Understanding Treason and Sedition in the United States: A Common Sense Analysis

(Opinion)

In an era of heated political discourse, terms like "treason" and "sedition" are often invoked to describe actions perceived as disloyal or subversive. However, these are not mere rhetorical flourishes; they are specific crimes defined under U.S. law with strict requirements for prosecution. This analysis aims to dispel confusion by examining the legal definitions, historical contexts, and notable examples of treason and sedition. Drawing from primary sources such as the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes, we will clarify what constitutes these offenses and highlight their rare application. Verified sources support all claims to ensure accuracy and transparency.

Following the legal overview, we will explore the distinction between legal wrongdoing and ethical wrongdoing, emphasizing that not all morally questionable acts violate the law, and vice versa.

Legal Definitions

Treason

Treason is the only crime explicitly defined in the U.S. Constitution, reflecting the Framers' intent to limit its scope and prevent its abuse as a tool against political opponents. Article III, Section 3 states: "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." This narrow definition requires either actively waging war against the U.S. or providing aid to its declared enemies, with a high evidentiary bar of two witnesses or a public confession. Congress has the power to set punishments, but no attainder of treason can result in "corruption of blood" (punishing descendants) or forfeiture beyond the traitor's lifetime.

Federal law codifies treason in 18 U.S.C. § 2381, which applies to anyone owing allegiance to the U.S. who levies war against it or aids its enemies, punishable by death or at least five years' imprisonment and a fine. Many states have similar provisions in their constitutions, but prosecutions are exceedingly rare at both levels.

Sedition

Unlike treason, "sedition" is not defined in the Constitution but appears in federal statutes under Chapter 115 of Title 18 U.S.C., which covers "Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities." The primary modern offense is "seditious conspiracy" under 18 U.S.C. § 2384: "If two or more persons... conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

This statute, enacted in 1861 amid the Civil War, targets conspiracies involving force against the government, without requiring a declared war or foreign enemies. Other related sections include § 2383 (rebellion or insurrection), § 2385 (advocating overthrow of government), and others addressing subversive acts like recruiting against the U.S. or affecting armed forces.

Key Differences Between Treason and Sedition

Treason is a solitary act of betrayal during wartime or involving enemies, requiring overt actions and strict proof, while sedition (particularly seditious conspiracy) involves group plotting to use force against government authority, even in peacetime. Treason demands allegiance to the U.S. and aid to enemies, whereas sedition focuses on internal opposition by force, such as hindering laws or seizing property. Both are federal crimes, but sedition has been prosecuted more frequently due to its broader application.

Historical Context

Treason

The Framers defined treason narrowly to avoid the British practice of using it against dissenters, drawing from Enlightenment ideas like Montesquieu's separation of powers. Influenced by the Articles of Confederation, they emphasized protection against false accusations. Early debates during the Constitutional Convention focused on limiting the offense to prevent repression.

Fewer than 30 people have been charged federally, with even fewer convictions. The FBI notes fewer than 12 successful treason convictions in U.S. history.

Sedition

Sedition laws have evolved amid fears of internal threats. The 1861 seditious conspiracy statute responded to secession and John Brown's raid. Earlier, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 targeted critics of President John Adams, criminalizing "false, scandalous, and malicious" writings against the government. These acts, passed amid tensions with France, led to prosecutions of Jeffersonian Republicans and raised First Amendment concerns. They expired or were repealed by 1802.

During World War I, the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 suppressed anti-war speech, leading to cases like Schenck v. United States. The Smith Act of 1940 targeted communist advocacy during the Cold War. Modern interpretations are constrained by the First Amendment, requiring that the lawless action be imminent per Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

Notable Examples

Treason Prosecutions

• Whiskey Rebellion (1794): Philip Vigol and John Mitchell were convicted for armed resistance to federal taxes; both were pardoned by President Washington.

• Aaron Burr (1807): Tried for plotting to seize territory; acquitted due to lack of overt acts of war.

• Taos Revolt (1847): 15 insurgents executed for levying war during the Mexican-American War.

• Civil War Era: William Bruce Mumford was executed in 1862 for desecrating the U.S. flag in New Orleans.

• World War II: Iva Toguri (Tokyo Rose) convicted for propaganda broadcasts; pardoned in 1977. Axis Sally (Mildred Gillars) was convicted and imprisoned.

No federal executions for treason since the 19th century, and many accused (e.g., Benedict Arnold) escaped prosecution.

Sedition Prosecutions

• Alien and Sedition Acts (1798-1800): About 25 arrests, including newspaper editors like Matthew Lyon, for criticizing Adams; most were political opponents.

• World War I: Over 2,000 prosecutions under the Sedition Act of 1918 for anti-war speech, including socialist Eugene Debs.

• Fort Smith Trial (1987): White supremacists like Louis Beam were acquitted of seditious conspiracy.

• Hutaree Militia (2010): Charges dismissed on First Amendment grounds.

• January 6 Capitol Attack (2021): Several Oath Keepers and Proud Boys members, including Stewart Rhodes, were convicted of seditious conspiracy for plotting to stop the certification of the 2020 election.

These examples illustrate sedition's use against perceived internal threats, often intersecting with free speech debates.

Legal Wrongdoing vs. Ethical Wrongdoing

While the above focuses on legal definitions—actions that violate specific statutes like treason or sedition—these do not always align with ethical judgments. Legality concerns whether conduct meets the elements of a crime, as defined by law and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Ethics, however, involves broader moral principles: Is an act harmful, dishonest, or disloyal, even if not illegal?

For instance, harsh criticism of government officials might be ethically debatable (e.g., if it spreads misinformation) but is protected speech under the First Amendment unless it incites imminent violence. Conversely, laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts were legal but ethically flawed for suppressing dissent, leading to their repeal. Ethical wrongs, such as betraying public trust without meeting treason's wartime threshold, may face political consequences (e.g., impeachment) rather than criminal ones.

This distinction underscores that laws evolve with societal values—e.g., modern free speech protections limit sedition prosecutions—while ethics remain subjective. Understanding this gap prevents conflating moral outrage with legal culpability.

The majority of Congress members are lawyers, supported by other lawyers, which enables them to navigate the law without breaking it. Our laws on treason and sedition are intentionally strict to prevent their misuse. Personally, I agree with the label "seditious 6." However, seditious behavior does not meet the legal definition of the term. It's wrong on so many levels in my opinion, but it simply is not illegal by the language of the law. President Trump overstepped the line as well by accusing them of treason and suggesting the death penalty. While their actions were, in my view, highly unethical, they did not break the law as it is written. President Trump's comments only exacerbated the situation. His passion is understandable, but knowing when to remain silent is crucial. He made accusations without legal backing, which is ethically wrong, though not criminal, in my opinion.

We need to stop reacting impulsively to everything and take a moment to analyze what we hear and see before accepting it as fact. Just because President Trump labels something as treason doesn’t legally make it treason; that is simply his opinion, and while he is entitled to it, it doesn’t automatically mean he is correct. It’s important to think for ourselves. Right now, everything seems to be distorted, and it’s our responsibility to make sense of it using our God-given common sense and critical thinking.

I have a personal rule that I find very helpful: when I encounter something I don’t understand, I take the time to learn about it. I’m not aiming to become an expert; I just want to gain a better understanding. It’s a straightforward aspect of human psychology— the more we learn, the more we understand, and the better equipped we are to resist manipulation. This is a significant concern for those who are currently trying to manipulate us.

If ignorance is the problem, then knowledge is the solution. However, no one is going to open your mind and pour knowledge into it; it requires effort to learn and understand. It’s a choice we have to make. Perhaps it’s time to make a different choice for a change.

---