Because if there was no interest in complying with the constitution before the war, and there was no interest in complying with the constitution during the war, why should we believe that there would have been any interest in complying with the constitution after the war? We're talking with the one institution that could have proven an impediment to the Davis regime. Following the war Davis could have easily used the excuse of a threat from a defeated U.S., the need to build a nation, allegations of Union agents within the southern population as a reason to maintain martial law, prohibit habeas corpus, and avoid staffing a court which might have crazy ideas about civil rights. As time when on Davis or his successors, if any, could have continued to avoid staffing a court until the whole idea of a supreme court died out completely.
after all it took the 13 colonies over a DECADE to establish the USSC.
That's one of the more ridiculous defenses of Davis's actions you have come up with. A Supreme Court was a product of the Constitution. One was not required prior to the ratification of the Constituiton, and within months of Washington's inauguration a Supreme Court was up and running.
the TRUTH is that the absense of a CSA supreme court during the war is a BIG ISSUE to YOU and to NOBODY ELSE.the structure of the CSA was a loosely bound confederation of independent states;in point of fact, i think a CSSC would have had few cases to decide, when after the war, the CSA government had gotten around to staffing it.(FURTHERMORE, the USA might be better off without the USSC-MUCH that they have done is WRONG MORALLY & LEGALLY in the minds of a majority of the citizens, like roe v. wade for example.)
it's a minor side issue that you like to bring up to beat us southrons around the head & shoulders with. sorry, we aren't interested in any more of that NONSENSE!
free dixie,sw