Nolu chan? Nolu interested.
If you insist. However, it is somewhat of a mystery why you addressed the above only to TexConfederate1861. It is not clear if your heart is really in it.
The simplest refutation of your nonsense is the impossibility of establishing the requisite elements of proof for the charge.
The most obvious impossibility appears to be mens rea or proof of a guilty mind. For a criminal prosecution it would be insufficient to show that Chief Justice Chase considered secession unlawful. It would have been required to show that Jefferson Davis did not believe secession to be lawful. If you think you can make an offer of proof that Jefferson Davis did not believe secession to be lawful, have at it.
For treason you also need two witnesses to the same overt act of levying war. Please identify the specific act and name your two witnesses who were going to testify.
A prime witness (Sanford Conover, alias Charles A. Dunham), for the prosecution in the trial before the military tribunal had been tried, convicted, sentenced, and was serving ten years in the Federal penitentiary at Albany -- for perjury.
For his part, from the bench Chief Justice Chase ruled for the indictment to be quashed.
Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events, 2000,
[185-6] Shortly after Bledsoe's book came out in 1866, the attorney general decidedto bring in outside, independent counsel to try Davis (as in the Watergate case more than a century later). They needed someone of great stature to stand up to the lawyers defending Davis. They chose as their leading trial prosecutor John J. Clifford. But after reviewing the case, Clifford withdrew, arguing that he had "grave doubts" about the case and that the government could "end up having fought a successful war, only to have it declared unlawful by a Virginia jury." The case was, in short, a loser with disastrous consequences for the cause of the war against the South.[186] President Johnson thought of an easy way out. He would parton Davis as he had pardoned so many other Confederates. But Davis refused a pardon: "To ask for a pardon would be a confession of guilt."
* * *
[186] A year passed after the withdrawal of John J. Clifford. Another special counsel was appointed to handle the case, the famous author and lawyer Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the great novel Two Years Before the Mast. But he too decided the case was a loser. He wrote a lengthy brief, given to the president, taking Clifford's position. Dana argued that "a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled ... as a rule of law by war."
Varina Davis, Jefferson Davis, A Memoir, 1890, Vol 2, pp. 791-4
[791] On December 3, 1867, Robert Ould, counsel for Mr. Davis, argued that the fourteenth amendment punished Mr. Davis by disfranchisement, and this punishment was chosen by the voice of the American people as a merciful substitute for the penantoes of death and confiscation contained in the constitution of the United States; that the punishment of Mr. Davis commenced upon the date of the adoption of the fourteenth article, and he therefore could not now be punished in any other way; that the latest expression of the will of the people, in their Constitution, was the law, and repealed all former provision made for those who engaged in rebellion; that the fourteenth article was that latest expression, intended expressly for and covering the cases of all engaged in the late rebellion; and that no man could be punished twice for the same offence.[791] R.H. Dana, Esq., counsel for the United States, said that Mr. Ould's proposition was, in the nature of things, entirely new, and was unexpected to the Government counsel, and he expected also to the court.
[791-2] Chief Justice Chase said the argument of counsel was not unexpected to the court, it haveing supposed, after the announcement of this motion to quash, that it was based on the fourteenth article, that this line of argument would be pursued.
[792] Time was given the government counsel to confer, and the Court took a recess at noon.
[792] After reassembling, Governor H.H. Wells and Disrict Attorney Beach for the Government, replied, contending that the fourteenth amendment merely created a disability, and not a penalty, which is the subject of judicial sentence, and was not inconsistent with the act against treason. The amendment was permanent and prospective, and could not be reasonably construed to repeal existing punishments for past and future treasons. The Court then adjourned. Dana closes tomorrow for the Government, and O'Conor for Mr. Davis.
* * *
[794] After hearing the argument the Court stood: For quashing the indictment, Chief Justice Chase; against it, John C. Underwood. The division was certified to the Supreme court, that the question may be considered and decided by it.
[page 800-2] In the autumn of 1867 Mr. O'Conor, after incessant efforts, aided by men of all parties succeeded in getting a time appointed for the decision of Mr. Davis's case, either for trial or a nolle prosequi, but both would have preferred the former as a test question. As winter drew on Mr. Davis was summoned to Richmond, but the nolle prosequi was filed.
[N-S] Nolu chan? Nolu interested.
Tex, this is another good example of Non-Sequitur's moral arrogance. Here nolu chan has been bringing in source documents until hell won't have it to back up his opinions (remember that "your opinion" sneer N-S directed to me at least twice in the last 100 posts?), and "Nolu interested" is the response.
N-S, buddy, I'm going to make a hobby out of busting your chops on this stuff. If nc brings in a pile of testimony supporting his contention that A did to B but not C, then either have the good grace to stipulate to it, or offer a demurrer -- but don't patronize and belittle us with this "you're just spamming"/<yawn> stuff. (Capitan does that, too.)
The reason nolu chan posts it twice is that you repeatedly ignore the evidence he adduces and just tell him his posts don't count.
You don't play by different rules, poster. Just telling people they don't have an argument and just waving them off is BS.
</flame off>