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 ...
You are correct in that ruthless dictators don't hold open and free general elections.
The ruthless dictator Lincoln, known as the Great Usurper, did not hold open and free elections.
Hapgood's Life of Lincoln contains the following unblushing paragraph:
Charles A. Dana testifies that the whole power of the War Department was used to secure Lincoln's re-election in 1864. There is no doubt but this is true. Purists may turn pale at such things, but the world wants no prettified portrait of Mr. Lincoln. Lincoln's Jesuitical ability to use the fox's skin when the lion's proves too short was one part of his enormous value.Think of it, men of America! "Jesuitical ability" to trick, to deceive, to rob the people of their right to the ballot is, by a modern Republican historian, not only condoned, but commended as of "enormous value." And any honest man, shocked at so infamous an outrage on the rights of freemen, the Republican Hapgood sarcastically terms "purist." "Purists may turn pale," etc. In his book, published in 1892, General Butler proudly relates his part in the infamous work of using the army at the polls. The story is this: The election day was November 8, 1864. Lincoln had sent agents to New York City to spy out and report how the election would go. The report boded ill for Lincoln's success; in fact, indicated that New York would give a large majority for General McClellan. Lincoln, Seward and Stanton were alarmed. The latter instantly telegraphed General Butler to report to him at once. Butler rushed to Washington, and Stanton explained the situation at New York.
"What do you want me to do?" asked Butler.Stanton saw this also would be bad politics, so Grant was ordered to send Western troops -- 5,000 good troops and two batteries of Napolean guns -- for the purpose of shooting down New Yorkers should New Yorkers persist in the evil intention of voting for McClellan."Start at once for New York, take command of the Department of the East, relieving General Dix. I will send you all the troops you need."
"But," returned Butler, "it will not be good politics to relieve General Dix just on the eve of the election."
"Dix is a brave man," said Stanton, "but he won't do anything; he is very timid about some matters."
This meant that General Dix was too honorable to use the United States Army to control and direct elections.
"Send me," suggested the shrewd Butler, "to New York with President Lincoln's order for me to relieve Dix in my pocket, but I will not use the order until such time as I think safe. I will report to Dix and be his obedient servant, and coddle him up until I see proper to spring on him my order, and take supreme command myself."
"Very well," assented Stanton, "I will send you Massachusetts troops."
"Oh, no!" objected the shrewder Butler, "it won't do for Massachusetts men to shoot down New Yorkers."
When the citizens of New York saw Butler and his escort proudly prancing their horses on the streets and saw the arrival of 5,000 Western troops and the Napoleon guns, there was great agitation and uneasiness over the city. Newspapers charged that these warlike preparations were made to overawe citizens and prevent a fair election. Butler was virtuously indignant at such charges. General Sanford, commanding the New York State militia, called on Butler and told him the State militia was strong enough to quell any disturbance that might occur and he intended to call out his militia division on election day. Butler arrogantly informed General Sanford that he (Butler) had no use for New York militia; he did not knew which way New York militia would shoot when it came to shooting. General Sanford replied that he would apply to the Governor of the State for orders.
"I shall not recognize the authority of your Governor," haughtily returned Butler. "From what I hear of Governor Seymour I may find it necessary to arrest all I know who are proposing to disturb the peace on election day."
Butler well knew he was the only man in the city who intended to disturb the peace on election day. Butler's mean and cowardly soul gleefully gloated over the power he possessed to bully and insult the great State of New York, its Governor and militia officers -- power given him by Lincoln, whose orders he had in his pocket to relieve General Dix, and take command of the army under Dix, and hold himself ready on election day to shoot down New York men at the polls to secure the re-election of President Lincoln. On November 5th Butler issued Order No. 1, the purpose of which, he said:
Is to correct misrepresentations, soothe the fears of the weak and timid and allay the nervousness of the ill-advised, silence all false rumors circulated bymen for wicked purposes, and to contradict once for all false statements made to injure the Government in the respect and confidence of the people. The Commanding General takes occasion to declare that troops have been detailed for duty in this district to preserve the peace of the United States, to protect public property, and insure a calm and quiet election.The citizens of New York well knew that the above was one tissue of falsehood; they knew that Butler and his 5,000 Western troops, his batteries and Napoleon guns, were there to overawe the people and force the re-election of Lincoln.
"The Commanding General," continues Order No. 1, "has been pained to see publications by some not too well informed persons, that the presence of the troops of the United States might by possibility have an effect on the free exercise of the duty of voting at the ensuing election. Nothing is further from the truth."
Who, knowing Butler's nature, does not picture to himself the Mephistophelean smile which ornamented his visage as he penned the above, and the following pretty falsehood: "The soldiers of the United States are here especially to see that there is no interference with the election."
If the reader cares to see the full text of this lying order he can find it in Butler's book (page 1097).
On November 7th, the day before the election, after Butler had placed his troops and made all arrangements necessary to control the ballot, he wrote to Secretary of War Stanton a letter in which he said, "I beg leave to report that the troops have all arrived, and dispositions made which will insure quiet. I enclose copy of my order No. 1, and trust it will meet your approbation. I have done all I could to prevent secessionists from voting, and think it will have some effect." Secessionists meant Democrats who chose to vote for McClellan.
On page 760 of his book, Butler describes how he disposed of the troops to accomplish his purpose. On page 771, Butler gives a joyful account of a reception at Fifth Avenue Hotel tendered him in honor of his signal success in keeping Democrats from voting. Full to bursting with pride, Butler made a speech to his entertainers, explaining how, after the Union army had conquered the South, her people should be treated. "Let us," said this willing and eager tool of despotic power, "take counsel from the Roman method of carrying on war." The Roman method was to make slaves of all prisoners of war; to inflict upon them every cruelty pagan hearts could devise. Butler continued:
Let us look to the fair fields of the sunny South for your reward. Go down there in arms; you shall have what you conquer, in fair division of the lands, each man in pay for his military service. We will open new land offices wherever our army marches, dividing the lands of the rebels among our soldiers, to be theirs and their heirs forever.
SOURCE: Facts and Falsehoods Concerning the War on the South 1861-65, George Edmonds, pp. 204-208
[justshutupandfakeit #1822 11/30/2004] LINK
JUSTSHUTUPANDFAKEIT AND HIS "BLUE STATE CULTURE"
According to justshutupandfakeit, "civilization is a product of the cities." The ineluctible logical conclusion is that justshutupandfakeit believes that American civilization is a product of American cities.
According to justshutupandfakeit, the "RAT party has controlled them almost the entire history of our nation." The ineluctible logical conclusion is that justshutupandfakeit believes that American civilization is a product of RAT-controlled American cities.
According to justshutupandfakeit, RAT-controlled cities produced American civilization and those RAT-controlled cities "are the epitome of democracy."
According to justshutupandfakeit, removing the RAT-controlled blue-state cities which are the epitome of democracy, and which produced American civilization, would collapse the economies of the rest of the nation.
And that is,
JUSTSHUTUPANDFAKEIT AND HIS "BLUE STATE CULTURE"
Some of Lincoln's initial acts were unconstitutional even under the relatively favorable view of his powers taken in this book. At least his unauthorized expansion of the regular army and disbursement of funds fall into this category. Disobedience of Taney's order may fall into the same category, unless that order was a nullity.Farber, page 192.
It is like the good old days with new handles.
You probably need to adjust the aluminum foil. The rays are beginning to penetrate again.
The bill was designated "SR-1" because it was the first Joint Resolution of the session originating in the Senate.
[cr #2066 quoting Paludan]
The Senate began discussing a joint resolution [note: S-1] that recited Lincoln's actions - calling the militia, blockading Southern ports, calling for volunteers, increasing the army and the navy, suspending the writ - and declared them lawful.
This is an outright falsehood. The Senate explicitly REFUSED to declare the suspension of the writ lawful. S-72 was passed before SR-1 was shot down in flames.
[cr #2066 quoting Paludan]
Finally, on 5 August, the day before adjournment, they returned to the authorization issue. With only five Democrats voting 'no,' Congress declared that 'all acts, proclamations and orders of the President ... (after 4 March 1861) respecting the army and the navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved and in all respects legalized and made valid ... as if they had been issued and done under previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.'"With one omission Congress had endorsed Lincoln's emergency actions. It did so in the greatest crisis in this nation's history - a war on American soil, directly threatening the electoral process, the constitutional system, and the loss of almost half of the nation's territory with its resources and the major ports of entry of the entire Middle West. it is hardly surprising that Congress said 'yes;' that body had said yes with far less provocation.
This is, of course, the same bullcrap that was shoveled out by Daniel Farber.
The bill was not passed on 5 August 1861. On 5 August, the Senate met in Committee of the Whole to consider S-69, a bill that never became law. In Committee of the Whole, they voted to amend S-69, on a 37-5 vote.
Mr. WILSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate concurred in the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 69) to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the regular Army, volunteers, marines, and seamen and ordinary seamen in the service of the United States, and for other purposes; and the motion was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. I now move that the House amendment and the bill be ordered to lie on the table.The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. I now ask leave to introduce a new bill on the same subject, which is more restricted and guarded.
Leave was granted to introduce the bill (S. No. 72)
And so, S-69 was scrapped in favor of a more restricted and guarded bill, S-72.
S-72 was then amended on a 37-5 vote.
Then the bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and was read the third time, and passed.
Then the bill was sent to the House who did not act on it until August 6, 1861.
Paludan has the same bug as the Supreme Court (The Prize Cases) when quoting the Act and leaving out 52 words.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
Clearly there was not just that "one" omission which Lincoln apologists try to sneak by. A reading of the Congressional debate leaves no doubt.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope my friend from Maryland will hear what I have to say before he objects. This bill takes up a single point only in the resolution that was introduced into the Senate, and upon which there has been considerable debate. It refers simply to the proclamations that were made for, and the employment of volunteers. We have since authorized the employment of the volunteers. But some of the volunteers now make a point that although they have enlisted for three years, yet the President having had no authority at that time, and no legal authority having been conferred upon him by Congress, they are discharged, and cannot be held under that enlistment. That idea will occasion considerable difficulty, and it is necessary that we should, so far as we have the power, legalize the acts of the President upon that particular point. The bill avoids all questions with regard to the habeas corpus and other matters, and refers simply to the military appropriations; and it is necessary we should do this in order to place that subject upon the right ground.Mr. FESSENDEN. "There is nothing in the world in it except what relates to the Army and Navy volunteers."
U.S. Supreme Court
THE AMY WARWICK, 67 U.S. 635 (1862)
THE BRIG AMY WARWICK.
THE SCHOONER CRENSHAW.
THE BARQUE HIAWATHA.
THE SCHOONER BRILLIANTE.
December Term, 1862
* * *
Mr. Justice GRIER.
* * *
And finally, in 1861, we find Congress 'ex majore cautela' and in anticipation of such astute objections, passing an act 'approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, &c., as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.' Without admitting that such an act was necessary under the circumstances, it is plain that if the President had in any manner assumed powers which it was necessary should have the authority or sanction of Congress, that on the well known principle of law, 'omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et mandato equiparatur,' this ratification has operated to perfectly cure the defect.67 U.S. 635, 670-1
To begin, I wish to point out that this is a lengthy decision and the authors clearly were not champions of brevity for the sake of saving an old growth forest. I will make this point relevant in short order.
The Court appears to say that Congress passed an act approving, legalizing and making valid ALL the previous acts, proclamations, and orders of President Lincoln. Let us examine that quote more closely.
Congress [passed] an act "approving, legalizing, and making valid all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President, &c.,as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States."
I have emphasized one (apparently) very short portion of the Act of Congress as it was quoted by the Supreme Court.
Please notice the &c embedded in there. That is an old fashion abbreviation for et cetera. In this case, it denotes words omitted from the Act of Congress which was being quoted. I will now present the material with the missing words restored, as it appears in the official record of the time, The Congressional Globe. Notice how the "President, &c., as" expands.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
By my count, the Supremes took out 52 words. They did not do so for the sake of clarity, because the result is most certainly not a clarified version of the original. The debate in the legislature makes abundantly clear that the Act applies only to military appropriations and the callup of the troops. The debate assures that habeas corpus was specifically excluded from consideration by the Act.
Moreover, they did not excise the 52 words in an effort to save a tree.
The Act of Congress which passed was a bill (S. No. 72) "to increase the pay of the privates in the regular Army, and of the volunteers in the service of the United States, and for other purposes."
There was a proposed Joint Resolution (SR-1) "To approve and confirm certain acts of the President of the United States for suppressing insurrection and rebellion." This resolution died without a vote, and fell into such disfavor that by the end of the session its opponents were the one's clamoring for a debate on the resolution. On August 6, 1861, the last day of the special session, Illinois Senator Trumbull disposed of it before it could suffer an embarrasing vote of rejection.
On August 5, Senator Wilson attempted to introduce a new bill, S-70, with the content quoted above. Senator Wilson noted that, "The bill avoids all questions with regard to the habeas corpus and other matters, and refers simply to the military appropriations; and it is necessary we should do this in order to place that subject upon the right ground." ... "It takes but a single point, and avoids the points of debate in the joint resolution that was before the Senate, and simply legalized the action of the President which we have already indorsed, by giving him the authority. It refers merely to a point which it is very necessary for us to consider."
Senator Pearce, who had objected to the introduction of this bill because it might have applied to additional matters was assured by Senator Fessenden, "Entirely so, to those acts only."
As soon as Senator Pearce withdrew his objection, Senator Saulsbury objected.
Senator Fessenden added that, "this is a mere matter of business, and avoids all disputed points."
Senator Saulsbury commented that, "If there is anything in this bill that looks to the toleration of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, I never will, under any circumstances, vote for it. Sir, that is the bulwark of the freedom of the citizen. If there is nothing in the bill, except to approve the calling out of volunteers --"
Senator King responded, "If the Senator will read it, he will see that there is nothing else in it."
Senator Fessenden commented, "There is nothing in the world in it except what relates to the Army and Navy volunteers. "
Senator Saulsbury withdrew his objection, Senator Powell renewed the objection, and S-70 died.
S-69, for Pay of the Troops came up and Senator Wilson proffered the quoted material as an amendment to that bill. This amendment was agreed to, the yeas and nays being 33-5.
The title of S-69 was amended to read, "A bill to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the reglar Army, volunteers, marines, and seamen and ordinary seamen in the service of the United States, and for other purposes."
Senator Wilson asked "leave to introduce a new bill on the same subject, which is more restricted and guarded."
Senator Wilson then obtained leave to let S-69 lie on the table (die) and to introduce S-72 "to increase the pay of the privates in the regular Army, and of the volunteers in the service of the United States, and for other purposes."
Senator Wilson then moved to amend the bill by adding the above quoted material as an additional section of the bill. This amendment was approved with the yeas and nays being 37-5.
The bill was then reported to the Senate as amended, the amendments were concurred in, the bill was read a third time, and it passed. The yeas and nays are not shown.
It now had to go to the house, which it did on August 6, 1861.
The record in the House reads, "The bill was read a first and second time, and was ordered to a third reading. It was read the third time and passed." The yeas and nays are not shown.
Joint Resolution
To approve and confirm certain acts of the President of the United States for suppressing insurrection and rebellion.
This is the Joint Resolution which never came to a vote.
PAGE 438
PAY OF THE TROOPS [S-69]
Mr. WILSON. The Committee on Military Affairs and the militia have instructed me to report a bill (S. No. 69) to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, muscians, and privates of the regular Army, volunteers, marines, and seamen in the service of the United States.
The Bill was read a first and second time. It provides that the pay of non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the regular Army and Volunteers, and of the marines, seamen, and ordinary seamen in the service of the United States, be increased by the addition thereto of two dollars per month for three years from and after the passage of this act, and until otherwise provided by law.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, the bill will be considered at the present time.
MR. KING. For the purpose of giving the Senator from Massachusetts an opportunity to propose an amendment, I move that it be laid over informally; and the Senator from Connecticut can then proceed with his report.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York objecting, the bill cannot be considered at the present time.
The bill was laid over.
PAGE 441
ARMY AND VOLUNTEER MILITIA [S-70]
Mr. WILSON. I ask leave to introduce a bill of which, no previous notice has been given; and I should like to have it considered now, for it is very important that it should be acted upon.
The bill (S. No. 70) in relation to the Army and volunteer militia of the United States was read a first time by its title.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will now receive its second reading, if there be no objection.
Mr. PEARCE. I should like to hear the bill read at length before I consent that it shall have its second reading now. I do not think it is treating the Senate with proper consideration to have a bill read twice in one day before we know what it is. Let us see what it is; and if it be not objectionable, of course there will be no opposition to it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be read at length for the information of the Senate.
PAGE 442
The Secretary read it as follows:
Be it enacted &c, That all the acts, proclamations and orders of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out, or relating to the militia, or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respect legalized and made valid, to the same intent and with the same effect as if they had been done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
Mr. PEARCE. I must object to its second reading to-day.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope my friend from Maryland will hear what I have to say before he objects. This bill takes up a single point only in the resolution that was introduced into the Senate, and upon which there has been considerable debate. It refers simply to the proclamations that were made for, and the employment of volunteers. We have since authorized the employment of the volunteers. But some of the volunteers now make a point that although they have enlisted for three years, yet the President having had no authority at that time, and no legal authority having been conferred upon him by Congress, they are discharged, and cannot be held under that enlistment. That idea will occasion considerable difficulty, and it is necessary that we should, so far as we have the power, legalize the acts of the President upon that particular point. The bill avoids all questions with regard to the habeas corpus and other matters, and refers simply to the military appropriations; and it is necessary we should do this in order to place that subject upon the right ground.
Now, sir, with regard to this bill, there can certainly be no objection that Senators can raise to it, unless they are desirous that a difficulty -- I will no say that --- but unless they fail to see the force of the position in which we are placed with reference to many of these volunteers. I hope, therefore, the Senator from Maryland will withdraw his objection. It takes but a single point, and avoids the points of debate in the joint resolution that was before the Senate, and simply legalized the action of the President which we have already indorsed, by giving him the authority. It refers merely to a point which it is very necessary for us to consider.
Mr. PEARCE. If it refers purely and solely to the volunteers, which I did not exactly understand at first, I withdraw the objection.
Mr. FESSENDEN. Entirely so; to those acts only.
Mr. SAULSBURY. I renew the objection.
Mr. WILSON. The objection is renewed, and that settles it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware interposes objection, and the bill cannot have its second reading.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I hope the Senator from Delaware will withdraw his objection. It is a matter of importance to pass the bill today.
Mr. SHERMAN. I will state, if it is in order, to the Senator from Delaware, that it is very easy to for the chairman of the Comittee on Military Affairs to get at what he desires in a more objectionable way, by taking up the resolution that we have been discussing, which contains this and other propositions. I am very glad this proposition has come up in this way, and I take it as a matter of course, that if this bill is passed, the other joint resolution will not be called up. It is much better to pass a bill of this kind upon which everybody can vote in the affirmative, that to take up that joint resolution, about which there is so much difference of opinion.
Mr. FESSENDEN. I will add that this is a mere matter of business, and avoids all disputed points.
Mr. SAULSBURY. My objection to the bill is that I have not seen it. In regard to the joint resolution originally submitted by the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs, there were acts of the President of the United States that I approved. For instance: the proclamation calling out seventy-five thousand men, if it was necessary, to defend this capital, or to defend any portion of the territory of the United States. I was in favor of that. But I have not seen this bill; and I objected to it with a view --
Mr. KING. If the Senator from Delaware will allow me to make a single statement, he will perceive that his objection is not necessary to sustain any principle of his own; nor can it prevent the passage of this proposition.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware objecting to the second reading of this bill, it lies over under the rule of the Senate, and is not now before the Senate for consideration.
Mr. KING. I desire to state to the Senator from Delaware, which he had permitted me to do, that there is a bill on the table, which is intentionally there, which will be taken up, and which will be in order, to which this proposition will be moved as an amendment if this bill is not passed; but it is better that this single isolated proposition should go through by itself, disconnected with any other matter; and it will undoubtedly be agreed to by the House. I hope, therefore, the Senator from Delaware will not persist in his objection. This proposition will be placed on the other bill as an amendment, in a moment, if the objection is persisted in; but it is better that it should be passed as a separate, isolated proposition.
Mr. SAULSBURY. I should like to accomodate my friend from New York; certainly he is very accommodating himself; but if gentlemen on the other side will indulge me a moment, I will say why it was that interposed the objection.
Mr. President, in the earlier state of this session, a joint resolution was introduced approving, in general terms, the acts of the President of the United States. For one, had not such a resolution been introduced, I never would have attacked the President of the United States for his course. I am one of those men who stand in a peculiar position on this point. I am one of those who approve of certain acts of the President, and disapprove of others. As this bill seemed to be only a mode of getting rid of a direct vote upon that joint resolution, by way of substitute, without knowing what was contained in the bill. I felt it incumbent on me to object to its consideration. If there is anything in this bill that looks to the toleration of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, I never will, under any circumstances, vote for it. Sir, that is the bulwark of the freedom of the citizen. If there is nothing in the bill, except to approve the calling out of volunteers --
Mr. KING. If the Senator will read it, he will see that there is nothing else in it.
Mr. FESSENDEN. There is nothing in the world in it except what relates to the Army and Navy volunteers. The Senator from Maryland has just read it, and says he is perfectly satisfied.
Mr. SAULSBURY. Then on the assurance of the Senator from Maine, I will withdraw the objection.
Mr. POWELL. I renew the objection.
PAY OF THE TROOPS [S-69]
Mr. WILSON. I move to take up the bill I submitted a short time ago increasing the pay of the troops.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Comittee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill (S. No. 69) to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the regular Army, and volunteers, and marines, and seamen, and ordinary seamen, in the service of the United States.
* * *
Mr. WILSON. I now move to amend the bill by adding to it, as an additional section, the bill I sent to the chair a few moments ago:
And be it further enacted, That all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. That sounds a little like our joint resolution to ratify and approve and make valid and legal all the acts of the President since the 4th of March; but one or two features of it are left out. If I may so speak, I observe the absence of one or two features.
Mr. WILSON. I will say to the Senator from Kentucky, if he will allow me, that there is an absence of one or two features of the joint resolution; but as soon as we get the vote on this proposition, I will gratify him if he desires it, by moving to take up the joint resolution for the purpose of having it voted on. I should like to have it acted on to-day.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I was afraid that, in the condition of the public business, with the hurry which exists towards the close of the season, we might lose the opportunity to put our opinions on record upon that resolution. With his promise, however, to call it up for the vote of the Senate, I shall waive any observations on this amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.
Mr. POWELL. I ask for the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill.
The yeas and the nays were ordered.
Mr. SAULSBURY. When substantially the same question was up before, I interposed an objection to its present consideration; but on the assurance of the Senator from Maine, I waived the objection. This amendment covers one thing that I cannot possibly vote for; and that is to legalize the act of the President in reference to the increase of the Army and Navy of the United States. I honestly think that that act was not legal, and that we cannot make it legal. Therefore, I shall be compelled to vote against this proposition.
The question being on the yeas and nays, resulted -- yeas 33, nays 5, as follows:
[Yeas and Nays are listed here in the record]
So the bill was passed.
[nc note: Passed as amended by the Senate. It still needed House approval of this amended version.]
On motion of Mr. WILSON, its title was amended by adding the words: "and for other purposes;" so as to make it read: "A bill to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the reglar Army, volunteers, marines, and seamen and ordinary seamen in the service of the United States, and for other purposes."
PAGE 443
PAY OF THE TROOPS [S-69] [S-72]
Mr. WILSON moved to reconsider the vote by which the Senate concurred in the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. No. 69) to increase the pay of the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the regular Army, volunteers, marines, and seamen and ordinary seamen in the service of the United States, and for other purposes; and the motion was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. I now move that the House amendment and the bill be ordered to lie on the table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. I now ask leave to introduce a new bill on the same subject, which is more restricted and guarded.
Leave was granted to introduce the bill (S. No. 72) to increase the pay of the privates in the regular Army, and of the volunteers in the service of the United States, and for other purposes; which was read twice, and considered as in committee of the Whole. The bill proposes to increase the pay of the privates to thirteen dollars a month; and also extends the provisions of the act "for the relief of the Ohio and other volunteers" to all volunteers, no matter for what term of service they may have been accepted.
Mr. WILSON. I move to amend the bill by adding the following as an additional section:
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved, and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and being taken, resulted -- yeas 37, nays 5; as follows:
[Yeas and Nays are listed here in the record]
So the amendment was agreed to.
The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and was read the third time, and passed.
[nc note: This is passage by the Senate; it still needed to go to the House.]
PAGE 456
INCREASE OF PRIVATES' PAY [S-72]
Mr. STEVENS. I move to take from the speaker's table Senate bill No. 72, to increase the pay of the privates in the regular Army, and in the volunteers in the service of the United States, and for other purposes.
Mr. CRISFIELD. I object to the consideration of that bill.
Mr. STEVENS. I hope gentlemen will not object. If the bill cannot be passed now, there will be a called session within twenty-four hours.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. I desire to ask the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means a question in reference to this bill. I desire to know how this bill comes back here, after the House passed it yesterday?
Mr. STEVENS. This is a new bill.
The SPEAKER. This is an original Senate bill.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. We concurred in a similar bill yesterday.
Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont. I will inform the gentleman, by leave of the House. I believe this is identically the bill that passed the House, with this exception: that, instead of increasing the pay of privates four dollars per month, this bill increases it but two dollars per month. I suppose that if this bill should not pass, congress would be called back.
Mr. VALLANDIGHAM. It is very easy for the House to recde from its amendment to the bill passed yesterday; and that will leave it all right.
Mr. STEVENS. That bill, with the amendments, was lost in the Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there any objction to taking up the bill?
Mr. CRISFIELD. I have objected to it.
PAGE 457
INCREASED PAY OF PRIVATES, ETC. [S-72]
Mr. STEVENS. I again appeal to the gentleman who objected to the consideration of the bill for increasing the pay of privates in the regular Army and of volunteers, to withdraw that objection. I understand the bill passed by this House was laid on the table in the Senate. This is a new bill which has passed the senate, and if we adjourn without passing it, it will cause very great inconvenience, and perhaps create the necessity of our being called back in antoher extra session.
Mr. CRISFIELD. I withdraw my objection.
Mr. JOHNSON. I object.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to suspend the rules.
The question was taken; and the rules were suspended, (two thirds having voted therefor.)
The bill was thereupon taken up for consideration. It proposes to increase the pay of the privates to thirteen dollars a month; and also extends the provisions of the act "for the relief of the Ohio and other volunteers": to all volunteers, no matter for what term of service they may have been accepted. It also directs that all the acts, proclamations, and orders, of the President of the United States, after the 4th of March, 1861, respecting the Army and Navy of the United States, and calling out or relating to the militia or volunteers from the States, are hereby approved and in all respects legalized and made valid to the same intent and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.
The bill was read a first and second time, and was ordered to a third reading. It was read the third time and passed.
Mr. STEVENS moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
[nc note: This was passage of the bill, S-72]
Does it come with a sermon about sixth day creation and the elect?
Merryman was not from Baltimore at all. He was from Cockeysville, 23 miles away.
[capitan_kerryfugio #2092] Taney and the Keys (Taney's in-laws) ran in the same social circles. (If I'm not mistaken, wasn't it Taney's nephew who Dan Sickles offed in a lover's triangle?) The Baltimore elites hung together. We aren't talking about 169,000 people.
Francis Scott Key did not live in Baltimore.
Dan Sickles murdered Francis Barton Key. The son of Francis Scott Key was not a nephew of Chief Justice Taney. A nephew is the son of a brother or sister, not the son of a brother-in-law.
Taney was 47 years older than Merryman.
Refutable lie, by your own post. Taney lived in Baltimore from 1823 to 1855 (when his wife, the sister of Francis Scott Key, died). He was a leading lawyer in Baltimore in the early 1820's, before being named as Att. Gen of Md.
"Your attempts to falsely claim that Taney and Merryman were "neighbors" because Taney sometimes stayed at his daughter's house, 23 MILES FROM MERRYMAN'S HOME, are comical."
You and your buddies are such amateurs when it comes to being sleuths. The Merryman family estate, Hayfields (now site of the Hayfields Country Club), was indeed near Sherwood, MD. John Merryman inherited the main property in 1847. That, however does not preclude John Merryman from also having a residence in Baltimore. In fact, just a few minutes of searching showed that Baltimore was crawling with Merrymans. They were a very prominent family in the area.
Just a little more searching shows another connection. A number of members of the Merryman family were married or buried at old St. Pauls in Baltimore (John the traitor was not one of these - he is planted in Sherwood). The Keys were also members of old St. Pauls too. Although Roger B. was a Catholic, his wife was not - she evidently stayed an Anglican. Her brother, Francis Scott Key, was buried at the cemetery there (before he was dug up and moved).
John Merryman was at one time a leader in the State Agricultural Society, located in the City of Baltimore (separated from the County in 1851). Merryman was called one of the "first citizens" of Baltimore county. And, of course Merryman was an officer (1st Lt.) in the Baltimore County Horse Guards. (So was Harry Gilmore - who was only a corporal when the war started.) John Merryman has plenty of connections to Baltimore, at first glance, and with very little effort at research.
So your silly little map and story about 15 or 23 miles doesn't pass muster for proving or disproving anything. LOL!
You also need to keep in mind that the Taneys, and the Keys, the Bosleys, and the Merrymans were part of the Maryland aristocracy. They have family connections that go back generations, into the early 1700's. They were the families that provided the legislators, the judges, the mayors, the military officers, and so on. The old planter families are like that; even here in California.
If you don't think Taney knew Merryman, you are deluding yourself. But that's probably what you prefer, rather than face up to the fact that one of your icons was wholly fallible.
This is "Blue State Culture" at work.
1823 - 1855 Taney was a Baltimore resident. You are beginning to sound (and act) like James Carville.
nolu coward's evidence: "While his wife was living, Taney boarded in Washington and returned home to Baltimore when the Court was not in session ..."
Pardon me for laughing out loud.
And Merryman was a resident of Cockeysville some 20+ miles away, ergo Taney and Merryman were NOT neighbors as you have dishonestly asserted.
Non-sequitur did what where now? Cause all I heard was an extremely annoying parrot parroting the same instinctive falsehoods that have typified his act for the past several years.
One of your problems is reading comprehension. See gianni about that.
I said the slave trade was illegal after c. 1808. I also said that there were individual criminals using old clipper ships, but they were not sponsored by the New England states and were not operating openly. In fact, your own article with the picture you claim incorrectly to be of slave ships in New York Harbor, relates three stories about the illegal slave trade an one is about a Frenchman and another is about a guy from Baltimore, Maryland - hardly a New England state.
Get back to me when you can get your story straight.
#2149
#2149
#2149
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.