Posted on 10/18/2012 7:39:31 PM PDT by DogByte6RER
Lincoln Assassination Eyewitness appears on television's "I've Got a Secret" on February 9, 1956.
On a 1956 game show, a man appeared who had been present at Ford's Theatre on the night of April 14, 1865.
(Note: Link over to the YouTube site provided to watch this amazing historical video.)
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
Nice try rockstar but not one of those flamed out or opused or quit because they were libs
unlike that list I offered in which all were actually zotted for being lib
Peach?
a southron defender?...you got me there
a number on your list just left...got tired of the Neo Yankee and angry black conservative caucus here
not me though eh?
it’s nice to come around every few months and see how you boys are doing...without your leadership
lord I forgot Sinkspur...how could I do that?
last I see he was over at True Blue pissing all over Jim’s boots
I will hand it to you and X and ditto...ya’ll are persistent and survive
we southerners are the backbone of social conservatism...you are just gonna have to live with it till you can sway and enough Yankees or blacks
good luck with all that...give Preibus a holler will ya
Peter Gunn re-runs on ME TV early morning
You can pretend that all you like but not a lick of it is true.
we southerners are the backbone of social conservatism...
It's cute how y'all confuse libertarianism for conservatism.
There was a great movie about a Sergeant at West Point who had worked there for 50 years. He had joined the Army to get out of paying for (his) broken dishes at the West Point mess hall, which job he got right off the boat from Ireland. At the end of the movie he was asking Eisenhower for permission to not retire... When the movie was made, West Point had only been an institution for 150 years.
Lincoln was a man of his times. After a few years of interacting with blacks in the White House, his view changed. Lincoln never wanted the repatriation of blacks to Africa to be anything but voluntary.
Flip it, put blacks as overseers, raping young white women, and you get a small inkling of how horrific southern slavery was.
Slavery should have died a natural death, but that darned yankee, Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, which made the south rich, partly because the plantation owners never bothered to honor his patents.
Imagine, a ‘culture’ founded on kidnapping, rape and theft, along with a tremendous sense of entitlement. Sounds positively Democratic- because it was.
The movie was called “The Long Gray Line.” Tyrone Power played Marty Maher, the sergeant.
Article 1 section 9 of the Constitution gives the president the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus ‘’when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it’’.
The South was right all along? Then why did it lose the war?
Solid state electronics, with the miniaturization of electronic circuits and the advent of the computer rather than mechanical means of calculation.
Spinoffs include the hand calculator, electronic watches, cell phones, the home computer, computer systems in cars including navigational systems which rely on satellite technology.
With all this comes the ability to track shipments of materials globally in real time, to maintain inventory, track sales/usage, and to even farm more efficiently by using GPS to guide the application of fertilizer, herbicides, and seed.
Maritime navigation to within a few feet of previous locations (talk about fishing holes, oyster bars, etc.)
We have seen changes we take for granted, but those changes, those culturally pervasive changes aren't always obvious. We take them for granted, but those all occurred in my lifetime as a result of the space race. Right down to severe weather alerts.
(Thumbing my nose at all the people who said we needed to spend the money right here on the planet who line up for free cell phones now).
Medically, those selfsame spinoffs have made it possible to create a 3-D image of a patient's insides and transmit it in a few hours, anywhere in the world.
Progress with vaccines and antibiotics has rendered many the diseases of my youth more an inconvenience than a threat, or eliminated them completely. (Two of the kids I went to school with had had polio.)
Now, families have 2.n children on average, instead of burying that many before they turned ten.
We can travel from coast to coast in a few days instead of weeks, and not have to ride the pullman to get there...or we can fly there in a few hours, all on the same plane (instead of splitting the family up, just in case...), and all expect to arrive fine (if groped by one of the latest developments.)
Nuclear power, including naval reactors which have changed the balance of power in the world, so far, in our favor.
This all hasn't been without its downsides. I also recall when you could fill out the order form and drop a check in with it and have that rifle or handgun come to your house, parcel post. No further paperwork was required).
Now, computerized surveillance of virtually anything someone can think of has made our culture far less private, and more totalitarian. You can only control that which you can keep track of, and so much more can be kept track of. This wouldn't be a problem, to have this capability, if only it was not used to make the walls close in on humanity, but not minding one's own business has become cheaper and more efficient than ever.
I recall getting mercury dimes and buffalo nickels (and the rare indian head penny) in change. The dimes, quarters, and halves were all silver, and if you wanted, you could get silver dollars at the bank--for a dollar. now, thanks to inflation and currency manipulation, along with the ties to intrinsic value, our dollar barely buys what a dime used to .
We produced a lot more of our own oil, back when. (We're using new technologies to try to end that imbalance, ones which did not exist thirty years ago.)
The changes for my grandfather were relatively few. He farmed tobacco, a crop which required manual labor to harvest (and still does), and which was labor intensive when he was a child.
He fished for food and fun, from a wooden skiff, and those still exist, and although outboard motors were nice, he commonly rowed or sculled the skiff, and he could still rig it to drop a sideboard and sail.
The automobile was the major change, and using tractors instead of horses. To my knowledge, he never flew anywhere, and he and my grandmother took a steamboat excursion on their honeymoon. He read National Geographic most of his life.
He had had a television since the late 40s (1947, actually) but only got a couple of channels on it. The transition from black and white to color didn't affect him much, he preferred to read. I do also, but over half of what I read comes via the internet.
The biggest difference is that we expect change. It has become routine.
My grandfathers skeptically accepted it, at least in some technological regards. Underneath it all, human nature remains the same.
You'd be wrong on the retread part. But if by comparing me to those three you mean I haven't been fooled by the Southron song-and-dance concerning the Civil War then you're spot on. But even a blind pig finds a truffle every now and then.
i doubt we’ll get to know each other...you lack their ability to keep cool and carry on
I think that we won't get to know each other because as near as I can tell you have nothing to offer. I should have recognized that from your first post, and especially after the one where you called anyone not blindly following the Confederate cause 'anti-white'. How dumb is that conclusion? I'll try and avoid making that same mistake again. Have a nice whatever.
Thanks, I’ll have to try and catch some of those. I really thought it was a lost forever series!
Later, Grandma left Southhampton for America, passing through Ellis Island to her future in Illinois.
I matched her when I happily saw Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip and Princess Margaret pass by in a huge open limo in downtown Chicago many decades later.
Leni
wardaddy: "but I am not ambivalent about my disgust of a little nest of south haters here."
Nobody posting on Free Republic "hates the south".
So wardaddy's suggestion is ridiculous, and only really hints that neo-Confederates are just Democrat provocateurs.
What defenders of the Republic here do oppose -- and patiently repeatedly correct -- is ridiculous anti-historical nonsense hawked by some neo-Confederate propagandists.
wardaddy: "but we've had: illbay, whiskeypapa, non sequitur, titus finkus, llan ddeussant, mortin sult, trumandogz, whoisgeorgesalt, r9etb and many others I can't recall right now strictly from memory but in time they finally just can't help it and some mod finally has enough"
Mods seem to tolerate more abusive talk on Civil War threads than they do on some others, and nearly all the strong language I've seen comes from neo-Confederates.
The only name on wardaddy's list I recognize is non sequitur, and he's been gone for some years now, iirc.
By contrast, rockrr's list seems to me short a good many very, ahem, "colorful" neo-Con characters.
That's nothin'.
I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus.
A decidedly leftist tactic is to attack the messenger, not the message. I viewed with disgusted amusement a few of the lost causers attempts to besmirch their opponents with slanders that ran the gamut from liberal (lame) to such colorful terms as statist and “federalist bootlicker” (my favorite). But the truly illogical and dishonest tactic was to lump anyone who disagreed with them wholesale as disruptors to FreeRepublic.
I don’t know who assembled the list (& IDC) but I’ve seen it trotted out - usually by one of the “oldtimers” - and offered as “proof-positive” that the inverse of a lost cause loser must (somehow) necessarily be a threat to the site. Sometime I really fear for the sanity of our LCL friends.
So at one point about two years ago I got curious and sought to identify the neo-confeds who had met similar fates. Thus my list. Notice that I didn’t call them “libs” and allowed them the benefit of the doubt as to the circumstances of their ultimate fates - unlike warpussy who feeeeels the need to castigate in absentia.
If you would care to contribute additional names to my list I’m all ears ;-)
No, it does not, although I will admit that some people believe it is an unresolved question whether Lincoln had that power. Such power was, of course, not listed in the Constitution as among the powers of the president.
Historically, habeas corpus had been used to prevent the executive/king from tossing people into jail without charges and holding them there essentially indefinitely, of which Lincoln was certainly guilty. In England, for example, the power to suspend habeas corpus lay with Parliament, not the King.
Former poster GOPcapitalist posted the opinions of some of the founders, Supreme Court Justices, a president, and others about where the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus resided in the US. See GOPcapitalist's post at this link: Link
I had to repeatedly click on the link before the old 2003 post came up, so I will also provide the complete post here in case you encounter difficulty with the link:
To: WhiskeyPapa
No, it was not.
The statements of the founding fathers and at least five distinguished Supreme Court justices say that it was. Live with it.
"The privileges and benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall be enjoyed in this Government, in the most expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the Legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding months." - Charles Pickney, announcing the proposal to limit the suspension of habeas corpus, Constitutional Convention, 1787
"The people by adopting the federal constitution, give congress general powers to institute a distinct and new judiciary, new courts, and to regulate all proceedings in them, under the eight limitations mentioned in a former letter; and the further one, that the benefits of the habeas corpus act shall be enjoyed by individuals." - Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist #16, "Federal Farmer"
"In the same section it is provided, that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it." This clause limits the power of the legislature to deprive a citizen of the right of habeas corpus, to particular cases viz. those of rebellion and invasion; the reason is plain, because in no other cases can this power be exercised for the general good." - Robert Yates, delegate to the Constitutional Convetion, Anti-Federalist #9, "Brutus"
"The safest and best restriction, therefore, arises from the nature of the cases in which Congress are authorized to exercise that power [of suspending habeas corpus] at all, namely, in those of rebellion or invasion. These are clear and certain terms, facts of public notoriety, and whenever these shall cease to exist, the suspension of the writ must necessarily cease also." - Judge Francis Dana, presenting the Constitution to the Massachusetts Ratification Convention
"In the United States, it can be suspended, only, by the authority of congress; but not whenever congress may think proper; for it cannot be suspended, unless in cases of actual rebellion, or invasion. A suspension under any other circumstances, whatever might be the pretext, would be unconstitutional, and consequently must be disregarded by those whose duty it is to grant the writ." - St. George Tucker, Commentaries, 1803
"The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revising that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature. But this point also is decided in Hamilton's case and in Burford's case. If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide." - Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout, United States Supreme Court, 1807
"Those respecting the press, religion, & juries, with several others, of great value, were accordingly made; but the Habeas corpus was left to the discretion of Congress, and the amendment against the reeligibility of the President was not proposed by that body." - Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821
"The Constitution seems to have secured this benefit [habeas corpus] to the citizen by the description of the writ, and in an unqualified manner admitting its efficacy, while it declares that it shall not he suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety shall require it. This writ is believed to be known only in countries governed by the common law, as it is established in England; but in that country the benefit of it may at any time be withheld by the authority of parliament, whereas we see that in this country it cannot be suspended even in cases of rebellion or invasion, unless the public safety shall require it. Of this necessity the Constitution probably intends, that the legislature of the United States shall be the judges. Charged as they are with the preservation of the United States from both those evils, and superseding the powers of the several states in the prosecution of the measures they may find it expedient to adopt, it seems not unreasonable that this control over the writ of habeas corpus, which ought only to be exercised on extraordinary occasions, should rest with them. It is at any rate certain, that congress, which has authorized the courts and judges of the United States to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases within their jurisdiction, can alone suspend their power" - William Rawle, "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America," 1826
"It would seem, as the power is given to congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge, whether exigency had arisen, must exclusively belong to that body." - Justice Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States," Book 3, Chapter XXXII, § 1336, 1833
"And who could hold for a moment, when the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended by the legislature itself, either in the general government or most of the States, without an express constitutional permission, that all other writs and laws could be suspended, and martial law substituted for them over the whole State or country, without any express constitutional license to that effect, in any emergency? Much more is this last improbable when even the mitigated measure, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, has never yet been found proper by Congress, and, it is believed, by neither of the States, since the Federal Constitution was adopted." - Justice Levi Woodburg, dissent in Luther v. Borden, United States Supreme Court, 1849
"With such provisions in the constitution, expressed in language too clear to be misunderstood by any one, I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the president, in any emergency, or in any state of things, can authorize the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or the arrest of a citizen, except in aid of the judicial power. He certainly does not faithfully execute the laws, if he takes upon himself legislative power, by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and the judicial power also, by arresting and imprisoning a person without due process of law." - Justice Roger B. Taney, Ex Parte Merryman, US Circuit Court of Appeals, 1861
"There has been much discussion concerning the question whether the power to suspend the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" is conferred by the Constitution on Congress, or on the President. The only judicial decisions which have been made upon this question have been adverse to the power of the President. Still, very able lawyers have endeavored to maintain -- perhaps to the satisfaction of others -- have maintained, that the power to deprive a particular person of the "privilege of the writ," is an executive power. For while it has been generally, and, so far as I know, universally admitted, that Congress alone can suspend a law, or render it inoperative, and consequently that Congress alone can prohibit the courts from issuing the writ, yet that the executive might, in particular cases, suspend or deny the privilege which the writ was designed to secure. I am not aware that any one has attempted to show that under this grant of power to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," the President may annul the laws of States, create new offences unknown to the laws of the United States, erect military commissions to try and punish them, and then, by a sweeping decree, suspend the writ of habeas corpus as to all persons who shall be "arrested by any military authority." I think he would make a more bold than wise experiment on the credulity of the people, who should attempt to convince them that this power is found in the habeas corpus clause of the Constitution. No such attempt has been, and I think none such will be made. And therefore I repeat, that no other source of this power has ever been suggested save that described by the President himself, as belonging to him as commander-in-chief." - Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, "Executive Power," 1862
129 posted on 07/29/2003 3:29 PM CDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To those statements, I would add the voices of two of the three authors of The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court). They voted for the following statement which appears in New York's 1788 ratification of the US Constitution [Link]:
That every Person restrained of his Liberty is entitled to an enquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful, and that such enquiry and removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when on account of Public Danger the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Followed later in the document by:
Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution. And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
The statement about Congress suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was not among New York's proposed amendments to the Constitution. It was a statement that explained what the Constitution meant to the ratifiers. That is about as clear a statement of original intent as one can get.
So, we have Lincoln versus two of the authors of The Federalist Papers plus the others quoted by GOPcapitalist above. Then again, Lincoln’s own Congress afterwards indemnified him for his various actions (sounds like Ex Post Facto to me) and in 1863 authorized Lincoln to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Why did they do that if Lincoln already had the power under the Constitution to suspend the privilege?
Lincoln could have suspended the writ in a constitutional manner by reconvening his Congress and seeking their approval to suspend the privilege before he started suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on April 27, 1861, 15 days after the attack on Fort Sumter. After all, Jefferson Davis got his Congress back together in 14 days in response to Lincoln's April 15th proclamation to invade the South. Instead, Lincoln did not reconvene Congress until July, apparently so they wouldn't interfere with his plans and actions.
So an article spelled out in the Constitution isn’t meant to do what it says? Why is it there then and why did FDR do much the same in WW2?
Excellent summary and response Thank you.
rusty's correct point is that (per Article 1, Section 9) only Congress has constitutional authority to suspend habeas corpus, not the President on his own authority.
At the time of Lincoln's first suspension of habeas corpus, April 27, 1861, the issue was riots and rebellion in Maryland -- exactly those envisioned by the Founders in the Constitution.
However, Congress was not in session at the time, so Lincoln acted on his own.
When Congress returned, it took up the question of authorizing Lincoln's actions, and eventually approved:
That bill, the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, was signed into law March 3, 1863.[18]
Lincoln exercised his powers under it in September, suspending habeas corpus throughout the Union in any case involving prisoners of war, spies, traitors, or military personnel,[19]
The suspension of habeas corpus remained in effect until Andrew Johnson revoked it on December 1, 1865.[20]"
Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus in the Confederacy:
Without doubt, the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus belongs to Congress, not the President.
However, on occasion, Congress has authorized the President to suspend habeas corpus on his own authority, notably in the Civil Rights act of 1871.
Today the right of habeas corpus is much in the news, regarding terrorists, but that's a whole other subject.
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.