The funny thing here is that the Capitol Insurrection last January is such a textbook example of sedition that it's silly to argue that it wasn't an attempt to overthrow the government. You could take a person from 2500 years ago, plop them on the National Mall last January 6 with no cultural context, and they would be able to tell you with certainty that some people were trying to overthrow the government that day.
Source: Insurrections Ancient and Modern
They'd also think our temple to the founder deity Lincoln was pretty cool, but would wonder where the sacrificial fire pit was.
The plan was ultimately very simple: Delay Congressional certification of the vote past the deadline by occupying the civic buildings, which would force the election into the House of Representatives. Because that election gets one vote per state, the majority would vote for Trump, and he would quasi-legally seize power as our new tyrant.
Just a reminder that the siege of Fort Sumter began months before Abraham Lincoln assumed office. South Carolina seceded in December 1860.
Back on the OP question, there is no real sense of a country betraying its citizens being a crime, though much of our thought about revolutions is that a state requires the consent of the governed. But the right of revolution is more of a thing that can be exercised collectively. Rather than talking about individual cases as betrayal, it is usually considered to be injustice: something to be remedied by the courts.
A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry Wrote:No ancient Greek would have had any trouble in understanding what happened on the 6th or that it was a serious attempt (albeit an incompetent one) to seize power. Having a leader or a political faction move with a mob (often armed, but not always so) to try to disperse the normal civic assemblies of a Greek polis and occupy their normal meeting place was a standard maneuver to try to seize power during stasis. As Dr. Roel Konijnendijk, an ancient Greek history specialist, noted in this excellent discussion on the r/AskHistorians reddit (where he posts as Iphikrates), “In the Greek world, most attempts to seize power by force tended to take the same form: the seditious party would contrive an opportunity to gather in arms while their opponents were unarmed and off-guard, and seize control of all public spaces.”
Source: Insurrections Ancient and Modern
They'd also think our temple to the founder deity Lincoln was pretty cool, but would wonder where the sacrificial fire pit was.
The plan was ultimately very simple: Delay Congressional certification of the vote past the deadline by occupying the civic buildings, which would force the election into the House of Representatives. Because that election gets one vote per state, the majority would vote for Trump, and he would quasi-legally seize power as our new tyrant.
Black Aeronaut Wrote:Lincoln made clear he would do nothing more than enforcing control over federally reserved areas only as he was well aware was the legal limit of his own powers, thus placing the ball in the seceded states court to make their secession legal insurrection against the government, a ball they picked up via Fort Sumter.
Just a reminder that the siege of Fort Sumter began months before Abraham Lincoln assumed office. South Carolina seceded in December 1860.
Back on the OP question, there is no real sense of a country betraying its citizens being a crime, though much of our thought about revolutions is that a state requires the consent of the governed. But the right of revolution is more of a thing that can be exercised collectively. Rather than talking about individual cases as betrayal, it is usually considered to be injustice: something to be remedied by the courts.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto