Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/22/2002 10:27:27 AM EDT
With all the talk about Johnny Taliban about the rare treason charges, why wern't the leadership of the Confederacy charged with treason? I am familiar with victor's justice, and there certainly was no love lost between North and South after the war with the reformers implementing Reconstruction.
Link Posted: 4/22/2002 12:51:42 PM EDT
That is an excellent question. Here is one columnist's analysis of why Jefferson Davis was never tried: [url]http://www.sobran.com/columns/010807.shtml[/url]
Link Posted: 4/22/2002 9:11:41 PM EDT
That is a quick good read. Thanks. I'll be following this columnist in the future. From Sobran, "At the end of the Civil War Davis was captured and charged with treason and with conspiring in Lincoln’s assassination. The second charge was so obviously silly that it was soon dropped, but Davis spent two years in painful confinement awaiting trial for treason." "Davis looked forward to his trial. In making his defense he would get the chance to vindicate the South by arguing the constitutional case for the right to secede. As the historian Charles Adams says, it would have been “the trial of the century.” All eyes in America and Europe would have been riveted to it. And if Davis won acquittal, it would have been a heavy blow to Northern war propaganda. Even if he was convicted, the world would have heard his side of the story, perhaps with the same result." "The government couldn’t risk that. So Davis was finally released and the trial was canceled. He was disappointed, but it meant the government was none too sure that its own claim that secession was “treason” could stand up in court. The Union’s real “sovereignty” lay not in the law or the Constitution, but in raw Northern power. It was wiser not to put it to a legal test, especially with some of the best lawyers in the country offering to represent Davis for no fee."
Link Posted: 4/22/2002 9:24:44 PM EDT
Because the North knew how badly they had screwed themselves from a legal standpoint in pursuing the secessionist nation. Jefferson's actions were not intended to be agressive in nature until the then overtly agressive north refused to remove their troops from the land of a sovereign nation. That whole war was fought so that Lincoln would not be "The President who lost the Union" The irony is in looking at our defense of Kuwait back in '91, or of Taiwan. Anybody see some similarities?
Link Posted: 4/22/2002 9:29:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By USP40C: Because the North knew how badly they had screwed themselves from a legal standpoint in pursuing the secessionist nation. Jefferson's actions were not intended to be agressive in nature until the then overtly agressive north refused to remove their troops from the land of a sovereign nation. That whole war was fought so that Lincoln would not be "The President who lost the Union" The irony is in looking at our defense of Kuwait back in '91, or of Taiwan. Anybody see some similarities?
View Quote
Or of us against the British for that matter.
Top Top