What is really interesting is that none of the confederate officers [or politicians] was charged with Treason.
Why is this?
I posit that it is because the Constitutional definition is as follows:
Art 3, Section. 3.Which, when combined with Art 1, Sec 10, Para 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 Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.— places the north's aggression as treasonous as well as gives the States legal grounds for saying
we were defending ourselves from invasion.
Moreover, the Federal Government's claim (that the Confederate states could not secede) means that by that logic the aggression against the Confederate states was indeed Treason. (IOW, the federal argument is self-defeating: in order to be legitimate it has to grant the power to secede, which it does not.) — In short, to take up any CW Treason case was to lose. Period.
Not sure what your point is. It belays the fact that the President of the Confederacy directed Confederate forces to open fire on a Federal Fort. Had ships of the Royal Navy fired on Ft. Sumter, war would have been declared. Japanese bombs drop on Pearl Harbor, war is the result. Fire rockets into Israel and you get a war for your efforts. SOP in the real world. Not a single seceded state made an claim of Constitutional authority to secede. Not one chapter, line or verse from the Constitution was cited in the Ordnances of secession to justify their actions. Finding “Constitutional Authority” to explain secession is, in my opinion, an ex post facto attempt to justify the unjustifiable.