Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Charged with high treason, tried and....a freakin' mistrial and no retrial so Davis lives to write his memoirs. I cannot believe that a jury of Northerners would do anything but convict the SOB!
Freddy,
The trial had to be held in Virginia. Residents of Virginia seem to be the ones who had to make up the jury.
This depiction of the trial is not historicaly accurate on many levels. The idea that Underwood, the judge, could be impartial in the trial of Jefferson Davis is a bit ludicrous, as Underwood was the judge pushing hard for Jefferson to be tried for treason in the first place.
It's a bit of fiction, geared for entertainment, nothing more, just as Beowulf's "trial" would be.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Just for the sake of discussion, what if it could be held in the state of West Virginia?
-
sam,
I got no idea on the why or why not. I just took it to mean, you hold the trial in a particular state, that's who's going to be on your jury.
Maybe one of our legal minds on the board could expand on it.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I got no idea on the why or why not. I just took it to mean, you hold the trial in a particular state, that's who's going to be on your jury.
Maybe one of our legal minds on the board could expand on it.
Unionblue
Generally, a trial has to be held in the place where the alleged crime occurred. This is called venue. There can be a change of venue to another city if it is impossible for the defendant to get a fair trial because of publicity, but I believe that only the defendant and not the government can request a change of venue. (I admit to not being an expert on criminal venue).
Since Davis' alleged acts of treason would have taken place in Richmond, that is where the trial would have to take place. It could not take place in West Virginia which by then would have been a separate judicial district.
I suppose an argument could have been made for having the trial in Washington, D.C., but Virginia was really the proper place for trail unless it was in Montgomery, Alabama. More acts would have taken place in Richmond, however, than Montgomery.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
As it would be a federal crime, wouldn't any Federal District have qualified?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Generally, a trial has to be held in the place where the alleged crime occurred. This is called venue. There can be a change of venue to another city if it is impossible for the defendant to get a fair trial because of publicity, but I believe that only the defendant and not the government can request a change of venue. (I admit to not being an expert on criminal venue).
Since Davis' alleged acts of treason would have taken place in Richmond, that is where the trial would have to take place. It could not take place in West Virginia which by then would have been a separate judicial district.
I suppose an argument could have been made for having the trial in Washington, D.C., but Virginia was really the proper place for trail unless it was in Montgomery, Alabama. More acts would have taken place in Richmond, however, than Montgomery.
Your Honor;
You can rule, I believe, on where you'd like it held, if I am not mistaken. I think there is a procedure that judges do when they decide to take a case, and if the defense has a problem with either the judge or the venue, I can ask for either the judge to recuse himself, or for a change of venue... I will ask for neither, in this case.
(However, the trial IS ACTUALLY being held here, in Limbo, so it doesn't matter!).
BTW, your honor, are we doing the 'period' trial of Davis, or are we going to do a present day trial as if Davis were still with us to answer? I ask because of the case law we will be bringing in...
If this is a period trial, what is the cut off date for case law? (Up to 1889, of course, when he died!).
If this is a modern trial with a resurrected Davis, then any case law would be fine...
As it would be a federal crime, wouldn't any Federal District have qualified?
ole
No. Even for federal courts, there are venue statutes. The action must be tried in a court in which all or part of the action occurred. So if they had tried Jefferson Davis for treason, the trial would have to be held in one of the Federal District Courts where he allegedly committed one or more treasonous acts.
That would generally mean Virginia although it would probably cover most of the Eastern Confederacy - anywhere where he incited rebellion or took acts in furtherance of his treason.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
The trial had to be held in Virginia. Residents of Virginia seem to be the ones who had to make up the jury.
This depiction of the trial is not historicaly accurate on many levels. The idea that Underwood, the judge, could be impartial in the trial of Jefferson Davis is a bit ludicrous, as Underwood was the judge pushing hard for Jefferson to be tried for treason in the first place.
It's a bit of fiction, geared for entertainment, nothing more, just as Beowulf's "trial" would be.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Yes, I know the trial was fictional, but I did not look to see where it supposedly would take place. Virginia seems to be correct as Burr's treason trial was in Richmond, VA as the indictments claim his treasonous conspiracy took place in Virginia.
__________________ "Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana.
As it would be a federal crime, wouldn't any Federal District have qualified?
ole
A grand jury in Norfolk, VA handed down an indictment for Treason against Davis in June of 1865. A grand jury in Washington, DC brought another one in later in the year.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
So where are we here? In what court and what jurisdiction could Davis be tried, if he was tried. Good points, eveyone, but we have no resolution.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
