You said: "Perhaps you should explain why no Confederate was ever charged with treason?"

Actually, Jefferson Davis was indicted for treason by the United States Attorney for the district of Virginia.

You said: "The yankees held Pres. Davis in prison for two yrs and never brought charges against him, why?"

Again, he was charged...by a civilian court when he was in military custody. The problem, though, was a matter of authority. Davis had initially been arrested by military authorities for suspicion of involvement in Lincoln's assassination. When it became obvious that initial suspicions were wrong, the U.S. Attorney General recommended that Davis be transferred to civilian authorities.

After his transfer, he was again indicted for treason by a court in Richmond. The case lingered, and was essentially punted to the Supreme Court...which never addressed it. Legal historian David Watson explained that by 1869, when the Supreme Court faced the Davis case, "the President's proclamation of general amnesty had a quieting effect on the country and amidst the peaceful feeling which followed, the clamors of the warlike spirit subsided and at a later term of the United States Court in Richmond, Virginia, the indictments against Mr. Davis were laid away." That officially ended the case against Davis. But, Watson continues, "no formal order was made dismissing the case in the federal court at Richmond Virginia. So far as that court was concerned, it simply died."

David Watson, "The Trial of Jefferson Davis: An Interesting Constitutional Question," The Yale Law Journal, June 1915, pp. 676.

You said: "BECAUSE when the Feds consulted the Supreme Court they were informed that the treason charge would not stand up, Jeff Davis would be found not guilty, and this would confirm that the Federals had fought a war of agression."

Are you familiar with Chief Justice Chase's reasoning about why the treason charge may not stand up? According to historian Roy F. Nichols, it was not that secession was legal, but double-jeopardy...Davis was already being punished for treason. Nichols explains:

"O'Conor decided to submit to delays no longer. He determined again to force action. He had learned from Shea that in an interview between Chase and the latter the Chief Justice had given his opinion that the Fourteenth Amendment prevented further proceedings. This enactment had disqualified from office-holding such men as Davis; Chase declared this disqualification to be a punishment for treason, and, as no one might be twice punished for the same crime, all legal action to be forestalled thereby."

Roy Franklin Nichols, "United States vs. Jefferson Davis, 1865-1869, The American Historical Review, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jan., 1926), pp. 282.

In other words, the Chief Justice believed that the actual legal case against Davis may have failed because of legal developments since the Civil War.

If you disagree, do you have any evidence to counter these two historical accounts?