[woodpusher]: In 1863, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus suspension Act. Awesome. He finally obtained authorization from Congress, two years late.
Lincoln was not Congress and could not assume the powers of Congress.
Lincoln had unlawfully authorized military officers to suspend habeas corpus at their discretion and further delegate their bogus authority.
[BroJoeK]: Republicans in Congress then, just as today, tried to protect their President against insane Democrat attacks intent on destroying the United States by whatever means possible -- in this case Lincoln's denial of Habeas Corpus.
Treasonous Democrats were sometimes aided & abetted by RINO's, in your example here, Illinois Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull.
Radical Republicans then tried to cover for the unconstitutional and unlawful acts of President Lincoln. That is not their proper function and only makes them accessories after the fact.
My objection to taking up this resolution I will state in a word. I believe it is in order to state briefly the objection. This resolution which the Senator from Massachusetts seeks to take up is germane to the bill which is the unfinished business. The resolution proposed to declare legal the acts which have been done by the President in the recess of Congress. Will our declaration make them legal if they are not legal? Will it make them so if they were unconstitutional and void?
— Mr. TRUMBULL, August 2, 1861, page 392
The obvious answer to Trumbull's questions is that a congressional declaration could not change Lincoln's acts to legal if they were not legal, nor could a congressional declaration make said acts legal if they were unconstitutional and void.
Despite insane Lincoln idolatry, Lincoln was not a King. His acts could not be made lawful by decree.
Those who would approve of violations of the constitution merely exhibit a form of Trump Degrangement Syndrome in reverse. There is no defense of unconstitutional acts by presidents regardless of party. You labor mightily under the absurd notion that there is some party duty to approve unlawful and unconstitutional acts by a president of the chosen party.
[BroJoeK]: The 1861 S No. 1 was introduced by Massachusetts Republican Senator Henry Wilson (later President Grant's Vice President).It was intended to protect President Lincoln against insanely traitorous Democrats and their Doughfaced Republican co-conspirators.
In 1861 Republicans had 62% of the US Senate and 58% of the House meaning they theoretically could have passed pretty much whatever they wanted.
It was intended to protect President Lincoln from the consequences of unlawful acts in violation of laws and the constitution. Those radicals who approved of violating the constitution to further their desires were for such dictatorial acts. The majority of congress was against it. The measure could not pass in 1861, it could not pass in 1863, it did not pass ever.
[BroJoeK]: But there were two problems, the first was the lack of a filibuster cloture rule, meaning Democrats could block pretty much anything in the Senate.
The problem with SR-1 was most certainly not the filibuster rule. Nobody was filibustering. The opposition was clamoring for a vote. Lincoln supporter Republican Lyman Trumbull withdrew the bill to save Lincoln from a humiliating defeat. Your imaginative historical fiction is belied by the actual record.
Below are links for the debate which occurred on August 5, 1861 regarding SR-1, S69, and S72. As for the inability to reach a vote, because of the imposition of some impenetrable filibuster, in the immortal words of Barry Scheck, where is it, Mr. Fung Brother Joe? How did a filibuster escape the transcripts?
The debate which occurred on August 5, 1861 regarding SR-1, S69, and S72 is at the Congressional Globe at pages 442, 443, 448, and 449.
The debate which occurred on the last day of the session, August 6, 1861 regarding SR-1, S69, and S72 is at the Congressional Globe at pages 451, 452, 453, 454, 456, 458, and 459.
There is no filibuster to be found.
However, there are a few quotable quotes about the bill all Republicans were supposedly required to vote for.
At page 451, Senator Breckinridge stated,
I predicted that the Senate never intended to vote on this joint resolution No. 1; and I take it to be one gleam of sunshine in the midst of the gloom that surrounds us, that the Senate recoils from that.
At page 452, Senator Breckenridge stated,
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. This resolution is more familiar to the Senate than any other resolution which has been before it during the session. It was earliest introduced. It was the pet measure of the majority here. It was put in just such shape as that majority thought was right. It was the outbreak of the patriotic ardor with which the Senate assembled. They matured it; and before the Senate got cool, Senators expressed their purpose to vote for it. It has been up again and again; it has been amendable for more than a month. It is just in the shape in which a majority of the Senate deliberately said they wanted it to be, for some time. So eager was the Senate to pass it, that it was difficult for any of us to get the floor to make a protest in the name of the Constitution against it; but at last we secured that right. There it is. It has gone to the country. It is on its passage, and not amendable. Let the Senate vote it down, or pass it.
At page 453, Senator Trumbull stated,
Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is very anxious for a vote on this subject. I am not willing that a vote should be taken, under the misapprehensions which seem to exist in the Chamber, and the position which will be practiced by it upon the country. The Senator from Kentucky has, on several occasions, very good-naturedly alluded to this as being the “ pet measure” of this side of the Chamber; that it was brought forward at an early day, and matured, and then there was an indisposition to vote upon it; that we were all for it, our “pet measure;" matured and brought in here, one would think, by some general understanding. Now, I desire to say—and I desire to say it in part because of what has fallen from the Senator from Maine, who has undertaken to speak for this side of the Chamber, as he supposed—there never was a moment, from the time the resolution was introduced up to this hour, that it could have received my vote. It never was matured as a party measure—never. It is an entire misapprehension. The Senator from Massachusetts, I believe, reported it from a committee, and has urged it; but that it has been any “pet measure,” or anything that everybody was bound to vote for, whether he liked it or disliked it, is an entire misapprehension.
At page 453, the following colloquy followed:
Mr. COLLAMER. It was not reported from a committee. Mr. TRUMBULL. It seems it never was before a committee. It is an individual proposition brought in here. Now what authority is there for undertaking to assume that this is a pet measure of any party in the country.
Mr. POWELL. If the Senator from Illinois will allow me, I will say it was reported from the Committee on Military Affairs.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I was just informed that — it was not reported from that committee, but was brought in by the Senator from Massachusetts on his individual responsibility.
[BroJoeK]: The second was Illinois Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
The votes were not there. That was the problem. The votes were still not there in 1863 for the crap they tried to push in 1861.
[BroJoeK]: In 1864 Trumbull's abolition bill became the US 13th Amendment.
Nothing became the 13th Amendment in 1864. A proposal for an Amendment was approved to be sent to the States for ratification in 1865. The proposed amendment became the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865.
[BroJoeK]: So, bottom line: former Democrat Trumbull was willing to vote to defend Democrat President Johnson, but not to defend Republican President Lincoln.
President Johnson was not guilty of any violation of law. Lincoln was. Trumbull did not defend Lincoln's unlawful acts. You still do.
[BroJoeK]: Trumbull was willing to take seriously the words of traitors Breckenridge & Polk, but not those of his fellow Republicans and the bill's sponsor Henry Wilson.
Trumbull was not willing to ignore violations of the laws and the Constitution. You are willing to make believe Lincoln's acts have some viable defence, even if you are incapable of articulating what it may be.
[BroJoeK]: Result was: The final 1863 bill, which Trumbull was instrumental in passing, authorized Lincoln to suspend Habeas Corpus, but said nothing about past suspensions.
The votes for that insane nonsense were still not there. The attempt to insert that crap into legislation did not fail for want of trying. Nor did it fail for want of a cloture rule. Authorization by Congress to suspend habeas corpus passed cloture and the requirement for votes. Approval of Lincoln's unauthorized and unconstitutional acts failed for want of votes.
[BroJoeK]: In Trumbull's defense we might suppose he thought Lincoln did not need defending, while people wrongfully arrested did, and that Trumbull could never imagine, 160 years later, Democrats would still want to disinter Lincoln's body so they could publicly flog it over habeas corpus.
In Trumbull's defense, there was no viable legal defense for Lincoln's acts. However, 169 years later, those with Lincoln Idolatry Syndrome continue to issue fiction as history.
[BroJoeK]: By stark contrast, the Confederate congress had no trouble authorizing Jefferson Davis to suspend habeas corpus, for the obvious reason that there were no Confederate Republican "strict constructionists" there to object.
The Confederate Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 9, cl. 3 stated:
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.
The United States Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 9, cl. 2 stated:
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.
The two are identical, down to the punctuation.
What was different was that Davis sought, and obtained, the authorization of the Confederate congress before acting. Lincoln neither sought, nor obtained, the authorization of the United States congress before acting. Davis acted to issue a suspension pursuant to delegated authority. Lincoln had no delegated authority, but pretended to delegate said "authority" he did not have to a military officer, and pretended to empower that officer to further delegate the faux authority to issue suspensions. There is no legal defense whatever for what Lincoln did. That is why congress repeated puked the legislation back up.
Moreover, even had Davis acted as unlawfully as Lincoln, that would be no defense for the acts of Lincoln.
As for your imaginative fiction about how cloture prevented the passage of Senate Resolution SR-1 because of the "traitors" Trumbull and Brekinridge, how do you explain what happened with Senate Bill S-69 and Senate Bill S-72? (passed as a bill "to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, muscians, and privates of the regular Army, volunteers, marines, and seamaen and ordinary seamen in the service of the United States, and for other purposes") Or did your quest for historical knowledge not get past Wikipedia and extend to the actual records of what happened in the Congress? Those bills, and the attendant debate, lay waste to your historical fiction.
woodpusher:
"The obvious answer to Trumbull's questions is that a congressional declaration could not change Lincoln's acts to legal if they were not legal, nor could a congressional declaration make said acts legal if they were unconstitutional and void.
Despite insane Lincoln idolatry, Lincoln was not a King.
His acts could not be made lawful by decree."
Say our America-hating Democrats.
But there's nothing insane -- zero, zip, nada insane -- about Republicans protecting their President from lunatic Democrats determined to destroy the United States by whatever means possible, in this case habeas corpus.
Further, setting aside the absurd opinions of crazy Roger Taney and the traitors Breckenridge and Polk, the Supreme Court itself has never ruled directly on the issue of Lincoln's power to revoke habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion.
Regardless of even Trumbull's opinion, it is not a fact that Lincoln violated the law.
woodpusher: "Those who would approve of violations of the constitution merely exhibit a form of Trump Degrangement Syndrome in reverse.
There is no defense of unconstitutional acts by presidents regardless of party.
You labor mightily under the absurd notion that there is some party duty to approve unlawful and unconstitutional acts by a president of the chosen party. "
So say our insane Democrats.
But a rational person understands that there was no definitive law or Supreme Court ruling forbidding Lincoln's actions regarding habeas corpus and that Congress, despite determined Democrat opposition, did eventually authorize suspension -- the 1863 Habeas Corpus Suspension Act.
Confederate General Breckenridge:
Further, those traitor Democrats who fought most strongly against authorizing Lincoln to suspend were totally happy when the Confederate Congress authorized Jefferson Davis to suspend -- no debate, no delays, and nothing sane about them.
woodpusher: "It was intended to protect President Lincoln from the consequences of unlawful acts in violation of laws and the constitution.
Those radicals who approved of violating the constitution to further their desires were for such dictatorial acts.
The majority of congress was against it.
The measure could not pass in 1861, it could not pass in 1863, it did not pass ever. "
Again, crazy Roger notwithstanding, there was then and still today no direct Supreme Court ruling against Lincoln's actions.
When Congress did act in 1863 it approved future suspensions and took no notice of past suspensions.
woodpusher: "The problem with SR-1 was most certainly not the filibuster rule.
Nobody was filibustering.
The opposition was clamoring for a vote.
Lincoln supporter Republican Lyman Trumbull withdrew the bill to save Lincoln from a humiliating defeat.
Your imaginative historical fiction is belied by the actual record. "
RINO Democrat Senator Lyman Trumbull Judiciary Chairman
First, Massachusetts Republican Senator Wilson was not "the opposition", he represented the majority Republicans.
Second, your unsupported claim that 1861's SR 1 would have been defeated rests on the assumption that RINO Trumbull would have been joined by at least three other RINO senators, and I've seen no evidence of that.
What's clear from your own posts is that RINO Trumbull was mesmerized by the traitors Breckenridge & Polk into remembering that he, Trumbull, was really a Democrat at heart and would rather see the United States destroyed than support his Republican president.
Trumbull was victimized by Democrats' Lincoln Derangement Syndrome.
woodpusher: "As for the inability to reach a vote, because of the imposition of some impenetrable filibuster, in the immortal words of Barry Scheck, where is it, Mr. Fung Brother Joe?
How did a filibuster escape the transcripts? "
I was referring to Democrats' filibuster against HR 591 in March, 1863.
That bill eventually passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses.
It authorized future suspensions of habeas corpus, but said nothing to either indemnify or censure previous suspensions.
In all fairness to Trumbull and other Republicans at that time, I have no doubt they didn't think Lincoln needed to be indemnified.
woodpusher: "However, there are a few quotable quotes about the bill all Republicans were supposedly required to vote for. "
I have no interest in the opinions of traitor Breckenridge except as they somehow seem to have infected the mind of RINO Trumbull.
The real question is whether there were Republicans besides RINO Trumbull willing to vote against 1861 SR-1?
I've seen no evidence of that, meaning Trumbull was simply acting in his authority as chairman to quash a bill he personally didn't like.
woodpusher: "The votes were not there.
That was the problem.
The votes were still not there in 1863 for the crap they tried to push in 1861. "
You don't know how many votes there were for or against.
You only know that Trumbull himself was against 1861 SR-1, and also against Thaddeus Stevens' original 1863 HR-591.
That's why Trumbull replaced Steven's HR-591 with his own, leaving off indemnification, and got it passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses.
Again, the lopsided vote for HR-591 suggests to me that Republicans at the time did not think indemnification was necessary.
woodpusher: "Nothing became the 13th Amendment in 1864.
A proposal for an Amendment was approved to be sent to the States for ratification in 1865.
The proposed amendment became the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865. "
Now you're just being ridiculous.
In January 1864 Trumbull began working on the bill which eventually became the 13th Amendment.
woodpusher: "President Johnson was not guilty of any violation of law.
Lincoln was.
Trumbull did not defend Lincoln's unlawful acts.
You still do."
You have it exactly backwards.
The truth is that President Andrew Johnson was accused and impeached for violating an actual law, but RINO Trumbull voted against conviction because he personally thought the law itself was unconstitutional.
Trumbull put his own opinions above the law itself.
In the case of Lincoln, no actual law was violated, no accusations were made, outside the fantasies of crazy Roger Taney.
But RINO Trumbull seemed mesmerized by arguments of traitorous Democrats and so refused to indemnify Lincoln for saving the United States from Democrats' efforts to destroy it.
woodpusher: "Trumbull was not willing to ignore violations of the laws and the Constitution.
You are willing to make believe Lincoln's acts have some viable defence, even if you are incapable of articulating what it may be."
I'm no lawyer, but the defense here is simple: no laws were broken in this matter.
woodpusher: "The votes for that insane nonsense were still not there.
The attempt to insert that crap into legislation did not fail for want of trying.
Nor did it fail for want of a cloture rule.
Authorization by Congress to suspend habeas corpus passed cloture and the requirement for votes.
Approval of Lincoln's unauthorized and unconstitutional acts failed for want of votes. "
Now, typical Democrat, you've just descended down from ridiculous arguments to flat-out lying, why?
After much parliamentary maneuvering, Thaddeus Stevens' HR-591 eventually became the 1863 Habeas Corpus Suspension Act".
Why do you lie about that?
woodpusher: "In Trumbull's defense, there was no viable legal defense for Lincoln's acts.
However, 169 years later, those with Lincoln Idolatry Syndrome continue to issue fiction as history. "
159 years from 1861 to 2020 = ~160.
In Lincoln's defense, again, outside the fantasies of crazy Confederate Roger Taney, there was no serious accusation of wrongdoing on Lincoln's part.
As for alleged "Lincoln Idolatry Syndrome", that's never been seen on Free Republic, but Lincoln Derangement Syndrome drives our Democrats here into paroxysms of rage over their failure to utterly destroy the United States in the 1860s.
Sorry about that, FRiend, but it's long past time for you get over it. ![]()