That's true.
I wasn't suggesting he spoke for the Confederate government. Just suggesting that some southerners of note did view at one point or another the nation as being one entity and Americans as being fellow countrymen, whatever their constitutional views.
The legal authority of the South never surrendered.
Not as such, no. The only real surrenders conducted were by field commanders. In fact, this was the way Lincoln and Johnson wanted it, since they never recognized the Confederate government as a legitimate authority they could treat with.
However: Davis did show a willingness to offer something approximating surrender when he agreed to the Sherman-Johnston agreement on April 22, 1865. That agreement was repudiated by Washington almost immediately, and it was more generous than the surrender which did take place, and Davis was never really happy about it, but the fact remains he did , with the full support of his cabinet, sign off on an agreement which would have disbanded his government and formally returned the southern states to the union.
Secretary of War John C. Breckinridge and Secretary of State Judah Benjamin were the only Confederate cabinet members which managed to stay at liberty after the war, and both called for reconciliation from exile abroad when they were under no duress to do so. Breckinridge was in fact scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the national centennial celebration in 1876 - which is about as enthusiastic an indicator of his basic patriotism at that point as I can imagine - but he died shortly before.
The legality of the South's Independence was a issue that was never tested in the Courts.
Technically, I suppose that's true.
One of the reasons Pres. Davis was never tried was they were not sure they could get a conviction. It seems the Court back then could read the Constitution and gave a da## what it said.
I can't disagree.
US officials soon came to realize that the Constitution did not define what Davis and his fellow officials had done as " treason." They had not attempted to verthrow the US government, and furthermore that a trial of Davis would undermine Reconstruction efforts. On Dec. 8 1868, the chief justice of the United States dismissed the treason indictments altogether, and that any further trial would be a violation of the ex post fact statute.
And while 19th century justices weren't immune from pernicious constitutional jurisprudence, I would certainly agree that they were a darn sight better on the whole than what we have today.
The legality of the southern acts of secession was an issue before the Supreme Court in Texas v White in 1869. The court ruled those acts illegal.
One of the reasons Pres. Davis was never tried was they were not sure they could get a conviction. It seems the Court back then could read the Constitution and gave a da## what it said.
On the contrary, Davis was never brought to trial because Chief Justice Chase made clear his belief that to convict and punish Davis and the other confederate leaders would violate their Fifth Amendment rights since the 14th Amendment had already punished them for their participation in the rebellion.
I understand it is a popular debate topic in law schools as to the legality of the state of West Virginia.
I hadn't heard that. Perhaps you could point out some more information on that?
In Texas v White (1866), the US Supreme Court held that secession was unconstitutional and the actions of the insurgent governments were invalid.