Thompson Played Grant _ No Hero in South

Why on Earth would libertarians love confederates? Jefferson Davis ran one of the worst constitution trashing, big intrusive government, high tax, high regulation, fiscally irresponsible administrations in recorded history. The confederate cause was built on denying basic rights to one third of their population. It’s supporters, while in the U.S. Congress, promoted government intervention at the expense of the states. The confederacy should by rights be an anathema to any real libertarian.

************************

Pay attention to the rhetoric of Libertarians on economic matters. And don’t forget that they are also under the forces of Political Correctness. If you antagonize them enough, they will bash Lincoln, and praise the economic goals of the Confederacy.

Citations please.

"Look Away: History of the Confederate States of America" by William C. Davis goes into it in great detail about a lot of it. Davis details government control of industries like liquor, salt, and textile in Chapter 10. In Chapter 7 he talks about how the federal government impressment of agricultural output for the army made already food supplies in many Southern states even tighter. Chapter 6 details arrests without warrants, something Mark Neely goes into greater detail in his "Southern Rights: Political Priosners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism". Stephen Wise talks about how the government forced private ship owners to reserve a significant portion of their cargo space without compensation. As far as taxes are concerned, Davis goes into that as well. In Chapter 13 he details that from the very beginning the confederate government was tax happy. In August 1861 the central government levied a property tax on real estate, slaves, stocks, bank accounts, and other property, something that the U.S. never did. In 1862 the confederate government first proposed an income tax, something that had never been done before as well, and which had rates as high as 20%. A variation of this was passed at last in 1863. Finally, the fiscal irresponsibility of the Davis government is evident in the fact that confederate currency lost value almost from the moment it was introduced and by the end of the rebellion had the approximate value of toilet paper.

So you obviously disagree with me. Fine, nothing new in that. So please feel free to explain why a libertarian should love the confederacy. Include citations please.

You've not yet provided a citation for your over-the-top hyperbole, "Jefferson Davis ran one of the worst constitution trashing, big intrusive government, high tax, high regulation, fiscally irresponsible administrations in recorded history."

Does your cited book say that the Confederacy was one of the worst in recorded history in those matters? If so, please provide the quote. If not, we are left to conclude that your statement is simply what we might expect from a rabid anti-Confederate poster.

I suppose that one person's belief is another person's hyperbole. Be it lack of a supreme court or protectionist tariffs or promises to end slavery, Davis ignored his constitution in ways never dreamed of by Lincoln. You will no doubt argue that. Davis's government intruded in virtually every aspect of every segment of Southern life through taxes, travel restrictions, seizing private property for state use, controlling whole industries, declaring martial law, conscription, food shortages and jailing people without charges. You will no doubt claim Lincoln was worse; again a matter of opinion. The confederate economy was a basket case, made worse by Davis policies like his cotton embargo and running the printing presses at the mint at full speed. You will no doubt defend him and use some newspaper editorial to support your claims. In the end I do believe that all that demonstrates that Davis ran one of the worst constitution trashing, big intrusive government, high tax, high regulation, fiscally irresponsible administrations in recorded history because I can't think of too many that were worse. You'll no doubt declare that Davis' government was none of that. So be it. Tomato, tomahto. Mobilation, peaceful intent. We apparently disagree on a lot of things, semantics wise.

But hyperbole aside, and knowing what we know about libertarian beliefs, can you please explain to me why a libertarian should love the Davis government? Disagree with my claims all you want, I don't care. But go back to the beginning of the discussion and explain why Hunterite is right and that true libertarians should love the Davis government. Can you do that because I can't see how it's possible.

I suppose that one person's belief is another person's hyperbole.

So, you couldn't come up with a quote supporting your beliefs.

Be it lack of a supreme court or protectionist tariffs or promises to end slavery, Davis ignored his constitution in ways never dreamed of by Lincoln.

It was the duty of the Confederate Congress to set up the Confederate Supreme Court, not Davis'. I've pointed that out to you before and how Davis reminded them of their duty to form the court.

The Confederate Congress passed the tariff act. We've had a long discussion about how protectionist or non-protectionist the Confederate tariff law was. Rmember my citation of the Yale professor's book that stated [Link]:

As was to be expected, the Confederate Congress perfected a revenue measure from which almost every trace of protective motives was removed.

promises to end slavery

To what are you referring?

Davis ignored his constitution in ways never dreamed of by Lincoln.

That hardly seems possible. Surely you remember [Link]

We apparently disagree on a lot of things

Agree.

But hyperbole aside, and knowing what we know about libertarian beliefs, can you please explain to me why a libertarian should love the Davis government?

Sorry, I really don't know much about libertarian thought.

It was the duty of the Confederate Congress to set up the Confederate Supreme Court, not Davis'. I've pointed that out to you before and how Davis reminded them of their duty to form the court.

Yeah, poor old Jeff. He really, really wanted a court but darn it all, that congress just wouldn't play along. Davis once said, "The true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended and calculated to carry out the object; whether it devises and creates an instrumentality for executing the specific power granted; and if the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional." Why would he want an institution that might say he was wrong?

As was to be expected, the Confederate Congress perfected a revenue measure from which almost every trace of protective motives was removed.

Almost every measure? The confederate constitution said that it couldn't be protectionist at all. So it was almost constitutional, is that what you're saying?

To what are you referring?

During the winter of 1864-65, Jefferson Davis sent Duncan Kenner to England and France to obtain recognition in exchange for an end to slavery. Please point out what clause in the confederate constitution gave him the power to make such an offer.

That hardly seems possible. Surely you remember.

Please! All you're pointing out is that Lincoln's actions were subject to judicial review, unlike Davis'. The Supreme Court ruling in Milligan was respected.

Sorry, I really don't know much about libertarian thought.

Then why not Google it and take a guess based on what you find?

Thanks for the information. I wasn't aware of it. Turns out he told Confederate congress leaders of his intention. [Link]

I suspect if the reply from abroad had been favorable, Davis would have pursued emancipation through Congress and the states. I don't know whether he would have gotten it.

For the benefit of others on this thread, the link above gives a favorable, perhaps overly favorable, description of Davis.

I suspect if the reply from abroad had been favorable, Davis would have pursued emancipation through Congress and the states. I don't know whether he would have gotten it.

Oh come on, Mike Griffith? He repeats the old Jim Limber fairy take for Pete's sake.

In any case even if Mike's right, what is evident is that Davis sent Kenner abroad to make promises he had no way of filling. And if Mike's correct and Davis did tell the confederate congress he intended to end slavery then he was overstepping his constitutional authority. Not that something like that would have bothered him.

Is that why Lincoln added a tenth justice to the Supreme Court?

It's amazing how when it comes to the confederate supreme court, or anything else to do with the confederacy for that matter, it's never Jeff Davis's fault. But anything having to do with the Union is always Abe Lincoln's fault.

The size of the court is determined by Congress. When Congress established a 10th circuit to cover California and Oregon then also expanded the Supreme Court to add a 10th Justice to cover it.

Happened after Lincoln's death. He didn't have a chance to ignore them like he did the judicial ruling against him in Ex Parte Merryman.

And Davis didn't have a chance to ignore supreme court decisions either. Besides, Merryman was not a Supreme Court case.

It's amazing how when it comes to the confederate supreme court, or anything else to do with the confederacy for that matter, it's never Jeff Davis's fault.

Glad you finally agree.

But anything having to do with the Union is always Abe Lincoln's fault.

I gather Lincoln didn't veto the bill expanding the court. Here's an old post about this issue (no sense retyping it). [Link]

Besides, Merryman was not a Supreme Court case.

Taney thought so. See Link. In the discussion about habeas corpus that followed that post you got handed your head, two ears, and your tail by a knowledgeable poster.

I gather Lincoln didn't veto the bill expanding the court. Here's an old post about this issue (no sense retyping it).

Why should he? Supreme Court justices each had a circuit that they were responsible. Ten circuits, ten justices.

Taney thought so.

No he didn't.

In the discussion about habeas corpus that followed that post you got handed your head, two ears, and your tail by a knowledgeable poster.

Only because you never bothered to read the decision. Had you done so then you would have realized the error in your arguement. But if I got handed my head then so did the entire legal community. None of them consider it a Supreme Court case, either.

[me]: Taney thought so.

[you]: No he didn't

Carl Brent Swisher, "Roger B. Taney," The MacMillan Company, 1936 at page 551 (emphasis mine):

"An audience of some two thousand people assembled on the following day to witness the outcome of the struggle between the Chief Justice and the military authorities. Leaving the Campbell home in the company of his grandson, Taney remarked that he might be imprisoned in Fort McHenry before night, but he was going to court to do his duty. As he took his place he announced that he acted alone rather than with Judge Giles because of the fact that he was sitting not as a member of the circuit court, but as Chief Justice of the United States. "One reason for the distinction, undoubtedly, was the belief that it would lent added weight to the decision."

That is consistent with newspaper accounts. From the Baltimore Sun, May 29, 1861:

"Chief Justice Taney, upon taking his seat on the bench, said that he desired to state that his associate, Judge Giles, of the Circuit Court, was present with him yesterday by his invitation, because he desired to avail himself of his counsel and advice in so important a case. The writ of habeas corpus was ordered by him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, consequently Judge Giles could not act with him in the case."

Then there is the matter of Taney posting the decision as an "at Chambers" decision. Means it is a decision of a Supreme Court justice. Here's what he posted:

"Decision. Ex parte John Merryman. Before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States at Chambers."

Some time ago I checked with poster Congressman Billy Bob, who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court. He said that his first Supreme Court win came from a ruling made by a single justice. You don't have to have the full court.

Then why did Taney hear the case at the Circuit Court bench for the district of Maryland if he was hearing the case for the entire court? Why did he file his decision with the Circuit Court and not the Supreme Court? Why haven't you read the decision? The answers for the first two are because Taney heard the case in his position as head of the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. I don't know the answer to the third question.

He said that his first Supreme Court win came from a ruling made by a single justice. You don't have to have the full court.

I would be very interested in learning the identity of a single case decided by a single justice on behalf of the entire court. I know that justices are responsible for a federal circuit and that they can issue stays in that circuit or issue decisions for that circuit, but I have never heard of a single judge issuing a decision. According to the Judiciary Act of 1789 a quorum is required.

According to the Judiciary Act of 1789 a quorum is required.

As my link above showed, from the Judiciary Act of 1789:

Section 14.

And be it further enacted, That all the before-mentioned courts of the United States, shall have power to issue writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, and all other writs not specially provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law. And that either of the justices of the supreme court, as well as judges of the district courts, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment. —— Provided, That writs of habeas corpus shall in no case extend to prisoners in gaol, unless where they are in custody, under or by colour of the authority of the United States, or are committed for trial before some court of the same, or are necessary to be brought into court to testify.

Since the application for the writ had come to him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it was a matter for him as Chief Justice to decide, not Taney riding the District Court circuit. Taney said the District Court could not act in this matter. I figure he knew the law better than you.

The Baltimore District Court building happened to be where Taney issued the ruling rather than Washington I think because he didn't want to give any excuse to the Lincoln Administration not to deliver the prisoner who was being held in Baltimore. He had his decision filed at the District Court but that doesn't make it a District Court ruling. He issued Ex Parte Merryman as an "at Chambers" decision, not as a District Court decision. The paperwork shows it.

If the government had had an adequate reason for arresting Merryman they should have brought him before the Chief Justice who issued the writ to validate Merryman's arrest. Merryman was arrested for having Southern sympathies and drilling a company of Maryland militia who had federal weapons. IMO, they didn't have an adequate reason for the arrest, otherwise they would have responded to Taney's writ. Merryman was ultimately released after about seven weeks in prison immediately after Congress demanded a list of people being held without charges.

So much excitement was caused by some of these arrests that the House of Representatives in special session, July 12, 1861, asked for information regarding them, and for a copy of the opinion of the attorney-general sustaining the right of the President or his subordinates to order such arrests. [Link]

Merryman was released on July 13, the day after the Congressional inquiry above. [Merryman Release]

Since the application for the writ had come to him as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, it was a matter for him as Chief Justice to decide, not Taney riding the District Court circuit.

Which is complete nonsense. Taney issued the writ of habeas corpus from the circuit court bench. He issued his decision from the circuit court bench. He did not make a decision for the entire Supreme Court.

Taney said the District Court could not act in this matter.

And just when did he say this?

I figure he knew the law better than you.

Both of us seem to be doing better than you.

I think because he didn't want to give any excuse to the Lincoln Administration not to deliver the prisoner who was being held in Baltimore.

You think. Well here are three links, one, two, three, to three sources calling it a circuit court case. There are books like "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney" by James F. Simon that say it was a circuit court case. Here is a site, link, that makes it clear it was a circuit court case. The only people who seem to think otherwise are you and 4CJ.

If the government had had an adequate reason for arresting Merryman they should have brought him before the Chief Justice who issued the writ to validate Merryman's arrest.

There was no requirement to do so. Habeas corpus had been suspended.

Merryman was ultimately released after about seven weeks in prison immediately after Congress demanded a list of people being held without charges.

That is only partly true. Merryman was released in July to face charges before a Baltimore grand jury which didindicted him on charges of conspiracy to commit treason and freed him on $40,000 bail. Chief Justice Taney ruled that he must preside at Merryman's trial and then spent the rest of his life delaying such a trial, postponing it time and again by pleading ill health. At the same time he refused to order another federal judge to take his place. The irony in all this is striking. Taney issues the writ to produce Merryman in court, and once the government does he spends the rest of his life blocking any attempts to clear Merryman's name.

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.