Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
". On April 15, only a few hours after Lincoln's death, a caucus of Republican leaders was held, at which the tragedy was described as a gift from Heaven, and it was decided to get rid of Lincolnism. Ben Butler was chosen to be Secretary of State."
Or words to that effect. That ought to shut up the snarkers. Thank you, my diligent friend.
I don't recall there being any, though he certainly had his critics in Congress. Remember that in 1861 there was no precedent for impeaching a president and precious little for impeaching anybody else, thus making it a substantially more difficult action to achieve. I can say for certain though that Lincoln committed multiple offenses that would rise to the level of impeachment if he had been tried on the matter.
Did he stop Congress from meeting?
From March to July of 1861 he did by refusing to call an emergency session when the events of the time and the constitution dictated he should have done so. He also tried to prevent a federal court from meeting by placing one of the judges under house arrest, as I previously informed you.
Actually, Lincoln was getting criticism for being too weak in his action from many members of Congress.
The criticisms of petty tyrants like Charles Sumner are of no concern to me.
We are now in a war against Islamic terrorism, is the President going to have the ACLU types (like yourself and Nolu Chan) coming in and screaming, Rights, when the men who are using those same rights are attempting to destroy them forever?
I see you've taken up your compatriot El Capitan's penchant for libeling his opponents rather than debating their positions. Congratulations. You've devolved into the upper ranks of the Wlat Brigade.
If you have any honest desire to comprehend my position as it relates to the subjects you address, BTW, you will find it mirrored in Antonin Scalia's dissent from Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I don't suppose you have the balls to call Antonin Scalia an ACLU type terrorist defender though, meaning you will probably avoid his writings so that you may persist unimpeded in your slurs against anybody who deviates from your worship at the false altar of Saint Abe.
Great quote, thanks.
Concurring mystical paracletic BTTT.
The CSA had one foreign power give outright diplomatic recognition - the Germanic state of Saxe-Coburg Gotha. It also obtained an implicit recognition from the Vatican, which repeatedly addressed the CSA as a government in its own right.
It should be noted that for the first three or so years of the United States' existence after 1776 they had but a single foreign power that recognized their flag - the tiny island of St. Eustasius in the carribean, whose Dutch governor made a decision on his own to recieve the United States diplomatically. Thus the confederacy circa 1863 was better off in terms of diplomatic recognition from abroad than the United States circa 1777.
Considering Lincoln's political persecution of his northern democrat opponents it is safe to say that had any tried to do so they would have been imprisoned and persecuted. Simply look at the records. Lincoln had a congressman from Maryland thrown in prison and another from Ohio deported from the country for opposing him. The latter, Clement Vallandigham, was nationally recognized as the leader of the northern Democrat faction that opposed Lincoln. Lincoln also had Indiana Senator Jesse Bright - a well-regarded northern democrat - expelled from that chamber for sending a single letter to Jefferson Davis that urged peace (note that this sort of correspondence was in no way out of the ordinary among northerners...so long as they toed Lincoln's line. Lincoln himself personally corresponded in secret with Alexander Stephens and one of his agents, Frank Blair, even arranged a secret meeting with Davis in Richmond during the middle of the war). Former U.S. Senator William Gwin of California was arrested in Panama by Lincoln's agents while en route to the east coast. Both U.S. Senators from Missouri were replaced by Lincoln henchmen after they forcefully seized control of the state government in Jefferson City and expelled all the elected officers of the state in 1861.
The message to any congressman who opposed Lincoln was very clear: try anything I don't like and you'll be thrown in jail.
9 out of 12 newspapers in the city of Baltimore, for example, had their presses seized and editors imprisoned at least once during the war.
Prominent persons who were imprisoned, detained, arrested, or otherwise abused by Lincoln's henchmen include:
Henry May, US Rep from Maryland
George Brown, Mayor of Baltimore
William Merrick, U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia
William Gwin, former U.S. Senator from California
Clement Vallandigham, US Rep from Ohio and leader of the northern Democrat opposition
J. Proctor Knott, Attorney General of Missouri
Lincoln also imprisoned about 20 members of the Maryland legislature, shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers throughout the north, chased the Missouri state government out of town with his army (Knott was a staunch unionist and remained behind believing he would be unharmed, but they threw him into prison anyway and appointed a new AG), and even plotted the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney. The message of the Lincoln administration to any potential opponent of his policies was clear: get in my way and I'll have you arrested or worse.
What is so assinine is that you think it matters whether Law Professor Freedman spends three chapters of his book on HABEAS CORPUS making valid or invalid points about Bollman.
capitan_refugio #237 8/29/2004 to GOPcap argued that "Bollman was not about habeas corpus...."
YOU said Bollman was not about habeas corpus. A law professor spent three chapters of a book about habeas corpus on Bollman.
Whether his points were valid or not, you are busted.
You can render your arcane interpretations of all the philosophers and historians you want. Quote any recognized legal authority saying Bollman is not about habeas corpus.
Your mind's in a trance
And you've just been depantsed,
And you're busted...
You're busted.
When attributed to Scott v. Sandford, it is scurrilous bullcrap. When then trying to lie your way out by saying it is part of the Dred Scott record, it is pathetic.
When your sources are false or do not exist, there is no substance, only lies.
The Union is more than a legal definition. It is more that a compact or a contract. It is a state of mind and provides a national identity.
-- capitan refugio, 11/05/2003.
So, when are you giving your sermon about sixth day creation, mud people, and the elect?
You have the right to worship your Lincoln bobblehead deity.
The Germanic state of what?
The Vatican?
I would say that for the first three years, neither the U.S. nor the Confederacy were recognized nations.
Ofcourse, in the libertarian south, no one was being arrested, no presses were being stopped, no ones rights were being abused.
And you have the right to live in alot of nations other then the United States, if you do not like being an American become something else.
That is a fair statement, but why then lay it punishingly against the account of the Confederacy that this was so, when the infant United States had less legal standing to claim nationhood and indepandence?
How about, if he doesn't want to be an American, that he and his State stay where they are, and just not be part of the United States any more?
We're not, after all, talking about his walking off with anything that belongs to you.
Except for the occasional fort, mint, armory, post office, etc., etc.
More like 17 months for the U.S. The Declaration of Independence was issued in July 1776 and the French agreed to recognize the U.S. in December 1777. For the confederacy, well, they're still waiting for someone, anyone to grant them diplomatic recognition.
Despite leaving their shares in all the lighthouses, mints, armories, and post offices in the North and West, the Southern Commissioners from both South Carolina, and later the Confederacy itself did not ask for their share in these, but offered to pay the Union for what they took. Mr. Abe refused to set a price.
He must have not cared.
Saxe-Coburg Gotha - a Germanic country in existence from 1826-1918 when it united with the other Germanic states to form Weimar Germany. It's best known for Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, who came from its royal house and married Victoria.
The Vatican?
Yeah, that place in Rome where the pope lives. Ever heard of it?
I would say that for the first three years, neither the U.S. nor the Confederacy were recognized nations.
And you would be incorrect. As previously noted, the United States got its first foreign recognition on St. Eustasius in late 1776 and the CSA got it from Saxe-Coburg Gotha - both well within 3 years of their creation.
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.