Posted on 08/20/2004 5:43:21 AM PDT by TexConfederate1861
Oh, there were several to be sure. The most famous one was made on the Senate floor. Other offers were made by confederate envoys. But as you well know, Lincoln refused to meet with any of them.
As usual you are full of it capitan. Bollman was a habeas corpus case. How do I know it was a habeas corpus case? Because (a) the court ruled on the legality constitutionality of its habeas corpus jurisdiction and (b) the court held that Bollman's writ should be issued.
Not after the 1848 Constitution was adopted, which read:
"The General Assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state; and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state for the purpose of setting them free."
Johnny Horton would be proud, but I'll have to dock you points for removing the improvised gator-cannon.
Nonsense. There were vague offers to discuss questions of disagreement but only after the Union recognized confederate sovereignty. Nothing could be done unless Lincoln accepted that.
But the 1848 law did not allow for expulsion of those free blacks already in the state, unlike a number of the southern states.
Bwahahahaha! The justices don't have to release an opinion to the clerk until the decision is finalized, and the court delivers the opinions to the clerk for preparation for distribution. Be that as it may, the Chief Justice decides when opinions will be released.
Finally, decisions are released to the clerk AFTER their release to the Court reporter - another 1834 rule directed that "the original opinions of the Court, delivered to the reporter, be filed in the office of the Clerk of the Court for preservation as soon as the Volume of Reports for the term, at which they are delivered, shall be published."
Not true, nor could you know otherwise because every effort to hold discussions over how much should be paid and by what means to pay it was refused by Saint Abe the warmonger.
There were only 3500 blacks living in Illinois in the 1840 census and they were all required to keep papers proving that they weren't somebody's slave. The legislature obviously wanted to keep that number low, hence their decision to bar blacks from entering the state period.
This better? ;-)
Written in honor of the great demoralizing yankee victory at the "Battle of Fort Davis, Texas" in August of 1862, as said by Capitan_Refugio:
"THE BALLAD OF FORT JEFF DAVIS"
In 1860 the temperature increased
So we went with Genr'al Carlton cross the desert to the east.
We loaded up our hard tack but it fell a little short
Then we fought hallucinations there at old Jeff Davis' fort.
CHORUS:
We fired our guns and the mirage kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Rio Grand-e to the Gulf of Mexico.
We looked 'cross the desert and we see'd the rebels come.
Some bouncen apparitions of'em beatin' on the drum.
They zagged across the evening sky an floated through the night
We tried to shoot then cap'n said "ain't dat the Marfa light?".
CHORUS:
We fired our guns and the mirage kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Rio Grand-e to the Gulf of Mexico.
Old Carlton said we could camp there for a bit
So we had a great big weenie roast, that fort it looked like sh*t
We slept inside the baracks on the dusty earthen floor
Till the injun's came a stirrin an they made off with the door!
CHORUS:
Well, we fired our guns and Apaches kept a'comin.
There soon was twice as many as there was a while ago.
They came right back an' we began to runnin'
Back up the Rio Grand-e from the Gulf of Mexico.
We fired at the injuns till the ammo horde was down down
So we grabbed ourselves a cactus & we fought another round.
Stuffed it full of carpetbags and dried up desert mud
But when we touched the powder off, fizz! It was a dud!
CHORUS:
Yeah, we tripped through the sinkholes and we ran through the cactus
We flopped across the desert where the scorpion wouldn't go.
We ran so fast old Fort Davis couldn't keep us
And we left the Rio Grand-e and the Gulf of Mexico
We pulled back to the mill site there in old El Paso town.
And we told 'em bout the battle with the ghost rebs we had found.
We'd made a charge an taked the place but time was runnin' short
Yet we struck a blow to Richmond now by takin' Davis Fort!
Yeah, we tripped through the sinkholes and we ran through the cactus
We flopped across the desert where the scorpion couldn't go.
We ran so fast old Fort Davis couldn't keep us
And we left the Rio Grand-e and the Gulf of Mexico.
Oh man, you're killin' me. The carpetbag reference more than makes up for its original shortcomings.
The rule is straight forward: "All opinions delivered by the court shall, immediately upon delivery thereof be delivered over to the clerk to be recorded." The Supreme Court did not want the spectacle of one opinion voted on by the members of the Court, and read from the bench, and another, differing opinion being recorded and published. That is what happened in Dred Scott. Taney must have thought he was a law unto himself.
I think you are also unaware that the Dred Scott Case is not the only book Fehrenbacher wrote in which Taney and the case figured prominently. It happens, however, to be the "best history of a landmark case ever written." (Harvard Law Record)
You bring up another point which most Taney-lovers are loath to discuss. How genuine was Taney's "denunciation of slavery" in the Gruber case? Taney was the attorney for the defense. The case was being tried before three slaveholding judges. Here is the passage of note:
"Mr. Gruber did quote the language of our great act of National Independence, and insisted on the principles contained in that venerated instrument. He did rebuke those masters who, in the exercise of power, are deaf to the calls of humanity; and he warned them of the evils they might bring upon themselves. He did speak with abhorrence of those reptiles who live by trading in human flesh, and enrich themselves by tearing the husband from the wife, the infant from the bosom of the mother; and this I am instructed was the head and front of his offending. Shall I content myself with saying he had a right to do this? that there is no law to punish him? So far is he from being the object of punishment in any form of proceedings, that we are prepared to maintain the same principles, and to use, if necessary, the same language here in the temple of justice, and in the presence of those who are the ministers of the law. A hard necessity, indeed, compels us to endure the evils of slavery for a time. It was imposed upon us by another nation, while we were yet in a state of colonial vassalage. It cannot be easily or suddenly removed. Yet while it continues, it is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it will be gradually, wiped away; and earnestly looks for the means by which this necessary object may be best attained. And until it shall be accomplished, until the time shall come when we can point, without a blush to the language held in the Declaration of Independence, every friend of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched condition of the slave. Such was Mr. Gruber's object in that part of his sermon of which I am now speaking. Those who have complained of him, and reproached him, will not find it easy to answer him; unless complaints, reproaches, and persecution shall be considered an answer."
Early in the passage Taney plays to the judges' anti-northern prejudices by explaining Rev. Gruber was really just bad-mouthing slave traders ("reptiles who live by trading in human flesh"). Taney proceeds to blame the British for the institution of slavery ("imposed on us by another nation"). He then throws up a crass paean to the Jeffersonian view of the temporary role of slavery in southern society. It is not entirely clear, either, that Taney is referring to his own views. He never uses, in the key italicized passage, the term "I." The use of "we" implies "the defense," rather than the royal "we" (although I wouldn't put it past him).
So are these the words of Roger B Taney, the humanist, or Roger B. Taney the defense lawyer? Possibly the answer to that is found in the remaining 45 years of his life, when he never repeated that sentiment in public or in private, to the best that can be discerned from the record.
By 1857, his private point of view was not dissimilar from his pronouncements in Dred Scott: "Every intelligent person whose life has been passed in a slaveholding state, and who has carefully observed the character and capacity of the African race, will see that a general and sudden emancipation would be absolute ruin to the Negroes, as well as to the white population."
Face facts. Taney was the worst sort of racist. And he attempted to make his peculiarly vehement racist views constitutional law.
Given the rate of desertions from southern armies at the end of the war, if Jefferson Davis and other confederate political leaders had taken to the hills to fight a continuing guerrilla war, the southerners themselves just might well had "taken care of the problem" before too long.
[capitan_refugio #1909 to nc #1873 lying again] Unfortunately, nolu chan is ignorant and dishonest, as always. You neglect to add that Fehrenbacher's conclusion "is partly confirmed by more definite evidence in the national Archives, where two different sets of page proofs of the Taney opinion have been preserved. Handwritten additions to the proofs constitute about eight pages of the version finally published."
[nolu chan #1873] Fehrenbacher, in the paragraph immediately preceding the changes you listed, said this, "This conclusion is partly confirmed by more definite evidence in the National Archives, where two different sets of page proofs of the Taney opinion have been preserved. Handwritten additions to the proofs constitute about eight pages of the version finally published."
[cr #1606] 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.
[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.
[cr #1606] For a person who proclaims his hatred of Lincoln
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.
There is no link to be had. I referenced a legal encyclopedia entry.
It is, however, a condemnation of your request.
A greater issue is why should the south even pay the north for the properties formerly owned by the NATION AS A WHOLE prior to secession? Catch that, non-seq? When jointly owned properties come under dispute and their former joint owners separate, sole ownership does NOT exclusively revert to the half that screams the loudest unless there is a specific binding clause that would do just that. I know of absolutely no agreement ever signed before or during the Constitutional Convention that said "if the states shall ever separate all jointly owned property among them immediately transfers to the exclusive control of New England, which may then employ whatever means she desires to retrieve her winnings." To the contrary, the states were treated as equals and thus it must be inferred that all federal property was jointly owned among them and, presuming a valid act of secession happens, should be jointly divided.
Of course this could be a bit impractical if taken to the extreme due to the simple nature of pork. If, suppose, the nation were to split today and all federally financed possessions were split up into 50 equal parts, West Virginia would find itself deprived of its entire road, bridge, transportation, and library system. Back in 1861 this would have also necessarily entailed the dismantling of all those tax-subsidized yankee railroad lines. So the most practical way to divide it, at least in real estate terms, is to simply say that each state gets to keep what's in its borders. If fort X is in South Carolina, South Carolina gets to keep fort X! If fort Y is in New York, New York gets to keep fort Y! If fort Z is in Massachusetts, Massachusetts gets to keep fort Z! But to suggest that Massachusetts and New York, by "virtue" of being yankee states, get to not only keep their own forts but also assert their claims upon South Carolina's AND do so with malicious intent for the use of that fort against South Carolina is absurd on every level.
And that goes without mentioning the fact that New York and Massachusetts got their own forts by way of a tax system that for 37 and 5/6ths of the previous 40 years had fluctuated between moderate and extreme forms of economic rape of the export-dependent southern economy.
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.