Posted on 05/12/2015 3:00:03 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Ignoring the question is not fixing it.
Avoiding 600,000 deaths.
The Confederacy could have done that by merely not starting their war.
Yes, I do.
I did a Google search. I did not find a reference of Taney saying that. A Wikipedia article quotes Taney as writing in Dred Scott: It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." I take this to be historical context for issues he and the other justices were facing in the 1850s.
The way D.C. has screwed up this country. Gee wizz, I’d like a do over.
A do over of what? The Civil War or The Revolution?
“Bloody Kansas” was going for what, ten years?, before the Civil War started.
So what happened Before Lincoln was elected President - as the first Republican president?
Who controlled the United States Supreme Court?
“Hint: Dred Scott (May 6th 1857). In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott’s request. For only the second time in its history the Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional”
Who controlled the Presidency?
“James Buchanan Democrat
Who controlled the Vice presidency?
“John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875) Kentucky
March 4, 1857 (age 36) March 4, 1861 (age 40) Democratic “
Who controlled the Senate?
“33 Seats needed for a majority.
Democratic 41 Seats +2 seat gain
Republican 20 Seats +19 seats
American 5 Seat +4 seats
Who controlled the House?
“114 Seats needed for a majority. 1856
Democratic 133 Seats +50 seat gain
Republican 90 Seats -10 seats
American 14 Seat -37 seats”
“120 Seats needed for a majority. 1858
Republican 116 Seats 26 seats
Democratic 98 Seats -25 seat”
Far from being in an ‘abused minority’, the Democrats had been having their way and running the government for a while.
President Johnson was impeached for good cause.
“President Johnson was impeached for good cause.”
How is impeaching a president for giving three speeches with the “intent to show disrespect for the Congress” good cause? Talk about throwing in the kitchen sink. I’m not following your thinking there.
I agree, that rat twat was one of the worst Presidents ever. Too many idiots here think the rats “used to be” the good guys.
Because he was not impeached for ‘three speeches’. Good grief.
Because he was not impeached for ‘three speeches’. Good grief.
“Because he was not impeached for ‘three speeches’. Good grief.”
Read article X of the impeachment. It begins: “That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and declare, with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say:”
Before we delve down to reason number 10, let’s start with REASON NUMBER ONE.
He sought to remove Lonoln’s Secretary of War - Edwin Stanton.
“ARTICLE I
That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the twenty-first day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and of the requirement of the Constitution that he should take care that the laws be faithfully executed, did unlawfully, and in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, issue and order in writing for the removal of Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, said Edwin M. Stanton having been theretofore duly appointed and commissioned, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, as such Secretary, and said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the twelfth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, and during the recess of said Senate, having been suspended by his order Edwin M. Stanton from said office, and within twenty days after the first day of the next meeting of said Senate, that is to say, on the twelfth day of December in the year last aforesaid, having reported to said Senate such suspension with the evidence and reasons for his action in the case and the name of the person designated to perform the duties of such office temporarily until the next meeting of the Senate, and said Senate thereafterward on the thirteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, having duly considered the evidence and reasons reported by said Andrew Johnson for said suspension, and having been refused to concur in said suspension, whereby and by force of the provisions of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March second, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, said Edwin M. Stanton did forthwith resume the functions of his office, whereof the said Andrew Johnson had then and there due notice, and said Edwin M. Stanton, by reason of the premises, on said twenty-first day of February, being lawfully entitled to hold said office of Secretary for the Department of War, which said order for the removal of said Edwin M. Stanton is in substance as follows, that is to say:
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
Washington, D.C., February 21, 1868
SIR: By virtue of the power and authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States, you are hereby removed from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, and your functions as such will terminate upon receipt of this communication. You will transfer to Brevet Major General, Lorenzo Thomas, Adjutant General of the army, who has this day been authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, all records, books, papers, and other public property now in your custody and charge.
Respectfully yours,
ANDREW JOHNSON.
To the Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War Washington, D.C.
Which order was unlawfully issued with intent then and there to violate the act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March second, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven; and with the further intent, contrary to the provisions of said act, and in violation thereof, and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, the said Senate then and there being in session, to remove said Edwin M. Stanton from the office of Secretary for the Department of War, the said Edwin M. Stanton being then and there Secretary of War, and being then and there in the due and lawful execution and discharge of the duties of said office, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.”
Lincoln’s...
Reason two is much the same.
“ARTICLE II
That on the twenty-first day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty- eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office, of his oath of office, and in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and contrary to the provisions of an act entitled “An act regulating the tenure of certain civil offices,” passed March second, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, without the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, said Senate then and there being in session, and without authority of law, did, with intent to violate the Constitution of the United States, and the act aforesaid, issue and deliver to one Lorenzo Thomas a letter of authority in substance as follows, that is to say:
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
Washington, D.C., February 21, 1868
SIR: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge.
Respectfully, yours.
ANDREW JOHNSON
To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas,
Adjutant General U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
Then and there being no vacancy in said office of Secretary for the Department of War, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did then and there commit, and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.”
And reason number three is much the same as on end two...
“ARTICLE III
That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, on the twenty-first day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight, at Washington, in the District of Columbia, did commit and was guilty of a high misdemeanor in office in this, that, without authority of law, while the Senate of the United States was then and there in session, he did appoint one Lorenzo Thomas to be Secretary for the Department of War ad interim, without the advice and consent of the Senate, and with intent to violate the Constitution of the United States, no vacancy having happened in said office of Secretary for the Department of War during the recess of the Senate, and no vacancy existing in said office at the time, and which said appointment, so made by said Andrew Johnson, of said Lorenzo Thomas, is in substance as follows, that is to say:
EXECUTIVE MANSION,
Washington, D.C., February 21, 1868
SIR: The Hon. Edwin M. Stanton having been this day removed from office as Secretary for the Department of War, you are hereby authorized and empowered to act as Secretary of War ad interim, and will immediately enter upon the discharge of the duties pertaining to that office. Mr. Stanton has been instructed to transfer to you all the records, books, papers, and other public property now in his custody and charge.
Respectfully yours,
ANDREW JOHNSON.
To Brevet Major General Lorenzo Thomas,
Adjutant General U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.”
There are nine articles of impeachment before that one, and one after it. Yet you somehow conclude he was impeached because he gave a couple of speeches.
The French were never as close to supporting the confederate cause as some might believe, and there's no way Napoleon III would have made such a move without the British taking the lead. And the British were smart enough to know that supporting the south would have been wildly unpopular among the British middle and working classes. Believing otherwise is the ongoing Lost Cause game of "If Only…"
I highlighted Article X because it demonstrates the off-axis thinking of radical northerners who had insisted on fighting an optional war against the South and the U. S. Constitution. The Radical Republicans were, as we say, Radical.
The fight over the Tenure of Office Act was more substantive but Article X was more illustrative of the north's crazed hatred of their fellow countrymen - and their hatred of Johnson's pursuit of Lincoln's policy of reconciliation.
I believe the U. S. Supreme Court later ruled the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 was invalid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.