Crazy old Ezra Pound?

[Virgil]

No, speech is not treason at any time or place. What can be treasonous about saying to soldiers: "Don't fight"? Did Ezra take up arms against US troops?

Your assertion is comparable to the silly assertion that Jane Fonda committed treason by going to Hanoi, and talking Ho, etc, even though the US wasn't even at war.

Are you a lawyer? Do you dispute the fact that Pound was on trial for treason and that he had to resort to an insanity plea? Whether he would have been convict or not I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But he needed the isanity plea, which tells you the staus of his defense.

From Wiki on treason in the United States:

United States
To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article Three defines treason as levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating treason-like offense with different names (such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sabotage in the 1917 Espionage Act) that do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

At a minimum, Ezra Pound gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

And yes, I'd spit on Jane Fonda if she were in front of me. Well, perhaps decency would prevent me from doing that. I am one of those who has never supported Fonda since. I refuse to see a Fonda movie, even if it's on TV. She's hardly made anything of consequence since her repulsive actions, and it's because of there are enough people who loath her. Traitors deserve to be scorned.

[ctalerico]

I believe it was Arthur Koestler who said acts of creative genius are acts of divine madness.

I think we see in Pound, whether sane or not, the prisoner/poet (Dr. Eugene Paul Nassar's phrase in his book, The Cantos of Ezra Pound: The Lyric Mode) of The Pisan Cantos. Pound's "insanity" was merely the contextual product of his society, whose terraces are not made of the colour of stars so remains the human spirit in darkness where, without the sun, the light of the mind, remains in Dante's hell. Perhaps that state of mind is insanity or perhaps it is the creative human imagination's survival instinct when threatened?

[PeterL]

Are you a lawyer? Do you dispute the fact that Pound was on trial for treason and that he had to resort to an insanity plea? Whether he would have been convict or not I don't know, I'm not a lawyer. But he needed the isanity plea, which tells you the staus of his defense.

I would dispute that "he had to resort to an insanity plea." but I never read the details of the case.

And yes, I'd spit on Jane Fonda if she were in front of me. Well, perhaps decency would prevent me from doing that. I am one of those who has never supported Fonda since. I refuse to see a Fonda movie, even if it's on TV. She's hardly made anything of consequence since her repulsive actions, and it's because of there are enough people who loath her. Traitors deserve to be scorned.

That says more about you than it says about Ms Fonda. When there is no war, there is no emeny.

[Virgil]

That says more about you than it says about Ms Fonda. When there is no war, there is no emeny.

57,000 American deaths. There was no war. I guess a Vietnam War memorial with all those names on it doesn't exist. That says more about you than anything else.






I'm proud of my loyalty to my country. Whether one support's one's government decision or not, once a decision has been made and a war has started, than being a traitor to one's country is the lowest form of life. Ever hear of Benedict Arnold?

[Jean-Baptiste]

Welcome to the forums, ctalerico! And thanks for joining this discussion.

Pound's "insanity" was merely the contextual product of his society,

I agree with that whole heartedly.

Virgil, I've been to that wall, and was absolutely horror struck by the simplicity and directness with which it pays tribute. I have made a decent pilgrimage to many of this nation's monuments, and that one had by far the greatest impact on me.

Having said that, how is it that you marry this neo-patriotism to any sentiments of the proto-patriot Thomas Jefferson? After the Shays' Rebellion, Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison offering advice on how to deal with the rebels (who were not merely exercising free speech) having been themselves a couple of the most recognizable and famous rebels and traitors in history. This is one of my favorite quotes from that man:

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government….
Yours affectionately,
Th. Jefferson

That comes from a man who feels secure in the power of the government that he's helped to build. I take him to suggest that free expression is one of the cornerstones of this nation, or any stable nation. On the other hand, denouncement of traitors and rebels seems only to intimate fear that one is indeed on the wrong side of a losing struggle.

I say these things not as a means of justifying Pound's actions (or Fonda's, whom I am tragically uninformed about) but only to ask whether your sentiments are entirely patriotic, or if they indeed contain a strong degree of nationalism.

[Virgil]

Having said that, how is it that you marry this neo-patriotism to any sentiments of the proto-patriot Thomas Jefferson? After the Shays' Rebellion, Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison offering advice on how to deal with the rebels (who were not merely exercising free speech) having been themselves a couple of the most recognizable and famous rebels and traitors in history. This is one of my favorite quotes from that man:

That comes from a man who feels secure in the power of the government that he's helped to build. I take him to suggest that free expression is one of the cornerstones of this nation, or any stable nation. On the other hand, denouncement of traitors and rebels seems only to intimate fear that one is indeed on the wrong side of a losing struggle.

I say these things not as a means of justifying Pound's actions (or Fonda's, whom I am tragically uninformed about) but only to ask whether your sentiments are entirely patriotic, or if they indeed contain a strong degree of nationalism.

Neo-patriotism, proto-patriot: Hehe, I like that. But frankly you're missing the boat because of these points:
1. What Jefferson is describing is insurection, not treason by collaborating with a foreign and enemy government.
2. Jefferson is the odd ball here. I doubt almost any other fore father would have said that or agreed to that.
3. That was never part of the formulated Constitution or even philosophical underpinnings of the American experience.
4. You mention the Shay's rebellion that was put down; you can also add the Whiskey rebellion where people refused to pay a liquor tax, and President George Washington captured the insurrecting people and actually prosecuted two for treason and they were hanged until dead.
5. Any legitamacy to insurrection was finally put down with the Civil War, where Lincoln dispatched forces against a rebbelling army. No state is ever allowed to succeed from the union based on any disagreement with the federal government. If there was ambiguity before the Civil War, there was none after. If a state is not allowed to succeed, I don't think any individual or group of individuals would be allowed to do so.

Frankly Jefferson's statement is fairly off the wall, and while it makes a nice T-shirt, it really has no relevancy. Jefferson was not the most practical of fore fathers.

BTW, I don't want to seem that I'm against protest. One is free to protest one's government any time. But what Peter fails to understand is that collaboration with an enemy is beyond the pale.

[PeterL]

Neo-patriotism, proto-patriot: Hehe, I like that. But frankly you're missing the boat because of these points:
1. What Jefferson is describing is insurection, not treason by collaborating with a foreign and enemy government.
2. Jefferson is the odd ball here. I doubt almost any other fore father would have said that or agreed to that.
3. That was never part of the formulated Constitution or even philosophical underpinnings of the American experience.
4. You mention the Shay's rebellion that was put down; you can also add the Whiskey rebellion where people refused to pay a liquor tax, and President George Washington captured the insurrecting people and actually prosecuted two for treason and they were hanged until dead.
5. Any legitamacy to insurrection was finally put down with the Civil War, where Lincoln dispatched forces against a rebbelling army. No state is ever allowed to succeed from the union based on any disagreement with the federal government. If there was ambiguity before the Civil War, there was none after. If a state is not allowed to succeed, I don't think any inividual or group of individuals would be allowed to do so.

Frankly Jefferson's statement is fairly off the wall, and while it makes a nice T-shirt, it really has no relevancy. Jefferson was not the most practical of fore fathers.

BTW, I don't want to seem that I'm against protest. One is free to protest one's government any time. But what Peter fails to understand is that collaboration with an enemy is beyond the pale.

Several points:
1) Rebellion is making war against the country. It is treason in and of itself.
2) If Jefferson was an oddball, then the founding fathers were refuges from a lunatic asylum. He was one of the most practical.
3) The right of rebellion is part of the fundamental law of the US. The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that the Declaration of Indepen\dence was carried over under the Constitution, and the DoI clearly staes that the people have the right to rebel.

I will refrain from ad hominems, even though you didn't.

[Virgil]

Several points:
1) Rebellion is making war against the country. It is treason in and of itself.
2) If Jefferson was an oddball, then the founding fathers were refuges from a lunatic asylum. He was one of the most practical.
3) The right of rebellion is part of the fundamental law of the US. The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that the Declaration of Indepen\dence was carried over under the Constitution, and the DoI clearly staes that the people have the right to rebel.

I will refrain from ad hominems, even though you didn't.

The right of rebellion is the fundemetnal right of the US? Tell that to Robet E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. Do me a favor, why don't you go out with a pistol to Ft Knox outside of Louville, Kt. and start firing at the front gate. I'll be glad to read about it in the paper to see how far you got. And if by some miracle you live, I then assume you will be free from jail after a trial due to this Constitutional right that you claim? Hahaha. Are you F'n serious? Did you not read that Washinton had two people hanged in the Whiskey rebellion?

What ad hominuem attacks? Point to them. You said that what I feel about Jane Fonda was a reflection on me. I proudly feel that way. I returned that your minimizing of the Vietnam war (you claim it wasn't even a war, yet 57,00 Americans were killed) was a reflection on you. Are you proud of that?

[Jean-Baptiste]

Jefferson is the odd ball here. I doubt almost any other fore father would have said that or agreed to that.

Jefferson was one of the only ones to remain true to the cause. He believed in the ideals of liberty that they fought for in the Revolution, even after victory and power was secured. The rest of them seem to have caved in to the decadence of power, and wanted nothing more than to rule.

Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death.
--Samuel Adams

That's a nice justification for his own actions, but totally contrary to the original ideal. What has it got to do with liberty? Nothing.

Yes, Jefferson was the oddball--and I laud him above all the rest for exactly that reason. It is because of Jefferson that this is "The Land of the Free".

[PeterL]

The right of rebellion is the fundemetnal right of the US? Tell that to Robet E. Lee and Jefferson Davis.

Lincoln's War did more damage to the rights of the people than any other person in the history of the country. This would be a better country if someone had nailed him five years earlier.

What ad hominuem attacks? Point to them. You said that what I feel about Jane Fonda was a reflection on me. I proudly feel that way. I returned that your minimizing of the Vietnam war (you claim it wasn't even a war, yet 57,00 Americans were killed) was a reflection on you. Are you proud of that?

No, I am not. 57,000 lives were wasted, but not by Jane Fonda or any anti-war protesters. Those lives were wasted by politicians. Congress did not pass a declaration of war against the Viet Cong or against North Vietnam.

[Virgil]

If you people are actually going to support the rebelling south in the Civil war, that's enough for me. You're out of it.

Lincoln's War did more damage to the rights of the people than any other person in the history of the country. This would be a better country if someone had nailed him five years earlier.

This could only be out of the mind of a sick person.