Customer Discussions > History forum

America's Worst Traitors


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 294 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2011 8:37:26 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on May 5, 2011 8:55:57 AM PDT]

Posted on Feb 5, 2011 8:49:20 PM PST
We're beginning to repeat things that were discussed in great detail on the early pages of the thread.

My question still stands. If Washington and Adams, et al could change their allegiance from British to American, why couldn't the de-commissioned Lee, Jackson, and Davis change theirs from American to Confederate?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2011 8:52:47 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 7, 2011 2:33:30 PM PST
Rachel says:
T. Ragdale:
I have told that story many times.
Just please separate that of Texas because is NOr part of the issue. This was really an insurrection form the Texans to the Mexican government because the administrative offices were in Coahuila. Coahuila and Texas were one administrative district and the Government in Mexico said no, and so the separation of Texas. Zavala the former governor of Oaxaca was also with the Texans, he admired the USA.
Santa Anna is a traitor for Mexico. This is not discussion of this forum.

As for the other ones I agree with you: Lincoln as Congressman said "It is one of the most immoral wars in history!" Those happened because the west side of the Texas border was not defined and President Polk used this wonderful excuse. Mexico said Las Nueces and Polk said no Rio Grande and told Zachary Taylor to advance and the In disputed territory there was skirmish and then the war......

Why not Polk : he was a traitor to the values of the USA if Lincoln said that himself!

The Revolution of 1910 is a different story altogether. Also not mixed with who is a traitor to to the USA Please.

Rachel

Posted on Feb 5, 2011 8:56:09 PM PST
The principal was exactly the same. Only difference I see is that the American colonies won and the Confederates lost.

Obviously you aren't going to convince me that there is a qualitative difference, so I'm out of the discussion.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2011 9:13:58 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 11:23:17 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 5, 2011 9:31:34 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 5, 2011 9:32:02 PM PST
W.Karl,

Bush is one of the more intelligent men to serve as President of the United States of America. He is a graduate of Yale and Harvard (first President with a MBA). Most people, when they criticize Bush, seem to blame him for situations that were not in his control. Many of the problems in his second term come from the increase and control of the Democratic Party- the party that regulated spending and changing foreign policy. Think of your reasons for disliking Bush. Then, go read the constitution, and come back with a statement of what he actually did that violated his role as commander in chief. You will find that the problem did not lay with Bush: it occurred due to congress, the law making branch.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 5:31:06 AM PST
jtrii2006 says:
and I agree with you about the Iraq war George W. Bush has certaintly made his share (& maybe more) of mistakes but he is not a traitor an idiot maybe at times_John T. Robinson.

Posted on Feb 6, 2011 5:39:12 AM PST
jtrii2006 says:
Santa Anna and other tyrants drove them to break thier oaths reluctantly,, after they went back on thier oaths to follow the constitution that they made to protect all thier citizens, beause of thier desire for power- John T. Robinson

Posted on Feb 6, 2011 5:52:44 AM PST
Writing in late 1860, Robert E. Lee pointed out that Virginian leaders had called the idea nothing but treason in 1814-15. Of course, much of the idea of secession then was clearly aimed at breaking with Southern leadership and dominance in Congress. SC in particular was the leader of Southern secessionism, but Charleston had once been the richest city in America, often compared to London. By 1860, the great cities of America were all far to the North, and political power was passing that way as well.

civilwartalk.com/.../showthread.php?...Hartford-Convention...Southern... -

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 7:11:30 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 23, 2011 8:38:36 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 7:15:38 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 6, 2011 2:58:00 PM PST]

Posted on Feb 6, 2011 10:33:25 AM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 12:07:07 PM PDT]

Posted on Feb 6, 2011 11:23:20 AM PST
briefcandle says:
Washington was a traitor to his king, not to any country.

Posted on Feb 6, 2011 11:50:34 AM PST
Ah, traitors. Great topic. This is a quote from an official FBI statistic:
"Americans were responsible for about three-quarters of the 335 incidents between 1980 and 2000 that the FBI has classified as suspected or confirmed terrorism. The most notorious example of domestic terrorism is the April 1995 truck bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people and injured more than 500." I would say these people are pretty bad, wouldn't you, MT? Or do they not count, because they were staunchly waving the American flag while killing fellow citizens?

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 11:57:02 AM PST
Bud Wood says:
Yes, Dunn, that's a good point. Traitors tend to want to betray a governmental establishment. Rebels typically want changes or may want out. The latter could be considered not a dishonorable direction, but probably is a valid reaction to an oppressive government. For example, if the revolution of the US colonies against England had not succeeded, George Washington probably would have been delivered into the Tower of London, through "Traitor's Gate"!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 12:10:12 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 9, 2011 9:31:58 AM PST
Rachel says:
Santa Anna was a MEXICAN Caudillo. not an American citizen. We are talking about traitors to the USA. That would say clearly citizens. HE WAS A TRAITOR TO MEXICO, stupid Mexicans they re-elected him HIM 13 TIMES.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 12:29:40 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 23, 2011 8:38:41 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 12:30:23 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 23, 2011 8:38:41 AM PST]

Posted on Feb 6, 2011 12:44:19 PM PST
W Karl says: "Timothy McVeigh is a traitor to everything, America, decency, the human race, you name it."

Definitely agree. I don't think there is an easy distinction between rebel and traitor, because, when a rebellion or revolution succeeds, all is forgiven and declared patriotic, and when it fails, the laws of treason still apply. If the American war of Independence had failed, by the mid 19th century most Americans would have grown up having learned in their British-run schools that Washington et al. were rebellious traitors, or you would whisper they had been "heroes of our secret cause", with America still being under Britain's boot. So, just because someone's waving a flag for some new cause that he calls patriotic doesn't exonerate him from treason. Once you start killing your own people, against the existing law, you are a traitor to your country.

Posted on Feb 6, 2011 12:49:10 PM PST
A customer says:
J. Green the goal was to control Mideast Oil. They now control Iraq's oil fields, second only to Iran's.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 12:52:42 PM PST
We should have said that to the CEOs of America who killed any labor union activists during the 1920s and 1930s. They did not pulled the trigger; however, they still were guility of committing the murders.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 12:57:00 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 12:07:08 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 12:58:31 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 23, 2011 8:38:42 AM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 1:02:52 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Jul 18, 2011 12:07:08 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 6, 2011 1:03:00 PM PST
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 23, 2011 8:38:43 AM PST]
[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
 


 

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