Replies

Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute.

But the Supreme Court did declare secession as practiced by the southern states unconstitutional in 1869? Didn't Mr. Benson do any research in this?

"Didn't Mr. Benson do any research in this?"

I can't read Mr. Benson's mind but I would assume that he considered it irrelevent. Mr. Benson was concerned with what was the case in 1860 and up to the time of Davis' release in 1867. The 1869 decision had no relevence to that. The 1869 opinion on secession merely provided a convenient way for the Chase court to protect a favoured moneyed interest. It has no relevence to the larger question of the right of secession.

Must have been an activist court!

The only reason to relive any of this is to educate and enlighten. I find that most opinions from both North and South are formed by osmossis--from the "feel" or "climate"
gleaned from snippets of reading, Hollywood's depictions,
conversations, etc.

While Jeff Davis is much maligned in many circles, he was considered a moderate of his day and his highest passion was reserved for his belief in states-rights. His last speech on the floor of the US Senate, as Sen. from Mississippi, concerned states rights and he received a standing ovation. Both No. and So. had a firm belief in states rights, which has been obliterated by so much fed. govt. control.

A real irony is that Davis was Secretary of War seven years before the War and completely updated the Union Army with the latest guns and equipment. Also, he did not seek to lead the South. His West Point and soldier's background, together with his exp. as Sec. of War and Senator made him about the only possible choice for the South and leading it was a pretty thankless task in many ways.

vaudine

"But the Supreme Court did declare secession as practiced by the southern states unconstitutional in 1869?"

The self-righteous Supreme Court also ruled women have a right to "terminate unwanted fetuses", meaning nothing less than murder of the unborn. There ARE wrong rulings handed down from the SC and like they say, "possession is 90 percent ownership", so it is in determining the legality of a particular action where no precedence has been set. All rulings by our courts, absent of precedence, are indicative of the justices' attitudes (ie. their personal beliefs) on an issue and help determine and shape how they interpret the WRITTEN LAW. Do you believe they (the SC injustices) would have ruled the same had the outcome of the WoNA been a little different and the North were defeated?

I believe not....

Of course he didn't, he is a home schooler ideologue. They like the D.S.s cherry pick their quotations and often use those in direct contradiction of what was maintained by the authors.

"Fair and Balanced" is an unacceptable concept for the ideologues.

"But the Supreme Court did declare secession as practiced by the southern states unconstitutional in 1869?"

So? As I've said many times before, to which you have never responded, what relevance does a decision by a court created by and of Unionists have other than as a final act of supression? The Supreme Court isn't unfailing. As proof, see how just yesterday they approved state sanctioned racism by allowing Michigan to select students based on their color. Many of the news analysis wrongly said that the Civil War had settled this issue. Of course we know that the War of Northern Agression wasn't fought to end slavery (or racial discrimination).

But the Supreme Court did declare secession as practiced by the southern states unconstitutional in 1869? Didn't Mr. Benson do any research in this?

A supreme court ruling issued by the north after the fact has no meaning.