This is soooo tempting. I could quote at length from the inaugural address of another president and then I suppose you would just scratch your head, sigh, and admit that the war really WAS the fault of the south. Yeah, sure you would.
In any case, actions speak louder than words. Davis didn't take any actions to force the issue, and was more than happy to have the confederate constitution violated so long as he was aided and abetted by the confederate congress. Those are the historical facts that you choose to ignore.
And at the same time Davis had no problem with keeping an Attorney General with nothing to do and a Secretary of State with nothing to do and other cabinet members. He didn't have a problem filling some of those posts through recess appointment, but not a supreme court. As I said, actions speak louder than words and Davis took no action to bring his regime in compliance with the confederate constitution. The only possible explanation is a fear that it might actually put a break on his actions somewhere down the line.
Try if you might, tu quoque boy. It should be amusing to see you attempt to draw comparison between a specific legislative request in a message to Congress and a vague, intentionally rhetorical political message from an inaugural.
In any case, actions speak louder than words. Davis didn't take any actions to force the issue
Then prove it. As I asked you previously, have you searched through Davis' collected works to demonstrate that he never pursued the issue? If not then you have no basis on which to make that assertion.
and was more than happy to have the confederate constitution violated so long as he was aided and abetted by the confederate congress.
That frequent characterization of yours conflicts with the sum of documented history. As any person familiar with the confederate government will tell you, the relationship between Davis and Congress (and especially the senate) was anything BUT a cooperative conspiracy of "aiding and abetting." Quite to the contrary, the two were at each others throats for years. Among the issues that Congress OPPOSED Davis on was the court system. As I have previously informed you, Congress intentionally delayed the court's creation for the explicit purpose of DENYING Davis the power to appoint judges as he desired. Think about it, non-seq. Do you know of ANY president in the history of the United States that did not want an opportunity to appoint as many supreme court justices as he could? Davis was no different because he knew any appointments he made would be supportive of his views on the national level. Congress didn't like that since they thought Davis' judges would be used to usurp the power of the states, much as John Marshall had done in the US system. So they did what any Senate does when it is at odds with the President on judicial appointments: they blocked them from occurring.
Those are the historical facts that you choose to ignore.
No. They are not. Not one thing you said is an historical fact. Not one thing you said is substantiated in any document of any form from the time. Heck, you don't even offer enough specifics to your conspiracy theory between Davis and Congress to even validate it!
And at the same time Davis had no problem with keeping an Attorney General with nothing to do and a Secretary of State with nothing to do and other cabinet members.
You know why? Because these positions had all been created under the CSA law, thus allowing him to make appointments. The court system had not because Congress intentionally withheld action on the court bill. You can't appoint people to something that doesn't exist yet!
He didn't have a problem filling some of those posts through recess appointment, but not a supreme court.
Once again, you can't appoint people to something that doesn't exist yet.
As I said, actions speak louder than words and Davis took no action to bring his regime in compliance with the confederate constitution.
Once again, you can't appoint people to something that doesn't exist yet.
The only possible explanation is a fear that it might actually put a break on his actions somewhere down the line.
That is not even a valid potential explanation, much less the only one. Once again, you can't appoint people to something that doesn't exist yet.