|View single post by Texas Defender|
|Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 06:27 pm||
You are absolutely and totally wrong in saying that if something is judged to be illegal in 1869, then it was also illegal in 1861.
If your interpretation of the law was correct, then there would have been no reason for the Founding Fathers to have outlawed ex post facto laws in the Constitution. If your interpretation was correct, then after the 18th Amendment was ratified and prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors after January 16, 1920, then it was also illegal to do so before that date. (Making those who did so liable for prosecution).
If the justices in 1869 had ruled that secession was legal in 1861, that would have repudiated Mr. Lincoln and the reason that the people in the north chose to go to war. The justices would have become the most hated men in America. They simply couldn't do it.
Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason in Virginia in 1866, but the federal government was afraid to go to trial because he would have used the legality of secession as a defense. So the trial date was repeatedly put off for years before the charges were finally dropped. Those that were in charge of prosecuting the case were afraid that they might not be able to get a conviction. If Mr. Davis had been acquitted, it also would have been a repudiation of Mr. Lincoln's position that it was justifiable to fight a war to prevent the southern states from leaving the Union.
As for your premise, my answer is that they didn't have to, they weren't going to, and the judiciary would not have been able to enforce any decision that they made on Mr. Lincoln.
Last edited on Fri Oct 28th, 2011 07:33 pm by Texas Defender