Reelected or not, he was still a congressman and he was arrested for simply voicing opposition political beliefs. Lincoln didn't like dissent be it from congressmen or judges so he suppressed it.
The second meeting of the Missouri convention had a quorum of the members who attended the first session.
Source?
The renegade legislature
They were the only legislature duly elected under the constitution of Missouri. The renegades were the self-appointed military regime back in Jefferson City.
would not meet in Neosho until October, and, even if they could claim legitimacy, never achieve quorum (at least, no official records exist to show that was the case
Wrong. One of the house's journals has been found and shows a quorum. The other is missing but little reason exists to doubt it as all the newspapers reported they had a quorum and gave the vote totals.
If your ... uhhhh ... "reasoning" were valid, then it could be concluded that Federal judges don't have to pay income taxes, or tax increases, because it would decrease their "compensation."
Wrong. The 16th amendment gives Congress the power to collect taxes upon income, thus superseding any inhibition upon it from doing so. That amendment did not exist in 1861.
Taney had prepared several opinions during the war dealing with issues ranging from the legality of income tax to conscription.
And I ask you again, do you believe there is something wrong with a judge writing about legal topics? His challenge to the legality of the income tax, BTW, was perfectly valid and sustained when they tried to pass one again in the late 1800's. That's why it took a constitutional amendment to establish the one today.
Still, no substantiation on your part.
Now you're simply being slothful. Nobody disputes that he raised the army, nobody disputes that he brought it to DC, and nobody disputes that he brought it there BEFORE Virginia seceded.
They were to be stationed and utilized all over the Union, not just in Washington, D.C. or Virginia.
Yet for some reason thousands upon thousands of them were carted into Washington.
On April 17, the Virginia legislature passed a secession ordinance, subject to a popular referendum.
Yet Virginia did not secede for another month.
On April 18, Virginia militia under the direction of secessionist former Virginia Governor Wise unlawfully seized the arsenal at Harper's Ferry.
Yet Virginia did not secede for another month. The claim upon arsenals, BTW, was a highly disputed legal matter at the time and even southern unionists wanted the ones in their states placed in state hands - in part to keep them from being either used against the state OR seized by a secessionist mob - until secession had been legally decided. Sam Houston was among those who adhered to this position as he urged state authorities to take control of federal installations in Texas even though he opposed secession.
These, and similar acts all preceded the May 23rd referendum.
Yet Virginia still had not seceded. There's a giant mob of left wing wackos walking through the streets of New York City right now. They've stolen and vandalized all sorts of stuff, but is that a reasonable basis to call in the army and send them in to invade and conquer the state of New York?
The arrest was Burnsides idea and history records that Lincoln was chagrined about the development. Vallandigham was a former congressman at the time.
"Wrong. One of the house's journals has been found and shows a quorum. The other is missing but little reason exists to doubt it as all the newspapers reported they had a quorum and gave the vote totals."
Newspaper accounts to do not constitute "official records." An official record would show who was present and how they voted. There is no telling who attended ex-Gov. Jackson's road show. Nor is there a record that Jackson properly noticed the special session, even if he were still entitled to act.
"Wrong. The 16th amendment gives Congress the power to collect taxes upon income, thus superseding any inhibition upon it from doing so. That amendment did not exist in 1861."
Correct, a later Court case invalidated the income tax (in 1895, because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution). The reason you originally cited (diminished compensation for federal judges) borders on the ridiculous.
"And I ask you again, do you believe there is something wrong with a judge writing about legal topics?"
Nothing at all wrong with writing; however, to prepare opinions prior to hearing a case suggests the political motivation of someone uninterested in hearing arguments.
"Now you're simply being slothful. Nobody disputes that he raised the army, nobody disputes that he brought it to DC, and nobody disputes that he brought it there BEFORE Virginia seceded."
No, you are simply in denial. Virginia was involved in rebellion prior to any new federal troops arriving in Washington, D.C. (the first of the units being the 6th Massachusetts, which arrived on April 19-20). The "ratification" of the Legislatures act of secession took place on May 23, but the die was cast on April 17.
"Yet for some reason thousands upon thousands of them were carted into Washington."
By July, McDowell was able to muster about 30,000 men for the first battle at Bull Run. Fremont, in Missouri, had about 40,000 by July. McClellan and others had about 20,000 men for operations in loyal western Virgina. I would say more of the 75,000 90-day enlistees went somewhere else.
If, as you say, Virgina was still part of the Union in late April and May (although the government of the State in no way acted like it was), then Lincoln had every right to post soldiers or sailors there in its defense, and that of the federal District of Columbia, or to mount offensives against the disloyal.
"The claim upon arsenals, BTW, was a highly disputed legal matter at the time and even southern unionists wanted the ones in their states placed in state hands."
It was a highly disputed political issue. There was no legal issue - they were federal armories and arsenals an their seizure by secessionists or state governments was criminal.
"There's a giant mob of left wing wackos walking through the streets of New York City right now. They've stolen and vandalized all sorts of stuff, but is that a reasonable basis to call in the army and send them in to invade and conquer the state of New York?"
You are coming unhinged. I imagine you have a tough time swallowing the "party of Lincoln" and "legacy of Lincoln" tributes.
If the protesters in NYC begin to act violently like they acted in Seattle, and elsewhere, during similar protests, the local authorities should be able to handle it. If they can't handle it, they will no doubt call in the National Guard. Petty theft, vandalism, and lewd conduct is a far cry from seizing naval shipyards and warships, burning bridges, ripping up railroads, and taking arsenals.
If the wackos held a mass meeting in Central Park and declared that NYC was seceding from the Union, you would certainly support them, wouldn't you?