[woodpusher]

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? "

[BroJoeK #291]: 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.

- - - - - - - - - -

No, you were not referring to HR 591 in March 1863, you explicitly referred to SR-1 of 1861, with nary a mention of HR 591 of 1863. You explicitly claimed that "The 1861 S No. 1 was introducted by Massachusetts Republican Senator Henry Wilson," and, still in reference to Wilson's Resolution, "here were two problems, the first was the lack of a filibuster cloture rule...."

You invented a filibuster that never happened, and when confronted by the official record of the relevant 1861 congressional debate, you seek to make believe you were talking about a bill from 1863.

The record of the debates does not lie. Neither does the FR record of what you actually wrote.

[BroJoeK #289]: 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.

[woodpusher #290] 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 #289]: 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.

So, you were clearly talking about SR-1 of 1861 and your blather about 1863 is merely an attempt at diversion. Be that as it may, the question was about where is your cited filibuster?

[BroJoeK #291]: When Congress did act in 1863 it approved future suspensions and took no notice of past suspensions.

What was the purpose of the Indemnity Bill again? The official record shows:

MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE.

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Etheridge, its Clerk, announced that the House of Representatives had agreed to the re­port of the committee of conference on the disa­greeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (H. R. No. 591) to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof.

[...]

Mr. TRUMBULL. The committee of confer­ence on the bill of the House of Representatives (No. 591) to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof, have agreed on a report, which I submit.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I will state, for the in­formation of the Senate, that the report embraces nothing but the subject-matter of the bill which passed the House of Representatives, and the amendments which passed the Senate. The House of Representatives passed a bill containing two sections, the first with a preamble. The first sec­tion ratified all acts of the President in the arrest of parties, and indemnified and discharged all of­ficers from suits or prosecutions in consequence of any arrests made under his authority....

At or about 7 p.m.:

Mr. TRUMBULL. I must insist on calling up the report of the committee of conference on the indemnity bill, which was laid aside until seven o'clock.

It was then agreed to take up the bill at 7 p.m. that evening. Its passage was at about 2 a.m. in the morning. It was done and dusted in seven hours, from time debate started until the voice vote was recorded. When did your alleged 1863 filibuster take place?

[BroJoeK #291]: That bill eventually passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses.

Let us look at the "overwhelming majority" as recorded in the record.

As you state that an overwhelming majority voted for the bill, do tell how many voted for and against.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Let us have the yeas and nays on the adjournment.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken resulted—yeas 4, nays 33; as follows:

[recorded vote on adjournment omitted]

So the Senate refused to adjourn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Pome­roy.) The question is on concurring in the report af the committee of conference. Those in favor of concurring in the report will say “aye” those opposed “no.” The ayes have it. It is a vote. The report is concurred in.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I move that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of House bill No. 599.

Mr. POWELL. I hope the Senate will proceed with this indemnity bill.

The motion of Mr. Trumbull was agreed to.

Mr. TRUMBULL. It is a bill relating to the validity of deeds of public squares and lots in the city of Washington.

Mr. POWELL. What has become of the other bill?

Mr. GRIMES. It has passed.

[BroJoeK #291]: In January 1864 Trumbull began working on the bill which eventually became the 13th Amendment.

[BroJoeK #289] In 1864 Trumbull's abolition bill became the US 13th Amendment.

You explicitly stated that "In 1864, Trumbull's abolition bill became the US 13th Amendment."

In 1864, Trumbull's proposal had not been approved, had not been sent to the people for ratification, and most certainly did not become the 13th Amendment. The proposed text became an amendment in December 1865.

When Trumbull started working on it is irrelevant. And stop calling it a bill. It was not a bill. Bills become Federal laws. Resolutions propose constitutional Amendments.

Of course, if you had bothered to actually look up the record, you could not help but notice that it was a Resolution. Your posts reveal your lack of even the most basic knowledge of what you are talking about, and your disinclination to be bothered to research any of your purported facts or hallucinations about the law.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "No, you were not referring to HR 591 in March 1863, you explicitly referred to SR-1 of 1861, with nary a mention of HR 591 of 1863.
You explicitly claimed that "The 1861 S No. 1 was introducted by Massachusetts Republican Senator Henry Wilson," and, still in reference to Wilson's Resolution, "here were two problems, the first was the lack of a filibuster cloture rule...."
You invented a filibuster that never happened, and when confronted by the official record of the relevant 1861 congressional debate, you seek to make believe you were talking about a bill from 1863."

For anyone keeping score, woodpusher wins this point.
I did conflate 1861 SR-1 with 1862 HR-591 because both bills were part of Republicans' attempts to indemnify President Lincoln on habeas corpus, and I left the mistaken impression that Democrats' filibuster in March 1863 against HR-591 was actually against SR-1.
So woodpusher should savor his victory, but it's a very minor point which I'm happy to correct.

The fact is that minority Democrats did attempt to filibuster the habeas corpus bill HR-591, even after RINO Illinois Senator Trumbull removed the word "indemnification" from it.

woodpusher: "So, you were clearly talking about SR-1 of 1861 and your blather about 1863 is merely an attempt at diversion.
Be that as it may, the question was about where is your cited filibuster? "

My mistake here was to conflate 1861 SR-1 with 1862 HR-591, both of which attempted to indemnify Lincoln on habeas corpus.
HR-591 passed in March 1863 despite Democrats' attempted filibuster and after RINO Illinois Senator Trumbull removed the word "indemnification".
It seems to me now that our FRiend woodpusher has not yet grasped the fact, or is unwilling to admit it, that there was indeed an 1863 Revocation of Habeas Corpus law.

woodpusher on HR-591: "It was then agreed to take up the bill at 7 p.m. that evening.
Its passage was at about 2 a.m. in the morning.
It was done and dusted in seven hours, from time debate started until the voice vote was recorded.
When did your alleged 1863 filibuster take place? "

Here is one report on it:

"The Senate spent the evening of March 2 into the early morning of the next day debating the conference committee amendments.[24][34]
There, several Democratic Senators attempted a filibuster.
Cloture had not yet been adopted as a rule in the Senate, so there was no way to prevent a minuscule minority from holding up business by refusing to surrender the floor.
First James Walter Wall of New Jersey spoke until midnight, when Willard Saulsbury, Sr., of Delaware gave Republicans an opportunity to surrender by moving to adjourn.
That motion was defeated 5–31..."

woodpusher: "Let us look at the "overwhelming majority" as recorded in the record.
As you state that an overwhelming majority voted for the bill, do tell how many voted for and against."

Here is one report on that:

"The following Monday, March 2, the day before the Thirty-Seventh Congress had previously voted to adjourn, the House voted to accept the new bill, with 99 members voting in the affirmative and 44 against.[33]"

The whole Senate accepted HR-591 by voice vote.

woodpusher: "You explicitly stated that "In 1864, Trumbull's abolition bill became the US 13th Amendment."

For those keeping score, woodpusher wins another minor technicality -- in my efforts to be as brief as possible, I conflated the introduction of Trumbull's 1864 abolition resolution with the 1865 ratification of the 13th Amendment.
So let's give woodpusher a few minutes to spike the football and do his little end-zone victory dance.

woodpusher: "Of course, if you had bothered to actually look up the record, you could not help but notice that it was a Resolution.
Your posts reveal your lack of even the most basic knowledge of what you are talking about, and your disinclination to be bothered to research any of your purported facts or hallucinations about the law."

On second thought, I don't think that's a six-point touchdown, not even a sack of the quarterback.
All our FRiend woodpusher really did was divert attention away from his own lies and misstatements by focusing on the difference between a "bill" and a "resolution", in the mean time failing to block my game winning score which was that RINO Senator Trumbull was not yet 100% Democrat because he did introduce the... ah... resolution in 1864 which eventually became the 13th Amendment in 1865.

woodpusher: "When Trumbull started working on it is irrelevant.
And stop calling it a bill.
It was not a bill.
Bills become Federal laws.
Resolutions propose constitutional Amendments. "

Again we're into the minutia of legalistic distinctions, but in this case our FRiend woodpusher loses yardage because:

"...these called for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery nationally and permanently.
On December 14, 1863, a bill proposing such an amendment was introduced by Representative James Mitchell Ashley of Ohio.[14][15]
Representative James F. Wilson of Iowa soon followed with a similar proposal.
On January 11, 1864, Senator John B. Henderson of Missouri submitted a joint resolution for a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery.
The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, became involved in merging different proposals for an amendment.
Radical Republicans led by Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner and Pennsylvania Representative Thaddeus Stevens sought a more expansive version of the amendment.[16]
On February 8, 1864, Sumner submitted a constitutional amendment stating...
On February 10, the Senate Judiciary Committee presented the Senate with an amendment proposal..."

So notice the different terms used for virtually the same things:

1. "called for constitutional amendment"
2. "a bill"
3. "proposal"
4. "joint resolution"
5. "submitted a constitutional amendment"
6. "amendment proposal"

Sure, doubtless there do exist legalistic definitions for each of these, definitions which may be important in certain contexts, but I'm not sure why for layman's purposes they matter.