Posted on 08/20/2004 5:43:21 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Imagine that America had a Chief Justice of the United States who actually believed in enforcing the Constitution and, accordingly, issued an opinion that the war in Iraq was unconstitutional because Congress did not fulfill its constitutional duty in declaring war. Imagine also that the neocon media, think tanks, magazines, radio talk shows, and television talking heads then waged a vicious, months-long smear campaign against the chief justice, insinuating that he was guilty of treason and should face the punishment for it. Imagine that he is so demonized that President Bush is emboldened to issue an arrest warrant for the chief justice, effectively destroying the constitutional separation of powers and declaring himself dictator.
An event such as this happened in the first months of the Lincoln administration when Abraham Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney after the 84-year-old judge issued an opinion that only Congress, not the president, can suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Lincoln had declared the writ null and void and ordered the military to begin imprisoning thousands of political dissenters. Taney’s opinion, issued as part of his duties as a circuit court judge in Maryland, had to do with the case of Ex Parte Merryman (May 1861). The essence of his opinion was not that habeas corpus could not be suspended, only that the Constitution requires Congress to do it, not the president. In other words, if it was truly in "the public interest" to suspend the writ, the representatives of the people should have no problem doing so and, in fact, it is their constitutional prerogative.
As Charles Adams wrote in his LRC article, "Lincoln’s Presidential Warrant to Arrest Chief Justice Roger B. Taney," there were, at the time of his writing, three corroborating sources for the story that Lincoln actually issued an arrest warrant for the chief justice. It was never served for lack of a federal marshal who would perform the duty of dragging the elderly chief justice out of his chambers and throwing him into the dungeon-like military prison at Fort McHenry. (I present even further evidence below).
All of this infuriates the Lincoln Cult, for such behavior is unquestionably an atrocious act of tyranny and despotism. But it is true. It happened. And it was only one of many similar constitutional atrocities committed by the Lincoln administration in the name of "saving the Constitution."
The first source of the story is a history of the U.S. Marshal’s Service written by Frederick S. Calhoun, chief historian for the Service, entitled The Lawmen: United States Marshals and their Deputies, 1789–1989. Calhoun recounts the words of Lincoln’s former law partner Ward Hill Laman, who also worked in the Lincoln administration.
Upon hearing of Laman’s history of Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and the mass arrest of Northern political opponents, Lincoln cultists immediately sought to discredit Laman by calling him a drunk. (Ulysses S. Grant was also an infamous drunk, but no such discrediting is ever perpetrated on him by the Lincoln "scholars".)
But Adams comes up with two more very reliable accounts of the same story. One is an 1887 book by George W. Brown, the mayor of Baltimore, entitled Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861: A Study of War (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1887). In it is the transcript of a conversation Mayor Brown had with Taney in which Taney talks of his knowledge that Lincoln had issued an arrest warrant for him.
Yet another source is A Memoir of Benjamin Robbins Curtis, a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Judge Curtis represented President Andrew Johnson in his impeachment trial before the U.S. Senate; wrote the dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott case; and resigned from the court over a dispute with Judge Taney over that case. Nevertheless, in his memoirs he praises the propriety of Justice Taney in upholding the Constitution by opposing Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus. He refers to Lincoln’s arrest warrant as a "great crime."
I recently discovered yet additional corroboration of Lincoln’s "great crime." Mr. Phil Magness sent me information suggesting that the intimidation of federal judges was a common practice in the early days of the Lincoln administration (and the later days as well). In October of 1861 Lincoln ordered the District of Columbia Provost Marshal to place armed sentries around the home of a Washington, D.C. Circuit Court judge and place him under house arrest. The reason was that the judge had issued a writ of habeas corpus to a young man being detained by the Provost Marshal, allowing the man to have due process. By placing the judge under house arrest Lincoln prevented the judge from attending the hearing of the case. The documentation of this is found in Murphy v. Porter (1861) and in United States ex re John Murphy v. Andrew Porter, Provost Marshal District of Columbia (2 Hay. & Haz. 395; 1861).
The second ruling contained a letter from Judge W.M. Merrick, the judge of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, explaining how, after issuing the writ of habeas corpus to the young man, he was placed under house arrest. Here is the final paragraph of the letter:
After dinner I visited my brother Judges in Georgetown, and returning home between half past seven and eight o’clock found an armed sentinel stationed at my door by order of the Provost-Marshal. I learned that this guard had been placed at my door as early as five o’clock. Armed sentries from that time continuously until now have been stationed in front of my house. Thus it appears that a military officer against whom a writ in the appointed form of law has first threatened with and afterwards arrested and imprisoned the attorney who rightfully served the writ upon him. He continued, and still continues, in contempt and disregard of the mandate of the law, and has ignominiously placed an armed guard to insult and intimidate by its presence the Judge who ordered the writ to issue, and still keeps up this armed array at his door, in defiance and contempt of the justice of the land. Under the circumstances I respectfully request the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court to cause this memorandum to be read in open Court, to show the reasons for my absence from my place upon the bench, and that he will cause this paper to be entered at length on the minutes of the Court . . . W.M. Merrick Assistant Judge of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
As Adams writes, the Lincoln Cult is terrified that this truth will become public knowledge, for it if does, it means that Lincoln "destroyed the separation of powers; destroyed the place of the Supreme Court in the Constitutional scheme of government. It would have made the executive power supreme, over all others, and put the president, the military, and the executive branch of government, in total control of American society. The Constitution would have been at an end."
Exactly right.
August 19, 2004
Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, (Three Rivers Press/Random House). His latest book is How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold Story of Our Country’s History, from the Pilgrims to the Present (Crown Forum/Random House, August 2004).
Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com
Okay, fine. Let's go there, shall we?
Watie insists that only 5-6% of southern families owned slaves. Every source, from the 1860 census to the Georgia Encyclopedia to the secessionist publisher James ;DeBow puts the number at about a third of families, although the actual owners, as head of households, do comprise about 5-6%. Watie's response is that the 1860 census is no good on any level and that one has to look at the individual tax records for every county in the south. Naturally, he neither provides the number that those records would reveal, nor does he provide any evidence for his assertion that the 1860 census is so utterly flawed that it can't be used for any purpose. His only support? That the DAR won't accept it for genealogical purposes--a claim again without any evidence in support. (And why would they anyway? The DAR wants birth, death and marriage documents.)
But more fundamentally, Watie is demanding evidence that he himself never provides for any of his claims. He claims for instance that there was a mechanical cotton picker in 1850 that worked so well that it would have meant the end of slavery in ten years. Evidence? He won't tell us. "Wait for the extensive bibliography in the book I've been writing for ten years." Pressed on the matter, he cites a conversation with a curator at the Smithsonian, a gentleman he claims was the Agricultural Curator. I track the guy down and e-mail him the question. He not only disagrees with Watie, but reveals that it's not even his area of expertise. His specialty, as it turn out, is the history of technology and industrialization, and he was never the agricultural curator. He does refer me to the REAL agricultural curator, a man whose books about mechanization of southern agriculture have actually been published and peer-reviewed, and he also refutes Watie's claims and makes several other points about the mechanization of cotton farming and social conditions in the south that give lie to Watie's unsupported claims.
Watie is also fond of quoting, as evidence, college professors he had some unspecified number of years ago, in either undocumented conversation or unpublished papers.
So when Watie demands that others stick to standards of evidence that he himself never comes close to meeting, well, I just have to laugh.
Oh, and Watie's response to this will be another of those bizarrely capitalized rants about yankee south haters.
NOTE to ALL: yesterday morning, i,along with 6 other REBs, marched in the NMAI procession/parade for the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian, with LARGE BATTLEFLAG in hand.
we "rebs" got WIDESPREAD APPLAUSE from the crowd (i heard exactly ONE unionist loonie, who ran out from the crowd & starting calling me a slaver & "COMMIE"!!!!===>i HAD to LOL at THAT!).
i gave interviews to the Chicago Tribune & the NY Post. (also, i met yet another Black-Cherokee (mixedblood) CSA desendent of a GA sergeant, who embraced me & said, "seeing our flag flying proudly in this parade makes me weep with joy"! he WILL join the SCV this week, too.
the TRUTH about our continuing struggle for LIBERTY will OUT!
free the southland NOW,sw
they'd "fit right in" with HANOI-John & his ilk.
free dixie,sw
Splitting the empire worked for Constantine. One half was already succumbing to moral degradation, the other half still had a slim hope. The part he left fell within a few centuries. The part he moved to lasted another 1,000 years.
do you REALLY believe the stupid NONSENSE you post, OR are you just a TROLL??? (i have a difficult time believing that anyone, who is smart enough to "log in on FR", are as all-around dumb as you seem to be.)
rave on, fool. you're on a roll!
YOU serve the RISEN SOUTH!
free dixie,sw
Come on, Watie. Which part do you deny? The part where Lubar disavowed what you claimed he told you? The part where you cite the dead professor in undocumented conversation? Give your side of the story instead of the standard rant.
OR perhaps, he just agreed with you to keep from having to deal with a FOOL! (other than here on FR WBTS threads,and especially around the college, i go out of my way to avoid fools & their foolishness. i suspect i'm not the only one who avaoids LOONIES!)
my point is that no matter what the source is that proves the damnyankees are FILTH,SCUM,LIARS & EVIL, you LIE about it,DENY what the source states, state that it's a bad source, ignore it and/or you ridicule the source.
that's what HATERS do and you are the very essense of the word, HATER.
why not head over to DU??? they like HATERS/FOOLS/TROLLS over there & they, i predict, will welcome you with open arms.
free dixie,sw
Okay, here's Dr. Stephen Lubar's e-mail address: lubars@nmah.si.edu
And here's the original question I sent, which I think pretty evenhandedly presented the argument:
Dr. Lubar--
I'm currently engaged in an online debate with someone concerning the mechanization of cotton farming and its role in southern society. Specifically, just when practical, efficient machinery was developed to replace hand picking. My opponent claims that this machinery was available in the 1850s, along with steam and coal-oil driven tractors, and that had the south not been impoverished by the Civil War, it would have adopted these machines by, say, 1875. This would have led to a voluntary emancipation of the slaves by the south at that time.
My position is that practical tractors weren't available until the 1910s, when the internal combustion tractors came into production, and that the steam tractors were relatively unusual anywhere in the U.S., and weren't commonly owned by farmers and instead were operated by crews who followed the harvests with their equipment and were hired by farmers. Further, I contend that practical cotton harvesting machinery wasn't developed until the late 1930s/1940s by the Rust brothers and that the adoption of this machinery came pretty quickly to the cotton industry once the machinery was available.
My opponent has cited you as an expert, so I turn to you for your opinion.
Sincerely,
And here's Lubar's response:
"I'm no expert on this topic at all, but I am pretty certain that you are correct on all counts. THe expert on the subject is my former colleague at the Smithsonian, Pete Daniel. You might want to address the question to him at danielp@si.edu."
Forwarding the same question to Daniel, here's his response:
Historians continue to disagree about the pace of mechanization in the South, and my work has pointed out that in some respects the commodity being mechanized is one of the most important factors. In Breaking the Land: The Transformation of Cotton, Tocacco and Rice Cultures since 1880, I looked at these commodity cultures and, among other issues, attempted to weigh the factors in mechanization.
There were, I would argue, no machines available in the nineteenth century that would have transformed southern cotton cultivation from labor to machine-intensive operations. Steam traction engines were poorly equipped for plowing but were used primarily for belt work. Mules would pull the plows until tractor ownership spread in the twentieth century.
It would be difficult to argue a counterfactural thesis that mechanization would have ended slavery, for there were other political considerations that weighed on the minds of slave owners and the white population.
Although there were numerous attempts to mechanize cotton picking, most were not successful until the 1930s with the Rust Brothers and then development work on the Hopson Plantation near Clarksdale, Mississippi, by International Harvester during World War II. Finally, herbicides that emerged after World War II ended the need for a large cotton chopping crew. With tractors breaking the land and cultivating, herbicides doing the weeding, and mechanical picking machines doing the picking, cotton cultivation was totally mechanized. The crucial ingredients in this process, herbicides and the picking machine, came during and after World War II.
The South was highly mechanized, which goes against most mythological treatments of its history. Agricultural censuses reveal steam engines, water powered mills, and mule-drawn appratuses, and there was a large cadre of skilled workers, black and white, to keep them going. When automobiles and tractors appeared, there was no shortage of mechanics to tinker on them.
The questions that you are raising are extremely complex, and my reply is necessarily superficial. As I mentioned, historians continue to disagree on the pace of mechanziation. Still, I hope that my reply has been of use.
Pete Daniel
It's pretty funny that you're now trying to deny that I even wrote to Lubar, or that he responded, or that I somehow misinterpreted his response, when I posted the response in its entirety along with a number of challenges to you to write to Lubar yourself, which you declined. So here it is for all to see, and anyone who wants to write to Lubar or Daniel at the Smithsonian to see if I've fabricated or misstated anything is free to do so. I'll also forward the e-mails in their original format, with all the headers and routing information to anyone who requests it.
Meanwhile, let's see you put up a single bit of original evidence that only 5-6% of southern families owned slaves, using the standards fo evidence that you insist on.
Kudos my FRiend! I saw part of the ceremony - will it re-air?
My theory is that stand watie is e.e. cummings' crazy aunt who escaped from the attic.
SORRY, but i don't know anything more.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
the reason that i disbelieve ANYTHING you say now is:
a. Dr Lubar seems to be a man of honor,(UNlike HANOI-john kerry he doesn't change his opinion based on who is asking.)
b.i SERIOUSLY doubt that he would contradict what he said the first time i talked to him if i asked him the same question again &
c. you have the REPUTATION of a HATER. i do NOT trust HATERS, regardless of their message.
'NUFF said.
free dixie,sw
You still haven't explained, though, why you thought he was the curator of agriculture for the Smithsonian when even a cursory glance at his resume reveals that he is not and never was. So much for your self-proclaimed research skills.
Come on, Watie. You've called me a liar. I've put all the cards on the table. Anyone who wants to can contact Dr. Lubar or Dr. Daniel at the Smithsonian and ask them if I've fabricated their answers. Come on. What are you afraid of?
Station carried a minute or two. I would like to watch it all/ Maybe C-Span taped it.
How very embarrassing it must have been to you all to have been so unceremoniously slam dunked. Not only did the moderators not pull my posts, they pulled the whole thread instead. It seems your "tight-fisted temper tantrums" did not account to a hill of beans.
"Violence in posts and personally abusive invective (Capitan_refugio's #1488 having been called to my attention) are mentioned in FR's TOS"
I didn't realize you guys even paid attention to those rules! After all, we have these gems to consider:
To: capitan_refugio
As I see it, the South owes Lincoln a debt of gratitude.
"For slaughtering thousands, for raping our women, for killing 623,000 of our finest men, for destroying our homes, our crops, our churches, our families? You genocidal bast*rd, you advocate the policies of Hitler, Stalin and Sadaam Hussein. Is there a school you go to to learn to be a dictator in the making?"
1,504 posted on 09/19/2004 7:46:56 AM PDT by 4ConservativeJustices
Now there is a person who has a way with words. I hope you had a clean pair of underwear after dropping that load.
Then we have:
To: capitan_refugio
"Bullsh*t...."
"Contrived Stalinist bullsh*t...."
"As I said, contrived Stalinist bullsh*t and you are full of it tonight...."
"Bullsh^t."
1,377 posted on 09/18/2004 12:01:29 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
A little bit redundant, but I did like the use of the ^ for style! Oh, I forgot the best part form that post:
"As far as I'm concerned you can rot in hell with Generals Milroy, Sherman, and the false god of Lincoln to which you practice your idolatrous and blasphemous religion of tyranny."
And now we have the "class" of the class:
To: GOPcapitalist "Stalin would be proud of you.
"So would Count Vigo.
"Yeah, that's right, capitan, I'm talking about you over here. Wanna courtesy ping? Earn it."
1,420 posted on 09/18/2004 8:21:28 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
To: GOPcapitalist
"Simply put, it would seem that you are intentionally perpetrating a fraud and hoping that nobody will double check your work to catch it.
"I pinged him and asked for an explanation way back up the thread, but he blew me off
"Now, his attention having been called to this stuff three times previously (nolu chan, 4ConservativeJustices, and me), he does it again.
"This sucks.
Yeah, that's right, dude. Still talking about you over here.
1,422 posted on 09/18/2004 8:26:27 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
If I had known I'd hurt your feelings by not responding to every silly-ass comment of yours, I would have replied. I'll be more considerate in the future. And I promise not to tell you again to try an anatomically impossible auto-erotic procedure.
And now, some moralistic wisdom:
"To: lentulusgracchus
"You did not lament the existance of slavers, you lamented the existance of anyone who doesn't toe the federal line, flat-out said that you desired their extinction, and said that anything that was done to bring it about was justified." "Very true, and very sick. As far as I'm concerned he has wholly forfeited his write to turn to a moral argument against slavery as his trump card. Even the most avid confederate will concede the sinfulness of slavery and make no effort to try and defend it. But he excuses away and even CELEBRATES a much greater sin than slavery, a sin against human liberty. He celebrates and defends murder in the most brutal and despotic forms, and that is a sin against human life itself making it necessarily more severe in effect than a sin against human liberty. He has no claim upon any moral argument anymore and I will happily point that out to him whenever he tries to use one out of convenience to his idol."
"1,425 posted on 09/18/2004 8:51:52 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist"
Last time I heard dialog this good was in the movie "Pulp Fiction." Be sure you share it with your pastor. And you might want to discuss the concept of "bearing false witness."
I think you should all consider taking off the panties and skirts and putting on some pants. You are beginning to sound like a bunch of junior high school girls at a sleepover.
"The Shermans [in 1876] entertained fewer guests in St. Louis, but former army officers passing through town stopped with them. David F. Boyd visited for several days. So too did John B. Hood, 'tall, full bearded and handsome with a sad face.' he had become friendly with Sherman during the visit to New Orleans in April 1871 that led to the southern and northern editorials imploring Sherman to run against Grant. When the life insurance company of which [Hood] was president collapsed, he came to St. Louis to see Sherman about selling his Civil War papers to the War Department, which argued they belonged to the government, anyway. Hood was so taken with Lizzie [Sherman's niece] that he left the papers with her. Lizzie later turned them over to Senator Randall Gibson of Louisiana, who handled the sale to the government."
"Former Confederate generals were among the most frequent visitors to the [Sherman] house on 15th Street. General Joseph Johnston, remembered by the young Cump as 'rather small and prim, but eminently soldierly,' often stopped by with his wife, and Sherman enjoyed his many long conversations with them. One evening, when the Johnstons dropped in, Mrs. Johnston told Sherman: "Well, General, during the war I spent all my time running away from you; but now it seems that I am spending all my time running after you.' Two of Sherman's favorites were Generals Longstreet and Joseph Wheeler. In an effort to preserve Lee's reputation, Southern writers were blaming Longstreet for the disaster at Gettysburg, but Sherman and other Union generals refused to believe these stories and praised him lavishly. Sherman grew particularly close to Wheeler, then serving in congress, and in letters addressed him as 'My dear friend.' Sherman always insisted that Wheeler did at least half of the damage in Georgia, even though Southerners blamed it all on the Yankees."
"Standing on the steps of Sherman's house after the casket had been brought out, Joe Johnston, one of the pall bearers, stood in the bitter cold with his head uncovered. Warned he would catch cold, he answered: 'If I were in his place and he standing here in mine, he would not put on his hat.' Johnston caught cold at the funeral and died the next month."
And as you are well aware, Generals Grant and Buckner, despite being on opposing sides, remained friends, even in war (Grant offered Buckner "his purse" after the capture of Fort Donelson). Buckner, too, was a pall bearer at Grant's funeral.
It seems to me that if intractable enemies on the battlefield can put the hate and hate-filled rhetoric behind them, others should be able to follow suit.
[nc] Nothing you have said in your #1636 or elsewhere has responded to the substance of my #1594. I repeat the essence of it here in condensed form.
I have not read Mitchell, but the description in the Hamdi footnote is that the plantiff was a US citizen.
-- capitan_refugio, #1370, 09/18/2004
The provided description is not in a footnote to anything. It is not from any Supreme Court decision. It was written by a public defender attorney and runs from the bottom of page 24 through the beginning of page 25 within the Petitition for a Writ of Certiorari.
Bollman was not about habeas corpus....
-- capitan_refugio, #237, 08/29/2004
Eric M. Freedman in Habeas Corpus, Rethinking the Great Writ of Liberty, devotes his chapters 3, 4, and 5 exclusively to Ex Parte Bollman.
Lemmon v the People was a case which foreshadowed Dred Scott. The Taney Court overturned a New York State statute which immediately freed slaves brought into the state. The decision guaranteed "sojourn and transit" and transit rights to slave-owners through free states. It did not address, to my knowledge, the issue of residence.
-- capitan_refugio, #386, 03/31/2004
The Supreme Court case of Lemmon v. The People does not exist.
Thank you for chiming in> I refer you to the text of Amy Warwick (1862): "But chiefly, the terms of the President's proclamation instituting [67 U.S. 635, 641]...."The Supreme Court finds:
(1) The rebellion is an insurrection and not a war betwenn countries,
(2) The "so-called blockade" was not a blockade under international law, and (3) Closing the ports was a valid exercise of executive authority.
-- capitan_refugio, #649, 09/03/2004
On FINDLAW, bracketed comments in text of case [67 U.S. 635, 641] indicate this report starts at Volume 67, page 635 and you are at the beginning of page 641.
[nc] cr quotes are from pp. 640-642 of the Supreme Court Reporter.
The entirety of the quoted matter was from the Court Reporter's recitation of the Argument of Mr. Carlisle which runs from page 639 to 650. The Opinion of the Court by Mr. Justice Grier starts at page 665.
All of the findings attributed to the Court are argments of Mr. Carlisle. None was adopted by the Court.
| 635 | 639 | 640 | 641 | 650 | 665 | 682 | 699 |
[court reporter at p. 638] "The case of the Amy Warwick was argued by Mr. Dana, of Massachusetts, for Libellants...."
[court reporter at p. 639] "The Brilliante, by Mr. Eames, of Washington City, for Libellants, and by Mr. Carlisle, of Washington City, for Claimants."
[court reporter at p. 639] "One argument on each side is all that can be given. Those of Mr. Dana and Mr. Carlisle have been selected...."
[court reporter at p. 639] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Ends presentation of argument by Mr. Carlisle.
[court reporter at p. 650] Begins presentation of argument by Mr. Dana.
[Opinion of the Court] Mr. Grier pp. 665 - 682.
[Dissenting Opinion] Mr. Nelson pp. 682 - 699.
Squack, squack, tu quoque, tu quoque, awk!
I have not proclaimed any hatred of Lincoln, but disdain for the fabricated mythology that some have adopted, and the nonsensical and/or illogical apologies in defense thereof. In so doing, I quote extensively from Lerone Bennett, Jr., a Black historian and editor of Ebony magazine for about a half-century.
[cr #1606] his endorsement of legal slavery
I have not endorsed legal slavery. I have observed the historical fact that the Constitution recognized and protected the institution of slavery.
My #710 acts as a complete refutation of your unsupported allegation, "I'm a Yankee, native New Yorker, now residing in Arkansas. I do not mind talking the slavery issue. Slavery was wrong, it was always wrong, and never could be justified. It does not speak to the legal issue of secession. If secession was a legal right, it was no less a right whether its purpose was good, bad, or dumb."
Quote me endorsing legal slavery or please admit this is another of your smears and false accusations.
[cr #1606] your modus operandi is to smear and misrepresent
That is what I just documented you doing. Your allegation provides no documentation.
[cr #1606] You revel in quoting Hitler
Quote me quoting Hitler, or please admit this is just another of your smears and false accuations.
[cr #1606] You'll find in four years I have had exactly two pulled - neither for overt profanity.
The total text of your #1488 read "GFY". I am sure you intended it to mean "Good for you" and its was pulled in error.
[cr #1606] If you can not debate the issues, then I suggest you stay off of these threads.
I am debating the legal issues. You have been consistently losing that debate. You have thus resorted to the imaginary case, attributing argument of attorney to the Supreme Court, attributing argument by a public defender in a Petition to an opinion of the Supreme Court, and attributing comment from a dissenting opinion to the opinion of the Supreme Court, and denying the seminal case on habeas corpus was about habeas corpus. In arguing about the Supreme Court case of Scott v. Sandford, you provided quotes from Fehrenbacher pertaining only to the Missouri case of Scott v. Emerson.
If you cannot debate legal issues without misrepresenting what has been said by others as the opinion of the court, or opining upon non-existent court decisions, or opining about decisions you have not bothered to read, I would recommend you stay out of those legal discussions.
[cr #1606] You have chosen the loathsome task of defending the actions and the principles of the Confederacy.
I have chosen to debate the legal issues and whether secession was legal. Whether slavery was legal is not debatable. It was. However wrong and unpleasant that may be, it is historical fact. Whether slavery was right or wrong is not debatable. It was wrong. You only inject that issue as a diversion when you are losing the argument on the legality of secession.
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.