Replies

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").

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.

[Non-Sequitur] 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....

Is it possible that the appeal to the Supreme Court was a major concern?

On November 30, 1868, Davis' lawyers filed a motion to quash the indictment. A hearing was held before Chase and Underwood on Dec 3-4, and on Dec 5, they announced that they had split, with Chase wanting to set aside the indictment, and Underwood, who had overseen the grand jury responsible for the indictment, wanting the case to be tried. Chase stated for the record that he believed the 14th Amendment exempted Davis from further prosecution.

The certificate of division between Chase and Underwood was forwarded to the Supreme Court, and the indictment technically remained pending, but no more action was taken. The Davis case remained on the circuit court docket for February 15, 1869, but the government indicated at that time that it would not prosecute (nolle prosequi).

It would seem that Chase was clearly indicating he would favor overturning a guilty verdict and that could have made the government hesitant to proceed.

The government could not claim an automatic win in the Supreme Court. They must have learned that from Ex Parte Milligan.