oh, forgot to comment on If This Be Treason, which was really quite good, except on reflection it doesn't actually tackle the subtitle's suggestion of whether the events (one per chapter) are a debate about whether they're treason or not, falling back on the legal fact that treason is a specifically defined crime at the Constitutional level in the United States, so only really explores real notions of it in the post-Revolution times, and starts to more or less just describe historical events that are actually more about times when people were charged with sedition during war or something like that.
the subjects it covers are: George Logan of Logan Act fame (like treason, a not really used law in the US); the Alien and Sedition Acts period when the Adams Administration and Federalists used it against newspaper publishers; the Hartford Convention; Nicholas Trist taking advantage of slow communication times to avoid being recalled and give Mexico a more lenient treaty after the Mexican War; William Walker's career as a Latin American Filibuster/Mercenary; Clement Vallandigham not knowing when to stop trolling people who are ignoring Constitutional protections, primarily Burnside; the House's refusal to seat Socialist Victor Berger and his experience with Sedition and Espionage Act of the Wilson Administration; John Reed (of Ten Days That Shook The World fame) having similar experience with those acts, but mostly his time working for the Soviet Union's early days; The Chicago Tribune's exposure of U.S. European War Plans the week before Pearl Harbor; Prosecution of Communists under the Smith Act; Nixon's backchannel diplomacy during the 1968 election; Iran-Contra.
It actually starts to fall apart thematically, as I think you can probably see from the subjects of each chapter, as it becomes less "debatable" instances and obvious instances of the government attacking left-wing minorities, and even the debate to be had about the Tribune, Nixon and Iran-Contra is totally muted by in the first-two cases noting strong suspicion among historians that FDR was the Tribune's source, that Nixon's move was irrelevant especially since LBJ already knew and Humphrey refused to publicize it anyway, and in the latter case it doesn't even create a question about whether "treason" was occurring since it was the executive making foreign policy it supported and not with enemies (at the time) anyway.
There's also arguably much better instances to use, such as say, David Addington's career. Especially in the wake of 9/11. It not once considers say, the Confederates actually doing what the Hartford Convention rejected and starting a war in the process. It doesn't touch on people like Aaron Burr or Tokyo Rose who probably far more "came close to the line" or any spies or people like the Rosenbergs than someone like Victor Berger who was never more than a politician let alone any of the newspaper examples. Edward Snowden is mentioned in the introduction and conclusion but his actual case is never considered, and he's had modern day members of Congress and executive branch officials call him a traitor and talk about how he should be hanged. None of the American al Qaeda/Taliban/etc. are considered. John Kerry's entire life is ignored.
Even the case of John Reed isn't an instance of him coming close to treason or disloyalty, it's arguably not even "worse" than Americans who went to fight in WWI as individuals, and he was barely even hounded by the U.S. government. (Arguably, his buddies and idols, the Soviets treated him worse. The U.S. mostly dicked with his paperwork.) The Finns beat the shit out of him in prison and gave him scurvy, and he died in a Soviet hospital because the doctors identified his blatant symptoms of typhus as a mild case of the flu, despite the city being in the middle of a typhus outbreak.
William Walker waging private wars all over Latin America wasn't even aiding American enemies, in many cases as outlined in the chapter itself he was unofficially carrying out what would later be a common function of U.S. foreign policy and with the strong support of U.S. popular opinion, government officials, Congress, etc. It's more that he crossed the British, oh, and failed a lot. That's what eventually led the U.S. to try and put the kibosh on his adventures. (They failed even more than Walker did. Hondurans captured him, used three firing squads on him and then shot him in the head just to be sure.)
Still an interesting set of historical vignettes, especially if one is unfamiliar with them. As I was not I'm probably being extra harsh, especially considering some of the better examples I thought of above. Most of the selections just don't really fit really what the book seems like it's going to be about. Especially the title.
