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.
Originally Posted by trice After he resigned from Congress in early 1861, Davis hung around Washington, reputedly hoping he would be indicted for Treason so he could argue his position in court. I have never been able to comprehend why he thought that way, since I have never seen any reference to anything he did up to that time that I thought would meet the Constitutional definition of Treason.
When he went home to Mississippi, Davis made many inflamatory speeches along the way. He was then appointed commander of the state Militia, and shocked the Governor by urging him to prepare for immediate war with the Federal government. Perhaps something there might meet the definition.
He was then appointed President of the new Confederacy. Actions he took after assuming office in Montgomery clearly do meet that standard for Treason (such as ordering the attack on Ft. Sumter or the internment of the Federal troops peacefully withdrawing from Texas under an agreement with that state.)
By Spring of 1861, Davis is in Richmond, and for the rest of the war leads the effort against the US. There are many clear violations here that would count as Treason. Other than this, Davis made a few trips and was in Georgia and Tennessee during the war, but probably well over 90% of all his Confederate activities took place in Virginia.
So, for choices of venue, those would be it. I remember hearing once that part of the reason the Federal government was reluctant to proceed with the case against Davis after the war was that the jury would be selected in Virginia, and seemed likely to be a volatile issue. Given the background, it would seem to me that any randomly selected jury in Virginia in 1865-66 would have contained many ex-Confederates who would be unwilling to convict. It also seems likely to me that pressures might be exerted on the families and friends of jury members in such a situation.
Faced with this, I believe the Feds simply chose to avoid the whole mess. The chances for a bad trial, with all sorts of charges of unfairness by both sides and what would probably have been an early example of jury nullification, seem high to me. I also suspect that, if they could have moved the trial to someplace more convenient (i.e., pro-Union) like Massachusetts they would have been more willing to go ahead with it.
Personally, I have no doubt that Davis committed acts that would qualify as Treason under the Constitution. His only defense against them would be a claim that there was a "right of secession" and he was no longer a US citizen once Mississippi seceded -- which of course was a dubious legal claim. Given the high stakes and the small benefits from a trial, it is not surprising that the Federal government chose to let Davis languish in jail instead.
Tim
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
This is a balderdash lie.
No, that's just a fairly accurate description of events. If it is not, you would simply show us where it was wrong -- but since it is true, you can't.
But then you know that it is already. You're just posting this nonsense because you cannot admit the facts to yourself, I suppose.
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.
It wasn't even funny the first time, but we get it, REALLY, we do.
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
No, that's just a fairly accurate description of events. If it is not, you would simply show us where it was wrong -- but since it is true, you can't.
But then you know that it is already. You're just posting this nonsense because you cannot admit the facts to yourself, I suppose.
Tim
Nope, its a biased factually inacurate rant at best and an intentional lie at worst.
Simply looking at the US law of treason shows that your rant is basless and full of slander., you could also read why the 3 trial adcocates expalined to the Governemmnt why they each resigned from the case, as it was unwinnable because no treason could be shown to have occured, then read why the US AG who then was given the task beceasue no one lelse would take it, admitted it was an unwinnbale posistion and lastly read why Davis was not brought to trail and instead freed without bail, all boreing legal stuff, but shows that he committed no treason, and all knew it, and you have no idea of that period of US history.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
...but shows that he committed no treason, and all knew it, and you have no idea of that period of US history.
So the plea bargain was alive and well some 150 years ago. Can't win cleanly, so let it go. No gain. No loss.
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
Nope, its a biased factually inacurate rant at best and an intentional lie at worst.
Simply looking at the US law of treason shows that your rant is basless and full of slander., you could also read why the 3 trial adcocates expalined to the Governemmnt why they each resigned from the case, as it was unwinnable because no treason could be shown to have occured, then read why the US AG who then was given the task beceasue no one lelse would take it, admitted it was an unwinnbale posistion and lastly read why Davis was not brought to trail and instead freed without bail, all boreing legal stuff, but shows that he committed no treason, and all knew it, and you have no idea of that period of US history.
From the US Constitution:
=====
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
=====
The US law on this is notoriously difficult to gain a conviction on, probably one of the most difficult in the world. Given the political situation and the venue, it is not surprising that the government did not wish to pursue this -- but if it had, we would hear constantly from people like you that it was an example of the outrageous spirit of vengeance in the North.
But -- proof in a court of law aside -- no one can honestly say that the acts of Jefferson Davis did not meet this definition of Treason. Certainly he was "levying war against them". Certainly he was "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort".
All that leaves is the question of whether or not he was a citizen of the United States when he did it. That is, essentially, what the Civil War was about, whether or not those states had left the Union. The Union victory told us that the de facto answer was no. Later court cases and constitutional amendments say that the law regarded them as never having left. That means Davis was a US citizen when he led the war as President of the Confederacy -- which clearly means he was guilty of Treason under the US Constitution.
Proving it in a court of law, of course, is another matter. A jury of Virginians might well have engaged in some "jury nullification", as the jury in the O. J. case may have done. Judges, being human beings, can come to some strange decisions. There just was no real good reason to proceed with a trial, and so the Federal government did not do it.
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 the plea bargain was alive and well some 150 years ago. Can't win cleanly, so let it go. No gain. No loss.
ole
Nope, therer was no plea bargain, please read up the matter and get back to me, Davis demanded a trail and refused pardon, repetidly and refused any and all bargains, he wanted and demanded a trial, and till his death never acepted he had commited treason and wanted a trail to demonstate that.
His last words, "Tell them, tell the world, i only loved "America"
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
[quote=trice;86919]From the US Constitution:
=====
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
=====
[quote]
Proves my point, since he as a citizen of a state no longer in the Union, is no longer subject to its laws, unlike the AWI in which subjects of the crown were hung for treason, regardless, see USSC rullings of states haveing first claim of citizens loalty.
Quote:
The US law on this is notoriously difficult to gain a conviction on, probably one of the most difficult in the world. Given the political situation and the venue, it is not surprising that the government did not wish to pursue this -- but if it had, we would hear constantly from people like you that it was an example of the outrageous spirit of vengeance in the North.
the governemt went out of its way to prosecute, it was only the 3 resegnations of those prosecuting that delayed the trial as long as it did, and the complet legtal opinion that any conviction was imposible eventually forced the governent to drop its actions, so please try and keep your comments on what actually occured arther than flights of fancy of your own invention.
Sadly for your last sentence, if the trial had occured, and Davis won hands down and the Governemnt show to have waged ilegal war, i would simply claim thats how the system is supposed to work, when governments charge persons with "being in league with and at the urging of the devil" you know the governemnts case is one of political vindictvness and not one based in or on law.
Quote:
But -- proof in a court of law aside -- no one can honestly say that the acts of Jefferson Davis did not meet this definition of Treason. Certainly he was "levying war against them". Certainly he was "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort".
Actually the US AG tasked with prosectution, the 3 trial prosecutors and F Lieber and Stanton all said that Davis did not meet the legal definition and advised the case be droped and Davis realesed.
Under your ignorant view a H was commiting treason when he levyingb war and giving aid and comfort, and not wageing war against the US.
Quote:
All that leaves is the question of whether or not he was a citizen of the United States when he did it. That is, essentially, what the Civil War was about, whether or not those states had left the Union.
Since its established fact there was not a single USA citizen utill the legislation post war making them exist came into force, thats again ample proof to demolish your argument.
Quote:
The Union victory told us that the de facto answer was no. Later court cases and constitutional amendments say that the law regarded them as never having left.
Your confused. Only States had citizens, the USA had no citizens at all, it only had ststes who had citizens, this all changed post war, but upto then, only ststes had citizens, regulated by federal and state law in which citizens of one state could move to another and become citizen of other states.
Your reference to USSC is also misleading, as it says nothing, nothing at all about who wasa citizen of a state.
Quote:
That means Davis was a US citizen when he led the war as President of the Confederacy -- which clearly means he was guilty of Treason under the US Constitution.
No, he wasa citizen of Miss, as his Miss passport proclaimed him to be, and he never had a USA passport, because he died before the legislation to make them came after his death.
Since Miss was not in the Union, and Davis was not a USA citizen, no lawyer at the time could come up with a legal argumjent to9 make the facts fit the crime, and you can only do it by inventing a false acount of history.
Quote:
Proving it in a court of law, of course, is another matter. A jury of Virginians might well have engaged in some "jury nullification", as the jury in the O. J. case may have done. Judges, being human beings, can come to some strange decisions. There just was no real good reason to proceed with a trial, and so the Federal government did not do it.
Tim
Nope, the republicans were forced to drop a trial they were told they could not win, by everyone they asked to look at it.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Hanny, when Jeff Davis gave his oath at the Point it wasn't to the State of Mississippi, when he gave his oath as Sec of War; it was not to his home state. The idea that there were no US citizens prior to the CW is ignorant. Ask a Londoner of 1860, or the King for that matter where Iowa was at the time and there would be no comprehension. The Documents that ended the War of 1812 were not to individual states as you well know but to the United States.
Was he guilty of treason? Absolutely, by every bit as much a standard as John Brown. Was he convicted of it? No. Should he have been? That is a whole different thread.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
"Proves my point, since he was a citizen of a state no longer in the Union, is no longer subject to it's laws,..."
Hanny, saying a thing does not mean it is lawful, legal, or even practical. The issue that Davis was no longer a citizen of the Union and that his state was no longer a part of that Union, had to be determined on the field of battle, the one chosen by the actions of the South and Davis.
For four years the idea you state above was contested on that field of battle, and then soundly defeated. Davis was a citizen of a state that belonged to the Union and he was subject to it's laws.
Quote:
"...unlike the AWI (Which I assume you mean the American War for Independence) in which subjects of the crown were hung for treason, regardless, see USSC rulings of states having first claim of citizens loyalty."
Which have nothing to do with the first part of your statement. Davis can claim all he wants in regard to being a citizen of not of a state that may or may not be out of the Union. Until he wins that right on the field of battle, it did not exist.
Just as American Independence did not exist until it was decided on the field of battle.
IMO.
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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
