For a person who proclaims his hatred of Lincoln, his endorsement of legal slavery, and who is a poster who hurls invective and innuendo with the worst of them,
I find it very disappointing that you would run to the admin moderator instead of standing on your own two feet.
The reason this type of post is called a "hairball" is that it is repetitive and disingenuous. You keep coughing them up.
As for you and your neo-confederate "friends" - gianni, 4conservativejustice, GOPcapitalist, and lentulusgracchus - your modus operandi is to smear and misrepresent. You revel in quoting Hitler and the most miserable of anti-American texts. I invite the moderators to review all of my posts! All of them. You'll find in four years I have had exactly two pulled - neither for overt profanity. So my posting record is virtually impeccable.
Your little tantrum here is rather embarrassing. If you can not debate the issues, then I suggest you stay off of these threads. You have chosen the loathsome task of defending the actions and the principles of the Confederacy.
...so says the guy who posts tracts from left wing reparationists, marxists, and berkeleyite wackos while making Stalinist endorsements of torture, arson, and other fundamentally unamerican abuses of civil liberties under the guise of defending his false idol.
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.
[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.