It's admittedly a paradox of forming a new government and I am making no comment as to whether they should or should not have appointed that branch. Rather, I am simply noting the historical fact of the confederate senate's opposition to appointment, which counters the oft-stated but historically frivolous allegation around here that they wanted to make sure Jeff Davis got everything he wanted rubber stamped without any opposition.
As for the appointment issue itself, tell me - what happens when a new government forms and three new branches are created, yet by the very same document that forms those three branches, a power is given to one of the branches that allows them to impede another of the branches from taking office? It would seem that the confederate senators happened upon a paradox in the U.S. Constitution, and as a result of that paradox, no court was installed.
They trampled on the constitution by refusing to accept their constitutional requirement to staff a supreme court.
That is simply not so, non-seq. While I make no judgment it it was proper or not to do so, a paradox exists in the senate approval process that, at the formation of a new government, could theoretically and constitutionally prevent a branch from coming into existence. The Constitution says that all the justices must have senate approval. If the senate does not approve of any judges, no judges take office. That may be unfortunate policy, and it may compromise the functioning ability of that government, but if the senate does not approve, no legitimate federal court appointment can take place under that constitution.
So in other words you are making no comment on whether they should or should not have abided by the constitution?
As for the appointment issue itself, tell me - what happens when a new government forms and three new branches are created, yet by the very same document that forms those three branches, a power is given to one of the branches that allows them to impede another of the branches from taking office?
I wouldn't know. When the founding fathers were faced with that very same dilemma they chose to abide by the Constitution. Rather than looking at is as a matter of one branch impeding another they saw it as three branches working together to ensure that one branch did not become to powerful. They had a term for it, a System of Checks and Balances. They had a term for what the confederates chose to do, too. Tyranny.
That is simply not so, non-seq.
Davis and the confederate congress conspired to eliminate an entire branch of government. A branch required by the same document that they claim to get their authority from. What other term for it can there be but violation? The confederate constitution was there, ratified by all the states that the congressmen and senators pretended to represent. I assume that the state conventions did read the document before they ratified it so obviously not a single state objected to the idea of a supreme court or three branches of government. What gave the representatives the right to ignore the wishes of the states? If they objected to the concept so much then the means were there to amend the constitution and remove the offending part. Or was that a paradox, too? To use the constitutional means of amending the constitution to remove a section of the constitution that you chose to violate in the first place? Too hard. Much easier to ignore the constitution in the first place.