News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Treason to a US State?

Started by viper37, April 08, 2010, 12:27:25 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

viper37

I was searching for what was Harpers Ferry, and found out that Brown was tried for treason  against the State of Virginia.

Can someone still be charged with treason against a particular US State today?
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

Martinus

I hope katmai gets arrested for his treason of Alaska.

CountDeMoney

Treason against an idividual state still resides in common law for states that still possess it, when the Federal government is not involved.

Back then, there wasn't Federal law enforcement to do the job in the case, so the state of Virginia did it for political expediency.  There was no way they were going to cede jurisdiction to the Federal government, and they weren't going to be denied their mockery of a trial of Captain Brown.

From David Reynolds' authoritative work, on the subject of treason in the Brown trial--

QuoteThe first charge made little sense.  Brown had never been a Viriginia citizen, had lived only briefly in the neighboring state of Maryland, and had attacked a Federal property.  How could he have committed treason against Virginia?  The question would be brought up by his lawyers.  Most legal historians agree that Brown should have been tried by the national government, not the state of Virginia.
(VA Governor) Wise wanted to be expeditious and to make a statement. It so happened taht the semiannual term of the district court under Judge Richard Parker had just begun.  It was convenient to rush Brown and his men to trial in order to speeed the all-but-certain guilty verdict.
The issue of states' rights was also involved.  Ever since the nullification crisis of 1832, when South Carolina had refused to pay a federal tax, Southerners had defended state sovereignty...By claiming John Brown for Virginia, Governor Wise was supporting his own state.
He also had a personal vendetta to satisfy.  John Brown had embarrassed him.  With only four men and some emancipated slaves, Brown had acheived a standoff against Southern forces that at their peak approached 800 men.  A thin, tobacco-chewing slaveholder with aspirations to the presidency, Wise supported dueling and the bowie knife, a weapon with which, he later boasted, the South could easily conquer the North.  This scrappy Virginian was not going to allow himself to be bested by an Abolitionist.  He would make sure John Brown hanged and that Virginia hanged him.

In short, it was a sham trial.

Caliga

viper, I would imagine it varies from one state to the next, since each state has its own unique state constitution.
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

dps

The legal theory behind trying Brown for treason against Virginia was shaky at best.  The decision to try him on that charge was political, as CdM posted.  Practically, it didn't really matter, as they had a solid case  case against him for murder anyway.

Martinus

Quote from: dps on April 08, 2010, 08:37:26 AM
The legal theory behind trying Brown for treason against Virginia was shaky at best.  The decision to try him on that charge was political, as CdM posted.  Practically, it didn't really matter, as they had a solid case  case against him for murder anyway.

He was acting in the state of higher necessity. :contract:

Berkut

Quote from: dps on April 08, 2010, 08:37:26 AM
The legal theory behind trying Brown for treason against Virginia was shaky at best.  The decision to try him on that charge was political, as CdM posted.  Practically, it didn't really matter, as they had a solid case  case against him for murder anyway.

I dunno, his intention was to arm slaves in Virginia to revolt. Seems like that is pretty treasonous to the State of Virginia to me.

The only question is whether the state of Virginia could hold a non-resident accountable to a charge of treason - given that the Brown was a US citizen, one can certainly argue that he does in fact owe some measure of allegiance to the states that make up the US.

I don't find the charge all that unreasonable. And I certainly don't see why anyone would even want to declare his trial a "sham". The fact that he was willing to die for his cause, even under the legitimate (if unjust) laws of the country he was trying to change is what makes him a martyr, isn't it?
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Jaron

Maybe because his trial wasnt fair? That the outcome was decided before he even set foot in the courtroom?? How about that?
Winner of THE grumbler point.

The Brain

I'm a bit unsure about American history. Did the Board of Education actually get him on treason? :unsure:
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Jaron

Quote from: The Brain on April 08, 2010, 12:16:15 PM
I'm a bit unsure about American history. Did the Board of Education actually get him on treason? :unsure:

Troll?  :hmm:
Winner of THE grumbler point.

Alexandru H.

My favourite american guy after the death of John Adams.  :Embarrass:

viper37

Quote from: Caliga on April 08, 2010, 05:06:57 AM
viper, I would imagine it varies from one state to the next, since each state has its own unique state constitution.
thanks.
So, in theory, that would still be possible.  Interesting.  I suppose in most cases the Feds would claim jurisdiction.
I don't do meditation.  I drink alcohol to relax, like normal people.

If Microsoft Excel decided to stop working overnight, the world would practically end.

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Berkut on April 08, 2010, 12:00:09 PM
The only question is whether the state of Virginia could hold a non-resident accountable to a charge of treason - given that the Brown was a US citizen, one can certainly argue that he does in fact owe some measure of allegiance to the states that make up the US.

That doesn't make a lot of sense.  If a state is going to have a treason law (which is silly to begin with but there you go), then logically it would apply only to the citizens of that State.  If the argument is that US citizenship entails citizenship or allegiance to every state independently (not true but assumed for the sake of argument), then state treason laws should be pre-empted and all acts of treason against a state could be tried under the federal treason laws.

Of course, John Brown could have been tried under the federal treason laws anyways since he attacked a federal fort and engaged in hostilities with US soldiers . . . but then the trial would be in federal court.

Having said that, I also don't see the basis of the "sham" argument; whatever the dubious nature of the state treason charge, what defense could he have had to ordinary murder charges?
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

derspiess

Quote from: Alexandru H. on April 08, 2010, 12:31:13 PM
My favourite american guy after the death of John Adams.  :Embarrass:

:bleeding:

"Nobody was ever more justly hanged." --Hawthorne

John Brown was a religious nutter who committed murder.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

The Brain

Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2010, 12:51:13 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on April 08, 2010, 12:31:13 PM
My favourite american guy after the death of John Adams.  :Embarrass:

:bleeding:

"Nobody was ever more justly hanged." --Hawthorne

John Brown was a religious nutter who committed murder.

:huh: So is W.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.