Just wanted to contribute on behalf of the Old Dominion.
Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
Over the years I've heard many rail at the South for seceding from the 'glorious Union.' They claim that Jeff Davis and all Southerners were really nothing but traitors - and some of these people were born and raised in the South and should know better, but don't, thanks to their government school 'education.'
Frank Conner, in his excellent book The South Under Siege 1830-2000 deals in some detail with the question of Davis' alleged 'treason.' In referring to the Northern leaders he noted: "They believed the most logical means of justifying the North's war would be to have the federal government convict Davis of treason against the United States. Such a conviction must presuppose that the Confederate States could not have seceded from the Union; so convicting Davis would validate the war and make it morally legitimate."
Although this was the way the federal government planned to proceed, that prolific South-hater, Thaddeus Stevens, couldn't keep his mouth shut and he let the cat out of the bag. Stevens said: "The Southerners should be treated as a conquered alien enemy...This can be done without violence to the established principles only on the theory that the Southern states were severed from the Union and were an independent government de facto and an alien enemy to be dealt with according to the laws of war...No reform can be effected in the Southern States if they have never left the Union..." And, although he did not plainly say it, what Stevens really desired was that the Christian culture of the Old South be 'reformed' into something more compatible with his beliefs. No matter how you look at it, the feds tried to have it both ways - they claimed the South was in rebellion and had never been out of the Union, but then it had to do certain things to 'get back' into the Union it had never been out of. Strange, is it not, that the 'history' books never seem to pick up on this?
At any rate, the Northern government prepared to try President Davis for treason while it had him in prison. Mr. Conner has observed that: "The War Department presented its evidence for a treason trial against Davis to a famed jurist, Francis Lieber, for his analysis. Lieber pronounced 'Davis will not be found guilty and we shall stand there completely beaten'." According to Mr. Conner, U.S. Attorney General James Speed appointed a renowned attorney, John J. Clifford, as his chief prosecutor. Clifford, after studying the government's evidence against Davis, withdrew from the case. He said he had 'grave doubts' about it. Not to be undone, Speed then appointed Richard Henry Dana, a prominent maritime lawyer, to the case. Mr. Dana also withdrew. He said basically, that as long as the North had won a military victory over the South, they should just be satisfied with that. In other words - "you won the war, boys, so don't push your luck beyond that."
Mr. Conner tells us that: "In 1866 President Johnson appointed a new U.S. attorney general, Henry Stanburg. But Stanburg wouldn't touch the case either. Thus had spoken the North's best and brightest jurists re the legitimacy of the War of Northern Aggression - even though the Jefferson Davis case offered blinding fame to the prosecutor who could prove that the South had seceded unconstitutionally." None of these bright lights from the North would touch this case with a ten-foot pole. It's not that they were dumb, in fact the reverse is true. These men knew a dead horse when they saw it and were not about to climb aboard and attempt to ride it across the treacherous stream of illegal secession. They knew better. In fact, a Northerner from New York, Charles O'Connor, became the legal counsel for Jeff Davis - without charge. That, plus the celebrity jurists from the North that refused to touch the case, told the federal government that they really had no case against Davis or secession and that Davis was merely being held as a political prisoner.
Author Richard Street, writing in The Civil War back in the 1950s said exactly the same thing. Referring to Jeff Davis, Street wrote: "He was imprisoned after the war, was never brought to trial. The North didn't dare give him a trial, knowing that a trial would establish that secession was not unconstitutional, that there had been no 'rebellion' and that the South had got a raw deal." At one point the government intimated that it would be willing to offer Davis a pardon, should he ask for one. Davis refused that and he demanded that the government either give him a pardon or give him a trial, or admit that they had dealt unjustly with him. Mr. Street said: "He died 'unpardoned' by a government that was leery of giving him a public hearing." If Davis was as guilty as they claimed, why no trial???
Had the federal government had any possible chance to convict Davis and therefore declare secession unconstitutional they would have done so in a New York minute. The fact that they diddled around and finally released him without benefit of the trial he wanted proves that the North had no real case against secession. Over 600,000 boys, both North and South, were killed or maimed so the North could fight a war of conquest over something that the South did that was neither illegal or wrong. Yet they claim the moral high ground because the 'freed' the slaves, a farce at best.
My "claim" is amply supported. The president has plenty of emergency power to fight rebellion and insurection.
Refute it.
Walt
That's why there are these things called "books".
Refute what Dr. Farber said.
The president has plenty of power in the Constitution -- the Courts have said so -- See Luther v. Borden, among others, or get back up on te porch because you -cannot- run with the big dogs.
Walt
Yawn. Where do you keep getting all of this intellectually light weight tripe, Walt?
Pull out a dollar bill. Does it say "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA", or does it name some other entity?
Walt
No one ever says that Lincoln was perfect.
But he was a great and good hearted man, and your carping won't change that.
Walt
It's basically a crap-shoot as to who on their side pops up as the neo-con of the day. With all due respect to Walt, he seems to be losing his position. Once one pops up and posts a plethora of inane opinions and insults, he quickly calls for the others to have a little circle-jerk of celebratory back slapping & high fives.
What a maroon. This is a Constitutional Amendment! It can't be unconstitutional!
You try it.
Don't pay a nickel in taxes.
You'll wind up like Davis did - in chains.
Walt
With all due respect -- definitely a negative value -- why do't you address what Dr. Farber said? He cites a number of cases. He's a professor of law. The president has plenty of power to put down rebellion and insurrection. The Supreme Court said so well before the Civil War.
Have at it.
Taney is not your boy any more. Not -only- did he write his son in 1856 lamenting that the Union would not be dissolved, but he also flipped 180 degrees from what he said in Borden from what he wrote in Merryman.
I don't know what President Lincoln's thought process was, but he may have thought after the Merryman opinion came down that he could just ignore the old fool.
That concept would probably apply to you also, but it is a beautiful night in Atlanta, I have a cold beer right here, and I am having a good enough time watching you attack me rather than address the record.
Walt
Interesting comment, seeing as 678 was sent to the sothron circle.
Could you kindly identify the Joint Resolution of Congress that purportedly ratified all of Lincoln's unlawful acts?
Could you kindly identify when that Joint Resolution was voted on and passed by the Senate?
Thank you so much, kind Sir.
Typical Wlat non-response. That has absolutely nothing to do with your absurd claim that "the people" put down the rebellion.
And your book doesn't substantiate your claim. Cite the cases or I may only conclude that you do not have them.
Refute what Dr. Farber said.
No need to. His passage does not demonstrate your claim in the first place and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
The president has plenty of power in the Constitution -- the Courts have said so -- See Luther v. Borden, among others, or get back up on te porch because you -cannot- run with the big dogs.
Irrelevant to this discussion. Your claim was "The Court has ruled, in several cases, that the president -can- suspend the Writ." You have yet to cite even ONE such case, so put up or shut up.
But NOT to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus. You stated "The Court has ruled, in several cases, that the president -can- suspend the Writ."
Quote those cases - any one of them. Otherwise I'll continue to take it as a concession that you don't have anything.
So I'm not the only one noticing this is more common lately. Maybe we should try it:
| Well said GOPcap! Good Job 4CJ! Excellent Ping Stainless! Let's see these neo-feds deny it! |
Naah, not my thing... maybe if I randomly insert dash-marks and bold words, or even letters within words:
| Jefferson couldn't have -meant- what he said because I keep my lawn mowed at 3 inches... Everyone knows that *3* inches will help choke the weeds. |
Hmmmm... that really doesn't turn me on either. Maybe I'll just keep asking whether self-rule is an important concept embodied in our constitution and see if they ever answer.
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.