On this date in 1864 President Lincoln receives a Christmas gift.

"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.

>>Kalamata wrote: "I trust all scientific data, either to confirm or dismiss. That is the way science works. Perhaps you have confused science with consensus and/or great story-telling. Bad move."
>>Joey wrote: "Naw, the truth is that Kalamata "trusts" no fact or scientific idea which conflicts with his own Biblical interpretations, none, period. So, if you press him on certain scientific observations, say for example, the decay rate of Uranium 235, he will announce that it can't be proved and means nothing in any case."

Joey doesn't understand science. He only knows that we are not allowed to criticize either of his prophets: Abraham Lincoln, the racist; or Charlie Darwin, the father of modern racism. [Joey seems to have an inordinate affection for racists?]

For the rest of you, the decay rate of Uranium 235 is constant (the best we can tell.)

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

>>Joey wrote: "If you ask him about, say, the red shift in light from stars measured to be millions of lightyears away, he'll tell you it can't be proved, it's not important, means nothing and certainly shouldn't be used to support atheistic "just so stories"."

Joey is (finally) correct. Scientifically, the orthodox theories of redshifts cannot be proven. We have no idea how the redshifts were formed, nor if they mean anything, nor if they even exist (that is, the observations may be the result of interference by interstellar matter, which means, "no expansion".)

Due to modern discoveries of quantized red-shifts and the fine-tuning of the universe, only a scientific illiterate, like Joey, or a die-hard atheist (but I repeat myself) would discount the possibility of the universe being designed.

BTW, Joey, there was another recent article by a team of evolutionary geneticists that pounded another nail into the coffin of the evolutionism "goto-boy" called Junk DNA. These are a few excerpts from the article:

"Pseudogenes are defined as regions of the genome that contain defective copies of genes. They exist across almost all forms of life, and in mammalian genomes are annotated in similar numbers to recognized protein-coding genes. Although often presumed to lack function, growing numbers of pseudogenes are being found to play important biological roles. In consideration of their evolutionary origins and inherent limitations in genome annotation practices, we posit that pseudogenes have been classified on a scientifically unsubstantiated basis. We reflect that a broad misunderstanding of pseudogenes, perpetuated in part by the pejorative inference of the ‘pseudogene’ label, has led to their frequent dismissal from functional assessment and exclusion from genomic analyses. With the advent of technologies that simplify the study of pseudogenes, we propose that an objective reassessment of these genomic elements will reveal valuable insights into genome function and evolution...
"Many pseudogenes contain a frequency of mutations that render them unlikely to be (or incapable of being) translated into proteins. However, such mutations do not necessarily preclude pseudogenes from performing a biological function...
"Another mechanism through which pseudogenes can function is by influencing chromatin or genomic architecture (Fig. 2e). HBBP1, a pseudogene residing within the haemoglobin locus, enables the dynamic chromatin changes that regulate expression of fetal and adult globin genes during development. Notably, although inhibiting HBBP1 transcription has no effect, deletion of the genomic locus reactivates fetal globin expression. HBBP1 DNA contacts, but not transcription, are required for suppressing the expression of fetal globin genes in adult erythroid cells...
"The examples of pseudogene function elaborated on here should not imply that pseudogene functionality is likely to be confined to isolated instances. At least 15% of pseudogenes are transcriptionally active across three phyla, many of which are proximal to conserved regulatory regions. It is estimated that at least new human-specific protein-coding genes were formed by retrotransposition since the divergence from other primates. Numerous 'retrogenes ' continue to be recognized as functional protein-coding genes rather than pseudogenes across species. High-throughput mass spectrometry and ribosomal profiling approaches have identified hundreds of pseudogenes that are translated into peptides. Although the functions of these peptides remain to be experimentally determined, such examples illustrate the challenge in substantiating a gene–pseudogene dichotomy."
[Cheetham et al, "Overcoming challenges and dogmas to understand the functions of pseudogenes." Nature Reviews Genetics, Dec 17, 2019, Abstract, pp.1,4,5]
Link to Nature article.

Your religious prophets of Darwin and Lincoln have been taking a beating lately, Joey.

Mr. Kalamata

>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Wanted to add a follow up comment on what you mention here about Kalamata claim about knowing Marines that think Lincoln was a tyrant. I served almost 21 years in the US Military.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “I was honorably discharged in 1973, just after the changeover to all-volunteers, so most of my experience is of a military long past.”

It appears I joined a little before you, Joey.

******************
>>Joey wrote: “We had black troops, NCOs and officers, a black company commander and battalion XO, in the early 1970s. We also had plenty of white southerners in those positions. Some were quite proud of their country & western heritage. In all my years I never met one who said something bad about Lincoln or the Union.”

I don’t recall anyone criticizing Lincoln while I served. I didn’t learn the truth about him until this century.

It appears Joey is confusing our western heritage, created by Christians, with Lincoln, who tried to destroy it. It was the power of Christianity, and the belief in the doctrine of limited government, that helped us partially crawl out the crony-capitalist hell that Lincoln pushed us into (do you recall the warning of Eisenhower?) Hopefully the Trump administration will be able put crony-capitalism to rest, and recover much of the nations resources that have been plundered by the modern-day Marxists-Lincolnites. (Trump doesn’t know it, yet, but he is not a Lincolnite.)

******************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Served both active duty and reserves, enlisted and officer. Over that time I met exactly two people that believed Lincoln was a tyrant and the south was justified in seceding. They were my roommates for awhile when I was lower enlisted in the Marines.”

You are still young.

******************
>>Joey wrote: “Sure, in Basic Training we had some pretty rough characters and I have vague memories of hearing some racist talk somewhere, but never anyone who drew the connection between their own racism and blaming Lincoln!”

Same here. We were all brainwashed.

******************
>>Joey wrote: “By the way, I have seen where Kalamata claims to have taken our oath of office to protect & defend the Constitution, but I somehow missed the part, if there was one, where he claimed to have actually served honorably...”

I served honorably, Joey (and I used every dollar of my G. I. Bill, and then some.)

Have you ever noticed that Joey’s arguments are riddled with sanctimony?

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "I see you are still playing the moral-superiority card.
I thought you were done with that."

OIFVeteran merely pointed out that he met a small number of racists in the military, and somehow in Kalamata's warped mind that becomes "playing the moral-superiority card"?

Kalamata "You have lived a very sheltered life.
I ran into many racists in the military, but admittedly I served long before you. "

That is the first claim I've seen from Kalamata that he actually did serve, though curiously, he says it was so long ago there were still many racists then.
I too remember the military from very long ago and I can tell you it was always less racist than the civilian worlds most of the soldiers came from.

Kalamata: "The most racist people I have ever experienced were the town’s people of a Pennsylvania college I attended, but that too was long ago."

Pennsylvania is normally a "blue state" and voted for Democrats like pro-slavery Doughfaced Northerner James Buchanan in 1856.
On those rare occasions when Pennsylvania flips sides, we can help elect game-changing Republicans like Lincoln, Reagan and Trump.

In 1964 Pennsylvanians knowingly chose Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" over Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of a Conservative".
So however racist you imagine those old Pennsylvanians were, there weren't enough of them to swing the election.

Kalamata "The South has already risen again."

The South was never down for long.
About 400,000 Southerners lost some of their "property", but within a few years they'd effectively nullified the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments and restored their major export, cotton, to production levels well above antebellum levels.

Sure, even today Southerners on average earn less than Northerners, but it also costs less to live in the South and anyone accustomed to high taxes for Northern roads is always amazed to see Southern roads maintained at much lower costs.
And if your definition of "the good life" includes enjoying the relaxed outdoors with your family & friends, then it would be easy to construct a chart showing that the further North you travel, the less of that you find.

As of today, the center of gravity of Republican party voters is, I'd guess, somewhere around Hodgenville, Kentucky, Lincoln's birthplace, meaning roughly equal numbers of Republicans live North, South, East and West of that point.

But while Republicans North & East of Hodgenville are often in the minority, those in states South & West are more often the majority in their states.

Joey cannot let a day pass without cluttering up a thread with sanctimonious foolishness.

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Lincoln was far from a tyrant. He, and the 37th congress, were exercising their constitutional powers to suppress the largest insurrection in the countries history."
>>Joey wrote: "Anyone can call anyone a "tyrant", the word is meaningless by itself."

True. To become a bonafide tyrant, you must usurp power from the people, like Lincoln did (feverishly.) Even devout Lincoln apologists, like the late Cornell History Professor, Clinton Rossiter, admit to that historical fact:

"Thus it was that the American government in 1861, brought face to face with the most exacting crisis this country has ever known, had no precedent in its history for emergency rule on a national scale, and no authority in the Constitution to exert extraordinary force in an extraordinary manner except in the inchoate and ill-defined powers of the President. How Abraham Lincoln resorted to those powers and met the rebellion is the most significant chapter in the story of constitutional dictatorship in the United States, and indeed a unique instance in the history of this age-old phenomenon of constitutional government… The four years of the Civil War remain even today the most critical in the life of the Republic. The principle and the institutions of constitutional dictatorship played a decisive role in the North's successful effort to maintain the Union by force of arms… The simple fact that one man was the government of the United States in the most critical period in all its 165 years, and that he acted on no precedent and under no restraint, makes this the paragon of all democratic, constitutional dictatorships. For if Lincoln was a great dictator, he was a greater democrat… This amazing disregard for the words of the Constitution, though considered by many as unavoidable, was considered by nobody as legal."
[Rossiter, Clinton, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies." Princeton University Press, 1948, pp.222-224, 226]

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

>>Joey wrote: "So the apt comparison in this case is Lincoln to Jefferson Davis -- did Lincoln the "tyrant" take any actions which Davis the... uh, "patriot" didn't also take? Answer: other than winning the war, none I can think of."

Joey has a difficult time staying on topic, which is, "was Lincoln a tyrant?" This is also from a Lincoln apologist:

"Yet, in comparison with the Confederacy, the Union government did curtail civil liberties. As soon as the fighting started, President Lincoln, without delaying to consult Congress, suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, at first for a small area in the East, later for the entire nation. At a subsequent date he reported his fait accompli to Congress: "These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand, and a popular necessity; trusting then, as now that Congress would readily ratify them." Congress had little choice but to ratify, and the disloyal citizen no alternative but to acquiesce. At least 15,000 civilians were imprisoned in the North for alleged disloyalty or sedition. They were arrested upon a presidential warrant and were kept incarcerated without due process of law. It did the disaffected citizen no good to go to court for a writ of habeas corpus to end his arbitrary arrest. On orders from President Lincoln himself, the military guard imprisoning him refused to recognize a judicial writ even when it came from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney."
[Donald, David Herbert, "Why the North Won the Civil War." Collier Books, 1962, pp.86-87]

No where in the constitution, the constitutional convention debates, supreme court rulings -- no where is power authorized to the executive to suspend habeas corpus. It is far to dangerous a power to give to a single individual, as about a million people later found out -- those who were killed or had their lives destroyed in Lincoln's War.

So, was Lincoln a tyrant? The crystal clear answer is, YES!

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey doesn't understand science, but he can fool the non-scientist with his slick, Lincoln-like rhetoric."
>>Joey wrote: "I will take the comparison to Lincoln as a compliment, even though completely undeserved."

No, it is well-deserved, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Ideologues, like those in the Evolutionism Orthodoxy that have hijacked science education, reject anything that doesn't fit their ideology. For example, this is the Evolutionary Biologist and devout Marxist, Richard Lewontin of Harvard University:"
>>Joey wrote: "I don't know of Lewontin, never heard the name before so far as I can remember, but I'd say here he's just trying to be provocative, and for what purpose?"

He is a world-famous evolutionary scientist, Joey, so I am not surprised you have never heard of him. These are some of the books he either authored or co-authored:

Richard Lewontin books at Amazon

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "That is anti-science. Scientists do not take sides; pseudo-scientists do. Scientists simply follow the data."
>>Joey wrote: "What the Lewontin quote says is somewhat similar to what I say, but in different words, namely, that natural-science is limited by definition to natural explanations of natural processes. Everything else, i.e., theology, is by definition "not science"."

Einstein's heroes – the devout Christians named Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell – would disagree with you, Joey. Of course, what would they know, other than being three of the greatest scientists that ever lived.

Power-hungry "scientists" -- the orthodoxy -- tend to confine the study of science inside a neat little box of their own design, and demand others study only inside that little box. Commenting on that fact, a Chinese scientist was heard saying [quoting:] "In China, you can criticize Darwin, but not the government; but in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."

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

>>Joey wrote: "So here Lewontin complains about the apparent limits of natural-science and seemingly, wouldn't it be easier and more fun just to claim some supernatural process is at work?"

No, Joey. What he is saying is, "I am an atheist, Marxist scumbag, and I refuse to believe this unimaginably vast universe, containing mind-bogglingly complex life, was created by a supernatural being." That is all he is saying.

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

>>Joey wrote: "Answer: maybe, conceivably, but by definition that's not science, no matter how insane it makes people like Kalamata. Indeed, it drives Kalamata so insane he loudly declares by writ of his own unique authority that natural science is bunk and only his own "Biblical science" is really true."

I was an evolutionist and and old-earther until I was in my 60's, Joey, about 8 years ago; so your silly aspersions ring hollow.

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

>>Joey wrote: "Anyway, I can't tell what Lewontin's problem is, and more important, I care less, but the fact remains that by definition natural science is still limited to natural explanations no matter how much Lewontin or Kalamata may cry about that."

Lewontin has the same problem you do, Joey: he worships at the altar of Charlie Darwin. He believes his ancestors squatted in a tree.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata to Bull Snipe: "I believe you are correct. Thanks for the info. . ."
>>jeffersondem wrote: "That is the way to take responsibility for an error; straightforward, cheerful, and to the point. It adds even more credibility to everything else you have posted."
>>Joey wrote: "Among the inventory of standard lies Lost Causers bring to these threads is: "Lincoln signed the Corwin Amendment".

Joey lies so much he longer knows how to determine a lie from an error. There is a term for that condition; I believe it is called a "pathological liar."

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

>>Joey wrote: "After being quickly corrected, this usually devolves to "Lincoln supported Corwin". When it turns out he didn't support Corwin publicly, that devolves further to "Lincoln secretly supported Corwin. And this final claim is based on just who's say-so? Well, a young staffer who thought he heard somebody say something about Lincoln, so it must be true! Sort of like that "whistleblower" against President Trump today."
>>Joey wrote: "The truth is that in December 1860 there were many such "compromise" proposals floating around, including a much stronger one protecting slavery, from Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis. As often the case, Congress was desperate to "do something", anything that might save the situation. Lincoln opposed all those proposals and so they all died in committee or elsewhere. But Corwin had support from all Democrats and a few Republicans, notably NY Senator Seward, Lincoln's ally & future Secretary of State. Historians think that at this point Seward was pretty much a loose cannon, acting on his own with or without Lincoln's knowledge. What's certain is that Lincoln did not publicly oppose Corwin and Seward eventually rounded up a big enough minority of Republicans to join with Democrats and pass Corwin. So Corwin passed mainly by Democrats and was signed by Democrat President Buchanan. Why did Lincoln not oppose Corwin? Because, he said in effect: it was pure eyewash, typical Congress trying to "do something" and in fact made no real change to slavery as it was then recognized. And it might help keep some Border States from secession, which it did. Corwin satisfied Unionist Democrats and RINO Republicans, especially in Border States which is where, in 1861, Lincoln thought the Union would be won or lost. But it had no effect on Confederate states which already had much stronger protections of slavery written into their own constitution..

The historical record points to Lincoln's acceptance and promotion, Joey; but what's wrong with a little revisionist history among "FRiends?"

Are you familiar with History Professor Daniel W. Crofts, who wrote the book, Lincoln and the Politics of Slavery? Professor Crofts is also a devout Lincolnite; and this is what he had to say about the Corwin Amendment:

Youtube: Daniel Crofts speech

Frankly, nothing makes sense if slavery was the chief reason for secession.

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

>>Joey wrote: "It's interesting to notice that among the Border States, Missouri & Delaware did not ratify Corwin while Kentucky (1861) & Maryland (1862) did. Maryland then flipped and abolished slavery on its own, in 1864, while Kentucky refused to ratify the 13th Amendment until 1976! Only Mississippi took longer."

One minor point: Maryland's political leaders had been arrested by federal soldiers early on, and the state was placed under the heavy-handed suppression of Lincoln's martial law. Therefore the state was later exempted from the so-called "Emancipation Proclamation."

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata wrote: “Don’t let Joey fool you: evolution is his religion, On the Origin of Species is his holy book, and Darwin is his prophet.”
>>Joey wrote: “This, I think, might be what Kalamata calls a “counterpunch”, a total smear which Kalamata himself knows is a total lie, but which he can justify in his own mind on grounds of “counterpunching”. That’s the charitable explanation, probably more realistic is that he just doesn’t care if it’s true or not, but it just feeeeeeels sooooo gooooood to say it, nothing else matters. But sticking with “counterpunch”, to what do Kalamata’s lies “counterpunch”? Why to the truth, of course, the truth about Kalamata and his messed-up mind.”

Child.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “The truth is Kalamata’s definition of “science” begins & ends with the term “Biblical science” — in his mind whatever supports that is science, whatever doesn’t isn’t.”

The only think Joey knows about science is how to spell it.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “The truth is Kalamata’s definition of “history” boils down to approximately this: the evil Enlightenment Age brought us Lincoln’s tyranny over freedom loving Confederates and give us today’s legal abortions and mandatory atheistic evolution in public schools.”

Lincoln’s form of evil preceded the so-called “Enlightenment,” Joey. A greedy Pharisee comes to mind.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “I asked Joey for evidence of evolution, and all he could deliver were highly-imaginative museum mockups based on highly-fragmented fossils. The ENCODE Project Report of 2012 exposed the myth of Junk DNA that the evolutionist so heavily relied upon, so they are now desperately trying to keep the evolution myth alive.”
>>Joey wrote: “And here we see on display Kalamata’s denier tactics. The truth is Kalamata will accept no evidence, period, which might conflict with his own ideas of “Biblical science”.”

I accept all verifiable evidence, Joey. That is what scientists are supposed to do.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “As for so-called “junk DNA”, from the beginning that term referred to roughly 90% of DNA found to be non-coding. In more recent years other functions were found for some of the 90% and thus “junk” is not such a good term for it.”

By 2018, it was determined that more than 95% was functional in one manner or another, making evolution even more impossible than was previously believed (which was, it is impossible.)

****************
>>Joey wrote: “Indeed, large statistical studies suggest that some “junk” is influenced by evolution, all of which Kalamata uses to claim: evolution scientists are liars and, evolution is bunk. And because atheistic science is all lies, the real truth can be found in, yes, “Biblical science”, says Kalamata.””

Years ago, when genetic research was in a more primitive state, members of the evolutionism cult noticed that only a small portion of the DNA appeared to be functional. So they made up this elaborate story about the remainder of the DNA, labeling it as evolvable “junk.” LOL!

As always, God had the last laugh. Researchers now believe all (100%) of the genome, within the complex factory called a cell, is functional in one manner or another. In other words, God didn’t make no junk! LOL!

One other point: since there is no junk DNA in the human, it cannot evolve. It can devolve via mutations (genes can be broken!), but it cannot evolve. That means, evolution is not science, but a faith-based religion based on story-telling. Nothing else.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Scientists know there is no empirical evidence for evolution — none; and more and more scientists are speaking out, despite a credible threat to their careers by the modern-day Inquisition of the evolutionism orthodoxy.”
>>Joey wrote: “That’s total nonsense, but here’s what’s true: there is in fact a serious anti-evolution industry supported most visibly by promoters like Ken Ham (Ark Encounter) and doubtless some conservative Universities. They embrace such terms as “intelligent design” and “irreducible complexity”, reject all conflicting evidence and they have worked out somewhat detailed explanations in order to reduce both the Earth’s age and evolution’s role.

LOL! This is a February 2019 list of dissenters from Darwinism:

https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/10/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-09302019.pdf

It appears that most every major university in the world is represented.

Naturally, those are established and/or tenured professors and researchers; otherwise the Inquisition of the scientific orthodoxy would seek to destroy their careers and make their lives miserable, as they did in the days of Galileo.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Yes, some do admit evidence for an older Earth, but true believers like Ham & Kalamata reject all interpretations which add to their Biblical understanding of ~10,000 years.”

There is no doubt a global flood covered the earth and laid down all the thick, fossil-laden, homogeneous layers of sediment found worldwise. Did you know there are marine (ocean) fossils found in virtually every layer, even at the top of Mount Everest?

The homogeneous nature of the sediment, and the lack of erosion and bioturbation between the layers, renders gradual deposition a mere myth.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Now every word of the above is true, but in response our FRiend Kalamata will “counterpunch” with a blast of lies, doubtless because it feeeels sooo goood, why bother to make the effort to be honest?”

Like David Berlinski said about evolutionism, “I never tire of flogging that beast!” LOL!

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “The geological column is not fake evidence, Joey. “
>>Joey wrote: “Your “analysis” is totally fraudulent, your conclusions are pure religion.”

Explain to us how those layers formed, Joey. When you get through with that explanation, please explain how all the major phyla showed up in the bottom layers, when they should have “evolved,” with most appearing in later layers.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “I know you cannot provide any examples, Child. For the rest of you, these are the kinds of scientific quotes from devout evolutionists that outrage (and scare the daylights out of) the evolutionism ideologues:”
>>Joey wrote: “As I was saying... here Kalamata first demanded I copy & paste his own quotes of Stephen Gould, then does his own homework and in the process proves my point: Kalamata uses Gould’s discussion of evolution to argue against evolution. Typical denier tactic.”

It was Stephen Gould who argued against Darwin’s theory of gradualism; and, as Richard Dawkins explained, without gradualism, there is no Darwinism. Take it up with Gould when you see him in the afterlife.

Mr. Kalamata

Another thing I discovered is the reason that no one was tried for treason. I thought it was because of Lincoln's "let them up easy policy." It was not. The following letter explains why they did not try Jefferson Davis.

Richard Henry Dana, Jr. letter to Attorney General W.M. Evarts

"Sir,

While preparing with yourself, before you assumed your present post, to perform the honorable duty the President had assigned to us, of conducting the trial of Jefferson Davis, you know how much my mind was moved, from the first, by doubts of the expediency of trying him at all. The reasons which prevented my presenting those doubts no longer exist, and they have so ripened into conviction that I feel it my duty to lay them before you in form, as you now hold a post of official responsibly for the proceeding. After the most serious reflection, I cannot see any good reason why the Government should make a question whether the late civil war was treason, and whether Jefferson Davis took any part in it, and submit those questions to the decision of a petit jury of the vicinage of Richmond at "nisi prius" ["court of original jurisdiction"].

As the Constitution in terms settles the fact that our republic is a state against which treason may be committed, the only constitutional question attending the late war was whether a levying of war against the United States which would otherwise be treason, is relieved of that character by the fact that it took the form of secession from the Union by state authority. In other words the legal issue was, whether secession by a State is a right, making an act legal and obligatory upon the nation which would otherwise have been treason.

This issue I suppose to have been settled by the action of every department of the Government, by the action of the people itself, and by those events which are definitive in the affairs of men.

The Supreme Court in the Prize Cases held, by happily a unanimous opinion, that acts of the States, whether secession ordinances, or in whatever form cast, could not be brought into the cases, as justifications for the war, and had no legal effect on the character of the war, or on the political status of territory or persons or property, and that the line of enemy's territory was a question of fact, depending upon the line of bayonets of an actual war. The rule in the Prize Cases has been steadily followed in the Supreme Court since, and in the Circuit Courts, without an intimation of a doubt. That the law making and executive departments have treated this secession and war as treason, is a matter of history, as well as is the action of the people in the highest sanction of war."

"It cannot be doubted that the Circuit Court at the trial will instruct the jury, in conformity with these decisions, that the late attempt to establish and sustain by war an independent empire within the United States was treason. The only question of fact submitted to the Jury will be whether Jefferson Davis took any part in the war. As it is one of the great facts of history that he was its head, civil and military, why should we desire to make a question of it and refer its decision to a jury, with power to find in the negative or affirmative, or to disagree? It is not an appropriate question for the decision of a jury; certainly it is not a fact which a Government should, without great cause, give a jury a chance to ignore. We know that these indictments are to be tried in what was for five years enemy's territory, which is not yet restored to the exercise of all its political functions, and where the fires are not extinct. We know that it only requires one dissentient juror to defeat the Government and give Jefferson Davis and his favorers a triumph. Now, is not such a result one which we must include in our calculation of possibilities? Whatever modes may be legally adopted to draw a jury, or to purge it, and whatever the influence of the court or of counsel, we know that a vavorer of treason may get upon the jury. But that is not necessary. A fear of personal violence or social ostracism may be enough to induce one man to withhold his assent from the verdict, especially as be need not come forward personally, nor give a reason, even in the jury-room.

This possible result would be most humiliating to the Government and people of this country, and none the less so from the fact that it would be absurd. The Government would be stopped in its judicial course because it could neither assume nor judicially determine that Jefferson Davis took part in the late civil war. Such a result would also bring into doubt the adequacy of our penal system to deal with such cases as this.

If it were important to secure a verdict as a means of punishing the defendant, the question would present itself differently. But it would be beneath the dignity of the Government and of the issue, to inflict upon him a minor punishment; and, as to a sentence of death, I am sure that, after this lapse of time and after all that has occurred in the interval, the people of the United States would not desire to see it enforced.

In fine, after the fullest consideration, it seems to me that, by pursuing the trial, the Government can get only a re-affirmation by a Circuit Court at "nisi prius" of a rule of public law settled for this country in every way in which such a matter can be settled, only giving to a jury drawn from the region of the rebellion a chance to disregard the law when announced. It gives that jury a like opportunity to ignore the fact that Jefferson Davis took any part in the late civil war. And one man upon the jury can secure these results. The risks of such absurd and discreditable issues of a great state trial are assumed for the sake of a verdict which, if obtained, will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled, and nothing in fact not now history, while no judgment rendered thereon do we think will be ever executed.

Besides these reasons, and perhaps because of them, I think that the public interest in the trial has ceased among the most earnest and loyal citizens.

If your views and those of the President should be in favor of proceeding with the trial, I am confident that I can do my duty as counsel, to the utmost of my ability and with all zeal. For my doubts are not what the verdict ought to be. On the contrary, I should feel all the more strongly, if the trial is begun, the importance of a victory to the Government, and the necessity of putting forth all powers and using all lawful means to secure it. Still, I feel it my duty to say that if the President should judge otherwise, my position in the cause is at his disposal."

President Johnson noted on the letter, "This opinion must be filed with care, A.J."

In the letter he clearly states that the law is clear that even under secession levying war against the United States is treason. But because they would have to try Davis in the jurisdictatin where he committed the crimes it would be very difficult to get a conviction. It would be as if we had captured General Suleimani, but had to try him in an are where only Qod Soldiers were in the jury pool.

Lincoln's "let them up easy policy" is the biggest disagreement I have with him. If I had been President then I would have tried Davis, Stephens, Lee, Longstreet, Breckenridge, and every confederate congressman, by a military tribunal then hanged them by the neck until dead.

With Lee in particular I would use his letter to his son as exhibit A of his willful treason.

Robert E. Lee to George Washington Custis Lee

Fort Mason, Texas, January 23, 1861.

I received Everett’s “Life of Washington” which you sent me, and enjoyed its perusal. How his spirit would be grieved could he see the wreck of his mighty labors! I will not, however,permit myself to believe, until all ground of hope is gone,that the fruit of his noble deeds will be destroyed, and that his precious advice and virtuous example will so soon be forgotten by his countrymen. As far as I can judge by the papers, we are between a state of anarchy and civil war. May God avert both of these evils from us! I fear that mankind will not for years be sufficiently Christianized to bear the absence of restraint and force. I see that four States have declared themselves out of the Union; four more will apparently follow their example. Then,if the Border States are brought into the gulf of revolution,one-half of the country will be arrayed against the other. I must try and be patient and await the end, for I can do nothing to hasten or retard it.

The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded.

But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington,Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. . . . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved,and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and save in defense will draw my sword on none.

“If I had been President then I would have tried Davis, Stephens, Lee, Longstreet, Breckenridge, and every confederate congressman, by a military tribunal then hanged them by the neck until dead.”

Here's an opposing, informed, view to consider:

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower

(Dwight D. Eisenhower was an American statesman and a five-star army general responsible for planning and supervising the Normandy invasion during World War II. He later served as the 34th President of the United States. He continues to be widely respected, though perhaps not by Col. Vindman.)

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.