The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers

[JoeB131]

They tried to. They went through various lawyers trying to take on the case. But after these lawyers studied up on the case, they resigned from it. The case was a loser for the North. Below quotes from (When In The Course Of Human Events, Charles Adams, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000)

"A year passed after the withdrawal of John J. Clifford. Another special counsel was appointed to handle the case, the famous author and lawyer Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the great novel 'Two Years before the Mast'. But he too decided the case was a loser. He wrote a lengthy brief, given to the president, taking Clifford's position. Dana argued that a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled ...as a rule of law by war.

"Thus as Dana observed, the right to secede from the Union had not been settled by civilized means but by military power and the destruction of much life and property in the South. The North should accept its uncivilized victory, however dirty its hands might be, and not expose the fruits of its carnage to scrutiny by a peaceful court of law. President Johnson then appointed a new attorney general but he wanted no part of the case and left it to the staff already working on it." p.(186)

President Johnson tried to pardon Jeff Davis to avoid the trial. Davis refused the pardon. He wanted a trial. He wanted his day in court.

To make Davis a traitor, as the North claimed, secession must be proved to be illegal and unconstitutional. They knew they couldn't do it. The idea of their military victory not being supported by law, was too much for them to take a chance on.

Thus, through another dog and pony show, by Chase, head of the Supreme Court, they just opened the cell door and told Jeff Davis to go away. The most hated man in the North was set free.

The only other thing they could do, as they did with many before, was just by military mob rule, drag him out of prison and just hang him. But, Lincoln was dead, courts, which he trampled on, were back in session. The rule of Law was back. The Constitution was back.

The North was the traitor.

Quantrill

You are living in your own bizarre little world.

The reason why they didn't try the Southern Traitors is that after Lincoln died, Johnson wanted to change as little as humanly possible.

 

[Quantrill]

You are living in your own bizarre little world.

The reason why they didn't try the Southern Traitors is that after Lincoln died, Johnson wanted to change as little as humanly possible.

And you're full of shit.

No, I showed you in post #(280) that the Yankees own lawyers didn't want the loser case. it was then everyone was trying to figure out what to do to avoid the embarrassment of Davis being found not guilty.

At the beginning, however, Johnson wanted Davis case to be a test case for 'treason'. Quotes below come from (Secession On Trial, Cynthia Nicoletti, Cambridge University Press, 2017)

"If the plan to charge Davis with war crimes looked shaky, what remained certain was the Johnson administration's ability to make out a prima facie case against Davis for treason. p. ( 37)

"By the late summer and fall of 1865, after having met with his cabinet, President Johnson had committed to the task of trying Davis for treason. As he told a group of South Carolinians gathered at the White House to petition on behalf of the jailed Confederates, he considered a test case to establish the illegality of secession necessary. To affirm its authority and legitimacy, the United States would have to prove its case off the battlefield." p. (37)

"Looking at the government as we do, Johnson asserted, the laws violated and an attempt made at the life of the nation, there should be a vindication of the government and the constitution." p.(37)

"When the cabinet consulted on the Davis matter on August 22, Speed announced that he had retained two well-known lawyers from outside his office to direct the treason prosecution: William M. Evarts of New York City, and John H. Clifford of New Bedford, Massachusetts, with Evarts taking the lead." p. (38)

"With this decision, the two lead attorneys for the Davis prosecution and defense (William Evarts and Charles O'Conor) were in place. In the course of the next three and a half years, Davis fate would depend on their ability to outmaneuver one another in the complicated legal and political tangle over the decision to try Davis for treason and thus test the war's resolution of the secession question." p.(38)

And Davis trial did just that. They let him go. The secession question was proved and solid. It was legal and Constitutional. The South was not traitor. The North was.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

So, you really can't read at all, huh?

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/#:~:text=Primary%20Holding.%20States%20do%20not%20have%20the,War%20always%20remained%20part%20of%20the%20nation.

Texas v. White: A Landmark Supreme Court Case on State Sovereignty

Explore the historical significance of Texas v. White, a pivotal Supreme Court case that addressed the status of Texas post-secession and the legality of Reconstruction governments in the South.

www.tshaonline.org

Texas v. White (1869) | Center for the Study of Federalism

The case of Texas v. White (1869) is particularly important because in it the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, gave its judgment on the large issue...

federalism.org

^^^^^

 

[JoeB131]

And Davis trial did just that. They let him go. The secession question was proved and solid. It was legal and Constitutional. The South was not traitor. The North was.

Davis was never put on trial.

He should have been.

Just have your jury made up of the 12 guys who lost arms and legs in the war.

Done.

 

[Quantrill]

Davis was never put on trial.

He should have been.

Just have your jury made up of the 12 guys who lost arms and legs in the war.

Done.

What a revelation, dumbass with a history degree. That is the whole point. Davis couldn't be put on trial because it would find the North guilty...not Jeff Davis.

You made statements and I have proved you wrong. Now you just give your stupid ass opinion, with nothing to support. As I said, you are full of shit.

You are proof that you and others like you live on a lie. And you aint got the balls to admit it. You must just keep perpetuating that lie.

What a country. Based on a lie. Continually teaching the lie. And America just blindly follows as that is what they want to believe, and so accepts the lie.

The damnyankees were the traitors to America. The South was fighting for the Constitution and America. When the South lost, America lost.

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

What a revelation, dumbass with a history degree. That is the whole point. Davis couldn't be put on trial because it would find the North guilty...not Jeff Davis.

You do get that's not how trials work, right? When someone is acquitted of a crime, it doesn't mean they find the state or anyone else "guilty".

Davis led a rebellion against the United States Government. There was no doubt he did it. The only question is, would a jury have found him guilty?

I think they would have, but Johnson didn't want to relitigate the Civil War at that point. Everyone in the country just wanted to put it behind them, as often happens with wars.

 

[Quantrill]

You do get that's not how trials work, right? When someone is acquitted of a crime, it doesn't mean they find the state or anyone else "guilty".

Davis led a rebellion against the United States Government. There was no doubt he did it. The only question is, would a jury have found him guilty?

I think they would have, but Johnson didn't want to relitigate the Civil War at that point. Everyone in the country just wanted to put it behind them, as often happens with wars.

What you think is 'shit'. You have nothing to support 'what you think'.

I showed you what was really going on, and you 'think' shit.

Bottom line, you don't know shit about what was going on and for some reason think your claim having a 'history degree' means something. You have proven it dosen't mean shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Feed the monkey watch him shit. That is you.

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

What you think is 'shit'. You have nothing to support 'what you think'.

I showed you what was really going on, and you 'think' shit.

Bottom line, you don't know shit about what was going on and for some reason think your claim having a 'history degree' means something. You have proven it dosen't mean shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Feed the monkey watch him shit. That is you.

Guy, you avoided my point, didn't you.

Acquitting Davis would not have found the North "guilty". That's not how trials work.

Johnson didn't prosecute Davis or any other Confederate traitor because he was sympathetic to them. He pardoned most of them (which shouldn't have happened) and fought Reconstruction every step of the way until they impeached his ass.

Probably to a lot of people, prosecuting Davis after he had already been defeated, lost his position, his prestige, and his fortune seemed... redundant.

Which is a shame because there should have been accountability.

 

[Quantrill]

Guy, you avoided my point, didn't you.

Acquitting Davis would not have found the North "guilty". That's not how trials work.

Johnson didn't prosecute Davis or any other Confederate traitor because he was sympathetic to them. He pardoned most of them (which shouldn't have happened) and fought Reconstruction every step of the way until they impeached his ass.

Probably to a lot of people, prosecuting Davis after he had already been defeated, lost his position, his prestige, and his fortune seemed... redundant.

Which is a shame because there should have been accountability.

Your point is just your empty words. I showed you what President Johnson said. You just give me your worthless opinion...what you think. Go back and read post #(280) and (282).

What you think proves nothing. You must have got a B.S. degree in history. B.S. meaning bullshit.

Johnson wanted a test trial to prove secession was illegal. He and his lawyers couldn't prove it based upon the Constitution. Thus they had to eat shit, and tuck their tail and try and figure out what to do with Davis. The only thing they could do was let him go. Don't put him on trial. Because if he went to trial their guilt would be displayed before all the world.

Oh yes, there was accountability. The damnyankees proved they were liars and cowards and guilty of that war and murder. You are your father's sons. Cowards and liars still.

The North was traitor. How does it feel...traitor?

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

So, you really can't read at all, huh?

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/#:~:text=Primary%20Holding.%20States%20do%20not%20have%20the,War%20always%20remained%20part%20of%20the%20nation.

Texas v. White: A Landmark Supreme Court Case on State Sovereignty

Explore the historical significance of Texas v. White, a pivotal Supreme Court case that addressed the status of Texas post-secession and the legality of Reconstruction governments in the South.

www.tshaonline.org

Texas v. White (1869) | Center for the Study of Federalism

The case of Texas v. White (1869) is particularly important because in it the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, gave its judgment on the large issue...

federalism.org

^^^^^^

 

[JoeB131]

Your point is just your empty words. I showed you what President Johnson said.

Hey, I've got a big shocker for you. Politicians lie.

Johnson wanted a test trial to prove secession was illegal. He and his lawyers couldn't prove it based upon the Constitution.

Sure they could have. Easily.

They just didn't want to because they wanted the whole thing to go away and pretend it didn't happen.

 

[Quantrill]

Hey, I've got a big shocker for you. Politicians lie.


Sure they could have. Easily.

They just didn't want to because they wanted the whole thing to go away and pretend it didn't happen.

Your full of shit.

I guess you got a law degree also to go along with your B.S. in history.

Every lawyer who would take the case, later would decline once they began preparing for it. It was a loser from the beginning.

Read again post #(280).

If you think they would have let Jeff Davis free when there was any chance of convicting, your a bigger fool than I thought. And by the statements of their own lawyers, they were going to lose.

I guess the lawyers were lying too...right?

The only liar here is you.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

^^^^^^

Secession was not argued before the Supreme Court in Texas vs White.

"And so the momentous constitutional question that had animated the Civil War was never actually argued before the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Chase's pronouncement on secession was perfunctory." (Secession On Trial, Cynthia Nicoletti, Cambridge University Press, 2017, p. 316)

'Perfunctory'...action or gesture carried out with minimum effort or reflection.

A simple statement made by Chase is not arguing secession before the Supreme Court.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

So, you really can't read at all, huh?

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/#:~:text=Primary%20Holding.%20States%20do%20not%20have%20the,War%20always%20remained%20part%20of%20the%20nation.

Texas v. White: A Landmark Supreme Court Case on State Sovereignty

Explore the historical significance of Texas v. White, a pivotal Supreme Court case that addressed the status of Texas post-secession and the legality of Reconstruction governments in the South.

www.tshaonline.org

Texas v. White (1869) | Center for the Study of Federalism

The case of Texas v. White (1869) is particularly important because in it the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, gave its judgment on the large issue...

federalism.org

^^^^^^^

 

[Unkotare]

"Texas v. White is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on April 12, 1869, that determined that Texas had remained a state from the time it entered the Union and throughout the Civil War because the Constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States. The Supreme Court declared all ordinances of secession and all acts of the legislatures aimed at secession null, according to the Constitution."

Texas v. White

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[Quantrill]

"Texas v. White is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on April 12, 1869, that determined that Texas had remained a state from the time it entered the Union and throughout the Civil War because the Constitution does not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States. The Supreme Court declared all ordinances of secession and all acts of the legislatures aimed at secession null, according to the Constitution."

Texas v. White

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

There was no Supreme Court ruling on the legality and Constitutionality of secession.

Quantrill

 

[Unkotare]

So, you really can't read at all, huh?

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/#:~:text=Primary%20Holding.%20States%20do%20not%20have%20the,War%20always%20remained%20part%20of%20the%20nation.

Texas v. White: A Landmark Supreme Court Case on State Sovereignty

Explore the historical significance of Texas v. White, a pivotal Supreme Court case that addressed the status of Texas post-secession and the legality of Reconstruction governments in the South.

www.tshaonline.org

Texas v. White (1869) | Center for the Study of Federalism

The case of Texas v. White (1869) is particularly important because in it the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, gave its judgment on the large issue...

federalism.org

^^^^^^^^

 

[Quantrill]

^^^^^^^^

Secession was never argued before the Supreme Court. There was never any Supreme Court ruling on secession.

Texas vs White was not a ruling on secession.

Where was secession argued before the Supreme Court?

Quantrill

 

[JoeB131]

If you think they would have let Jeff Davis free when there was any chance of convicting, your a bigger fool than I thought. And by the statements of their own lawyers, they were going to lose.

I guess the lawyers were lying too...right?

Or just not terribly committed.

Again, jury of guys who lost arms and legs in the Union Army.

Done.

 

[Unkotare]

So, you really can't read at all, huh?

"Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), is a landmark Supreme Court case ruling that the U.S. Constitution created an "indestructible Union" and states cannot unilaterally secede. The Court decided that secession was illegal, Texas remained a state during the Civil War, and its Confederate-era actions were invalid."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/#:~:text=Primary%20Holding.%20States%20do%20not%20have%20the,War%20always%20remained%20part%20of%20the%20nation.

Texas v. White: A Landmark Supreme Court Case on State Sovereignty

Explore the historical significance of Texas v. White, a pivotal Supreme Court case that addressed the status of Texas post-secession and the legality of Reconstruction governments in the South.

www.tshaonline.org

Texas v. White (1869) | Center for the Study of Federalism

The case of Texas v. White (1869) is particularly important because in it the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, gave its judgment on the large issue...

federalism.org

^^^^^^^^^^