Talk:Jefferson Davis

Inconsistency

From this article: "When Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, the Union government implicated Davis, and a bounty of $100,000 (equivalent to $3,600,000 in 2023) was put on his head." Also from this article: "After two years of imprisonment, Davis was released at Richmond on May 13, 1867, on bail of $100,000 (~$1.79 million in 2023)"

My quick search shows $100,000 in 1965 would be about $1.9 million today (2024). So the 3,600,000 number seems to be the one needing correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.251.0 (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done There was a typo in the conversion template. The two numbers still won't match up, as one is for 1865 dollars and one for 1867 dollars, but the difference is much smaller. Wtfiv (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Treason

@LesbianTiamat We cannot state that Davis committed treason in wiki-voice because he was never convicted of the crime. We are not allowed to make claims of fact based on our interpretation of events, laws etc. See WP:SYNTH. The most that can be done is to note that some sources have labeled his actions as treasonous with appropriate citations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's total nonsense. Does the sun revolve around the Earth because Galileo was convicted? Get real.

I'll get some sources to cite him as a traitor in actual fact, despite him not being convicted ~150 years ago. LesbianTiamat (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@LesbianTiamat No, it's not nonsense. It's how we operate. We don't get to convict people of crimes no matter how strongly we may feel they are guilty. To state as a matter of fact that he was guilty of treason, a defined criminal act, he would have had to been convicted of that crime. Again, the most that can be done is to note that some persons/entities have described his actions as treasonous. As for Galileo, please see WP:NOTTRUTH. You are not required to agree with all of our policies and guidelines. There are some that I disagree with quite strongly. But we are not free to ignore them. In short; "themz the rules, until they aren't." -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

We actually are free to ignore them. There is no policy or guideline more important than WP:IGNORE. See WP:COMMONSENSE. LesbianTiamat (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to make a WP:IAR argument that Wikipedia should hold Davis guilty of treason, you are free to open a discussion or WP:RfC and make your case. Speaking as an experienced editor I don't think that would fly. But introducing such claims, absent a very strong consensus, would IMO be disruptive. I would point out that when Fidel Castro died the community had a massive discussion over whether or not we could call him a dictator in wiki-voice. There were scores of reliable sources that had used that term in reference to Castro, in addition to commonsense. But the community said we could not do so because he was not universally described as such. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Or I can just find citations. RfC not necessary, Mr. Administrator & Experienced Editor. LesbianTiamat (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you can find sources that will state that so and so believes him to be guilty of treason. And you can state that with a citation. But you can't make that statement in Wikipedia's voice. To state definitively that someone is/was guilty of a crime, that requires a legal determination from a competent entity (i.e. a court of law). -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

"... doom African Americans, who he called an inferior race ..."

That should be "... doom African Americans, whom he called an inferior race ..." 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2D1B:D570:47B9:F7AF (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Also: "He was accompanied by his personal servant James Pemberton, an enslaved African American who he inherited from his father." That "who" should be "whom". 2401:7000:CA09:4700:2D1B:D570:47B9:F7AF (talk) 06:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done Wtfiv (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Davies was not pro slavery

Jefferson Davies was an abolitionist. One of his first acts as the president of the confederate states was an executive order illegalizing the import of slaves. He couldn't tell the 4 pro slavery states in the south to follow suite, because the underlying philosophy of the confederacy was self determination for the states and THAT was the real cause of the civil war. Note that Ulysses Grant owned slaves and 4 states in the north were pro slavery. 2604:3D09:418F:CE00:66A4:5A9E:C6FC:1F71 (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This is simply and flatly untrue. The importation of slaves from anywhere other than the United States was actually banned in the Constitution of the Confederate States. Davis was a slaveholder as well as a lifelong and unrepentant apologist for the institution, even long after the war. The decision to support the prohibition on the importation of slaves was largely political. He knew the Confederacy might need military aid from Britain and/or France. In both countries slavery had long since been abolished and the institution was deeply unpopular. Further, the British Royal Navy maintained a permanent naval squadron tasked with interdicting the Atlantic slave trade. Davis understood that whether he liked it or not, the Atlantic slave trade was more or less dead as a matter of law and saw no point in antagonizing a nation whose aid he was hoping to secure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

And importation of enslaved people had been illegal in the US since 1808. The domestic slave trade was booming, and business owners in the Southern states (and the politicians they supported) had plenty of economic reasons to keep the foreign trade illegal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Treason again

Moved a recent edit stating with quotes Davis "had obviously committed treason" to a footnote, citing it as a claim or opinion of an author, as the quotes make clear. It's possible that at the time had Davis been tried by an appropriate jury that considered the charges he might have been found guilty. The postbellum Supreme Court ruling Texas v. White in 1869 denied the legality of succession after Davis had been released. However at the time of his arrest, Davis wanted to argue that the right of succession was built into the constitution. Davis's case never went to trial, in part because the Federal government did not want to stir up the controversy at the time. So the case was never made either way. However, the footnote makes the contemporary claim part of the article. Wtfiv (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we summarize the findings of the best sources, in this case historians of the Civil War and of 19th century America. To disregard the findings of historians seems like to drift into an inappropriate case of original research, as well meaning as it might be. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is disregarding the opinions of historians. They can and should be included with proper citations. But not as statements of fact on a legal question that no court ever ruled on. This is not the same thing as "Tobacco products, especially when smoked or used orally, have serious negative effects on human health," which is an incontrovertible and objective fact. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

While one can't put history in a test tube, reducing it to mere opinion is too postmodern. Historians agree that Jefferson Davis was president of the Confederacy and did lead a war against the country and constitution he had previously sworn as a legislator and cabinet member to serve and protect—i. e. he did do things to betray the United States. For the same reasons (i.  e. summarizing high quality secondary sources), we do not say he was convicted of treason, and the reality that the government didn't follow through with prosecuting the case remains in the article, but it's quite a different thing to treat the character of Davis's activities between 1860 and 1865 as if they were some great mystery, especially when softpedaling the Confederacy and arguing that Confederates weren't traitors at all is a major plank of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The point about Davis not being guilty of treason may be a major plank for the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, but that's not my issue. It's a statement that was made based ex post facto application of a later ruling by the Chase Supreme Court about the contitutionality of succession. At the time, Davis argues that it was not treason. Both major biographies, which are not part of the lost cause, Davis and Cooper, discuss the details of the case but do not weigh in on his guilt.

This 2011 article, the Legal Status of the Confederacy by G. Edward White (around p. 480) is representative of the debate The 2017 article by Eric Williamson discusses the book Was Secession Legal] by Cynthia Nicoletti, which also discusses the controversy and the impact of Davis's trial. Both suggest that the case was less than plain, and the controversy reaches into academic literature beyond Lost Cause Mythology.

though keeping the footnote makes the point without a counterclaim that he was innocent. Wtfiv (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources you cite don't provide as much support to your claim that Davis's betrayal of the United States is disputed as you make out:

• G. Edward White's article contains no hits for the word "treason" in the first place and so seems irrelevant to the treason question.
• Eric Williamson's article is a university news piece about the book release—it's not the book itself or an academic coverage of the treason question—but even this article is hardly a refutation that Davis did betray the United States. The article quotes Nicoletti as follows to say that Davis's lawyer "was actually equally worried that Davis was going to be convicted. He was worried that Davis could be hanged. But he basically bluffed. He said, 'Yeah, I want you to try him, because I want secession to be declared legal, and I think we’re going to do it.' He managed to raise all of these troubling possibilities." (emphasis added). In other words, not even Davis's lawyer truly believed his client wouldn't be convicted of treason and was bluffing.
• William C. Davis's Jefferson Davis: The Man and His Hour calls Davis's postbellum claim that he wasn't a traitor an incredible notion, from the man who led a separatist movement that had cost four years of war (641). William C. Davis's prose is plainly skeptical of Davis's defensive misrepresentation of his secession, not sympathetic.

Add to this the sources from Paul A. Shackel and ABC-CLIO's American Civil War: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection, and it looks a lot less like scholars conclude Davis maybe didn't betray the country he swore to serve and uphold and a lot more like they do conclude he did. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

For now, I reverted the changes, but this is intended to be a permanent state of affairs. Adding all these academics and quotes seems to replicate the worse of wikipedia. Lots of opinions disguised by cherry-picked quotations by appeals to academic authority. My own preference is to keep academic author's opinions out of main space.

I think you miss the point of my posting Williamson's review of Nicoletti, it's to point readers following this discussion to an accessible article of Nicoletti's discussion. Similarly for White, I wasn't providing a quote for treason, I was providing an academic source that points out or argues that the legal status of secession, which bears on the issue of treason, was still under debate at the time of the war. I'm not trying to find quotes for our against treason, but to point out the whole issue needs discussion. Davis point about him not being a "traitor" being an incredible notion is a good point, but as you point out. Nicoletti may argue that she believes Davis's defense was a bluff, but her larger point is that there were points that Davis's defense could make that made an outright statement a problem.

I'm perfectly good with adding a line in main text about treason if there is substantive agreement. My preference would be a more probable claim, or one somehow stating that there's a substantive opinion that he committed treason (and there were many people now and then who thoughts so). I still think making a firm claim in main space is problematic. And, as a separate point, it'd be nice to keep opinions of individual authors, even academics out of main text.

I've already made my case why I think stating it as certain in main space is problematic: Most of the contemporary opinions cited assume the ex post facto case that secession was illegal at the time of the war. At that point, it seems opinion was split. If we could, I'd like to see what others have to say. Or, if you think it would produce be more productive and get a broader set of inputs, please consider opening an RfC. Wtfiv (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

My own preference is to keep academic author's opinions out of main space.: This personal preference seems contrary to Wikipedia's consensus policy on striving for a neutral point of view, which means including verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight (and academic points of view carry a lot of weight). The policy also reminds us that we should avoid stating facts as opinions, and academic history is not reducible to mere opinion. This is not a question of whether a movie is a good watch or not; this is historical reconstruction by trained professionals, and it is not a historical mystery whether or not Jefferson Davis led a separatist rebellion against the United States, which is why it isn't surprising that Rafuse and Shackel state that while Davis wasn't convicted for treason, he committed it.

at the time of the war [...] it seems opinion was split.: What opinions existed in the nineteenth century seems like a distraction. Back then, there was also a split opinion over whether evolution was real or if the earth was more than 6,000 years old, and we shouldn't let that affect how we write theory of evolution or Charles Darwin or age of earth. Wikipedia prioritizes the point of view and the findings of the best sources, which in nearly every case means current, reputable, academic scholarship from appropriate fields. Individual, non-scholarly, non-independent opinions held ~170 years ago are not the best sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree in part. We don't stop evaluating historical events or persons after a certain date, and Davis is a highly controversial figure. Modern historians and biographers often look at people and events through clearer lenses that are not fogged by the passions and prejudices of the moment. Also, they often have a much broader pool of information at their disposal including original source material that might not have been available to earlier biographers. That said, we cannot ignore the early historians. Judgements about people and events are constantly evolving. And this needs to be reflected in our articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it is very reasonable to suggest that the unfolding historical hermeneutics of the American narrative, there are a number of scholars, as you point out, that argue that this was treason. These authors are assuming the ex post facto version of legal reasoning, which strikes me as reasonable. But I would still say few are the authors that say something like "it is plain" or "it is obvious"...that Davis committed treason. I want to make sure it is clear that I am not saying William C. Davis is sympathetic to Davis, rather that he's not conclusive. Here's one possible solution that perhaps could work. Would it be possible to put a brief one or two discussion of the state of the current assessment of Davis's actions being seen as treasonous in some sentences, or even a paragraph of the legacy section? It seems to make sense there, as that is where the ongoing interpretation of how Davis is viewed, and his significance today, is discussed.

As an aside, I'm not sure that changing opinions on legal matters is equivalent to the kind of accumulations of data we see with scientific theories. In this case, I'm not sure the issue in 1861 is equivalent to unfolding data in a theory of evolution. What we are looking at is a legal interpretation that was ambiguous at the time and resolved by an ex post facto 1867 ruling by a Supreme Court that was no longer dominated by southern presence. (Though I can't imagine a case like Texas v. White cropping up without a civil war. Given that, as Ad Orientum mentioned, interpretation in all forms is always something ongoing. Additionally, interpretation is always adapting to the demands of its time.

Another aside: One of my points relevant to Wikipedia style. With respect to a mentioned author's opinions in mainspace, I disagree that their presence presents greater objectivity. The regular citing of author's in main space is often used to assert an individual opinion of an editor in the name of person following that offer via an ad authorarium mechanism. So, in my view often seems against neutral point of view. But that's my personal experience when reading any article that gives me a long list of individual opinions by academics. You'll see that this article has adhered to that style, though of course, other others may wind up modifying that. My preference when playing a major role in editing is to give the consensus or well-cited description of the major splits, if there is not a consensus. Of course, this is only a preference on my part.

Finally, thanks for jumping in, Ad Orientem. I very much appreciate other voices, as the interpretation of Davis is an important topic even today. I agree that the interpretations go on and take on new meanings as the historical context in which they are embedded socially evolve. That's perhaps why putting something about the view of Davis's action as treason as seen today or as it has unfolded. (The article already points out in the narrative section tthat at the time, many northerners, as represented by their Representatives, already interpreted Davis's action as treasonous.) Wtfiv (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to make sure it is clear that I am not saying William C. Davis is sympathetic to Davis, rather that he's not conclusive: I'm not seeing nearly as much ambiguity William C. Davis as that. Calling Jefferson Davis's claim an incredible notion, from the man who led a separatist movement, seems rather straightforwardly dismissive of Davis's protestation of innocence.

I'm not sure the issue in 1861 is equivalent to unfolding data in a theory of evolution: While I can agree they're not directly equivalent—one can't put history in a test tube—I still disagree that that means history is reducible to mere opinion, like deciding whether one likes or dislikes a movie. This is still a professional, academic endeavor, and just as there are more and less defensible interpretations of scientific data (one technically can't put evolution in a test tube either—it's not pure physics—what scientists do is make observations about the observable world, including genetic data, and draw conclusions), so too are there more and less defensible interpretations of historical data—which is why we strive to summarize what reliable sources say, without converting into opinions what are in actuality facts.

a legal interpretation that was ambiguous at the time and resolved by an ex post facto 1867 ruling: While I think the reliable source guideline encourages us to prioritize current historical scholarship, so long as we bring up nineteenth-century sources, the interpretation wasn't entirely ex post facto. As early as 1832, people from James Madison (a constitutional framer) to Andrew Jackson (a fellow southerner) considered secession illegal, a "revolutionary act" in Jackson's words. At the time of secession, northerners and southerners alike characterized the secession as a revolution against the United States (see Andre Fleche, The Revolution of 1861: The American Civil War in the Age of Nationalist Conflict (University of North Carolina Press, 2012), 60–106). Yes, after the war ended Davis walked that back, but, well, he would, wouldn't he?

One of my points relevant to Wikipedia style: I can sympathize with that feeling, but I worry that leaping immediately to that conclusion isn't giving other editors the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes quotations are relevant or useful. An editor might struggle to think of a different way to word information, making quotation and attribution necessary to avoid plagiarism and copyright violation. Or a topic might be controversial, making providing quotations from offline sources a gesture of good faith to let editors without direct access to the offline source know what verifies the prose.

Would it be possible to put a brief one or two discussion of the state of the current assessment of Davis's actions being seen as treasonous in some sentences: This is an interesting idea, but describing the state of a current assessment—that's to say, describing historians, rather than citing historians to describe history—would require citing a different kind of source than we seem to have. As the policy on original research's section about secondary sources explains, whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. In our discussion, we've been citing historical scholarship about Jefferson Davis, which are secondary sources for the topic of Jefferson Davis. But if we try to extrapolate a more general "state of the current assessment", that's interpreting those histories like primary sources for the field of history and drifting into disallowed original research.

I think it'd be more straightforward to just summarize what reliable historians say about the history: in this case, that even though the prosecution got cold feet about the case and didn't follow through, Jefferson Davis had betrayed the United States (corroborated by Rafute, Shackel, Nicoletti, and C. Davis). Trying to instead describe historians is an unnecessary indirection. (William C. Davis may not be as forceful as Rafute and Shackel, but I'm struggling to read him as inconclusive; and while Nicoletti documents how the prosecution understandably worried that a Virginia jury might nullify the charges, she also says Davis's own lawyer didn't really believe in the defense.)

I'm also glad to have more input with Ad Orientem, but the three of us still aren't that many. If we remain at an impasse, it may be time to take up your suggestion, Wtfiv, to seek a broader set of inputs. I'm thinking of making a post at the dispute resolution noticeboard as the place of first resort, though, before looking toward an RfC. Not!voting has its place but still strikes me as a little more rigid than ideal, and it's okay for us to take our time. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, assuming the American Historical Review article reflects Nicoletti correctly, your summary seems to miss the point of Nicoletti's book, which is a direct examination of the topic we are discussing.

Nicoletti does conjecture that O'Conner's defense strategy is a bluff (or maybe he was just unsure it would work, we'd have to dig into the book itself to examine this further). We'd have to dig into the book deeper The key point of Nicoletti's book is not that Davis committed treason, but how the issue of secession- and hence Davis's guilt for treason- really was unresolved and legally debatable at the time Davis's trial was scheduled. The right of secession- hence, Davis's guilt for Treason- were not resolved at the time when Davis's trial was scheduled. Again, the case was situation was not settled until Texas v. White had not been rendered in 1867. And as the article makes clear, that ruling was the culmination of Republican theorizing over years. And it was handed down by a court that had been transformed by the war. So Nicoletti's book is not part of a claim that Davis had clearly committed treason at the time of the trial. And, I'm sure the problematics of secession at the time of the trial, do not rely on Nicoletti alone. I offered that as an easily and publicly available modern consideration. If needed, I'm sure it isn't too difficult to find other sources that show the issue was unsettled at the time.

I agree that Jackson was against secession and saw it as treasonable. That is one of his sources of fame, as you know from your interaction with that article. He may have seen it as "revolutionary" too as Nicoletti's book apparently discusses the "right of revolution" had not been resolved early. Jackson's opinion shows that southerners were not monolithic in their belief about secession (but I doubt Northerners were either), Jackson's opinion and possible willingness to apply military force does not directly address the decision about its legality.

Again, a statement in legacy seems more reasonable. As time has gone on and the rule of Texas v. White has settled to define the United States as indissoluble, it could be seen that from this ex post facto position, Davis was guilty of treason. And, I'm open to whichever dispute resolution method you'd like to use that you feel will result in the most fair outcome. The input of other watchers would be appreciated as well.

Passing follow-up on side points:

• Yes, there are more or less defensible positions from history, but much of these are socially conditioned. What mainly moves historical research forward is usually the discovery of new information and papers that add new information to the process.
• I'm glad you see the point about the name intrusions. I think a thorough reader of articles tries to be fair about judging a sentence, but the citation of scholastic names is a reasonable-though not determinative- signal that POV puppeteering may be present.

Wtfiv (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I originally wanted to move Salmon P. Chase's [41] link, but considering that it would destroy the neatness of the reference format and the amount of information revealed in the link text is very general and poor, it is not ideal, I don't think it would be more complete if it was added. Cbls1911 (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Follow up passing comment: After writing this reply, I saw someone had mentioned Chase's ambivalence about the case in the Davis article. I deleted it as it wasn't sourced and it was unclear about the source. I hope the person who posted it shares their intentions with us here. But it did lead me to this Nicoletti interview, which opens up all the political issues at stake during the trial (As does this site from the Federal Judiciary Center). This article (which I'm not arguing to add to the article)

Connolly (2015) The Use of the Fourteenth Amendment by Salmon P. Chase in the Trial of Jefferson Davis in the Akron Law Journal is particularly fascinating. It ends (p. 1200)

But it should not be forgotten that through a novel and ingenious use of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Chase saved the Supreme Court from having to make the ultimate legal decision regarding the American Civil War. He also denied Jefferson Davis the trial that he always wanted; a trial that Davis felt would vindicate him and his cause. Chase, through the use of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, saved the nation the pain of making a decision on whether or not secession is treason. It is unlikely that any of the Framers of the Amendment would have anticipated this result. But such is the nature of constitutional law.

It only bears indirectly on our discussion on how to address the relationship of Davis and treason in the article, but its fascinating. Suggesting that the politics of the trial could be an article in its own right. Nicoletti's interview supports the idea that the "right of secession" could've been successfully argued was a weak one and seems to suggest that it wouldn't work, but it did seem strong enough to keep the courts from wanting to try Davis. The Chase articles also show how the defense used the newly passed 14th amendment to save Davis by arguing that a treason trial by appealing to double jeopardy. These cases certainly suggest the opinion was not in Davis's favor, but they also show that the charges were considered open enough to make dropping the treason charges the most felicitous solution to avoid the issue regarding the legality of secession. Again, these are more just interesting asides than arguments for resolving how to discuss Davis and treason in the article but they do reveal the underlying complexities of the issues embedded in the context of the time just after the war. Wtfiv (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking into this a bit more. James M. McPherson, who'd be hard-pressed to be defined as a lost-cause sympathizer gives a nuanced view of Davis in Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis and the Civil War, and like Nicoletti, Robert Icenhauer-Ramirez in Treason on Trial: The United States V. Jefferson Davis seems sympathetic to the Davis as traitor argument, but also goes into great detail about how this argument was tied up with the legality of succession. I don't have access to the book at this time, but I couldn't find where he outright claims Davis is a traitor.

An interesting take that I could access was Chapter 9 of On Treason: A Citizen's Guide to the Law by Carlton F. W. Larson, whi is a professor of constitutional law. In Chapter 9, The Case of Jefferson Davis, President of the United States. He explicitly sides with with the "Davis as traitor", but then discusses the problematics. Here's some items:

• Discussing New Orlean Mitch Landrieu's speech in 2017, Larson says Landrieu recognized what many historians have long understood: The Confederate Cause was an act of treason... pp.117-118
• At the end of the article, after discussing how Davis's letter to Theodore Roosevelt disputing Roosevelt's claim as he being like Benedict Arnold as "libelous and false", Larson comes down more firmly stating: Both Arnold and Davis indisputably committed treason. Larson's statement comes after his in-depth consideration of the issues of why it was not clearcut to make such a claim at the time of the trial. He discusses the issues that Nicholetti discuss.
  • Larson too points out that although Northern opinion was fairly unified in seeing Davis as a traitor, the case at the time was not clearcut for a number of reasons. Interestingly, he discusses how the abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens supported the "seccession is legal" argument, which would have gotten Davis off the charges, because it would've enabled the legislation he desired.

Summing up: From my view, I think, looking at the sources that focus specifically on the topic of the trial, that there is a general consensus of contemporary scholars that Davis was guilty of treason. It also seems to me that this larger academic consensus is one that has been building up long after the death of Davis. And at the time of the trial, the legal proceeding make it clear the case did not feel clearcut to the players at the time. This suggest to me that putting the claim in is reasonable. It could be stated as a consensus opinion without modifiers like "definitely" or "certainly". I think Larson's pg. 117 statement may be the strongest for paraphrasing, but maybe others would be as accurate. I do think it should go into legacy, as it is in the 21st century, and perhaps in some of the late 20th century that scholars are consistently coming to this consensus. It would also add nicely to the changing view of Davis in the current century: Further emphasizing his transition from lost-cause hero to a more considered person whose beliefs supported slavery, white supremacism, and treason. It could easily be put there. If you wish, you could draft a line, or I could...thoughts?Wtfiv (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Afterthought on another quote from Larso: I appreciate the humor in this quote from Larson But did states have a constitutional right to secede from the Union? [i.e., the issue on which the treason of Davis would have pivoted on had he been tried?]The issue had supposedly by resolved by the Civil War itself, and most constitutional historians tend to agree. It was the case of 'Grant vs. Lee'. (p. 124)

Larson then continues along the lines we are discussing here, pointing out No court had ever squarely addressed the constitutionality of secession, but a treason trial of Jefferson Davis would raise the issue directly. (p. 124) Though Larson also points out that it is unsettling because it would be a legal issue decided by force of arms, or trial by combat. Hence the ongoing legal wranglings in circa 1865-1868. But I'm posting this because I found the reference to the "case of Grant vs. Lee" humorous in the context of our thinking this through. Wtfiv (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking more into this—I haven't been sure where to look to do more in-depth research beyond the material I linked earlier, but this is really helpful material. Carlton F. W. Larson's On Treason stating that many historians have long understood that the Confederate Cause was an act of treason is exactly the kind of historiographic, general source we really needed to understand what historians in the present generally think; thank you for finding it.

putting the claim in is reasonable. It could be stated as a consensus opinion without modifiers like "definitely" or "certainly": Agreed. I think you're right to say we can dispense with intensifiers like 'obviously' or 'plainly' or 'definitely'; amplifying like that isn't necessary and was a bit too much on my part. Seeing it articulated this way, I can also come around to it being in the legacy section. Something like, 'in the twenty-first century, many historians conclude that Davis's participation in the Confederacy did constitute treason'? You make a good point that in the section about Davis's imprisonment, the historically noteworthy and interesting thing to emphasize was that few involved in the case were really sure how it would turn out if it went to trial—that, as you're showing, is what historians tend to emphasize when talking about the trial itself as a historical episode, even while generally concluding Davis had been a traitor. Thanks for hearing me out on this and for your patience as you've explained your sense of how to approach the topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)