Posted on 12/01/2016 4:40:06 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
Yes the writing style of that era is hard to read. I have a book, “Berdan’s Sharpshooters in the Army of the Potomac”, which was agonizing for this reason.
I have several Civil War diaries and memoirs. Some were edited for publication and are easier to read, but “raw” material can be difficult.
I suppose someone will say the same thing 150 years from now if my diaries are published! My 16-year-old calls them “Mama’s books of dark magic.”
Bttt.
Merry Christmas.
5.56mm
Merry Christmas to you, M Kehoe, and all my fellow history learners. Hopefully this is just the first of nine Yuletides we enjoy during this project.
Thank you Homer and all the threat contributors.
Merry Christmas to you, Homer. And again my thanks for such a worthwhile project.
The Diary of George Templeton Strong, Edited by Allan Nevins and Milton Halsey Thomas
Merry Christmas, Homer!
Imagine, an Episcopal Church full of children ...
Trying to read Hamilton’s Federalist Papers in their original version is like trying eat a bowling ball. You have to take one bite, and then chew and digest before you can take the next bite.
December 31. Huntington trial terminated yesterday with a verdict of guilty and a sentence to United States Prison. I expected the jury to disagree; but the moral insanity dodge was a little too steep. E.K. Collins says old Belden has lost $300,000 by Huntington. Dubito. If he has, eight per cent a minute will make up for it very fast.
The Diary of George Templeton Strong, Edited by Allan Nevins and Milton Halsey Thomas
Happy New Year, Homer and Mr. Strong.
I’m not surprised by the outcome of the Huntington case. The idea of “mental disease or defect” as a defense to a criminal charge was a very new concept in 1856. It had only been established in Britian in M’Naughten’s Case in 1843, and this was when psychiatry was in it’s pre-history.
The basic rule in M’Naughten’s case was that a person is “not responsible” (as opposed to “not guilty”) if, as a result of mental disease or defect, they could not appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or could not control their conduct to conform to the law (”Irresistible Impulse”). Most American jurisdictions recognize the “right/wrong” insanity defense. In fact, it can even be raised as a defense by Guantanamo terror detainees under the Military Commissions Act. No jurisdiction now recognizes the “Irresistible Impulse” defense.
The defense was controversial when it was adopted and remains so to this day. Juries do not like it, and most people believe, with some good reason, that it is the last legal refuge of the blatantly guilty. In my time as an attorney, I have tried three murder cases where insanity was raised, two as prosecutor, one as defense attorney. In one case, the jury found the defendant guilty and didn’t even make a finding of mentally ill, in another case the defendant had a well documented 24 year history of chronic paranoid schizophrenia and was found not responsible by reason of insanity. In the final case, the two shrinks said the guy was insane, but under the facts and during jury selection it was clear the jury was never going to buy it. So instead of a week long trial that would really have been a “slow guilty plea” to life without parole we did a fast guilty plea to 55 years.
Oh, yeah...Happy New Year and all that stuff.
1856 was a good year for Democrats -- they elected a Doughfaced president, majorities in both houses of Congress and of course, the Supreme Court.
So I suspect that 1857 may see a Democrat effort to solve one of the Republic's most vexing problems -- what happens if a slave-holder takes his slaves into a free state?
Isn't the Supreme Court working on that now?
Yes, indeed. If you go back to reply #25 on this thread you can read about the oral arguments in said case that lasted for 4 days. I don't know, though. Considering the southern tilt to the Taney court, the fix may be in.
Well, this slavery thing is certainly an issue that is tearing the country apart. But I’m not afraid of a Civil War or anything. We Americans don’t go to war over our differences, we go to Court. I believe that Chief Justice Taney wants to render a decision that will settle the slavery question once and for all.
Oh, I don’t know. These Republicans don’t seem like they’re going to give up. Bunch of New York lawyers ... I don’t think we can trust them.
A typical but understandable case of misidentification.
Sorry but, in 1856 those New York lawyers were all Democrats, or the old Southern Whigs, now called "Native Americans".
That's because New York Republicans concentrated in Upstate counties.
Of course, Republicans do have their share of lawyers, one of particular note out west, in Illinois I think...
Still, if you look at the shellacking Republicans got from voters in 1856, I doubt if they'll ever amount to much.
Their best bet is to reunite with the old Southern Whigs in a national party which puts America First and works to make America great again.
Sure, that's the ticket... I bet we'll see something like that by 1860, or soon after, right?
;-) Note Republicans in red, the old Southern Whig Americans in yellow-brown:
Very interesting, thanks. Those blue-Democrat patches in far-off parts of Texas surely represent Army posts: Fort Bliss out in the far west, Brownsville down at the bottom.
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.