Blacks and the Confederacy

cowboyway: "You're dodging the point (as usual).
The point is that the federal government didn't want a trial."

No, I dodged nothing, and pointed clearly to the facts.
The chief judge of the district court where the case was brought, Justice Salmon Chase, wanted the case dismissed on technicalities, another judge wanted Davis convicted, so the case would end up in the Supreme Court, where Chase was the newly appointed Chief Justice.

But had the case been brought in a different court, say, for example, in Boston, there can be no doubt Davis would have been convicted.

President Johnson's pardon of Davis closed the case, and is, imho, what Lincoln would have done.

cowboyway: "Because it would have exposed disHonest Abe as the war criminal that he was and would have upheld the right of secession."

Total complete Lost Causer wet-dream rubbish.
That's because the same Justice Salmon Chase, who wished to dismiss treason charges against Jefferson Davis also lead the majority opinion in Texas v White just four months later (April 1869).

In Texas v White, Chase ruled, in effect, that unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession were not constitutional or legal, and therefore were acts of constitutionally proscribed rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence".

cowboyway: "I think Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, is completely in line with Original Intent, as am I.
It's you False Causers that have distorted the original intent of the Constitution."

No, you misunderstand Jefferson's words.
What Jefferson here granted was his mutual consent for separations under certain benign circumstances.
This is 100% consistent with Madison's letter of some years later, which clearly spells out mutual consent as valid in disunion.

But on other occasions, neither Jefferson nor Madison were nearly so agreeable.

In 1807, just three years after your quotes, when President Jefferson learned that his former Vice President, Aaron Burr, intended to declare unilateral secession from Louisiana, Jefferson had Burr arrested and tried for treason.
No "mutual consent" from President Jefferson there.
Just a few years later, in 1814, when President Madison learned that New England Federalists were complaining about the War of 1812, and meeting to discuss unilateral, unapproved secession, Madison moved US Army forces from the frontier with Canada to Albany, New York, in case rebellion should break out in New England.
No "mutual consent" from President Madison there.

cowboyway: "Philosophical question for you, professor: do you believe that maintaining the union is more important that individual liberty? "

The US Constitution allows for temporary suspension of certain liberties -- i.e., habeas corpus -- in the event of rebellion or invasion public safety requires it.
So my question to you is: do you believe in the US Constitution?

cowboyway: "The driving force behind the Constitution was individual liberty and removing the yoke of tyranny.
If you answer yes to the question posed above then you've rejected original intent and conservative viewpoint."

Actually, no, we already had all that in the old Articles of Confederation, and they were not satisfactory, so the new Constitution in 1787 was intended to provide more structure and authority for central government -- not too much, of course, but just enough to make a viable nation.

That was our Founders' Original Intent and represents the truly conservative view of our time.

But had the case been brought in a different court, say, for example, in Boston, there can be no doubt Davis would have been convicted.

You obviously didn't read the Yale Law link I provided. It's also obvious that you avoid any material of fact that would destroy your carefully constructed fantasy world.

The statements included in Texas v. White dealing with the constitutionality of secession were dicta (A comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent.) and statements included in the opinion of a court, as dictum, are not of sufficient legal stature to allow their use as precedent.

Based on your position on this issue one has to assume that you approve of legislating from the bench, a rather liberal position.

BTW, you do realize that Texas v. White wasn't about secession, don't you? A very partisan Chase took this bond case issue to insert his opinion on a question that was not argued before the Court. Are you telling me and FR that you agree with partisan judges legislating from the bench?

Fact is there's never been a court case where arguments were made on the right of states to withdraw from the union. End of story.

No, you misunderstand Jefferson's words.

No, you're intentionally misrepresenting Jefferson's words to justify your weak, and growing weaker, position.

The US Constitution allows for temporary suspension of certain liberties -- i.e., habeas corpus -- in the event of rebellion or invasion public safety requires it. So my question to you is: do you believe in the US Constitution?

You're dodging again, professor. My question to you was, and is, do you believe that maintaining the union is more important than the constitutional guarantee of individual liberty?

the old Articles of Confederation, and they were not satisfactory

You do realize that 9 of the original states seceded from the union under the Articles of Confederation, don't you?

Original Intent is a conservative position. Misrepresenting the facts and deliberate revisionism by you False Causers is not.

cowboyway: "Based on your position on this issue one has to assume that you approve of legislating from the bench, a rather liberal position."

More rubbish.
Your man, Justice Salmon Chase wanted to dismiss treason charges against Jefferson Davis, so you cheer him on.
The same man, Chief Justice Salmon Chase four months later, ruled in Texas v White that unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession were not lawful, so you yell all kinds of blather & nonsense against him.

I have merely asserted that the end results of President Johnson's pardons for Jefferson Davis & other Confederate leaders were in line with Lincoln's intentions and were, doubtless, the best possible outcome.

cowboyway: "Fact is there's never been a court case where arguments were made on the right of states to withdraw from the union. End of story."

Well, FRiend, then you should bring such a case, and argue it to the Supreme Court.
How far do you think you would get with it?

;-)

cowboyway: "No, you're intentionally misrepresenting Jefferson's words to justify your weak, and growing weaker, position."

More rubbish.

cowboyway: "My question to you was, and is, do you believe that maintaining the union is more important than the constitutional guarantee of individual liberty?"

Your problem is, you insist on misunderstanding the correct answers.
So read carefully, I'll say it yet again: Our Founders' Original Intent, as confirmed in Texas v White, was that secession is lawful under two conditions:

Mutual consent, which is what your quotes from Jefferson expressed.
In effect, a major breach of contract, such as "usurpations" or "abuses of power" which absolutely match your question here.

cowboyway: "Original Intent is a conservative position.
Misrepresenting the facts and deliberate revisionism by you False Causers is not."

Then you, FRiend, should stop misrepresenting & deliberately revising the real facts of history.

Starting right now.

cowboyway: "A general amnesty was issued by Johnson but Davis was still under indictment. The Supreme Court just let it die without issuing a formal order of dismissal."

That is an inaccurate statement by you. The proof that it is inaccurate is found in a link that you provided.

Please re-read the closing paragraph from your Yale Law link in post#467.

"Thus ended the case of The United States vs Jefferson Davis. It was dismissed from the docket of the Supreme Court at Washington at the motion of the Attorney General of the United States on the 19th of February, 1869. But no formal order was made dismissing the case in the federal court at Richmond, Virginia. So far as that court was concerned, it simply died.

Didn't you find it fascinating that Robert E. Lee was listed among the witnesses upon whose testimony the new 21 page indictment (against Davis) was found?

Your credibility is very suspect in my humble estimation. Could you provide a link that backs up your oft repeated assertion that Honest Abe would have been found out to be a War Criminal had the Supreme Court not dismissed the Davis case? And that his corpse, then a'mouldering in the grave would have been "embarrassed"?

A difference without a distinction, candy. The court let the case die because they didn’t want a trial that would expose disHonest Abe and his criminal government. Even northerners were realizing that Lincoln was wrong. When are you False Causers going to wake up from your fantasy past?

Why is it fascinating that Lee would be called as a witness? He was the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia and had spent a lot of time in Richmond as Davis’ right hand man. You False Causers desperately grasp and the slightest of little straws...........

BTW, you never did answer my question. Very telling.

rockrr: “...question for South Carolina and southern states in general is if the CBF dust-up will become a campaign issue. I’m sure that it will be a rallying cry for whites but do you suppose the other side will try to leverage it as well?”

The Left needs no real excuse to bellow, “RACIST!” and we can well expect that to be their response to any suggestion of a conservative push to restore the CBF.

Where are the votes on this?
Anybody ‘ s guess, I’d suppose.

Texas v White that unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession were not lawful

The trial wasn't about secession, homer. And go back and read the definition of dicta.

Once again you defend legislating from the bench just like a good little liberal.

were in line with Lincoln's intentions and were, doubtless, the best possible outcome

Bravo Sierra, professor. Nothing that disHonest Abe or his lackeys did resulted in "the best possible outcome". It was all dirty yankee politics.

And now, not only have we established that you agree with legislating from the bench, we can also conclude that you are a proponent of big government, Lincoln style, i.e., trash the Constitution when it's for political expedientency.

Well, FRiend, then you should bring such a case, and argue it to the Supreme Court. How far do you think you would get with it?

Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the current population even cares about the issue of secession and a vast majority of American's know very little about the history of the country that they live in. It would be a waste of time to even attempt to have a secession case heard by the SCOTUS.

as confirmed in Texas v White, was that secession

Dictum/Dicta: Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.

Still spitting out that revisionist history, huh professor? You False Causers are hilariously pathetic bunch.

You still haven't answered my question: do you believe that maintaining the union is more important than the constitutional guarantee of individual liberty? Yes or no, professor. Yes or no.

CBW:A difference without a distinction, candy. The court let the case die because they didn't want a trial that would expose disHonest Abe and his criminal government. Even northerners were realizing that Lincoln was wrong. When are you False Causers going to wake up from your fantasy past?

Could you clarify what you mean when you say, "the court", pardner? Or is the above just "dicta"? Also, is there a precedent for posthumously charging someone with "War Crimes"? Poor Abe has been being raked over the coals ever since he was shot in the back of the head. Couldn't charges of war crimes as easily have been brought against any of the "co-conspirators" in your imaginary criminal government of Lincoln's?

CBW:Why is it fascinating that Lee would be called as a witness? He was the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia and had spent a lot of time in Richmond as Davis' right hand man. You False Causers desperately grasp and the slightest of little straws...........

When Davis was arrested, it was because President Johnson (a Southerner, specifically picked by mr Bad Guy Lincoln as his new vice-president) put out a bounty for his arrest as a suspect in the plot to assassinate Lincoln. That is why Davis was arrested by the military and held in chains in a dungeon by the military to await a military court trial. As the true facts of just who was involved in the assassination came to light, Davis was delivered after two years into the hands of the public court system. As we know, it ended up in the US Supreme Court, where the Double Jeopardy (Davis had already been punished by Amendment 14) option was applied and the case dismissed (by the SCOTUS). You don't find it fascinating that Robert E Lee was involved? It was news to me. Perhaps I misunderstood that you were meaning to imply that Davis' case was summarily thrown out, without going to court because it would have proved Lincoln a War Criminal.

BTW, you never did answer my question. Very telling.

And just what, pray tell, does that verily tell you? My first intention was to give you the "silent treatment". Could you tell? But I couldn't keep it going. Sorry sweetheart, could you please repeat the question?

Poor Abe has been being raked over the coals

If there is any justice in this world "Poor Abe" is being raked over the coals even as we speak.

ever since he was shot in the back of the head

Humanely put down like the rabid dog he was.

As the true facts of just who was involved in the assassination came to light, Davis was delivered after two years into the hands of the public court system.

You're leaving out that northerners themselves were getting tired of Davis' mistreatment. They were also becoming more vocal about the unconstitutional acts perpetrated on them during the war by the Lincoln Regime.

As we know, it ended up in the US Supreme Court, where the Double Jeopardy (Davis had already been punished by Amendment 14) option was applied and the case dismissed (by the SCOTUS).

Interesting turn of events for the feds:

Since two famous special counsels had told the government its case was a loser, finally, none other than the Chief Justice, in a quirk of Constitutional manipulation, devised an idea to avoid a trial without vindicating the South. His amazing solution was little short of genius. The Fourteenth Amendment had been adopted, which provided that anyone who had engaged in insurrection against the United States and had at one time taken an oath of allegiance (which Davis had done as a U.S. Senator) could not hold public office. The Bill of Rights prevents double jeopardy, so Davis, who had already been punished once by the Fourteenth Amendment in not being permitted to hold public office, couldn't be tried and punished again for treason. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase secretly passed along his clever argument to Davisâ€™s counsel, Charles Oâ€™Connor, who then made the motion to dismiss. The Court took the motion under consideration, passing the matter on to the Supreme Court for determination.

Well, candy, it's the same question I ask all you False Causers: do you believe that keeping the union together is more important that freedom? Now quit being a punk and answer the question or go back to your womanish silent treatment.

cowboyway referring to Texas v White: "The trial wasn't about secession, homer.
And go back and read the definition of dicta.
Once again you defend legislating from the bench just like a good little liberal."

More rubbish.
Texas v White required the US Supreme Court to rule on whether, in fact, secession had occurred.
It ruled in the negative, and that ruling has never been challenged by any law of Congress, ruling of the Supreme Court or even an executive order, in all the years since.
So, until that happens, it stands as "settled law".

cowboyway: "Nothing that disHonest Abe or his lackeys did resulted in "the best possible outcome".
It was all dirty yankee politics.
And now, not only have we established that you agree with legislating from the bench, we can also conclude that you are a proponent of big government, Lincoln style, i.e., trash the Constitution when it's for political expedientency."

Total rubbish, all false accusations, not a word of truth in any of it, FRiend.

cowboyway: "Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the current population even cares about the issue of secession and a vast majority of American's know very little about the history of the country that they live in.
It would be a waste of time to even attempt to have a secession case heard by the SCOTUS."

No, the real problem is that people like yourself are utterly, constitutionally incapable of truthful, honest & factual discussion, but always resort to hyperbole, insults & outright lies, just as you did here.
In fact, there is a strong case for secession based on mutual consent, but there is no case -- never was, never will be -- for unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession.

cowboyway on Texas v White: "...opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent."

And yet, the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v White has never been challenged by any law of Congress, ruling of the Supreme Court or even by executive order of the President.
That's why it stands today as "settled law".

cowboyway: "You still haven't answered my question: do you believe that maintaining the union is more important than the constitutional guarantee of individual liberty?
Yes or no, professor. Yes or no."

In fact, I've answered your question now more than once, but since you have all the reading comprehension of a three-toed sloth, the answer still escapes you.

But I'm patient, I "get" that sloths are, well, slow, and will try again:

First of all, no Constitutional guarantee is unconditional or absolute, all come with implied or expressed limitations.
- To pick one example: the right to free speech does not permit you to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
- To cite another: habeas corpus may be constitutionally suspended if required for public safety during times of rebellion or invasion.
But even with those limitations, our Founders well understood that government can grow to usurp power and become abusive of its citizens.
They recognized that this was, in addition to mutual consent, an adequate reason for disunion, and indeed, qualified in their minds as a form of mutual consent.

Now, it seems to me that answer should be more than adequate for the quicker & more agile two-toed sloths, though perhaps, sadly, the slower three toed varieties will just never "get" it.

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.