Dirty ol' man.
Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacticket.com ...
OK, whose not lord of his/her castle?
Guilty! When Laurie Dhue is on, I fall into the drooler category.
A Fox newsbabe.
And here is an interesting point that is no doubt at the heart of our disagreement, don't you think? Davis purported to, or rather acquiesced to the state of Mississippi, in casting off allegiance to the federal government of the United States.
Can he do such a thing? The argument from the 'Davis was a traitor' crowd trends toward an inability on the part of Davis (in the particular) and the people of Mississippi (in the general) to cast off ties to the government. Whether or not it's been recognized, we've been arguing about whether or not Americans were free men, or subjects of the state - bound by the promise of their father's generation to adhere to Union.
Dirty ol' man.
Here are some more pics of the same folks.
You will have to sell that on a different street corner.
Mark E. Neely, Jr., is Director of the Lincoln Museum.
His best-known book is The Fate of Liberty. The cover commentary asserts, "Neely depicts Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus as a well-intentioned attempt to deal with a floodtide of unforeseen events..."
Neely himself states:
Lincoln fashioned an able defense of the April suspension of the writ of ahbeas corpus but left the more recent expansion of the suspension unexplained. (p. 13)
On page 27, Neely buries the affair of Judge Merrick in a paragraph. All Neely can find is "Merrick was never arrested, but Seward's order violated the Constitution's stipulation that judges' compensation 'shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.'" Black's law dictionary says, "All that is required for an 'arrest' is some act by officer indicating his intention to detain or take person into custody and thereby subject that person to the actual control and will of the officer; no formal declaration of arrest is required."
In these early months of the Civil War, the Lincoln administration overcame its fears of public reaction to restrictions on civil liberties, instituted a novel internal security system, and came to believe that it worked. Not every historian today would credit it with saving Maryland for the Union, but that conclusion became almost a truism in Lincoln's day. (p. 29)
As usual, the Lincoln administration's internal security system betrayed no signs of corruption in the water-torture affair. (p. 112)
Of course, there is one whole chapter entitled The Irrelevance of the Milligan Decision. (pp. 160-184) You remember that one, it is the one that was mangled by Gordon Kwok. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the use of a military tribunal to try a civilian when the civilian courts were open and functioning was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In the states where the civilian courts were open and operating, ALL such military tribunals were UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The trial of Clement Vallandigham was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. During the war, the Court did not hear his case. The Milligan case was decided along that same argument made by Vallandigham.
Here is some high-class bovine scatology: "No one has described courtroom procedures or precedents that dictated the conduct of these commissions." Earth to Neely -- such procedures and procedents do not exist, they must be prescribed for the specific commission. So, for example, all may recall Donald Rumsfeld prescribing procedures for military tribunals for unlawful combatants fairly recently. A military tribunal is NOT a court-martial. Neither is an Article III court, i.e., a creature of the Judicial Branch of government. Each is a creature of the EXECUTIVE Branch of government, which is why the procedures were recently being prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
Perhaps the most famous of American military tribunals was eight persons accused of complicity in the assassination of Lincoln. Blatant perjury was introduced. The defendants were prohibited from testifying in their own defense. Exhibit #1, entered as "portrait of Booth," was identified as the assassin but later revealed to be a picture of Edwin Booth. In the jury room, prosecuting attorneys "assisted" the jury in their deliberations.
"The Dred Scott decision was meant to deprive slaves taken into a Territory of the chances of liberty under the United States Constitution." (p. 176). The decision was "designed" to answer the case presented to the Court. It was decided 7-2.
On pp. 179-80, Neely expends two pages on John W. Clampitt and his 1881 defense of military tribunals directly contrary to the United States Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan. On page 180, Neely asserts, "Clampitt's defense of trials by military commission was significant, for when he spoke of their use in capital cases, he definitely knew what he was talking about." I note that the condemnation of such tribunals by the U.S. Supreme Court was more significant than an article written by John W. Clampitt.
The Supreme Court, in Milligan said, quite clearly,
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
Neely, at page 184 states, "Historians, not realizing how muddled the law was before 1866, have repeatedly misinterpreted the constitutional history of the Civil War mainly by making the choices seem clearer than they appeared to the protagonists as the time. Such distinctions were clearer to the justices in 1866 than to the hard-pressed Lincoln administration between 1861 and 1865." Acting as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney seemed to have phrased himself quite clearly in the Merryman case.
In reaching Lincolnian heights of rhetorical bovine scatology, Neely at page 224 defends Lincoln with this Award-winning performance:
Although the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is surely helpful in maintaining free speech, a free press, and trial by jury, it is not identical with them, and its relation to maintaining the laws of evidence seems downright obscure. Lincoln was not speaking of the actual writ, something that could be issued by Democratic judges or Republican judges, something that could aid the freedom of fugitive slaves or help slave-catchers. He was speaking of a mythical writ that is ever liberating and that is always and everywhere a cornerstone of freedom.
Earth to Neely: Lincoln did not suspend some mythical writ, he suspended the actual writ.
If this is how one is "critical" of Lincoln, one can only wonder what a Lincoln apologist might write.
His sworn duty as president is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He cannot do that by raping the Constitution.
[ftD #1159] While he did suspend the writ of habeas corpus eight different times during the course of the war, it was intended as a “preventative precaution, not as a punitive weapon”.
Purportedly good intent is no defense to Constitutional rape.
[ftD #1159] The early suspensions, I believe, were justified.
The early suspensions were effected by military officers, at the discretion of said military officers, as unlawfully authorized by other military officers, as unlawfully authorized by Abe the Constitutional rapist. He and his administration proceeded to ignore the clear opinion rendered by CJ Taney, acting as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
It seems to me that Neely, in his usual slothfulness, only looked at the documents about Merrick in the Official Records series. If that is the case it is very possible that he did not even know about Merrick's house arrest, which is detailed in a letter by Merrick himself that appears in the court records for the DC Circuit but not the Official Records series. If that is the case then his neglectful treatment of the incident is more out of incompetence than anything else.
Neely, despite his fame in the world of court historians, is a very sloppy researcher. He's a major proponent of the claim that Ben Butler didn't meet with Lincoln to discuss colonization in 1865 - a claim he makes in his book the Lincoln Encyclopedia. His "evidence" of this is that Butler's Book suggests the meeting was held right before Lincoln left for City Point at which time Butler was not in Washington. Therefore, concludes Neely, they never met and accordingly never talked about colonization.
That is, of course, false as newspaper reports demonstrate Butler was in town the day that Lincoln returned from City Point and the surviving Hay memorandum in the Library of Congress proves conclusively that Butler and Lincoln met at least once during those crucial days - the morning of April 11th. All of this seems to have completely escaped Neely's attention. Nor does it seem to have occurred to him that Butler, who ADMITTEDLY states in the colonization passage that the juxtaposition of events is based on incomplete recollections, simply mistook the date of his known meeting upon Lincoln's return from City Point with Lincoln's departure to City Point.
And four others -
In Re MacDonald, from the U.S. District Court in St. Louis
Ex Parte Benedict, from the U.S. District Court in New York
Murphy v. Porter, from the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia
...and a Circuit Court ruling by Associate Supreme Court Justice Nathan Clifford, sitting on the Boston U.S. Circuit Court.
Five disobeyed federal court orders would also be good for five articles of impeachment at any other time in our history.
Perhaps you could stop lecturing on court decisions you have never read.
The title of what YOU quoted from is "The Suspension of Habeas Corpus And Ex Parte: Milligan." Your source, your purported legal "expert" proceeded to get the important facts all wrong. What he asserted as a close 5-4 decision was, in fact, 9-0. Your "expert" concluded that the majority of 5 plus 4 "concurring" justices equaled a 5-4 decision. That is a 9-0 decision. It would be 5-4 if there had been 4 DISSENTING justices. "Concurring" justices AGREE with the result, they CONCUR. Such are the legal "experts" upon whom you rely for your own legal "expertise." That you presented this rot showed that you were unable to discern the ineptitude of your source. It is also strong evidence that neither of you ever READ the opinions in Ex Parte Milligan. Your inept source misidentified the Concurring justices as part of the majority on the Constitutional issue. A reading of the opinion of CJ Chase reveals the opposite to the case. Anybody who has READ the opinion would KNOW that. CONCLUSION: Your and your inept source are "experts" and are lecturing about a court decision you are too lazy to read.
Milligan considered acts which occurred DURING the war. It found UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNLAWFUL, acts which occurred DURING the war.
[ftD #1209] Did President Lincoln suspend the U.S. Constitution?
Answer: He raped it.
Said the U.S. Supreme Court:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
[ftD #1209] Did President Lincoln suspend Habeas Corpus? Answer: Yes, in 1861 and 1862
What a forgettery you have. You forget that Lincoln had military officers running about suspending habeas corpus at their discretion.
[ftD #1209] Was Habeas Corpus ever restored? Answer: Yes, in 1866.
[ftD #1209] With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus.
Note: Lincoln assumed powers NOT delegated. Lincoln did not have the lawful power to suspend habeas corpus. He certainly did not have the lawful power to authorize military officers to suspend habeas corpus at THEIR discretion, but that is what Lincoln the Constitutional rapist did, and that is that the military officers did.
[ftD #1209] In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous.
Such as Maine?
[ftD #1209] In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law.
CORRECTION: Lincoln signed an order for a nation-wide suspension of habeas corpus on September 24, 1862. Secretary of War Stanton issued a nationwide suspension of habeas corpus before Lincoln did. The whole thing was, of course, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It directs UNCONSTITUTIONAL trial by military tribunal. It is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY vague. A "disloyal practice" was the justification to arrest anybody without cause. Many were arrested, imprisoned, and never charged or even made aware of what they were purportedly charged with.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports)
Page 321 UNION AUTHORITIES.
Washington City, D. C., August 8, 1862.
ORDER AUTHORIZING ARRESTS OF PERSONS DISCOURAGING ENLISTMENTS.
Ordered:
1. That all U. S. marshals and superintendents or chiefs of police of any town, city, or district be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to arrest and imprison any person or persons who may be engaged, by act, speech, or writing, in discouraging volunteer enlistments, or in any way giving aid and comfort to the enemy, or in any other disloyal practice against the United States.
2. That immediate report be made to Major L. C. Turner, judge-advocate, in order that such may be tried before a military commission.
Page 322 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.
3. The expenses of such arrest and imprisonment will be certified to the chief clerk of the War Department for settlement and payment.
EDWIN M. STANTON,
Secretary of War.
OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports)
Page 370 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.
Numbers 104. Washington, August 13, 1862.
The following orders are published for the information and guidance of all concerned:
---------------
I. WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington City, D. C., August 8, 1862.
By direction of the President of the United States, it is hereby ordered that until further order no citizen liable to be drafted into the militia shall be allowed to go to a foreign country. And all marshals, deputy marshals, and military officers of the United States are directed, and all police authorities, especially at the ports of the United States, on the sea-board, and on the frontier, are requested to see that this order is faithfully carried into effect. And they are hereby authorized and directed to arrest and detain any person or persons about to depart from the United States in violation of this order, and report to Major L. C. Turner, judge-advocate, at Washington City, for further instructions respecting the person or persons so arrested or detained.
2. Any person liable to draft who shall absent himself from his county or State before such draft is made will be arrested by any provost-marshal or other United States or State officer wherever he may be found within the jurisdiction of the United States, and be conveyed to the nearest military post or depot and placed on military duty for the term of the draft; and the expenses of his own arrest and conveyance to such post or depot and also the sum of $ 5 as a reward to the officer who shall make such arrest shall be deducted from his pay.
3. The writ of habeas corpus is hereby suspended in respect to all persons so arrested and detained and in respect to all persons arrested for disloyal practices.
EDWIN M. STANTON,
Secretary of War.
---------------
II. WAR DEPARTMENT,
Washington City, D. C., August 11, 1862.
The temporary restrictions upon traveling, deemed necessary to prevent evasions of liability to be drafted into the militia, were not intended to apply to couriers with dispatches to and from the legations of friendly powers in the United States. All authorities, civil and military, are consequently required to allow such couriers to pass freely, without let or molestation.
EDWIN M. STANTON,
Secretary of War.
By order of the Secretary of War:
E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
[ftD #1209] Among the 13,000 people arrested under martial law was a Maryland Secessionist, John Merryman. Immediately, Hon. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding the military to bring Merryman before him. The military refused to follow the writ. Justice Taney, in Ex parte MERRYMAN, then ruled the suspension of habeas corpus unconstitutional because the writ could not be suspended without an Act of Congress.
The MILITARY suspended habeas corpus and VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION and defied the U.S. SUPREME COURT. Chief Justice Taney clearly condemned the action taken by the MILITARY. It would appear that you have read neither Merryman nor Milligan.
The constitution provides, as I have before said, that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' It declares that 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice.These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.
In the case of Merryman, Taney's final Opinion was issued before any purported suspension of habeas corpus by the military officers involved. Neither Lincoln, nor any other civilian, purported to have suspended habeas corpus in the case.
[ftD #1209] President Lincoln and the military ignored Justice Taney's ruling.
Which was unlawful. There is significant evidence that Lincoln signed an order to arrest the Chief Justice and gave it to the District Marshall, Ward Hill Lamon, but it was not served.
[ftD #1209] Finally, in 1866, after the war, the Supreme Court officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-parte Milligan, ruling that military trials in areas where the civil courts were capable of functioning were illegal.
This is simply ignorant nonsense. The Supreme Court ruled that trials of civilians by a military tribunal while the civilian courts were open and functioning was Unconstitutional and Unlawful. It neither unofficially nor "officially restored habeas corpus in Ex-Parte Milligan." You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.
Chief Justice Chase refused to convene Circuit Court proceedings (including the Jefferson Davis case) while martial law was imposed. He wrote:
6. I held no court in Virginia in 1865, because the writ of habeas corpus was suspended and martial law enforced within its territory; and in my judgment all courts in a region under martial law must be quasi-military courts; and it was neither right nor proper that the Chief-Justice or any justice of the supreme Court of the United States -- the highest tribunal of the nation, and the head of one of the coordinate departments of the Government -- should hold a court subject to the control or supervision of the Executive Department, exercising military power.7. Soon after the adjournment of the Supreme Court in April last, the President issued a proclamation, the effect of which seemed to me to be the abrogation of martial law and military government, and the restoration of the writ of habeas corpus in all the States except Texas; and I determined upon holding a court at the ensuing May term, but various Executive orders inconsistent with the conclusion that military government had ceased, soon followed the proclamation, and led to an apprehension thatthe construction I had put upon it was not intended. I therefore reconsidered my purpose to hold the Circuit Court, and did not hold one.
8. But, determined to omit no duty, I called upon the President in April or May (I cannot fix the exact date, but probably in May), and urged him to issue a proclamation, submitted at the same time a draft of one, declaring, in unequivocal terms, that martial law was abrogated and the writ of habeas corpus restored in all cases of which the courts of the Untied States had jurisdiction, and in respect to all processes issuing out of or from such courts. But this was not done.
9. Subsequently, however, another proclamation was issued, affirming the restoration of peace throughout the whole country, which as, as yet, been followed by no order asserting the continuance of military government. Under this proclamation, therefore, it seems fair to conclude that martial law and military government are permanently abrogated and the writ of habeas corpus fully restored; and this conclusion warrants the holding of courts by the Chief-Justice and the associate justices as the law may direct.
J.W. Schuckers, The Life and Public Services of Salmon Portland Chase, 1874, writes at page 543:
It was not until June, 1867, that the Chief-Justice held a court in any one of the insurgent States, and then at Raleigh, in North Carolina. He stated at the opening, and before proceeding with the ordinary business of the court, that the military control over the civil tribunals had been withdrawn by the President, and that the writ of habeas corpus, which had been suspended, was restored. This was mostly effected by the President's proclamation of April, 1866, and finally by the proclamation of August 20th subsequent. These proclamations, he said, reinstated the full authority of the national courts in all matters within their jurisdiction.
[ftD #1209] As for Congress, the question you raised was did Congress give support to what Lincoln did and they had by protecting his actions retroactivly in 1863
The did not protect his "actions." They protected Lincoln and those many who faced civil liability for having performed unlawful and unconstitutional violations of civil rights as directed by Lincoln and his administration. Congress did not declare the acts lawful, but provided a defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability. Congress also provided, unconstitutionally, that all such cases, even after having been decided by a State court, could be removed to Federal court for rehearing, including rehearing of the facts of the case (not just an appeal). The Supreme Court later ruled this unconstitutional. In this opinion I believe all lawyers of reputation, of whatever political opinion, concur."
Moreover, you are responding to my #1155. Please point out where "the question [I] raised was did (sic) Congress give support to what Lincoln did and they had (sic) by protecting his action retroactivly (sic) in 1863."
[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 CorpusAnd 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.
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government, within the Constitution, has all the powers granted to it, which are necessary to preserve its existence; as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just authority.
United States Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan
[FTD #1208] Sorry, Lincoln will still be remembered as one of the great Presidents and Jeff Davis as a traitor.
By morons.
A natural response to an appropriate stimulus.
The Log Cabin Cabal, or perhaps the Spanish or Brazilian branch?
Think of it this way. At least El Capitan's not posting pictures of the Wlat Brigade on FR. They no doubt contain images of their fearless leader Wlat's secret headquarters...er...stable, in which case they would also be inappropriate for FR.
Ex Post Facto laws - defined in the common law and by the US Supreme Court as a law which alters the penalty of an offense after it was committed (meaning laws that both penalize your political enemies or let your political friends off the hook) - are unconstitutional. Insofar as Congress retroactively removed any penalty Lincoln would otherwise face absent their action, they accordingly did so without a constitutional right.
It further remains that, even if he got approval in 1863, Lincoln still conducted unilateral suspensions of the writ of habeas corpus for a period of two full years without sanction from Congress to do so.
In the process of unconstitutionally suspending the writ for the period of 1861-63, Lincoln also wantonly disregarded at least five federal court rulings against him and in at least one of those cases he the power of the military to harass and obstruct the judge who had ruled against him. The case is that of Murphy v. Porter before the DC Circuit Court. Murphy was an underage minor who had lied about his age to get into the army - probably thinking it would be an adventure only to find out it wasn't fun and games. Murphy's father and legal caretaker subsequently petitioned the DC court for a writ of habeas corpus for his son's discharge - the standard legal mechanism for getting an underage kid out of the army at the time (much like a discharge is today). The case went before Judge William Merrick who granted the routine writ to Murphy's attorney. The attorney then took it down the street to Provost Marshall Andrew Porter, expecting Murphy would be released. Porter refused, informed the attorney that Lincoln had suspended the writ, and placed the attorney under arrest for simply trying to serve the case. Word of the ruling against Lincoln made it to the White House and later that evening Secretary of State William Seward issued directions to Porter that he place Judge Merrick under "surveilance." Merrick returned to his home after dinner and found that, for the next several days, he was confined there under House arrest - the apparent purpose being to prevent him from attending the circuit court's 3 judge panel, which was set to take up Murphy's case in lieu of Porter's refusal to abide by the writ. Seward also sent a message to the treasury department ordering them to suspend Judge Merrick's salary - a violation of the constitution, which specifically prohibits the government from lowering the salaries of judges who are appointed for life.
The circuit panel met as scheduled without Merrick and heard the case anyway. Their first action was to issue a contempt order against Porter for obstructing Merrick's attendance. The order was issued to be delivered but Abe Lincoln personally intervened, had his agents intercept it, and had them inform the court that it would not be served. The panel then ruled on the case, holding like Taney that Lincoln had exceeded his powers in suspending the writ and this time was also harassing judges. Lincoln again simply ignored the court and continued to run roughshod over the constitution as he saw fit.
Davis, his government, and those of its member states were belligerents in a sectional struggle for independence from the lawful authority. They were unable to make good on their claims and were forced to capitulate. Davis's actions, and those who led the failed rebellion, were treasonable.
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.