Here is all I said:

" And unlike Texas, which held mass hangings of civilians who supported the Union, no one except Wirtz was hung by the government after the Civil War. "

I said nothing that in any way says who "deserved" what.

I am however comparing numbers and policy. Other than the one man names, no one was hung by the USA for what they saw in no uncertain terms as rebellion and treason. Rightly or wrongly isn't even a point to be made. The USA could have rounded up every Southern leader and strung them up with only token trials and that would have been that. They did not do so, and that was the point I made in reply to Alan asking if I thought the revolutionary founders "deserved" hanging.

You say men considered traitors to the CSA were hung for defing CSA law, and that the CSA considered them as traitors. Clearly the Texans of the CSA thought hanging was the proper thing to do to anyone whose loyalty is in question in their eyes. Now if the USA had applied the exact same rationale as the Texans did in 1862, how many hanging do you think would have taken place after April 1865?

That was the point and the only point I was making. There were no hangings for anyone after the Civil War, except Wirtz and whether it was justified, politically or legally or morally or whatever yardstick one wishes to use, has no bearing on the fact that the men who lead the South into armed rebellion against their established government faced no repurcussions on the scaffold like the men did in Texas.

I had to mention the hanging Wirtz however or there'd be claims in here that I was ignoring him. So I added his name in for accuracy only, that one person, and one only, was indeed hung.

But it was much more than one in Texas. So I wonder, if the hanging rope was considered appropriate justice in Texas in 1862, why object if the same measure, using the same standards, had been applied to Texans in 1865?

That type of justice was not applied in any measure whatsoever to any CSA rebels against the USA. Attempts are made in the postings here "well they weren't traitors or treasonous, because of this (insert spin here) reason or this (insert more spin here) reason"; and that spinning is all just after the game quarterbacking.

From the point of view governemnt of the USA the men of the CSA were considered traitors, that governemt won, and that governemt could have applied their definition of justice as they saw fit, but didn't.

Did the authorities at Gainsville? Gainsville hung civilians. The USA sent enemy soldiers in arms home to take care of their families after long four years of very bitter and bloody battle.

The Britsh government would have made no such hair splitting distinctions either about why someone took arms against them, they'd simply have hung the rebel leaders. The Mexicans at the Alamo and elsewhere summarily shot and executed every men they saw as rebels in arms against them. Did they say to the Texans, "well since you have declared your selves independent from Mexico I guess that means you really are not traitors to the Mexican government? The Germans shot the French partisans who they saw as treasonous to their illegitamate puppet government in Paris. Rome lined their highways with crucified rebels by the thousands. Did any of these governments bother asking about the philosphy of government held by the partisans who defiied their authority and about their views on the rights of man?