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.
More accurately, it is fair to say that TJ supported the right of the people who lived in those areas to select their own form of government, whether it be joined with the Union, or formation of a separate confederacy. So the question rapidly becomes, why would the people who lived in the territories have the right to form their own confederation, while the states of the union were denied that right?
It seems that TJ's views align closely with my own: We are stronger as one country, and as TJ stated separation is abhorrent. Were it the case that separation was desired, however, I would not pursue armed coersion back into the union. "Let them stand in error... " and all.
I don't think that's accurate at all. The quote is more a recognition of the fact that the Federalists were against the idea of a westward expansion for fear that it would weaken the influence of the New England states and resignation of the fact that they might force through a split that would result in two countries.
But let us assume, for the sake of arguement, that you are correct and Jefferson is willing to let the people of the area decide. I still don't see any indication that once the decision was made Jefferson supported a later change. No pronouncements that any section that chose to join with and become a part of the United States could later unilaterally change their decision and go on their merry way. On the contrary, Jefferson makes it clear that he sees the inhabited parts of Louisiana and U.S. territory regardless. Earlier in the letter he speaks of Spanish Florida being incorporated into the U.S., no talk of choice there. And when he speaks of expanding states westward, he doesn't say anything about later independence for those same states. Sorry, but Jefferson seems to me to be someone who believed in the continuity of the United States, and not someone who thought that states should come and go as they pleased without any sort of restrictions on them at all.
Sick, ain't it? I find the argument that Lincoln's willingness to ignore Merryman was vindicated by his continued prosecution of the war particularly disgusting.
And he seems to me as someone who wants our government to be something that remains becuase it is to our benefit to belong and support it, not because we fear the consequences of departure. Such is the nature of any "union" - which our country effectively ceased to be after the war.
It appears he refers to Joint Resolution #1, brought by Mr. Wilson on July 6, 1861.
It will not do what Farber claims. Big Dog, this appears to be one dog that just won't hunt.
It said, "That all of the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and orders hereinbefore mentioned, be, and the same are hereby, approved and declared to be in all respects legal and 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."
Even in the best, most rosy scenario possible, the it only applies to matters hereinbefore mentioned in the Resolution. As proposed, it would have had no effect whatsoever on any of the illegal acts Lincoln did in secret and had not admitted.
Besides, where this says, "declared to be in all respects legal," rather implies that whatever it speaks of was illegal, absent prior Congressional approval.
=================================================
Bills and Resolutions, Senate, 37th Congress, 1st Session: Agreeably to notice, Mr. Wilson asked and obtained leave to bring in the following joint resolution; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, and ordered to be printed. Joint Resolution To approve and confirm certain acts of the President of the United States for suppressing insurrection and ...
Committee: Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia July 6, 1861
Agreeably to notice, Mr. Wilson asked and obtained leave to bring in the following joint resolution; which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia, and ordered to be printed.
Joint Resolution
To approve and confirm certain acts of the President of the United States for suppressing insurrection and rebellion.
Whereas, since the adjournment of Congress on the fourth day of March last, a formidable insurrection in certain States of this Union has arrayed itself in armed hostility to the government of the United States, constitutionally administered; and whereas the President of the United States did, under the extraordinary exigencies thus presented, exercise certain powers and adopt certain measures for the preservation of this government--that is to say:
First. He did, on the fifteenth day of April last, issue his proclamation calling upon the several States for seventy-five thousand men to suppress such insurrectionary combinations, and to cause the laws to be faithfully executed.
Secondly. He did, on the nineteenth day of April last, issue a proclamation setting on foot a blockade of the ports within the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
Thirdly. He did, on the twenty-seventh day of April last, issue a proclamation establishing a blockade of the ports within the States of Virginia and North Carolina,
Fourthly. He did, by an order of the twenty-seventh day of April last, addressed to the commanding general of the army of the United States, authorize that officer to suspend the writ of habeas corpus at any point on or in the vicinity of any military line between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Washington.
Fifthly. He did, on the third day of May last, issue a proclamation calling into the service of the United States forty-two thousand and thirty-four volunteers, increasing the regular army by the addition of twenty-two thousand seven hundred and fourteen men, and the navy by an addition of eighteen thousand seamen.
Sixthly. He did, on the tenth day of May last, issue a proclamation authorizing the commander of the forces of the United States on the coast of Florida to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, if necessary.
All of which proclamations and orders have been submitted to this Congress: Now therefore--
Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That all of the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and orders hereinbefore mentioned, be, and the same are hereby, proved and declared to be in all respects legal and 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.
=================================================
According to Wlat and many of his brigadiers, ANY wrong of Lincoln is vindicated by his prosecution and eventual victory in the war. When all else fails and the facts demonstrate irrefutably that Lincoln did something wrong or immoral, that becomes their way out - their means of maintaining his infallability.
Lincoln worship is not simply a jestful description of them. As with any good mockery, there is a strong element of truth to it.
This was a classic battle between two branches of government. Once the executive branch refused Taney order(s), it was incumbent upon Taney, not Lincoln, to take the case to the Supreme Court. Taney did not. Congress could have backed Taney's order once it was back in session, but did not. In fact, Congress passed a law specfically authorizing Lincoln's course of action.
The long and short of it is that Ex parte Merryman does not represent "settled case law" nor was it precedent setting. In fact, legal historians consider it more of a judicial temper tantrum than anything else.
Not so. By refusal of the writ, the matter became a standing case before the court. Taney, a lawfully seated judge at the court where primary jurisdiction fell, issued the Merryman ruling for the case that arose out of the writ's refusal, not from the initial writ itself that had been issued a few days earlier. In that decision Taney ruled that Lincoln lacked the constitutional authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus unilaterally and struck down his order doing so. It was accordingly incumbent upon Lincoln, not Taney, to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court if he disagreed with its outcome. Lincoln did not and instead simply ignored the judiciary.
In fact, Congress passed a law specfically authorizing Lincoln's course of action.
Irrelevant. Congress had not acted at the time of the case and cannot retroactively absolve Lincoln of his guilt due to the Constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws.
The neo-confederates will contine to rail about this, but it seems hard to believe that the president is authorized, as the Supreme Court said unanimously, to wage war on insurrectionists, but is not allowed to arrest and detain them.
WaltWalt
Such as?
Walt
Who expressed a desire that the Union be dissolved.
Walt
I just read today that Strom Thurmond jumped the Democratic Party in 1948 partly because of Hubert Humphrey's statement that civil rights should replace states' rights as a democratic party ideal.
Walt
In other words, another Wlat non-response.
Au contraire. Until the issue is adjudicated by SCOTUS, it is one of several cases decided in favour or the legislature ONLY possessing the power in question. It is not considered precedent setting because it was not the original case upon the issue. But it is, in legal circles it is still an issue of stare decisis.
In fact, legal historians consider it more of a judicial temper tantrum than anything else.
One could say the same for a plethora of decisions, including Justice Scalia's dissent this past week. But it doesn't matter what "legal historians" think about it, the case was decided by Chief Justice Taney, in a legal decision that Lincoln was Constitutionally bound to abide with. If Lincoln disputed the decision, it was his perogative to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. He didn't - Lincoln cherry-picked his way around the Constitution.
And your point of randomly injecting that tidbit of common knowledge is???
Back to quoting corrupt tax and spend atheist buckets of sleaze again, eh Partisan? You sure know how to pick em!
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.