Don't be naieve, GOP. However you try to whitewash it, there was a deliberate violation of the constitution. And Jefferson Davis, as head of the regime, bears the responsibility. Even if he was aided and abetted by the confederate congress. I do not understand how you can rail against President Lincoln for what you see as Constitutional violations and then take such a blasé attitude at a conspiracy to delete an entire branch of government. Why didn't he just dump the congress while he was at it and keep just the Senate?
I don't think anyone could ever reasonably call that "conspiring." Do you?
Given the contempt that Jefferson Davis expressed towards the whole idea of somebody other than him determining what was constitutional and what was not, then the idea of him using the congress to prevent the establishment of a Supreme Court, and the congress playing along, is not an unlikely. Who was it who said the ends justifies the means? Wasn't that Karl Marx? Looks like he backed the wrong horse in the Civil War.
If the Senate repeatedly indicates its refusal to organize a court system or approve its appointments, which, like it or not, it may constitutionally do, how on earth can an exercise of that same appointment confirmation, which is specifically given in the constitution, simultaneously violate that constitution? You are in a logical contradiction where your conclusions are simply not supported or supportable - a non-sequitur.
And Jefferson Davis, as head of the regime, bears the responsibility.
Even though he publicly called on Congress to organize and approve a court?
Even if he was aided and abetted by the confederate congress.
Do you have proof of this conspiracy, because everything I have seen indicates that opposition in Congress, rather than collusion, was the cause of the blockage in appointing a court.
I do not understand how you can rail against President Lincoln for what you see as Constitutional violations and then take such a blasé attitude at a conspiracy to delete an entire branch of government.
As always, you jump to the tu quoque. That aside, you have yet to even delineate the nature of this "conspiracy" let alone offer evidence of its existence. For that reason, I have no reason to even accept what you are saying.
Why didn't he just dump the congress while he was at it and keep just the Senate?
Well, for starters...his most vocal opponents were in the Senate, so he probably wouldn't have wanted the entirity of lawmaking to fall into their hands. Now does that answer your questions, or are you going to simply continue spouting nonsense about this increasingly anonymous "conspiracy" in the CSA congress?