[x]

Davis would have had to have been tried in the South. In Richmond (or maybe Montgomery). It could have been hard to find a fair jury or guarantee the trial court’s safety, so the government decided not to bother.

[Kevmo]

Then that’s the statement right there. If the guvmint is extended too far to bother... that’s where freedom lives.

[SeeSharp]

Davis would have had to have been tried in the South. In Richmond (or maybe Montgomery). It could have been hard to find a fair jury or guarantee the trial court’s safety, so the government decided not to bother.

Seriously? With the Grand Army of the Republicans occupying the entire South they were afraid they couldn't protect a court?

So... according to you Davis committed Treason, launched a devastating war, was responsible for the death of the better part of a million people; but they didn't put him on trial for logistical reasons?

And what makes you so sure they would they have tried Davis in the South anyway? They tried Henry Wirz in Washington. They didn't let the Constitution stand in the way of that.

Legal scholars at the time successfully argued that the government might lose on the merits. Most people understood secession to be legal before the war.

[DiogenesLamp]

That, and Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase told Federal prosecutors that if they tried Davis, they would "lose in court everything they had won on the battlefield."

He also said "Secession is not treason."