Clampett or Scarlett O'Hara by people outside the South. At the time, it was true.

Posted on Dec 13, 2010 5:44:01 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2010 5:44:16 AM PST
Marian says:
I think of traitors as those whose actions put this country at real risk, usually by sharing information that is highly harmful. In that category,
John Anthony Walker (b 1937) sold to Soviets the settings for KL-47 cipher machine (among other acts)
Yes, Benedict Arnold but not as the supreme traitor of all time.
Robert Hanssen spied for Soviets for 22 years
Aldrich Ames
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
Iva Toguri D'Aquino (Tokyo Rose - at least the most famous and an American)
Alger Hiss
Azzam the American aka Adam Yhiye Gadahn (Al Qaeda) again, an American

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 6:03:37 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 5, 2011 8:54:04 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 6:22:18 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 5, 2011 8:54:04 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 6:29:14 AM PST
Mickey says:
Thank you.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 6:39:21 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 5, 2011 8:54:04 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 7:34:26 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 12:05:06 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 7:36:37 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 12:05:06 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 7:40:19 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2010 8:03:45 AM PST
Bill:

I continue dropping in on the History Forum for posts like yours which direct me to something I was unaware of . Thank you.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 7:41:16 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 12:05:06 PM PDT]

Posted on Dec 13, 2010 7:47:33 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 12:05:06 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 7:49:59 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 12:05:06 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 7:52:08 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 12:05:06 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 7:53:25 AM PST
I. Dunn:

Yes, I think there is a difference between rebels and traitors. Most of the leaders of the Confederacy do qualify as traitors, but Robert E. Lee was indeed a man of honor and from everything I've read, conflicted about secession but driven by more loyalty to his home state than to his country. I would give him a pass on the charge of "traitor".

Sen Joe McCarthy, as I've written in the two McCarthy threads, was a vicious, mendacious, self-serving swine who hurt his country considerably in pursuit of advancing his own career. But this is not tantamount to being a traitor. It's interesting that those who spied for the Soviet Union do indeed qualify as traitors under any definition, but they may have ultimately done less damage to the country than McCarthy with all his machinations.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 7:54:02 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 12:05:07 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 7:54:47 AM PST
Linda S. Myers:

My gratitude to Bill for extending my knowledge of our history is hereby extended to you.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 7:56:01 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 12:05:07 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 13, 2010 7:59:19 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2010 8:04:37 AM PST
Admiral Norris:

Wasn't John Hinckley simply a mentally unbalanced fool who tried to kill the president to aggrandize himself and thereby attract the attention of actress Jodie Foster?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  61
Total posts:  294
Initial post:  Dec 12, 2010
Latest post:  May 12, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions