Replies

Many of the States in rebellion were not able to resume normal civil functions for some time. It varied from state to state, and I don't have my references with me to look up when Virginia was "reconstructed."

Nonsense. The 13th Amendment was proposed on 31 Jan 1865, it was incorporated into the Constitution when Georgia, the 27th state to ratify, acceded on 6 Dec 1865.

If I am not mistaken, when Davis bailed out in 1867, he left the country for Canada, and then went to Europe. I am not sure if that is consistent with demanding a "speedy trial."

Davis' being bonded out in part by Republican abolutionists (Horace Greely among others) is not indicative of lack of demand for a speedy trial. Several prominent Northern jurists desired to represent Davis, and he had arrangements with the court which gave him 60 days notice whenever his presence was required in court.

But consider these words by Gerrit Smith, noted abolitionist, and one of those bonding Davis:

'My first reason for signing the Bond was that Mr. Davis was entitled either to his trial or to his liberty. That the prisoner should have a speedy trial is a general proposition, which no one combats. There may have been sufficient reasons for unusual delay in trying Mr. Davis: - hardly, however, for a delay of two years. But not even then was there willingness to try him then : - and this, too, notwithstanding Mr. Davis had, all this time, been urgent for his trial.'

Davis was ready willing and able to stand trial. The government invented excuses to prevent a trial from happening, until ex post facto punishments gave Chase et al an excuse.

As an aside, Smith also had the following comments

'I have ever held that a sufficient reason why we should not punish the conquered South is that the North was quite as responsible as the South for the chief cause of the War. The North did quite as much as the South to uphold slavery: - and let me add that she did it more wickedly ... Slavery was the evil inheritance of the South - but the wicked choice, the adopted policy, of the North ... The unfortunate South felt that she must take slavery for better or for worse, for gain or for loss. But the mercenary North coolly reckoned the political, commercial and ecclesiastical profits of slavery, and held to it.'

Gerrit Smith was an interesting character. On one hand he finances John Brown's attempt to foment a slave revolt (an incident leading to increased tensions between North and South and a precursor to Civil War), and on the other hand he slaps the North around for following through on his abolitionist principles. Smith is generously called a "social reformer" by history. In fact, he was simply a contrarian. He would have made a good "talking head" on some of the Sunday news/opinion shows.

To go back to my first point. I recall that Tennessee was re-admitted to the Union in 1866. After 1866, the moderate Reconstruction advocated by Lincoln was replaced with the so-called "Radical Reconstruction." Ten deep south States were divided into 5 military districts. During the period of 1868-1870, the remaining rebel states were re-admitted to the Union; all with the provision that they ratified the 14th Amendment.

During the Radical Reconstruction, several facets of the Southern States' governments were changed. Ex-slave and freeman sufferage was enforced. Public schools were introduced. Courts were reorganized and judicial procedures improved.

I recall, that in Southern States, for some time, and it varies by state, the US Army ran the courts. Even after the surrender by the Southern armies and the capture of a number of high ranking CSA officials, the legal suspension of habeas corpus continued; ergo, they were held with out need for charges or bail. The key question, with regard to Jefferson Davis' trial, is when were Virginia civil courts allowed to resume? Or, when were the Federal Courts re-established in the State of Virginia. (I don't think Mr. Davis would have been keen on being tried by a military tribunal.) Operation of the courts has nothing to do with electing representatives to Congress and the state legislatures. Therefore, your response "Nonsense" is premature and unsubstantiated.

I am sure you have several Davis references which might shed light on the issue, specifically. Thanks.

"Davis was ready willing and able to stand trial. The government invented excuses to prevent a trial from happening, until ex post facto punishments gave Chase et al an excuse.'

Section 3 of Amendment XIV says (in so many words) that, if you were involved in the "insurrection of rebellion" against the United Stated, or if you gave "aid or comfort to the enemies" of the United States, you were prohibited from holding any civil or military office in any state or in any part of the Federal Government.

Section 4 says that the United States will not honor "any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States" and that "all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Speaking philosophically, war is essentially a political action. It is rarely a judicial one. The "re-union" of the nation was a political process. Section 4 of Amendment XIV disavows the actions of the rebelious States and their supporters. Section 3 prohibits the rebels and their supporters from being part of future governments. (Of course their were presidential pardons to be had too.) These are political actions that represent the will of the winning side.

Let me quote from Grant's memoirs:

"Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship - on this issue. Victory, or conditions imposed by the conqueror - must be the result."

It didn't really matter if Davis was tried in court or not. He was already a loser. The politics of the North were to mete out the punishments. Jefferson Davis did not have any rights. He was a rebel and had lost his citizenship. He never even bothered to reclaim it. In reality, after 1865, Jefferson Davis had become the first "Monday morning quarterback."

"The 13th Amendment was proposed on 31 Jan 1865, it was incorporated into the Constitution when Georgia, the 27th state to ratify, acceded on 6 Dec 1865.:

THAT is nonsense as a resonse to when Virginia was reconstructed. Virginia was not reconstructed, compeltely, until the state government was re-admitted to the Union, in 1870.