This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
 which were provided by the Constitution itself, to be ‘sufficient for the establishment’ of it. At the conclusion of his most exhaustive historical and constitutional argument, the author asserts that the whole case against Davis, Lee et als, is based on a perversion of the principles of our polity— ‘based,’ to use his own language—‘solely on falsehood, fraud and violence;’ and he contends that ‘it is only on ground, composed of these detestable ingredients that their gibbet can be erected.’ In December, 1865, Charles O'Connor characterized the work as ‘an admirably prepared and overwhelmingly conclusive brief’ for Davis's defence, and, some time afterward, he employed the author in the case; the Philadelphia Ledger stated that ‘a most important argument had been received by the President from London, in which are set forth the reasons why Davis cannot be convicted in any court;’ and many leading papers of that day noticed the work as one of extraordinary research and ability, specially designed to show that Davis was no traitor and was not punishable as such. In short, all that was valuable in the defensive argument of Professor Bledsoe, delivered in 1866, was given to the world by ‘P. C. Centz, Barrister,’ in 1865; though as a criticism and refutation of the consolidation dogmas of Story and Webster, Professor B.'s work is unsurpassed.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.