Republicans must learn how to read a dictionary: "I" is for insurrection

Echo opinion to the editor of the Los Angeles Times:

I possess a copy of Noah Webster’s 1828* dictionary of American English, one of the few dictionaries available when the 14th Amendment [adopted in 1868] was written. 

It defines “insurrection” clearly, accurately, and authentically, as it was meant at the time (Maine Writer- IMO I believe the definition is what it is1):

“A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. Insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.”

The last sentence is important. It shows that the scope of insurrection is very broad. It includes insurrection itself, sedition or rebellion.

The lawyers on both sides of the argument over whether the 14th Amendment bars the former president Trump from appearing on the ballot appear to be making up what they want “insurrection” to mean, whereas this dictionary clearly, accurately and authentically states its meaning at the time.

Let’s please insist that the lawyers adhere to the authentic and broad definition.

Wayne Howe in Irvine, California

*Read the actual page with the definition at this site here.