Treason

Northern Secesh papers are examining the definitions of treason, looking up the law and the rulings and precedents of the Courts in order to see how far they can go without making themselves liable to civil prosecution in aiding the rebellion by their countenance and sympathy.  We are ready to admit what they claim, viz the opposition to the war is not treason in the sense of the Constitution.  Neither is a declaration that the rebels are right and the government wrong.  It is not Constitutional treason to rejoice at federal reverses and be jubilant over rebel successes.  It is not treason to huzza for Jeff Davis and Beauregard and vilify the President of the United States, Congress and the Generals commanding the Armies of the Union.  We cannot indict, try and convict such of treason.  We do not desire to do so.  But before God and man, they are as guilty in their hearts as those who commit the over[t] act.  And while we cannot and would not prosecute them in the Courts, we do not desire to see any violent and unlawful means used, to either stop their treasonable utterances or drive them from the country they disgrace.  We would leave them to public opinion except  in cases where their plotting endangered the public safety.

– Published in The Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, May 17, 1862, p. 1