Replies

Treason? ... I don't remember that anyone was prosecuted for treason following the war, for supporting State secession.

That's because you're correct. A few radicals tried charging Davis and Lee, but Johnson threw out the charges. But there's more...

Article III.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.

Seems like more than a few people were concerned about proving who was "levying War against" whom in a court of law, including most justices. Here's a fun read, with some things I hadn't realized about the Pope at the time (but then again, where does the Pope have any moral authority over the likes of Bubba and rockrr?)

The sad truth (as pointed out in the link above) is it was a war between TWO SLAVE-OWNING NATIONS, yet these Bubs & co. won't stop insisting the war was fought to end slavery. Even U.S. Grant said he'd have dropped his sword and fought for the other side if he thought that was the cause.

So then the rockrr's of the world change their tune and say it was over secession. Yet there was no legal precedent to support such a claim, as there was STILL no legal precedent after the war to win a few "slam-dunk" treason convictions. Only after a newly packed court threw out a case to justify the legality, then made it's TX ruling (link has some fun reading on that farce) to oppose it year after the war, was there any court involvement. 80 years of justices rightfully didn't touch the issue as it wasn't their domain to interfere.

Now Bubs and rockrr just they throw their hands in the air at the "LCers" and say that morally speaking, the ends justified the means. Yet even the Pope disagreed.

You know, there are waaaays to tell if she's a witch...

...these Bubs & co. won't stop insisting the war was fought to end slavery.

As I noted in my post #405:

The constitutionality of State secession is the critical issue... Which is no doubt why some of the Union's more vociferous supporters here spend so much time focusing on slavery...

It is a shame that, even after repeated requests, our friend BHT refuses to tell us whether or not he agrees with Mr. Madison's comments at the conclusion of Federalist No. 43, or the rationale adopted by the majority in Texas v. White. Strangely enough, he seems to be quite sensitive, when it comes to certain historical facts.

(And our friend rockrr just hasn't seemed the same since Non-Sequitur left. N-S tended to look after him, and I think he's at a bit of a loss now, which may be why he tags along after BHT... ;>)