"I Saw John Wilkes Booth Shoot Abraham Lincoln (April 14, 1965)" - 1956 I've Got A Secret on YouTube

YouTube ^ | February 9, 1956 | I've Got A Secret

[x]

The last veterans of the Spanish-American War died in the 1990s. They were still around in some numbers in the 1950s and 1960s (Mad Men used that in one episode).

There's an organization -- the Sons of Spanish-American War Veterans, but by now it's probably mostly grandsons and great-grandsons.

[x]

I have followed on the web the successful career of GOPcapitalist since he terminated his FR membership.

"Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? Wherefore are all they happy that deal very treacherously?" -- Jeremiah 12:1

Who knows what happened to old non-seq? He’s probably running a copy machine for others and getting coffee for the professionals at an IT company.

Cheap shot about somebody who served his country. I'd never make such a jibe about standwatie or anybody else who served honorably in whatever capacity.

Another uncharacteristic and unfair comment from you rustbucket.

Unfair, sure, but uncharacteristic?

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Wonderful! Thank you.

[rustbucket]

I don't recall non sequitur ever slandering you or offering a gratuitousness insult. Perhaps there was something but I never saw it.

True. I remember he said "Southron myth machine" once (but can't find) after I posted a Southern newspaper account of the damage caused by Sherman's troops. I hope he was talking about the newspaper and not me.

He kept up with the theme that damage caused by Sherman's troops was exagerated. I finally posted 15 or 20 communications by Sherman and his generals in the Official Records that acknowledged the damage. At least he stopped postng his claim, but I don't think he ever acknowledged his error.

I think non-seq is back on FR under another name which is why I posted the taunt above. Some are unhappy about him being back, but I don't mind. I have posted before that I respect non-seq in that he will usually acknowlege error and will sometimes provide useful history. I still feel that way.

I admit to poking fun at non-seq on occasion. For example:

Somebody on the other side please come collect non-sequitur -- he's been wounded on the field of battle. Either that or he's been drinking again. [this after three consecutive factual errors by non-seq in as many posts]

I've commented before about his posting style, aspects of which I dislike. Here are a couple of comments about that that I made.

Probably I should use one of your posting techniques and assert that he did, then say it's up to you to disprove it.

What are you doing, non-seq? Trying to post to the lurkers in hopes they don't know you've been refuted on the point before? [navigation of the Mississippi]

[BroJoeK]

rusty: "Many East Tennessee Unionists rose up against the Confederates.
Perhaps the following link to a Confederate communication gives an indication of what the Confederates were facing and suggests why the Confederates held captured Unionists as prisoners"

The debate here is over Article I, Section 9:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

So, were President Lincoln's suspensions of habeas corpus without prior Congressional approval unconstitutional?
Were similar suspensions in the Confederacy also "unconstitutional"?

Consider, the Confederate Congress granted Jefferson Davis authority to suspend habeas corpus in February 1862, just five days after Davis' formal inauguration as President.
By contrast the US Congress debated the subject from July 1861 to February 1863, before finally approving suspension in certain cases.

But in practical terms, didn't both sides in effect suspend habeas corpus, with or without their Congress's approval?

In short: isn't the equivalent of Lincoln's actions in Maryland, Confederate actions in East Tennessee?

[jmacusa]

What gave the Confederacy any legitimacy in the first place?

[BroJoeK]

Lee Ghost: "Sorry you wasted time with unrelated charts, because you’re totally missing the point."

No, those charts are totally on point, to the question of whether the South has always been a bastion of support for conservative, limited Federal government.
The answer is "no, for many years the solid Democrat South cheered on the march of Liberal-Progressive-Socialism under presidents like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt."

Lee's Ghost: "Federalism led to weakening of state rights and strong state governments which naturally lead to stronger and stronger central governance which, taken to its ultimate conclusion, allows socialism to thrive and for Marxists to be elected president."

Beginning not with Lincoln, but with Progressives around 1900.
And for many decades, the solid-Democrat South cheered-on growing Federal power and wealth redistribution.

Finally, you used the word "Federalism", which has actual historical meaning, and should not be taken out of its proper context.
In 1787 and 1788 "Federalists" were the Founders who wrote and supported ratification of the new Constitution, versus "anti-Federalists" who wanted a weaker central government.

After 1790, "Federalists" were a political party opposed to Jefferson's "Democratic-Republicans".
By today's standards, the old Federalists would be considered "super conservatives", but at the time, they were simply a few years ahead in advocating what Jefferson's party eventually came to support.

For examples, while Jefferson opposed the First Bank of the United States, after it expired in 1811 his protegee, President Madison, signed the Second Bank into law in 1816.

For another, Jefferson is often touted as a "strict constructionist", but even Jefferson knew the Louisiana purchase was not constitutionally authorized.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: "What gave the Confederacy any legitimacy in the first place?"

Agreed.
When I use the term "Confederacy", I mean something along the lines of: "the unlawful and unconstitutional political combinations which started, declared and fought a bloody war against the United States, and even today excite the loyalties of some passionate defenders posting on Free Republic; otherwise known as 'The Confederate States of America' ".

;-)

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "That is precedent for Lincoln on what to do if you suspend the writ without the approval of Congress."

Let's see if I understand this -- general & future president Andrew Jackson first suspended habeas corpus, then later, after the crisis had passed, apologized and paid a fine for it?

By contrast, Congress debated President Lincoln's actions at great length, and in the end decided to neither censure nor indemnify him for them, but to grant him Congressional authorization to suspend habeas corpus.

Seems to me, that should settle the question.

[jmacusa]

‘’Agreed’’<< A Son of the True Republic! I refer to them as “Johnny Reb wanna-be’s.

[Lee'sGhost]

Again, thanks for answering questions that weren’t asked. Maybe you can find a chart showing number of village idiots who post irrelevant charts on FR. The number of answers for unrelated unasked questions must be limitless.

Have fun!

[BroJoeK]

Lee'sGhost in post #171: "Again, thanks for answering questions that weren’t asked."

But compare to Lee'sGhost in post 148, quoting wardaddy: "southerners are the backbone of social conservatism"

Lee'sGhost in post 148: "Amen, brother... The one undeniable fact that makes their heads explode is that it was Lincoln and the Union — having forced federalism upon us — that put us on the downward slide toward socialism and made it possible for Marxists like Obama to rise in power.
This would NOT have happened in the Confederacy where government tried to preserve the vision of our Founding Fathers."

Lee'sGhost post #153: "I’m not saying that Lincoln was a progressive or socialist or anything of the kind.
What I am saying is fact — by forcing the issue, Lincoln answered the question that had haunted or nagged the U.S. since it’s inception, were we a federalized country with a strong central government, or a collection of strong states with a weak central government that existed to address the handful of things outlined in the Constitution?
Lincoln and the Union determined that it would be federalism"

So, in effect, you've asked several questions here.
They include:

• Has the South always been America's bastion of conservatism?
  Answer: no, starting in 1900, when the nation first became drunk on "progressive" Liberal socialism, under Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, the South was as tipsy as any section, arguably more so than most.

• Did President Lincoln impose Federalism on the United States?
  Answer: no, a Federal form of government was established by our Founders with the US Constitution.

• Did the Civil War cause progressive-liberal-socialism?
  Answer: no, none of that started until decades later, and when it did come, the South was cheer-leading for it.

[rustbucket]

Let's see if I understand this -- general & future president Andrew Jackson first suspended habeas corpus, then later, after the crisis had passed, apologized and paid a fine for it?

Your summary glosses over the details of what happened in the Jackson case and ignores what was different between Lincoln's and Jackson's actions.

On March 3, 1815, some two months after the Battle of New Orleans, a newspaper article appeared in the Louisiana Courier newspaper asking for the end of military tribunals and the adjudication of any charges against civilians to be returned to the regular government court system. Within a day or so, Jackson found out that a Louis Louallier had written the article. Jackson had him arrested. A petition for habeas corpus for Louallier was then sent to Judge Hall of the US District Court who issued the writ. Without Congressional approval to suspend the writ, Jackson ignored the writ and did not provide the prisoner for the habeas hearing.

Up to this point there is some similarity to the Lincoln situation. Lincoln suspended the privilege of the writ without the approval of Congress. One of his military commanders arrested someone (Merryman) for drilling a Southern-sympathizing company that was using US government weapons. Because of Lincoln's order the commander would not honor a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court (Taney). The military commander or his predecessor had for the same reason previously ignored a different writ of habeas corpus involving another prisoner issued by the judge of the local US District Court. And, of course, Lincoln's military later arrested newspaper writers, editors, and publishers for the content of their newspapers and held them in prison for months without charges.

On about March 5th or 6th, Jackson arrested the judge that issued the writ. Lincoln did not arrest the Chief Justice, but there are several references in the literature that say an arrest order for the Chief Justice was indeed prepared in the Lincoln case but never executed. However, a Maryland judge was arrested in his courtroom for following Taney's legal reasoning and DC judge was held in house arrest so that he could not rule on another habeas case.

On March 11, Jackson sent Judge Hall out of New Orleans and released him. Two days later he released Louallier. On March 31, Jackson appeared in court to answer charges that he had arrested Judge Hall. Jackson did not respond to the charges. The court then issued the judgment that Jackson pay a $1,000 fine. Jackson went back to his quarters and wrote a check for the amount. As I posted above, Jackson publicly said:

Considering obedience to the laws, even when we think them unjustly applied, as the first duty of the citizen, I did not hesitate to comply with the sentence you have heard pronounced, and I entreat you to remember the example I have given you of respectful submission to the administration of justice.

In contrast, Lincoln did not submit to the administration of justice and the Constitution like Jackson had. He did not follow Jackson's precedent, and consequently people were held for more than a year in prison without charges in areas where the regular government courts were functioning.

I do not believe that Lincoln ever cited the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 in any of his subsequent pronouncements of the suspension of the writ. Apparently, he still acted as though he had complete authority to do what he wanted. He had assumed the duties of Congress regarding habeas corpus and other Congressional responsibilities. He assumed the duties of the judicial branch of government by ignoring a legal order issued by the Chief Justice. He tossed people in jail to be tried by military courts in areas where the regular government courts were functioning.

It was Madison who said the following in Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

That would seem to fit Lincoln's actions. I am also reminded of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1866). Significantly, it was Lincoln’s friend and executor of Lincoln's estate, Supreme Court Justice Davis, who issued the unanimous ruling against Lincoln's policies which said in part:

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.

Here are a couple of references about the Jackson case: Despotism and Battle of New Orleans

[Lee'sGhost]

LOL! I didn’t ask the question. I repeated the question that Lincoln answered.

Seriously, try to keep up.

[Lee'sGhost]

Actually, it was YOU who answered questions that I never asked. Not only that, all your answers are incorrect.

You’re not very good at this.

[rustbucket]

[me in post 173]: I do not believe that Lincoln ever cited the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863 in any of his subsequent pronouncements of the suspension of the writ.

I correct myself. In looking up the wording of the various suspensions, I see that Lincoln did refer to the Act in his nationwide suspension of the writ in September 15, 1863.

[BroJoeK]

rusty: "In contrast, Lincoln did not submit to the administration of justice and the Constitution like Jackson had. He did not follow Jackson's precedent, and consequently people were held for more than a year in prison without charges in areas where the regular government courts were functioning."

It is at least debatable whether "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it," and Congress not in session, the President may constitutionally suspend habeas corpus on his own authority.

What's not debatable is that Congress does have such constitutional authority, and after lengthy debates in 1861 & 1862 finally decided in February 1863, to neither censure nor indemnify President Lincoln, but rather to permit him suspensions of habeas corpus on Congress' authority.

And that precident has been repeated several times since the Civil War.
Seems to me that should be the final constitutional word on this subject.

[rustbucket]

It is at least debatable whether "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it," and Congress not in session, the President may constitutionally suspend habeas corpus on his own authority.

I think the Constitution and the founders (such as Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and others) were clear on what entity has the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Lincoln suspended the privilege of the writ multiple times when Congress was not in session. The one possible exception to this was when Lincoln suspended it for Missouri on the same day that Congress reconvened. Perhaps he sent his proclamation out before Congress formally opened its session that day.

I thought it might be instructive to compare the actions of the two presidents with respect to their suspensions of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. This list does not include situations where an unauthorized person might have suspended the privilege in his local area.

Lincoln

March 4, 1861. Lincoln inaugurated as president.

April 27, 1861. Without Congressional approval, Lincoln authorized suspension of the writ near the military railroad lines in Maryland and the railroad line up to Philadelphia on April 27, 1861 . Source: Link

May 10, 1861. Without Congressional approval, Lincoln authorized the commander of US forces on the Florida coast to suspend habeas corpus on May 10, 1861. Source: Link

July 2, 1861. Without Congressional approval, Lincoln authorized the commander of US forces to suspend the writ of habeas corpus along the military line between Washington and New York as needed. Source: Link.

October 14, 1861. Without Congressional approval, Lincoln authorized General Winfield Scott and officers under his command to suspend the writ any place between Bangor, Maine, and Washington on October 14, 1861. Source: Link

December 2, 1861. Without Congressional approval, Lincoln authorized the commanding general in Missouri to suspend the writ on December 2, 1861. Congress was in session starting on December 2. Source: Link

August 8, 1862. At the direction of Lincoln and without Congressional approval, Edwin Stanton suspended the writ for draft resisters and persons arrested for disloyal practices on August 8, 1862. Source: Official Records: Series 3, vol. 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports) Page 370 Correspondence, etc.

September 24, 1862.Lincoln suspended habeas corpus nationwide without Congressional approval on September 24, 1862. Source: Link

March 3, 1863. Habeas Corpus Act. Congress approves Lincoln suspending the privilege of the writ during the war.

May 30, 1863. The Governor of Indiana writes to Lincoln protesting Gen. Burnside’s Order No. 38, the order that was used to arrest Clement Vallandigham. Vallandigham requests a writ of habeas corpus. The request reaches the Supreme Court of the US, which decided it could not intervene in a military trial. The use of military trials to try civilians in areas where the regular civil courts are operating was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1866). See comment of the Indiana governor to Lincoln concerning Burnside’s Order No. 38 [Link.

September 15, 1863. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus nationwide with Congressional approval on September 15, 1863. This was ended by President Johnson on December 2, 1865. See: Link

July 5, 1864. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the state of Kentucky with Congressional approval on July 5, 1864. See: Link/.

Davis

February 8, 1861.The provisional Constitution of the Confederate States of America was adopted. It has a habeas corpus clause similar to that of the US Constitution.

February 18, 1861.Davis inaugurated as president.

March 11, 1861. The permanent Constitution of the Confederate States of America was adopted. It has a habeas corpus clause similar to that of the US Constitution.

All of 1861. Davis does NOT suspend the writ of habeas corpus although the Confederate Congress had the power to authorize Davis to suspend it under the Confederate Constitution.

February 22, 1862. Davis inaugurated as president a second time. In his inaugural address he excoriates the North for having suspended habeas corpus by executive mandate (rather than with Congressional approval). Source: Link.

February 27, 1862. The Confederate Congress authorizes Jefferson Davis to suspend the privilege of the writ for cities, towns, and military districts in danger of attack. Davis issues a series of proclamations under this act over the next couple of months (listed below). Source: Link

February 27, 1862. In a proclamation stating he has been given the authority by Congress to suspends the writ of habeas corpus, Davis suspends the writ in Norfolk and Portsmouth, Virginia. Source: Link. Source: Official Records, Series II, Volume 3, page 121.

March 1, 1862. In another proclamation Davis suspended the writ in Richmond, Virginia by the authority given him by Congress. Source: Official Records, Series II, Volume 3, page 122.

March 8, 1862. By the authority given him by Congress, Davis suspends habeas corpus in Petersburg, Virginia. Source: Official Records, Series II, Volume 3, page 123.

March 14, 1862.By the authority given him by Congress, Davis suspends the writ in five counties in Virginia. Source: Source: Official Records, Series II, Volume 3, page 124.

March 29, 1862. By the authority given him by Congress, Davis suspends the writ of habeas corpus in ten more counties in Virginia. Source: Source: Official Records, Series II, Volume 3, page 126.

April 8, 1862. By the authority given him by Congress, Davis suspends the writ of habeas corpus in the Department of East Tennessee. Source: Official Records, Series II, Volume 3, page 128.

April 19, 1862. The Confederate Congress restricts their February 27, 1862 habeas corpus act to arrests made by the authorities of the Confederate Government or for offenses against the same. The February 27, 1862 Act is set to expire October 13, 1862. Source: Link

May 1, 1862. By the authority given him by Congress, Davis suspends the writ of habeas corpus in parts of coastal South Carolina. Source: Source: Official Records, Series II, Volume 3, page 132.

May 3, 1862. By the authority given him by Congress, Davis suspends the writ of habeas corpus in five Virginia counties. Source: Official Records, Series II, Volume 3, page 132-133.

September 18, 1862. The Confederate Congress restores habeas corpus. Source: Link.

October 13, 1862. The February 27, 1862 habeas corpus act expires and the Confederate Congress renews it until February 13, 1863. Source: Yankee Leviathan by Bensel, pg 142.

February 13. 1863. The February 27. 1862 habeas corpus act expires. Source: Yankee Leviathan by Bensel, pg 142.

February 13, 1864. The Confederate Congress passes a bill allowing habeas corpus to be suspended by the President, the Secretary of War, or the Commander of Trans-Mississippi. It lasts until no more than 90 days after the next meeting of Congress. Source: Link. The act is to expire August 1, 1864. Source: Yankee Leviathan by Bensel, pg 142.

[BroJoeK]

rusty: "I thought it might be instructive to compare the actions of the two presidents with respect to their suspensions of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus."

Thanks for a nice piece of work!.

I would again point out some salient facts your post doesn't mention.

1. At the time of Lincoln's first three suspensions (April 27, May 10, July 2, 1861), Congress was not in session.

2. When Congress reconvened July 1861, the Senate took up a bill to authorize Lincoln's habeas corpus suspensions.
   But the bill's language did not suit even some supporters -- i.e., Illinois Senator Lyman Thrumbul -- so neither it nor Thrumbull's alternative bill were voted on.
   Note that no bill to censure or revoke the President's actions was ever introduced.
   Illinois Senator Lyman Thrumbul:

3. "On February 14, 1862, Lincoln ordered most prisoners released,[13] putting an end to court challenges for the time being.
   He again suspended habeas corpus on his own authority in September that same year, however, in response to resistance to his calling up of the militia.[14]"

4. Congress again debated the question in December 1862, and again the question was authorizing and indemnifying President Lincoln's suspensions of habeas corpus -- not censuring or revoking them -- and this time the result was the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863.

5. In the case of Copperhead Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigam who was denied habeas corpus and sentenced to the most severe, cruel and inhuman punishment possible to imagine -- banishment to the Confederacy! ;-) -- the US Supreme Court wisely ruled that it could not address the matter without Congressional approval.
   After the war was safely won, then the Supreme Court reasserted itself, in a different case (Ex Parte Milligan- 1866) by ruling that military courts could not be used when civil courts were operational.
   Copperhead Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham:

rusty: "February 22, 1862. Davis inaugurated as president a second time.
In his inaugural address he excoriates the North for having suspended habeas corpus by executive mandate (rather than with Congressional approval). "

It might be worth noting exactly what Davis said:

"Whatever of hope some may have entertained that a returning sense of justice would remove the danger with which our rights were threatened, and render it possible to preserve the Union of the Constitution, must have been dispelled by the malignity and barbarity of the Northern States in the prosecution of the existing war.
The confidence of the most hopeful among us must have been destroyed by the disregard they have recently exhibited for all the time-honored bulwarks of civil and religious liberty.
Bastiles filled with prisoners, arrested without civil process, or indictment duly found; the writ of habeas corpus suspended by Executive mandate, a State Legislature controlled by the imprisonment of members whose avowed principles suggested to the Federal Executive that there might be another added to the list of seceded States; elections held under threats of a military power; civil officers, peaceful citizens, and gentle women incarcerated for opinion's sake, proclaimed the incapacity of our late associates to administer a government as free, liberal, and humane as that established for our common use."

All these allegations, however true or not, were in response to the Confederacy's numerous acts and formal declaration of war on the United States, which naturally, Davis didn't mention.

[Sherman Logan]

I’ve seen this formal declaration of war by the CSA mentioned several times.

Do you have a link to it?