The Civil War News & Views Open Discussion Forum - Archive

Absolutely no case...repeat from Dec. 17th, 2006
In Response To: Re: Changing the question? ()

Here's Chase on the case. (I should have been a poet :) )

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase to Sec. of War Stanton.

"If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...Lincoln wanted Jefferson Davis to escape...and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled."

By Burke Davis...

a congressinal committee proposed a special court for Davis' trial, headed up by Judge Franz Lieber. Davis noted: "After studying more than 270,000 Confederate documents, seeking evidence against Davis, this court discouraged the War Department: 'Davis will be found not guilty,' Lieber reported, 'and we shall stand there completely beaten'."

More on this...

In an unusual twist, Chase made known to Davis' attorneys, a distinguished group of northern and southern litigators, his opinion that the third section of the 14th Amendment nullified the indictment against Davis. His contention was that by stripping the right to vote from high Confederate officials, a punishment for treasonable activities had been legislated, so Davis could not be punished again for the same crime. Davis' friends reminded his lawyers that Davis (who was in Europe and out of telegraphic range) wanted a trial because he saw it as an opportunity to vindicate both himself and the actions of the Confederacy, i.e. the constitutional right to secede. Davis' lawyers, however, pointed out that Davis' life was at stake, and there was a general agreement that they could not pass up the opportunity to arrange what they believed to be an honorable settlement. One of the attorneys later wrote Davis that the defense team also felt that if they could establish a precedent based on the 14th Amendment, it would lift the threat of prosecution for other Confederate leaders as well.

On November 30, 1868, Davis' lawyers filed a motion requiring that the government attorneys show cause why the indictment (the latest of at least four indictments which had been handed down with the same charge--another long story) should not be quashed. A hearing on the motion was held before Chase and Underwood on December 3-4, and on the 5th they announced their finding. The vote was split--Chase favoring laying aside the indictment, and Underwood, who had overseen the grand juries responsible for the indictment, wanting the case to be tried. Chase's anger with Underwood was obvious, and he stated for the record why he believed the 14th Amendment exempted Davis from further prosecution.

The certificate of division between Chase and Underwood was forwarded to the Supreme Court, and the indictment technically remained pending, but there would be no more action taken. It was clear that Chase would favor overturning a guilty verdict, making the government hesitant to proceed. The Davis case remained on the circuit court docket for February 15, 1869, but the government indicated at that time that it would not prosecute (nolle prosequi). The indictment was, therefore, dismissed, as were indictments against thirty-seven other ex-Confederates, including Robert E. Lee. Davis' lawyers contacted the Justice Department to make sure that other indictments against him in Washington and Tennessee were not going to be prosecuted.

The full story of the case remains to be told, but there are a couple of articles which provide good background information. Eberhard P. Deutsch, "United States v. Jefferson Davis: Constitutional Issues in the Trial for Treason," American Bar Association Journal, 52 (Feb. and March 1966): 139-45, 263-68, deals with the legal matters of the case. Roy F. Nichols, "United States vs. Jefferson Davis, 1865-1869," American Historical Review, 31(Jan. 1926): 266-84, covers many of the political issues involved. Bradley T. Johnson's detailed court record is reprinted in Davis, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist, edited by Dunbar Rowland (10 vols., 1923), 7:138-227. No work has been done on public perception of the case in North and South. The involvement of influential northerners, with Horace Greeley at the center of activity, was a major factor in what transpired. There is also much left to be written about the maneuvering of Chase, Johnson, and the Justice Department.

________________________
David Upton

Messages In This Thread

Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Fort Sumter and amphibious operations
Re: Fort Sumter and amphibious operations
Re: Fort Sumter and amphibious operations
Re: Fort Sumter and amphibious operations
Re: Fort Sumter and amphibious operations
Re: Fort Sumter and amphibious operations
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Re: Answering Craig
Who was convicted of treason?? *NM*
Changing the question?
Re: Changing the question?
Re: Changing the question?
Re: Changing the question?
Re: Changing the question?
Absolutely no case...repeat from Dec. 17th, 2006
Re: Absolutely no case...repeat from Dec. 17th, 20
Re: Changing the question?
Ex Post Facto
Re: Ex Post Facto
Re: Ex Post Facto
Re: Changing the question?
Re: Changing the question?
Re: Changing the question?
Re: Changing the question?
Re: Answering Craig
Try this link
Re: Try this link
Thanks George. *NM*