Replies

[BroJoeK #289]: But there were two problems, the first was the lack of a filibuster rule, meaning Democrats could block pretty much anything in the Senate.
[BroJoeK #297]: 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.

Yet another fictional account. History is what happened, not what you fantasize.

The proceedings were taken down verbatim and reported in the official record, then called the Congressional Globe.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=063/llcg063.db&recNum=548

I gave you links to the pages. Why can't you find the filibuster, or the removal of the word indemnity from H.R. 591 before the vote? Until the final vote, the change was only in the Senate version of a House Bill, which was an indemnity bill.

Here is the OFFICIAL RECORD on it at page 1459:

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. After that is before the Senate, if this other matter can be disposed of informally by unanimous consent, I will not object.

There is the indemnity bill, after 7 p.m. in the Senate. This is when the Report of the Committee is first brought up for debate.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=063/llcg063.db&recNum=563

Here is the OFFICIAL RECORD at page 1474:

Mr. POWELL. I have concluded my speech, and move to adjourn in order that the Senator from Delaware may have an opportunity to speak tomorrow.
The question being put, there were, on a division—ayes 4, noes 14; no quorum voting.
Mr.CHANDLER called for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered; and being taken, resulted—yeas 4, nays 32; as follows:
[recorded vote omitted]
So the Senate refused to adjourn.

Mr. Bayard took the floor and talked from pages 1474-1477.

Here is the OFFICIAL RECORD at page page 1477:

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=063/llcg063.db&recNum=566

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.

This is the official record of the passage of the Report of the Committee on H.R. 599.

There was NO RECORDED VOTE on H.R. 599. It is contested that a call for the nays was even called and heard. The only record of the vote is the Presiding Officer stating, The ayes have it. The yeas and nays were not counted and recorded. This is your claimed overwhelming majority vote.

The reason you cannot find the removal of the word indemnity prior to the vote is that it did not happen.

Here is the OFFICIAL RECORD the House at page 1479:

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=063/llcg063.db&recNum=568

INDEMNITY BILL
The SPEAKER. The hour of one o'clock having arrived the vote will now be taken, by previous order of the House, on agreeing to the report of the committee of conference on the indemnity bill.
Mr. ALLEN, of Ohio, called for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and it was decided in the aflirmative—yeas 99, nays 44; as follows:
[recorded vote omitted]
So the report of the committee of conference was agreed to.

There is the indemnity bill, Report of the Committee, passing at 1 a.m. in the House. The SPEAKER called the vote for the indemnity bill.

HR-591 passed in March 1863 despite Democrats' attempted filibuster and after RINO Illinois Senator Trumbull removed the word "indemnification".

Why were the senators and the Speaker calling it the Indemnity Bill in the wee hours of the morning; the Speaker calling a vote on the indemnity bill. Apparently he had not yet gotten the word from Wikipedia.

When exactly did Senator Trumbull remove the word "indemnification?" (sic - indemnify)

James G. Randall was an historian and former president of the American Historical Association. Randall was a history professor and specialized on Abraham Lincoln and the American Civil War era. One of his noted books was Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, originally published in 1926, reprinted in 1951 with updates and revisions, by the University of Illinois Press. In 1926, Randall wrote of the Indemnity Act of 1963. In my copy of the 1951 updated book, Randalls Chapter IX is entitled, The Indemnity Act of 1963. In footnote 8 on page 189, Randall explained:

⁸ In using the name "Indemnity Act" to designate the law of March 3, 1863, contemporary usage has been followed. Senator Trumbull and others referred to the measure while under debate as the "Indemnity Bill," and the same designation appeared in the headings of the record, as well as i many other places. (Cong. globe, 37 Cong., 3 sess., pp 1459, 1479.)

Your fictionalization that Senator Trumbull removed indemnification from the bill to indemnify is yourstory, not history.

Trumbull's amendment to House Resolution 591, changing the title of the bill, and eliminating the word indemnify was proposed to the Senate on January 15, 1863, almost a year before the Report of the Committee reached the floor of the Senate.

Journal of the Senate, January 26, 1863, page 152

The Senate proceeded to consider, as in Committee of the Whole, the bill (H. R. 591) to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof; and
After the consideration of executive business,
The Senate adjourned.

The proposed title, To regulate judicial proceedings in certain cases therein mentioned, replacing the House phrasing, To indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof, did not change the bill itself. It was still a House indemnity bill, the Senate just sought to obfuscate what Congress was doing, sort of like the USA PATRIOT Act or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, p. 192:

It is significant that Stevens, the author of the indemnifying feature of the House bill, was not one of those who held, with the Attorney General, that the President had the right to suspend habeas corpus privilege. Some who concurred in the Attorney General's opinion that the President had the full power to suspend, andto delegate such authority to subordinates, argued that no wrongs had been committed, and that no indemnification was necessary. Conversely, the very basis of the bill of indemnity, in the minds of many who voted for it, was an assumption that the President did not constitutionally have this power, or at least a doubt as to the legality of this presidential suspension and a desire to clear up the matter once and for all.

It appears, amongst other things, that you must add the name of Thaddeus Stevens to your list of RINOs, Democrats and Traitors.

Mr. Trumbull did all he could do before the vote on March 3, 1863. He effected a change to the Senate version only, which was not agreed to by the House until the vote on the Report of Committee on March 3.

Congressional Globe, 37th Cong, 3rd Sess, March 2, 1863, pp. 1435-1438

The congressional session of March 2, 1863 extended past midnight and into March 3, 1863. The bill passed during the March 2 session, after midnight.

1435
MESSAGE FROM T1IE 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.
1435
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.
1436
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; and the second section of the bill, as passed by the House of Representatives, authorized the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. This was the House bill. The Senate disagreed to the bill which passed the House, and passed a substitute for it. The substitute provided for the protection of officers in the courts of the United States, instead of declaring proceedings against them null and void. The two Houses having entirely disagreed, not having agreed upon any thing, what was before the committee? Unquestionably the bill as it passed the House of Representatives, and the amendments as they passed the Senate. Neither House had agreed with the other upon a single line.
1437
Mr. RICHARDSON. Probably I can attain the object I have in view by making a motion that the report of the committee of conference be not received. I make that motion if it will attain the purpose I have of discussing, for it is a matter of importance enough to discuss the question before the Senate.
The PRESIDENTpro tempore. The Chair has passed upon no question of order. The Chair has said that theobjections raised do not presents question of order for the Chair to decide as such. They may raise objections, decisive reasons for non-con- currence in the report. The immediate question before the Senate is, “ Will the Senate concur in the report of the committee of conference?” and that opens the whole subject-matter to full debate before the Senate.
Mr. WALL. Understanding, Mr. President, that the Senator from Delaware who is not in his seat [Mr. Bayard] desires to speak on this bill, I move the postponement of the consideration of the report until to-morrow.
Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I suggest that it be postponed until five o’clock this afternoon. There are some very important measures that we ought to act upon.
Mr. POWELL. 1 would suggest to the Senator from Massachusetts that this is one of the most important bills.
Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I know it is very important.
Mr. POWELL. I hope it will be postponed until to-morrow. We shall all be busy to-day here, and cannot examine it at all. We should have an opportunity to examine it. There is plenty of other matter to take up to-day.
Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. I will simply say that the questions have all been discussed. The Senator from New Jersey, I understand, desires to speak, and I propose to postpone the report till five or six o’clock.
Mr. WALL. I would suggest seven o’clock, after the recess, if we take one.
Mr. WILSON, of Massachusetts. Very well; say seven o’clock.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. By common consent this report may be laid aside until seven o’clock this evening.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I have not ngreed to suspend the report until seven o’clock.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question then is on the postponement of the report until seven o’clock.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If we can have an understanding that there shall be a vote this evening, I shall have no objection; but if the intention is to suspend it with a view to go on and take up time in regard to it, I shall object to the postponement. If it is understood that a vote is to be taken on this bill to-night, I will make no objection to suspending it until seven o’clock. I do not wish to hurry it to a decision before Senators have an opportunity to express any views they desire to express; and if we can, by a sort of common understanding—I do not wish any formal agreement about it—generally consent that the vote shall be taken some time to-night, I shall make no objection to its going over until seven o’clock. It is now within a day of the last of the session, and that is the reason I make the suggestion. I hope our friends on the other side^vill indicate whether it will be acceptable to them to take a vote some time to night, in case we postpone the report until seven o’clock.
Mr. RICHARDSON. It introduces new matter, and we desire to discuss it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. That nobody objects to.
1438
Mr. TRUMBULL. Then I ask leave to withdraw the call for the yeas and nays by unanimous consent, and let the subject go over until seven o’clock.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If no objection be made, the call for the yeas and nays will be withdrawn. The Chair hears no objection, and the call is withdrawn; and the further consideration of this subject is postponed until seven o’clock this evening.

Mr. Trumbull's amendment to the title was not accepted until the vote in both houses approving the Report of the Committee. It was a House bill and Mr. Trumbull had no authority to unilaterally change it. The Report of the Committee proposed to approve the Senate version of the title, and both houses voted for that change on March 3, during the extended March 2, 1863 session.

The House Indemnity Bill remained the Indemnity Bill right up until it was voted on and became the Habeas Corpus Act. As a bill, the House never changed it from the Indemnity Bill. As it is, it is an indemnity act by another name.

In the House on March 2, 1863 the Speaker called up the indemnity bill; in the Senate, the bill to indemnify the President was called up.

It was agreed to take up the bill at 7 p.m. that evening. Its passage was after midnight, in the early morning. When did the filibuster take place? When was the word indemnification (sic - indemnify) removed from the House Bill?

woodpusher: "Until the final vote, the change was only in the Senate version of a House Bill, which was an indemnity bill."

The final Conference Committee report -- Trumbull's rewritten bill -- was approved 99-44 in the House, by voice vote in the Senate.
Therefore it's only Trumbull's bill which really matters here, and it's interesting to learn that Trumbull called his bill an "indemnity bill" because, as I understand it, the word "indemnity" does not appear in it.

If it was, in fact, Trumbull's intention to indemnify President Lincoln without using the word "indemnify", that's interesting.
It brings to mind the debate of James Madison on the authority of a President to fire appointees.
Madison did not wish to say that, in the bill then under discussion, because he did not want it to seem like Congress was granting authority which, by the Constitution's intent, the President already had.
Perhaps Trumbull -- or at least his fellow Republicans -- did not wish to indemnify Lincoln for exercising powers he already had.

woodpusher on 1862 HR-591: "There was NO RECORDED VOTE on H.R. 599. (sic HR-591)
It is contested that a call for the nays was even called and heard.
The only record of the vote is the Presiding Officer stating, The ayes have it.
The yeas and nays were not counted and recorded.
This is your claimed overwhelming majority vote. "

So here is the sequence of events:

"Introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 591, A bill to indemnify the President and other persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and acts done in pursuance thereof by Thaddeus Stevens on December 5, 1862."
Passed the House of Representatives on December 8, 1862 (90–45)
Passed the Senate on January 28, 1863 (33–7)
Reported by the joint conference committee on February 27, 1863;
Agreed to by the House of Representatives on March 2, 1863 (99–44) and
by the Senate on March 2, 1863 (voice vote)
Signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863"

So, it was not Stevens' original HR 591 which passed, but rather Senator Trumbull's replacement bill, which differed:

"The Senate version referred all suits and prosecutions regarding arrest and imprisonment to the regional federal circuit court with the stipulation that no one acting under the authority of the president could be faulted if "there was reasonable or probable cause", or if they acted "in good faith", until after the adjournment of the next session of Congress.[27]
Unlike Stevens' bill, it did not suggest that the president's suspension of habeas corpus upon his own authority had been legal.[24]"

So, despite the name "Indemnity Bill", Trumbull's final Act did not use the word "indemnity" and I would suggest that's because Republicans agreed Congress had no reason to indemnify Lincoln for actions the Constitution authorized.

woodpusher quoting Randall: "It is significant that Stevens, the author of the indemnifying feature of the House bill, was not one of those who held, with the Attorney General, that the President had the right to suspend habeas corpus privilege.
Some who concurred in the Attorney General's opinion that the President had the full power to suspend, and to delegate such authority to subordinates, argued that no wrongs had been committed, and that no indemnification was necessary.
Conversely, the very basis of the bill of indemnity, in the minds of many who voted for it, was an assumption that the President did not constitutionally have this power, or at least a doubt as to the legality of this presidential suspension and a desire to clear up the matter once and for all."

Notice first that Lincoln's Attorney General, Edwin Bates, agreed Lincoln's actions were already authorized.

Second, here you've quoted my explanation exactly -- the word "indemnify" was removed because enough Republicans were convinced that no indemnity was necessary, while others (i.e., Trumbull) questioned if indemnity was even possible.

woodpusher: "It appears, amongst other things, that you must add the name of Thaddeus Stevens to your list of RINOs, Democrats and Traitors. "

Or perhaps that Stevens was satisfied enough with the substance of indemnity that he was willing to sacrifice the word itself, at Trumbull's insistence.

woodpusher: "It was agreed to take up the bill at 7 p.m. that evening.
Its passage was after midnight, in the early morning.
When did the filibuster take place?
When was the word indemnification (sic - indemnify) removed from the House Bill?"

"Indemnity" does not appear in the final version.
Democrats attempted to filibuster the evening of March 2.

several Democratic Senators attempted a filibuster