Not a Conventional CSA-wins Thread

[robertp6165]

What would have been gained by the Federal Government in putting him on trial? If they won they gained nothing, if they lost they would have lost face.

That is certainly why they didn't arrest him and put him on trial in 1861. And a loss in 1861 would not simply mean they would have "lost face." It would have put some severe legal impediments to the Lincoln Administration taking any kind of military action against secession. If secession is proved legal, then legally, the Federal government could not declare it a "rebellion" and raise an army to suppress it.

As for why they would want to put him on trial after the war, the answer to that is simple. Revenge. The government wanted to put him on trial for treason and hang him as a traitor. They didn't do it because they were told by Chief Justice Chase that if they did put him on trial, they would most likely lose...proving that the government had no legal right to engage in war against the Southern States. This would have been, for obvious reasons, very embarrassing for the government, so they released Davis rather than put him on trial.

I also think the North would have won the court after the war if for no other reason the Supreme Court Justices had no desire to be lynched by angry mobs of Union Army veterans.

Well, the Chief Justice didn't think so. I guess I'll take his opinion over yours.

 

[robertp6165]

As far as I know, the only periods where New England had really bitter feelings against other sections of the country was at the time of the war of 1812, and during the period leading up to and during the Civil War.

Actually, New England also opposed and threatened secession over the Louisiana Purchase, which the South and West favored.

The feelings of New Englanders in the period leading up to and during the War of 1812 are very understandable. Basically, you had two southern presidents (Jefferson and Madison) who had pursued policies like the Embargo Act (attempting to shut down all US foreign trade) and the war of 1812 itself (again crippling ocean commerce) that seemed intended to destroy the economy of New England.

That is certainly true. I don't deny that they felt they had legitimate reasons for what they did during the War of 1812. Be that as it may, it still remains a prime example of New England threatening secession and disagreeing with other sections of the country (the South and West were both very pro-war).

 

[robertp6165]

Is this a post from some sort of alternate timeline? Just because a justice hailos from the south Does not mean he is going to vote automatically for secession.

Granted. But Beck Reilly's initial post was arguing that secession would have been voted down in the Supreme Court because there were more Northern justices on the court. I was simply responding to that argument.

And this right of secession was universally held, do explain the whole civil war thing.

I didn't say it was "universally" held as valid. I said it was "generally" held as valid...which is not the same thing. The war occurred because it so happened that one of those who did not hold the right to be valid happened to be the President of the United States...one A. Lincoln.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Well, the Chief Justice didn't think so. I guess I'll take his opinion over yours.

The court ruled the point was moot not that the South was correct. If the justices would have ruled for the South they would have faced lynch mobs and they knew it. I doubt all the justices were suicidal.

 

[robertp6165]

The court ruled the point was moot not that the South was correct. If the justices would have ruled for the South they would have faced lynch mobs and they knew it. I doubt all the justices were suicidal.

I am not referring to the court decision in White vs. Texas, to which you are referring. I am referring to why Jefferson Davis was not tried in 1865. And it is a historical fact that this is because Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, when approached by the Attorney General in preparation for such a trial, advised the government that such a trial would put the issue of secession on the table, and that Davis would almost certain win acquittal because it could not be proven that secession was illegal. So in the opinion of the Chief Justice of the United States at that time...who was a Lincoln appointee...the government had no case. THAT is why the case was dropped.

 

[Brilliantlight]

I am not referring to the court decision in White vs. Texas, to which you are referring. I am referring to why Jefferson Davis was not tried in 1865. And it is a historical fact that this is because Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, when approached by the Attorney General in preparation for such a trial, advised the government that such a trial would put the issue of secession on the table, and that Davis would almost certain win acquittal because it could not be proven that secession was illegal. So in the opinion of the Chief Justice of the United States at that time...who was a Lincoln appointee...the government had no case. THAT is why the case was dropped.

I don't think the Chief Jusitce would want to admit that like it or not he would have been swayed by thousands of Union soldiers calling for his blood if he didn't find in favor of the government.

 

[robertp6165]

I don't think the Chief Jusitce would want to admit that like it or not he would have been swayed by thousands of Union soldiers calling for his blood if he didn't find in favor of the government.

Hmmm, I wonder what I should go with...historical fact, or what Brilliantlight chooses to believe? I think I will stay with historical fact...Chase did tell the government not to try Davis, for the reasons I have cited. Sorry if that doesn't fit comfortably into your belief system, but I guess we can't have everything.

 

[Admiral Matt]

I might add that you display a disturbing lack of faith in the Supreme Court.

 

[Brilliantlight]

I might add that you display a disturbing lack of faith in the Supreme Court.

I don't believe that 1)the Supreme Court is made up of idiots who don't know anything about contemperary politics. A Supreme Court decision in favor of the south in 1865 would have sent many heavily armed and seasoned Union soldiers screaming for their blood. 2) the Supreme court is largely up of suicidal people.

 

[zoomar]

There is nothing which would require the Supreme Court to hear arguments regarding the constitutoinality of secession, is there? It seems to me that if a case was brought forward by southern sympathesizers on the behalf of South Carolina after its secession, the Supreme Court of the US is unlikely to vote to hear it. If the case came before them before secession on behalf of the State of South Carolina, they might, but again I wonder if they would automatically vote as their regional affiliations would suggest. Finally, if the South did seceed and if the Supreme Court determined it was legal, there would still be no reason the United States of America could not declare war on them as sovereign states anyway. Lincoln's main focus was in preserving the Union. I suspect somewhere Lincoln could find a causus belli in a boundary dispute or southern claim on a piece of federal propetry or something to justify a war with at least as much justification as the Mexican War. I also think France and Britain would want to wait and see which way the wind was really going to blow before recognizing the Confederacy. Such a War may be less likely to be sucessful - especially if the Confederacy has the same early sucess as it did in OTL - but it may well be fought and it might be fought to the same basic conclusion.