A Masonic Incident

[boozie]

Re: A Masonic Incident

While not advertising, many lodges would make public resolutions to those brothers, killed or dying in the service, that belonged to their local lodge. Many times these resolutions would be sent to a local newspaper. I have an example of one, for Captain Absalom Kirkpatrick, of the 40th Indiana Reg't.

Montgomery County, Indiana
"The Crawfordsville Journal"
Thursday, July 28, 1864

RESOLUTIONS - At a meeting of the members of Pleasant Hill Lodge, No. 63, held at the Lodge room on Friday evening. July 15th, 1864, the following Preamble and Resolutions were adopted:

WHEREAS, Our beloved brother, Capt. Absalom Kirkpatrick, fell on the 27th of June, lost in the advance on Kenesaw Mountain, while gallantly leading his company to the charge;

and,

WHEREAS, The virtues of our deceased brother, as a man and as a Mason, demand a tribute to his memory; therefore, be it.

RESOLVED, That while we mourn our sad affliction and bereavement, in the death of this brother, we desire to bow to the will of Him whom we as Masons and creatures, are bound to revere and honor, for "He ever doeth all things well."

RESOLVED, That in all his relations of life, in his social and Masonic intercourse, our deceased brother was a man of integrity and exalted virtue, a cheerful companion and friend, and therefore, in him was a model worthy of the imitation of all true Masons.

RESOLVED, That in his death, this Lodge has lost a faithful member, the country a gallant soldier, the wife an affectionate husband, and the father a dutiful son.

RESOLVED, That we deeply sympathize with the family of the deceased, and tender our heartfelt grief in their afflictions.

RESOLVED, That the Lodge be draped in mourning, and the members wear the usual regalia for thirty days.

RESOLVED, That these resolutions be recorded in the minutes of this Lodge, and copies be forwarded to the wife, and father of the deceased.

RESOLVED, That the above resolutions be presented to the "Crawfordsville Journal" and the "Crawfordsville Review" for publication.

[Justin Runyon]

Re: A Masonic Incident

Hank et al.,

I think you would get a great deal of good out of picking up a copy of:

Bullock, Steven C. Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social Order, 1730-1840. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

Though it stops just short of our period, it is an in depth study of the foundations of American Freemasonry. There are a lot of books on Freemasonry out there and, sadly, most are not that impressive. Bullocks book on the other hand is a consummate work of history.

By the time of our Civil War, I would make the case that most American Freemasons are far more open about their membership than you might expect. The wealth of lodge ceremonies, announcements, photographs of brothers in regalia, &c. &c. seem to attest to that. Now it is certainly true that the fraternity went nearly completely underground in the 1830's in the wake of the Morgan Affair and the advent of the Anti-Masonic political party, but by the 1860's Masonry had already began the resurgence that would lead us to the hay day of fraternalism in the US during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.

JER
Riley Lodge #390

[mtvernon]

Re: A Masonic Incident

Also, I feel the only one “unnerved” in this conversation is the questioner. Everyone here has attempted to answer your question as best they can. Time and a poor typing ability restrict me attempting to delve further into this topic. However, if you are still interested in discussing this topic further, I’d be happy to share a shade tree with you at a future event and discuss it at length.

Patrick Craddock
Hiram #7
Franklin, Tennessee

Please Mr. Craddock, no shade tree is necessary. Thank you to Mr. Hicks who is one of the only people on this thread to keep emotion from his responses. I can see this is a touchy subject so in light of that and of Mr. Hick's excellent explanation (which did answer my question, incidentally) I will withdraw from the conversation.

Respectfully,

[Dale Beasley]

Re: A Masonic Incident

Mr Marti,

Please don't turn down the "shade tree invitation" knowledge and free-thinking are some of the keys. When I was your age, I questioned my father and my uncles who are all Masons. But as I got older, I realzed just how special the Brotherhood is, for now I am the fifth generation in my family to wear the lambskin. No one in this thread ever attacked you, and you are right to question what you don't understand. The door to the lodge is open to all who believe in God and are in good-standing, so the shade tree offer was to help you to understand, nothing more. The subject is not so in light, but the search of light. ^ _I /G\


Thank-you for this thread, becasue what came from this, is what comes from the Lodge and that is a good-thing.

"ON TO VICKSBURG"

[PvtSchultz]

Re: A Masonic Incident

J.C.

No one was trying to attack you per se. I think the problem, at least how I perceive it, was the phrasing of your question. It appeared that you were trying to make the situation of a Mason crawling out into the field to help another Mason (who just happens to belong to the opposing army) as either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Trying to boil something like that down as a "black or white" scenerio makes answering your question all the more difficult.

For those of us who are Masons, trying to respond to your question was more than simply saying yes or no, we needed to explain more than this thread would allow. There are many lessons taught to us through our ritual. These lessons have many layers and if followed by a Mason will help us be better men. Looking from the outside in, as you are, it must seem strange, but I assure you that helping another human being is part of our duty as men on this earth. My friend, giving aid and comfort to the wounded was not just a Masonic "thing," many a soldier on both sides risked his life to crawl out and help those who were wounded. For example the "Angel of Marye's Heights" during the battle of Fredericksburg. He was not a Mason yet he went out to help his fellow man. In combat, a man is your enemy while the fighting rages but only in so much as it is a struggle to survive. Once it is over that wounded person is a human being just like you.

To simplify the example that you posted at the start of your thread would require us to label each and every soldier who gave aid, gave comfort and comingled with a soldier of the opposing force as a traitor. That would mean each and every soldier during WWI who celebrated Christmas in No Mans Land would be a traitor. It would mean each and every person, soldier or not who aided a wounded soldier or "enemy of the state" a traitor. Imagine history if that were the case, all those people who gave aid to the Jews during WWII in Germany or occupied areas would be a traitor to their country if that country were allied with Germany,. I hope you can see the point I am making. I am in no way trying to knock you for your response or opinion.

The example you gave I think illustrates the human side of combat, not some treasonous deed.

Humbly Yours,
Rich Schultz, PM
Clifton Lodge #203.

[Bushrod Carter]

Re: A Masonic Incident

Now it is certainly true that the fraternity went nearly completely underground in the 1830's in the wake of the Morgan Affair and the advent of the Anti-Masonic political party, but by the 1860's Masonry had already began the resurgence that would lead us to the hay day of fraternalism in the US during the Gilded Age and Progressive Era.

JER
Riley Lodge #390

Well put Justin.

When we ask a question about (whatever subject) during the 19th century it is often meant – or we typically tend to focus on – the 1850s and 1860s. Looking at Freemasonry during the whole of the 19th century you will see that from 1790 to 1828 Masonry was very open, recognized and accepted as a component in the development of our national identity (see Mark A. Tabbert; American Freemasons: Three centuries of Building Communities. New York University Press, 2005). From the late 1820s to mid 1850s Masonry suffered in the wake of the Morgan incident. However, from the decade before the Civil War, Masonry once again became more public and began to flourish. After the Civil War the phenomenal explosion of social societies (more than 235 fraternal orders were founded between 1865 and 1900) – fueled in part by the desire to continue the shared comradery of military service – led to a very public, though completely different, view of Masonry than had been during the first quarter of the 19th century.

Patrick Craddock
Hiram #7
Franklin, Tennessee

[teufelhund]

Re: A Masonic Incident

I found this story while browsing and thought some others might enjoy it.


" The Civil War in Song and Story" Collected and Arranged by Frank Moore
New York, 1882: PETER FENELON COLLIER, PUBLISHER
page 299.


A Masonic Incident - "The day after the battle of Antietam, the Fifth New Hampshire formed the picket line along the edge of the cornfield where Richardson's division fought. The reserve was in one edge of the corn, and the pickets about middle way of the field concealed in the corn, as the sharpshooters of the enemy fired on all who undertook to walk around on the battle-field at that locality. Early in the morning one of the wounded rebels, who lay just outside the pickets, called one of the New Hampshire men, and handed him a little slip of paper, on which he had, evidently with great difficulty succeeded in making some mystic signs in a circle with a bit of stick wet in blood. The soldier was begged to give it to some Freemason as soon as possible, and he took it to Colonel E.E. Cross, of his regiment. The Colonel was a Master Mason, but could not read the mystic token, it belonging to a higher degree. He therefore sent for Captain J.B. Perry, of the Fifth, who was a member of the thirty-second degree of Freemasonry, and showed him the letter. Captain Perry at once said there was a brother Mason in great peril, and must be rescued. Colonel Cross instantly sent for several brother Masons in the regiment, told the story, and in a few moments four "brothers of the mystic tie" were crawling stealthily through the corn to find the brother in distress. He was found, placed on a blanket, and at great risk drawn out of range of rebel rifles, and then carried to the Fifth New Hampshire hospital. He proved to be First Lieutenant Edon of the Alabama volunteers, badly wounded in the thigh and brest. A few hours and he would have perished. Lieutenant Edon informed his brothren of another wounded Mason, who, when brought out, proved to be a Lieutenant Colonel of a Georgia regiment. These two wounded rebel officers received the same attention as the wounded officers of the Fifth, and a warm friendship was established between men who a few hours before were in mortal combat. This is one of the thousand instances in which the Masonic bond has proved a blessing to mankind."


S.R.B. Waveland Lodge #300

Gentlemen,
I believe the answer to the question for me lays in the original stories. In the story that originated this thread, the two wounded "Rebs" that were rescued in the story were Masons. What was the fate of the other wounded troops in the field? There is no mention of their rescue. Not trying to stir the puddin', but actions speak louder than words.

Marc Shaffer

[coastaltrash]

Re: A Masonic Incident

Mr. Shaffer,
It doesn't make sense to you, and can easily be confused because the subject at hand was probably recorded for a Lodge by a Mason and deals directly with the Obligations for several of the degrees. An educated answer is always better than to assume anything.

[teufelhund]

Re: A Masonic Incident

Mr. Shaffer,
It doesn't make sense to you, and can easily be confused because the subject at hand was probably recorded for a Lodge by a Mason and deals directly with the Obligations for several of the degrees. An educated answer is always better than to assume anything.

Mr Landrum,
As stated in my post, I'm not trying to stir the puddin', but I don't appreciate the implication that I am or what I posted is "Uneducated" because I disagree about the intent of the Masonic Brotherhood . The story is not cited from any Masonic record. I can see where this will lead, so I too will bite my tounge and remove myself from the conversation.
Regards,
Marc Shaffer, one of the easily confused...

[boozie]

Re: A Masonic Incident

I know for some people on the outside looking in, it seem's a selfish act. Yes, they were enemies, but when they found out a "brother" was in distress, they wanted to go to his aid, it became personal to them. As a professional fire fighter, I also have "brothers" all over the United States that are willing to lay their lifes down for anyone, when we meet we refer to each other as "brother." The same holds true for a Mason, we are all "brothers", one big family, we share a common bond.

When a fire fighter's life is in danger, other fire fighters want to drop everythig they are doing, in order to try and bring the fire fighter in trouble to saftey. As a Mason, I have the same thought's about another brother Mason, not only to bring them to saftey, but also to provide whatever I can to them if one is in need of anything. As many people would do for a sibling in danger, maybe that's a better way to understand it.

As far as the story I posted at the start of this thread, how many were wounded on the field at Sharpsburg? There is no way to bring everyone off of the field to saftey. The war had been going on long enough, that the sight of killed and wounded was not that shocking to many. When they found they had a brother wounded, and in need of help, it then became personal for them. As stated before, many, on both sides Mason or not risked everything to bring aid and comfort to the wounded. The Fifth had men in their field hospital, i'm sure some of the 'gallant four' had enough grief and worries for their "brothers in arms" before the rescue mission was undertaken.

S.R.B. Waveland Lodge #300

[BrianHicks]

Re: A Masonic Incident

Mr. Schaffer,

Allow me to quote from one of my previous posts here:

Why does a Mason help another Mason? For the same reason a Marine helps another Marine, or a Police or Fireman helps another of their brothers in their service. (If you can't grasp this concept, then it is unfortunate that you have never been enriched by belonging to such an organization or group.)

And it is for this reason, that Mason's (even on opposing sides in a conflict) have extended the hand of Relief and Charity.

It's that simple. It is for the care and concern of a Fraternal Brother.

See Mr. Busenbark's post above.

As to the fate of the other wounded on the field, and why didn't these same men venture out to save them? Probably for the same reason they didn't venture out until they knew that a Brother was in need whom had directly asked for assistance from his Brothers. And had the rescuers not received the request for help from their Brother, they would have left him in the field with all of the others. Again... it returns to the simple answer of... a Brother coming to the aid of stricken Brother.

For those of us in the fraternity, it is a great comfort to know that no matter where we travel in the world (with very few exceptions), like belonging to a Travelers Aid Society, there will likely be Masonic Brothers whom are always willing to extend a hand, or offer advice, or act as a tour guide, etc. For example... I was made a Mason in Saudi Arabia, and when I moved to Budapest, Hungary, on my first day in the city, a stranger introduced himself to me. He was carrying a watch fob with a Masonic emblem on it, and he told me that my Brothers in Saudi had contacted his Lodge in Budapest, and asked whether or not a Brother could make himself known to me, and help make my transition to the new culture easier. This is the kind of acts that transcend international boundaries, language barriers, and even at times, warring factions and opposing forces on the battle field.

[toptimlrd]

Re: A Masonic Incident

OK, I am not a mason, but I think I might be able to cut through some of the confusion. Masons call each other "brother" as does many other organizations and religions, but the Masons seem to actually believe in it.

Now put yourself at that battle, you and a few of your family are fighting for the Federal army when all of a sudden another soldier hads you something (it can be anything) that you immediately recognize as belonging to your biological brother who joined the other side. Would you and your family make every attempt to save your brother by birth and take what others outside of your family would consider unnescessary risk to save one enemy soldier while others in similar dire straights are left on the field? This is what the Masons feel towards other members of the lodge.

Before we get too far down the road of secrets, I think its important to understand that many fraternal organizations (masons, fraternities, etc) utilize "secrets" to help identify true members from posers. Even the Boy Scouts have special handshakes and oaths to help identify each other when not in uniform and there are even more "secret" symbols and ceremonies in the Scout Honor Sciety called the Order of the Arrow that only a brother or arrowman is allowed to know. for thought

[PvtSchultz]

Re: A Masonic Incident

Gentlemen,
With all due respect to all view points, I took the original post as asking if by giving aid to a wounded soldier from an opposing army was treason or not. Despite my efforts to point out that this type of behavior was not limited to Freemasons caring for one another it seems that we have gotten stuck on that issue. The bottom line, the way I see it, there were many cases, at various times and during various wars where a soldier from one side came to the aid of a soldier from the other side. For the conflict in question there were many such cases.

We cannot simply say that these Masons comitted treason. If we were to say that then let us include the Confederate soldier at Marye's Heights during the Battle of Fredericksburg and how about all those soldiers during WWI who came out of there trenches to celebrate Christmas with the enemy. By their very act are they not guilty of treason? I should think not. I think what they are guilty of is being human!

While the question posed used an event that involved Freemasons, this type of incident is not limited to those who hold membership within that fraternity. Perhaps the question should have been, "does the act of a soldier crawling out unto the battlefield to give aid to a wounded enemy constitute treason?"

[BrianHicks]

Re: A Masonic Incident

Mr. Schultz,

Allow me to quote form one of my previous posts here, as it should answer your specific question "does the act of a soldier crawling out unto the battlefield to give aid to a wounded enemy constitute treason?":

Rendering medical aid to a wounded enemy is not a traitorous act. As a matter of fact, the Military is required to provide the same quality of medical care to our foes, as we do our comrades. This is not only morally correct, it is actually written in modern regulations.

[BrianHicks]

Re: A Masonic Incident

Concerning whether or not the actions of the Federal Soldiers, in leaving their lines, and proceeding forward in a manner which exposed them to enemy fire, in order to render aid to an enemy combatant.

Do these actions qualify as treasonous?

I say no. Could their actions subject them to other charges? Potentially... yes.

Dereliction of their duties, in that they departed the established forward positions, and exposed themselves to potential harm. If the enemy had taken advantage of their actions, and exploited any abandoned positions, then perhaps they could have been charged with abandoning their positions in the face of the enemy... a Capitol offense!?!?

But why not treason?

Let's take a detailed look at what constitutes Treason.

Treason

Taken from the Encyclopedia of American History

Traditionally, treason was betrayal of the state, which, in most countries meant the monarch. A person who commits treason is a traitor. However, the framers of the U.S. Constitution chose to adopt a restricted definition of treason, making it the only term defined in the body of the Constitution. James Wilson was the principal author of the provision:

Art. III Sec. 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two witnesses to the same overt Act, or on confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Their reason for defining treason was the common English practice of charging political opponents with a capital offense, often on weak evidence, under the doctrine of "constructive treason." A classic case was the trial of Algernon Sidney, beheaded in 1683 for plotting against the king. The case against him was based largely on passages from his treatise, Discourses Concerning Government, which was not even published until after his death, in 1698. The term treason was familiar in the common law before it was used in the Statute of 25 Edward III (1350), from which the Constitution derives its language concerning the levying of war and adhering to enemies, giving them aid and comfort. However, the Constitution's treason clause contains no provision analogous to that by which the Statute of Edward III penalized the compassing (intending) of the king's death, since in a republic there is no monarch and the people are sovereign. Charges of treason for compassing the king's death had been the main instrument used in England for the most drastic, "lawful" suppression of political opposition or the expression of ideas or beliefs distasteful to those in power.

The Statute of 7 William III (1694) introduced the requirement of two witnesses to the same or different overt acts of the same treason or misprision (concealment) of treason, made several exceptions to what could be considered treason, and protected the right of the accused to have copies of the indictment and proceedings against him, to have counsel, and to compel witnesses—privileges not previously enjoyed by those accused of common law crimes. This statute served as a model for colonial treason statutes.

The first major cases under the U.S. Constitution arose from an 1807 conspiracy led by Aaron Burr, who had served as vice president under Thomas Jefferson in 1801–1805. The conspirators planned to seize parts of Mexico or the newly acquired Louisiana Territory. Burr and two confederates, Bollman and Swartwout, were charged with treason.

Chief Justice John Marshall opened the door for making actions other than treason a crime in EX PARTE BOLLMAN when he held that the clause does not prevent Congress from specifying other crimes of a subversive nature and prescribing punishment, so long as Congress is not merely attempting to evade the restrictions of the treason clause. But he also stated, "However flagitious [villainous] may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that…it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying of war." On the basis of these considerations and because no part of the crime charged had been committed in the District of Columbia, the Court held that Bollman and Swartwout could not be tried in the District and ordered their discharge. Marshall continued by saying, "the crime of treason should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases."

Burr was acquitted 1 September 1807, after an opinion rendered by Chief Justice Marshall in U.S. v. Burr that further defined the requirements for proving treason. The Court held that Burr, who had not been present at the assemblage of men on Blennerhassett Island, could be convicted of advising or procuring a levying of war only upon the testimony of two witnesses to his having procured the assemblage, but the operation was covert and such testimony was unobtainable. Marshall's opinion made it extremely difficult to convict someone of levying war against the United States unless the person participated in actual hostilities.

The Burr and Bollman cases prompted the introduction in 1808 of a Senate bill to further define the crime of treason. The debate on that bill, which was rejected, provides insight into the original understanding of the treason clause: its purpose was to guarantee nonviolent political controversy against suppression under the charge of treason or any other criminal charge based on its supposed subversive character, and there was no constitutional authority to evade the restriction by creating new crimes under other names.

Before 1947, most cases that were successfully prosecuted were not federal trials but rather state trials for treason, notably the trials of Thomas Wilson Dorr (1844) and John Brown (1859) on charges of levying war against the states of Rhode Island and Virginia, respectively.

After the Civil War, some wanted to try Southern secessionists for treason, and former the Confederate president Jefferson Davis was charged with treason in U.S. v. Jefferson Davis. The constitutional requirement in Art. III Sec. 2 Cl. 3 that an offender be tried in the state and district where the offense was committed would have meant trying Davis in Virginia, where a conviction was unlikely, so the case was dismissed. Although the United States government regarded the activities of the Confederate States as a levying of war, the president's Amnesty Proclamation of 25 December 1868 pardoned all those who had participated on the Southern side.

Since the Bollman case, the few treason cases that have reached the Supreme Court have been outgrowths of World War II and charged adherence to enemies of the United States and the giving of aid and comfort. In the first of these, Cramer v. United States, the issue was whether the "overt act" had to be "openly manifest treason" or whether it was enough, when supported by the proper evidence, that it showed the required treasonable intention. The Court in a five to four opinion by Justice Jackson took the former view, holding that "the two witness principle" barred "imputation of incriminating acts to the accused by circumstantial evidence or by the testimony of a single witness," even though the single witness in question was the accused himself. "Every act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."

The Supreme Court first sustained a conviction of treason in 1947 in Haupt v. United States. Here it was held that although the overt acts relied upon to support the charge of treason (defendant's harboring and sheltering in his home his son who was an enemy spy and saboteur, assisting him in purchasing an automobile and in obtaining employment in a defense plant) were all acts that a father would naturally perform for a son, this fact did not necessarily relieve them of the treasonable purpose of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

In Kawakita v. United States, the petitioner was a native-born citizen of the United States and also a national of Japan by reason of Japanese parentage and law. While a minor, he took the oath of allegiance to the United States, went to Japan for a visit on an American passport, and was prevented from returning to this country by the outbreak of war. During World War II he reached his majority in Japan, changed his registration from American to Japanese, showed sympathy with Japan and hostility to the United States, served as a civilian employee of a private corporation producing war materials for Japan, and brutally abused American prisoners of war who were forced to work there. After Japan's surrender, he registered as an American citizen, swore that he was an American citizen and had not done various acts amounting to expatriation, and returned to this country on an American passport. The question whether, on this record, Kawakita had intended to renounce American citizenship was peculiarly one for the jury, said the Court in sustaining conviction, and the jury's verdict that he had not so intended was based on sufficient evidence. An American citizen, it continued, owes allegiance to the United States wherever he may reside, and dual nationality does not alter the situation. This case is notable for extending U.S. criminal jurisdiction to the actions of U.S. civilian citizens abroad, which would have originally been considered unconstitutional.

World War II was followed by the Cold War, which resulted in political prosecutions of several persons for treason and other charges on dubious evidence. The trials of the Axis broadcasters—Douglas Chandler, Robert H. Best, Mildred Gellars as "Axis Sally," Iva Ikuko Toguri d'Aquino as "Tokyo Rose" (later pardoned by President Ford when it was revealed she had been a double agent for the allies)—and the indictment and mental commitment of Ezra Pound, muddied the jurisprudence of the treason clause. Their actions provided no significant aid or comfort to an enemy and were not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. In United States v. Rosenberg, the Court held that in a prosecution under the ESPIONAGE ACT for giving aid to a country (not an enemy), an offense distinct from treason, neither the two-witness rule nor the requirement as to the overt act was applicable. However, no constitutional authority for the Espionage Act itself was proven.

Bibliography

Chapin, Bradley. The American Law of Treason: Revolutionary and Early National Origins. Seattle: University of Washing ton Press, 1964.

Elliot, Jonathan. Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Philadelphia, 1836, p. 469 (James Wilson).

Hurst, James Willard. The Law of Treason in the United States: Collected Essays. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing, 1971.

Kutler, Stanley I. The American Inquisition: Justice and Injustice in the Cold War. New York: Hill and Wang, 1982.

Treason Trials

Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. (8 U.S.) 75 (1807).

United States v. Burr, 4 Cr. (8 U.S.) 469 (1807).

Annals of Congress, Tenth Congress, First Session, Senate, Debate on Treason and Other Crimes, 1808.

Wharton's State Trials of the United States (Philadelphia, 1849), and Lawson's American State Trials (17 volumes, St. Louis, 1914–1926), trials of Thomas Wilson Dorr (1844) and of John Brown (1859).

Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945).

Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947).

Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).

United States v. Rosenberg, 195 F.2d 583 (2d. Cir.), cert den., 344 U.S. 889 (1952).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

From a Legal Encyclopedia:

Treason

The betrayal of one's own coun- try by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Article III, Section 3, of the federal Constitution sets forth the definition of treason in the United States. Any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.

The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of disloyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of espionage in 1951 for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II.

Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the Civil War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal amnesty.

The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much damage the United States suffers.

As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by evidence that the defendant committed an overt act of treason. Each overt act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary.

Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally protected speech (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).

Because treason involves the betrayal of allegiance to the United States, a person need not be a U.S. citizen to commit treason under the Constitution. Persons who owe temporary allegiance to the United States can commit treason. Aliens who are domiciliaries of the United States, for example, can commit traitorous acts during the period of their domicile. A subversive act does not need to occur on U.S. soil to be punishable as treason. For example, Mildred Gillars, a U.S. citizen who became known as Axis Sally, was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a Nazi radio station in Germany during World War II.

Treason is punishable by death. If a death sentence is not imposed, defendants face a minimum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (18 U.S.C.A. § 2381). A person who is convicted of treason may not hold federal office at any time thereafter.

The English common law required defendants to forfeit all of their property, real and personal, upon conviction for treason. In some cases, the British Crown confiscated the property of immediate family members as well. The common law also precluded convicted traitors from bequeathing their property through a will. Relatives were presumed to be tainted by the blood of the traitor and were not permitted to inherit from him. Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlaws such "corruption of the blood" and limits the penalty of forfeiture to "the life of the person attainted." Under this provision relatives cannot be made to forfeit their property or inheritance for crimes committed by traitorous family members.

The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III (1327-1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the common law. During the thirteenth century, the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth stringent evidentiary requirements.

See: Schenck v. United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So..... could those soldiers who went forth to help to help a wounded Confederate be charged with Treason?