US vs. Jefferson Davis

Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I've already said it has nothing to do with agreeing with me, or validating my opinion. You seem to be projecting your own reasons for preferring a civil trial in the south. You would prefer a kangaroo court with confederate-sympathizing jurors, that would guarantee a not-guilty verdict.

It's about finding an impartial process to determine justice.

"Communities in the jurisdiction in question." Confederate treason was against the entire nation, not against any small group of communities.
The only reason I project a reason for a trial in the south is because it's what US law actually called for.

When we follow US civil law isn't a pick and choose to fit ones personal desire for a certain verdict at all........so no I don't advocate abandoning our judicial values simply because a jurisdiction in question may not share your personal legal interpretation.

As I said its folly for anyone to assume what a jury never convened would have ruled. That the prosecution had doubts enough about getting a conviction, to not proceed is prosecutoral discretion and part of our legal system.

The only one wanting a kangaroo court is you, as you seem unwilling to accept any jury that might not agree with you, and somehow imply they not agreeing with you is a kangaroo court. To actually have a fair trial by necessity includes the possibility of them being able to reach more then one verdict.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
The only reason I project a reason for a trial in the south is because it's what US law actually called for.

When we follow US civil law isn't a pick and choose to fit ones personal desire for a certain verdict at all........so no I don't advocate abandoning our judicial values simply because a jurisdiction in question may not share your personal legal interpretation.

As I said its folly for anyone to assume what a jury never convened would have ruled. That the prosecution had doubts enough about getting a conviction, to not proceed is prosecutoral discretion and part of our legal system.

The only one wanting a kangaroo court is you, as you seem unwilling to accept any jury that might not agree with you, and somehow imply they not agreeing with you is a kangaroo court. To actually have a fair trial by necessity includes the possibility of them being able to reach more then one verdict.
Give it a rest. I've already seen how you pick and choose defending judicial laws and procedures as convenient to your own bias.

Every single mob lynching is an extra-judicial, illegal, kangaroo court. Your notion of justice is based on your own personal prejudices, so you defend vigilante justice in one thread and then endorse strict adherence to the letter of the law in another thread. As convenient. All it shows is that you want some people convicted without due process, and other people to avoid conviction regardless of their guilt.

That doesn't show any regard for Justice. In fact, it shows a complete disregard for Justice.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Give it a rest. I've already seen how you pick and choose defending judicial laws and procedures as convenient to your own bias.

Every single mob lynching is an extra-judicial, illegal, kangaroo court. Your notion of justice is based on your own personal prejudices, so you defend vigilante justice in one thread and then endorse strict adherence to the letter of the law in another thread. As convenient. All it shows is that you want some people convicted without due process, and other people to avoid conviction regardless of their guilt.

That doesn't show any regard for Justice. In fact, it shows a complete disregard for Justice.
You need to give your false innuendo a rest as I have never advocated vigilante justice other then when no other possibility of justice was provided.

I certainly recognize it has existed throughout history, and the United States has always rather had an affinity for it, from the code duelo to frontier justice it has been rather common in our history.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
You need to give your false innuendo a rest as I have never advocated vigilante justice other then when no other possibility of justice was provided.
That is a completely false and fictional condition. There are always ways to pursue justice within the system.

That is just an excuse to arbitrarily abandon the justice system. As Convenient.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
That is a completely false and fictional condition. There are always ways to pursue justice within the system.

That is just an excuse to arbitrarily abandon the justice system. As Convenient.
No not at all, certainly during the ACW for example, the United States who was supposed to enforce the law and protect its citizens, instead at times protected the perpetrator's.

There was times in western and frontier history where the supposed authorities were themselves corrupt as well.

When the law itself becomes partisan, the only non partisan justice will be indeed extra legal out of necessity.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
No not at all, certainly during the ACW for example, the United States who was supposed to enforce the law and protect its citizens, instead at times protected the perpetrator's.

When the law itself becomes partisan, the only non partisan justice will be indeed extra legal out of necessity.
I agree that the US failed to prosecute the perpetrators of treason.

By your logic, mobs would have been justified in seizing confederate leaders and lynching them.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
After Davis's defense lawyer got done I'm sure he would be found not guilty. But to answer your question the Reconstruction program would have protected them, would it not?
And I am not as confident as you in the verdict, as I said, what if he had gotten a fair trial by unbiased jurors, I wonder what would have happened to them if they had rendered another verdict?
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I agree that the US failed to prosecute the perpetrators of treason.

By your logic, mobs would have been justified in seizing confederate leaders and lynching them.
No not at all, it's apparently just your own logic, as I have never made any such suggestion at all, only you have.

I have simply advocated following existing civil law and due process which is what those of the time indeed did.

Your the one wishing we had apparently abandoned our legal principles for some kangaroo court. I have no problem that we instead followed our actual legal system and values, as it has and continues to serve us well.
 
Last edited:
Top