Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
It may have been the consensus back then as well.
So, Lincoln should have gotten Congress's approval, and he did, but after the fact. How serious a breach is that?
How long did it take for Congress to indemnify Lincoln for his actions? If what he had done was constitutional, they wouldn't have bothered indemnifying him.
To me, it was pretty serious breach, but then again I don't like the idea of a president who considered himself unconstrained by the Constitution and who chooses to ignore a valid order against his action by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I suspect Lincoln probably didn't have Ex Parte Merryman appealed because he knew he would lose. Better to approach a Republican dominated Congress later for approval/indemnification.
Some argue that Lincoln's suspension of Ex Parte Merryman was necessary because of the times. But as the Supreme Court later unanimously ruled in Ex Parte Milligan:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.
During the war Milligan had said (not related to his arrest, as far as I know) [Source: the book "Knights of the Golden Circle, Treason History, Sons of Liberty, 1864" by Felix G Steiger]:
... we will maintain, peaceably if we can, but forcibly if we must, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of the person from arbitrary and unlawful arrest, and the freedom of the ballot box, from the aggression and violence of every person and authority whatsoever.
... we will resist by force any attempt to abridge the elective franchise, whether by introduction of illegal votes, under military authority, or by the attempt by Federal Officers to intimidate the citizen by threats of oppression.
I think I'd put it in the same category as President Jefferson's admittedly unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase. So, what punishment do you suggest they receive? Should we give the whole Louisiana Purchase back to France?
You reminded me of an 1803 Jefferson quote [Link]:
The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.
Of course, the US later violated the terms of the Louisiana Purchase Treaty that specified that inhabitants could take their property (slaves were considered property at that time) anywhere in the territory before areas became states. I have noted this on these threads and wondered whether we might be willing to give New Orleans back to France.
Again,
Please read! It is Madison in his own words at the Convention..
No quotes
I'll choose my own destiny
I read somewhere that 17 shots were fired at the Star.
As for the reliability of Wikipedia, I agree. But more often than not it is a useful, quick reference for key data.
I agree. I also find the old wartime newspapers to be excellent sources of information. Many times I have found interesting items in the papers that I was later able to confirm in books or online sources. Often the newspapers gave more details that were not mentioned by the other sources.
You'd have to be stupid or dishonest to deny that.”
What? Y'all must be in confusion with your Führer Lincoln and his band of torch carrying thugs!
Allow me to cut in..Yankee
Your blood thirsty pin pal of Marx himself only wanted to secure revenue
‘Doesn't exactly sound like the way to greater liberty.’
What? Wasn't it that Castro of the North ‘Lincoln’ that jailed folk's for speech?
and likely democrats all...
Why can't you be a Northerner like these folk's? Y'all instead have chosen a path of total obedience and enslavement..Basically,damn yankee-ism
Sticks & stones...
(BTW: I check out the Ridley Report all the time)
[BroJoeK]: Bull cr*p. What Lincoln argued is exactly what he SAID:
My error. He didn't say those exact words in his inaugural speech, but he said essentially that elsewhere in describing how he saw the Union and the states. See the Lincoln quote "The Union is older than any of the States, and, in fact, it created them as States." from his July 4, 1861, message to the special session of Congress.
At least, I've always known his theory of the Union and the states as the "Union created the states" theory. Maybe that's the popular name for it, or maybe that just what I call it. More properly said, it might be called the "old Union" theory. If so, the Union "created them as states" of his July 4 message to Congress is a corollary of the "old Union" theory.
As our favorite site, Wikipedia, says: "A corollary is a proposition that follows with little or no proof from one other theorem or definition. That is, proposition B is a corollary of a proposition A if B can readily be deduced from A."
You have no understanding of the regional hate between Southerners and Northerners, any excuse would have been acceptable to a true Southerner to get away from the North. Ending slavery would have HELPED the average non-slave owning farmer. They fought to end a terrible relationship despite their own self interest.
You mean I would have to be more like you=Yankee Boot Licker Lincoln Cultist Statist Egomaniac.
I think this is rockrr's picture.....
You seem to rely on your ability to ‘figure out exactly how, or why’ things are not to your liking. Sensing that you may be wrong, you do not ask for further clarification, which any scholar or independent minded person would do. No, you offer up some meaningless ‘explanation’ and offer up an opportunity for ‘someone’ else to help you.
You don't seem to realize that there are many other learned people seeing your posts that realize your limitations.
If you need help, you can find the supporting data here>>
‘With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the “wealthiest men.” The 1860 per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.’
Selected Bibliography
Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States
The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.
What does building snowmen have to do with anything? Oh, you were just being a douche like central_va. Whatever blows your skirt up - you just reinforce the image of Lost Cause Losers when you do that...
Or better yet, pay them another $15 million to take it off our hands... ;-)
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.