Treatment of the Davis Slaves

[unionblue]

I was talking about Southern States. Before 1861 Federal money came mostly from tariff's and such. Property tax and such was paid to their state.

Don't see how this impacts Davis not being a citizen of the US certainly not after he has served as a former Secretary of War and a US Senator.

We are getting far off topic of this thread. PM me if you want to start a new thread or continue comments.

 

[DanSBHawk]

As they obviously understood due process and right to a fair trial, even if you don't. We certainly don't have US Civil trials with Russians, British and French judges, so Nuremberg would seem irrelevant to US trials..........again if your arguing Lincoln and Johnson were criminal, or were Chase, Evarts, or Dana Jr were in their actions or opinions provide it........though I have seen nothing that suggests they were, or that they were not qualified. and indeed it was their responsibility to make the decisions.

That you disagree in favor of what ifs, not does mean they were wrong, or the course they took wàs wrong. It certainly does not make any of your what ifs put forth true.

The simple reality is there were qualified men, both political and legal on hand, more then familiar with existing interpretations and moods, and whose role it was to decide how best to proceed legally, and how to best proceed politically. And they in fact did.
All this smoke and mirrors doesn't change that at all. So I indeed note the historical reality, and see little evidence for a reason to second guess their decision.......

Instead I agree with them proceeding had risks of negative effects either if they won or lost......and tangible benefits from if successful seem non-existent.

The simple reality is that they intended to try Davis for Treason and they fumbled it. Johnson wanted to make Treason odious, the 37 confederate leaders were indicted, and the public wanted justice. At least the loyal public wanted justice.

So my opinion has nothing to do with 'what ifs.' My opinion is that the fumbled prosecution was a shameful failure of justice.

Which is why Jefferson Davis will always be considered a traitor, regardless of the fumbled failure to prosecute him.

 

[archieclement]

No, there is no basis for "they fumbled it all" as you haven't shown them unqualified or incompetent at all, nor that their actions were improper or criminal at all.......if anything you have simply demonstrated they were actually more aware, and considered more things then you do. Which is indeed a victory for jurisprudence, as justice isn't simply blindly filing charges at all. The state and prosecution indeed has and should exercise jurisprudence through legal discretion

When you state they could have won, or that it would have been the right course........those are indeed what ifs.....because the actual qualified authorities at the time obviously disagreed, and one cant predict a course that never occurred with any certainty at all.........because its simply an alternate history fantasy of yours....would say rather obviously your "Which is why Jefferson Davis will always be considered a traitor" is also merely your personal opinion, as have seen quite a few statues, sites and memorials to the man, which would suggest its hardly some universal view.

 

[DanSBHawk]

No, there is no basis for "they fumbled it all" as you haven't shown them unqualified or incompetent at all, nor that their actions were improper or criminal at all.......if anything you have simply demonstrated they were actually more aware, and considered more things then you do. Which is indeed a victory for jurisprudence, as justice isn't simply blindly filing charges at all. The state and prosecution indeed has and should exercise jurisprudence through legal discretion

When you state they could have won, or that it would have been the right course........those are indeed what ifs.....because the actual qualified authorities at the time obviously disagreed, and one cant predict a course that never occurred with any certainty at all.........because its simply an alternate history fantasy of yours....would say rather obviously your "Which is why Jefferson Davis will always be considered a traitor" is also merely your personal opinion, as have seen quite a few statues, sites and memorials to the man, which would suggest its hardly some universal view.

Yes, of course there is a basis for calling it a fumbled failure to prosecute. Read the book I recommended.

The opinion that Davis was a Traitor is obviously growing more mainstream and common with each new generation that wasn't brainwashed with the Lost Cause. See current events.

 

[archieclement]

Again you have provided nothing that nothing was actually done wrong at all, your repeated attempts at some book sales doesn't change that. And noted the author you keep mentioning as some authority of law or legal opinions, doesn't come from a legal background at all.

Again the people who made the decision were more then qualified to make it. And had the actual responsibility to make it.

 

[unionblue]

Again you have provided nothing that nothing was actually done wrong at all, your repeated attempts at some book sales doesn't change that. And noted the author you keep mentioning as some authority of law or legal opinions, doesn't from a legal background at all.

Again the people who made the decision were more then qualified to make it. And had the actual responsibility to make it.

And were wrong in making it.

 

[archieclement]

And I will continue to note that Treason is against the law. Others can make excuses for it as they wish.

Another red herring, as no one I am aware of has said treason is not against the law.

That does not change at all the authorities did not think they could actually get a conviction for treason.

Neither is noting actual historical reality making "excuses", yet another herring.

Your insistence on fantasy what ifs instead of actual history has surely been noted though.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Another red herring as no one I am aware of has said treason is not against the law.

That does not change at all the authorities did not think they could actually get a conviction for treason.

Neither is noting actual historical reality making "excuses", another herring.

Your insistence on fantasy what ifs instead of actual history has surely been noted though.

The failure to prosecute was due to human error. Not because the indicted were innocent. Davis and the other confederate leaders were surely traitors.

 

[archieclement]

And were wrong in making it.

Again I have asked repeatedly what is the basis?

Are you argueing they were somehow unqualified to make the decision?

Are you argueing something was criminal or improper in procedure?

The reality is the state and prosecution has the right, and I would say duty to exercise legal discretion in weighing the risks and probable outcome of whether to proceed. Have seen nothing advanced that the relevant and qualified authorities at the time did not advance the best legal opinions they had.

If you wish to throw out unfounded opinion is up to you......but we indeed can ask for a actual foundation other then some fuzzy personal opinion of right or wrong. Like what law, theory, or procedure of our legal or political system did not work as it was actually intended.

If your simply advancing some "what if theory" I have also asked how exactly would a successful prosecution if they could have won changed anything going forward in a positive way, it would seem there would have been some risk of simply turning him into a marytr. And it would also seem indeed counter to let them up easy and a spirit of forgiveness that originated with Lincoln.

 

[Viper21]

While I personally appreciate the discussion concerning Davis, & whether or not he was guilty/convicted of treason, this thread is devoted to, "Treatment of the Davis Slaves" The last couple pages have been more devoted to the former.

I humbly ask that this thread is put back on track.

By all means, start another thread on Davis to discuss whether or not he was guilty of Treason.

Thanks.

 

[Piedone]

In this context (of Jefferson Davis´s treatment of his enslaved people) I´d like to advance an idea
- to hear if you think it is reasonable:

I wondered if the treatment of slaves changed over time gradually.

With the abolition movement raising up steam and gaining momentum since the 1840s maybe Southerners tried to improve the situation by demonstratively displaying a more patriarchal management of their plantations?
And eventually rising fear of slaves becoming more and more uncontrollable with the influx of abolitionist pamphlets was also an influential factor?

Do we have any evidence that such a gradual shift happened (which could explain, why former slave owners showed so much frustration when "their people" went over to the Union at the first opportunity)?