He could try.
” But New York was co-owner. “
It helped pay for the land?
“That’s not the question. What rule of law transferred Sumter from its legal owner to the South Carolina without compensation? If you can’t come up with one just say so.”
The rule of “it’s in my territory now”.
“No, all the other forts were seized without permission or the agreement of their rightful owner, the government of the United States. They were stolen.”
Their rightful owner was the States, as THEY were the rightful owner of the government. The government was considered in material breach of the contract.
“You’re trying to be condescending again, aren’t you?”
Just responding in kind.
“ctually it was the correct answer. Chief Justice Chase, who would have been one of the two judges trying Davis, made it clear that he would not vote to convict because the passage of the 14th Amendment stripped Davis from holding any office or any position of trust in the government.”
No, that’s not the right answer. The reason given by Chase does not mean the 14th pardoned Davis of a charge of treason. If secession was treason, why no trial? Why hold him at Fort Liberty in solitary and then just let him go?
“Having been punished for his role in leading the rebellion by Section 3 of the amendment, Chase was of the opinion that further trial and punishment would be a violation of Davis’s 5th Amendment right against double jeopardy.”
They’d already violated his rights by holding him without trial or even indictment for two years. Double jeopardy only applies if he had first been tried for the crime.
What actually happened is the government was wary of actually addressing the legality of secession. This provided an out. The one, later, case that actually addressed it (White, as I recall) just declared it “illegal” with no basis in law.
“But I’ll bite, laddie. What’s your version?”
The above, sonny.
And you would support him and believe him to be in the right?
It helped pay for the land?
In a way, yes. The site deeded to the federal government by South Carolina was under water. Sumter is actually build on landfill, granite hauled down from New England. New York taxes helped pay for that.
The rule of “it’s in my territory now”.
AKA "Stick 'em up. This is a robbery?"
Their rightful owner was the States, as THEY were the rightful owner of the government.
You're getting sillier by the moment. Constitutionally only Congress can dispose of federal property, and only the federal government can own it. There is no joint ownership so once they deeded the property to the government the state was no longer the rightful owner. They had no claims to it at all.
The government was considered in material breach of the contract.
How so?
Just responding in kind.
No, you've got your back against the wall and you're reverting to type. Whenever any of you Southron types realize they're being made fool of they resort to calling their opponent a liberal or, in your case, become condescending.
No, that’s not the right answer. The reason given by Chase does not mean the 14th pardoned Davis of a charge of treason.
No, passage of the 14th Amendment didn't mean Davis didn't commit treason. It meant that he couldn't be tried and punished for it since the 14th Amendment had, in effect, already punished him.
If secession was treason, why no trial?
There were proceedural delays but the trial was planned.
Why hold him at Fort Liberty in solitary and then just let him go.
In the first place he was held in Fortress Monroe. In the second place he was out on bail for much of the time. In the third place the ratification of the 14th Amendment prevented it.
They’d already violated his rights by holding him without trial or even indictment for two years. Double jeopardy only applies if he had first been tried for the crime.
Davis was indicted for treason in May 1866. And the 5th Amendment says that "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." It's usually used to prevent trial twice for the same crime, but the Southern leadership had been punished for their actions by the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the source of the punishment, the Constitution prevents being punished twice for the same crime. Or so said Chief Justice Chase. I disagree with him BTW and think that Davis should have been tried. But I don't have a say in the matter.
What actually happened is the government was wary of actually addressing the legality of secession. This provided an out. The one, later, case that actually addressed it (White, as I recall) just declared it “illegal” with no basis in law.
Just because you disagree with the ruling doesn't mean it had 'no basis in law'. But hey, no basis in law hasn't stopped you from insisting Sumter belonged to South Carolina so I guess it's to be expected. Regardless, you might want to read the Texas v White decision and read Chief Justice Chase's decision. It's really rather interesting.