"It has come to this" Topic

This article is a red-herring. The author of this article is just fishing for something to rile up his target audience who probably can barely read and defiantly cannot think for themselves.

The term "American" is generally used specifically to describe citizens of the United States. I blame the British for describing their citizens in the American Colonies as Americans. This is not much of an issue in Canada. They accept that Americans are from the U.S. and Canadians are from Canada. How else do you describe a U.S. Citizen? United Statesman?

From our good friends at Wikipedia: Use with caution.

"The meaning of the word American in the English language varies according to the historical, geographical, and political context in which it is used. American is derived from America, a term originally denoting all of the New World (also called the Americas).

In some expressions it retains this Pan-American sense, but its usage has evolved over time and, for various historical reasons, the word came to denote people or things specifically from the United States of America.

In modern English, Americans generally refers to residents of the United States; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification.

However, this default use has been the source of controversy, particularly among Latin Americans, who feel that using the term solely for the United States misappropriates it."

Officers were free to resign their Commission and where then free to accept Commissions in other nations. This is in no way treasonous.

It's only treasonous if you betray your nation of service without resigning their Commission first. Hence AS Johnston stamped out the Californian Confederates, then resigned his Commission and went south. In doing so he acted correctly, and was not a traitor.

So is Cromwell considered a traitor in Britain?

I consider him a murderous self serving bastard. Putin was right- he was no different to Stalin.

It's only treasonous if you betray your nation of service without resigning their Commission first. Hence AS Johnston stamped out the Californian Confederates, then resigned his Commission and went south. In doing so he acted correctly, and was not a traitor.<q/>

That is quite the bit of acrobatics.

I think that anyone, when they don't have an agenda to justify certain behavior, will readily consider any officer of the US a traitor if he resigns his commission in the US military to join up with that of an enemy nation to wage war against the US.

I think that a great deal of Lee's motivation was that his sons had inherited some very valuable properties from their maternal grandfather, George Washington Parke Custis, Martha Washtington's grandson and George's adopted son. (Arlington was to go to his oldest, Custis Lee, after his mother died, Rooney Lee got the White House plantation on the Pamunkey River; don't remember what Robert, jr. got.) So he felt tied to Virginia by family interests. He was caught, in the words of the song from High Noon, "twixt love and duty."

I think that anyone, when they don't have an agenda to justify certain behavior, will readily consider any officer of the US a traitor if he resigns his commission in the US military to join up with that of an enemy nation to wage war against the US.

Outside the ACW there weren't many examples of this in American history. There have however been a fair number of U.S. citizens who left the country to join the armed forces of another country that was in turn engaged in a war with a third country.

Sure have been. Americans fought in the Boer War for both sides. World War One for the Italians, French and British. In the international Brigades during the SCW and the British and Canadians during WW II. Not to mention the AVG in China.

Although could you call the AVG volunteers even though they were paid by the Chinese. When does a Volunteer stop being a Volunteer and becomes a mercenary. I guess it's what the main motivation is or the side your fighting for.

The AVG were, indeed, paid by the Chinese, just as the members of the International Brigade were paid by the Republican Spanish government. There is, however, no reason to believe that any of them would have changed sides and fought for the Japanese or the Fascists had they been offered more money.

Technically, British members of the IB were in breach of the UK Foreign Enlistment Act, which prohibits UK citizens from serving in the forces of other countries; but, to the best of my knowledge, none were ever prosecuted for their 'offence'.

In the UK I think anyone who fought for, or assisted, a wartime foreign enemy of this country would be considered a traitor – even if he had never held a commission to resign in the first place.

On the other hand, in our Wars of the Roses, Civil and Jacobite Wars, only the losers are regarded as traitors – and then only by those who support the opposite side!

After the Restoration, Cromwell's body was exhumed and ritually executed for being a regicide and traitor; but today his statue stands outside Parliament, presumably to honour his opposition to a tyrannical absolute monarch and as a precursor – albeit flawed – of our modern constitution.
I doubt anyone today regards Mary II (daughter of deposed James II and wife of William of Orange) as a traitor, nor the others who brought about the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Outside the ACW there weren't many examples of this in American history. There have however been a fair number of U.S. citizens who left the country to join the armed forces of another country that was in turn engaged in a war with a third country.

Sure. That's a different situation.

The AVG were, indeed, paid by the Chinese, just as the members of the International Brigade were paid by the Republican Spanish government. There is, however, no reason to believe that any of them would have changed sides and fought for the Japanese or the Fascists had they been offered more money.

I never said or believe that any of them would change sides.