No. Orders to attack the Confederates if they resisted. Orders to start a war. Anderson himself said these orders would cause a war, and his heart was not in it because it was so dastardly.
Even Anderson acknowledged Lincoln's attack was underhanded and deceitful.
How could he refute it when that is exactly what he said in the Texas v. White decision a few years later?
Clearly Chase decided that he would not be responsible for the disaster that would legally befall the Union if he had ruled in accordance with his previous opinion.
He threatened the Federal Prosecutors with "You will lose in court everything you won on the battlefield...", but when the time came to carry through on the threat, he balked, and ruled in favor of the Union simply because to rule the correct way would cause too much upheaval.
Not so much, no. Again from the Texas v. White decision:
Texas v White was like Obamacare. The law was clear, but the court was not going to follow it. They simply refused to do the right thing because it would cause too much upheaval for them to do the right thing.
They had a court full of John Roberts, and that is what happened in Texas v White.
Clearly you are putting words into his mouth.
Texas v White was like Obamacare. The law was clear, but the court was not going to follow it. They simply refused to do the right thing because it would cause too much upheaval for them to do the right thing.
And once again you resort to your propaganda.