Commentary: Truth blown away in sugarcoated 'Gone With the Wind'

sacbee ^ | 11-13-04

[LouAvul]

....snip......

Based on Margaret Mitchell's hugely popular novel, producer David O. Selznick's four-hour epic tale of the American South during slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction is the all-time box-office champion.

.......snip........

Considering its financial success and critical acclaim, "Gone With the Wind" may be the most famous movie ever made.

It's also a lie.

......snip.........

Along with D.W. Griffith's technically innovative but ethically reprehensible "The Birth of a Nation" (from 1915), which portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as heroic, "GWTW" presents a picture of the pre-Civil War South in which slavery is a noble institution and slaves are content with their status.

Furthermore, it puts forth an image of Reconstruction as one in which freed blacks, the occupying Union army, Southern "scalawags" and Northern "carpetbaggers" inflict great harm on the defeated South, which is saved - along with the honor of Southern womanhood - by the bravery of KKK-like vigilantes.

To his credit, Selznick did eliminate some of the most egregious racism in Mitchell's novel, including the frequent use of the N-word, and downplayed the role of the KKK, compared with "Birth of a Nation," by showing no hooded vigilantes.

......snip.........

One can say that "GWTW" was a product of its times, when racial segregation was still the law of the South and a common practice in the North, and shouldn't be judged by today's political and moral standards. And it's true that most historical scholarship prior to the 1950s, like the movie, also portrayed slavery as a relatively benign institution and Reconstruction as unequivocally evil.

.....snip.........

Or as William L. Patterson of the Chicago Defender succinctly wrote: "('Gone With the Wind' is a) weapon of terror against black America."

[lentulusgracchus]

However, while Lincoln was not fighting to end slavery, the South was fighting to keep it.

I differ somewhat from my fellow Southerners in that I think Lincoln was a sincere abolitionist all along -- from 1854 or 1855. I think his party's platform, of merely excluding slavery from the Territories, was just a waystation, and that he always had the South dialed up for transformation and, if necessary, destruction. He made a moral and political judgment about the South, and when he became president, people started dying like flies.

The South wasn't fighting just to keep slavery. They were fighting to keep from becoming an appendage, someone else's afterthought -- from becoming like the North: venal, loud, brutish and wilfully stupid "morlocks", to use H.G. Wells's word: devolved, subhuman creatures fit only for underground dwelling, dehumanized not just by work, but by habituation to taking orders from economic and political despots, as drones and wage slaves in an empire of sleaze.

[lentulusgracchus]

I am not aware of any statement of Friedman's that we should return to the gold standard.

Uncle Milt is a hard-money guy. It's Greenspan who wrote the paper about the gold standard. Please pay attention.

[fortheDeclaration]

The South wasn't fighting just to keep slavery

Slavery was the key issue that the South left the Union.

That alone makes everything else irrelevant.

[fortheDeclaration]

Others ignore information entirely and continue to lie like sleeping vermin (sorry, dogs and pigs are too likeable to make the comparison).

Well, welcome to the discussion.

I can see that you have alot to offer.

[lentulusgracchus]

A less that 2% growth rate is the long term average over the last 500 yrs (including the gold Spain took from the new world) and that is too low to allow sufficient growth.

Too slow for whom? For you? Funny, we've had several years in the past of 2% growth, and I didn't see rioting in the streets.

A gold standard will never be seen again or even a pretense at it. And that is a good thing.

Theoretically, we could have one tomorrow. All that you need to do is set an exchange rate and defend it with monetary discipline.

It is totally disconnected from the money supplies now and is nothing more than a pretty metal to make baubles for my lady from.

It's still, and will always be, the ultimate store of value. That's five hundred centuries of human experience talking -- but believe your central bankers instead if you want to. After all, "they're working for you" (wink, wink).

[lentulusgracchus]

I was talking about well-established and foundational legislation.

A hell of a lot of Southerners thought Plessey "foundational", too -- and gun-grabbers love their Miller, and they get all glowy at the thought of Presser, which found tightly circumscribing Militia membership as a gun-grabbing tactic constitutional.

[lentulusgracchus]

It is interesting to note, however, that the legal community has an appreciation for his insight into the historical foundations of American jurisprudence.

Other than Justice Scalia and everyone who calls himself a strict constructionist.

[capitan_refugio]

"Slavery was the key issue that the South left the Union."

That it was, despite the protestations of the rebel wannabes. One need only review the pre-war speeches and editorials to understand the motivation of the southern leadership.

[capitan_refugio]

I thought I smelled something foul. When did you show up?

[fortheDeclaration]

"Slavery was the key issue that the South left the Union."

Yes, and all the smoke about 'rights' is just that 'smoke' to hide the ghastly truth that the Southern leadership sent some hundred of thousands of its best men to their deaths to protect their own human 'property'

[GOPcapitalist]

Those states entered into treaties as states of the union, not as separate powers.

No other state was party to the Georgia-South Carolina treaty with the Cherokees in 1777, nor did they profess to be acting on the part of the other states.

That would make treaties that the colonies made with the Indians as equal to that of England herself.

By 1777 they were no longer colonies.

States had latitude to deal with the Indian issue within her border, in their capacity as states, not nations.

It wasn't within their borders. The treaty settled the limits of their borders in relation to the Cherokees, who occupied territory to the west.

That is why those treaties ended up being decided in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court did not exist in 1777.

And Jackson was ordered to enforce the Supreme Court decison honoring the Creek Indian treaty, which Jackson refused to do.

Another of the impeachable offenses of "Overreaction Jackson."

Each state from 1774 on was seen in relationship to one another as a state. You are incorrect.

Wrong. They were ALL colonies of the crown until the late spring of 1776 at the very earliest. That June some of them individually altered their status to states and commonwealths. The remainder did so in the joint act on July 4th. Those 'colonies' were known as the states in relationship with one another.

Then why do all the colonial documents from 1774 and 1775 refer to the other colonies as the "Colony of Pennsylvania" or the "Colony of Georgia" and so forth? The terms "state" and "commonwealth" did not come into official use until the late spring of 1776.

[GOPcapitalist]

You did not say you were for limited gov't you said that you did not like any gov't. That is not being anti-statist, but an anarchist.

I dislike taxes and I will suppose for the moment that so do you, do you not? Yet, for the moment, I also pay my taxes even though I dislike them and do so for pragmatic reasons. I'll suppose you do the same.

Now, tell me - does that act of paying taxes suddenly transform either of us into lovers of taxes who voluntarily throw wads of cash at Uncle Sam every time he comes begging for more? Of course not. Simply tolerating taxes and thus paying them in no reasonable way contradicts the fact that I also dislike them. The same goes for the government.

[GOPcapitalist]

And the South did not have representation in Congress to fight against this unfair taxation?

As of 1861 they were a numerical minority to the extent that the north could run roughshod over them and impose whatever rates it pleased. That one has a voice in the court of a tyrant does not reduce or alter the fact that he engages in tyranny.

And if the taxes had to be increased, then the other southern states could have pulled out?

In 1861 they were increased and they did pull out.

what rate does triggers this massive secession?

It's contingent entirely upon the individual circumstances of the case. You might as well be asking what rate on tea is necessary to trigger the Boston Tea Party and make it something different than any old mob riot.

Yes, they have the power do so and the power comes from an implied right,

Rights are inherent, not implied, and the power to tax is by no means a right. Governments tax only upon the consent of the governed, or so says our claimed theory of government. When they abuse that consent and tax excessively then the governed have an inherent right to deny their consent.

[GOPcapitalist]

Any honest analysis of the Hamiltonian tariff and "internal improvements" system, which was implemented throughout the 1820's and early 1830's and returned briefly in the mid 1840's, indicates it was a dismal failure with basically two results: lining the pockets of fat cat recipient industries and making their production techniques lazy and inefficient. The American iron industry in 1830 was 50 years behind Britain in technology and was actually reverting to production techniques used in the 1780's rahter than modernizing. Similar things happened in woolens, textiles and most other major manufacturing industries.

[nolu chan]

[fortheDeclaration #1134 quoting an idiot as a legal authority]

Next time please just give a part of the article and link the rest. So was Lincoln impeached by Congress for violating his oath and taking this unconsititional action?

http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html

---

Please note that I am quoting from the same article at the same precise link.

http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html

Gordon Kwok

The Suspension of Habeas Corpus

And Ex parte: Milligan

"Well, the only route that the Supreme Court could do to save Milligan's neck was to declare the law unconstitutional. The decision was a narrow 5 to 4 votes by the 9 Supreme Court Justices. The interesting coincident was that the majority 4 of the 5 votes were Lincoln appointees. The court opinion was written by Justice David Davis, Lincoln's old Eighth Circuit court friend from Illinois and Lincoln's 1860 presidential campaign manager, and concurred by Chief Justice Salmon Chase, Lincoln's ex-Secretary of Treasury, and Justices Noah Swayne, Samuel Miller and James Wayne."

Next time do not drag in and quote an idiot on AOL as a legal authority.

Next time at least find an "expert" who knows the difference between a UNANIMOUS decision and a 5-4 decision.

Kwok evidently has not bothered to READ the lengthy decision in Ex Parte Milligan, or he grossly misrepresents it. Kwok would have one believe that Davis wrote the opinion that held the military tribunal UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that Chief Justice Chase, and Justices Swayne, Miller, and Wayne concurred with Justice Davis in that holding, making up a 5-4 majority. Kwok has it bass-ackwards.

Of course, while you choose to lecture others about habeas corpus law, this proves conclusively that either you have not read Ex Parte Milligan, a basic, essential case, or you are unable to read and understand a court decision. This is not rocket science. The official published opinion includes the opinion of the court, and a CONCURRING opinion which is joined in by four justices. It does not require a law degree to notice that there is NO DISSENTING OPINION. The Opinion of the Court, when accompanied only by CONCURRING opinions, adds up to a UNANIMOUS decision.

EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) (9-0)
DECEMBER TERM, 1866.

Ex Parte Milligan was decided UNANIMOUSLY. It was 9-zip.

The Court ruled UNANIMOUSLY that the trial of a civilian by a military tribunal while the civilian courts were open and functioning was UNLAWFUL.

ALL NINE JUSTICES HELD THE MILITARY TRIBUNAL TO BE UNLAWFUL.

IN ADDITION, FIVE OF THE JUSTICES HELD IT TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Those were DAVIS, GRIER, NELSON, CLIFFORD, and FIELD.

In a concurring opinion written by Chief Justice CHASE, joined by SWAYNE, MILLER, and WAYNE, these FOUR justices said, "But the opinion which has just been read goes further; and as we understand it, asserts not only that the military commission held in Indiana was not authorized by Congress, but that it was not in the power of Congress to authorize it; from which it may be thought to follow, that Congress has no power to indemnify the officers who composed the commission against liability in civil courts for acting as members of it. We cannot agree to this."

The CONCURRING justices are those who DISAGREED with the holding of the tribunal being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Wayne (GA) was appointed by Jackson.
Nelson (NY) was appointed by Tyler.
Grier (PA) was appointed by Polk.
Clifford (ME) was appointed by Buchanan.
Chase (OH), Swayne (OH), Miller (IA), Davis (IL), and Field (CA) were appointed by Lincoln.

While Kwok says "the majority 4 of the 5 votes were Lincoln appointees," he is dead wrong.

Again, the majority was 9-0. Four justices CONCURRED with the decision, but only held the tribunal UNLAWFUL but not UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Three of those four were Lincoln appointees. Two of the five who found the act UNCONSTITUTIONAL were LINCOLN appointees.

Find a different "expert." Preferably, find one whose "qualifications" include more than an AOL account.

[GOPcapitalist]

My, my what a bunch of gnat straining going on!

It's a simple matter of intellectual fraud, and repeatitious intellectual fraud at that. Had El Capitan tried any of those stunts in, say, an academic paper the first offense would likely earn him a visit to the dean's office and the second an expulsion. He would not have an opportunity for numbers three and four as his reputation would be established as a fraud.

[GOPcapitalist]

It's probably deeply buried in that thread or maybe even an earlier one, but there was also a case when I was discussing Bollman with him and he tried to pass of a lengthy excerpt from the dissent, which obviously contradicted what Marshall says, as the ruling itself.

[GOPcapitalist]

(1) Bollman was about treason. Habeas corpus had not been suspended in the case, and much of the habeas discussion in Bollman is dicta.

The subject of the Bollman case, as defined by its occassion, the parts of the constitution it considered, and by the ruling of the case itself, is habeas corpus. To suggest otherwise is to committ fraud.

(2) All part of the Dred Scott record.

...but not part of the case itself, which you fraudulently claimed.

(3) I retracted my comments concerning Lemmon the next day.

...but only after being ripped over the fraud contained in them. In normal circumstances one could probably excuse it as a one-time error, but given your unusually strong tendency toward making similar "errors" elsewhere, one can only conclude that your intent was to defraud.

(4) Amy Warwick and Brilliante were all part of the Prize Cases.

But you still fraudulently passed them off as something that they were not.

(5) It was indeed a footnote in the web article quoted from the Hamdi documentation.

...but not a footnote of the Hamdi ruling itself, which you fraudulently implied.

[nolu chan]

http://www.thehistorynet.com/mhq/blfreedomsundersiege/index1.html

[fortheDeclaration #1139] Not until March 1863 did Congress act to suspend habeas corpus retroactively to the beginning of the war,

This time your source with his head up his butt is "Anonymous" from the History Net?

Do you really go to the History Net to find a LEGAL expert???

Yeah, you do.

And, again, your source is wrong.

No Act of Congress ever confirmed the suspensions by Lincoln prior to said Act. No Act of Congress ever confirmed the suspensions by military officers based on the claim of authorization delegated by Lincoln to General Scott and futher delegated to other military officers, and then further delegated to still more military officers.

The Indemnity Act of 1863 saved the evil lawbreaking dictator's bacon by purporting to grant him INDEMNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION and INDEMNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY. It authorized the evil lawbreaking dictator to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the future subject to stated limitations or requirements. The evil lawbreaking dictator then proceeded to suspend the privilege of the writ and violate the statutory requirements to do so.

---

TEXT

[IMAGES] (Page numbers in Congressional Globe)

Page 384

Page 385

Page 386

Monday, March 2, 1863

Mr. Trumbull, from the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on 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, submitted the following report:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on 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 the Senate's amendment thereto, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do recommend, to their respective houses that the Senate recede from their said amendment, and agree to the said House bill, amended to read as follows, to wit:

AN ACT relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, during the present rebellion, the President of the United States, whenever, in his judgment, the public safety may require it, is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in any case throughout the United States, or any part thereof. And whenever and wherever the said privilege shall be suspended, as aforesaid, no military or other officer shall be compelled, in answer to any writ of habeas corpus, to return the body of any person or persons detained by him by authority of the President; but upon a certificate, under oath, of the officer having charge of any one so detained, that such person is detained by him as a prisoner under authority of the President, further proceedings under the writ of habeas corpus shall be suspended by the judge or court having issued the said writ so long as said suspension by the President shall remain in force and said rebellion continue.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of State and the Secretary of War be, and they are hereby, directed, as soon as may be practicable, to furnish to the judges of the circuit and district courts of the United States and of the District of Columbia, a list of the names of all persons, citizens of States in which the administration of the laws has continued unimpaired in the said federal courts, who are now, or may hereafter be, held as prisoners of the United States, by order or authority of the President of the United States or either of said Secretaries, in any fort, arsenal, or other place, as state or political prisoners, or otherwise than as prisoners of war; the said list to contain the names of all those who reside in the respective jurisdictions of said judges, or who may be deemed by the said Secretaries, or either of them, to have violated any law of the United States in any of said jurisdictions, and also the date of each arrest--the Secretary of State to furnish a list of such persons as are imprisoned by the order or authority of the President, acting through the State Department, and the Secretary of War a list of such as are imprisoned by the order or authority of the President, acting through the Department of War. And in all cases where a grand jury, having attended any of said courts having jurisdiction in the premises, after the passage of this act, and after the furnishing of said list, as aforesaid, has terminated its session without finding an indictment, or presentment, or other proceeding against any such person, it shall be the duty of the judge of said court forthwith to make an order that any such prisoner desiring a discharge from said imprisonment be brought before him to be discharged; and every officer of the United States having custody of such prisoner is hereby directed immediately to obey and execute said judge's order; and in case he shall delay, or refuse so to do, he shall be subject to indictment for a misdemeanor, and be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars and imprisonment in the common jail for a period not less than six months, in the discretion of the court: Provide, however, That no person shall be discharged by virtue of the provisions of this act until after he or she shall have taken an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States, and to support the Constitution thereof; and that he or she will not hereafter, in any way, encourage or give aid and comfort to the present rebellion, or the supporters thereof: And provided, also, That the judge or court before whom such person may be brought, before discharging him or her from imprisonment, shall have power, on examination of the case, and, if the public safety shall require it, shall be required to cause him or her to enter into recognizance, with or without surety, in a sum to be fixed by said judge or court, to keep the peace and be of good behavior towards the United States and its citizens, and from time to time, and at such times as such judge or court may direct, appear before said judge or court to be further dealt with, according to law, as the circumstances may require. And it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the United States to attend such examination before the judge.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That in case any of such prisoners shall be under indictment or presentment for any offence against the laws of the United States, and by existing laws bail or a recognizance may be taken for the appearance for trial of such person, it shall be the duty of said judge at once to discharge such person upon bail or recognizance for trial as aforesaid. And in case the said Secretaries of State and War shall for any reason refuse or omit to furnish the said list of persons held as prisoners as aforesaid at the time of the passage of this act within twenty days thereafter, and of such persons as hereafter may be arrested within twenty days from the time of the arrest, any citizen may, after a grand jury shall have terminated its session without finding an indictment or presentment, as provided in the second section of this act, by a petition alleging the facts aforesaid touching any of the persons so as aforesaid imprisoned, supported by the oath of such petitioner or any other credible person, obtain and be entitled to have the said judge's order to discharge such prisoner on the same terms and conditions prescribed in the second section of this act: Provided, however, That the said judge shall be satisfied such allegations are true.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That any order of the President, or under his authority, made at any time during the existence of the present rebellion, shall be a defence in all courts to any action or prosecution, civil or criminal, pending or to be commenced, for any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisonment, made, done, or committed, or acts omitted to be done, under and by virtue of such order, or under color of any law of Congress; and such defence may be made by special plea, or under the general issue.

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That if any suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, has been or shall be commenced in any State court against any officer, civil or military, or against any other person, for any arrest or imprisonment made, or other trespasses or wrongs done or committed, or any act omitted to be done, at any time during the present rebellion, by virtue or under color of any authority derived from or exercised by or under the President of the United States, or any act of Congress, and the defendant shall, at the time of entering his appearance in such court, or if such appearance shall have been entered before the passage of this act, then at the next session of the court in which such suit or prosecution is pending, file a petition, stating the facts and verified by affidavit, for the removal of the cause for trial at the next circuit court of the United States, to be holden in the district where the suit is pending, and offer good and sufficient surety for his filing in such court, on the first day of its session, copies of such process and other proceedings against him, and also for his appearing in such court and entering special bail in the cause, if special bail was originally required therein, it shall then be the duty of the State court to accept the surety and proceed no further in the cause or prosecution; and the bail that shall have been originally taken shall be discharged. And such copies being filed as aforesaid in such court of the United States, the cause shall proceed therein in the same manner as if it had been brought in said court by original process, whatever may be the amount in dispute or the damages claimed, or whatever the citizenship of the parties, any former law to the contrary notwithstanding. And any attachment of the goods or estate of the defendant by the original process shall hold the goods or estate so attached to answer the final judgment in the same manner as by the laws of such State they would have been holden to answer final judgment had it been rendered in the court in which the suit or prosecution was commenced. And it shall be lawful in any such action or prosecution which may be now pending, or hereafter commenced, before any State court whatever, for any cause aforesaid, after final judgment, for either party to remove and transfer, by appeal, such case during the session or term of said court at which the same shall have taken place, from such court to the next circuit court of the United States to be held in the district in which such appeal shall be taken, in manner aforesaid. And it shall be the duty of the person taking such appeal to produce and file in the said circuit court attested copies of the process, proceedings, and judgment in such cause; and it shall also be competent for either party, within six months after the rendition of a judgment in any such cause, by writ of error or other process, to remove the same to the circuit court of the United States of that district in which such judgment shall have been rendered; and the said circuit court shall thereupon proceed to try and determine the facts and the law in such action, in the same manner as if the same had been there originally commenced, the judgment in such case notwithstanding. And any bail which may have been taken, or property attached, shall be holden on the final judgment of the said circuit court in such action, in the same manner as if no such removal and transfer had been made, as aforesaid. And the State court from which any such action, civil or criminal, may be removed and transferred as aforesaid, upon the parties giving good and sufficient security for the prosecution thereof, shall allow the same to be removed and transferred, and proceed no further in the case: Provided, however, That if the party aforesaid shall fail duly to enter the removal and transfer, as aforesaid, in the circuit court of the United States, agreeably to this act, the State court, by which judgment shall have been rendered, and from which the transfer and removal shall have been made, as aforesaid, shall be authorized, on motion for that purpose, to issue execution, and to carry into effect any such judgment, the same as if no such removal and transfer had been made: And provided, also, That no such appeal or writ of error shall be allowed in any criminal action or prosecution where final judgment shall have been rendered in favor of the defendant or respondent by the State court. And if in any suit hereafter commenced the plaintiff is nonsuited or judgment pass against him, the defendant shall recover double costs.

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That any suit or prosecution described in this act, in which final judgment may be rendered in the circuit court, may be carried by writ of error to the Supreme Court, whatever may be the amount of said judgment.

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That no suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, shall be maintained for any arrest or imprisonment made, or other trespasses or wrongs done or committed, or act omitted to be done, at any time during the present rebellion, by virtue or under color of any authority derived from or exercised by or under the President of the United States, or by or under any act of Congress, unless the same shall have been commenced within two years next after such arrest, imprisonment, trespass, or wrong may have been done or committed, or act may have been omitted to be done: Provided, That in no case shall the limitation herein provided commence to run until the passage of this act, so that no party shall, by virtue of this act, be debarred of his remedy by suit or prosecution until two years from and after the passage of this act.

LYMAN TRUMBULL,
J. COLLAMER,
Managers on the part of the Senate.

THADDEUS STEVENS,
JNO. A. BINGHAM,
Managers on the part of the House of Representatives.

---

The Indemnity Bill of March 3, 1863 did not ratify any previous acts.

As Senator Trumbull, a sponsor of the Indemnity Bill, explained: "We do not propose to say that suit shall be dismissed, that a proceeding is null and void, but we propose that certain facts shall be a defense to an action." (Cong. Globe, 37 Cong., 3 sess., p. 1436.)

Had the unconstitutional suspensions been ratified, there would be no cause of action.

| Page 1435 | Page 1436 | Page 1437 |

---

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 heading of the record, as well as in many other places. Cong. Globe, 37 Cong., 3 sess., pp. 1459, 1479.)

Source: James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, Revised Edition, 1951, Chapter 11, "The Indemnity Act of 1863," p. 189, footnote 8.

If you look at HR 591, as recorded on Dec 9, 1862, the working title was "An Act to indemnify the President and other Persons for suspending the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus and acts done in pursuance thereof." It also came with a preamble which explained the reasons for the proposed Act:

The Indemnity Bill was passed on March 3, 1863.

In the House:

March 2, 1863.

THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.

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 affirmative-yeas 99, nays 44; as follows:

* * *

Source: Congressional Globe, 37th Congress, 3rd Session, March 2, 1863. (Page 1479)

IMAGE p. 1479, CG, 2 Mar 1863

In the Senate:

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873
MONDAY, March 2, 1863.

Monday, March 2, 1863

TEXT

Page 380

IMAGE p380

Mr. President: The House of Representatives has agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on 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

Page 382

IMAGE p382

Mr. Trumbull, from the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on 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, submitted the following report:

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on 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 the Senate's amendment thereto, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do recommend, to their respective houses that the Senate recede from their said amendment, and agree to the said House bill, amended to read as follows, to wit:

AN ACT relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases.

Page 397

IMAGE p397

The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on 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

Page 399

IMAGE p399

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr. Etheridge, its Clerk:

Mr. President: The House of Representatives has agreed to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on 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....

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1873
TUESDAY, March 3, 1863.

TEXT

Page 400

IMAGE p400

Mr. President: The House of Representatives has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:

* * *

The Speaker of the House of Representatives having signed sixteen enrolled bills (S. 435, S. 483, S. 526, S. 534, S. 536, S. 537, S. 540, S. 543, S. 548, S. 557, S. 562, S. 564, S. 565, H. R. 226, H. R. 523, and H. R. 591) and two enrolled resolutions, (S. 129 and S. 133,) I am directed to bring them to the Senate for the signature of its President.

Mr. Howe reported from the committee that they had examined and found duly enrolled the following bills:

-- H. R. 226. An act to amend "An act to establish a court for the investigation of claims against the United States," approved February 24, 1855.

-- H. R. 591. An act relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases.

-- H. R. 523. An act to promote the efficiency of the corps of engineers, of the ordnance department, and for other purposes.

The President pro tempore signed the enrolled bills (S. 435, S. 483, S. 526, S. 534, S. 536, S. 537, S. 540, S. 543, S. 548, S. 557, S. 562, S. 564, S. 565) and the enrolled joint resolutions (S. 129 and S. 133) yesterday reported to have been examined, and the enrolled bills (H. R. 226, H. R. 523, and H. R. 591) last reported to have been examined, and they were delivered to the committee to be presented to the President of the United States.

---

[GOPcapitalist]

You can dish it out, but you can't take it, can you? How about your little tirade in #969?

Given the revelations on this forum about your former associates Wlat and #3fan, I suppose we could add "sexual deviants" and "neo-nazis" to the list of your associates. By the company you keep, capitan. By the company you keep.