should jeff davis have been hanged?

[WalterMitty]

im not a supporter of the death penalty.

but he certainly deserved it.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No, but only because no one should be hanged. If I was a supporter of the death penalty, hell yeah in his case.

[JSojourner]

No.  Because I oppose the death penalty AND because if you executed Davis for treason, you'd have to execute a lot of other Southerners.  That's all this country needed after the Civil War.  More bloodshed.

[Хahar 🤔]

No.  Because I oppose the death penalty AND because if you executed Davis for treason, you'd have to execute a lot of other Southerners.  That's all this country needed after the Civil War.  More bloodshed.

Good reasoning.

[Daniel Adams]

Yes. He was guilty of treason. In fact, since he was the leader of the rebels, he deserved it more than any other Confederate.

[Lief 🗽]

I support the death penalty for treason, so yes.

[12th Doctor]

Yes... by the Confederates.  His poor management and unreasonable demands are the reason they lost the war... and his refusal to surrender only heightened the call for reprisals against the rebels.

The bastard threw away countless lives by appointing John Bell Hood to command the forces around Atlanta and then telling them to "go after them."  Johnson was smart.  He knew what he was doing.  Had Davis not been an idiot and allowed him to do it, the Union would have kept suffering horrific loses in front of Atlanta, and Lincoln might have lost the election.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I support the death penalty for treason, so yes.

[dead0man]

No.  Because I oppose the death penalty AND because if you executed Davis for treason, you'd have to execute a lot of other Southerners.  That's all this country needed after the Civil War.  More bloodshed.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The first person who should have been hanged during the Civil War was Lincoln for violating the constitution and creating an unnecessary war

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The first person who should have been hanged during the Civil War was Lincoln for violating the constitution and creating an unnecessary war

The South had no right to secede from the Union.  The Constitution is an unbreakable contract.

[DownWithTheLeft]

The first person who should have been hanged during the Civil War was Lincoln for violating the constitution and creating an unnecessary war

The South had no right to secede from the Union.  The Constitution is an unbreakable contract.

Have you ever heard of the Hartford Convention and similar events?  The idea of secession was not unique to the South, they were just the ones who acted.  There were several states that entered into the Union only under the pretext that COULD secede if they wanted too. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The first person who should have been hanged during the Civil War was Lincoln for violating the constitution and creating an unnecessary war

The South had no right to secede from the Union.  The Constitution is an unbreakable contract.

Have you ever heard of the Hartford Convention and similar events?  The idea of secession was not unique to the South, they were just the ones who acted.  There were several states that entered into the Union only under the pretext that COULD secede if they wanted too. 

Indeed, and none of the states that proposed leaving the Union should have been allowed to, if they had tried.

Which states?

[DownWithTheLeft]

The first person who should have been hanged during the Civil War was Lincoln for violating the constitution and creating an unnecessary war

The South had no right to secede from the Union.  The Constitution is an unbreakable contract.

Have you ever heard of the Hartford Convention and similar events?  The idea of secession was not unique to the South, they were just the ones who acted.  There were several states that entered into the Union only under the pretext that COULD secede if they wanted too. 

Indeed, and none of the states that proposed leaving the Union should have been allowed to, if they had tried.

Which states?

The New England ones

[Kaine for Senate '18]

New England entered the Union only on the condition they could leave later?  That sounds odd.  Besides, it doesn't matter.  Since it was no written into the Constitution that states could leave later, they are unable to.  The Constitution is permanent and binding.

[DownWithTheLeft]

New England entered the Union only on the condition they could leave later?  That sounds odd.  Besides, it doesn't matter.  Since it was no written into the Constitution that states could leave later, they are unable to.  The Constitution is permanent and binding.

May I refer you to Amendment 10?  If you are unfamiliar, it states in laymen terms, anything not in the constitution is left to the states to decide

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

I disagree on that point.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

I disagree on that point.

Its called a fact, you can disagree on opinions, facts cannot be disagreed with.  This is like me telling you the sky is blue and you insist that it is gold.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

I disagree on that point.

Its called a fact, you can disagree on opinions, facts cannot be disagreed with.  This is like me telling you the sky is blue and you insist that it is gold.

No, it's not.  I interpret the Constitution as an unbreakble contract, and apparently you do not.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

I disagree on that point.

Its called a fact, you can disagree on opinions, facts cannot be disagreed with.  This is like me telling you the sky is blue and you insist that it is gold.

No, it's not.  I interpret the Constitution as an unbreakble contract, and apparently you do not.

Why do you choose to disregard the 10th amendment?  I assume you also disregard 1-26 as well?  Possibly the whole thing?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I am familiar with the 10th Amendment, thank you.

However, I maintain that secession is unconstitutional, resting still on the old argument that the Constitution is a permanently binding document, from which you cannot break out.

There is also an argument that the Earth is flat, but the facts suggest otherwise.  Whether the states could secede or not is not a matter of opinion, the 10th amendment makes their right to secede a fact.

I disagree on that point.

Its called a fact, you can disagree on opinions, facts cannot be disagreed with.  This is like me telling you the sky is blue and you insist that it is gold.

No, it's not.  I interpret the Constitution as an unbreakble contract, and apparently you do not.

Why do you choose to disregard the 10th amendment?  I assume you also disregard 1-26 as well?  Possibly the whole thing?

It is called interpretation.  I interpret the Constitution as an unbreakable contract.  The 10th Amendment doesn't allow states to murder people for wearing green shirts; it likewise does not allow for secession.

[Хahar 🤔]

Ben, you're wrong. Secession is perfectly legal (with a caveat).

[??????????]

Of the two presidents during the Civil War the proper president was executed.