I tried to write that in simple sentences for you. Did you get it?
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
First allow me to correct your biggest inconsistency in this statement: The Confederation was formed FIRST. THEN war insued. Placing these into the correct chronology then causes us to beg the question: "Which side initiated the war?" Claiming that the Confederacy was formed with the sole purpose of waging war against the United States is simply fallacious and could/would not have held up under legal scrutiny.SECOND
One could argue that they levied war and formed a confederation as a separate entity and therefore, did not commit treason, but for that argument, I direct you to the Supreme Court again, specifically the case of Williams v. Bruffy:
To confirm this point of view, I also direct you to one Chief Justice Chase's own cases - Texas v. White:
Regarding Williams vs. Bruffy which was decided sixteen years AFTER Secession; it's sole function
was to nullify all laws, and "legal" property rights which had been established by the CSA during the war years. It served to basically, return legal jurisdiction to the Constitution and to the United States government. Most view this case as simply procedural when a conquering nation wishes to incorporate (or in this case, reincorporate) territory gained.
First, I never said anything about a pardon. My contention was that charges of treason against Confederates was never Constitutionally legal to begin with.THIRD
You have offered the pardon of Confederate leaders as proof that treason was not committed. However, I direct you to Lincoln's proclamation of these pardons as proof that it was treason. In that proclamation, Lincoln declared:
Most historians and legal experts would agree that Lincoln's proclamation of amnesty was pointless and more for PR and political expediency. I've already pointed out to you that Lincoln was told by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that charges of treason were not Constitutional in this case and would not stick. And this came from a Republican justice who had worked directly under Lincoln at one point.
Oh, and in reference to the partial statement from Texas vs White which you boldened; wasn't the Court referring to the Military Board of Texas and not the entire Confederate government?
Last edited by FluffyNinja; 11-15-11 at 10:04 PM.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan
That is what makes Chase so obviously full of it in 1869 just a few years before 1874. If what he said was true in 1869 then his statement in 1874 is not only humorous but telling. So which is it Chase? Was it illegal or not? Did it fall under the introduction or not? Does the introduction have power chase? Lol.The case you reference was heard in 1874, thirteen years after the act of secession was committed and nine years after Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase declared to President Lincoln that the Supreme Court could never uphold a treason conviction for any Confederate based on the fact that there was NOTHING in the Constitution at the time which made Secession illegal.