Immediate consequences of Jon's betrayal of the NW

[three-eyed monkey]

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That isn't the same as defending themselves. It has naught to do with the internal wars of the realms. The watch takes no part does not mean the watch cannot defend themselves from domestic enemies. 

Jon is being accused of sending Mance to steal the Lord of Winterfell's bride. Jon agreed to send Mance to find Arya, who he thought was a girl on a horse fleeing from a wedding. The next he hears of this is the pink letter, where "Ramsay" accuses Jon of sending Mance and spearwives to steal his bride. Tormund says it might be a lie, but Jon replies - no, there is some truth here - and then thinks to himself - Ramsay knows about Mance.
 

Quote

 

"Might be all a skin o' lies." Tormund scratched under his beard. "If I had me a nice goose quill and a pot o' maester's ink, I could write down that me member was long and thick as me arm, wouldn't make it so."

"He has Lightbringer. He talks of heads upon the walls of Winterfell. He knows about the spearwives and their number." He knows about Mance Rayder. "No. There is truth in there."

 

Note that Jon thinks but does not say, He knows about Mance.

So Jon knows this is not an unprovoked threat from Ramsay because, according to the letter, Ramsay has proof in the form of captured Mance that Jon acted against him.

Self-defence is justified, but it is hard to claim self-defence if you are the one who initiated the conflict.

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Nor is that what makes Jon announce his decision to march on WF. He gives his reasons & it isn't to avenge Stannis or oppose Ramsay other than opposition to the threat to the NW itself.

Quote

"The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. "It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter. This creature who makes cloaks from the skins of women has sworn to cut my heart out, and I mean to make him answer for those words … but I will not ask my brothers to forswear their vows.

My point is Jon says it is not for the Watch to avenge Stannis or oppose Ramsay. The reason Jon gives is that he is going to make Ramsay answer for his words and he will not ask his brothers to come with him, as that would constitute forswearing their vows.

18 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

He cannot comply with the demands. First & foremost he doesn't have fArya or Then to return to Ramsay, but secondly & most importantly, IMO, handing over people to Ramsay would be meddling in the matters of the realm. The NW is not Ramsay's personal army & Jon is not obligated to collect the people Ramsay is angry with & deliver them to him. 

The letter is purposefully constructed so that Jon can't comply. The person who really wrote the letter has Theon and fArya and knows Jon cannot comply. But that's a separate issue.

As to your second point. You are ignoring that Jon was the one who gave Mel and Mance the green light. He sent Ed to get the women Mance needed for his ploy.

19 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, he thinks it might but I don't think it does.

Jon's actions are guided by what he thinks, and he thinks he's been caught sending Mance to get Arya.

19 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yes, & his words were a direct threat to the NW. 

Ramsay's threatened to cut Jon's heart out and those are the words Jon says he is going to make Ramsay answer for. But what he is not telling the shield hall is that he was party to Mance's mission to find Arya. It is not an unprovoked threat from Ramsay.

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Well the watch didn't take any part & Ramsay is threatening to attack castle black.

Jon is the Lord Commander of the Watch, therefore part of the Watch. He's being trying to keep his oath, but he is caught between his love for Arya and his duty. This is his internal conflict. This is the day, as Aemon said, when it is not so easy to be honorable and do your duty. The day every man must choose.

The men of the Watch had no sons but they had mothers and fathers and sisters, and when the Andals invaded or dragons invaded and killed their families, they took no part.

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Isn't it smarter, strategically to take the fight to Ramsay, with the wildlings, to answer the threat than to wait for Ramsay to attack, forcing the NW to fight on both fronts? 

Yes it is, and that is what the real author of the pink letter is hoping Jon will do.

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, he definitely wants Stannis to stand against the Bolton's & maybe I'm arguing semantics here but giving advice isn't necessarily against the rules. 

I would argue that advice is taking part. Before the US sent it's troops to Vietnam it had military advisors there. Many people would argue that this was when the US started to take part in Vietnam. I'm not interested in debating the politics or the right and wrong of this situation, I'm just using it as an example.

In Jon's case it's more than advice though.

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree he would like to protect Arya but this isn't something he says or thinks when giving his reasons for marching on WF.

Quote

 

He thought of Arya, her hair as tangled as a bird's nest. I made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell … I want my bride back … I want my bride back … I want my bride back …

"I think we had best change the plan," Jon Snow said.

 

It's not a reason he gives for marching on Winterfell, but it is central to the decision.

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Sure, Cersei's POV is always going to be that. I don't think she is justified in that thinking though.

I agree that Cersei is not justified in thinking Jon is a traitor to the realm, because as readers we know Jon and understand he wants to protect the realm, etc. But it is characters, not readers, who drive the story.

20 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would have loved for Jon to forsake his vows to protect Arya the minute he knew of her situation, but he did not.

He wanted to protect Arya, naturally, but it is his vows that prevented him acting overtly. That's why he tried to do both, keep his vows but at the same time help Stannis defeat the Boltons. And agree to send "Rattleshirt", who he knew was really Mance, to find his sister.

 

[Targaryen Restoration]

Bowen Marsh will have saved the Nightswatch from Jon's poor management but at the cost of his own life.  The wildlings will rebel and do their primitive thing.  The battle for Castle Black will only reduce the number of those who can defend the wall.  

[James Arryn]

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

 

I would argue that advice is taking part. Before the US sent it's troops to Vietnam it had military advisors there. Many people would argue that this was when the US started to take part in Vietnam. I'm not interested in debating the politics or the right and wrong of this situation, I'm just using it as an example.I

 

Not arguing the right or wrong either, but you should know that the battalions of ‘military advisors’ sent to VN before the official deployment of troops were a euphemism, and their day to day actions were little different from the day to day actions of regular troops sent later*, mostly spent going “search and invade” operations looking for “opportunities to engage the enemy”. It should be also noted that the actually approved early deployment was ‘military advisors and special forces’. The latter term is widely understood now but was not so much then, but even then it was often omitted from reporting due to the possible realizations. Again, not arguing right or wrong, merely your usage here.
 

For Jon to do the equivalent would be to send hundreds or thousands of rangers to fight but call them something else. It should be noted that the War in Vietnam was so replete with such euphemisms that it became a running joke; for example it was never officially even called (or declared) a war itself. 

*the slight differences were that there was a higher proportion of time spent ‘training’, but as a former MA says, that mostly involved ‘20 year olds with 1 year of BT instructing 40 year olds who had been fighting for 20 years in how to do what they knew better.’ The other difference was that there was more concentration on the parts of the MAAT and SF to assist Ngo Dihn Diem in preventing the free elections stipulated in the 1954 Geneva Accords that both he and the US were certain would unite VN under a popular communist government. 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?465119-101/day-day-life-military-advisor-south-vietnam

[three-eyed monkey]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Not arguing the right or wrong either, but you should know that the battalions of ‘military advisors’ sent to VN before the official deployment of troops were a euphemism, and their day to day actions were little different from the day to day actions of regular troops sent later*, mostly spent going “search and invade” operations looking for “opportunities to engage the enemy”. It should be also noted that the actually approved early deployment was ‘military advisors and special forces’. The latter term is widely understood now but was not so much then, but even then it was often omitted from reporting due to the possible realizations. Again, not arguing right or wrong, merely your usage here.
 

I would still argue that giving advise to assist another party to achieve their objective is taking part. Not giving advice is not taking part.

Edit:

I should also add that it's not just advice. He shared intelligence when he sent the letter about pending Karstark treachery, and he gave the green light to Mance's mission.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the suggestion that Jon was not taking part. And I don't think Jon buys it either. He's conflicted on the matter, but he progresses towards taking part through Dance.

Quote

The Night's Watch takes no part, Jon thought, but another voice within him said, Words are not swords.

Quote

Jon turned back to Stannis. "Sire, this is a bold stroke, but the risk—" The Night's Watch takes no part. Baratheon or Bolton should be the same to me. "If Roose Bolton should catch you beneath his walls with his main strength, it will be the end for all of you."

Quote

Jon realized that his words were wasted. Stannis would take the Dreadfort or die in the attempt. The Night's Watch takes no part, a voice said, but another replied, Stannis fights for the realm, the ironmen for thralls and plunder. "Your Grace, I know where you might find more men. Give me the wildlings, and I will gladly tell you where and how."

Quote

The Night's Watch took no part in the quarrels of the realm; some would say he had already given Stannis too much help.

Quote

Jon flexed the fingers of his sword hand. The Night's Watch takes no part. He closed his fist and opened it again. What you propose is nothing less than treason.

Quote

"The Night's Watch takes no part in the wars of the Seven Kingdoms," Jon reminded them when some semblance of quiet had returned. "It is not for us to oppose the Bastard of Bolton, to avenge Stannis Baratheon, to defend his widow and his daughter.

 

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

On 4/26/2022 at 5:49 PM, Rondo said:

 

The assassination prevented a sitting Lord Commander from leading a Wildling attack on the Warden of the North.  It washes away the guilt on the Night's Watch for the heinous crime that is about to happen when the Wildings attack the people of Westeros. 

The deterioration of the Order of the Night's Watch began when Lord Commander Jon Snow sent Mance Rayder to carry his sister away from her husband.  This illegal move was the beginning of the end for the ancient Order because it is corruption from the top.  Perhaps the corruption began before when Jon gave preferential treatment to Mance Rayder and gave the criminal something akin to a pardon.  The Wall will Fall because the men of the watch did not stay true to their vows.  And the corruption all began with the Order's lord commander. 

[sifth]

14 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I would still argue that giving advise to assist another party to achieve their objective is taking part. Not giving advice is not taking part.

Edit:

I should also add that it's not just advice. He shared intelligence when he sent the letter about pending Karstark treachery, and he gave the green light to Mance's mission.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the suggestion that Jon was not taking part. And I don't think Jon buys it either. He's conflicted on the matter, but he progresses towards taking part through Dance.

 

Naturally Jon wants Stannis to win. He's the only person helping to defend The Wall. Should he want Ramsay to win, a guy who skins people alive for fun and rapes women?

[SeanF]

3 hours ago, sifth said:

Naturally Jon wants Stannis to win. He's the only person helping to defend The Wall. Should he want Ramsay to win, a guy who skins people alive for fun and rapes women?

That goes straight to the heart of the matter.

”The Nights Watch takes no part” is a way of avoiding moral responsibility.

And bear in mind that Jon’s opponents in the Watch don’t object to backing a side.  They just think that Jon has backed the wrong side.

[The Lord of the Crossing]

On 4/26/2022 at 5:49 PM, Rondo said:

Lord Commander Jon Snow betrayed the NW and dragged the ancient Brotherhood into conflict with Roose Bolton.  The immediate consequence is chaos within Castle Black.  This unrest will spread to the other forts on the wall and will lead to a divided Brotherhood.  While most will agree with Bowen Marsh, there will undoubtedly be some who will disagree with the assassination of their lord commander.  Regardless of how erratic and incompetent Jon was, he was their elected lord commander.  What will happen shortly after Jon takes his last breath:

1. Wun the Giant will be killed but not without trouble.
2. Bowen Marsh will take over as the interim Lord Commander.  He will organize Castle Black but the wildlings will not be placated.
3. I do not think Bowen and the Brother will be able to stop the wildlings from leaving the castle to attack the Boltons.
4. The Weeper and his people will come calling just when the castle is in disorder.

What else?

The timing is the worst possible should the weeper arrive when the watch is in a state of chaos.  We do not really know if that will happen but we know a fight between the crows and the wildlings will take place if Bowen tries to stop them from raiding the Boltons.  The stabbing killed or maimed Jon but what he had started is too late to stop.  Jon should have minded the business of the N/W instead of meddling in the affairs of the Boltons.  Jon ordered Mance to take his sister from the son of Lord Bolton. Do this to any house and it will be taken as an act of war.  

[Darth Sidious]

Patrek either did not think WW would interfere with his courtship or it wasn’t him who started the fight. I say this again. Even a simple knight will not take on a giant in a fight. Something else is going there. 

[Hugorfonics]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

”The Nights Watch takes no part” is a way of avoiding moral responsibility.

Word. But there's a ring of truth in there too, similarly "play agot, win or " 

There's no getting out of thrones. As Thorns Tyrell says, once you in it you in it. 

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

And bear in mind that Jon’s opponents in the Watch don’t object to backing a side.  They just think that Jon has backed the wrong side.

For sure it's not all Jon, the whole realm is acting up. Look at Yoren, a mans job is to get the recruits north. The crowns soldiers disagreed and killed Yoren. 

This wasn't Jons fault. It was the Lannister soldiers, or maybe Yoren?  What should have happened? The nw takes no side, right? Lannister men in the Riverlands working for a Baratheon should have every right to rob the NW for their lunch money. The nw takes no part, "so why are you hitting yourself?"

Slavery is illigal in Westeros, but don't tell the nw that. What is the nw but an enslaved institution to it's sunset masters? If it cant legally take part in politics and can't create defenses from the south then it can't be free.

The crows, like their nest, are slaves too. How else are we to describe men who must toil under the foulest conditions under the threat of death? No, slaves is not harsh enough of a word. They are wights. Mindless souls, draped in the same filth who gladly shes their honor for the longevity of their weeping master. 

If Jon is killing the nw, then I'll be the one smiling at the funeral

[sifth]

Let's also not pretend that the situation with the Bolton's isn't a bit.................unprecedented. Both the Warden of the North and his heir are psychopaths who enjoy skinning people alive for their own sick pleasure and there's no one really keeping either one in line. How exactly are you suppose to stay neutral, when the lord you're dealing with is a crazy person. At the end of the day Ramsay is a bully, same as Joffrey and like all bullies they'll always want something from those they view as lesser than them. So sooner or later Jon or someone at the Watch would have done something to annoy Ramsay and cause a pink letter. Ramsay is not a reasonable person and if you can't reason with someone, it's impossible to have peace with them.

[Son of Man]

The boys will do something with Jon's body.  The widlings will leave to attack the Boltons.  The next immediate thing they do is smooth things over with Ramsay.  A carefully worded letter sent by raven should do the job.  The letter would included a warning of the coming wildlings.  The other leaders of the watch will be told of what happened and a hasty vote will be called.  Bowen Marsh will be elected to replace Jon.  

[three-eyed monkey]

On 5/1/2022 at 5:24 AM, sifth said:

Naturally Jon wants Stannis to win. He's the only person helping to defend The Wall. Should he want Ramsay to win, a guy who skins people alive for fun and rapes women?

Come on now. Do you really think that's the only reason Jon wants Stannis to win? Because Stannis came to the defense of the Wall? Do you think it has nothing to do with Robb, the Red wedding, Arya, etc?

Jon does not like the idea of Stannis giving Winterfell to a Karstark because they abandoned his brother amongst his enemies.

Quote

"A northman." Better a Karstark than a Bolton or a Greyjoy, Jon told himself, but the thought gave him little solace. "The Karstarks abandoned my brother amongst his enemies."

After Stannis defeated Mance he resumed his campaign for the Iron Throne. In fact I would say it's the very reason Stannis came north to defend the Wall, to get himself back into the war for the throne after his defeat on the Blackwater.

On 5/1/2022 at 9:06 AM, SeanF said:

That goes straight to the heart of the matter.

”The Nights Watch takes no part” is a way of avoiding moral responsibility.

I disagree that it's a way of avoiding moral responsibility. The Watch are sworn to defend the realm of men. That realm has changed through the millennia, from the kingdoms of the First Men, through the arrival of the Andals and the dragons, but the Watch have always stuck to their duty to defend the realm and not become involved in the internal wars of the realm. So I would argue, based on what Maester Aemon said, that it is a way of sticking to their duty and staying true to their oaths.
 

Quote

 

"Yet brothers they had, and sisters. Mothers who gave them birth, fathers who gave them names. They came from a hundred quarrelsome kingdoms, and they knew times may change, but men do not. So they pledged as well that the Night's Watch would take no part in the battles of the realms it guarded.

"They kept their pledge. When Aegon slew Black Harren and claimed his kingdom, Harren's brother was Lord Commander on the Wall, with ten thousand swords to hand. He did not march. In the days when the Seven Kingdoms were seven kingdoms, not a generation passed that three or four of them were not at war. The Watch took no part. When the Andals crossed the narrow sea and swept away the kingdoms of the First Men, the sons of the fallen kings held true to their vows and remained at their posts. So it has always been, for years beyond counting. Such is the price of honor.

"A craven can be as brave as any man, when there is nothing to fear. And we all do our duty, when there is no cost to it. How easy it seems then, to walk the path of honor. Yet soon or late in every man's life comes a day when it is not easy, a day when he must choose."

 

That day when it is not so easy, when he must choose, came for Jon as Aemon said it would. When Ned and Robb died Jon was conflicted, sure, but he stayed at the Wall.

On 5/1/2022 at 9:06 AM, SeanF said:

And bear in mind that Jon’s opponents in the Watch don’t object to backing a side.  They just think that Jon has backed the wrong side.

Exactly my point. It's not just Jon but also Bowen and company who have failed to stay true to their sworn purpose. Both parties are choosing sides in the war for the realm. They are picking different sides, Jon choosing Stannis and Bowen choosing Tommen, a conflict that came to a head in Jon XIII, ADwD, when Jon chose to ride against Ramsay and Bowen chose to stop him for fear the Watch would be branded traitors by King Tommen. Therefore, the Watch is no longer true.

Old Nan tells Bran that the Others cannot pass the Wall so long as the men of the Night's Watch stay true. I think she is right, again. So I suspect the "spell" that wards the Wall, which is the Watch oath in my opinion, is now broken and the Others can pass the Wall. As Ned says, a wall is only as good as the men who defend it.

[sifth]

54 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Come on now. Do you really think that's the only reason Jon wants Stannis to win? Because Stannis came to the defense of the Wall? Do you think it has nothing to do with Robb, the Red wedding, Arya, etc?

I mean I'm sure saving his sister from marrying a person who enjoys skinning people alive and rapping weapon for his own amusement, is sort of a bonus as well.

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 4/27/2022 at 8:54 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Wasn't it this way anyway? Jon was trying to mend the bad blood between them, Bowen wanted to continue it. So can we really blame Jon for the discord between them? 

Initially, yes, Jon wanted to build that bridge. Later, he chose to throw all of that away for the sake of his sister. All of that went away when he started to help his sister escape her husband. At least the girl he thought was his sister. What Jon did for Arya undermined everything. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Come on now. Do you really think that's the only reason Jon wants Stannis to win? Because Stannis came to the defense of the Wall? Do you think it has nothing to do with Robb, the Red wedding, Arya, etc?

Jon does not like the idea of Stannis giving Winterfell to a Karstark because they abandoned his brother amongst his enemies.

After Stannis defeated Mance he resumed his campaign for the Iron Throne. In fact I would say it's the very reason Stannis came north to defend the Wall, to get himself back into the war for the throne after his defeat on the Blackwater.

I disagree that it's a way of avoiding moral responsibility. The Watch are sworn to defend the realm of men. That realm has changed through the millennia, from the kingdoms of the First Men, through the arrival of the Andals and the dragons, but the Watch have always stuck to their duty to defend the realm and not become involved in the internal wars of the realm. So I would argue, based on what Maester Aemon said, that it is a way of sticking to their duty and staying true to their oaths.
 

That day when it is not so easy, when he must choose, came for Jon as Aemon said it would. When Ned and Robb died Jon was conflicted, sure, but he stayed at the Wall.

Exactly my point. It's not just Jon but also Bowen and company who have failed to stay true to their sworn purpose. Both parties are choosing sides in the war for the realm. They are picking different sides, Jon choosing Stannis and Bowen choosing Tommen, a conflict that came to a head in Jon XIII, ADwD, when Jon chose to ride against Ramsay and Bowen chose to stop him for fear the Watch would be branded traitors by King Tommen. Therefore, the Watch is no longer true.

Old Nan tells Bran that the Others cannot pass the Wall so long as the men of the Night's Watch stay true. I think she is right, again. So I suspect the "spell" that wards the Wall, which is the Watch oath in my opinion, is now broken and the Others can pass the Wall. As Ned says, a wall is only as good as the men who defend it.

At least this is an acknowledgment that Jon did not stay true to the vows. 
 

I am reading between the lines in the novels. Jon was bitter that the Boltons now hold the North. He deliberately wanted to cause trouble for the Karstarks because they abandoned Robb. However, did he not consider that they did this because Robb killed Lord Karstark?  
 

He sided with Stannis for many reasons. One of which is the friendship between his father and Robert. For another, he wanted the Boltons to go down. 
 

It all comes down to family for Jon. Unlike the other men on the wall, Jon could not become impartial. The other men were successful in leaving behind family allegiances. It’s required for men of all backgrounds to leave those behind in order for the watch to stay true to its purpose. His arc followed the same as Arya’s. Their strong bond to the Stark pack identity kept them from serving their organizations. 

[Tagganaro]

21 hours ago, sifth said:

Let's also not pretend that the situation with the Bolton's isn't a bit.................unprecedented. Both the Warden of the North and his heir are psychopaths who enjoy skinning people alive for their own sick pleasure and there's no one really keeping either one in line. How exactly are you suppose to stay neutral, when the lord you're dealing with is a crazy person. At the end of the day Ramsay is a bully, same as Joffrey and like all bullies they'll always want something from those they view as lesser then them. So sooner or later Jon or someone at the Watch would have done something to annoy Ramsay and cause a pink letter. Ramsay is not a reasonable person and if you can't reason with someone, it's impossible to have peace with them.

This.  Nobody ever talks about this, but just like Cersei was planning to have Jon removed, there is no doubt in my mind the Boltons would eventually make that same effort.  Jon is a loose end, something Roose would not tolerate and somebody Ramsay would be jealous of.  He is a direct threat to Bolton rule of the North.  Jon does make the first move, but I've always read the situation to be one of self-defense.  It's tough/impossible to maintain "neutrality" when the other parties involved are not doing that anyway.  

The Lannisters want to withhold sending recruits to the Watch unless a loyal minion is put in charge, plus Cersei initially planned to have Jon assassinated anyway.  Stannis is using the Wall as a base of operations for his conquest to gain the Iron Throne, not to mention leaving the extremely important potential hostages the Pink Letter ends up asking for anyway at the Wall.  You got Alys Karstark being chased by Cregan forcing Jon to essentially pick a side.  There are possibly other elements of the Grand Northern Conspiracy like Flint and Norrey playing their own games at the Wall.

Overall, there is so much outside scheming and plotting involving the Night's Watch anyway that sitting back and doing nothing isn't really an option.  The NW is going to be forced to pick a side sooner rather than later anyway. 

[James Arryn]

On 5/2/2022 at 5:25 AM, three-eyed monkey said:

Come on now. Do you really think that's the only reason Jon wants Stannis to win? Because Stannis came to the defense of the Wall? Do you think it has nothing to do with Robb, the Red wedding, Arya, etc?

Jon does not like the idea of Stannis giving Winterfell to a Karstark because they abandoned his brother amongst his enemies.

After Stannis defeated Mance he resumed his campaign for the Iron Throne. In fact I would say it's the very reason Stannis came north to defend the Wall, to get himself back into the war for the throne after his defeat on the Blackwater.

I disagree that it's a way of avoiding moral responsibility. The Watch are sworn to defend the realm of men. That realm has changed through the millennia, from the kingdoms of the First Men, through the arrival of the Andals and the dragons, but the Watch have always stuck to their duty to defend the realm and not become involved in the internal wars of the realm. So I would argue, based on what Maester Aemon said, that it is a way of sticking to their duty and staying true to their oaths.
 

That day when it is not so easy, when he must choose, came for Jon as Aemon said it would. When Ned and Robb died Jon was conflicted, sure, but he stayed at the Wall.

Exactly my point. It's not just Jon but also Bowen and company who have failed to stay true to their sworn purpose. Both parties are choosing sides in the war for the realm. They are picking different sides, Jon choosing Stannis and Bowen choosing Tommen, a conflict that came to a head in Jon XIII, ADwD, when Jon chose to ride against Ramsay and Bowen chose to stop him for fear the Watch would be branded traitors by King Tommen. Therefore, the Watch is no longer true.

Old Nan tells Bran that the Others cannot pass the Wall so long as the men of the Night's Watch stay true. I think she is right, again. So I suspect the "spell" that wards the Wall, which is the Watch oath in my opinion, is now broken and the Others can pass the Wall. As Ned says, a wall is only as good as the men who defend it.

As others have said, Jon may well have nursed deep antipathy for those who did his family great harm, but before they directly threatened the NW he did nothing to actively avenge that harm. When the PL gave him the legitimate reason to act in concurrence with same he did, and because the NW and he as it’s commander WERE directly threatened, there is no need to wonder if/how much he relished his secondary motivations. He had already demonstrated that they alone did not move him, and in this case primary ones would have been sufficient to justify his response. 
 

And as Ned’s son and ~ Jon Arryn’s grandson, even there he bends over backwards to try and keep the NW itself as little involved in it’s own defence as possible because he is aware of his secondary motives and the unprecedented nature of the NW addressing a threat from the realm it protects.  

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

21 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Initially, yes, Jon wanted to build that bridge. Later, he chose to throw all of that away for the sake of his sister. All of that went away when he started to help his sister escape her husband. At least the girl he thought was his sister. What Jon did for Arya undermined everything. 

The wildlings could careless if he broke his vows. Marching on WF did nothing to cause discord with the wildlings. 

Secondly, he didn't initiate the plan to rescue fArya, it wasn't his idea, the plan he knew of was to rescue an already fled fArya not to help her escape & he wasn't there. This was Mel's plan & her doings. 

[Moiraine Sedai]

4 hours ago, Lyanna&lt;3Rhaegar said:

The wildlings could careless if he broke his vows. Marching on WF did nothing to cause discord with the wildlings. 

Secondly, he didn't initiate the plan to rescue fArya, it wasn't his idea, the plan he knew of was to rescue an already fled fArya not to help her escape & he wasn't there. This was Mel's plan & her doings. 

Jon’s plan to lead the Wildlings to battle Roose Bolton is illegal. While the Wildlings could care less, the Nights Watch and any law-abiding people would condemn such an act. It is not the purpose of the watch to help Jon fight the Starks’ political enemies.

It doesn’t matter who came up with the idea. Jon is the lord commander. He made the choice. Mel had the idea. Jon made plans and ordered his man to carry out the dirty deed.