You are saying quite clearly that the jury would be rigged ("made up of people who were not hard line rebel supporters but who agreed that the southern actions were illegal") but deny it as you are saying it ("the trial would have been fair"). And then you say that "the evidence would have been clearly presented," but you and WhiskeyPapa have never shown any law or Constitutional passage that supports your argument. In fact, WP has admitted that he knows of no explicit prohibition against a state's withdrawal.
I am glad you finally added the word "explicit".
The laws of the United States clearly preclude unilateral state secession.
Walt
Considering the circumstances, and given that President Johnson was adamant that the trial take place in the scene of the crime, i.e. Virginia, then the government would no doubt have taken care that members of the jury were not those who supported the late rebellion. Where is the surprise in that? The trial would have been as fair as it could have been, given the location and the circumstances, and Davis would have been convicted. He would have been able to appeal his conviction to the Supreme Court if necessary, something that would not have been possible for a similar trial of, say, William Sherman,in a confederate south. But since Davis made no bones about leading the rebellion then I don't see why a conviction surprises you.
And then you say that "the evidence would have been clearly presented," but you and WhiskeyPapa have never shown any law or Constitutional passage that supports your argument. In fact, WP has admitted that he knows of no explicit prohibition against a state's withdrawal.
I've presented my case against unilateral secession on a number of occasions and you pooh-pooh it. You insist that your interpretation is the only correct one and I believe that you are deluding yourself. I'm damned if I can see how we will ever get past this loggerhead.