[stand watie]

actually, it was the chief justice who gave the opinion that since NO TREASON had been committed AND that there was NO prohibition of SECESSION within the Constitution and/or in the US Code, that President Davis would be found NOT GUILTY by a jury of his peers(this even given the fact that the invaders would have CONTROLLED the tribunal!).

SORRY, but once again, Mr Minister, your post is PROOF that you're NOTHING but a PROPAGANDIST for the DAMNyankee,REVISIOPNIST academic/financial/social/LEFTIST elites out of the northeast. don't you get tired of being their shill & APOLOGIST????

free dixie,sw

[Non-Sequitur]

actually, it was the chief justice who gave the opinion that since NO TREASON had been committed AND that there was NO prohibition of SECESSION within the Constitution and/or in the US Code, that President Davis would be found NOT GUILTY by a jury of his peers(this even given the fact that the invaders would have CONTROLLED the tribunal!).

That would be the same Chief Justice who would later rule the southern acts of secession to be unconstitutional? Now why do I have problems believing your version of the story?