February 21, 2007
Treason from Henry V to John Walker Lindh
Rand Mirante
Senior Associate Director of Principal Gifts, Development Office, Princeton University
Minutes of the 20th Meeting of the 65th Year
At 10:15 AM on Wednesday, 21 February 2007, the President, Joe Giordmaine, opened the 20th meeting of 65th year of The Old Guard.
Fred-Gilman introduced his visitor, Keith Wheelock. Bill Haynes introduced Sara Jones Nelson.
Jim Johnson introduced the speaker, Rand Mirante, Princeton, class of ’70, who studied Soviet history at Woodrow Wilson School, went to Harvard law, and then spent 20 years at the Legal Dept.at McGraw Hill. He now works in the Development Office at Princeton University as Assistant to the President. He also lectures in a freshman writing program focusing on academic and argumentive essay writing.
The Title of Prof. Mirante’s talk was "Treason from Henry 5th to John Walker Lindt."
He began by defining what treason does, quoting an English jurist, who writes that "treason tears at the fabric of society; it calls into question the relation between the citizen and the governor, and brings into light the irony that for true loyalty to exist some measure of disloyalty must be allowed to flourish." Where is the line drawn, asked Professor Mirante?
Next he turned to the subject of what treason is. The word treason comes from the Latin “"Trahesion," which means "turning over." It has a long history, exemplified in the 5th Ave. statue of Prometheus who stole fire from heaven and in punishment was chained to a rock, where in the daytime an eagle consumed his liver which was restored each succeeding night. Thus, he was subjected to perpetual punishment.
The Romans had a complex idea of treason: if you called the emperor’s dignity into question, wore a purple robe when forbidden, for instance, or defaced a coin with the emperor’s image, you could be found guilty of treason.
Being found guilty of treason was a threat that faced the Founding Fathers, since, as Mirante pointed out, the American Revolution was born in an act of treason. Ben Franklin voiced their concern by saying that they must hang together or they would surely hang separately. Madison worried about the possibility of artificial treason, or constructive treason, in which violent factions might wreak havoc against one another.
These conflicted feelings about treason led them quite specifically to define it in Sec.3, part 3 of the constitution, where it says: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort.” Congress in 1790 was empowered to declare punishment for treason to be death by hanging but, (further quoting from he Constitution), “no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the lifetime of the person.”
Forfeiture, attainder of blood! these words hark back in time, to 1305, when the first English king, King Edward 1st used treason as a fund-raising tactic to provide needed money for wars. Woe unto any noble who failed to cooperate with his demands. In the case of one William Wallace who dared argue that he had made no fealty to the king, so there could be no duty to bend his knee to the monarch. The king acting as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner did decide that Wallace would be dragged through the streets, hanged, cut down while still live, having his head cut off and his entrails removed, and burned while still alive, and his body cut up into parts and distributed throughout Great Britain as a warning to others.
This was followed by a practice known as forfeiture and corruption of the blood, that is, their possessions were removed from Wallace’s family, rendering them destitute. In 1352, during the reign of Edward 3rd a statute was passed defining treason as levying against the crown and giving aid and comfort to an enemy. Four centuries later we see the same language employed with a sense of how the law might protect citizens from unchecked authority. That is very much an issue for our time, as well.
I would like now to leave the British crown to its murderous ways. in order to get to a topic that seemed to me to be more relevant to this audience---General Benedict Arnold, whose name is synonymous with arch-traitor. Arnold, a hero of the Revolution, had good business instincts as well as a flair for military strategy. Twice he was wounded severely and his friend George Washington thought to reward him in 1788 with a post in Philadelphia. There he met with temptation in the form of Peggy Shippen, a beautiful woman who became his second wife. His association with Quakers and others brought him to the attention of men who today might be called hawks, who instituted a case against him. This he rightly believed was a case of ingratitude for his service to the cause, and he decided to conspire with his wife’s old friend, a British officer named Major Andre, to turn over to the enemy a military establishment called West Point. A series of coincidences caused the plot to fail; Arnold fled to England and Andre was executed by a military court.
That leads us to a fascinating case involving Princeton’s own Aaron Burr. In what Mirante called the greatest criminal trial in our history. Burr, the Vice President of the United States, was involved in some sort of murky activities which resulted in his being accused of “raising troops against the government.”
Chief Justice John Marshall, an enemy of President Jefferson, argues that it isn’t enough to be leagued in a conspiracy but it is necessary to perform a part. Using a restrictive constitutional idea in Burr’s favor, Marshall finds him not guilty.
This interesting talk concluded with a talk about the 2004 Supreme Court case in Yasser Hamdi v Rumsfeld. Hammdi, an American citizen originally held at Guantanamo was to be tried as an ”enemy combatant.” Both Anton Scalia and Justice Sandra J O’Connor, who wrote for the majority cited cases going back as far as 1352. Scalia argued in dissent that ” the Founders well understood the tradeoff between safety and freedom” and, quoting Hamilton in the Federalist papers, ends with the comment that ”to be more safe we must be ready to be less free.” So Mr. Mirante’s question about where to draw the line is not yet answered.
Respectfully submitted,
Rosemary 0’Brien
Fred-Gilman introduced his visitor, Keith Wheelock. Bill Haynes introduced Sara Jones Nelson.
Jim Johnson introduced the speaker, Rand Mirante, Princeton, class of ’70, who studied Soviet history at Woodrow Wilson School, went to Harvard law, and then spent 20 years at the Legal Dept.at McGraw Hill. He now works in the Development Office at Princeton University as Assistant to the President. He also lectures in a freshman writing program focusing on academic and argumentive essay writing.
The Title of Prof. Mirante’s talk was "Treason from Henry 5th to John Walker Lindt."
He began by defining what treason does, quoting an English jurist, who writes that "treason tears at the fabric of society; it calls into question the relation between the citizen and the governor, and brings into light the irony that for true loyalty to exist some measure of disloyalty must be allowed to flourish." Where is the line drawn, asked Professor Mirante?
Next he turned to the subject of what treason is. The word treason comes from the Latin “"Trahesion," which means "turning over." It has a long history, exemplified in the 5th Ave. statue of Prometheus who stole fire from heaven and in punishment was chained to a rock, where in the daytime an eagle consumed his liver which was restored each succeeding night. Thus, he was subjected to perpetual punishment.
The Romans had a complex idea of treason: if you called the emperor’s dignity into question, wore a purple robe when forbidden, for instance, or defaced a coin with the emperor’s image, you could be found guilty of treason.
Being found guilty of treason was a threat that faced the Founding Fathers, since, as Mirante pointed out, the American Revolution was born in an act of treason. Ben Franklin voiced their concern by saying that they must hang together or they would surely hang separately. Madison worried about the possibility of artificial treason, or constructive treason, in which violent factions might wreak havoc against one another.
These conflicted feelings about treason led them quite specifically to define it in Sec.3, part 3 of the constitution, where it says: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort.” Congress in 1790 was empowered to declare punishment for treason to be death by hanging but, (further quoting from he Constitution), “no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the lifetime of the person.”
Forfeiture, attainder of blood! these words hark back in time, to 1305, when the first English king, King Edward 1st used treason as a fund-raising tactic to provide needed money for wars. Woe unto any noble who failed to cooperate with his demands. In the case of one William Wallace who dared argue that he had made no fealty to the king, so there could be no duty to bend his knee to the monarch. The king acting as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner did decide that Wallace would be dragged through the streets, hanged, cut down while still live, having his head cut off and his entrails removed, and burned while still alive, and his body cut up into parts and distributed throughout Great Britain as a warning to others.
This was followed by a practice known as forfeiture and corruption of the blood, that is, their possessions were removed from Wallace’s family, rendering them destitute. In 1352, during the reign of Edward 3rd a statute was passed defining treason as levying against the crown and giving aid and comfort to an enemy. Four centuries later we see the same language employed with a sense of how the law might protect citizens from unchecked authority. That is very much an issue for our time, as well.
I would like now to leave the British crown to its murderous ways. in order to get to a topic that seemed to me to be more relevant to this audience---General Benedict Arnold, whose name is synonymous with arch-traitor. Arnold, a hero of the Revolution, had good business instincts as well as a flair for military strategy. Twice he was wounded severely and his friend George Washington thought to reward him in 1788 with a post in Philadelphia. There he met with temptation in the form of Peggy Shippen, a beautiful woman who became his second wife. His association with Quakers and others brought him to the attention of men who today might be called hawks, who instituted a case against him. This he rightly believed was a case of ingratitude for his service to the cause, and he decided to conspire with his wife’s old friend, a British officer named Major Andre, to turn over to the enemy a military establishment called West Point. A series of coincidences caused the plot to fail; Arnold fled to England and Andre was executed by a military court.
That leads us to a fascinating case involving Princeton’s own Aaron Burr. In what Mirante called the greatest criminal trial in our history. Burr, the Vice President of the United States, was involved in some sort of murky activities which resulted in his being accused of “raising troops against the government.”
Chief Justice John Marshall, an enemy of President Jefferson, argues that it isn’t enough to be leagued in a conspiracy but it is necessary to perform a part. Using a restrictive constitutional idea in Burr’s favor, Marshall finds him not guilty.
This interesting talk concluded with a talk about the 2004 Supreme Court case in Yasser Hamdi v Rumsfeld. Hammdi, an American citizen originally held at Guantanamo was to be tried as an ”enemy combatant.” Both Anton Scalia and Justice Sandra J O’Connor, who wrote for the majority cited cases going back as far as 1352. Scalia argued in dissent that ” the Founders well understood the tradeoff between safety and freedom” and, quoting Hamilton in the Federalist papers, ends with the comment that ”to be more safe we must be ready to be less free.” So Mr. Mirante’s question about where to draw the line is not yet answered.
Respectfully submitted,
Rosemary 0’Brien