woodpusher from post #271 on Mary Anna Custis vs. US gvt. regarding Arlington:
"This was not a case of making reparations, compensating the owner for a loss.
The rightful owner of the land prevailed in a action of ejectment, an action to restore possession of property to the person entitled to it.
Not only must the plaintiff establish a right to possession in himself, but he must also show that the the other party is in wrongful possession.
The owner succeeded in a judicial proceeding taken up to the Supreme Court by the United States government after the owner had prevailed in the Circuit Court.
The rightful owner won back title to the l,100 acre estate, not reparations for any loss.
As the Court stated, the government, 'if satisfied that its title has been shown to be invalid, and it still desires to use the property, or any part of it, for the purposes to which it is now devoted, it may purchase such property by fair negotiation, or condemn it by a judicial proceeding, in which a just compensation shall be ascertained and paid according to the Constitution.' " Here SCOTUS ruled that Due Process had not been fully followed, and now must be, so it was.
The net effect was Custis received just compensation -- aka reparations -- for her property.
woodpusher post #280, on post-war burials at Arlington: "For such purpose, the burials were not performed as a military necessity, but rather constituted a war crime.
That the acts regarding the Lee estate were held to be unlawful by the U.S. Supreme Court is documented fact."
And here we see, yet again, the boundless insanity of Democrats dedicated to the destruction of the United States.
In this particular case, woodpusher calls burials of Union soldiers at Arlington a war crime.
How much hatred & loathing for your own country do you need to say such a thing? ![]()
[BroJoeK]
[woodpusher from post #271 on Mary Anna Custis vs. US gvt. regarding Arlington]:
Mary Anna Custis Lee was dead. Pursuant to the terms of her father's will, she was given a life tenancy on the land (she controlled but did not own the estate), and George W.P.C. Lee inherited the land upon her death. As stated before, the lawsuit, at the Supreme Court, was United States v. George W.P.C. Lee. George Washington Parke Custis Lee was the son of General Robert E. Lee.
The United States was the Plaintiff/Appellant, they brought the action to the U.S. Supreme Court, and George W.P.C. Lee was the Defendant/Appellee. It was the United States which brought the suit to the U.S. Supreme Court. The United States was not a party to the lawsuit decided in the Circuit Court, but rather made a failed effort to claim the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The case of Kaufman et al having been heard and decided unfavorably, the United States then filed a writ of error to the U.S. Supreme Court in its own name, a somewhat irregular action for a non-party.
As the Supreme Court stated, at 196 U.S. 197,
As the United States was not a party to the suit below, and, while defending the action by its proper officers, expressly declined to submit itself as a defendant to the jurisdiction of the court, there may exist some doubt whether it has a right to prosecute the writ of error in its own name; but as the judgment against Kaufman and Strong is here on their writ of error, under which all the questions are raised which could be raised under the other, their writ being prosecuted in the interest of the United States, and argued here by the Solititor-General, the point is immaterial, and the question has not been mooted.
[woodpusher from post #271 on the United States v. George W.P.C. Lee, regarding Arlington National Cemetary]: "This was not a case of making reparations, compensating the owner for a loss. The rightful owner of the land prevailed in a action of ejectment, an action to restore possession of property to the person entitled to it.
Not only must the plaintiff establish a right to possession in himself, but he must also show that the the other party is in wrongful possession.
The owner succeeded in a judicial proceeding taken up to the Supreme Court by the United States government after the owner had prevailed in the Circuit Court. The rightful owner won back title to the l,100 acre estate, not reparations for any loss.
As the Court stated, the government, 'if satisfied that its title has been shown to be invalid, and it still desires to use the property, or any part of it, for the purposes to which it is now devoted, it may purchase such property by fair negotiation, or condemn it by a judicial proceeding, in which a just compensation shall be ascertained and paid according to the Constitution.
[BroJoeK]: Here SCOTUS ruled that Due Process had not been fully followed, and now must be, so it was.
The net effect was Custis received just compensation -- aka reparations -- for her property.
That is legal nonsense.
It was ordered that legal title to the property had never passed to the U.S. government, and that title to the property had never ceased to belong to the Lee family. Title was awarded to George W.P.C. Lee. Then the U.S. Government negotiated a purchase of the land which belonged to G.W.P.C. Lee. The Government then bought the land from the rightful owner.
You are free to imagine that is reparations, but it is not. That is the Lee family establishing title to their land and, only afterwards, selling it. When one sells something, the payment is not called reparations.
The government negotiated a purchase, but it could have condemned the property and seized it under eminent domain, and then the payment would have been characterized a just compensation. That did not happen.
War reparations are compensation in money or materials payable by a defeated nation for damages to or expenditures sustained by another nation as a result of hostilities with the defeated nation; the compensation for war damage paid by a defeated state. For example, after WW1, Germany was forced to pay war reparations by the treaty of 1919. The last payment was made on October 3, 2010. That is war reparations. The last time I checked, the United States had not been defeated. It most certainly did not pay war reparations to the Confederates. Contrary to your claimed belief of payment of reparations, the United States passed the 14th Amendment in 1868 which states in relevant part:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
A claim for reparations in 1882 would have been unconstitutional. The Lee claim was that the property had never left the Lee family, and that the purported seizure and sale was null and void.
[woodpusher post #280, on post-war burials at Arlington]: "For such purpose, the burials were not performed as a military necessity, but rather constituted a war crime. That the acts regarding the Lee estate were held to be unlawful by the U.S. Supreme Court is documented fact."
[BroJoeK] And here we see, yet again, the boundless insanity of Democrats dedicated to the destruction of the United States.
In this particular case, woodpusher calls burials of Union soldiers at Arlington a war crime.
How much hatred & loathing for your own country do you need to say such a thing?
And here we see more historical and legal fiction.
Political parties have nothing to do with it.
As for the land, it was unlawfully seized and sold at auction. With an unlawful seizure, the seller had no clear title, and the purchaser obtained no clear title. It was a very simple matter of law. The seizure and purported sale were null and void.
Burials for the purpose of making private property uninhabitable by the rightful owner is a war crime. Burials for military necessity is not. The documents of General Meigs go directly to what Meigs did, and why.
How much disrespect for veterans do you show by saying that the Government gave away Arlington National Cemetary as a war reparation?
Of course, you neither read the court opinions, nor knew enough history, to recognize I was describing Arlington National Cemetary.
Just because you embarrassed yourself does not justify your inanity that the Government of the winning side gave away Arlington National Cemetary, as a war reparation, to the son of General Robert E. Lee of the losing side. No war reparations were given to any of the Confederates.
The historical facts speak for themselves and do not support your fiction.